Is Big 10 hoops greater than the rest of the country?
The Big 10 has sent three teams to the sweet 16, the Big East, ACC, and Big 12 have each sent two. The difference is that the Big 10 only sent 5 teams to the dance, while the Big East sent 8, the Big 12 sent 7, and the ACC sent 6. Does this make the Big 10 the best conference in Men's Basketball? I don't know but I think its worthy of our discussion.
since Clinton's first term. I'll get back to you when I work it out.
traditionally does better in the ncaa tourney - their grind-it-out style of play may be ugly, but it wins games.
as far as your question, i think judging conferences based on a single game elimination format is capricious and arbitrary. it doesnt account for matchups, seeding, etc. i dont know how much stock we should take in the fact that big 10 has more teams in the sweet sixteen...
It's funny though, I usually think of 'sconsin as being a grind-it-out type of team. Maybe this year they were too dependent on the three.
Bo Ryan hasn't done well in the tournament over the years. Why, I don't know.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^
+1 not only for making a good point, but for excellent use of 'capricious and arbitrary'
According to my equation, yes.
I can't believe Purdue won that game. I hope they beat Duke without Hummel that would be hilarious
That happens in my bracket...
Kansas is my NC though...defeating Nova...so take that with a grain of salt.
(Do I win the prize for the guy who's bracket sucks the most?)
i had g'town winning the title. my bracket was irrelevant after the first day. i'd like to think i claim that prize, since it's about the only prize i could claim this march.
That's so bad it is awesome...
March 21st, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
I also had gtown winning it all.
Although a buddy of mine's bracket got so bad he said he might try to shoot the moon.
What exactly does "shooting the moon" with an NCAA bracket entail?
I picked Kansas as well.. shoulda know better.
I believe this would entail getting every game wrong, or the most number of games wrong compared to everyone else. It's a term from the game "hearts"
Shooting the Moon may be mostly associated with Hearts, but it is not unique to Hearts. In "Spades," if a partnership bids and takes all 13 tricks, it's a Moon (also called a Boston). Similarly, it is a bid strategy in "Set Back (or Pitch)" and "Pinochle."
Therefore, Shooting the Moon is not always associated with negative points.
On a side note, any serious Spades players here?
I'm not sure that it speaks much to the quality of the other conferences, but the 3 Sweet 16 teams from the Big 10 certainly helps to dispel the (unfair) notion that the conference cannot compete against the other power conferences when the NCAA tournament rolls around. I'm sure the narrative won't change, but Big 10 basketball has almost always acquitted itself nicely in the NCAA tournament, even if it has less "talent" than other conferences.
...but if it means a couple more bids next year and one goes to Michigan, then the Big Ten is definitely the best conference in the country.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really use the tournament as the end-all gauge in determining conference strength. Despite that, I would say the Big Ten is right there with the Big East and Big 12.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
Tournaments and bowl games are more about matchups than conference strength IMO. Expecially if a few upsets happen early and all the sudden you have MSU playing Northern Iowa in the Sweet Sixteen.
I also look at the subjectivity that goes with refereeeing basketball. You get a set of referees that lets the teams decide the outcome--the Big Ten is going to fare well. You get the ticky-tack sissies who think they're there to build a resume, and the bruisers from the Big Ten might suffer.
The conference vs conference thing is again a media creation geared to give the talking heads more bullshit to pump out.
And I don't think there is a huge talent disparity from conference to conference in basketball. As we all know, it just takes one or two really good players on a team to elevate that team. And if they get hot shooting the rock, it can be like a hockey team with a hot goalie.
I certainly think this year's showing in the tournament shows the Big 10 is a hell of a lot deeper than a lot of people think it is.
And the post above about the style of play in the conference boding well for tournament play is absolutely right.
I think it's a lot like the conference debate in football--the Big Ten is clearly better this year.
The conference has held its own in the tourney most years. The one plausible knock you can make is that we have a tough time going the distance - only one national title in the past 20 years.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:37 PM ^
we just say 2 in the last 21
The Big 10 has once again acquitted itself nicely in March
I live in Big East country and get to hear all year about their power/supremacy. Whatever your opinion there is no denying that this tournament has been a big disappointment so far for the Big East.
We'll see how it plays out - Syracuse and West Virginia could still go far.
we might be the best basketball conference in the land.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
Living in Pac Ten country, I am forced to hear big ten bashing on a daily basis. Between the Pac Ten reaching epic levels of suck this season and the Big Ten proving themselves once again in March, I have gotten a small amount of relief from my depresion from Michigan Basketball in 2010.
big 10 have the best top 3 teams, i dont think that the b10 can argue against the depth of the big east or the big 12. if we're talking right now it would mean purdue without hummel. that means that purdue is an above average team but by no means a top tier team anymore. of course, on the flip side if we're talking right now then the b12's best team is gone(kansas) and big east have lost nova and gtown. i dont think that in a conf challenge that the big10 would be able to beat the b12. kansas - ohio state then ksu/baylor/tamu - wisc/purdue/mich state. i would pick kansas and baylor over wisc, purdue(with hummel) and mich state(healthy). tamu would lose to both. then its okie state vs minn, texas vs illinois, etc. then if u take the big east its syracuse vs ohio state, wvu,gtown,nova vs wisc,purdue,mich state. again, id take syracuse and wvu over any team that the big 10 can throw. gtown can beat any team any given night and lose to any team any given night(fuck you ohio). then it goes to nd - minn, marquette - illinois, etc. i think that, while the top 3 teams from b10 make up arguably the best trio in the country, that the b10 doesnt offer the depth that can be found in the other 2 conferences. i can see arguments being made for b10>b12 after kansas boned everyone's bracket tho. still gotta say that the big east is the best conference hands down. a 1,2,2,3,6,6,9 seed in tourny is something that no one can match. tho....the 2,3,6,6,9 seeds lost. again, i can see arguments being made either way.