B1G better than B12 and it ain't even a debate.

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Stuff it twelvers!

Over-rated all year!
This post was edited on 3/28 7:28 AM by Phenomenally Frantastic

 

[dogs rule]

Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

 

[SWIowahawks]

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[FarmerClone]

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament. Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games. ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those teams won 5 NCAA games. Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams. No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament. How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

 

[Clonewithasigh]

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament. Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games. ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those teams won 5 NCAA games. Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams. No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament. How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

The B10 was better at the top, but the B12 was much deeper. And for the folks that are claiming the hawks 12 win conference record is more impressive, this stat is all you need. ISU won 5 out of 6 games against the sweet 16 B12 teams and Iowa. That is an .833 winning percentage. The hawks won 0 out of 4 against B10 sweet 16 teams and ISU. That is a .000 winning percentage.

 

[relishingwinning18]

Originally posted by Clonewithasigh:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament.  Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games.  ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those teams won 5 NCAA games.  Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams.  No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament.  How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6?  This is the leap that confuses me.

The B10 was better at the top, but the B12 was much deeper. And for the folks that are claiming the hawks 12 win conference record is more impressive, this stat is all you need. ISU won 5 out of 6 games against the sweet 16 B12 teams and Iowa. That is an .833 winning percentage. The hawks won 0 out of 4 against B10 sweet 16 teams and ISU. That is a .000 winning percentage.

How did Iowa State do in the tournament?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[100yearscounting]

UAB = Game over and the clowns lose.

Maybe the cast-offs will be better next year.

 

[sloehawk]

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament. Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games. ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those teams won 5 NCAA games. Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams. No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament. How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.

This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by sloehawk:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament. Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games. ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those teams won 5 NCAA games. Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams. No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament. How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.

This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

But you lost at home to something called Iowa State, and it was a blowout. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[relishingwinning18]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by sloehawk:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament.  Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games.  ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those teams won 5 NCAA games.  Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams.  No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament.  How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6?  This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.

This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

But you lost at home to something called Iowa State, and it was a blowout. Facts are stubborn things. 

Again Iowa performed better in the only tourney that matters.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[DixieHawkeye]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by sloehawk:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament. Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games. ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those teams won 5 NCAA games. Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams. No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament. How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.

This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

But you lost at home to something called Iowa State, and it was a blowout. Facts are stubborn things.

Yes Fraudclone, let's go back all the way to mid December for you to feel a little less but hurt over losing in the first round yet again, to UAB of all teams.

 

[relishingwinning18]

Originally posted by DixieHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by sloehawk:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament.  Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games.  ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those teams won 5 NCAA games.  Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams.  No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament.  How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6?  This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.

This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

But you lost at home to something called Iowa State, and it was a blowout. Facts are stubborn things. 

Yes Fraudclone, let's go back all the way to mid December for you to feel a little less but hurt over losing in the first round yet again, to UAB of all teams. 

 
   

And then he'll argue Iowa isn't his super bowl four months from now. Meanwhile he's sat on here for a week straight talking about isus wins over Iowa.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[FarmerClone]

Originally posted by DixieHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by sloehawk:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament. Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games. ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those teams won 5 NCAA games. Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams. No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament. How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.

This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

But you lost at home to something called Iowa State, and it was a blowout. Facts are stubborn things.

Yes Fraudclone, let's go back all the way to mid December for you to feel a little less but hurt over losing in the first round yet again, to UAB of all teams.

ISU has lost in the first round exactly once in Hoiberg's four trips to the Dance. Losing to UAB sucks. No way to spin it, but some of you are going a little odd right now.

 

[mtdew_fever]

Head to head.....the Big 12 was 5-4 vs the Big 10 this year. How does that make the Big 12 over rated?

 

[FarmerClone]

Originally posted by mtdew_fever:
Head to head.....the Big 12 was 5-4 vs the Big 10 this year. How does that make the Big 12 over rated?

Iowa lost Iowa State
Iowa lost Texas
Maryland beat OSU
Maryland beat ISU
Maryland to to WVU
MSU beat Oklahoma
MSU lost to Kansas
Purdue lost to Kansas State
Ilinois beat Baylor
Wisconsin beat OU

5-5 I believe is the accurate number (though I could have missed one). Basically shows the parity between the teams. Both leagues got 7 teams in. Hardly any of these games featured teams that did not make it in. Illinois and KSU both beat a team from the other league that did make it in. Shows on any given night, teams could win. But the bottom line is the bad teams from the Big Ten are what drug the league as a whole down.

The bottom line is all seven teams from both leagues deserved to be in. You can argue that teams may have been over or underseeded, but they all earned their trips IMO.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

As a Hawkeye fan I will say that the Cyclone fans in this thread are clearly more logical.

As for which conference is better, I think it is very close. If we only look at the top 10 Big 10 teams and then match up them up against correspondingly ranked Big 12 teams (1 vs. 1, 2 vs. 2, etc) then the Big 12 would be favored to win in 6 of those games, according to the Kenpom rankings which is almost always in lockstep with the Vegas lines.

 

[OnceAhawk]

Is the Big 12 deeper top to bottom? How can you say that when both conferences got 7 teams in and when we are not really comparing apples to apples (B1G has 4 more teams)?

Also, if you want to look at the bottom 4 teams in the B1G (so that we are 10 vs 10), only Rutgers is really bad; Penn State, Nebraska, and N'western are as good as any of the Big 12 bottom feeders.

But lets forget about the B1G's four bottom feeders and compare apples to apples (the top 10 teams from both leagues).

Both leagues got 7 teams into the Big Dance. However, when you break down the top 7 teams from the B1G and the Top 7 teams from the Big 12, it's clear which conference is better; it's the B1G.

What really stands out is the 10 wins so far by the B1G and just 5 wins by the Big 12.


B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
1 0 # teams in Final Four

10-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.667 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]


Team by Team Results:

Big Ten[/B]

1 seed Wisconsin
beat 16 seed C Carolina by 14
beat 8 seed Oregon by 7
beat 4 seed N Carolina by 7
beat 2 seed Arizona by 7

4 seed Maryland
beat 13 seed Valpo by 3
lost to 5 seed W VA by 10

7 seed Mich State
beat 10 seed GA by 7
beat 2 seed VA by 6
beat 3 seed OK by 4

7 seed Iowa
beat 10 seed Davidson by 31
lost to 2 seed Gonzaza by 19

8 seed Purdue
lost to 9 seed Cincy by 1 point

10 seed Ohio State
beat 7 seed VCU by 3
lost to 2 seed AZ by 15

10 seed Indiana
lost to 7 seed Wich State by 5

Big 12[/B]

2 seed Kansas
beat 15 seed New Mex St by 19
lost to 7 seed Wich State by 13

3 seed Oklahoma
beat 14 seed Albany by 9
beat 11 seed Dayton by 6
lost to 7 seed Mich State by 6

3 seed Baylor
lost to 14 seed Ga State by 1

3 seed Iowa State
lost to 14 seed UAB by 1

5 seed W VA
beat 12 seed Buffalo by 6
beat 4 seed MD by 10
lost to 1 seed KY by 39

9 seed OK State
lost to 8 seed Oregon by 6

11 seed Texas
lost to 6 seed Butler by 8







This post was edited on 3/29 7:24 AM by OnceAhawk

 

[relishingwinning18]

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by DixieHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by sloehawk:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament.  Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games.  ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Those teams won 5 NCAA games.  Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams.  No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament.  How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6?  This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.

This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

But you lost at home to something called Iowa State, and it was a blowout. Facts are stubborn things. 

Yes Fraudclone, let's go back all the way to mid December for you to feel a little less but hurt over losing in the first round yet again, to UAB of all teams. 

 
   

ISU has lost in the first round exactly once in Hoiberg's four trips to the Dance.  Losing to UAB sucks.  No way to spin it, but some of you are going a little odd right now.

What you are seeing, is the result of all of you Iowa State fans, sitting on this board for months, puffing your chest out, about how great Iowa State was.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[hooper56]

Originally posted by FarmerClone:
How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

Let me help you with your confusion. ISU lost to UAB in the first game. A game they were overwhelmingly favored to win. Iowa beat the pants off of Davidson, a team most of the pundits were predicting to beat the hawkeyes handily because "our guards were inferior".

This should end your confusion.

 

[BGHAWK]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by sloehawk:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:

Originally posted by dogs rule:
Kinda confused as to why some people put so much stock in a "conference" making the sweet 16 , elite 8, etc. The "conference didn't make it, an individual team did. Saying that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12 because of 2 teams making it this far doesn't mean Iowa , Nebraska, Penn State or anybody else is any better than what they proved during the season. Just like Ohio State winning the National Championship in football doesn't make the " conference" any better, just the individual team.

It's shows the tougher conference and means that Iowa going 12-6 in the Big Ten is more impressive than going 12-6 in the Big 12.

The Big 12 absolutely blew it in the tournament. They had what, four seeds in the top 12 and ZERO made it to the elite 8? Two didn't make it out of the first round. You can put more stock in which conference does better in the tournament than in the OOC.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

This is where my disconnect comes in.

Big 12 has been terrible in the NCAA tournament no doubt about it, but your bolded statement above has nothing to do with what is happening in the NCAA tournament. Iowa got 12 wins in the Big Ten, four of those wins are over teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those three teams (Indiana, OSU and Maryland) won 2 NCAA games. ISU won 12 Big 12 games, 8 of which came against teams that made the NCAA tournament. Those teams won 5 NCAA games. Wisconsin and Michigan State are playing great basketball, but Iowa did not beat those teams. No other Big Ten team did anything all that special in the NCAA tournament and Iowa had 8 wins out of their 12 against teams that were not in the tournament. How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

It's better because we didn't lose to something called Alabama A& I or Tech or something.


This post was edited on 3/28 10:08 PM by sloehawk

But you lost at home to something called Iowa State, and it was a blowout. Facts are stubborn things.

And that's all you got.

 

[OnceAhawk]

Originally posted by hooper56:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:
How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

Let me help you with your confusion. ISU lost to UAB in the first game. A game they were overwhelmingly favored to win. Iowa beat the pants off of Davidson, a team most of the pundits were predicting to beat the hawkeyes handily because "our guards were inferior".

This should end your confusion.

this should help too:

B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
1 0 # teams in Final Four

10-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.667 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]

 

[Steve Waite]

These are two of the better conferences in basketball.
I thought Big 12 was overrated all year, but still deserved 7 teams.
Big 10 was underrated all year and deserved higher seeds than they got.

Iowa, MSU & Purdue were seeded to low in th:e dance. It didn't stop MSU, but hurt Iowa & Purdue.
Kansas, ISU overrated all year and not surprised by their early exit.
I thought Oklahoma was seeded correctly and losing to Underseeded MSU is no shame. That was a tough defensive game.

Don't be surprised when MSU beats Louisville today.
Gonzaga will give Duke a battle today and won't be surprised if they beat them.

 

[OnceAhawk]

With Wisconsin's win, a Big Ten team had made the Final Four for the 4th straight year, the longest active streak in the country.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Originally posted by OnceAhawk:

Originally posted by hooper56:

Originally posted by FarmerClone:

How is Iowa's 12-6 more impressive than ISU's 12-6? This is the leap that confuses me.

Let me help you with your confusion. ISU lost to UAB in the first game. A game they were overwhelmingly favored to win. Iowa beat the pants off of Davidson, a team most of the pundits were predicting to beat the hawkeyes handily because "our guards were inferior".

This should end your confusion.

this should help too:

B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
1 0 # teams in Final Four

10-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.667 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]

But that has little to do with the 12-6 record during conference play.

Iowa State played 66% of their conference schedule against NCAA touranment teams. Iowa played 44% of their conference schedule against NCAA tournament teams.

Iowa States best conference wins were better than Iowa's best conference wins. The only Big 12 team Iowa State did not beat was Baylor. Iowa had impressive wins against Ohio State (twice), Maryland, and Indiana, and solid wins against Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota, but overall Iowa State's quality conference wins were more impressive.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that the Big 10 is better than the Big 12, and I could even see a legitimate argument that Iowa was just as good as Iowa State this year (considering ISU ranks 18th in the KenPom rankings and Iowa ranks 19th -- they are very close), but in talking pure wins and losses, there is no legitimate argument that Iowa's 12-6 record in the Big 10 is more impressive than ISU's 12-6 record in the Big 12 because the fact of the matter is that Iowa State had a more difficult conference schedule. Their schedule was more difficult by every objective measure (RPI, KenPom, Sagarin, BPI, etc.).

Was the Big 12 overrated? I think by the end of the season they were. Most experts claimed the Big12 was the best conference and that it wasn't really close, but in reality I don't think this Kansas team was as good as many believed, and neither was Iowa State. The Big 12 was loaded with teams that were very good, but I don't think there was a single "elite" team in the bunch which is supported by the fact that no Big 12 team ranked in the top 10 in the KenPom rankings.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by Steve Waite:
These are two of the better conferences in basketball.
I thought Big 12 was overrated all year, but still deserved 7 teams.
Big 10 was underrated all year and deserved higher seeds than they got.

Iowa, MSU & Purdue were seeded to low in th:e dance. It didn't stop MSU, but hurt Iowa & Purdue.
Kansas, ISU overrated all year and not surprised by their early exit.
I thought Oklahoma was seeded correctly and losing to Underseeded MSU is no shame. That was a tough defensive game.

Don't be surprised when MSU beats Louisville today.
Gonzaga will give Duke a battle today and won't be surprised if they beat them.

I don't disagree in general with the overall points, but I do have a question. You think OU should have been seeded higher than ISU. Why is that? ISU had the better overall record and beat the Sooners 2 out of 3.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:
The Big 12 was loaded with teams that were very good, but I don't think there was a single "elite" team in the bunch which is supported by the fact that no Big 12 team ranked in the top 10 in the KenPom rankings.

The simple minded proclaim one conference better than another based on Final Four participants. If Kentucky wins it all, does that make SEC the best conference?

People look at who the 'elite' teams are or who is in Final 8 or Final 4, then make a proclamation based on that. That is not indictive of the strength of a conference from top to bottom.

FWIW, current SOS and RPI rankings, as of 3/29, show the Big 12 still on top. Those rankings are for the body of work for the entire season and not based on a one and done in the NCAA tournament.

I don't know how one proves one conference is better really. It's like comparing apples to oranges to pears to bananas No one plays the exact same schedule, so how does one really compare?

 

[BGHAWK]

If the big 12 was so great, you'd think they would have had someone in the elite 8 the last 2 years plus this years. They are not - get over it.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:
The Big 12 was loaded with teams that were very good, but I don't think there was a single "elite" team in the bunch which is supported by the fact that no Big 12 team ranked in the top 10 in the KenPom rankings.

The simple minded proclaim one conference better than another based on Final Four participants. If Kentucky wins it all, does that make SEC the best conference?

People look at who the 'elite' teams are or who is in Final 8 or Final 4, then make a proclamation based on that. That is not indictive of the strength of a conference from top to bottom.

FWIW, current SOS and RPI rankings, as of 3/29, show the Big 12 still on top. Those rankings are for the body of work for the entire season and not based on a one and done in the NCAA tournament.

I don't know how one proves one conference is better really. It's like comparing apples to oranges to pears to bananas No one plays the exact same schedule, so how does one really compare?

[/QUOTE]
So are you challenging anything I said in my post?

I don't think the Big 12 was, by far, the best conference in the country. It seems like most experts thought so, which is why I said the Big 12 was overrated. If push came to shove, I think I would agree that the Big 12 was better than the Big 10, but it's close.

I don't think there was a single "elite" team in the Big 12. Do you disagree? I am not basing that on the lack of Big 12 teams in the Elite 8 or Final 4. I am making that based on the fact that no Big 12 teams rank in the top 10 in the KenPom or the Sagarin rankings. Do you think the Big 12 had a team that would objectively rank as one of the top 10 in the country? Vegas would not rank any Big 12 team among the top 10 in the country.

I also said that Iowa State's conference schedule was more difficult than Iowa's. I'm sure you do not disagree with that.

Perhaps you didn't disagree with anything I said, but your tone suggests otherwise.

 

[LaoHawk]

B12 is likes our JO who's killing it in practice but when it counts, just doesn't performed well in live game when it matters. So, by FG86's logic, JO is the best shooter ever, makes sense, not!

 

[Clonewithasigh]

Originally posted by LaoHawk:
B12 is likes our JO who's killing it in practice but when it counts, just doesn't performed well in live game when it matters. So, by FG86's logic, JO is the best shooter ever, makes sense, not!

You are right, B12 is good in practice. Sharp as a tack are some folks around here! LOL!

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:


Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:
The Big 12 was loaded with teams that were very good, but I don't think there was a single "elite" team in the bunch which is supported by the fact that no Big 12 team ranked in the top 10 in the KenPom rankings.

The simple minded proclaim one conference better than another based on Final Four participants. If Kentucky wins it all, does that make SEC the best conference?

People look at who the 'elite' teams are or who is in Final 8 or Final 4, then make a proclamation based on that. That is not indictive of the strength of a conference from top to bottom.

FWIW, current SOS and RPI rankings, as of 3/29, show the Big 12 still on top. Those rankings are for the body of work for the entire season and not based on a one and done in the NCAA tournament.

I don't know how one proves one conference is better really. It's like comparing apples to oranges to pears to bananas No one plays the exact same schedule, so how does one really compare?

So are you challenging anything I said in my post?

I don't think the Big 12 was, by far, the best conference in the country. It seems like most experts thought so, which is why I said the Big 12 was overrated. If push came to shove, I think I would agree that the Big 12 was better than the Big 10, but it's close.

I don't think there was a single "elite" team in the Big 12. Do you disagree? I am not basing that on the lack of Big 12 teams in the Elite 8 or Final 4. I am making that based on the fact that no Big 12 teams rank in the top 10 in the KenPom or the Sagarin rankings. Do you think the Big 12 had a team that would objectively rank as one of the top 10 in the country? Vegas would not rank any Big 12 team among the top 10 in the country.

I also said that Iowa State's conference schedule was more difficult than Iowa's. I'm sure you do not disagree with that.

Perhaps you didn't disagree with anything I said, but your tone suggests otherwise. [/QUOTE] No, I am agreeing with the last sentence.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by LaoHawk:
B12 is likes our JO who's killing it in practice but when it counts, just doesn't performed well in live game when it matters. So, by FG86's logic, JO is the best shooter ever, makes sense, not!

I must have missed where the Big 12 went 0 for nonconference.

Everyone loses in the NCAA tournament except for one team. Based on the logic of some of you, if Kentucky wins it all, that means SEC is best conference and I would disagree with that.

 

[OnceAhawk]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by icantfindausernamethatisntused:
The Big 12 was loaded with teams that were very good, but I don't think there was a single "elite" team in the bunch which is supported by the fact that no Big 12 team ranked in the top 10 in the KenPom rankings.

The simple minded proclaim one conference better than another based on Final Four participants. If Kentucky wins it all, does that make SEC the best conference?

People look at who the 'elite' teams are or who is in Final 8 or Final 4, then make a proclamation based on that. That is not indictive of the strength of a conference from top to bottom.

FWIW, current SOS and RPI rankings, as of 3/29, show the Big 12 still on top. Those rankings are for the body of work for the entire season and not based on a one and done in the NCAA tournament.

I don't know how one proves one conference is better really. It's like comparing apples to oranges to pears to bananas No one plays the exact same schedule, so how does one really compare?

No, the simple minded proclaim one conference is the better based on the regular season only.

If the Big 12 lays a complete egg in the post season, which they did, are they still considered the best conference? Of course not, unless you are an irrational Big 12/Iowa State fan.

The Big 12 made zero noise in the post season. Their 7 top teams won just 5 games total in the post season. The Big 10 has won double that. The Big 12 is not the best conference. End of story.

 

[OnceAhawk]

It just keeps getting worse for the Big 12....

and better for the Big 10.

11 wins for the Big 10

5 wins for the Big 12.




B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
2 0 # teams in Final Four

11-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.688 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]

 

[Clonewithasigh]

Originally posted by OnceAhawk:
It just keeps getting worse for the Big 12....

and better for the Big 10.

11 wins for the Big 10

5 wins for the Big 12.




B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
2 0 # teams in Final Four

11-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.688 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]

2 teams account for 8 of those wins. B10 is pretty strong at the top, but the other 11 teams are not so good.

 

[OnceAhawk]

Originally posted by Clonewithasigh:

Originally posted by OnceAhawk:
It just keeps getting worse for the Big 12....

and better for the Big 10.

11 wins for the Big 10

5 wins for the Big 12.




B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
2 0 # teams in Final Four

11-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.688 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]

2 teams account for 8 of those wins. B10 is pretty strong at the top, but the other 11 teams are not so good.

Ok, I am going to argue like you. 7 Big Twelve teams won just 5 games and Oklahoma and West Virginia accounted for 80% of those 5 wins, so the Big 12 really only had TWO good teams and the other 8 ARE NOT SO GOOD. [/B]

This simply has been a major choke job by clearly NOT best conference in the country.

P.S. Get your math right. There are 14 teams in the Big 10, not 13.

This post was edited on 3/29 2:14 PM by OnceAhawk

 

[srams21]

Originally posted by Clonewithasigh:

Originally posted by OnceAhawk:
It just keeps getting worse for the Big 12....

and better for the Big 10.

11 wins for the Big 10

5 wins for the Big 12.




B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
2 0 # teams in Final Four

11-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.688 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]

2 teams account for 8 of those wins. B10 is pretty strong at the top, but the other 11 teams are not so good.

Really???

Answer me this. Who is the best team Baylor beat this year (non-con or NCAA tourney) that is not a Big 12 team?

Hint... No one. So, Baylor beats no one and loses to lowly Illinois and then proceeds to run through the Big 12 and get a three seed and then lose to a 14 seed.

My point... Many of the BIG 12 teams were paper tigers that feasted on teams with RPI's in the 60-100 range and then beat up on each other.

I am sick and tired of Clone fans talking about how strong the BIG 12 is and they get their ass handed to them EVERY year when it matters the MOST.

Start playing well and stop running your mouths.

 

[100yearscounting]

In the NCAA tourney the Texas Ten isn't strong at the top or in the middle. Their losing record proves it.

Ouch clown fans OWNED AGAIN.

 

[Clonewithasigh]

Originally posted by srams21:

Originally posted by Clonewithasigh:

Originally posted by OnceAhawk:
It just keeps getting worse for the Big 12....

and better for the Big 10.

11 wins for the Big 10

5 wins for the Big 12.




B1G vs Big 12[/B]
2 2 # teams in Sweet 16
2 0 # teams in Elite 8
2 0 # teams in Final Four

11-5 5-7 NCAA Tournament record
.688 .417 NCAA Tourney Win Percentage[/B]

2 teams account for 8 of those wins. B10 is pretty strong at the top, but the other 11 teams are not so good.

Really???

Answer me this. Who is the best team Baylor beat this year (non-con or NCAA tourney) that is not a Big 12 team?

Hint... No one. So, Baylor beats no one and loses to lowly Illinois and then proceeds to run through the Big 12 and get a three seed and then lose to a 14 seed.

My point... Many of the BIG 12 teams were paper tigers that feasted on teams with RPI's in the 60-100 range and then beat up on each other.

I am sick and tired of Clone fans talking about how strong the BIG 12 is and they get their ass handed to them EVERY year when it matters the MOST.

Start playing well and stop running your mouths.

We did play well and were up by 30 at Carver. Be careful about calling anyone out when that is on the resume.

 

[LaoHawk]

Oh look, the argument of ISU dominating in one game proves B12 is the toughest, same ol stick. IA defeated MD which ISU lost, so by the same logic, IA is better than ISU in one game.