The BIG TEN - 2 in the Final Four

[Former Wildcat]

I would not argue that the Big 10 was the best conference. However, I think the top 3 teams in the Big 10 were better than those from any other conference. If you don't believe me, look at the figures below.

The overall pre-tournament records of the top 3 teams in each conference are as follows:

Big 10 (Illinois, Wisky, MSU): 76-15

ACC (Duke, UNC, Wake): 78-14

Big East (UConn, Cuse, BC): 73 - 17

Big 12 (KU, OU, OSU): 71 - 19

SEC (UK, UF, Bama): 72 - 19

Pac 10 (Zona, Wash, Stan): 72 - 23

ConfUSA (Louisville, Charlotte, Cincy): 74 - 18

However, here are the seedings for these teams:

Big 10: 1, 5, 6

ACC: 1, 1, 2

Big East: 2, 4, 5

Big 12: 2, 3, 3

SEC: 2, 4, 5

Pac 10: 1, 3, 8

Conf USA: 4, 7, 7

Yet, here are the tournament records for those teams:

Big 10: 11-1

ACC: 7-2

Big East: 2-3

Big 12: 3-3

SEC: 4-3

Pac 10: 5-3

Conf USA: 5-3

Here is the bottom line. The top teams in the Big 10 had the second best regular season and the best postseason. Since, the postseason matters more than the regular season, the Big 10's top 3 must be put ahead of the ACC's top 3. The ACC was better top to bottom, but their top 3 were all vastly overrated and showed it in the tournament. The Big 10's top 3 were vastly underseeded despite their records. They proved in the tournament that they were the best.

[AUSTIN_22:22]

congratulations

[El-Moldo]

How can you compare leagues without going from top to bottom? You're giving stats for only 3/11ths of the Big Ten. What's that, about 27%. Look, you can do anything with statistics. Do the top 5 teams in each conference, for example, and the Big Ten only has 4 teams in the Tournament. Three teams from each conference is not enough of a sample to draw any conclusions!!

[bison1]

so your argument is that the big 10 featured the top 3 competitors in this years post season. I'm not sure I agree...


Let's take a look at the road your all powerful big 10 basketball trio took to get their combined 11-1 record...

Wisconsin beats:

#11 N. Iowa
#14 Bucknell
#7 NC St

and then lost to a #1


Illinois beats:

#16 Farleigh Dickinson
#12 Wisconsin-Milwaukee
#3 Arizona



Michigan State beats:

#12 Old Dominion
#13 Vermont
#1 Duke
#2 Kentucky

Michigan state far and away is the only team to prove they came to play this tournament and they still got to take advantage of one big upset by playing vermont.

The bottom line is, say what you want about big 10 basketball but it wasn't the best conference this year, nor did it feature the best trio in college basketball.


If you want to just compare stats that fit your defense then i would like to argue which conference featured the best 7th seed in the post season. I believe it was the Big East with WVU coming out of no where and making it to the elite 8. The big 10's regular season 7th seed was iowa, racking up zero tournament wins. :roll:

[count2infinity]

I love the Big 10 just as much as the next person...but bison 1 has a point...

Say you're an independant college and you're considering joining a conference. Which one would you rather join for basketball? I wouldn't want to touch the ACC! Lots of good teams from top to bottom.

[Former Wildcat]

I am not arguing that the Big 10 is better top to bottom, but I do believe that the top 3 are every bit as good as the top 3 in any conference. I am specifically comparing them with the ACC because I heard all year from Vitale, Bilas and others about how great the top 3 in the ACC were. If you want to look at overall records, there is very little difference between the two. If you want to look at the tournament, the thing that matters most in college basketball, then the Big 10 definitely outperformed the ACC. Also, the Big 10 may have taken advantage of some upsets, but at least they won games.

In the ACC:

Wake lost to WVU (the 8th seed in the Big East tourney)

Duke beat Deleware State, struggled past Miss. State (a 9 seed), and then was beaten by Mich State.

UNC has beaten Iowa State (a 8 or 9 seed), Villinova (who was a 5 seed and missing their best player), and Wisconsin (underseeded at 6).

The highest seed these have beaten is a #5. The top 3 in the Big Ten beat a #1, #2, and #3.

There is no argument here. The ACC is overrated - as usual.

[BisonBlue07]

[quote="Former Wildcat";p="86902"]The highest seed these have beaten is a #5. The top 3 in the Big Ten beat a #1, #2, and #3.[/quote]

How can the ACC teams beat a #1 #2 or a #3 seed when they take up most of them? Is it their fault that the committee gave them higher seeds?? I don't know how you can say that the ACC was overrated and too highly ranked when, I'll even use your stats, their top 3 teams had a better record then any other conference going into the tournament.

[quote="Former Wildcat";p="86350"]
ACC (Duke, UNC, Wake) 78-14
[/quote]

[count2infinity]

another point that needs to be made is going into the tourny, did you have any problems with the way they were seeded? I looked down through and i thought that it looked pretty good. As did most people...I don't think the ACC was overrated i just think that they didn't perform when they needed to. I think that Michigan St. and wisconsin were underrated. I had (along with most analyst) Michigan St. losing in the first round to Old Dominion. They were really surprising this tourny. Any team (when it gets to the second round & most of the time in the first) can beat the other team. It's just a matter of doing it and the big 10 teams did.