I guess the Big Ten ain't so bad afterall

[drothamel]

I don't think this is an East Coast superiority complex, although I could be wrong. I haven't heard anyone mention the fact that the ACC has consitently won the Big Ten ACC challenge. This year, in fact, the ACC won 7-2 this year. The only Big Ten winners being Illinois and Wisconsin. Michigan just missed out on beating Duke. Now, Illinois beat a very good Wake Forest team, and Wisconsin beat a decent opponent in Maryland. Other than that, the Big Ten came up empty vs. the ACC. Again, I think that Illinois is the best team in the country, and I picked them to win the National Championship, but the bottom of the Big Ten is certainly worse than the bottom of the ACC. If we are going to debate each conference's worth, we have to look at every team, not just those left standing in the Elite 8 or the Final 4.

[jbduke]

Originally posted by LDUB

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.

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.

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?

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.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by jbduke
I don't even know what this means. How can a coast, a non-thinking entity, think itself superior to anything?

Come on, no one is stupid enough to think I was refering to a land mass. When someone says "The south likes to eat pie", everyone knows that "the south" refers to the people who live in the south.

[BBall_Junkie]

Sigh,

Is anyone else board with this debate. We have it every year at this time and it usually involves the Big 10 v. the ACC.

Best Conference... Worst Conference it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the team that wins 6 straight once the tourney starts. Who ever does this may not be the best team in the country but they will be the undisputed National Champions. Just ask the people from Villanova or Georgetown back in the mid 80's. Was G'town the better team? Absoultely. Are they the National Champions of that year? Absolutely not. I would say the same analogy fits for University of Houston v. NC State. Houston was the better team who ended up in second place. It matters not who is the best overall and on paper, what matters is who gets hot and performs better than the rest when it is on the line and really matters.

I am partial to the ACC, but I have to admit the Big 10 ate our lunch this year when it was on the line. I don't have a prob giving credit where it is due.

Nuff said.