ADVERTISEMENT

Was the Big Ten Conference Over-rated?

L

LuteHawk

HB Legend
Nov 30, 2011
29,064
21,880
113
In the NCAA Tournament the Big Ten had 8 wins and
7 losses. We had 3 teams in the Sweet 16 and it stopped
there. Indiana beat Kentucky and Wisconsin beat Xavier,
yet that was offset by Michigan State losing to Middle
Tenn. St. and Purdue beaten by Little Rock.

Perhaps the Big 10 Tournament tired out Michigan State
and they ran out of gas. It just seems that no Big Ten team
caught on fire in the NCAA and our conference flamed out.
Was the Big Ten over-rated this season?
 
Last edited:
I don't think the B1G was rated very highly to begin with. Except for MSU we had a bunch of middle of the pack seeds. Indiana winning the conference and ending up a 5 seed in the tournament pretty much sums up what the pundits thought about the B1G. They were high on the Pac12 and they flamed out worse than the B1G. So no, the B1G wasn't over rated. In fact, with the seeding the way it was and 3 teams in the sweet 16 I would say the B1G was underrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: td77, KFsdisciple and SWIowahawks
After the non conference outcomes, the Big Ten wasn't rated very highly to begin with. A few teams got some horrible seeds but I'd say it was just a down year in the Big Ten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtdew_fever
With the seeds the Big Ten got in the NCAA Tournament
we were not over-rated based on our performance in the
Tournament.

However, we probably were over-rated all season in the
AP Poll. Even with Iowa beating Mich. St. and Purdue
twice, we were never really the 4th best team in the
nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHawkDoc and And1Hawk
I think a better thought is the B1G was down this year from the previous years. There was a lot of turnover of really good players after last season several of which were drafted. Watching this tourney there is no way we truly were anywhere close to the top 10 despite our mid season ranking. We were a borderline top 20/25 team which is what we did by winning a game.

The B1G managed to win the ACC v B1G challenge again but if I recall correctly we lost several of the top match-ups. Indiana got blown by Duke, UNC beat Maryland.

The seeding was pretty poor as a reflection of the lack of RPI / respect and MSU & Purdue killed us. Had they won their opening round games I think the B1G would have been undefeated after round 1 including the play-ins. It's very possible MSU might be playing Virginia right now which would have changed our tourney record. I am not sure Purdue would have beaten ISU but their size would have caused them issues as Virginia's did. Purdue had about the same lead as ISU against ARK LR with 3 1/2 minutes left. The difference was the Purdue guards were suspect to pressure and Painter went small which was a big mistake (ARK LR coach was surprised he did that). Outside the MSU & Purdue losses all of the rest of our losses came against really good conferences like the ACC, Big East, Big 12.

The Big 12 was supposed to be the #1 conference once again and got superior seeding with one of their best teams a high seed in historically one of the worst brackets ever (the West). They managed to advance 3 teams of 7 into the Sweet 16 which was same as the B1G but only one in the final four out of the weakest bracket. OK played no one from the ACC, Big East or B1G to get there (nice draw). They played 2 patsies and 2 teams from the poorest performing conferences in this tourney the PAC 12 & SEC. Kansas played in a vastly superior region and proved themselves but they are always the exception from the Big 12. ISU had a talented team but also got a golden draw to the sweet 16 and took advantage. Not their fault Purdue flopped. Of all the games played by the Big 12 in this tourney their best win is over Maryland or Oregon? That's it.
 
The B10 was ranked as the fourth or fifth best conference this year in most rankings. Seems about right, probably a little underrated actually based on the tournament as the Pac 12 proved to be huge frauds.
 
I think the B1G was down a bit overall this year, but the performance in the NCAA's made it look down worse than it really was. The NCAA's is really the only measuring stick to compare conferences at the end of the year, but it's a single-elimination tourney where anything can happen. You can't let the deuce laid by Michigan State represent the entire conference's entire season. This is sort of a cop-out answer, but I don't think the B1G was down as much this year's tourney performance (3 Sweet Sixteen, no Elite Eight) might indicate, just like I don't think the B1G was as strong as last year's tourney performance (2 Final Four, 1 finalist) might indicate.
 
LuteHawk said:
With the seeds the Big Ten got in the NCAA Tournament
we were not over-rated based on our performance in the
Tournament.

However, we probably were over-rated all season in the
AP Poll. Even with Iowa beating Mich. St. and Purdue
twice, we were never really the 4th best team in the
nation.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this at all. Yes, MSU and Purdue flamed out early in the tournament = bad. That's one day of an entire season. The same MSU team we manhandled by double digits, twice. The same MSU team that beat the #1 overall seed in Kansas, on a neutral court, prior to Iowa destroying them twice.

When you play some semblance of Defense, and hit a large % of your shots, especially from 3, you can beat anybody. Iowa was doing that at a nice clip earlier in the year, double digit wins Home and Away against some decent competition, and some really good competition. Those things don't happen by luck over that stretch of time, no more than they do tanking at the end of the season has to do with luck.

We HAD Iowa State beat on their home court, and like clockwork choked against them. They split with Kansas (#1 overall seed) and Oklahoma (already in the Final Four). I think most would consider those 2 teams Top 4 worthy given what we know now, so why wouldn't Iowa State who actually did beat both of them, and an Iowa team that SHOULD have beaten Iowa State on their court, not be considered amongst them at some point in time?

For sure the Iowa team that ended with a thud wasn't Top 40 worthy, but that was at the end.

Iowa's propensity for choking in close games was certain to doom them at some point, but earlier in they year, we didn't let teams get close enough to put us in that situation. THAT team, at THAT time, was certainly capable of beating anyone, anywhere, IMO. That will put you in the Top 4 in the country. Of course that's just my opinion, and I'm not one to heap praise just because it's "my" team. Iowa was just that good for a stretch, which I assure you shocked me beyond comprehension.

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. Which of course happens...........
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatsup13579er and ZumaHawk
I agree that we were over rated at our high point. We beat one team this year that won a round of 64 game, Wichita State. And that was minus their starting guards

We were 3-7, I think, against teams that won an NCAA tournament game. And that includes 2 wins against Michigan, who's win was just in the play-in round
 
I think Indiana got screwed on their seeding, but in the end the Big got what they deserved. No great teams. Pretty underwhelming year, but still the 3rd or 4th best conference.
 
Wait a minute, MSU losing in 1st round to a 15 seed a freak occurence? By that same line of thinking, ISU losing to UAB last year should also be a freak occurrence as well? That is just the opposite of what was spewed on HR for the last year. How convenient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Myvue
stender72865 said:
Wait a minute, MSU losing in 1st round to a 15 seed a freak occurence? By that same line of thinking, ISU losing to UAB last year should also be a freak occurrence as well? That is just the opposite of what was spewed on HR for the last year. How convenient.
Click to expand...

It was a freak occurrence for MSU who has great record in the NCAA tournament. ISU not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
stender72865 said:
Wait a minute, MSU losing in 1st round to a 15 seed a freak occurence? By that same line of thinking, ISU losing to UAB last year should also be a freak occurrence as well? That is just the opposite of what was spewed on HR for the last year. How convenient.
Click to expand...

This is coming from an Iowa fan...
ISU's loss to UAB was a freak occurrence. If they played 10 times ISU wins 9 most likely all by double digits. ISU had more fire power last year than this year. Any time a 12-16 seed from a non power 5-7 conference beats a highly seeded power 5-7 team that's typically a freak occurrence. Most of those play-out-of-your-rear teams usually, not always, lose the next round when the array of shots no longer fall. That's March madness and its survive and advance.

MSU's was a freak loss but this particular team was not quite as strong as past teams. You take Valentine off the floor or he has an off game and they were very pedistrean by MSU standards.
 
Last edited:
Love how ISU fan has to jump in and hijack a thread. We know you think your basketball program is at the same level as MSU. The past tournament resumes for both teams are very similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerkyFan
Agree MSU was a fluke. Their turn to get upset. Purdue's guards were awful. Iowa's guards also bad, but Nova has been a buzz saw. Michigan let it slip late to ND when the 3's didn't fall. Wisconsin went cold at the wrong time and Maryland couldn't handle KU's guards. Only team as hot as Nova is UNC and IU went cold from 3 combined with UNC's athleticism at all 5 spots.

The 3 point shot has totally changed the game. Teams have become so enamored with it they forget to feed the post or run their offense. Any semi-clear look is a green light. Perrantes had 5 in the first half for UVA today, but 0 in the second? Syracuse's zone invites the deep 3, but as the announcers pointed out repeatedly, UVA seemd to fare better when they drove it, but guys kept jacking up 3's. The freshman for Syracuse are freaks. Not a Boeheim or Syracuse fan, but talk about peaking at the right time and making the most out of the 'disrespect' card.
 
The AP poll is not an indicator of anything but where the most voters live.

If Wyoming went 26-0, had 3 first round draft picks and had beat teams, obviously, from each P5 conference, it would still be at best fourth in the AP poll. A B1G, ACC, and Kansas or Arizona would be ahead because of each voter's bias to remain popular with their readership.

The AP and USA TODAY polls are indicators of the prettiest girl in high school. If my high school is bigger than yours, then my girl is prettier than yours,.....she got more votes!.
 
MuskieCy said:
The AP poll is not an indicator of anything but where the most voters live.

If Wyoming went 26-0, had 3 first round draft picks and had beat teams, obviously, from each P5 conference, it would still be at best fourth in the AP poll. A B1G, ACC, and Kansas or Arizona would be ahead because of each voter's bias to remain popular with their readership.

The AP and USA TODAY polls are indicators of the prettiest girl in high school. If my high school is bigger than yours, then my girl is prettier than yours,.....she got more votes!.
Click to expand...

61093221.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerkyFan
Ronman said:
MSU and Purdue crapping the bed early did more than a little damage to our conference rating.
Click to expand...

I think on top of that Indiana. Iowa and Maryland getting humiliated by NC, Villanova and Kansas didn't help. Those are all great teams but no team was competitive against them.

Outside of Wisconsin I think the B1G was a huge loser in the tournament. THe only conference that makes them not the worst of the Power conferences is the PAC 10.

If Iowa fans think they have it bad you should see what Seattle is dealing with. Lorenzo Romar is about to lose 2 guys to the 1st round of the NBA draft and this was his 5th straight year of not making the tournament while playing in a weak conference. Romar after this year will have had 7 players go on to play in the NBA during his 5 year drought of NCAA tournaments. That's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
heat_dawg said:
I think on top of that Indiana. Iowa and Maryland getting humiliated by NC, Villanova and Kansas didn't help. Those are all great teams but no team was competitive against them.

Outside of Wisconsin I think the B1G was a huge loser in the tournament. THe only conference that makes them not the worst of the Power conferences is the PAC 10.

If Iowa fans think they have it bad you should see what Seattle is dealing with. Lorenzo Romar is about to lose 2 guys to the 1st round of the NBA draft and this was his 5th straight year of not making the tournament while playing in a weak conference. Romar after this year will have had 7 players go on to play in the NBA during his 5 year drought of NCAA tournaments. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Please explain how the SEC had a better tournament than the B10...

And since they didn't and the SEC didn't, that would put us 4th behind the ACC, B12 and Big East which is exactly where we were ranked heading into the tournament.
 
heat_dawg said:
I think on top of that Indiana. Iowa and Maryland getting humiliated by NC, Villanova and Kansas didn't help. Those are all great teams but no team was competitive against them.

Outside of Wisconsin I think the B1G was a huge loser in the tournament. THe only conference that makes them not the worst of the Power conferences is the PAC 10.

If Iowa fans think they have it bad you should see what Seattle is dealing with. Lorenzo Romar is about to lose 2 guys to the 1st round of the NBA draft and this was his 5th straight year of not making the tournament while playing in a weak conference. Romar after this year will have had 7 players go on to play in the NBA during his 5 year drought of NCAA tournaments. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
At the beginning of the year, everyone thought Maryland was going to be a top 3 team all year. For some reason, with that talent, it just never clicked. That hurt the perception of the big 10, along with MSU losing first round. I think going into the tournament, the big 10 was considered the 4th best conference, and they performed like the 3rd best conference. Really, not that bad. It was the ACC far above everyone else, then the big 12 because of Kansas and Okie. The big ten had terrible seeds outside of MSU, so they did better than i thought they would. Wisky beating Xavier, Indiana beating Kentucky. It could have been worse.
 
33hawkfan said:
Please explain how the SEC had a better tournament than the B10...

And since they didn't and the SEC didn't, that would put us 4th behind the ACC, B12 and Big East which is exactly where we were ranked heading into the tournament.
Click to expand...
The big ten was better than the Big East, outside of Nova, they had nobody do anything.
 
Maybe some of the senior players in the Big 10 were over rated. When it came to pressure they let it get to them and couldn't perform. Most of the talk about the better teams in the Big 10 during the season was the seniors and experience they had. In the end it came down to performing under pressure and none of the Big 10 teams where really able to do that.
 
They could play the tournament again starting next week and we could have 3 Big 10 teams in the elite 8. It was a bad tournament for the conference but it doesn't mean we didn't have a few top tier teams.
 
LuteHawk said:
With the seeds the Big Ten got in the NCAA Tournament
we were not over-rated based on our performance in the
Tournament.

However, we probably were over-rated all season in the
AP Poll. Even with Iowa beating Mich. St. and Purdue
twice, we were never really the 4th best team in the
nation.
Click to expand...
At that point in time, Iowa was absolutely one of the best teams in the country and could have beaten anybody.
 
33hawkfan said:
Please explain how the SEC had a better tournament than the B10...

And since they didn't and the SEC didn't, that would put us 4th behind the ACC, B12 and Big East which is exactly where we were ranked heading into the tournament.
Click to expand...

Got me on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MuskieCy
relishingwinning18 said:
The big ten was better than the Big East, outside of Nova, they had nobody do anything.
Click to expand...

Villanova destroyed Iowa in 1 half of basketball. They defeated the overall #1 seed. That alone makes what the Big East accomplished superior to what the Big 10 did.
 
I guess when it comes down to it, the fact that Iowa swept MSU, Purdue, and Michigan and played Indiana close both times should have been a sign of things to come in the tourney. Indiana and Maryland are extremely athletic teams, but did not have an advantage at any spot on the floor. I am not sure that anyone in Iowa's starting 5 would even be bench depth for the Final 4 teams-- certainly not 1, 2, 5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtdew_fever
heat_dawg said:
Villanova destroyed Iowa in 1 half of basketball. They defeated the overall #1 seed. That alone makes what the Big East accomplished superior to what the Big 10 did.
Click to expand...
One team made the sweet 16. One team does not make a conference. Nova is impressive, no doubt, but I can't make an assumption on the Big East as a whole, based on one team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I

Big Ten Conference Championship Game Meaningless Without Western Division

Replies
25
Views
1K
Iowa Football
pistachio1999
P
curtisj157

Quick reminder of the growing list of teams that have made the Sweet 16 since Iowa last made it in 1999.

Replies
14
Views
2K
Iowa Men's Basketball
TampaHawkfan
TampaHawkfan
A

Big Ten Players of the Week (2/3)

Replies
0
Views
203
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Big Ten Players of the Week (2/3)

Replies
0
Views
226
Iowa Women's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
P

Fire Fran Tonight

Replies
39
Views
3K
Iowa Men's Basketball
hawkirugged17
hawkirugged17
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back