No way. Not in college basketball. This tournament has been perfect the way it is.
3/19 Games
- Status
It is FAR from perfect.
Need players to watch some DeMar Derozan tape to know how to not bite on those.
this is hyperbole. making the sweet 16 shouldnt be a barometer for a conferences total value. The big 10 was exactly what they thought we were. A conference with numerous solid teams but none really dominant. Purdue soiled their pants but 98 times out of 100 they beat FDU. That's what makes the tournament so special. Nebraska beat penn state, iowa, and maryland this year yet that doesn't mean they deserve a tournament berth.
So if you punish a conference for mostly performing as expected, does that mean you give them to another conference? Every major conference had teams underperform. It's college basketball. What makes the top conferences better is there is a greater depth of teams that perform at a high level more consistently than others. So if TCU wins does that mean the WCC shouldn't have received 2 at large bids?
IT IS perfect. Especially when you want to make it into a series of games. That would take forever and would not be interesting. You can't replicate the office pools, Thurs-Sun, possible upsets and buzzer beaters. Sports is not about the best team winning it. It's the team playing the best at the right time. Turning these games into 5 and 7 games series is absolute lunacy. One and done is perfect.
To add a little context to this tweet, most of the teams were low seeds so the probability of making a S16 was small for most teams. According to this simulation, https://barttorvik.com/tourneytime.php?conlimit=All&src=pre&year=2023, the expected number of B10 teams to reach the S16 was 1.8, and 1 made it, so yes it was an underperformance but the variance of these things are pretty high, if only 1 more team would have made it the B10 would have actually overperformed it's expectations in regards to the S16. And with regards to the number of teams getting in, the B10 was actually second best in Non-Conference games behind the B12, so the argument that they get in by beating each other doesn't really work. https://barttorvik.com/trank.php?so...es=1&venue=All&type=N&mingames=0&quad=5&rpi=#
Reality is that Purdue massively choked while the rest of the teams more or less performed to expectations with Michigan State overachieving.
The imperfection is the perfection. Sports is entertainment. For anyone outside of the coaches and players, it means nothing. There's really nothing in sports as entertaining for as long as the opening weekend of March Madness.
While an FAU can make a Sweet 16 or a George Mason can make a Final 4, by and large the winners are pretty much always a top team. I can't think of any time you said how in the heck did that team win it all? In fact I just looked it up, of the winners going back to 1985 24 have been 1 seeds, 4 have been 2 seeds, 4 have been 3 seeds, and 1 4 seed. If you say those top 4 seeds are your power schools, then they've won it all 89% of the time. A 1 seed has won 65% of the time. And if I changed the time period to 1990-present, a 1 seed has won 72% of the time and a top 4 seed 97% of the time. The only team to buck that trend was the 2014 UConn team.
So yes, I think it is fair to say, that while the road to get there is usually crazy, the tournament crowns a worthy champion. At the end of the day, a conference championship means a heck of a lot more than a Sweet 16 or Elite 8. Final 4s and championships do stand out though.
After Illinois gets eliminated from the tourney, it's always questionable how intensely I will follow the rest of the games. But seeing Iowa, Mizzou, Bruce Pearl, Kansas, Northwestern, Kentucky and now Indiana all get dropped in a 48 hour span is a pretty nice salve for the wounds.
TCU with an all-timer of a bad beat at the end of that game:
DeonThomas
- South Carolina
Seth Davis with a nice "2005 Illini" call-out.
The panel was debating why the Big 10 has not won a title since 2000 Michigan State. The question was asked, "Is the Big 10 style of play antiquated and obsolete?"
Jay Wright first argued that it's just bad luck. He referenced the Michigan team he beat in the Championship game while at Villanova. Beilein-coached, pro style, great shooters, quick and talented in their spread offense.
Seth then mentioned Bruce Weber's 2005 Illini squad as another team clearly capable of winning it all.
The panel was debating why the Big 10 has not won a title since 2000 Michigan State. The question was asked, "Is the Big 10 style of play antiquated and obsolete?"
Jay Wright first argued that it's just bad luck. He referenced the Michigan team he beat in the Championship game while at Villanova. Beilein-coached, pro style, great shooters, quick and talented in their spread offense.
Seth then mentioned Bruce Weber's 2005 Illini squad as another team clearly capable of winning it all.
the national
- the Front Range
I’ll back you on this. I respect him. I’m impressed by his success. He’s good.
to be fair.. most were seeded 7 or lower
Purdue 1 - Lost 1st round
Indiana 4 - Lost 2nd round
M. State 7 - Sweet 16
Northwestern 7 - Lost 2nd round
Maryland 8 - Lost 2nd round
Iowa 8 - Lost 1 st Round
Illinois 9 - Lost 1st round
PSU 10 - Lost 2nd Round
Purdue 1 - Lost 1st round
Indiana 4 - Lost 2nd round
M. State 7 - Sweet 16
Northwestern 7 - Lost 2nd round
Maryland 8 - Lost 2nd round
Iowa 8 - Lost 1 st Round
Illinois 9 - Lost 1st round
PSU 10 - Lost 2nd Round
Yes, there were a lot of seeds 7 or lower. The combined chances of at least one of them making the sweet16 are pretty good. It is ~75% that one will make it (assuming none of them play each other). For all of the Big10 seeds this year, the historical expectation is 2.11 teams (1x.851 + 1x.473 + 2x.189 + 2x.101 + .047 + .162)
History of Records By Seed in the NCAA Tournament
Odds, records, and history by seeding for March Madness tournament to help find upsets in this year's bracket.
www.betfirm.com
1 85.1
2 62.8
3 52
4 47.3
5 33.8
6 29.1
7 18.9
8 10.1
9 4.7
10 16.2
11 17.7
12 14.9
13 4.1
14 1.4
15 2.0
16 0
It's not horrible to have a point guard going into the dance. Just a little pro tip for the staff next year.
This year tournament shows NIL$ and Coaches salaries have not much impact on the outcomes.
For 2023 sweet 16 teams coaches salaries and potentially NIL$ less than 50% to that of teams exited in rounds #1 & #2.
Illinois pays top 5 salary for BU in the country and after 6 years, can't make it to 2nd week.
For 2023 sweet 16 teams coaches salaries and potentially NIL$ less than 50% to that of teams exited in rounds #1 & #2.
Illinois pays top 5 salary for BU in the country and after 6 years, can't make it to 2nd week.
Klesmit 6’3” 190#, Mulcahy 6’6” 213#, Loyer 6’ 5” 185#, Pickett 6’4” 202#, Hoggard 6’4” 210#, etc.
Don’t think it the size of the dog.
Obviously that 9th seed was the kiss of death.
Bingo.
The big ten is full of strong but slow (relative to the other P5 conferences) players. The style of play and way the games are reffed requires strength because you have to be able to play through everything that is a foul but isn’t called.
When you hit the tournament, you can’t brute strength people because it’s reffed like a real basketball game. The lengthy,
athletic teams can guard big ten teams 1 on 1, which is the best defensive system there is regardless of principles.
Another thing that stood out to me watching big ten teams in the tourney this year was how many times they had a numbers advantage around the rim for a rebound, but got out athleted for the rebound at the high point. Look at Alabama, look at Arkansas, look at Miami etc. Look at how many guys they have who look/move like RJ and Sencire (ignore their skill level), and look at how much RJ and Sencire’s length/athleticism/quickness stands out on our team and in conference play.
I also talked about Mayer in a post not long ago. How often did he stand out athletically in the big 12 (spoiler: never), but he did stand out for us athletically at times in conference. But then, how many times did he stand out athletically vs Arkansas? Spoiler, never. We were arguably the most athletic team in the big ten this year. We hit an average SEC team and couldn’t match up.
Where are these lengthy, athletic kids? Same places they are in football. Big ten needs to figure out a way to get into Texas, Florida, Georgia for recruiting. Find a way to watch the the 4A/5A/6A Texas state championships, and just look at the length and athleticism on the court. Some of these HS teams look like select AAU teams from a length/athleticism perspective.
Last edited:
Very consistent performance from a program that was a mid major in an one bid conference in years past. I believe they have elevated the other teans in their conference by being so consistently good. The fact that they have not won a national championship shows how difficult it is to do as long suffering Illinois fans already know.
I hate this idea.
I would like to hear some reasons why. The only thing people can come up with is the nostalgia of the tournament. It truly does not prove a CHAMPION.
It is definitely some bad luck that is magnified by past couple years being especially poor.
Ilinois lost championship game in 2005
Michigan State lost championship game in 2009
Michigan lost championship game in 2013
Wisconsin lost championship game in 2015
Michigan lost championship game in 2018
Win a couple of those and it is a completely different narrative.
A few posts back someone said we are "behind'" the Pac 12. The Pac 12 hasn't won a title since Arizona in 1997 and hasn't had a team in the championship game since then except for UCLA in 2006 and Arizona in 2001. We don't hear nearly the same talk about them even though their drought is worse than the BIGs.
- Status