Big Ten Tournament

[Chisoxfn]

First off, knocking off Northern Iowa isn't a "big" win. Secondly, you have to look at a team's body of work...and a majority of that body of work is a mediocre big 10 record, plain and simple. The big 10 is quite possibly the worst major conference this year and not being able to go .500 in it shows me something.

 

I still think Pierce's absence is going to play a major role in them getting a bid. There are plenty of teams that have just as good of, if not a little better resumes than Iowa. I really think they need a win tommorow, but with their AD (Iowa that is) being part of the selection committee (maybe the head guy, i'm not sure) I'm betting they'll get slipped in which is horses***.

 

I understand you're pulling for Iowa, but I can't look past that big 10 record. It's friggin' atrocious. So, in a logical world they would probably have to win tommorow to be a lock, but in reality they're probably in because they big 10 always has some sort of pull.

Middle of the pack in the big 10...yes, but they have more big wins then any bubble team. Show me one team on the bubble when all is set and done with the resume the Hawkeyes have in terms of quality wins.

 

You also knock the Big 10 and well frankly the B-10 has the best team in the conference. Iowa played them better then any team in the country twice (minus OSU who got the win) and thats 2 losses. Then you have 2 losses to MSU and Wisconsin, both good clubs. Thats 6 losses right there, besides that you have Michigan, NU, and Purdue (all bad losses, but the Purdue loss was right after they lost Pierce) and then a loss to OSU (a tourney bound team if they weren't barred this year).

 

And on a sidenote, no way your gonna tell me that the Big 10 is worse then the Pac 10 this year. Pac 10 is 2 deep with Arizona and Washington.

 

I'm a homer sure, but I'm as unbiased as a fan of my team can get.

 

And ya, the tourney is insane. I went a few years and lucked out and got to see the Hawkeyes play as well as the Zags and Uconn (the year they won with RIP and Khalim) and it was a total insane blast.

[Fotop]

I might buy that the Pac-10 is worse, but they're pretty similar. Two really good teams (U of I/MSU, Arizona/Washington), a few teams that can be erratic (Iowa, UCLA for example), and the rest pretty bad. Wisconsin may give the Big 10 the edge, but I haven't watched enough Pac-10 ball to make a defense for it.

 

EDIT: Also, if you follow conference RPIs (which are bulls***), the Pac-10 was like #2 at one point. But I don't buy it, however the big 10 is pretty balls.

Edited March 12, 2005 by Fotop

[WHarris1]

Illinois, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa vs. Arizona, Washington, and UCLA

 

You decide

Edited March 12, 2005 by WHarris1

[Chisoxfn]

I might buy that the Pac-10 is worse, but they're pretty similar. Two really good teams (U of I/MSU, Arizona/Washington), a few teams that can be erratic (Iowa, UCLA for example), and the rest pretty bad. Wisconsin may give the Big 10 the edge, but I haven't watched enough Pac-10 ball to make a defense for it.

Please, UCLA is crap. And Washington is solid...but they aren't a MSU, Washington is closer to Wisconsin.

 

There is a reason Big 10 will get 5 teams in.

 

And as someone that is a Pac 10 guy, along with a Big 10 guy, I'd tell you straight up that the Pac 10 is awful. Hell, I tend to think Arizona is overrated as well and I know UCLA doesn't deserve any bid. USC, ASU, Washington State, Stanford, Cal are all god awful this year.

 

UCLA is probably in that Michigan mold if I were to say. Actually they are better than that, I'd say IU range just a notch below Iowa.

[Fotop]

Don't forget ASU, pretty much a bubble team until they s*** the bed. Ike Diogu is a friggin' monster. And once you start talking about the Minnesotas and Iowas of the world I think they'd be 50/50 with the 2nd tier in the Pac-10.

 

But like I said, I don't watch lower tier Pac-10 ball so I can't be so sure...I'm just trying to say that the Big 10 is nothing the write home about. And I hate to bring this up, but their track record in the NCAA speaks volumes of their "quality." (the big 10 that is)

[Chisoxfn]

On a sidenote, I'm not saying that the Big 10 is as good as the Big East. I was also really dissapointed in the way the Irish played. They had some big wins but man did they have some major losses as well.

 

All they need was one loss and they would of been in. Heck, Iowa would probably still need a win if it weren't for the other bubble teams taking a major dive, I won't deny that.

 

However, Maryland, UCLA, IU, Notre Dame, and maybe even ISU all opened up the door for Iowa. And then Iowa made sure the door was left open by defeating Purdue with ease and then pulling out the game against MSU.

 

There will be absolutely zero doubt about it if they beat Wisconsin.

[Gene Honda Civic]

First off, knocking off Northern Iowa isn't a "big" win. Secondly, you have to look at a team's body of work...and a majority of that body of work is a mediocre big 10 record, plain and simple. The big 10 is quite possibly the worst major conference this year and not being able to go .500 in it shows me something.

 

I still think Pierce's absence is going to play a major role in them getting a bid. There are plenty of teams that have just as good of, if not a little better resumes than Iowa. I really think they need a win tommorow, but with their AD (Iowa that is) being part of the selection committee (maybe the head guy, i'm not sure) I'm betting they'll get slipped in which is horses***.

 

I understand you're pulling for Iowa, but I can't look past that big 10 record. It's friggin' atrocious. So, in a logical world they would probably have to win tommorow to be a lock, but in reality they're probably in because they big 10 always has some sort of pull.

 

And for those of you who say the big 10 tourney is intense, have you been to any round of the NCAA tourney? I went my freshman year when ND knocked off Illinois and it was the greatest sporting event I've ever attended. I went both days and saw all the games in the pool, and it was loud and crazy ALL DAY. The atmosphere at the NCAA is unmatched, IMO...it's ridiculous.

 

TWO teams in the NCAA have more victories over the RPI top 50. ONLY TWO!!! Illinois and Kansas. That's pretty exclusive company.

 

Hate all you want, but they've got the resume of a tourney team. As much as I hate to see them save Alford's job, it appears that it has.

[Fotop]

Arizona could be lethal in the NCAA, Jason...don't sell them so short. Salim can carry them in a one and done situation and Channing Frye is actually turning into a decent player.

 

I wouldn't say ASU and Stanford are "god awful" especially when Stanford's a lock for the NCAA. I also disagree about UCLA...the talent is def there, Affalo and Farmar are good freshman and Thompson can score. But hey, this is coming from a guy who sees teams on paper and expects them to perform (cough*ND*cough) so I cut some slack for teams with some pure talent. May be my fault, but potentially, it's there.

[Chisoxfn]

Don't forget ASU, pretty much a bubble team until they s*** the bed. Ike Diogu is a friggin' monster. And once you start talking about the Minnesotas and Iowas of the world I think they'd be 50/50 with the 2nd tier in the Pac-10.

 

But like I said, I don't watch lower tier Pac-10 ball so I can't be so sure...I'm just trying to say that the Big 10 is nothing the write home about. And I hate to bring this up, but their track record in the NCAA speaks volumes of their "quality." (the big 10 that is)

Illinois is the best team in the country. MSU is as good as any other 3 seed in the country and could probably give it to most 2 seeds on a good night. Wisconsin couldn't.

 

Iowa, Minnesota, and probably IU would all be light years ahead of UCLA.

 

Pac 10...may get 3 teams in and thats soley because historically they are a good basketball conference (UCLA, UW, and UA). Big 10 has 4 in for sure and then Iowa should go. Plus OSU would go if it weren't for probation and until the latest choke job you'd consider IU as well.

 

Thats a lot more depth, imo. However when it comes to pure bottom feeders, Purdue and Penn State were pretty god awful. So was USC in the pac 10.

[Chisoxfn]

Arizona could be lethal in the NCAA, Jason...don't sell them so short. Salim can carry them in a one and done situation and Channing Frye is actually turning into a decent player.

 

I wouldn't say ASU and Stanford are "god awful" especially when Stanford's a lock for the NCAA. I also disagree about UCLA...the talent is def there, Affalo and Farmar are good freshman and Thompson can score. But hey, this is coming from a guy who sees teams on paper and expects them to perform (cough*ND*cough) so I cut some slack for teams with some pure talent. May be my fault, but potentially, it's there.

UCLA has had talent for a few years....thats why its just gotten old with them. My fault on Stanford I guess. The few games I saw they were atrocious. I was thinking UCLA was the 3rd best team in the pac 10 but I haven't looked at records in a while.

 

The big thing with Arizona is they tend to play down to there competition and I don't like that, because if thats the case all it takes is the other team getting hot and they are gone.

 

I'm a Lute Olsen fan though.

[Chisoxfn]

TWO teams in the NCAA have more victories over the RPI top 50. ONLY TWO!!! Illinois and Kansas.  That's pretty exclusive company.

 

Hate all you want, but they've got the resume of a tourney team. As much as I hate to see them save Alford's job, it appears that it has.

Maybe the whole Pierce thing will be a major wake up call, because I gotta say, I absolutely love the way this team has responded from the incident and even more I love the fact that they will all be back, minus Brownlee.

 

Horner and Bruner will have a major vet precense and then Haluska is a freaking stud and I'm diggin Henderson...Good lord did he play huge today. Hansen great defensive center in the Big 10, has to keep out of foul trouble though and hell even Alex Thompson played good today.

[Fotop]

On a sidenote, I'm not saying that the Big 10 is as good as the Big East.  I was also really dissapointed in the way the Irish played.  They had some big wins but man did they have some major losses as well.

 

All they need was one loss and they would of been in.  Heck, Iowa would probably still need a win if it weren't for the other bubble teams taking a major dive, I won't deny that. 

 

However, Maryland, UCLA, IU, Notre Dame, and maybe even ISU all opened up the door for Iowa.  And then Iowa made sure the door was left open by defeating Purdue with ease and then pulling out the game against MSU. 

 

There will be absolutely zero doubt about it if they beat Wisconsin.

 

I wasn't going to compare the Big 10 to the Big East because I figured everyone here isn't stupid enough to think the Big 10 can hold a candle to the Big East. I'm holding out on my last glimmer of hope, just as a fan, that the Irish get in so I get something to cheer for (I only have one year left here after this year so I want to see us at least with some shots before I leave). I've said it a ton though, I don't think the team deserves it...if they did they would have played hard to get that last f'n win.

 

And I'm 100% aware that Iowa will be in, I think the AD is going to play a huge role. It's just a damn shame because there are better teams out there, that may or may not be punished by a late loss, IMO.

 

EDIT: By 'better' I'm not talking records, I'm just talking talent...I really can't get past this whole Pierce thing, especially since there isn't a large enough sample size to gauge how good the team is without him.

Edited March 12, 2005 by Fotop

[Chisoxfn]

I wasn't going to compare the Big 10 to the Big East because I figured everyone here isn't stupid enough to think the Big 10 can hold a candle to the Big East. I'm holding out on my last glimmer of hope, just as a fan, that the Irish get in so I get something to cheer for (I only have one year left here after this year so I want to see us at least with some shots before I leave). I've said it a ton though, I don't think the team deserves it...if they did they would have played hard to get that last f'n win.

 

And I'm 100% aware that Iowa will be in, I think the AD is going to play a huge role. It's just a damn shame because there are better teams out there, that may or may not be punished by a late loss, IMO.

On a sidenote, I just took a note and maybe I'm wrong but are you sure Stanford is a lock? Because most people have UCLA rated ahead of Stanford and I know UCLA is a bubble team. But I could be wrong.

 

On a sidenote, If I underrate a team it would be Washington.

 

And I don't want to hear that stuff that Iowa gets in because of the AD, more wins against RPI 50 or better teams like gene pointd out. Big wins talk and Iowa has more then any bubble team. Thats what will get them in.

 

The thing is, Pierce wnet out and Henderson came right in and has played fantastic. Plus Haluska gets more minutes and the Hawkeyes have a lot of talent. On a sidenote, ya there are definately more talented teams on the bubble, but talent doesn't get you in, wins do.

[Fotop]

I understand that talent doesn't get you in, see florida the past 5 years for a prime example of wasted talent. I think the problem here stems from my hatred for conference tournaments.

 

Think about it...Iowa was basically DOA this time last week...they win two games (one against a s***house purdue team, obviously the other being huge), and everyone is so hyped up. Conference tournaments magnify wins and losses so much, and people forget about everything up until then. I mean just listening to these people on tv and it's like their bi-polar. One min they love a team, the other the hate them, etc.

 

Basically, Conference tournaments to me are pretty worthless, but that's a whole other argument in itself...I'm just trying to show you where I'm coming from with all of this. Built up Conference tournament hatred.

[WHarris1]

Losing to a Rutgers or a Clemson can make you hated pretty damn fast.

[Chisoxfn]

Its all good fotop. Its good debate and I just hope Iowa gets in and proves everyone wrong and wins a few games.

 

Personally I like the tourneys because they add a ton of excitement and they give the chance for a potential cinderella story. And best of all, good teams step up, imo. And if your not in by the time the tourney comes its your fault if you falter in the tourney and don't get yourself in. Thats just the way I see it.

 

Of course there are also tons of reasons why tourneys are bad, namely when a team wins there conference and is awesome but plays in a crappy conference and then loses the conference tourney and doesn't get the bid.

[Rowand44]

On a sidenote, I just took a note and maybe I'm wrong but are you sure Stanford is a lock?  Because most people have UCLA rated ahead of Stanford and I know UCLA is a bubble team.  But I could be wrong. 

 

On a sidenote, If I underrate a team it would be Washington. 

 

And I don't want to hear that stuff that Iowa gets in because of the AD, more wins against RPI 50 or better teams like gene pointd out.  Big wins talk and Iowa has more then any bubble team.  Thats what will get them in.

 

The thing is, Pierce wnet out and Henderson came right in and has played fantastic.  Plus Haluska gets more minutes and the Hawkeyes have a lot of talent.  On a sidenote, ya there are definately more talented teams on the bubble, but talent doesn't get you in, wins do.

Stanford and UCLA are both in imo. I think they're both pretty much locks even though I guess you can call UCLA a bubble team but I think they're pretty much in but that's jmo. I'd say Stanford is rated better then UCLA because they advanced further in their tourney and also Stanford beat UCLA twice. Stanford has a better SOS while UCLA is one spot better in the rpi(which probably means nothing this year). IMO, Stanford is rated higher then UCLA right now.

[Fotop]

Losing to a Rutgers or a Clemson can make you hated pretty damn fast.

 

 

Well sure you can say that, but losing to those teams two months ago doesn't mean as much because of the emphasis on Conference tournaments. I mean come on, Maryland was a friggin' virtual lock with losing to Clemson TWICE....but they lose the third time in the tournament and they're DEAD.

 

ND has no bad losses all year (you could say Michigan, but we lost to Michigan on the road before they lost everyone) and they lose to Rutgers and everyone wigs out. It's Rutgers last run...they know they won't get in the tournament, and playing a team that has that kind of motivation you kinda have to throw records out the window.

 

I'm not trying to excuse losing to them, we deserved to lose that game, but really...this conference tournament s*** is overblown for many reasons.

[Fotop]

Its all good fotop.  Its good debate and I just hope Iowa gets in and proves everyone wrong and wins a few games. 

 

Personally I like the tourneys because they add a ton of excitement and they give the chance for a potential cinderella story.  And best of all, good teams step up, imo.  And if your not in by the time the tourney comes its your fault if you falter in the tourney and don't get yourself in.  Thats just the way I see it.

 

Of course there are also tons of reasons why tourneys are bad, namely when a team wins there conference and is awesome but plays in a crappy conference and then loses the conference tourney and doesn't get the bid.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm loving the ability to actually talk about this constructively...I live in the Chicago-Area (on spring break right now) and to actually have an educated discussion about the Big 10 is like a god-send.

 

Usually the discussion is, tEh BiG 10 roxorz@@!!!1 And then I go, No I think the Big East is better for reasons A, B, and C. Repsonse: the BiG EAST SUX!!111

 

So yes, this is nice.

 

Anyways, I love watching conference tournaments as well but I just think they've gotten to the point where people are overvaluing the games played in them. I completely agree with you about being a lock before the tournament so you don't set yourself up...believe me I was at the ND/PITT game before the BET and I was so pissed that we couldn't beat them on our home court to be a lock.

 

To me though, conference tournaments = money/media horses. They build up all this hype, not to mention all the revenue created, even though they may not have the substance. By substance I mean it's still one game. It's not worth two....yet some make it out like it is.

[IlliniKrush]

And for those of you who say the big 10 tourney is intense, have you been to any round of the NCAA tourney? I went my freshman year when ND knocked off Illinois and it was the greatest sporting event I've ever attended. I went both days and saw all the games in the pool, and it was loud and crazy ALL DAY. The atmosphere at the NCAA is unmatched, IMO...it's ridiculous.

 

 

Totally agree.

 

The Big Ten tournament is a day in the park compared to the NCAA tournament. I was at that same game Fotop, and i was also in Columbus last year and in Atlanta when we lost to Duke. Way better atmosphere compared to the laid back big ten tournament.

[WHarris1]

Big Ten Tournament is not laid back, probably compared to the NCAA yes, but the atmosphere at the BTT is still awesome.

This is my 3rd BTT and yesterday was the most laid back I have ever seen, I guess that's what happens when you have two games where the teams cruise.

Edited March 12, 2005 by WHarris1

[IlliniKrush]

Harris i did mean in comparison to the NCAAs. To be honest, a home game at Assembly hall against a good opponent beats the BTT as well.

[WHarris1]

Well the problem is 40 year old men aren't quite as rowdy as students.

 

I dunno it's a different atmosphere and I like it.

With the different pockets of fans all around the stadium.

Edited March 12, 2005 by WHarris1

[WHarris1]

I would like to say Seth Davis is the worst college bball analyst I have ever heard in my entire life.

Edited March 12, 2005 by WHarris1

[Rowand44]

I would like to say Seth Davis is the worst college bball analyst I have ever heard in my entire life.

I was about to tell you why Seth Green was the worst college bball analyst you've ever heard.