|
|
Post by UHaveCardinalNv on Mar 20, 2022 20:35:53 GMT -6
So the Big 10 gets 9! teams into the field of 72 tournament but, with Purdue playing now and a 50/50 chance of losing to Texas, the most they will have in the Sweet 16 is Michigan (and maybe Purdue)? The tournament selection process needs to change. Change my mind. Big 10 - one mens NCAA national championship since 1990 (Michigan State - 2000). |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 20, 2022 22:23:48 GMT -6
2 surprise losses this year, maybe. 1 surprise winner. The other B10 teams were not seeded that highly.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 21, 2022 6:31:31 GMT -6
SEC lost 5 of 6 teams.
Good tourney for B12.
|
|
|
|
Post by chirpchirpcards on Mar 21, 2022 7:49:34 GMT -6
So the Big 10 gets 9! teams into the field of 72 tournament but, with Purdue playing now and a 50/50 chance of losing to Texas, the most they will have in the Sweet 16 is Michigan (and maybe Purdue)? The tournament selection process needs to change. Change my mind. Where are you getting field of 72 from? By the sweet 16, over 75% of the field is gone, were you expecting all 9 teams to make it? I just don't understand this complaint. The conference breakdown of the Sweet 16 WCC - 1 SEC - 1 Big 12 - 3 ACC - 3 Pac 12 - 2 AAC - 1 Big 10 - 2 Big East - 2 MAAC - 1 No conference has more than 3 teams, and there are 9 total conferences represented. What change do you need to see in the selection process? And who of those teams that missed the tournament for a lower seeded Big 10 team would have made a better run? Dayton? Who lost to 17-16 Vanderbilt in the NIT? 13 loss Xavier? 24-6 North Texas who lost to 13 loss Virginia? 25-7 Belmont who lost to the same 16 loss Vanderbilt? 68 teams is a LOT, and trying to seed them is near impossible. Is the Big 10 overrated? Yeah, probably, but I still don't know what change exactly you want? |
|
|
|
Post by UHaveCardinalNv on Mar 21, 2022 9:58:07 GMT -6
Yes I meant 68 not 72, my fault.
What I would like to see changed is less focus on the Big 10 teams and more focus on allowing mid-level teams from other conferences the chance to make a run.
|
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Mar 21, 2022 10:24:29 GMT -6
While I agree 9 teams was too many for the Big 10 at least they won a few games.
Mountain West got four teams in. A 6 seed, two 8 seeds, and a 12. Not one won a game. The 6 and two 8 seeds each played a lower seed and lost. The 12 was in the play in round and played an equal seed.
I personally would like to see no at-large bids for teams with a losing conference record. Prepare yourself for the barrage of penalizing a team for playing in a tough conference comments. I just don't agree with doing that. Plus the teams in the Big 10 tournament that are already assured of playing in the NCAA Tournament do not play with the urgency a team in a one bid league does. Some seem to tank on purpose. Indiana would not have been as successful in the Big 10 Tournament if only the champion got an NCAA Tournament bid. Those wins give a false impression of their how worthy they were to be in the NCAA Tournament.
Eliminating Indiana from the tournament would still leave the Big 10 with 8 bids. All those teams had respectable regular season records outside of conference. IU is really the only one I have a problem with.
Indiana won a play in game then got blistered in the First Round. Contributed to the Big 10's large monetary haul from getting 9 teams in the tournament. Money should have gone elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by UHaveCardinalNv on Mar 25, 2022 19:29:29 GMT -6
No Big 10 teams in Elite 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Mar 26, 2022 10:30:00 GMT -6
No Big 10 teams in Elite 8. Yeah. They should've qualified 10 or 12 teams. So unjust. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Mar 26, 2022 15:04:16 GMT -6
So now the Elite 8 is 3 ACC teams, and one each from the Big 12, Big East, AAC, SEC and MAAC.
And if the seeds guaranteed a lock, only three of those would be there: Kansas, Duke and Villanova. Everyone else was considered an underdog to make it this far.
The Big 10 went 9-9, but they certainly had disappointments (Wisconsin and Iowa the most prominent probably) and of course Purdue ran into this year's Cinderella. Probably should have won but Kentucky probably should have beat St. Peter's, too. Illinois, a 5 seed, lost to Houston, a 4 seed and Elite 8 member. Not exactly an embarrassing upset.
I guess you can argue whether IU deserved to be in at all, but IU did what the selection committee thought it would do, maybe better: As a 12 seed, it beat a team it was judged to be equal to and lost to a team it was judged to be much worse than.
I do think the Big 10 and other major conferences get quite a benefit by just being members of those leagues. Because the conference is so highly regarded, there are so many games where you have the potential to improve your standing and you can still lose quite a bit without those being considered bad loses. Compare that to the MAC where there are very few opportunities for good wins and a lot of opportunities for bad loses.
Big 10 teams can build a good tournament resume just playing in conference; MAC teams cannot. MAC teams need to schedule very well outside of the conference, which can be hard to do especially with teams from the big conferences, and they need to be damn near flawless in league play. I'm not sure how to fix that and in most cases I would agree with it. I mean if Toledo loses to Ball State, I'm going to view that more harshly than I am if IU loses to Michigan.
I think the only way to fix it is to give mid-majors a better chance to build a tournament resume. Since the Big Boys aren't goin to give them that chance, it's got to be a full conference effort for leagues like the MAC to upgrade their programs, but it's a really steep climb. And it'll take years and a commitment level that probably doesn't exist, at least in the MAC.
|
|
