Just to play devil's advocate, level of disappointment isn't about raw numbers. The Big Ten has been touted as dominant all year and two of our top 5 seeds fell yesterday.
The ACC has been pretty much assumed to be mediocre all year. It's expectations were lower. I think there's a reasonable debate to be had here.
Don't necessarily disagree, and certainly can be debated, but I think when you're making an absolute statement (Big 10 has been the biggest disappointment) and not even pointing out what the other P5 conferences have done, and actually ignoring one of the Big 10 teams that did win, (Rutgers is just not mentioned in the article) you're not exactly engaging in that debate. I have a feeling this guy was ready to write some version of this article and was just waiting for some Big 10 team to get upset to do it.
I also think halfway through the first round is just way too early to call the Big 10 a disappointment. Were OSU and Purdue disappointing? Yes absolutely. That's 2 of the 9 teams the conference sent. MSU barely made the field and lost to another team seeded on the same line, so I wouldnt necessarily call that one a disappointment. And two Big 10 teams beat higher seeds (though admittedly those weren't major upsets)