What Happened To The Big Ten?
With just one team in the Sweet Sixteen, the supposed super power league looks like anything but
www.dukebasketballreport.com
For those wanting to read one autopsy of the B10 tournament bust
- Thread starter drh1150
- Start date
www.dukebasketballreport.com
I think they stayed in Indy for too long and got comfortable. The teams from other conferences feel energized with a fresh environment while the Big Ten teams get bored.
I feel bad for Luka and you guys. I feel bad for Rutgers. The B1G pooped the bed big time. This tweet is accurate and funny
I still dont like overated, more like old school basketball. they days of bigs/post play are almost dead. All about wings/3&D guys now and as stated in out posts, its harder to field a team of them in the midwest vs the coasts
This tourney has been crazy. It is like many of the seedings should have been reversed. I make no excuses for Iowa and the the rest of the B1G. Other B1G programs, as well as our own. got beat straight up and we have to live with that. Hope the conference has a better performance next year.
Jay Bilas gives the Hawks some slack, but no one else.
I'm really not sure which B1G loss was most disappointing - OSU in the first round or Rutgers making multiple mistakes to drop a game they had well in hand.
I'm really not sure which B1G loss was most disappointing - OSU in the first round or Rutgers making multiple mistakes to drop a game they had well in hand.
As this analysis is from a Duke related media page, it should be noted that, though we had a problem performing well in the tourney, we played in the tourney.
Duke, you have some problems of your own.
Duke, you have some problems of your own.
He lost me when he said we lost 85-50 yesterday...
It was fOSU for sure. Their end game play to win sucked, Dwayne (Sp) Washington tried to be a hero and spit the bit. Rutgers F'ed up by trying to slow the game down with 4 minutes up 9 pts instead of playing like they had been.
All this said, a good point was made on one of the talk shows. These kids are in a bubble, there are no fans, there is no pressure. Let it fly, the worst thing to happen is you lose.
That’s crossed my mind. What’s the reward for a win? Another week buckled down in your Indy hotel room with an hour recess at the baseball field everyday? Not saying that’s why Iowa lost, Oregon is better, but that sounds pretty brutal. This isn’t like regular NCAAs where you travel to a location, come home, sleep in your own bed, refresh, practice and travel to a different location if you advance. You’re stuck in Indy. I was there yesterday. Absolutely zero environment in the arena or the city itself.
He also had the GCU game score wrong. Both of those game scores made Iowa look worse, but that fits his narrative better. That’s where I stopped reading
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
Yep this article nailed it as far as I’m concerned. The BIG got this reputation as being amazing this season with limited outside evidence to support it.
Looking back I thought it was crazy how we were not dropping like a rock during our “fade” and now we can see that was a symptom of the overrated conference
Looking back I thought it was crazy how we were not dropping like a rock during our “fade” and now we can see that was a symptom of the overrated conference
It was nice going downtown for BTT and there wasn't litter everywhere on the streets.
Guess the dreaded Covid helped in that respect.
Maybe the B1G fell victim to their own hype. Maybe they played as if they expected to win, or maybe assumed they would win. IDK.
But, when 8 of 9 teams lose in the first or second round, there is probably more to it than just the emotional state of the players.
Iowa lost because Oregon had better athletes. Most everyone is bashing Fran for rotations, minutes, X's and O's - things that might have changed the score but not the result. It really boiled down to speed and quickness - both on the floor and jumping.
Iowa was fast enough for everyone in the B1G except Illinois and Michigan, but not even close to Oregon.
But, when 8 of 9 teams lose in the first or second round, there is probably more to it than just the emotional state of the players.
Iowa lost because Oregon had better athletes. Most everyone is bashing Fran for rotations, minutes, X's and O's - things that might have changed the score but not the result. It really boiled down to speed and quickness - both on the floor and jumping.
Iowa was fast enough for everyone in the B1G except Illinois and Michigan, but not even close to Oregon.
Agreed. Knew Iowa was in trouble after the first possession. Oregon kid sliced through Iowa’s D with ease for the and 1
There are two main reasons that the Big Ten got the reputation this season.
1. Preseason expectations for several teams with the talent that stayed in school. This was big, but not as big as the second reason.
2. The Big Ten-ACC Challenge results being 7-5, with two games where Mich and MSU were favored in that were cancelled. So everyone expected that the result would have been 9-5, which would have been even worse if Purdue didn't crap the bed at the end of their game on the road. The ACC won their 5 games by a combined 28 points. The Big Ten won their 7 games by a combined 105 points. (5.6 - 15) It was blatantly obvious that the Big Ten was so far above the ACC, that they must be elite.
There were only a few non-con games that mattered. And if you had read between the lines of these, perhaps it would have given a better predictor of tourney results.
Iowa lost to Gonzaga and beat UNC, which was ok, and Iowa State who was horrid this year.
Wisconsin lost to Marquette and beat Louisville, which didn't matter, and Loyola which could be the best non-con win for the conference.
Illinois lost to Missouri and Baylor and only beat Duke which didn't matter.
Purdue lost to Clemson and Miami with only a win against Notre Dame.
MSU only beat Duke, which didn't matter.
Michigan beat nobody.
OSU beat UCLA, which could be the best non-con win for the conference, and Notre Dame.
Rutgers beat Syracuse, which could be the best non-con win for the conference.
Maryland lost to Clemson and beat nobody.
Indiana lost to Texas and Florida State while beating a bad Stanford team.
PSU lost to Seton Hall and beat an ok Va Tech team.
Northwestern lost to Pittsburgh.
Minnesota beat a horrible Boston College team in overtime.
And Nebraska was Nebraska this year.
All in all, the Big Ten managed 3 non-con wins against teams in the Sweet Sixteen. 11 seed Syracuse, 8 seed Loyola, and 11 seed UCLA who had to play in one of the first four games this year.
The big problem is that the ACC didn't hold up their end of the bargain this year and that caused a cascade of issues that let to overseeding in the NCAAs for Big Ten teams and underseeding of other teams that made the conference look very bad.
One analyst pointed out in the Iowa case that their were 4 teams in power league tourneys that went down with covid like VCU....in each case the team with the covid bye like Oregon won their next game vs a tired team by double digits.
Oregon had supercharged legs and energy on top on an edge in quicks to begin with. No shot for Hawks.
Oregon had supercharged legs and energy on top on an edge in quicks to begin with. No shot for Hawks.
I hate judging conference strength by one weekend of basketball. Yes the b10 largely crapped the bed, but you also have to realize the sheer nuttiness, this year more than most, of the opening weekend of the ncaas. The ACC largely disappointed as well.
I still think we were the best conference in the regular season, it just didn’t payoff in the tourney.
I still think we were the best conference in the regular season, it just didn’t payoff in the tourney.
I think it’s a mixed bag. On the whole, the B1G was clearly overrated, but how much so and whether it applies evenly to all teams is debatable. Here’s my take on each B1G team in the tournament:
- Michigan St: They had the name, but this really wasn’t a very good team this season. They made the tournament via a couple big wins late, but they were given an 11 seed and I don’t know that you can ever have any real expectations for an 11 seed in a play-in game, even if they are MSU.
- Rutgers: Maybe the best showing outside of Michigan, although they did choke away a game they probably should have won against #2 Houston. It’s hard to crap on a 10 seed for not beating a 2, but they did seem to have that game in hand....until they didn’t.
- Maryland: They had a decent showing. They beat a 7 seed and then got taken out by the #2. Anyone using this game to criticize the B1G is looking in the wrong place.
- Wisconsin: They did fine. They beat UNC and then lost to Baylor. Probably the best anyone would have realistically hoped for.
- Purdue: They definitely crapped the bed in the tournament, losing to #13 North Texas. They were likely significantly overrated. They played really well down the stretch to come on late, but had an easier end-of-conference schedule than most.
- OSU: Totally crapped the bed. Oral Roberts is clearly playing well, as they advanced to the Sweet 16, but if you’re a #2 seed, you have to get out of the first round. I don’t know if this really plays into being overrated, as I do believe OSU is 100% capable of smashing Oral Roberts, but they absolutely laid an egg that day.
- Illinois: I didn’t even recognize the team that played Loyola Chicago. They were complacent and lazy for good chunks of the game and never really had any sense of urgency. I kept waiting for that play that would ignite them and it never came. Like with OSU, I still think that’s one of the nation’s most talented teams, but they absolutely flamed out with a really lackluster effort.
- Iowa: Again, I don’t know that overrated necessarily comes into play. I’m not going to get into whether Oregon was seeded correctly as a 7, there are 14 other threads for that, but we all knew what this Iowa team was and what kind of team was likely to take them out. Oregon is one of those teams with really athletic guards that can both defend and score. There were a lot of other teams in the 6-10 seed range that would not have posed similar problems, leaving Iowa to then face USC or Gonzaga eventually.
- Michigan: We’ll see. They’re doing well without Livers so far. If they win Saturday, it’ll be hard to call them a flop regardless what happens after that, as we all knew Livers was a real loss.
So many inaccuracies in that article. And how has the Big 12 eluded all the same crap the B1G has gotten. They maintained that they were the best conference in the country, had a higher percentage of their teams in the tournament and, like the B1G, have one team left. No doubt the B1G was a major disappointment, but we weren't the only ones.
bingo. Purdue and OSU crapped the bed. Iowa and Illinois (especially) lost 2nd round games to pretty good teams. I mean you'd like to win those games (or at least not get blown out for Iowa), but the losses themselves are understandable. Maryland, Wisconsin, and Rutgers did well (though Rutgers collapse was painful for them) to go 3-0 in what are basically 50/50 matchups in the first round slightly overperforming seed expectation (which for 7-10 seeds are less than 1 win total). MSU going to OT in a play in game is basically par for that seed.
Basically 2 really bad performances (OSU, Purdue) and then Iowa and Illinois going out earlier than you would expect to opponents that are better than you expect in that round. Bottom 4 seeds overall slightly exceeded expectations. Michigan TBD.
It's just bad optics when 4 of the 5 top seeded teams got bounced really early. Nobody will note that the 4 worst teams actually performed just fine.
I would hang more criticism on Illinois than this and maybe I should have been harsher in my criticism. I just don’t think it’s about them being overrated. I think they were just completely unmotivated/disinterested in that game and they absolutely crapped the bed. I think Loyola was underseeded, but I also think Illinois absolutely had enough talent to win the tournament, they just laid an egg.
Iowa’s is what it is - a good team with big, fast guards was always going to be a problem matchup for Iowa whether that came in the 2nd round, Sweet 16, Elite 8 or Final Four. That they shot REALLY poorly on top of that only made things worse.
I both think Illinois played poorly and that Loyola should have been a 3 or 4 seed.
personally I think Illinois spent so much mental energy complaining about the conference title race and how unfair the whole world was to them and that they would prove everything in the Big Ten tourney left them mentally drained in the NCAAs. They believed their own hype and had nothing left mentally when Loyola came out blazing.
That and they shot way, way, above their seasonal average 38% from 3. In their losses (not all to long and athletic teams) they were as low as 21% from 3, and under 40% in 5-6 losses. People are overthinking this. Yes, they caused match up issues, yes they were quicker. But the biggest contributing factor is red freaking hot shooting that they do not replicate every game, even every third or fourth game - against strong and weak opponents. Play 10 times, there is a high probability Iowa pummels them once or twice, same thing for them(we witnessed one) and a whole bunch of barn burners.
I agree with this, at the end of the half we were down by 10 and Oregon had made 4 more 3 pointers than us and was shooting like over 50% from 3, not sure how it ended up but we did not make many 3's in the second half and I will bet they had at least 5 more than we did. They outpunted their coverage big time in this game.
That said, you cannot just give up a bunch of layups and dunks, that demoralizes a team and many were from lack of effort which at this level and situation is not a very good look.
Just remember, it is a lot easier to make a wide open three than one when you’re guarded closely. They had a lot of wide open shots because the zone was horrible. I can only think of one junk shot that went in, the bank shot 3, before I turned the game off and went back to work. Everything else was shooters hitting open shots.
I've maintained elsewhere that Iowa losing to the regular season PAC champs is no shame. They are a good team. What fOSU did to lose was terrible. A step back 3 to win when you could have driven or dumped down low? And Purdue is really good but sucked. Rutgers shut it down with 4 to go and up 9? Thats forever in todays bball.
All that said, perception is reality and the BIG spit the bit.
All that said, perception is reality and the BIG spit the bit.
Duh. But, they didn’t every game, even when they had a lot of wide open looks.
Next year, the committee better include Bill Walton . He is the only broadcaster who has claimed the OAC 10 was not getting the pub they deserved. Of course what would Walton know...he was only on teams that won this hampionship 3 times!
Like him or nor, give Walton his props. Based on his record this year, he nailed it more than any other expert of college basketball. Now, repeat after me....”PAC 12....Conference of Champions!”
Like him or nor, give Walton his props. Based on his record this year, he nailed it more than any other expert of college basketball. Now, repeat after me....”PAC 12....Conference of Champions!”
This article is the real reason why the B1G fell flat this year, and hasn't cut down the nets in 2 decades.
www.samford.edu
Essentially, the B1G and Big 12 lag significantly behind the ACC, PAC12, and SEC when it comes the the number of NBA players drafted. Granted this article is from 2018, but it's still recent enough to be relevant.
As of 2018, the ACC had 92 players on an NBA roster (58 of which were 1st rounders). The PAC had 74 (46 of which were 1st rounders). The SEC had 67 (35 of which were 1st rounders).
And there's a huuuuuge gap between them and the B1G, which had 42 players on an NBA roster (25 of which were 1st rounders).
FWIW, the Big 12 had 46 players (25 of which were 1st rounders). So really the B1G ranks ahead of the currently-emasculated Big East, which may or may not be still considered a power conference.
The B1G must have some sort of image problem for this dearth of NBA talent.
The Best Colleges and Conferences for NBA Prospects
For many high school players dreaming of the NBA, their college decision is driven by which school can best prepare them for the transition to the professional ranks.
www.samford.edu
Essentially, the B1G and Big 12 lag significantly behind the ACC, PAC12, and SEC when it comes the the number of NBA players drafted. Granted this article is from 2018, but it's still recent enough to be relevant.
As of 2018, the ACC had 92 players on an NBA roster (58 of which were 1st rounders). The PAC had 74 (46 of which were 1st rounders). The SEC had 67 (35 of which were 1st rounders).
And there's a huuuuuge gap between them and the B1G, which had 42 players on an NBA roster (25 of which were 1st rounders).
FWIW, the Big 12 had 46 players (25 of which were 1st rounders). So really the B1G ranks ahead of the currently-emasculated Big East, which may or may not be still considered a power conference.
The B1G must have some sort of image problem for this dearth of NBA talent.
Similar threads
