In your opinion, was the B12 game called tighter or looser than our games?
Bracketology
- Status
Homecoming 2019
- Chicago
Looser. Defenses were allowed to play much tougher.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I guess the only argument could be that a lot of conference tournaments end by Saturday, whereas the BTT goes RIGHT up until the Selection Show. This obviously makes it impossible for the Committee to consider the BTT Championship Game results at all (other than holding a spot for a sub-.500 team or something), but it might also have Big Ten teams be "one day more tired" or something? I am skeptical of that, but it would be kind of nice to have our championship on a Saturday for multiple reasons. Either way, it is not getting moved because it is absolute ratings gold. Our 2021 BTT title game vs. OSU peaked at over 6 million viewers, in part because it's on CBS right before the Selection Show. I'm sure it makes the conference a lot of money...
Also, I feel like everyone's narrative of the Big Ten as it relates to March Madness was crafted after 2020, as if COVID warped everybody's minds and sense of time, haha. We don't "always flop" in March Madness, we just did in 2021 HARD (and to a lesser extent in 2023 ... 2022 we performed to expectations). Conference tourney champs don't always flame out early because they're tired, that simply happened the last couple years. Let's look back to when the BTT started and how the champions have fared (the number next to the team is the NCAA Tournament seed they received, so as to show that team's March Madness prospects regardless of BTT result)...
1998: #3 Michigan ... Second Round loss (later vacated)
1999: #1 Michigan State ... Final Four loss
2000: #1 Michigan State ... National Champions
2001: #7 Iowa ... Second Round loss
2002: #4 Ohio State ... Second Round loss (later vacated)
2003: #4 Illinois ... Second Round loss
2004: #6 Wisconsin ... Second Round loss
2005: #1 Illinois ... National Championship Game loss
2006: #3 Iowa ... First Round loss
2007: #1 Ohio State ... National Championship Game loss
2008: #3 Wisconsin ... Second Round loss
2009: #5 Purdue ... Sweet Sixteen
2010: #2 Ohio State ... Sweet Sixteen loss
2011: #1 Ohio State ... Sweet Sixteen loss
2012: #1 Michigan State ... Sweet Sixteen loss
2013: #2 Ohio State ... Elite Eight loss
2014: #4 Michigan State ... Elite Eight loss
2015: #1 Wisconsin ... National Championship Game loss
2016: #2 Michigan State ... First Round loss
2017: #7 Michigan ... Sweet Sixteen loss
2018: #3 Michigan ... National Championship Game loss
2019: #2 Michigan State ... Final Four loss
2020: N/A
2021: #1 Illinois ... Second Round loss
2022: #5 Iowa ... First Round loss
2023: #1 Purdue ... First Round loss
So it goes without saying that for the BTT to "hurt" your chances in March, you would have earned a good seed WITHOUT any positive results at the BTT, right? With that in mind, I looked at top 4 seeds that won the BTT only:
1998: #3 Michigan ... Second Round loss (later vacated)
1999: #1 Michigan State ... Final Four loss
2000: #1 Michigan State ... National Champions
2002: #4 Ohio State ... Second Round loss (later vacated)
2003: #4 Illinois ... Second Round loss
2005: #1 Illinois ... National Championship Game loss
2006: #3 Iowa ... First Round loss
2007: #1 Ohio State ... National Championship Game loss
2008: #3 Wisconsin ... Second Round loss
2010: #2 Ohio State ... Sweet Sixteen loss
2011: #1 Ohio State ... Sweet Sixteen loss
2012: #1 Michigan State ... Sweet Sixteen loss
2013: #2 Ohio State ... Elite Eight loss
2014: #4 Michigan State ... Elite Eight loss
2015: #1 Wisconsin ... National Championship Game loss
2016: #2 Michigan State ... First Round loss
2018: #3 Michigan ... National Championship Game loss
2019: #2 Michigan State ... Final Four loss
2020: N/A
2021: #1 Illinois ... Second Round loss
2023: #1 Purdue ... First Round loss
Also just BTW for the numbers below, it can be a little difficult to follow but since there is such an emphasis on "making the Second Weekend" these days, I used that as a cutoff. In other words, the number of Second Round losses is simply the number of teams that lost in the Second Round, but a National Championship adds to the total Sweet Sixteens, Elite Eights, etc.
BTT Winners by NCAAT Seed
#1 Seeds
- 1 National Championship
- 4 National Championship Game appearances
- 5 Final Fours
- 5 Elite Eights
- 7 Sweet Sixteens
- 1 Second Round loss (Illinois in 2021 ...
)- 1 First Round loss (Purdue in 2023)
#2 Seeds
- 0 National Championships
- 0 National Championship Game appearances
- 1 Final Four
- 2 Elite Eights
- 3 Sweet Sixteens
- 0 Second Round losses
- 1 First Round loss
#3 Seeds
- 0 National Championships
- 1 National Championship Game appearance
- 1 Final Four
- 1 Elite Eight
- 1 Sweet Sixteen
- 2 Second Round losses
- 1 First Round loss (Iowa in 2006)
#4 Seeds
- 0 National Championships
- 0 National Championship Game appearances
- 0 Final Fours
- 1 Elite Eight
- 1 Sweet Sixteen
- 2 Second Round losses
- 0 First Round losses
CONCLUSIONS
- While you would need to run a separate analysis of how top 4 seeds from the Big Ten fared that did NOT win the BTT, it seems clear that if you are already going to be a #1 or #2 seed, winning the BTT doesn't seem to hurt you at all. You could even try to make the argument that winning a couple more games on a neutral court vs. good teams is good practice for March.
- While you can "spin" this data any way you want, consider that 8 Big Ten teams have played for a National Championship since the 2000 season. Of those 8, 5 won the BTT.
The "B1G underperforms in the tournament" thing has been blown way out of proportion, in my opinion.
It's simple.
Who wins national championships? 1 seeds. 13 of the last 20 national champs have been 1 seeds.
Who gets 1 seeds? Blue bloods. 29 of the last 80 1 seeds have come from Duke, UNC, Kentucky, or Kansas. Another 16 came from that second tier of UConn, Louisville, Nova, Arizona, Gonzaga, and UCLA.
In that same time frame the B1G has had only 8 1 seeds.
Why? Because the B1G has zero blue bloods.
So why hasn't the B1G won a Natty in over 20 years? It's not style of play, it's not officiating, it's not the BTT. It's because we don't have any blue bloods who consistently get a spin at the wheel as a #1 seed.
It's simple.
Who wins national championships? 1 seeds. 13 of the last 20 national champs have been 1 seeds.
Who gets 1 seeds? Blue bloods. 29 of the last 80 1 seeds have come from Duke, UNC, Kentucky, or Kansas. Another 16 came from that second tier of UConn, Louisville, Nova, Arizona, Gonzaga, and UCLA.
In that same time frame the B1G has had only 8 1 seeds.
Why? Because the B1G has zero blue bloods.
So why hasn't the B1G won a Natty in over 20 years? It's not style of play, it's not officiating, it's not the BTT. It's because we don't have any blue bloods who consistently get a spin at the wheel as a #1 seed.
chrisRunner7
- Spokane, WA
Wow, I guess I should not be surprised because it's the Monday after the in-season bracket reveal, but I have never seen the Bracket Matrix look so much in agreement as it looks now.
chrisRunner7
- Spokane, WA
Florida Atlantic is anywhere from a 6 seed to a 10 seed right now on brackets... they are going to make some top seed very unhappy with their draw.
Lunardi has them as a #8 in the same pod with #1 UConn... Palm has them as a #7 in the same pod as #2 UNC.
Lunardi has them as a #8 in the same pod with #1 UConn... Palm has them as a #7 in the same pod as #2 UNC.
What are the chances if Illinois wins out and wins the big ten tournament they could snag a 1 seed at 28-6? It’s a tall task but IF it happened it means Purdue will have at least two more losses. I know a lot to play out with AZ Houston etc but at this point in time I only consider UConn a lock 1 seed. IF we win the big ten then win the BT tournament and we’re riding an 11 game win streak I’m thinking we’ll be in consideration.
The chances would be high but either Arizona or Houston would need to lose as well
If Illinois wins out they would probably be a 1 seed but that's pretty unlikely scenario. 2 seed however is there for the taking. Illinois has better metrics than a lot of the teams in front of them. 4-2 might even get it done depending on the BTT. Basically Illinois needs one quad 1 win somewhere along with winning at Iowa (be it BTT or Wisconsin/Purdue) and the 2 is very possible.
Unless, of course, they draw Bryant in the first round.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
Consideration, yes. However, I would still think Purdue (assuming two more losses) has much better resume. They have 9 Quad 1 wins right now (and no losses outside of Quad 1). I think they are as near a lock for a 1 seed as UCONN. I think you would have UCONN, Houston and Purdue as near locks for a 1 seed, barring a collapse from those three teams, and then one space available. I think a lot will be determined how the remaining teams play down the stretch, but Illini would have a fighting chance (with a lock of at least a 2 seed).
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Yep, and when you REALLY look at it, it's not as bad as it seems ... people just LOVE the narrative that the Big Ten is "overrated" or "always underperforms in March." It is undeniable that we utterly collapsed in 2021 ... the conference looked historically good (2 #1 seeds and 2 #2 seeds...), and everybody but Michigan was done by the first Sunday. However, we just weren't that highly thought of to BEGIN WITH in 2022 or 2023, and we performed to our "meh" expectations:
2022
- #3 Purdue lost in the Sweet Sixteen to #15 Saint Peter's. While the OPPONENT constituted a letdown, the fact is the Big Ten had ZERO top 8 seeds ... and we thus had zero teams in the Elite Eight. MAYBE slightly underperformed expectations.
- #3 Wisconsin won its First Round game but lost to #11 Iowa State in the Second Round. Especially given it was in Milwaukee, this is pretty clearly NOT meeting expectations.
- #4 Illinois won its First Round game and lost to a very under-seeded #5 Houston in the Second Round. Even if UH wasn't under-seeded, though, a #4 vs. #5 making it to the Sweet Sixteen is a total crapshoot. Met expectations.
- #5 Iowa lost to #12 Richmond in the First Round. Did NOT meet expectations.
- #7 Michigan State won its First Round game and lost to #2 Duke in the Second Round. Met expectations.
- #7 Ohio State won its First Round game and lost to #2 Villanova in the Second Round. Met expectations.
- #11 Michigan upsets #3 Tennessee to go to the Sweet Sixteen. Significantly exceeded expectations.
- #12 Indiana lost its First Round game to #5 Saint Mary's. Met expectations.
So in summary...
- Of our two #3 seeds, one made the Sweet Sixteen and one lost in the Second Round. Regardless of the narrative you want to attach here, it's objectively a wash. #3 seeds are not "supposed to" make it to the Elite Eight on paper.
- Our #4 seed lost to a #5 seed in the Second Round ... it happens.
- Our #5 seed definitely disappointed.
- Both of our #7 seeds performed exactly as you would expect.
- Our #11 seed significantly exceeded expectations.
- Our #12 seed performed exactly as you would expect.
2023
- #1 Purdue lost in the First Round to a #16 seed. A historically underwhelming result, lol.
- #4 Indiana won its First Round game and lost to #5 Miami (FL) in the Second Round. Similarly to 2022 Illinois, this is just a fairly unsurprising result for a #4 seed.
- #7 seed Michigan State beat #2 Marquette in the Second Round to make the Sweet Sixteen. MSU lost to #3 Kansas State in OT, costing the Spartans an Elite Eight appearance. Definitely exceeded expectations.
- #7 seed Northwestern beat #10 Boise State in the First Round and lost by 5 to #2 UCLA in the Second Round. Met expectations.
- #8 Maryland won its First Round game but lost to #1 Alabama in the Second Round. Pretty much met expectations.
- #8 Iowa lost in the First Round to #9 Auburn. Do you even have expectations in an 8/9 game?
- #9 Illinois lost in the First Round to #8 Arkansas. See Iowa comment.
- #10 Penn State beat #7 Texas A&M in the First Round and fell in a hard-fought game to #2 Texas in the Second Round. At worst, they met expectations.
So in summary...
- Our #1 seed laid a massive egg.
- Our #4 seed lost to a #5 seed in the Second Round ... it happens.
- Of our two #7 seeds, one lost in the Second Round and one made it to the Sweet Sixteen. Overall, a very good result.
- In total, our #8 or #9 seeds went 1-2. Big whoop.
- Our #10 seed arguably exceeded expectations but did no worse than meeting expectations.
TL;DR
The fact is that in the last couple of NCAA Tournaments, Purdue is driving the narrative of the Big Ten getting "upset," and a lot of the other teams kind of just are what they are ... "meh" to "kind of good" teams that have won or lost pretty much by chance, lol. Nobody is overrating us, because we are not highly rated.
Huh? IU is a blue blood. I know we all hate IU but by definition they are a blue blood.
Furthermore what does being a blue blood have to do with underperforming. You either underperform or you don't and the Big Ten has underperformed in the tournament as a whole. There is no way to deny that and that is not blown out of proportion that's just a fact.
Lol If you think IU is a blue blood, there's a good chance we won't be able to come to any kind of common ground here. So, agree to disagree.
Liked your original comment in all respects but especially because of the line about IU. Knew it would not take long for someone to disagree.
Here's another one: UCLA is no longer a blue blood either. We still will not have any, even next year. If anyone else deserves mention with the Big 4 it's UConn, not anyone in the B1G.
There is no think. THEY ARE a blue blood. Blue blood comes from a historical perspective. That is the definition of what a blue blood. IU has 5 of those national championships.
Your argument doesn't make any sense because you are using being a blue blood as an excuse for not being able to win a national title.
You don't move off of being a blue blood. Blue blood is a historical term that basketball programs considered to be among the most elite, either contemporaneously or historically. You don't lose it, it's there forever. Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska in college football are considered blue bloods even though none of them have done anything significant this century up until Michigan winning this year. I know Oklahoma won in 2000 also.
This is a good article that explains what a blue blood is
College Basketball: Ranking the Nine “Blue Blood” programs
whether a certain college basketball program is a
gojoebruin.com
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
Of course you used an article from a pro-UCLA website, where they would have a definition that includes UCLA as a blue blood. Historically, Illinois was great at football and has 5 national championships, but you would hear nobody in their right mind claiming that Illinois belongs in a special tier.You don't move off of being a blue blood. Blue blood is a historical term that basketball programs considered to be among the most elite, either contemporaneously or historically. You don't lose it, it's there forever. Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska in college football are considered blue bloods even though none of them have done anything significant this century up until Michigan winning this year. I know Oklahoma won in 2000 also.
This is a good article that explains what a blue blood is
College Basketball: Ranking the Nine “Blue Blood” programs
whether a certain college basketball program is a
Oh is this better
The origin of the term 'blue bloods' in college basketball
What is a college basketball 'blue blood' anyway? The earliest reference we found was from 1927, when the Times Union of Brooklyn read: "Centrals Made Up of Basketball Blue Bloods."
www.ncaa.com
What's a College Basketball Blue Blood?
Which teams are widely considered blue bloods in college basketball?
sports.betmgm.com
Here's one from a pro-Kentucky website, I hope this is better for you. Maybe since they have won a title in the last 10 years probably not. What have you done for me lately?
The Blueblood Trophies: Who is the best and why?
What are UCLA, Duke, IU, KU, UK, and UNC’s accomplishments and who’s done the most?
www.aseaofblue.com
This article explains true bloods vs blue bloods
Learn what a blue blood is. You don't lose your blue blood status. So if IU or UCLA wins a title in the next 5-10 years do they need to re-apply to get their blue blood membership back
Respectfully, I disagree 100% with that premise. And attaching a link written on a UCLA site, where they are desperate to cling to that label, is certainly not going to change my mind.You don't move off of being a blue blood. Blue blood is a historical term that basketball programs considered to be among the most elite, either contemporaneously or historically. You don't lose it, it's there forever. Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska in college football are considered blue bloods even though none of them have done anything significant this century up until Michigan winning this year. I know Oklahoma won in 2000 also.
This is a good article that explains what a blue blood is
College Basketball: Ranking the Nine “Blue Blood” programs
whether a certain college basketball program is a
Blue blood status is earned through repeated elite seasons and championships, over time. How much time is debatable, both to first achieve the status and later by how many subpar seasons cause a school to lose that status. No way is blue blood forever.
Nebraska football has not been ranked in the top 25 (final poll each season) in 9 years. Not in the top 10 (again final poll) in 23 years. Tom Osbourne may have been a blue blood, but Nebraska is not - though I'm sure they think they are.
Again, agree to disagree. I don't care to try to define what a blue blood is and I'm not sure there is a perfect definition, anyway. But to steal a line from Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. And IU ain't it.
Other than that, I'm not sure what's confusing about my argument? The B1G gets ridiculed because we haven't won a national championship. Being a number one seed massively increases your odds of winning a national championship. There is a select group of programs who hoard a disproportionate number of 1 seeds, therefore increasing their conference's chances of winning a title. The B1G has no such programs and thus gets very few 1 seeds compared to other conferences.
In the eyes of the national media and speaking about tournament performance specifically, it might be true to say that a conference is only as good as its best team(s). And over time, our best team(s) do not quite measure up to the ACC, SEC, or B12's best teams.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
There are three different factors here.
1. The problem from a decade or so ago where the Big Ten played (and refereed) a style of basketball in conference that was so different from the way games were called in the tournament that there was a real March translation problem. That was true at the time, but thankfully has been fixed and isn't really a concern anymore.
2. The bizarre reality that no Big Ten team has won it all since 2000. It's essentially just a piece of trivia, down to little more than bad luck. SIX different schools have lost the title game since then (Indiana 2002, Illinois 2005, Ohio State 2007, Michigan State 2009, Michigan 2013, Wisconsin 2015, Michigan again 2018).
3. The last 3 years we've had some bad upsets and bad bids-to-second weekends ratios after having what seemed to be very strong conference seasons.
It all just kind of blends together into a "the B1G stinks in the tourney" narrative. It's not entirely fair, but there's only one way to shut it up.
1. The problem from a decade or so ago where the Big Ten played (and refereed) a style of basketball in conference that was so different from the way games were called in the tournament that there was a real March translation problem. That was true at the time, but thankfully has been fixed and isn't really a concern anymore.
2. The bizarre reality that no Big Ten team has won it all since 2000. It's essentially just a piece of trivia, down to little more than bad luck. SIX different schools have lost the title game since then (Indiana 2002, Illinois 2005, Ohio State 2007, Michigan State 2009, Michigan 2013, Wisconsin 2015, Michigan again 2018).
3. The last 3 years we've had some bad upsets and bad bids-to-second weekends ratios after having what seemed to be very strong conference seasons.
It all just kind of blends together into a "the B1G stinks in the tourney" narrative. It's not entirely fair, but there's only one way to shut it up.
I attached links to non-UCLA site. Doesn't matter where it came from. It matters what it says and what it says is that IU is a blue blood. They will always be one now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now. You don't lose your blue blood status. 'Hey UCLA you won 11 national titles but since you haven't won one in almost 30 year you are no longer a blue blood, Sorry'. That's not the definition and that's not how it works. You can disagree all you want you will never be correct.
Last edited:
Illinicpa14
- Chicago
I agree with this post - but I would argue that Michigan State fits your tier 2 teams.
I’d also argue during the drought that Wisconsin and Purdue the last 20 years have more often then not looked like a tier 2 program (strong regular seasons, consistent top 20 rankings).
But I completely agree we do not have mega teams and also as a result don’t have nearly the top tier NBA talent that other leagues have consistently had.
- Status