In your opinion, was the B12 game called tighter or looser than our games?Reffing. Games in the NCAAT are called closer to how B12 games are called. Watching Houston vs Iowa state last night was night and day compared to our Maryland game.
In your opinion, was the B12 game called tighter or looser than our games?Reffing. Games in the NCAAT are called closer to how B12 games are called. Watching Houston vs Iowa state last night was night and day compared to our Maryland game.
Looser. Defenses were allowed to play much tougher.In your opinion, was the B12 game called tighter or looser than our games?
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...Everyone is playing a conference tournament at the end of the year and at the same time. You would have to theorize a reason for why the Big Ten teams are being especially affected by their tournament that other conferences are not. Their conference ends later than others, but this is a fairly small difference considering almost every team is getting four days off before the tournament. I don't recall any major injuries stemming from the tournament.
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.I don't think Arizona is locked in. They don't have another Q1 game the rest of the regular season. If they take a loss or two and a team like Tennessee or UNC runs the table, or comes close, they certainly have a chance at snagging that last 1 seed.
The chances would be high but either Arizona or Houston would need to lose as wellWhat 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.
Unless, of course, they draw Bryant in the first round.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.
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).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.
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: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.
Huh? IU is a blue blood. I know we all hate IU but by definition they are a blue blood.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 'blue blood' program but we are going to rank the nine most commonly considered blue blood programs.gojoebruin.com
Oh is this betterOf 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.
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' program but we are going to rank the nine most commonly considered blue blood programs.gojoebruin.com
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.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.
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.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.
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.
I agree with this post - but I would argue that Michigan State fits your tier 2 teams.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.