After all they have three solid teams that are still competing in the NCAA tourney.
Printable View
After all they have three solid teams that are still competing in the NCAA tourney.
Wait till Friday through Sunday night are over. Purdue is running on three cylinders and Evan Turner is not as good as a John Wall despite what is said. MSU will be missing one of their players and UNI's ticket will be punched to Elite Eight.
Purdue and MSU had lucky draws and Ohio State looked okay. Yet none of the three are barnburners. Butler could take out all three.
No............
umm No.
You forgot this. :jimlad:
No. You have to look at the conferences entire body of work, rather than the performance of just their best teams over a 4-day span.
I don't get why everyone wants to base their evaluation of a season on the last game played rather than the previous 30.
Because I can't get myself to watch Big 10 basketball before the tourney.Quote:
Originally Posted by CloneIce
I don't see anything wrong with evaluating teams based on their performance against the nations other top teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by CloneIce
No, I think it's shown that the top half of the league can play with anybody. The problem is, the bottom half is pretty awful.
Alaskaguy- It's a fair question since they'er sitting at 7-2 in the NCAA. But obvioulsy Purdue and M-State have a tough road ahead without their best players, and I believe MSU will be without the Big 10 player of the year tonight. Still I have to admit I overrated the Big 12 and underrated the Big 10. It's up to K-State and Baylor to prove our best can play with anybody.
This years tournament has actually shown that basketball is pretty down this year, due to injuries maybe...idk. I'd be amazing to see how dominant the higher ranked team would be with all healthy players and players not kicked off the team (i'm looking at you Tennesee)
Teams? Yeah. Conference? You can't evaluate an entire conference based on the play of half its members.Quote:
Originally Posted by heitclone
Big 10 has some good teams at the Top but is just terrible at the bottom. Thats the main reason why they are behind the Big 12.
If people would strip away their anti-Big 10 bias, they would acknowledge that the Big 10 has been very impressive in the tourney. These are neutral sites, everyone has the same amount of rest, the same stakes for all teams...and the Big 10 has the most teams left.
I had high expectations for the Big 10 going into the season but they underperformed terribly in the regular season. They've gained back some credibility in the tournament but they aren't the best conference in basketball. 3 of their 11 teams are absolutely pathetic in Penn St, Iowa, and Indiana. You can't have teams at the bottom be THAT bad and still be considered the top conference IMO. Especially when you have a "top" team like Wisconsin get taken to the woodshed by mighty Cornell on a neutral court.
It's a good conference this year. Not the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado man
The best way to judge is to look at seeds.
All 3 sweet 16 big 10 teams are top 16 seeds (1-4 seeds). One (wisconsin, a 4 seed) lost. A 5th seed (MSU) won though, kind of counteracting that. Getting 3 of your 4 top 20 seeds into the top 16 group is performing as 'expected', by seed at least.
Minnesota, an 11 seed, wouldnt be expected to make the top 32, and they didnt.
Big 12
Kansas State- Elite 8 so far on a 2 seed (top 8 seeded teams) is performing as expected by seed, final 4 would be ahead
Kansas- Definitely underperforming (should win by seed)
Texas A&M- 5 seed (17-20) by seed made it into top 32 (as 'expected' by seed) but not into top 16, barely. Performing as expected.
Missouri- 10 seed (37-40) Made top 32. Overperformed.
Oklahoma State- 7 seed (25-28). Lost in first round, barely. Slightly underperforming.
Texas- 9 seed (33-36) Lost in first round, barely. Performed as expected by seed.
Baylor- 3 seed (9-12) In sweet 16, performing as expected, if they make elite 8 theyre playing 'above seed'.