Big 12 had 7 teams in top 28 of AP poll when it had to start playing each other in a balanced round robin. Just sayin.
Last edited:
7 teams in top 28
- Thread starter HFCS
- Start date
It's sad how little playing good teams mattered. I think metrics trump everything. It's weird that people making these decisions don't understand that teams who only play good teams, that are highly rated defensively, with great coaches will look less efficient than teams who get 8-10 conference games against bottom feeders.
The best thing to happen to big 10 basketball is that teams like Nebraska, Maryland, Northwestern, Penn St and Minnesota were awful. The 9 teams that made the tourney had like 40 wins against these kinds of teams. They each got 6-10 games against mid majorish type of teams.
The best thing to happen to big 10 basketball is that teams like Nebraska, Maryland, Northwestern, Penn St and Minnesota were awful. The 9 teams that made the tourney had like 40 wins against these kinds of teams. They each got 6-10 games against mid majorish type of teams.
That’s the beauty of the tournament. We’re going to find out.
I’m not sure. With the case that Michigan and Wyoming got in, maybe.. But they certainly didn’t have an eye-popping resume either. I think Dayton might have gotten more screwed over.
They beat Arkansas (by 20), Tech and Baylor. That's 3 better wins than 4 or 5 big 10 teams had. All while having a similar record, despite playing a much tougher schedule, they screwed worse than anyone.
Not only that but last year the Big 10 melted down in the big dance. So we did they reward them again this year? If anything they should have punished them for no performing when it counted last year.
I don't think prior year performance factors in but the question is should it play in even a little bit? I agree that a conference getting a lot of teams in that flame out the prior year looks really bad on the committee and if the committee is made up of a lot of the same members you would think it's in the back of their mind but it doesn't appear it is.
We shall see. Until Baylor took it all last year, it is not as if the Big 12 was known for lighting it up in the tourney. Most of that probably falls on the flagbearer, Kansas, that typically receives #1 or #2 seeds and flames out (which tickles me).
We need to have our teams cause some damage and "prove" we were the best conference in the country top to bottom. I recall thinking we would win the SEC challenge about 8-2 and we fell way short. So let's get it on and see what happens.
We need to have our teams cause some damage and "prove" we were the best conference in the country top to bottom. I recall thinking we would win the SEC challenge about 8-2 and we fell way short. So let's get it on and see what happens.
You would think that perception issues like this would scare the SEC from trying to become NFL-lite. The stronger their teams get, the harder it will become for them to have the glittery records they have every year. They just don't seem to get that, to almost everyone, their W-L record is still the highest bullet point on any report.
The problem is historically the Big 12 has had a lot of top 25 type teams but not really any top 5 teams. A top 25 team should win 1 and then have a 50/50 shot at another win. We have done that consistently but just not had the elite 8 runs a lot.
If the choice is Big 12 doing well with Kansas winning I'll choice **** Kansas every single time. Cheating *******.
There is so much bias towards the Big Ten. Michigan should not be in the tourney. Several schools are more deserving.
Somehow Michigan is an 11 seed. Indiana is a 12 seed and they beat Michigan in the Big Ten tourney plus they have a better overall record. The only think Michigan has is a better conference record, but that can be skewed in the Big Ten.
Somehow Michigan is an 11 seed. Indiana is a 12 seed and they beat Michigan in the Big Ten tourney plus they have a better overall record. The only think Michigan has is a better conference record, but that can be skewed in the Big Ten.
Since I used 7 in top 28 for 10 team Big 12 at the beginning of confrence play I'll do top 28 for all.
Before they had to play each other...or when they had to play out of conference:
Big 12
7 of 10: 70%
Big Ten
5 of 14: 35%
ACC
1 of 15: 7%
Pac12
3 of 12: 25%
SEC
4 out of 14: 29%
Big East
4 out of 11: 36%
-------------------------
Now the 7 seeds and better from yesterday... same top 28 again
Big 12
4 of 10: 40% (minus 3 teams) very close to the top two, but now slightly lower %
BIg Ten
6 of 14: 43% (plus 1 team)
ACC
1 of 15: 7% (no change)
Pac12
3 out of 12: 25% (minus 1 team)
SEC
6 of 14 teams: 43% (plus 2 teams)
Big East
2 of 11 teams: 18% (minus 2 teams)
So I'm sure it's just a coincidence that ESPN's two boner conferences gained 3 high rated teams once they started playing each other and the other 4 major conference lost 6 highly rated teams with none of the 4 having any teams climb. Some of the effect can also be seen in mid majors with gaudy records working their way up.
They still get a revenue share for our game and all the other conference members but they bring nothing back to the table. Would have rather had them in the tourney
Most teams non conference schedules are weaker then their conference schedules which is why teams can rise and also teams tend to falsely be ranked in non con play due to preseason expectations. Also the Big12 got beat by the SEC in the challenge which can switch perceptions and the BIG smashed the ACC (even though it’s a down year) which helped perception.
Big12 is still the best conference with two one seeds and Tech all capable of making serious runs. After that there is a sizable drop off.