B1G . . .
- Thread starter 8th Street
- Start date
The fact that neither are even top 3 seeds in the NIT suggests they weren’t even close to being on the bubble
Yep. Damn freaking shame. They were pretty anti BIG 10 this year. But KU can win the conference 14 straight years in a row, the big 12 can fall on its face in March yearly, and its still the best league?
I cant wait for KU to join the BIG. They will be a force, but no way in hell do they win the conference 14 years in a row.
It sucks. The BIG didn't get the big wins in the OOC. Doesn't mean all the teams didn't figure it out and start playing better ball.
we suck
il sucks
ru sucks
nw sucks
mn sucks
wiscy, md, nw and in were all disappointments
Bottom half was pretty sad, but still at 13-5 any power 5 team should be in imo!
ISU is the ONLY little12 team that didn't get picked ahead of braska and pedd state!
We wont really know, as conference ball dominated our scheduling. I miss the days of throwing in an OOC game mid season. We use to do it with Mizzou. And if I remember correctly, Kansas and Duke, way back in the day.
Again i say a team could win 6 games, all in november evidently, and get in according to their system and standards.
Usc was second in their conference.
They played in their conference title game.
They didnt get in.
The 9th ranked conference team DID. That team also lost in the 1st round of said conference tourney.
And this is just one example of the craziness.
The NCAA has problems. They are over thinking everything here.
They played in their conference title game.
They didnt get in.
The 9th ranked conference team DID. That team also lost in the 1st round of said conference tourney.
And this is just one example of the craziness.
The NCAA has problems. They are over thinking everything here.
Unreal. Too many little conferences in college basketball. Time to thin the herd.
Upsets and Blue Bloods, that is what CBS loves.
And to top that off.. Baylor won 18 and is a #1 seed in the nit
Doing a little number crunching and such on the NIT field, and there are some interesting things; one big one is clearly someone had an issue with the B1G.
I realize it's only one of a number of ranking systems, and not perfect, but it lays out quite well, so it's interesting to use it for this exercise. If you go look at the KenPom rankings right now, they have all teams that made the NCAA tournament in red, so the teams that didn't make it stand out pretty easily. If you start at the top rated KenPom team to not make the tournament; St. Mary's at 28, and count all the way down to Mississippi State at 62; you will count 15 teams that didn't make the tournament. Of those 15 teams, 13 made it to the NIT as a Top 4 seed (team that will get at least one home game). The only two that didn't? Maryland at 46 and Nebraska at 57, both B1G programs. Maryland didn't get in period, and Nebraska is a 5 seed. Not only that, but at least according to KenPom, Penn State is the second best team to not make the tournament at 29th, just below St. Mary's, yet St. Mary's got a 1 seed in the NIT and Penn State barely squeaked into the top half at a 4 seed.
When looking at Nebraska specifically, depending on which ranking system you look at, quite a few teams that rank lower got a higher seed in the NIT. In KenPom, 7 teams have a lower ranking than Nebraska (Oregon, Mississippi State, Stanford, Western Kentucky, Utah, LSU, Boise State) that have a higher seed. In the RPI, 10 teams have a lower ranking than Nebraska (Notre Dame, Marquette, Oregon, Penn State, Baylor, Mississippi State, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Utah, LSU) that have a higher seed. 5 teams (Oregon, Mississippi State, Stanford, Utah, LSU) rank lower in both systems, but have higher seeds. Those 5 teams also all have worse conference records, including one with a losing conference record (LSU) and one with an even record (Miss. St).
Then there is Maryland, who was skipped completely. Of the At-Large bids to the NIT, 4 teams made it in that ranked worse than Maryland in both RPI and KenPom (Okie State, Stanford, LSU and Boston College) and numerous other teams that made it in ranked worse in one system or the other.
I realize it's only one of a number of ranking systems, and not perfect, but it lays out quite well, so it's interesting to use it for this exercise. If you go look at the KenPom rankings right now, they have all teams that made the NCAA tournament in red, so the teams that didn't make it stand out pretty easily. If you start at the top rated KenPom team to not make the tournament; St. Mary's at 28, and count all the way down to Mississippi State at 62; you will count 15 teams that didn't make the tournament. Of those 15 teams, 13 made it to the NIT as a Top 4 seed (team that will get at least one home game). The only two that didn't? Maryland at 46 and Nebraska at 57, both B1G programs. Maryland didn't get in period, and Nebraska is a 5 seed. Not only that, but at least according to KenPom, Penn State is the second best team to not make the tournament at 29th, just below St. Mary's, yet St. Mary's got a 1 seed in the NIT and Penn State barely squeaked into the top half at a 4 seed.
When looking at Nebraska specifically, depending on which ranking system you look at, quite a few teams that rank lower got a higher seed in the NIT. In KenPom, 7 teams have a lower ranking than Nebraska (Oregon, Mississippi State, Stanford, Western Kentucky, Utah, LSU, Boise State) that have a higher seed. In the RPI, 10 teams have a lower ranking than Nebraska (Notre Dame, Marquette, Oregon, Penn State, Baylor, Mississippi State, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Utah, LSU) that have a higher seed. 5 teams (Oregon, Mississippi State, Stanford, Utah, LSU) rank lower in both systems, but have higher seeds. Those 5 teams also all have worse conference records, including one with a losing conference record (LSU) and one with an even record (Miss. St).
Then there is Maryland, who was skipped completely. Of the At-Large bids to the NIT, 4 teams made it in that ranked worse than Maryland in both RPI and KenPom (Okie State, Stanford, LSU and Boston College) and numerous other teams that made it in ranked worse in one system or the other.
Not sure they are overthinking. Just using or ignoring metrics on a case by case basis to get the result they want.
There are so many questions I would have now that the dust has settled.
Would OU have still made the field if they had gone 0-10 down the stretch? Seemed they had already gotten in by January 15.
Arizona State in a similar situation. No shows their conf tournament when it appeared they needed help. But again early season wins over KU and Xavier were enough to overcome a 9th place conference standing and early exit.
Penn State was apparently deemed better than the Huskers despite splitting regular season and the Huskers finishing 3 spots higher in conf standings. All down to Penn State beating Ohio State three times while Nebraska only had one Michigan win.
Conference standings mean nothing (which is a shame in my opinion.)
Removing conference standings will have bigger ramifications than people estimate. Games within conference which take up approximately 2.5-3 months of play should be weighed with greater emphasis. Now, they are virtually nothing more than teams you happen to be more familiar with. Why even reward conference champions any longer?
Would OU have still made the field if they had gone 0-10 down the stretch? Seemed they had already gotten in by January 15.
Arizona State in a similar situation. No shows their conf tournament when it appeared they needed help. But again early season wins over KU and Xavier were enough to overcome a 9th place conference standing and early exit.
Penn State was apparently deemed better than the Huskers despite splitting regular season and the Huskers finishing 3 spots higher in conf standings. All down to Penn State beating Ohio State three times while Nebraska only had one Michigan win.
Conference standings mean nothing (which is a shame in my opinion.)
Removing conference standings will have bigger ramifications than people estimate. Games within conference which take up approximately 2.5-3 months of play should be weighed with greater emphasis. Now, they are virtually nothing more than teams you happen to be more familiar with. Why even reward conference champions any longer?
Agree completely. The analogy I use is the Ivy League universities using a "holistic" approach to admissions. Allows them to change the criteria however they want to "justify" (sarcasm) who they admit, without ever really needing to answer to anyone.
Just off the top of my head, Penn State beat OSU three times this past season. Iowa almost beat MSU, Nebraska blasted Michigan once, Wisconsin beat Purdue.
I think it is on a year by year basis. But that is what you get when you change chairmen and committee members so frequently.
When you don't play everyone twice, yea they can mean nothing, because those standings are INCOMPLETE compared to other conferences.
Good point. They don't seem to mean anything in the unbalanced leagues (B1G and Pac 12)
So they somehow escaped the unbalanced schedule by still getting in 8. Say what you will, but the reputation and pre-season expectations shape the entire season.
According to......?
If Indiana and maryland were in the exact same position as nebraska and penn state it would be a whole different tune.
No way Indy and MD are left out. If those teams had the record NU did and finished ahead of Michigan in the regular season standings, the B1G would be getting 6 teams instead of four.
Agree these little schools that make the tourney is insane. Especially the 16 and 15 seeds. Get rid of those and use those spots to give 8 teams that could actually do something in the tourney. Not fair that teams like USC, Okla St, Penn St and Nebraska get bumped because Limbscomb, Iona, UMBC ect get in. Have the NIT be for those type of schools.
