Big Ten, Big Flop

[SchwartzUndGold]

The guy to ask how to fix it is John Beilein. I know he got disgusted with the direction college basketball was headed in, but he always had teams do well in the NCAA tourney regardless of where he coached, West Virginia or Michigan. For far too long coaches like Izzo, Ryan, Painter and Keady/Knight before them used physical prowess to compete. The conference has been unable to adapt because the other coaches tried to match their style of play. It has really showed up the last two years.

It was pointed out in another article that I read on this topic that Iowa was or is the first B1G team to veer off the path the conference has been on. Going into this season Iowa was viewed with low expectations and one reason was the lack of a dominant center. The mentality that you must have a dominant center didn't help Purdue or Illinois in the NCAA. Iowa proved over the last 14 games and in the B1G tourney you didn't need a big center, but it also proved you need taller guards to play better defense. The conference will change with the changing of the current coaches. I look for Juwan Howard and Mike Woodsen to move the direction Iowa is on. They just have a better pool of player to recruit from than the western half of the conference. I think Holtman at OSU is on that path as well.

 

[hawkeyemark56]

The guy to ask how to fix it is John Beilein. I know he got disgusted with the direction college basketball was headed in, but he always had teams do well in the NCAA tourney regardless of where he coached, West Virginia or Michigan. For far too long coaches like Izzo, Ryan, Painter and Keady/Knight before them used physical prowess to compete. The conference has been unable to adapt because the other coaches tried to match their style of play. It has really showed up the last two years.

It was pointed out in another article that I read on this topic that Iowa was or is the first B1G team to veer off the path the conference has been on. Going into this season Iowa was viewed with low expectations and one reason was the lack of a dominant center. The mentality that you must have a dominant center didn't help Purdue or Illinois in the NCAA. Iowa proved over the last 14 games and in the B1G tourney you didn't need a big center, but it also proved you need taller guards to play better defense. The conference will change with the changing of the current coaches. I look for Juwan Howard and Mike Woodsen to move the direction Iowa is on. They just have a better pool of player to recruit from than the western half of the conference. I think Holtman at OSU is on that path as well.

Bear in mind that John Belein started at Michigan as an offensive coach somewhat in the mold of Fran. He made Michigan into a power when he hired a defensive assistant who coached only that aspect of the game.

I personally watched Bobby Knight and Gene Keady's teams play and thought they played some great basketball. I don't equate the thuggishness and physicality of today's teams to them. It seems a good chance that with coaching changes the style of play may start to change some. But that doesn't necessarily mean that other teams in the conference will look like Fran's teams. Bottom line playing good defense wins no matter what style you play.

 

[EagleHawk]

Based on seeding expectations of the teams in the Round of 64, these were the conferences that over or under performed:

Conference	Expected Wins	Wins	+/-
ACC	4	12	8
American Ath	1	4	3
MAAC	0	3	3
A10	0	1	1
WAC	0	1	1
Big Ten	9	8	-1
WCC	5	3	-2
Mountain West	3	0	-3
PAC 12	7	4	-3
SEC	12	5	-7

Every other conference played to expectations. So why all of the hate on the big ten? I haven't watched much 'analysis' of the tournament, but are the SEC and PAC 12 getting ripped apart by the media?

 

[hawkeyemark56]

Based on seeding expectations of the teams in the Round of 64, these were the conferences that over or under performed:

Conference	Expected Wins	Wins	+/-
ACC	4	12	8
American Ath	1	4	3
MAAC	0	3	3
A10	0	1	1
WAC	0	1	1
Big Ten	9	8	-1
WCC	5	3	-2
Mountain West	3	0	-3
PAC 12	7	4	-3
SEC	12	5	-7

Every other conference played to expectations. So why all of the hate on the big ten? I haven't watched much 'analysis' of the tournament, but are the SEC and PAC 12 getting ripped apart by the media?

Kudos to this poster for doing some good research. I would only say to other fans don't get caught up in what the media says. Sports media has become every bit as bad as the mainstream media in other areas.

It really comes down to how we see how our own team and how our conference performed relative to expectations. Iowa seemed the poster child of Big Ten teams underperforming in the tournament but I think most people thought at least one or two teams would make a run. Good but not great describes not only Iowa this season but the Big Ten as a whole.

 

[LaQuintaHawkeye]

Really? I've experienced both and I definitely would give up the tournament title in exchange for avoiding an upset in the first round of the NCAA. But different strokes for different folks.

Championship Trophies are forever ...no one will remember a first round upset loss 20 years from now.

In the greater scheme of things there is a minimal difference if you lose in the first or second round ...you didn't make the Sweet 16. So let's at least have a fond memory of running the table in the conference tournament.


*again, would prefer they had won both and moved on, but if it's a choice, I stand by my comment.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Only 3 should have been in S16 (2 were). Only 1 should have been in E8 (none were, and I'll bet most cheered against the last one to play) and none should have been in F4, and none are

 

[DJ_Kool_Herk]

You know when you're talking about the ball brand, your conference sucks.

 

[DJ_Kool_Herk]

Based on seeding expectations of the teams in the Round of 64, these were the conferences that over or under performed:

Conference	Expected Wins	Wins	+/-
ACC	4	12	8
American Ath	1	4	3
MAAC	0	3	3
A10	0	1	1
WAC	0	1	1
Big Ten	9	8	-1
WCC	5	3	-2
Mountain West	3	0	-3
PAC 12	7	4	-3
SEC	12	5	-7

Every other conference played to expectations. So why all of the hate on the big ten? I haven't watched much 'analysis' of the tournament, but are the SEC and PAC 12 getting ripped apart by the media?

Whose expectations were these?
Any weight to deeper rounds wins?
This is the kind of data that really kinda means diddly squat.

 

[EagleHawk]

Whose expectations were these?
Any weight to deeper rounds wins?
This is the kind of data that really kinda means diddly squat.

Assuming seeding is ‘done correctly’, 9-16 seeds should lose first round. 5-8 seeds should win 1 game. 3-4 seeds should win 2, 2 seeds should win 3 and 1 seeds should win 4. That’s it. No weighting to later rounds.
People were saying the B1G failed in the tournament, but the teams weren’t really seeded to move on much past what they did. Michigan did better, Wisconsin worse. It evens out. UNC and Miami both won three games more than expected, KY and Auburn three less than expected. I don’t hear how bad the SEC did, but I did hear the big ten flopped again.

 

[DJ_Kool_Herk]

The big ten did flop again.
Did the SEC flop last year too?
If SEC bombs again next year, you'll probably hear about it.

 

[EagleHawk]

The big ten did flop again.
Did the SEC flop last year too?
If SEC bombs again next year, you'll probably hear about it.

Since you asked, I looked it up and I would say that they did flop last year. They were seeded to win 8 games, and only won 7 (so a -1 like the B1G that 'flopped' this year). Not only that, they had higher seeded teams that lost to 11, 12, and 15 seeded teams.

Seed	Team	Expected	Actual	+/-	Seed lost to
9	Missouri	0	0	0	8
8	LSU	1	1	0	1
2	Alabama	3	2	-1	11
3	Arkansas	2	3	1	1
7	Florida	1	1	0	15
5	Tennessee	1	0	-1	12

B1G was seeded to win 16 games last year and only won 8, so that was very bad, but only one game worse than the SEC this year.

 

[DJ_Kool_Herk]

Nice work.