BIG Overrated?

[7th Cir. Cat]

With Michigan's loss last night to #11 seed UCLA there will be no BIG teams in the Final Four. It's been 20(!!) years since a BIG team won it all (MSU in 2000). We spent the entire year bemoaning how difficult our conference was/is. But once the BIG teams got tested by other conferences we consistently came up short. We may have had a lot of quality teams, but I think the rhetoric that this was toughest conference may have been a little much.

What say you? Overrated?

 

[julescat]

Vastly overrated.

 

[GatoLouco]

I say no. It was every other single conference that was underrated.

 

[HawkCat]

We confused "toughness" with "parity of level of mediocrity."

 

[CappyNU]

I had mentioned before, but there were not enough nonconference games this year to accurately assess conference strength. Half of the conference's out-of-conference matchups were against a very weak ACC, so we looked great in comparison, while the entirety of the Pac 12 played just 12 nonconference games against major conference teams vs 29 for the B1G. Only games between B1G and Pac 12 were OSU over UCLA by 7 and IU crushing Stanford.

 

[pawildcat_rivals209725]

It was a bad performance by the B1G. I think Michigan beats UCLA if Livers plays (hard to believe he wouldn't be worth two points). UCLA barely outlasted Michigan State in the play-in game, Rutgers, 10-10, in the B1G, had Houston, another Final Four squad, on the ropes and basically blew it with questionable coaching down the stretch. Oral Roberts turned out to be a pretty decent club, beating Florida after Ohio State and falling to Arkansas by two. ACC went out before the B1G, and Big 12 teams not named Baylor didn't exactly have a fantastic tournament. SEC is also gone. I'd still bet the B1G 10-deep against any other league tomorrow, but they weren't best at the top. Gonzaga and Baylor look head and shoulders above the rest when they're playing their best.

Thought the B1G was outcoached on several occasions, especially the Illinois and Rutgers losses. The way Oregon State handled Loyola was a bad reflection on Underwood's job the previous game.

 

[7th Cir. Cat]

It was a bad performance by the B1G. I think Michigan beats UCLA if Livers plays (hard to believe he wouldn't be worth two points). UCLA barely outlasted Michigan State in the play-in game, Rutgers, 10-10, in the B1G, had Houston, another Final Four squad, on the ropes and basically blew it with questionable coaching down the stretch. Oral Roberts turned out to be a pretty decent club, beating Florida after Ohio State and falling to Arkansas by two. ACC went out before the B1G, and Big 12 teams not named Baylor didn't exactly have a fantastic tournament. SEC is also gone. I'd still bet the B1G 10-deep against any other league tomorrow, but they weren't best at the top. Gonzaga and Baylor look head and shoulders above the rest when they're playing their best.

Thought the B1G was outcoached on several occasions, especially the Illinois and Rutgers losses. The way Oregon State handled Loyola was a bad reflection on Underwood's job the previous game.

Agree with all of this, especially the point re: Livers. I don't think Michigan underperformed given their injury situation. But Iowa was talked about as a possible #1 seed for most of the year and they just failed to show up. #1 Illinois got outclassed as did OSU. Just not a good tourney for us.

 

[jensberg]

Any way u slice it, we underperformed

 

[No Chores]

It was a bad performance by the B1G. I think Michigan beats UCLA if Livers plays (hard to believe he wouldn't be worth two points). UCLA barely outlasted Michigan State in the play-in game, Rutgers, 10-10, in the B1G, had Houston, another Final Four squad, on the ropes and basically blew it with questionable coaching down the stretch. Oral Roberts turned out to be a pretty decent club, beating Florida after Ohio State and falling to Arkansas by two. ACC went out before the B1G, and Big 12 teams not named Baylor didn't exactly have a fantastic tournament. SEC is also gone. I'd still bet the B1G 10-deep against any other league tomorrow, but they weren't best at the top. Gonzaga and Baylor look head and shoulders above the rest when they're playing their best.

Thought the B1G was outcoached on several occasions, especially the Illinois and Rutgers losses. The way Oregon State handled Loyola was a bad reflection on Underwood's job the previous game.

Very solid analysis, with which I agree for what it's worth.

 

[The Purple Knight]

With Michigan's loss last night to #11 seed UCLA there will be no BIG teams in the Final Four. It's been 20(!!) years since a BIG team won it all (MSU in 2000). We spent the entire year bemoaning how difficult our conference was/is. But once the BIG teams got tested by other conferences we consistently came up short. We may have had a lot of quality teams, but I think the rhetoric that this was toughest conference may have been a little much.

What say you? Overrated?

Yes

 

[ohiovalleycat]

The Big Ten was 10-9 in this year's NCAA tournament, so it won more games than it lost. On the other hand, I think only Maryland and Rutgers and Wisconsin outplayed their seed, and those were all 9's and and a 10 who only advanced 1 round past their seed. Michigan State had a coin toss loss to UCLA in the 11-seed play-in game. Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio State, and Purdue all failed to advance to where they were seeded to advance, with Ohio State and Purdue suffering painful 1st Round losses to low seeds. If the Big Ten met expectations going into the tournament, there would have been 4 Big Ten teams in the Elite Eight and 2 going to the Final Four. It is clearly safe to say the Big Ten underperformed in 2021 NCAA Men's Tournament, which was made even more disheartening by failing to have a great performance when the whole tournament was based in the mid-point of your geographic footprint.

In hindsight, the limited number of non-conference games contributed to a failure to properly evaluate league strength. and then correlate that to individual team strength. The Big Ten was still one of the Top 3 or 4 conferences, but it definitely was not a runaway top conference that warranted 4 of the top 8 seeds overall. Obviously, the PAC 12 was underrated. Meanwhile, the ACC was not just weak, but historically weak and it look like the Big Ten winning the ACC-Big Ten challenge helped the Big Ten's prestige when it really shouldn't have counted as much with the ACC probably not being a Top 6 conference in the power ratings this year.

This might be what seeding might look like with a reevaluation:
Michigan - 1 to 2 seed
Illinois - 1 to 3 seed
Iowa - 2 to 4 seed
Ohio State - 2 to 4 seed
Purdue - 4 to 6 seed
Wisconsin - stay at 9
Rutgers - stay at 10
Maryland - stay at 10
MSU - stay at 11

Who's knows? Maybe a better fit with the seeding would have helped teams advance further. There seems to be something about playing teams you know about or have tape on, which might be an advantage some of those low seeds might have in those early round games.

 

[bringbacktherantboard]

MSU - stay at 11

How about MSU to the NIT?

 

[Sec_112]

... I'd still bet the B1G 10-deep against any other league tomorrow, but they weren't best at the top.

While the B10 was overrated by you, me, anyone and everyone, the Pac12 was obviously VASTLY underrated by even more people. NET rankings had the Pac12 as the sixth best conference.

I don't know if I agree I'd take the B10 in a ten-deep tournament against the Pac12. My guess is they might win the games between the 7-seeds through the 10-seeds, but I'm not sure about the games that really matter. I think the B10 would go .500 at best in its first six seeds. Four of those Pac12s were in the Sweet 16. And Colorado - not in the Sweet 16 - is a good team.

Easy to say in retrospect.

Anyhow. the B10 has a lot of work to do - especially our friends on Central St.

 

[pawildcat_rivals209725]

While the B10 was overrated by you, me, anyone and everyone, the Pac12 was obviously VASTLY underrated by even more people. NET rankings had the Pac12 as the sixth best conference.

I don't know if I agree I'd take the B10 in a ten-deep tournament against the Pac12. My guess is they might win the games between the 7-seeds through the 10-seeds, but I'm not sure about the games that really matter. I think the B10 would go .500 at best in its first six seeds. Four of those Pac12s were in the Sweet 16. And Colorado - not in the Sweet 16 - is a good team.

Easy to say in retrospect.

Anyhow. the B10 has a lot of work to do - especially our friends on Central St.

I agree that the Pac 12 appeared to be underrated, but I'd still like to see a matchup. As somebody else pointed out, Ohio State beat UCLA, one of the Final Four, during the regular season. UCLA beat Michigan State in overtime and Michigan, without Livers, by two, so obviously a rematch could go another direction. Despite the poor performance by the B1G in the tourney, it should be pointed out that the Alabama-Maryland game was probably the only real blowout loss. Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, and Rutgers easily could have won the games they lost by making a shot here or there. Baylor, the Big 12 champ, was simply more talented than a Wisconsin team that went .500 in the B1G. Oregon would be a tough matchup in a Pac 12 matchup as they played Iowa's game better than Iowa.

It would be interesting. My argument isn't that the B1G wasn't overrated — in some respects it obviously was. I'd certainly take it over the ACC and SEC. Big 12 and Pac 12 would be interesting, although I think the Big 12 drops off considerably after the top 2-3.

 

[hdhntr1]

I agree that the Pac 12 appeared to be underrated, but I'd still like to see a matchup. As somebody else pointed out, Ohio State beat UCLA, one of the Final Four, during the regular season. UCLA beat Michigan State in overtime and Michigan, without Livers, by two, so obviously a rematch could go another direction. Despite the poor performance by the B1G in the tourney, it should be pointed out that the Alabama-Maryland game was probably the only real blowout loss. Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, and Rutgers easily could have won the games they lost by making a shot here or there. Baylor, the Big 12 champ, was simply more talented than a Wisconsin team that went .500 in the B1G. Oregon would be a tough matchup in a Pac 12 matchup as they played Iowa's game better than Iowa.

It would be interesting. My argument isn't that the B1G wasn't overrated — in some respects it obviously was. I'd certainly take it over the ACC and SEC. Big 12 and Pac 12 would be interesting, although I think the Big 12 drops off considerably after the top 2-3.

So much of how a team does has to do with matchups they face. I was not looking to see Loyola vs IL as that was not a good matchup for IL. (No I did not call the upset but I did not really want to see it) Another team that is hard to play in the Dance is Syracuse as their D is something that no one else plays and while other teams in ACC are used to seeing it, the teams they face in the dance are not

 

[Secho99]

Rutgers, 10-10, in the B1G, had Houston, another Final Four squad, on the ropes and basically blew it with questionable coaching down the stretch.

Rutgers losing that Houston game was ridiculous, one of the worst last four minutes I've seen. Myles Johnson bones a wide-open dunk, Houston immediately gets the rebound and hits a transition 3. Instead of up 10 inside of 4 minutes left, Rutgers is only up 5 and then they proceed to totally melt down.

Win that and they had Syracuse and Oregon State standing between them and the Final Four.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

So much of how a team does has to do with matchups they face. I was not looking to see Loyola vs IL as that was not a good matchup for IL. (No I did not call the upset but I did not really want to see it) Another team that is hard to play in the Dance is Syracuse as their D is something that no one else plays and while other teams in ACC are used to seeing it, the teams they face in the dance are not

That’s exactly why I wanted Loyola to play IL. It was a dream match up. Thank you Committee.