Yeah, the Big 10 is great

[Ricker]

The big 10 was anointed the best conference and their victories against each other were 'great' quad 1 wins. Their losses were 'good' losses. The point is that this privilege was assigned to them and not earned on the court. Even having a couple of good teams, like other conferences, their losses are satisfying because it ratifies that their prestige was bogus.
UCLA was the only victory by any big 10 team against a major conference team that made the tournament. UCLA has returned the favor on a bigger stage. Big 10 did have 8-10 LOSSES against major conference teams that made the tournament. Our win vs USC was better than any win of any member of that conference.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

So does one game where a 2 losing to a 15 speak for the whole conference?

Because, again, I'd like to point out that the 2013 Big East would like to have a word with you.

I hate coming across as some Big Ten white knight because I do think they're overrated this year for much of the reason you're pointing out.

I just don't think a wild upset like this one means much. If Oral Roberts and Ohio State played 10 times, this is the one or two Oral Roberts would win. Congrats to them, screw off to Ohio State, and it's not worth drawing a ton of conclusions otherwise.

Watched the game. ORU is as good as OSU. I saw nothing in terms of difference in talent to support an argument otherwise. 10 games, I think they’d split. OSU just wasn’t impressive except for Lindell and one of their guards.

Two games in is too early for a final verdict on the B1G. But early returns aren’t promising.

 

[tzznandrew]

They didn’t today, when it counts. Choked on the big stage like all big 10 teams eventually do, as the past 2 decades have proven.

I have no idea about the 2013 Big East, but they had a full non-conference slate to prove their worth. I honestly have no idea how they did in OOC games TBH. But they didn’t need the ESPN hype machine to anointing them the best conference because they produced the National Champion. Something the Big 10 has proved they are incapable of doing the past 20 years.

Conferences don't win titles, teams do.

I don't know that I'd call losing in the title game a choke. No Big Ten team has won a title since Michigan State, but their post-season performance has time and time again been impressive. To argue otherwise is merely to be contrarian.

And nice dodge. You're whole argument in this thread has been that a 2 losing to a 15 means that the league isn't good. I provided a counter and you can't just admit that this game doesn't actually mean that much in evaluating a conference. It may come to pass that the Big Ten flames out, but this game is in no way predictive of that. Because Kentucky didn't flame out when Missouri lost as a 2 in 2012, nor did Syracuse or Louisville in 2013 when Georgetown did.

 

[tzznandrew]

Watched the game. ORU is as good as OSU. I saw nothing in terms of difference in talent to support an argument otherwise. 10 games, I think they’d split. OSU just wasn’t impressive except for Lindell and one of their guards.

Two games in is too early for a final verdict on the B1G. But early returns aren’t promising.

Yeah, stop. That what it looks like any time one team beats another. Lehigh looked equal to Duke in 2012. Duke wins that game 9 out of 10 times.

What's great about the NCAAT is that this 1 time counts. To take an NBA example, watch Game 1 of the 2001 NBA Finals and the 76ers look every bit as good—if not better—than the Lakers. But...

 

[upstater]

UConn is doomed

 

[McLovin]

Conferences don't win titles, teams do.

I don't know that I'd call losing in the title game a choke. No Big Ten team has won a title since Michigan State, but their post-season performance has time and time again been impressive. To argue otherwise is merely to be contrarian.

And nice dodge. You're whole argument in this thread has been that a 2 losing to a 15 means that the league isn't good. I provided a counter and you can't just admit that this game doesn't actually mean that much in evaluating a conference. It may come to pass that the Big Ten flames out, but this game is in no way predictive of that. Because Kentucky didn't flame out when Missouri lost as a 2 in 2012, nor did Syracuse or Louisville in 2013 when Georgetown did.

No. My argument is that the Big 10 is overrated. This result helps prove that point. Something I’ve been very vocal about on here the past few months as bracket “experts” undervalued us and prioritized teams like Michigan State and Indiana (who I realize didn’t make it, but was considered “in” late into the season while many people had us out until the final weeks.) They gave teams like MSU “credit” for “quality” wins against teams like OSU, who never impressed me.

Have you watched the Big 10 play at all this year? I’ve been watching them all season and have not been impressed with anyone outside of Michigan or Illinois. But Illinois also seems super streaky.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Yeah, stop. That what it looks like any time one team beats another. Lehigh looked equal to Duke in 2012. Duke wins that game 9 out of 10 times.

What's great about the NCAAT is that this 1 time counts. To take an NBA example, watch Game 1 of the 2001 NBA Finals and the 76ers look every bit as good—if not better—than the Lakers. But...

So explain the loss? By the eye test, ORU had talent at guard (Adamsas?) and center that was superior to OSU’s. That’s why they won.

 

[superjohn]

No. My argument is that the Big 10 is overrated. This result helps prove that point. Something I’ve been very vocal about on here the past few months as bracket “experts” undervalued us and prioritized teams like Michigan State and Indiana (who I realize didn’t make it, but was considered “in” late into the season while many people had us out until the final weeks.) They gave teams like MSU “credit” for “quality” wins against teams like OSU, who never impressed me.

Have you watched the Big 10 play at all this year? I’ve been watching them all season and have not been impressed with anyone outside of Michigan or Illinois. But Illinois also seems super streaky.

I think Iowa is very good, everyone has a ton of trouble dealing with Garza and they shoot the hell out of the three but they will run into someone who is too athletic for them like always.

 

[McLovin]

I think Iowa is very good, everyone has a ton of trouble dealing with Garza and they shoot the hell out of the three but they will run into someone who is too athletic for them like always.

USC would be an interesting match-up if they made it that far.

 

[tzznandrew]

This result helps prove that point.

It doesn't, though. I gave you concrete examples that show that you cannot draw a conclusion from this one game. By your own logic after the very first two games the Big East was overrated in 2013. That conference went on to have 2 Final Four teams and the National Champion. They also had another Elite 8 Team. This very same thing is still quite possible in the Big Ten. And a 2-15 game is not correlated to the results of the rest of the conference, as literally anything other than a hottake would show you.

We are in agreement that the Big Ten is overrated. We probably disagree on how overrated, but that's not what this is about. You are drawing far far too much out of one fluke game.

 

[tzznandrew]

So explain the loss? By the eye test, ORU had talent at guard (Adamsas?) and center that was superior to OSU’s. That’s why they won.

Flukes happen.

Was 2002 St. Bonaventure better than UConn?
Was 2020 St. Joe's better than UConn?

Those aren't NCAA tournament games because I'm consciously avoiding them.

Teams look bad some games. This isn't hard.

Is your position seriously that 2012 Lehigh was better than 2012 Duke?
Was Wichita State better than Kansas? Northern Iowa? These things happen in single elimination tournaments.

 

[polycom]

No. My argument is that the Big 10 is overrated. This result helps prove that point. Something I’ve been very vocal about on here the past few months as bracket “experts” undervalued us and prioritized teams like Michigan State and Indiana (who I realize didn’t make it, but was considered “in” late into the season while many people had us out until the final weeks.) They gave teams like MSU “credit” for “quality” wins against teams like OSU, who never impressed me.

Have you watched the Big 10 play at all this year? I’ve been watching them all season and have not been impressed with anyone outside of Michigan or Illinois. But Illinois also seems super streaky.

But let me guess you are super impressed by UConn.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Flukes happen.

Was 2002 St. Bonaventure better than UConn?
Was 2020 St. Joe's better than UConn?

Those aren't NCAA tournament games because I'm consciously avoiding them.

Teams look bad some games. This isn't hard.

Is your position seriously that 2012 Lehigh was better than 2012 Duke?
Was Wichita State better than Kansas? Northern Iowa? These things happen in single elimination tournaments.

Here’s what you won’t accept.

Flukes happen in the tournament all the time. Agreed.

A team gets super hot and shoot threes out of their mind. Or they get all the foul calls. Or the favored teams star player gets injured during the game. Nothing even close to any of this happened. All I saw was the better team, or at least the equal team, winning a game. ORU didn’t win because of miracles. This wasn’t to my eyes a fluke like the games you’re bringing up. They won because they had equal talent and squeaked one out.

 

[SaeHusky]

Well in a year when they had no good OOC wins and only played “good” teams like within the conference, I’d argue the results in a non-conference tournament are very telling. Based on the eye test, this conference was not good. Of course the computers and bobble heads at ESPN disagree, but they can be wrong sometimes.

Your exactly right. All their quad 1 wins were against each other. No idea how all these big teams were ranked so hight.

 

[superjohn]

Flukes happen.

Was 2002 St. Bonaventure better than UConn?
Was 2020 St. Joe's better than UConn?

Those aren't NCAA tournament games because I'm consciously avoiding them.

Teams look bad some games. This isn't hard.

Is your position seriously that 2012 Lehigh was better than 2012 Duke?
Was Wichita State better than Kansas? Northern Iowa? These things happen in single elimination tournaments.

Only time I remember UConn losing one of these type of first round games was when AJ Price blew out his knee and UConn was a 4 seed losing to San Diego the 13 seed.

 

[aburks41]

Loyola is going to curb stomp Illinois on Sunday. Big 10 will be completely gone by the Elite 8. Frauds

 

[Edward Sargent]

I think Iowa is very good, everyone has a ton of trouble dealing with Garza and they shoot the hell out of the three but they will run into someone who is too athletic for them like always.

When you have one great like Garza you defend him and let the rest of the team beat you. Lets hope Md doesn't figure that out tomorrow.

 

[McLovin]

It doesn't, though. I gave you concrete examples that show that you cannot draw a conclusion from this one game. By your own logic after the very first two games the Big East was overrated in 2013. That conference went on to have 2 Final Four teams and the National Champion. They also had another Elite 8 Team. This very same thing is still quite possible in the Big Ten. And a 2-15 game is not correlated to the results of the rest of the conference, as literally anything other than a hottake would show you.

We are in agreement that the Big Ten is overrated. We probably disagree on how overrated, but that's not what this is about. You are drawing far far too much out of one fluke game.

Fair enough. They clearly aren’t the worst power conference, but clearly not the best either. Just been frustrating to see them crowned kings all season long because of sports media bias, but awesome to see one of their darlings get pants on national TV.

And yes, I’m aware we are playing a Big 10 team tomorrow. And I’m aware I’m an idiot and probably jinxed it. Sorry in advance.

 

[VA Blue Dog]

ORU just outplayed them.
They had the nations best scorer, team led the nation in FG percentage.
Only had 6 turnovers in an OT game.
Went 14 for 18 in free throws which was well below their 84.3 % average. Obanor and Abmas had 59.
OS 16 TOs vs 6. OS only 50 % from line.
OS definitely was not thinking defense.
So many time Abmas just blew by.
I think we would have done alright against OS because of our defense and ability to get inside.
OSU did not play like a 7th ranked team.
They were lax since ORU didn't beat anybody major outside their league.
Bottom line they let a good team beat them.
I don't think we will be lax tomorrow.

 

[McLovin]

But let me guess you are super impressed by UConn.

Dude, what is your problem with me?

 

[tzznandrew]

Here’s what you won’t accept.

Flukes happen in the tournament all the time. Agreed.

A team gets super hot and shoot threes out of their mind. Or they get all the foul calls. Or the favored teams star player gets injured during the game. Nothing even close to any of this happened. All I saw was the better team, or at least the equal team, winning a game. ORU didn’t win because of miracles. This wasn’t to my eyes a fluke like the games you’re bringing up. They won because they had equal talent and squeaked one out.

So, just to be clear here, your actual position is that:

Ohio State normally shoots 21% from 3 and 50% from the line.

AND

A team that came in fifth at 12-8 in the Big Ten is wholly equivalent to a team that came in fifth at 10-5 in the Summit League.

Just think about this. Seriously. Why can't you just enjoy the beautiful randomness of the tournament?

 

[SaeHusky]

It doesn't, though. I gave you concrete examples that show that you cannot draw a conclusion from this one game. By your own logic after the very first two games the Big East was overrated in 2013. That conference went on to have 2 Final Four teams and the National Champion. They also had another Elite 8 Team. This very same thing is still quite possible in the Big Ten. And a 2-15 game is not correlated to the results of the rest of the conference, as literally anything other than a hottake would show you.

We are in agreement that the Big Ten is overrated. We probably disagree on how overrated, but that's not what this is about. You are drawing far far too much out of one fluke game.

No this in not a normal year. His point he is making that even before the tournament it was ridiculous that all these Big ten teams were ranked because all their quality wins are against each other. He is saying that the losses by Mich state and Ohio State further support this argument.

 

[Ricker]

@tzzandrew your missing the general point. It doesn't matter if Michigan or Illinois goes all the way and beats Gonzaga. The point is that every team below the top couple was nothing more than the competition in every other conference. Beating Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland, Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin, or Michigan State, should not have carried any more quad weight in the metrics than beating Georgetown, Marquette, or similar teams. 10-14 loss teams were considered good because of the supposed prestige of who they played. They didn't earn that respect with wins out of conference. As these teams lose to equal or lower seeds it does prove the point.

 

[tzznandrew]

Fair enough. They clearly aren’t the worst power conference, but clearly not the best either. Just been frustrating to see them crowned kings all season long because of sports media bias, but awesome to see one of their darlings get pants on national TV.

And yes, I’m aware we are playing a Big 10 team tomorrow. And I’m aware I’m an idiot and probably jinxed it. Sorry in advance.

I don't know that you can clearly say they aren't the best off of this one game.

Again, you position seems to be:

If a very good (i.e. 1 or 2 seed) gets upset, the league is not very good.
Ohio State (1 or 2 seed) got upset.
Therefore the league is not very good.

But one, I don't think the argument follows at a basic level because of randomness. But second there are examples that disprove it in practice when we take an entirely different argument:

If a league gets two Final Four teams, it's a very good league. (Let's add to the If part "and one wins the title just for sake of example).
The Big East did that in 2013.
Therefore the 2013 Big East was a very good league.

2013 creates a contradiction. No matter what happens this particular year, one of these two lines of arguments must be false forever. Either a 2-15 loss shows a league is bad OR a number of other team's successes show a good league. I'm going with the latter given the absolute wonderful randomness of the NCAAs.

And, again, this intersects with my annoyance about the conspiracy thinking. Look at KenPom and NET. Are they kowtowing to media pressure?

 

[tzznandrew]

No this in not a normal year. His point he is making that even before the tournament it was ridiculous that all these Big ten teams were ranked because all their quality wins are against each other. He is saying that the losses by Mich state and Ohio State further support this argument.

They don't though. As literally any rational examination of prior tournament shows.

And, again, we can agree that something is wrong with the numbers. I think we all do. But this game isn't evidence of that.