Big Ten Basketball

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Bring on them Buckeyes! Good win. This should put our seed higher than Wisconsin's at the least. We have 1 less loss, 1 less in the conference. And we have won 5 straight vs. 4 of 5 losses by UW. Great game defensively.

 

Roderick Wilmont makes this team work. Best defender on the team. Great knack for hitting the big shot.

 

I think a win Saturday and IU is no worse than a 7 seed. Win Sunday and make that a 6. I like our chances against the Buckeyes. I think whoever wins the Killingsworth-Dials match-up wins the game. GO IU!

 

I am not a Mike Davis fan, and I'm glad we will have a new coach next season, but I'm pleasently surprised with the way the team has played since he resigned.

 

Haven't they said that the Championship game doesn't impact the seeding?

 

Not sure. I can't see how it wouldn't though. I know the game an hour or two before the selection show, but you would thing they would have multiple brackets ready. Every game should impact the seedings, including the last one.

 

IIRC, they've said that it's too close to the release of the brackets, and the only way that it matters is if there is a team in the final that wouldn't be in the tourney otherwise(say if Penn State made the final this year). Not 100% sure though.

[CP_414]

Bring on them Buckeyes! Good win. This should put our seed higher than Wisconsin's at the least. We have 1 less loss, 1 less in the conference. And we have won 5 straight vs. 4 of 5 losses by UW. Great game defensively.

 

Roderick Wilmont makes this team work. Best defender on the team. Great knack for hitting the big shot.

 

I think a win Saturday and IU is no worse than a 7 seed. Win Sunday and make that a 6. I like our chances against the Buckeyes. I think whoever wins the Killingsworth-Dials match-up wins the game. GO IU!

 

I am not a Mike Davis fan, and I'm glad we will have a new coach next season, but I'm pleasently surprised with the way the team has played since he resigned.

 

Haven't they said that the Championship game doesn't impact the seeding?

 

Not sure. I can't see how it wouldn't though. I know the game an hour or two before the selection show, but you would thing they would have multiple brackets ready. Every game should impact the seedings, including the last one.

 

IIRC, they've said that it's too close to the release of the brackets, and the only way that it matters is if there is a team in the final that wouldn't be in the tourney otherwise(say if Penn State made the final this year). Not 100% sure though.

 

I don't see how they can do that. If that is the case both teams in this years BTT final should play the walk-ons to avoid injury. There are no bubble teams left in the BTT, and it's not like winning that tournament means anything if it won't impact your seed.

[Mark_R]

Thank goodness Shannon Brown didn't twist his knee or something on that play.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

BC is winning by TWENTY TWO. Change the game you schmucks.

[Mark_R]

Hate to tell you, but this game has been a snoozer.

 

I'm sure that one has, too, though...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Hate to tell you, but this game has been a snoozer.

 

I'm sure that one has, too, though...

 

It's within 10 points, has been the entire game. I can't remember the last time either ESPN game had that going for it.

 

Please score some points MSU...

[Flames24Rulz]

ugh, 3 point MSU lead with 46.1 left. I'd still go with the quick 2 strategy here though.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Wow, what a gutsy play by Brown. I've got bonus coverage, but it's lagging behind.

[Jon]

Now that's an inbounds pass.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Gamecast just made up something about Warren Carter making a layup, then took back their mistake. Carter isn't even on the court...

[Mark_R]

MSU is gonna win. This was a bad effort tonight by Illinois. This is the kind of effort that could get Illinois bounced early in the tourney. I don't know if they're gonna make it to the second weekend.

[bukie]

Wouldn't be overly concerned about it, really. Michigan State wanted it tonight a lot more, and there isn't a ton of difference between the two teams. Illinois is likely a 3 seed on Sunday, which is fine.

[Flames24Rulz]

Wouldn't be overly concerned about it, really. Michigan State wanted it tonight a lot more, and there isn't a ton of difference between the two teams. Illinois is likely a 3 seed on Sunday, which is fine.

 

yeah as of right now, I'd say they are leaning towards a 3 seed. Not that painful of a loss, but I would've wanted to win the Big 10 tourny 2 years in a row. I wish the tournament was at the UC every year.

[NewUserName]

Illinois just isnt a very good half court offensive team when the other team is really pressuring the 3. They seem to never penetrate just pass it around hoping someone will eventually come open. When they were able to get on some runs tonight it was with transition and defense, very little half court offense. I think MSU with Trajon back may be a NCAA sleeper. They will probably be seeded lower than 6 and may be able to upset a team in the 2nd round

[dalgreen]

As an Illinois fan I think it would absolutely suck if the committee had them as a #2 seed and dropped them to a #3 seed because of the loss. That basically says this one Illnois loss to MSU meant more than the two Illinois wins over MSU. Plus, the old saying, "It's hard to beat a team three times in one season. Having said that, I said about a month ago that Illinois at best would get to the sweet 16 but that's about it. In a close game, they will kill themselves with poor free throw shooting, as tonight showed. Also, if any team commits to playing zone against Illinois for at least thirty of the forty minutes then Illinois would have serious problems. In addition, it burns me how there is not one single guy on this team that says, "Don't worry, Dee, I'll carry us tonight." Hey, Shaun Pruitt, you're one of the biggest guys in the Big Ten and you scored one point. That's one more point than what I scored against MSU tonight.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As an Illinois fan I think it would absolutely suck if the committee had them as a #2 seed and dropped them to a #3 seed because of the loss. That basically says this one Illnois loss to MSU meant more than the two Illinois wins over MSU. Plus, the old saying, "It's hard to beat a team three times in one season. Having said that, I said about a month ago that Illinois at best would get to the sweet 16 but that's about it. In a close game, they will kill themselves with poor free throw shooting, as tonight showed. Also, if any team commits to playing zone against Illinois for at least thirty of the forty minutes then Illinois would have serious problems. In addition, it burns me how there is not one single guy on this team that says, "Don't worry, Dee, I'll carry us tonight." Hey, Shaun Pruitt, you're one of the biggest guys in the Big Ten and you scored one point. That's one more point than what I scored against MSU tonight.

 

So, if Illinois had lost Sunday and been considered a 3 seed before tonight and won, would you think they deserve a 2 seed? What if the loss happened in the January game? I agree with not ignoring regular season results, but the game still happened.

[dalgreen]

As an Illinois fan I think it would absolutely suck if the committee had them as a #2 seed and dropped them to a #3 seed because of the loss. That basically says this one Illnois loss to MSU meant more than the two Illinois wins over MSU. Plus, the old saying, "It's hard to beat a team three times in one season. Having said that, I said about a month ago that Illinois at best would get to the sweet 16 but that's about it. In a close game, they will kill themselves with poor free throw shooting, as tonight showed. Also, if any team commits to playing zone against Illinois for at least thirty of the forty minutes then Illinois would have serious problems. In addition, it burns me how there is not one single guy on this team that says, "Don't worry, Dee, I'll carry us tonight." Hey, Shaun Pruitt, you're one of the biggest guys in the Big Ten and you scored one point. That's one more point than what I scored against MSU tonight.

 

So, if Illinois had lost Sunday and been considered a 3 seed before tonight and won, would you think they deserve a 2 seed? What if the loss happened in the January game? I agree with not ignoring regular season results, but the game still happened.

 

If Illinois was regarded as a #3 seed then fine. I just hate for teams to lose a seed because of a loss in the conference tourney. Should Illinois be punished for losing tonight? No. If they had split the regular season with MSU than I could better understand, but if you drop them because of tonight then, to me, you're saying tonight's game meant more than the two regular season wins, one of which happened in E. Lansing. And you probably will never agree with me, but this is one of the reasons why I don't like conference tourneys. If Ohio State loses tomorrow did they lose a possible #1 seed or have they already been inked as a #2 before the tourney? Does Syracuse deserve to be rewarded for playing mediocre basketball for three months, while playing championship ball for three days? At least I can respect how the ACC handles it because their regular season champion is whoever wins the conference tournament.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As an Illinois fan I think it would absolutely suck if the committee had them as a #2 seed and dropped them to a #3 seed because of the loss. That basically says this one Illnois loss to MSU meant more than the two Illinois wins over MSU. Plus, the old saying, "It's hard to beat a team three times in one season. Having said that, I said about a month ago that Illinois at best would get to the sweet 16 but that's about it. In a close game, they will kill themselves with poor free throw shooting, as tonight showed. Also, if any team commits to playing zone against Illinois for at least thirty of the forty minutes then Illinois would have serious problems. In addition, it burns me how there is not one single guy on this team that says, "Don't worry, Dee, I'll carry us tonight." Hey, Shaun Pruitt, you're one of the biggest guys in the Big Ten and you scored one point. That's one more point than what I scored against MSU tonight.

 

So, if Illinois had lost Sunday and been considered a 3 seed before tonight and won, would you think they deserve a 2 seed? What if the loss happened in the January game? I agree with not ignoring regular season results, but the game still happened.

 

If Illinois was regarded as a #3 seed then fine. I just hate for teams to lose a seed because of a loss in the conference tourney. Should Illinois be punished for losing tonight? No. If they had split the regular season with MSU than I could better understand, but if you drop them because of tonight then, to me, you're saying tonight's game meant more than the two regular season wins, one of which happened in E. Lansing. And you probably will never agree with me, but this is one of the reasons why I don't like conference tourneys. If Ohio State loses tomorrow did they lose a possible #1 seed or have they already been inked as a #2 before the tourney? Does Syracuse deserve to be rewarded for playing mediocre basketball for three months, while playing championship ball for three days? At least I can respect how the ACC handles it because their regular season champion is whoever wins the conference tournament.

 

So you want the conference tourneys to be ignored? They're still games that happen. I understand not overemphasizing them, but in Illinois' case they were in competition with several teams for a 2 seed(Nova, UConn, Duke, Memphis, Texas, OSU are all in front of U of I), so I don't see a huge deal with U of I getting a 3 seed if UNC and UCLA win their conference tourneys, the difference wasn't that great between them(plus Tennessee also lost in their conference quarters, and has a better RPI and SOS than U of I).

[dalgreen]

As an Illinois fan I think it would absolutely suck if the committee had them as a #2 seed and dropped them to a #3 seed because of the loss. That basically says this one Illnois loss to MSU meant more than the two Illinois wins over MSU. Plus, the old saying, "It's hard to beat a team three times in one season. Having said that, I said about a month ago that Illinois at best would get to the sweet 16 but that's about it. In a close game, they will kill themselves with poor free throw shooting, as tonight showed. Also, if any team commits to playing zone against Illinois for at least thirty of the forty minutes then Illinois would have serious problems. In addition, it burns me how there is not one single guy on this team that says, "Don't worry, Dee, I'll carry us tonight." Hey, Shaun Pruitt, you're one of the biggest guys in the Big Ten and you scored one point. That's one more point than what I scored against MSU tonight.

 

So, if Illinois had lost Sunday and been considered a 3 seed before tonight and won, would you think they deserve a 2 seed? What if the loss happened in the January game? I agree with not ignoring regular season results, but the game still happened.

 

If Illinois was regarded as a #3 seed then fine. I just hate for teams to lose a seed because of a loss in the conference tourney. Should Illinois be punished for losing tonight? No. If they had split the regular season with MSU than I could better understand, but if you drop them because of tonight then, to me, you're saying tonight's game meant more than the two regular season wins, one of which happened in E. Lansing. And you probably will never agree with me, but this is one of the reasons why I don't like conference tourneys. If Ohio State loses tomorrow did they lose a possible #1 seed or have they already been inked as a #2 before the tourney? Does Syracuse deserve to be rewarded for playing mediocre basketball for three months, while playing championship ball for three days? At least I can respect how the ACC handles it because their regular season champion is whoever wins the conference tournament.

 

So you want the conference tourneys to be ignored? They're still games that happen. I understand not overemphasizing them, but in Illinois' case they were in competition with several teams for a 2 seed(Nova, UConn, Duke, Memphis, Texas, OSU are all in front of U of I), so I don't see a huge deal with U of I getting a 3 seed if UNC and UCLA win their conference tourneys, the difference wasn't that great between them(plus Tennessee also lost in their conference quarters, and has a better RPI and SOS than U of I).

 

I don't know if you're being argumentative or I'm not making myself clear, so I'll assume I'm not making myself clear. My issue is not whether Illinois deserves a #2 or not. If the committee felt before today's game that they were a #3 seed that's fine with me. I just don't understand how one game pretty much wipes out a regular season performance. And, I'm not just talking about Illinois. Is it right that UConn may have lost the overall #1 seed with their first round loss, even though they along with Duke and Villanova were pretty much the top three teams for most of the season? Was Ohio State already a #1 or #2 seed no matter what they did in the conference tourney or did they have to prove themselves again by getting deep into the conference tourney? I don't know it may be a generational thing. I still fondly remember when the Big Ten and Pac-10 didn't play conference tourneys and the conference champion got the automatic bid. I just wish teams like Missouri State and Creighton didn't have to suffer because of barely bubble teams playing like champions for three days. Yeah, their games, but it's more of giving teams who don't deserve a second chance a second chance. Thank goodness Bucknell won today or some other deserving team would get the shaft.

[hawkeyecub]

Iowa/MSU should be a hell of a game tomorrow. Not a lot of good blood between the two teams with all of the flexing.

 

Hopefully MSU will have some tired legs playing their third game in three days and a short turnaround after tonight. If we can pull it out I think we have a decent shot at a 3 seed.

Bru didn't look like himself tonight and the flu bug that hit Iowa (Haluska in particular) will even things out a little bit.

[Mark_R]

Brunner hardly looks like a "college kid" at all. But you're right, he did look sluggish, and the zero rebounds is indicative of that.

 

Horner was great, but the best player on the floor tonight was Vince Grier.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As an Illinois fan I think it would absolutely suck if the committee had them as a #2 seed and dropped them to a #3 seed because of the loss. That basically says this one Illnois loss to MSU meant more than the two Illinois wins over MSU. Plus, the old saying, "It's hard to beat a team three times in one season. Having said that, I said about a month ago that Illinois at best would get to the sweet 16 but that's about it. In a close game, they will kill themselves with poor free throw shooting, as tonight showed. Also, if any team commits to playing zone against Illinois for at least thirty of the forty minutes then Illinois would have serious problems. In addition, it burns me how there is not one single guy on this team that says, "Don't worry, Dee, I'll carry us tonight." Hey, Shaun Pruitt, you're one of the biggest guys in the Big Ten and you scored one point. That's one more point than what I scored against MSU tonight.

 

So, if Illinois had lost Sunday and been considered a 3 seed before tonight and won, would you think they deserve a 2 seed? What if the loss happened in the January game? I agree with not ignoring regular season results, but the game still happened.

 

If Illinois was regarded as a #3 seed then fine. I just hate for teams to lose a seed because of a loss in the conference tourney. Should Illinois be punished for losing tonight? No. If they had split the regular season with MSU than I could better understand, but if you drop them because of tonight then, to me, you're saying tonight's game meant more than the two regular season wins, one of which happened in E. Lansing. And you probably will never agree with me, but this is one of the reasons why I don't like conference tourneys. If Ohio State loses tomorrow did they lose a possible #1 seed or have they already been inked as a #2 before the tourney? Does Syracuse deserve to be rewarded for playing mediocre basketball for three months, while playing championship ball for three days? At least I can respect how the ACC handles it because their regular season champion is whoever wins the conference tournament.

 

So you want the conference tourneys to be ignored? They're still games that happen. I understand not overemphasizing them, but in Illinois' case they were in competition with several teams for a 2 seed(Nova, UConn, Duke, Memphis, Texas, OSU are all in front of U of I), so I don't see a huge deal with U of I getting a 3 seed if UNC and UCLA win their conference tourneys, the difference wasn't that great between them(plus Tennessee also lost in their conference quarters, and has a better RPI and SOS than U of I).

 

I don't know if you're being argumentative or I'm not making myself clear, so I'll assume I'm not making myself clear. My issue is not whether Illinois deserves a #2 or not. If the committee felt before today's game that they were a #3 seed that's fine with me. I just don't understand how one game pretty much wipes out a regular season performance. And, I'm not just talking about Illinois. Is it right that UConn may have lost the overall #1 seed with their first round loss, even though they along with Duke and Villanova were pretty much the top three teams for most of the season? Was Ohio State already a #1 or #2 seed no matter what they did in the conference tourney or did they have to prove themselves again by getting deep into the conference tourney? I don't know it may be a generational thing. I still fondly remember when the Big Ten and Pac-10 didn't play conference tourneys and the conference champion got the automatic bid. I just wish teams like Missouri State and Creighton didn't have to suffer because of barely bubble teams playing like champions for three days. Yeah, their games, but it's more of giving teams who don't deserve a second chance a second chance. Thank goodness Bucknell won today or some other deserving team would get the shaft.

 

This is how I look at it. Illinois before today was in all likelihood a number 2 seed. I wouldn't say they were a lock, but I digress. They lost today. Without putting any extra emphasis that it was the tourney, that hurts their resume, probably just as much as if they had lost on Sunday. Tennessee is now in basically the same boat as Illinois, since both are done, and both had solid claims to a 2 seed prior to the tourneys(IMO, they were the other two #2 seeds with the other 6 teams I mentioned).

 

Now that UT and U of I are finished, other teams have a chance to catch them. UNC beating BC and then Duke to win the ACC tournament improves their resume pretty significantly, wouldn't you agree? Looking at their total resume after that, one could conclude that they are more deserving of a 2 seed than Illinois(the heels already have a better RPI and SOS, this would give them a better record v. the RPI top 50 as well as road/neutral record, plus the same total number of losses). Now U of I is battling the Vols for that last 2 seed. If the committee decides UT's SOS and RPI advantage outweigh U of I's record v. the top 50 and in road/neutral games, then U of I is out of luck. It's not punishing them for losing to Michigan State, it's rewarding UNC for taking advantage of the opportunity to improve their overall resume.

Edited March 11, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[dalgreen]

Iowa/MSU should be a hell of a game tomorrow. Not a lot of good blood between the two teams with all of the flexing.

 

Hopefully MSU will have some tired legs playing their third game in three days and a short turnaround after tonight. If we can pull it out I think we have a decent shot at a 3 seed.

Bru didn't look like himself tonight and the flu bug that hit Iowa (Haluska in particular) will even things out a little bit.

 

I think it will be a good and low-scoring game. What's the word out of Iowa City as it relates to Alford and the IU opening?

[dalgreen]

This is how I look at it. Illinois before today was in all likelihood a number 2 seed. I wouldn't say they were a lock, but I digress. They lost today. Without putting any extra emphasis that it was the tourney, that hurts their resume, probably just as much as if they had lost on Sunday. Tennessee is now in basically the same boat as Illinois, since both are done, and both had solid claims to a 2 seed prior to the tourneys(IMO, they were the other two #2 seeds with the other 6 teams I mentioned).

 

Now that UT and U of I are finished, other teams have a chance to catch them. UNC beating BC and then Duke to win the ACC tournament improves their resume pretty significantly, wouldn't you agree? Looking at their total resume after that, one could conclude that they are more deserving of a 2 seed than Illinois(the heels already have a better RPI and SOS, this would give them a better record v. the RPI top 50 as well as road/neutral record, plus the same total number of losses). Now U of I is battling the Vols for that last 2 seed. If the committee decides UT's SOS and RPI advantage outweigh U of I's record v. the top 50 and in road/neutral games, then U of I is out of luck. It's not punishing them for losing to Michigan State, it's rewarding UNC for taking advantage of the opportunity to improve their overall resume.

 

So, in your estimation (and I'm playing what if) if Syracuse wins the Big East tourney, what seed did they play themselves into by improving their resume? If they were an 8-9 by beating UConn, how high do you raise them for winning two more games? Or do you? It's a relatively subjective process to begin with and, to me, these four days just makes it even more subjective.

 

I at least like how committees in the past put a lot of emphasis on how you did in the last ten games leading up to the conference tourneys, because as you and I have said before, many teams don't have much to play for and are playing teams on life support.

[hawkeyecub]

Iowa/MSU should be a hell of a game tomorrow. Not a lot of good blood between the two teams with all of the flexing.

 

Hopefully MSU will have some tired legs playing their third game in three days and a short turnaround after tonight. If we can pull it out I think we have a decent shot at a 3 seed.

Bru didn't look like himself tonight and the flu bug that hit Iowa (Haluska in particular) will even things out a little bit.

 

I think it will be a good and low-scoring game. What's the word out of Iowa City as it relates to Alford and the IU opening?

 

Nothing but speculation really. A couple weeks ago there was a rumor (that had some real steam) that it was a done deal but that fizzled out. The consensus is that IU would have to make him their top and only real candidate and offer him the job without any interview process. In that case I think he would take it, but I just don't think IU is sold on him enough to handle it that way.

 

And yes that was only the second time in Bru's career he's been held without a rebound. He was really tentative in the first half with the ankle injury and flu. In the second half he was playing more like himself, it just didn't seem like he had many opportunities for rebounds. For one we were hitting most of our shots and then on their end they had a lot of long rebounds to our guards and Hansen.

Horner was great. 26 points (6-9 from three), 7 boards, 6 assists and 5 steals. Vincent was a freak though. He absolutely posterized Henderson and was just knocking down some ridiculous shots even when we had him defended. He had Haluska's number on both ends of the court and oddly enough we couldn't slow him down until we put Horner on him.