Big Ten only going to get 8 teams in the Tournament!
- Thread starter Blimpy
- Start date
Sounds fine. It's a good league, but not that great. Wether 8,9 or 12 teams get in is of no consequence. Personally I don't think the conference is that strong.
We will see in the end if any, by that time, are good enough to forge their way to the E8 or FF?
We will see in the end if any, by that time, are good enough to forge their way to the E8 or FF?
Last edited:
Maryland has 2 road wins. And Oregon will def get in.
If Ohio state wins a few more, they’ll be in.
Sounds right at this point but a long way to go still. Nebraska, Penn State and Rutgers are disappointments at this point. Ohio State and (gasp) Indinia are definitely still in the mix. Northwestern, USC, Washington and Minnesota don't look possible. Don't really know what Iowa is. Hopefully I'll witness their last gasp next Tuesday.
Personally I think there should be a cap on how many teams any conference can get in. 10 at most. That will never happen but if you're not in the top ten of your own conference then go play in the NIT.
Ohio St has wins away from home over Kentucky and Purdue. And no bad losses. That's going to be way better than any other bubble team's sheet. If they can get to 17 wins or so, they are in.
A lot of basketball left to be played. I don't think there are any true locks yet, if we define "lock" as doesn't need to win another game between now and Selection Sunday to be in.
MSU, Purdue, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Maryland are all contenders for Top-5 seeds and should be in barring an epic collapse. Oregon and UCLA should be ok if they maintain their current pace. Ohio State has a so-so record but more attractive computer numbers.
Beneath that is a bunch of teams that have a ton of work to do: Penn State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa, Indiana.
Southern Cal and Rutgers look like they're on the far side of the bubble.
Obviously what happens in other leagues will matter as well.
MSU, Purdue, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Maryland are all contenders for Top-5 seeds and should be in barring an epic collapse. Oregon and UCLA should be ok if they maintain their current pace. Ohio State has a so-so record but more attractive computer numbers.
Beneath that is a bunch of teams that have a ton of work to do: Penn State, Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa, Indiana.
Southern Cal and Rutgers look like they're on the far side of the bubble.
Obviously what happens in other leagues will matter as well.
One thing that I haven't heard talked about much this year is that there's one more at-large spot because of the Pac-12 disbanding. Granted, that "extra" team will probably be one from a mega-conference, the expansion of which caused the Pac-12 to disband.
I've always felt there should be minimum requirements. 20 wins and .500 or better in conference.
Then you guarantee that the best teams don't make the tournament. You're going to take 20-12/11-7 Southern Illinois with a NET of 82 and 2 Q2 wins? Or 19-13/8-10 Georgia with a NET of 32 and 8 Q1/Q2 wins.
I mean that's nonsensical. I'm sorry but one could easily come up with a dozen different examples of why that's an arbitrary and bad requirement.
That's a powerful incentive for all high-major programs to schedule 10 or more non-conference wins.
Yep. It would really water down the non-conference schedules for all but the teams that enter the season with a top 20 outlook.
Don't like the win requirement. Nobody would schedule good out of conference games anymore.
I'm good on .500 conference record.
Sure but you'd still have to get to .500 in conference. I don't really care about non conference SOS at all. Makes for good TV but I couldn't careless about it. Most teams play about 30 games now and you could include conference tournament games as part of the overall and conference records.
Beating the bad half of the conference and 10 nobodies out of conference doesn't make you good. I understand why an IU football fan likes that, but the playoffs showed why quality of wins matter in football and also proves why it should continue to matter in determining at large bids for the tournament. Whether or not you care about it is completely irrelevant.
Overall number of wins is irrelevant. It’s the number of quality wins that matters. Going 10-0 against Bemidji State and Eastern Illinois is 100% worthless.
In college basketball, it really doesn't matter. A tough SOS doesn't really help you anymore or less for March. Sure you can beat up on some teams, but seeding still exist. And going 10-10 in conference in the Big Ten with a poor out of conference SOS isn't going to get you a high seed. And if you look historically, not a lot of teams get in that are below that requirement. There have been more the last several years, but those teams just get bounced first round outside a couple outliers.
Well of course he does. IU hasn’t seen a strong SOS for …a decade? Or maybe more?
Disagree. Pretty much every year, there is at least one team that is left out of the tournament and one of the reasons mentioned is how bad their non-conference SOS was.
Perfect response coming from an IU football fan. Could you imagine the tv ratings (that pay big bucks to our conference) watching IU football play a bunch of nobodies get manhandled in the CFP every year.....not gonna happen.
My thoughts are to cut back to 64 teams at most. And I don’t really care about people saying but but but but then the best teams won’t get in. Who decides who the best teams are? Some stats geek who developed Ken Pom ratings? If they were an awesome team, then one would be led to believe they could win a few regular season games against their own conference opponents. I can’t see any conference sending more than half of their teams! Send the message if you want to play in the dance, pay more attention to winning conference games! I wouldn’t be upset with narrowing the field back down to 32. Let’s be honest- the only reason we have 64 teams is because of money. Win your conference and get in! Maybe we might see the formation of a bunch of 8 team conferences. I wouldn’t mind seeing the Big 10 split into two distinct conferences of 10 teams! And then send a max of 4 teams from each conference. Did we really need to gobble up the pac 10?
Similar threads
