Tue Mar 29, 2005, 03:29pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 285
|
|
|
Re: Re: The Big Ten was weak this year.
Quote:
Originally posted by LDUB
Quote:
Originally posted by jbduke
Since at latest January, everybody who has followed college basketball has believed that Illinois was one of the two best teams in the country. During that period, I don't think that there was any confusion that Illinois was in the Big Televen.
|
Top 2? Yeah, with all those unanimous #1 rankings and being #1 for the last 15 weeks, there were plenty of people who thought they were second best.
---------------------------------------------------
If you read or listened to any analysis at all this season, you would know that there were plenty of people who have thought, all season, that North Carolina was better all along. Even if I stipulate that it was absolutely unanimous--that every single person in the world thought Illinois was the best team all season--the point is that Illinois has always been factored into to the Big Ten's strength all year. That they're in the Final Four now should not change anybody's thinking on the strength of the Big Ten. If it does, I hope you'll explain how.
Quote:
Originally posted by jbduke
Am I supposed to give the Big Ten a lot of credit because Wisconsin made the elight eight? Let's take another look at their path: first round, they beat eleventh seed Northern Iowa, one of the last two teams in the tournament. Second round, they benefit from the biggest upset of the tournament, Bucknell over Kansas. Third round, nice win, but over ten-seed NC State.
|
One of the last two teams in the tournament? They were an 11 seed not 16.
---------------------------------------------------
They were one of the last two teams to receive an at-large bid. Everybody 12 through 16 was an automatic qualifier by virtue of winning their league.
---------------------------------------------
And UNC had to play a really tough schedule, far harder than Wisconsin's, don't forget that. Oakland was a tough game.
--------------------------------------------
What a non-sequitor. Nobody's arguing about UNC. They played a weak first-round game because they earned a top seed by virtue of their regular-season performance. Do you have a problem with UNC's seeding? I have no idea what you're arguing here.
Quote:
Originally posted by jbduke
Again, this shouldn't change anyone's perception of the strength of the Big Ten. And for those that want to talk about how well they played UNC, I propose a thought experiment. If 'Sconsin had been an eight or nine, and played Carolina tight before falling in the second round, would anyone be falling all over themselves talking about how much better the Big Ten was than the so-called experts had said? No way.
|
I think being down by 3 with under two minutes to go is a lot more than "playing tight". UNC only won by 6.
Why are you switching around the seedings? That makes no sense. What is UNC was a 4 seed and...
--------------------------------------------------
"Played them tight," "played them within an inch of beating them," whatever. The point is that they lost; and, given their path to that game, I think that too much emphasis is being given to when it occurred in the tournament. People are trying to give the Big Ten credit for Wisconsin getting to the regional final. I'm saying that Wisconsin played to seed. If it had not been for the benefit of the biggest upset of the tournament, Wisconsin likely doesn't make it out of the second round.
I changed the seeding for the sake of the example. Given Wisconsin's seed, it would have been impossible for them to meet a top seed earlier. I created a scenario whereby Wisconsin would have faced an identical match-up two rounds earlier. You didn't respond to that point. Do you think the Big Ten would have been claiming big credit for a close loss to a top seed in the second round? Did you hear any talk about the SEC being underrated because Mississippi State gave Duke far more than they wanted in the second round?
Quote:
Originally posted by jbduke
I don't understand why Michigan State, Illinois and Wisconsin fans can't simply be thrilled with their performances and stop there. They're insulting the public when they say that the last two weeks mean that everybody else's eyes were lying to them all year.
|
I don't understand why the east coast thinks they are superior to everyone else.
|
-------------
I don't even know what this means. How can a coast, a non-thinking entity, think itself superior to anything? 99% of the games were played before this tournament started. In those 99%, it was demonstrated to almost everyone's satisfaction that the basketball being played in the ACC and Big East was, on average, better than that being played in any other conference. That's the argument I'm making. Do you disagree? If you do, then you must believe that the Big Ten was given short shrift in seeding. Given that you must believe this, I would appreciate it if you would re-seed the tournament to reflect where the regular-season juggernaut that was the Big Ten should have had its representatives seeded.
|