Re: 2009 NCAA Tournament thread

[SouthSideRyan]

Hubert Davis said the Big 10 would win 0 games in the tournament.

 

This was after MSU was revealed as a 2 seed.

 

Nobody, anywhere is calling the Big 10 a powerhouse. You said they sucked, and it's ridiculous.

[mul21]

Big 10 probably isn't as bad as everyone thought, but they certainly aren't a powerhouse. They essentially played to their seeds like everyone else. Couple that with the fact that they had lower seeds to begin with means it was a slight down year for the Big 10.

 

It was a deep conference, but it didn't have the big dogs at the top (somewhat due to injuries at Purdue) that it typically does. I certainly would have preferred to play the 7th place team in the Big 12, ACC, PAC 10, or SEC than I would the 7th place team from the Big 10. You also would have had a better chance against the top 3 teams in the Big 10 than you would have against the top 3 from most other conferences (except the SEC this year).

 

They just got a bad rap this year because they didn't have anybody highly rated except for MSU and a lot of teams who were solid but not great.

[Exile on Waveland]

how's michigan state's foul shooting?

 

the only reason i ask is because the only way i think that the loouhvul cards lose that game is if loouhvul's free throw shooting comes back and bites us. i really don't think that michigan state can slow down the tempo enough to stop us and i also know that our 4 guard monster can take any team out of the game. i also want to see state's defense against a non-offensively challeged team (i didn't see any of this game. i really wanted to so i knew who we were up against, but couldn't get to a tv at all). i only have big 10 play to work from and, i'm sorry, but the big 10 looks like a defense first league. i guess when you have football matches break out during basketball games, (looking at you illinois and penn state), it's hard to shake that mantle.

 

there may be 5 official ways to pronounce it, but we have and always will call it loouhvul.

 

 

 

Where's loukycub been?

 

Went to the same dark corner that all the other "Big 10 sucks" people went to.

 

In his defense, the Big 10 did suck. Michigan State is just a very good team. They would have been a top 4-5 finisher in the Big East (maybe a Villanova type season). It's not MSUs fault that the rest of the league sucked.

 

Well that's just absurdly false.

 

Haha, just as I expected, no matter what actually happened during the tourney, this trash would continue.

 

In response to your previous post, saying people better enjoy getting their beatings on IU now because Tom Crean is rapidly fixing things up the sentence after saying Sampson and Davis set the program back, I don't know how else to take that. I certainly don't see how you can interpret it as saying Crean will get the team back to the level they were at under Davis/Sampson(minus the anarchy that went on off the court with Kelvin)

 

What exactly happened in the tourney that convinced you that the Big 10 was awesome? Purdue playing 1 slot above their seed, same with MSU? Or was it Ohio State losing essentially a home game to Siena or Illinois losing to Western Kentucky? Maybe it was the stellar showing by Minnesota. Or are you going to play the "Michigan almost beat Oklahoma but the refs gave it to Blake Griffin" card?

 

The Big 10 performed pretty much as expected. Penn State is putting on a good showing in the NIT, but Northwestern lost to mighty Tulsa in the first game.

 

The Big East is good because they have a ton of teams, but those teams also performed, 5 in the Sweet 16 and 2 in the Final 4. The Big 12 had 3 in the Elite 8 which was pretty good for them. Most conferences performed exactly as they should have, not much better or worse, although the ACC can probably be considered "underachievers" after the Clemson loss and the beatdown Duke got from Villanova.

 

The Big Ten is +2 in seed win/loss expectations (nice job here conveniently ignoring No. 12 Wisconsin winning). The Big East is -1 (though this isn't a terribly fair barometer for the conference). The Big 12 is +2. The ACC is -4. The Pac 10 is +1. The SEC is even.

 

The Big Ten, along with the Big 12, exceeded expectations more than any other power conference.

 

OK, but the tourney isn't over. Let's say MSU loses and Villanova beats UNC and UConn giving the Big East a total of +3, does that mean they had a better tourney than if UConn wins it?

 

Is it just me or are those numbers strikingly close? Kind of shows that this was a "big conference" year. That, coupled with all of the blowouts, makes the committee look good anyway.

 

Big 10 probably isn't as bad as everyone thought, but they certainly aren't a powerhouse. They essentially played to their seeds like everyone else. Couple that with the fact that they had lower seeds to begin with means it was a slight down year for the Big 10.

 

You've gone from "sucked" to "slight down year" for the Big Ten that "played to their seeds like everyone else." Maybe you should just admit you were completely wrong initially? Actually, you implicitly just did.

 

And, on the Big East, I would say they've already had the best tournament of anyone by far. That's why I said plus/minus wasn't a terribly fair barometer for them.

[Derwood]

Number of Big Ten teams NOT in the Final Four: 10

Number of Big East teams NOT in the Final Four: 14

 

Big 10 wins again

[Butterscup1679666578]

Number of Big Ten teams NOT in the Final Four: 10

Number of Big East teams NOT in the Final Four: 14

 

Big 10 wins again

 

I like your logic.

[bukie]

Gasaway's breakdown of yesterday's games.

[bukie]

The sooner everyone understands that the difference among the top 5 conferences this year (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10) was so microscopically small as to be unprecedented, the sooner conversation can return to a respectable level.

 

The Big East was exceptionally top-heavy this year, and at the same time exceptionally bottom-heavy (seriously, the gap in quality from team 7 (WVU/Marquette) to team 8 (Providence/ND) was enough to fill an ocean's worth of water). Seven top 25 quality teams, for sure, but also 4-5 patsies (Seton Hall maybe, St. John's, South Florida, Rutgers, DePaul).

 

The ACC had absolutely zero bad teams. Two consistently good teams at the top, but the league underperformed across the board in the tourney, aside from Maryland.

 

The Big Ten had a clear best team (MSU) and a clear patsy (IU). Early-year Iowa aside, every other team in the league was capable of beating anyone else (including MSU) on a given night, home or road. Truly, the ACC and Big Ten were the two leagues closest to a "zero nights off" schedule.

 

The Pac-10 had no clear best team, but had 3-6 very similar top-25 caliber teams (Washington, UCLA, Arizona State, Cal during the regular season and USC and Arizona during March) and only really one patsy (Oregon).

 

The Big 12 was pretty well separated into threes: three top-tier teams (Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri), three tournament-level teams (Texas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M), three decent teams that could give a game on a given night (Baylor, K-State, Nebraska) and three patsies (Iowa State, Colorado, Texas Tech).

Edited March 30, 2009 by bukie

[SouthSideRyan]

The sooner everyone understands that the difference among the top 5 conferences this year (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10) was so microscopically small as to be unprecedented, the sooner conversation can return to a respectable level.

 

That's not going to happen.

[ISUCubsFan]

Simple +/- isn't a good measuring stick at all. Saying a 9 is the same as a 16 but a full win worse than an 8 is silly. PASE does a pretty good job of correcting for that, but it's not perfect either.

 

The sooner everyone understands that the difference among the top 5 conferences this year (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10) was so microscopically small as to be unprecedented, the sooner conversation can return to a respectable level.

 

I mostly agree that the top 5 conferences are very close. I think there's a little separation in there, but not much. The Big 10 argument is basically the same one that occurred with the ACC in football. Do you want a conference full of good teams, or a few teams that are great along with a few bad ones?

[apete6]

Simple +/- isn't a good measuring stick at all. Saying a 9 is the same as a 16 but a full win worse than an 8 is silly. PASE does a pretty good job of correcting for that, but it's not perfect either.

 

The sooner everyone understands that the difference among the top 5 conferences this year (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10) was so microscopically small as to be unprecedented, the sooner conversation can return to a respectable level.

 

I mostly agree that the top 5 conferences are very close. I think there's a little separation in there, but not much. The Big 10 argument is basically the same one that occurred with the ACC in football. Do you want a conference full of good teams, or a few teams that are great along with a few bad ones?

 

Good analogy, yet everyone here except Meph continually ripped the ACC in football, but are using severe homerism to claim the Big 10s awesomeness in basketball.

 

Since everyone is now pretty much in agreement that the committee did its job, the Big 10 got seeds of: 2,5,5,8,10,10,12

and the Big East got seeds of 1,1,1,3,3,6,6

 

Showing the committee clearly thought the top 7 teams in the BE were far superior to the top 7 in the Big 10.

 

I guess I was a little harsh with the Big 10 "sucks" as they were obviously better than the SEC and the Pac 10, but they certainly were not good this year and its very arguable that they are better than the Big 12 (3 elite 8 teams) or the ACC.

[Andy]

ESPN's trashing of the Big Ten during basketball season is the same as their trashing of Notre Dame during football season - because they don't control the TV rights for those teams, they undermine them at every opportunity. Only I guess the Big Ten fans aren't used to it, because you guys are acting as petulantly as I used to (and sometimes still do) before I realized this fact.

 

The Big Ten, Big East and Big 12 all had fantastic tournaments. The Big East went in as probably the best conference so they pretty much maintain that, the Big 12 was with the ACC and now jumps them for 2nd, and the Big Ten does the same jump past the ACC for 3rd because they got a team in the Final Four. Done and done.

[SouthSideRyan]

Showing the committee clearly thought the top 7 teams in the BE were far superior to the top 7 in the Big 10.

 

Did I skip the page where somebody argued otherwise?

[TruffleShuffle]

ESPN's trashing of the Big Ten during basketball season is the same as their trashing of Notre Dame during football season - because they don't control the TV rights for those teams, they undermine them at every opportunity. Only I guess the Big Ten fans aren't used to it, because you guys are acting as petulantly as I used to (and sometimes still do) before I realized this fact.

 

The Big Ten, Big East and Big 12 all had fantastic tournaments. The Big East went in as probably the best conference so they pretty much maintain that, the Big 12 was with the ACC and now jumps them for 2nd, and the Big Ten does the same jump past the ACC for 3rd because they got a team in the Final Four. Done and done.

 

i'm pretty sure the acc has a team in the final four. also the big xii does not.

[Exile on Waveland]

On what planet did the Big 12 have three elite eight teams?

[Butterscup1679666578]

On what planet did the Big 12 have three elite eight teams?

 

The awful planet where Kansas actually won in the Sweet 16. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

[Andy]

ESPN's trashing of the Big Ten during basketball season is the same as their trashing of Notre Dame during football season - because they don't control the TV rights for those teams, they undermine them at every opportunity. Only I guess the Big Ten fans aren't used to it, because you guys are acting as petulantly as I used to (and sometimes still do) before I realized this fact.

 

The Big Ten, Big East and Big 12 all had fantastic tournaments. The Big East went in as probably the best conference so they pretty much maintain that, the Big 12 was with the ACC and now jumps them for 2nd, and the Big Ten does the same jump past the ACC for 3rd because they got a team in the Final Four. Done and done.

 

i'm pretty sure the acc has a team in the final four. also the big xii does not.

As we've already discussed, the ACC sucked outside of UNC, and the Big 12 has had a very solid tournament.

[bukie]

According to Sagarin's statistical measures, the Big East was a distant 3rd best conference going into the tourney behind the ACC and Big Ten overall, and have moved up to a very close second behind the Big Ten (yes, really). The top 5 are practically identical, though, which has never been the case before.

[SouthSideRyan]

According to Sagarin's statistical measures, the Big East was a distant 3rd best conference going into the tourney behind the ACC and Big Ten overall, and have moved up to a very close second behind the Big Ten (yes, really). The top 5 are practically identical, though, which has never been the case before.

 

That's because Sagarin foolishly considered all 16 teams in the Big East rather than just the top half.

[illiniguy]

Honest question here...Outside of Bob Knight's time, is IU really a power program? Admittedly, take out any program's #1 coach and they fall a lot, but UCLA, UNC, Kentucky, KU have all enjoyed sustained success under multiple coaches. Is IU really in that same class or did they get "lucky" with one coach (for a very long time)?

How great is UNC if you take away Dean Smith?

How great is Duke if you take out Coach K?

How great is Kentucky if you take out Coach Rupp?

How great is UCLA without Wooden?

How good is Kansas without cheating?(sorry, had to put that in there)

Did you read my post beyond the first sentence, or were you that anxious to make the dig on Kansas?

Did you even read my post or were you just that anxious to get that dig in on me. Coaches make programs. Why the hell would IU be any different? It's the reason KU wanted Self and not just to promote an assistant. Also how long was Knight at IU? 30 years. Yeah I imagine you take away the 30 best years from any school and they probably wouldn't have near the same results. Really not all that hard a thing to figure out.

 

And the Kansas thing, while a dig, is very true. Find me another school who has won a title while on probation. Then after you do that, find the other schools who have won a title, then went directly on probation afterwards. But, that's probably just picking on the Jayhawks.

[Outshined_One]

According to Sagarin's statistical measures, the Big East was a distant 3rd best conference going into the tourney behind the ACC and Big Ten overall, and have moved up to a very close second behind the Big Ten (yes, really). The top 5 are practically identical, though, which has never been the case before.

 

That's because Sagarin foolishly considered all 16 teams in the Big East rather than just the top half.

 

:good:

[Transmogrified Tiger]

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/39835/aldrich_medium.jpg

[snoodmonger]

Honest question here...Outside of Bob Knight's time, is IU really a power program? Admittedly, take out any program's #1 coach and they fall a lot, but UCLA, UNC, Kentucky, KU have all enjoyed sustained success under multiple coaches. Is IU really in that same class or did they get "lucky" with one coach (for a very long time)?

How great is UNC if you take away Dean Smith?

How great is Duke if you take out Coach K?

How great is Kentucky if you take out Coach Rupp?

How great is UCLA without Wooden?

How good is Kansas without cheating?(sorry, had to put that in there)

Did you read my post beyond the first sentence, or were you that anxious to make the dig on Kansas?

Did you even read my post or were you just that anxious to get that dig in on me. Coaches make programs. Why the hell would IU be any different? It's the reason KU wanted Self and not just to promote an assistant. Also how long was Knight at IU? 30 years. Yeah I imagine you take away the 30 best years from any school and they probably wouldn't have near the same results. Really not all that hard a thing to figure out.

 

And the Kansas thing, while a dig, is very true. Find me another school who has won a title while on probation. Then after you do that, find the other schools who have won a title, then went directly on probation afterwards. But, that's probably just picking on the Jayhawks.

 

You are so bitter that our program blows the doors off of yours. Sorry dude. Maybe you'll pick up another Final Four in the next fifteen years.

[TruffleShuffle]

he's also bitter that lou henson didn't cheat well enough to win a title.

[illiniguy]

he's also bitter that lou henson didn't cheat well enough to win a title.

Damn straight, although I was pretty young at the time he was there so I don't begrudge him that much. Kruger on the other hand.

[illiniguy]

Honest question here...Outside of Bob Knight's time, is IU really a power program? Admittedly, take out any program's #1 coach and they fall a lot, but UCLA, UNC, Kentucky, KU have all enjoyed sustained success under multiple coaches. Is IU really in that same class or did they get "lucky" with one coach (for a very long time)?

How great is UNC if you take away Dean Smith?

How great is Duke if you take out Coach K?

How great is Kentucky if you take out Coach Rupp?

How great is UCLA without Wooden?

How good is Kansas without cheating?(sorry, had to put that in there)

Did you read my post beyond the first sentence, or were you that anxious to make the dig on Kansas?

Did you even read my post or were you just that anxious to get that dig in on me. Coaches make programs. Why the hell would IU be any different? It's the reason KU wanted Self and not just to promote an assistant. Also how long was Knight at IU? 30 years. Yeah I imagine you take away the 30 best years from any school and they probably wouldn't have near the same results. Really not all that hard a thing to figure out.

 

And the Kansas thing, while a dig, is very true. Find me another school who has won a title while on probation. Then after you do that, find the other schools who have won a title, then went directly on probation afterwards. But, that's probably just picking on the Jayhawks.

 

You are so bitter that our program blows the doors off of yours. Sorry dude. Maybe you'll pick up another Final Four in the next fifteen years.

Yep, but what part that I put was not a fact??