ADVERTISEMENT

Is the B1G really down or just young and inconsistent?

Mandeville LA

Junior
Nov 11, 2015
2,353
3,130
113
My point is that it seems because MSU is not ranked in the top 5 all the national guys are down on the league. I can name a few of the B1G teams I would not want to match up against in the first round. This could be the year the B1G gets trashed in the polls and goes on to do major damage in the NCAA’s

The old formula to have a chance to win the league back before the tournament was to win all of your home games and 50% of the road games. If you did that you had a chance. If that was the case, the bottom half B1G each year had some tough teams with lesser records.
 
The Big Ten just doesn't have any top tier teams. Outside of IU, nearly all the BT teams lost their big match ups to help boost numbers before conference play began.
 
Oh, by the way happy Mardi Gras!! I am sure a lot of folks up north (or outside of Louisiana) understand the full impact unless you have experienced it in person.
 
Oh, by the way happy Mardi Gras!! I am sure a lot of folks up north (or outside of Louisiana) understand the full impact unless you have experienced it in person.
Happy Mardi Gras indeed!
th
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan
The B1G will be a power conference in the next couple of years. We'll lose Biggie and Spike but will have an upperclassmen dominated team next year. M$U, Iowa, Nebraska, and Penn State all have very young teams this year and they're starting to come together right now.
 
My point is that it seems because MSU is not ranked in the top 5 all the national guys are down on the league. I can name a few of the B1G teams I would not want to match up against in the first round. This could be the year the B1G gets trashed in the polls and goes on to do major damage in the NCAA’s

The old formula to have a chance to win the league back before the tournament was to win all of your home games and 50% of the road games. If you did that you had a chance. If that was the case, the bottom half B1G each year had some tough teams with lesser records.

I don't think it's necessarily that it's young. Look at Wisconsin - Showalter (R-SR), Hayes (SR), Koenig (SR) and Brown (SR). Michigan's starting 5 is two seniors, two juniors. Are there teams that are young? Absolutely, but every conference has that.

And let's be clear - after the top 5 in the country, there's not a ton of difference between teams 5-25. As others have pointed out, I think the difference with the Big Ten is there is no "elite" team this year. We don't have a Kansas, North Carolina, Villanova, Kentucky of the Big Ten this year. I could see the Big Ten doing fine in the tournament, or I can see no teams making the Sweet 16. I just think there are going to be so many toss-up games between major conference teams this year. Teams have been fairly inconsistent across the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgarlitz
Youth might be a factor.

No doubt, the B1G has accomplished upper-classmen (Bronson Koening, Vince Edwards, Derrick Walton, Nigel Hayes, Peter Jock, Malcolm Hill, Isaac Haas, Zak Irvin, Melo Trimble, Tai Webster, James Blackmon, McIntosh and Lindsey at NU, etc.). But it's best NBA prospects seem to be freshmen and sophomores (Bryant, Swanigan, Bridges, Ward, Happ, etc.).

Thing is, though, I wonder if that's really so unusual in college basketball today.
 
My point is that it seems because MSU is not ranked in the top 5 all the national guys are down on the league. I can name a few of the B1G teams I would not want to match up against in the first round. This could be the year the B1G gets trashed in the polls and goes on to do major damage in the NCAA’s

The old formula to have a chance to win the league back before the tournament was to win all of your home games and 50% of the road games. If you did that you had a chance. If that was the case, the bottom half B1G each year had some tough teams with lesser records.
Not sure the difference. You are good or you are not. May be young but right now I will say down overall. We will know in 3 weeks. 2 or less Sweet 16 = Down. 3-4 = Average. 5+ = Really good.
 
3-4 Sweet 16 teams is average? I would consider that very good.

Ya, that's 1/4 of the Sweet 16. No B1G team making the S16 would confirm the national perception that the league wasn't very strong (at least at the top) this year. But even getting one or two in will probably meet or even exceed expectations based on seeding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerStation
At this point Purdue is probably the only team with a shot at a top 4 seed so 2 teams or more making the sweet 16 means the BT has outperformed it's seeds and expectations as far as advancing further in the tourney. I would guess a majority of the teams are looking at seeds of 7 to 11 meaning the first round game is a toss up or they will be favored to lose.
 
Of course they lost, they are only big games if we lose!

At least that's what I hear
I'm referring to games against other top tier teams or highly rated teams. The Big 10 performed poorly out of conference which lowers the ceiling for Big 10 teams as far as RPI numbers go and the general perception of the BT's strength. We lost our 2 biggest games. MSU lost basically all their toughest games. OSU blew it to VA. Wisconsin lost to Creighton and UNC. Michigan lost to UCLA. IU lost to Butler. There are several more examples of games that had they been won would have significantly boosted the appearance of the conference. The Big 10 could be stacked 1-10 but if we don't win the nonconf games it's just going to look like everybody is mediocre and the conference lacks any good to great teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgarlitz
I'm referring to games against other top tier teams or highly rated teams. The Big 10 performed poorly out of conference which lowers the ceiling for Big 10 teams as far as RPI numbers go and the general perception of the BT's strength. We lost our 2 biggest games. MSU lost basically all their toughest games. OSU blew it to VA. Wisconsin lost to Creighton and UNC. Michigan lost to UCLA. IU lost to Butler. There are several more examples of games that had they been won would have significantly boosted the appearance of the conference. The Big 10 could be stacked 1-10 but if we don't win the nonconf games it's just going to look like everybody is mediocre and the conference lacks any good to great teams.

That's right the Notee Dame game wasn't a big game at all right?

Lots of teams lose at Yum!
 
That's right the Notee Dame game wasn't a big game at all right?

Lots of teams lose at Yum!
ND was a very nice win but a single win against them when they are a fringe top 25 team isn't going to boost the conference perception. The conference has a couple good wins but not nearly enough to get recognition for it and keep anybody ranked or rated in the top 10. And also in no way did I say they were bad losses for the conference but if you want to be considered the best or near the top then you have to beat the top teams from other conferences. It's fairly simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgarlitz
ND was a very nice win but a single win against them when they are a fringe top 25 team isn't going to boost the conference perception. The conference has a couple good wins but not nearly enough to get recognition for it and keep anybody ranked or rated in the top 10. And also in no way did I say they were bad losses for the conference but if you want to be considered the best or near the top then you have to beat the top teams from other conferences. It's fairly simple.

I think this:

Baylor is no better than MSU
Gonzaga would have 6-7 losses.
Kansas and UNC lost to the 10th place Big 10 team.
Virginia and Purdue would be very hard to watch aesthetically.

Big gets at least 3 maybe 4 to sweet 16. MSU being one of them.

This is why IU needs to quit sucking. When IU and MSU struggle they write off our conference.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT