B1G: So much parody.
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
B1G: So much parody.
so little parity
Meanwhile, the SEC just goes along, being parrot-y.
I feel like it's a very good conference with maybe 4-5 teams that can go anywhere from "good" to "very good" (not sold on anyone being a "great" team yet, but then again, "great" teams prove themselves in March), then there's 3-4 other teams that are all pretty good, bordering on making the NCAA tournament or coming close, and then all of the other teams are at worst average. This is in contrast to other conferences that all have at least 2-3 teams that you would call bad or very bad. I don't think the Big Ten has any bad teams, hence the upsets galore.
I think the Big Ten is very good top to bottom, maybe the best in the country, but it does not have a dominant team.
I think the conference's overall record in the NCAA tournament will be over 500, but it wouldn't surprise me (and I actually suspect) that there will not be a Big Ten team in the final four.
I seem to remember in the preseason that Kentucky was going to go 40-0. I haven't been able follow them much--they should be in the conversation, right?
(I know I ruin my own joke by saying /s, but I feel I have to...)
Wichita state man....
Tournament; whether by design or not this team plays successful ball. We have that 'it' factor. I think Wisconsin is special as well and could make it into the Final Four; I know they went through that tough stretch but since then they have righted the ship and have been undefeated since and playing some real good ball.
Truth be told if Appling's wrist gets better the Spartans might also be in the 'special' category; say what you want about the injuries and the whining but mentally that really messed with them and if they get healthy and put together a run in the Big Ten Tournament, watch out for them.
While I wouldn't say Iowa is dominant, if they learn how to play some defense they could make some noise in the tournament as well.
How many Scary Movies are there now? Seems like there are about 23 of them.
As a whole, I think the ACC is the best conference this year, followed by the Big Ten, then the Big 12. ESPN would like you to believe that the Big 12 is the best conference, but I'm not buying it. Kansas is obviously a great team, OK ST and ISU are good teams as well. Other than that I think the conference is mediocre.
The interesting thing though is that the Big 12, by some accounts, is projected to send the most teams of any conference to the Tournament in March. On other sites, the Big 12 and Big 10 will send the same number of teams. For example, at TeamRankings, they project these:
1) Big 12 - 6.2 projected bids
2) Big Ten - 5.7 projected bids
3) Pac-12 - 5.5 projected bids
4) ACC - 5.3 projected bids
5) Atlantic 10 - 5.0 projected bids
Representation by conference falls of precipitously soon after this by most projections.
Seriously? I just looked at the ACC standings and that seems nuts to me. That league is hot garbage from Pitt on down, including Pitt. And Carolina, despite having some talent, is still shaky. They built their in-conference streak playing all that flotsam and jetsam from that league.
A parrot'y parity parody.
Everybody takes the B10 for granite, and the parody is ignored.
I should of seen this coming.
He wasn't, pre-Madonna.
There teams could still all loose in the first round
How about a pair of Ts (or shoud it be a pair of Ds)?
With enough cash you can buy a pair o tee shirts. I suggest the ones with the Texas logo on it.
We had parody when Gene Keady that that ridiculous toupee and a gorgeous wife.
That was the best comb over this side of the Mississippi!
Muskegon River fly guide Matt Supinski
His combover would give Keady's a run for its Monday.
When he takes a shower does it hang half way down his back?
How is the ACC the best conference?
Compare Wisconsin and Duke? http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/team-comparison/DUKE/WISC
Name me Virginia's best wins. Name me Michigans best wins.
Syracuse may get the nod over Iowa, OSU or MSU but then after that?
...nice coaching...but the BIG was way stronger last year and was head and shoulders the beat conferenc in the country. This year ACC is much stronger than BIG.
Much stronger? 6-6 was the result of the challenge this year.
...what was our record back then? Now we are BIG champs.
I know Izzo and his whining are ripe for satire.
And I'm still laughing at the idea of Derrick Nix working at a Sizzler.
From top to bottom, I think the B1G is the best. However, there isn't an 'elite' team like a Kansas, Cuse, UF, Zona, etc, or the 'star' or 'brand' power of Duke. Thus depending on your perception, it may not be as strong.
Michigan State. /s
It may not even have to be an issue of a top heavy idea vs deep conference idea.
I believe that it is just the grind of playing physical Big-10 basketball against a group of very good coaches just about every game.
There is very little room to coast into a game "expecting" a win.
Yeah the top teams haven't looked like an elite team against every team in the Big-10 this year. And yeah the bottom teams have looked terrible at times, but have also looked like they could hang with anyone sometimes.
If I were to give a straight answer, I would say that the Big-10 has 2 or 3 very dangerous teams for the NCAAT, and 2-4 more that could possibly upset someone they aren't supposed to.
And I predict that a Big-10 team will go to the NIT Championship game.
I think this is a great conference. But I don't think that we have a team that can win a National Championship. Last year, we had Michigan, IU, MSU, and OSU with rosters and athletes I could see winning it all. This year, our best bets are Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Iowa - which I believe are each a step down from last years foursome. I could see 4 teams in the Sweet 16, and 3 in the Elite 8 again. But I wouldn't bet on any in the Final Four.
For us personally, I love what we've accomplished (JMo and Horford have delivered everything we could have asked) but I can't help but think we might be a Mitch McGary away from a National Championship team.
Wisconsin has beat some really strong teams, so they can obviously do it. But beating Florida in December isn't as impressive. It's my opinion that, at that point, Wisconsin is closer to their ceiling while a 'Florida' is only stratching their potential. I just think they'll lack the athletes at some point.
MSU. Injuries, man. Yeah, I know it's a running joke but it's also true. They have the roster to do it, but injuries and chemistry...and maybe just not being as good as advertised make me pause. I think it's possible the Fed investigation waking some skeletons in the closets of potentially key players might have an effect on psyche outside of injuries.
Iowa. Can't win a close game. Can't play defense. I do think they have a shot to get hot though. Lots of bodies. Some athletic, some big, some veteran.
Personally I'l be pick between Florida and Duke to win the NC. And to answer your question directly, yeah I think the conference is great. But you're ultimately measured by how far your teams go in the tournament.
I am not with you at all on your NC picks.
Florida, I still remember us murdering them, and Duke seems like a good not great team to me.
You can have those two and I'll take Kansas and someone else. Embiid's health has me worried about that team, but if that kid is healthy, I think that's the most talented team, hands down, in the country.
Duke has improved enough defensively to be in that conversation but the fact that they are so unbelievably hot and cold means they'd have to peak at the right time to make a run.
I'm surprised to see people buying into Carolina here. I marginally root for NC and I'm not sold at all on them. I think they kind of are right in that good not great range. They built a lot of this ACC run on middling ACC teams.
And Duke losing to Carolina (even though they'll have the chance to repay that at Cameron) just leaves me further unsold on Duke.
I think Cuse, despite their recent struggles, is still very legit, and I'm very intrigued by Virginia.
I've watched a bunch of Pitt games this year and yuck. Looking at the ACC standings that league is way top-heavy. I think they would get murdered if we re-held the challenge next week.
There's no easy pick. I agree with you, but I'll wait until the bracket is released to see how the paths to the title set up.
Teams I feel would be the most difficult for Michigan to beat (not in order):
Florida, Arizona, Syracuse, Kansas, Duke, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa St, Kentucky, and North Carolina.
Everyone else: Bring em on.
Um, you just named all the good teams. Of course they'll be difficult to beat. Maybe they'll just let us play Clemson six times.
I've thought the Big 12 was the most talented conference since very early in the season.
But no one can match the coaching depth in the Big Ten - these are some of the better coaches in the nation, and it extends way down in the standings.
So I think there's a reality to the idea of this being a top to bottom conference. Because all the teams are so well-coached and have a plan, they are all capable on any given night.
Florida and Duke have safe resumes, surely not in the league of Wisconsin.
I personally think it's Kansas and Arizona then everyone else in that next group where matchups come into play.
Yes, even with the injury, that would be my other choice. He can have Florida and Duke, and I'll take Kansas and Arizona. I'd take that bet for damn sure.
Only on Mgoblog do I read the word "Parody" in this context and think "well shoot, there goes this thread" instead of just understanding what the OP meant and ignoring it.
Many other online communities don't even know there's a difference. I'm looking at you Facebook.
The B1G-ACC challenge wasn't exactly a matchup of even teams...
As long as the SEC keeps up their nonsense about how deep their football league is, I'm going to keep saying "MSU only lost 5 conference games because EVERYONE BE SO GUD YA'LL"
This will ultimately be decided in the tournament. I say it's the second strongest conference and I'll be shocked if the big ten doesn't have at least one team in the final four.
If you had to guess which conference the 2013-2014 national champion will come from, which conference would you guess?
I'd go with the ACC (mainly because of Duke, Syracuse, and Virginia), but the Big Ten is right up there for me. I just don't see a huge drop-off between the top-ranked teams and the place where a bunch of top Big Ten teams sit.
A Michigan, Wisconsin, or MSU could easily make a run this year, in my opinion, and Iowa or OSU are firmly in the "it's possible" camp.
I'd agree with this. My prediction would be for the ACC to win it all, but the Big-10 isn't far behind.
I just think the way Duke, UNC, and UVA are playing right now, and Syracuse is a very tough team to beat.
The Big-10 may have the same number of teams with a shot at the Chip, but I'd say their strength is stronger than ours. I'd take a trio of Duke, UVA, and Cuse over Michigan, Wisconsin, and ________ (up in the air between MSU and Iowa I guess...)
They got blown out by an average at best Tennessee team. I just think their is a lot of parody and not an elite team out there this year.
They also blew out just about everyone in the ACC including Syracuse last night. That Tennessee game is no different than UM losing to to UNC charlotte earlier this year. one road loss loss doesn't define a team.
That was way back. They have a very solid coach, are very sound, and are playing great ball right now.
I fear the Big 10 will come off as weak in the upcoming tourney.
Michigan could certainly make a run, but we've seen what an effective big man can do.
Wisconsin may be the hottest team in the league but Bo Ryan could do them in against a fast paced/good shooting team.
OSU will crumble if forced to play offense.
MSU just might pack it in due to a terrible team attitude.
Minnesota is average.
Nebraska could lose in the first round.
I don't think the B1G will do well this March.
Kings of Parody
B1G is behind the ACC and probably on par with the B12 this season.
The B1G has a lot of depth top to bottom but that is overrated IMO. Nobody cares how good your 6-8th best teams are. In football or bball. Sure its great in BBall do to RPI, SOS, and all the metrics used for seeding. But at the end of the year when judging conferences nobody looks at your 6-8th best teams.
Its all about how good your top tier is and for that reason I give the nod to the ACC bc their top tier is better than the B1G this season. Last year with MSU, IU, OSU, and UM all legit final four contenders that was not the case.
This season only UM really has a chance for a final four run but we can also get bounced by a hot team in the sweet 16 due to our lack of interior O (we had McGary last tourney) nad ok D. I think last year we could whether a cold shooting night better bc Burke could just take over and McGary could bang down low. This year we don't have that.
So overall, I think a league is judged by its top tier, top 4 if you will. Hopefully the B1G can get 4 sweet 16 teams and have 1 make the final four (UM). Hard to be the best conference if you don't have a final four team. IMO, its much more likely for the B1G to miss out on the final four than the ACC.
You may be correct in that's how many view it, but is that the way it should be? No contend that the perception of the top tier depends on how good the middle tier is. If the middle tier is good, then the top tier is less likely to waltz through conference play week to week. While Cuse, Kansas, Zona may be elite teams, should UVA get credit for not only their weak schedule through the poor middle tier of the ACC? Conversely, Wisc beat the Sec champion (and 1 seed), the ACC champion, and another top-15ish type team in St. Louis. But they can't get trough the B1G without at least 5 losses. Yeah, teams change throughout the season, but that's gotta mean something for the conference as a whole.
You use Wisc to sort of debunk that but you must admit that is a very rare scenario where a team beats two conf champs out of conference then finds a way to lose 5 conference games itself....just a weird scenario.
I mean I don't care how you spin it IU, northwestern, and Minnesota are not very good teams and they all beat Wisc. You'd never say those three are on par with UVA or Florida would you? Even if Wisc beat UVA and Florida.
Plus I think the big issue is its very hard to compare "middle tier" teams which by definition are going to have a decent amount of losses. How do you compare 9-11 loss teams across conferences objectively? How good can you really be with that many losses. If we we are saying the B1G 9-12 loss teams (middle tier) are "good" then by definition we are now saying the Big Ten has 9-10 "good teams". I just don't by it that a conf can have that many "good teams" and still think it has any elite teams. Elite teams would not have lost that many times to allow a conf to have 10 "good" teams.
I think being good top to bottom is great for a conference and actually helps B1G teams in the tourney as they are more battle tested. I just think it doesn't mean much in terms of perception of the conference as a whole.
In football I feel the same way. The SEC #6-7 teams are almost always better than the B1G or any other conference but who cares if they win some bowl game before Jan 1st. I roll my eyes at SEC fans bragging about their 6th best team just like I do B1G fans talking about their 6th best bball team that will probably lose opening wknd of the tourney and be forgotten. Nobody cares.
In football, its all about new years day bowls and the BCS. Win those (esp BCS) and your conference perception goes through the roof. I feel like making elite 8 is like winning a BCS bowl (mainly due to the random nature of 1 and done NCAA tourney..ie matchups). Pretty much every program would consider an elite 8 trip or BCS win a great season. Outside of a couple heavily favored teams each season (Bama in football, loaded Kentucky or Duke team in Bball).
I think it's pretty clear that the supposed bottom 5 teams (Neb, PSU, NW, Ill, Pur) are AS A WHOLE, better than last year. I addition, the top 5 (OSU, MSU, M, Wisc, Iowa) are a bit worse (again, as a whole).
Now, are the bottom 4-5 teams having better records this year due to their own improvement or the downturn of the top teams? Probably both, and what that means is that the conf is probably a bit worse than last year and certainly perceived to be a lot worse.
Just look at who was drafted to the NBA from the top B1G teams last year (and who stayed ie G Harris, McGary, GRIII). Much more talent at the top at a player level for the B1G last year then this year. IU lost a ton, UM lost a lot, OSU lost its best stuff.
Thats why the bottom of the B1G looks better this year. The top is just weaker. Remember UM was never outside the top ten all season last year in the polls...
|http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa7/release//sites/default/files/imag...); background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">||13||2||.867||25||3||.893||Won 3||4||4-3||9-0||6-0||6-0|
|http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa7/release//sites/default/files/imag...); background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">||13||3||.813||23||5||.821||Lost 1||8||6-3||6-2||7-0||0-0|
|http://i.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa7/release//sites/default/files/imag...); background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">||10||6||.625||20||9||.690||Won 2||38||3-4||5-3||6-1||5-1|
The chart came out wierd but you can find the data at the NCAA web site.
Honestly, the conference is strong but teams like OSU and MSU just aren't that good right now, and while MSU kinda, sorta has the injury excuse, OSU always stunk but just played a horrible early schedule to get to 15-0. It's a well-coached conference lacking in star power, and so it feels like a step below last year. At least with SEC football, the teams at the top are great; UM and Wiscy are probably the best teams right now, and I don't think anyone would say they'd be surprised if neither made it past the Sweet 16.