The ACC hasn’t been a top conference in years
The Big Ten was a mediocre conference again WHY
- Thread starter longtimer
- Start date
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Izzo and Bo Ryan for sure.
Someone mentioned earlier the geographical advantage the B1G has with Chicago, Detroit Milwaukee and others in its own back yard.
I dont think these metros produce the amount of talent they once did. The Rust Belt feasted when postwar and baby boom families migrated north to follow the jobs, and the basketball talent feasted accordingly. Now the jobs aren't what they once were, and those who stay in the Midwest are hooked up to a national village of AAU ball, basketball academy schools, etc. Elite talent spends their summers playing all over the country and are exposed to other programs at an earlier age. And their peers are just a Twitter or Instagram away.
teachercoach
Well-Known Member
While 20 conference games is good for BTN & Fox Sports, the beating up on each other, does knock teams down a seed or two. Big10 had an a large number of 7-10 seeds. Bump everyone up 1-2 seed lines and higher probability of more tourney wins.
Candice Parker made a good point that the Big10 is the only league left where an Eddy, Dickinson, Baracha, Krowl - still exist. Big men who aren't perimeter threats and aren't dynamic roll men on pick & rolls. When a couple of teams recruit these guys if forces all other league teams to recruit guys like them to guard them. The Big East, some SEC are either pick & pop 3pt shooters or athletic dunkers on rolls to the rim. Until Big 10 adjusts, they'll have several teams make the tourney, but tough match ups once there.
Candice Parker made a good point that the Big10 is the only league left where an Eddy, Dickinson, Baracha, Krowl - still exist. Big men who aren't perimeter threats and aren't dynamic roll men on pick & rolls. When a couple of teams recruit these guys if forces all other league teams to recruit guys like them to guard them. The Big East, some SEC are either pick & pop 3pt shooters or athletic dunkers on rolls to the rim. Until Big 10 adjusts, they'll have several teams make the tourney, but tough match ups once there.
Does it really matter?? The B1G is adding teams and the plan is to keep adding teams. If you can't beat them invite them in. 
NCAA basketball in 25 years is just gonna be the B1G as it will have brought in the best teams from the power conferences. They will probably grab Gonzaga as well. Getting ready for a Duke/Kansas B1G championship game cause it's comin'.
NCAA basketball in 25 years is just gonna be the B1G as it will have brought in the best teams from the power conferences. They will probably grab Gonzaga as well. Getting ready for a Duke/Kansas B1G championship game cause it's comin'.I think teams centered around dominant post players can still work. But you gotta have the guards to go with them. Tourny play when you're playing against unfamiliar opponents turns into a guards game. You want your big guy to not allow for driving lanes and rebound the crap out of hte ball more then anything. Purdue not being able to keep guards in front of them and then in turn not be able to handle the pressure from FDUs guards was their downfall. The difference in that game was Purdues TOs. The rest of the game was pretty even. That said why should a 1 seeded team be even with a 16 to begin with?....
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I definitely think 20+ years absence from a title means you look at everything from top to bottom.
I think they need to look at the 20 game season. Is this working? It doesn't appear to be. I think it's working for getting more teams in every year, but often times it appears to be at the expense of seeding. The B1G was seeded to do poorly in this B1G, meaning, most were the worst seed in their head to head matchup. Does the conference season hurt our seeding?
I think they need to think about moving up their conference championship game so it doesn't end on Sunday.
This year #1 seed Purdue, B1G conference champs - Lost in the first round of the NCAA
Last years #5 seed Iowa, B1G conference champs - Lost in the first round of the NCAA
2 years ago #1 seed, IL, B1G conference champs - Lost their 2nd game
Lastly, I think they need to look at officiating. It does not appear that games in the NCAA tournament are called anywhere on the same planet as the B1G regular season. Figure that out, recycle some refs, bring new blood in and figure out why that is.
I think they need to look at the 20 game season. Is this working? It doesn't appear to be. I think it's working for getting more teams in every year, but often times it appears to be at the expense of seeding. The B1G was seeded to do poorly in this B1G, meaning, most were the worst seed in their head to head matchup. Does the conference season hurt our seeding?
I think they need to think about moving up their conference championship game so it doesn't end on Sunday.
This year #1 seed Purdue, B1G conference champs - Lost in the first round of the NCAA
Last years #5 seed Iowa, B1G conference champs - Lost in the first round of the NCAA
2 years ago #1 seed, IL, B1G conference champs - Lost their 2nd game
Lastly, I think they need to look at officiating. It does not appear that games in the NCAA tournament are called anywhere on the same planet as the B1G regular season. Figure that out, recycle some refs, bring new blood in and figure out why that is.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Used to be the reason given was the Big was too physical and couldn't adjust. Then it was no tourney.
The ACC has dropped with no K or NC. Izzo only one left from Big. Coaching is a part of it.
It seems a conference without a top dog has a bunch of medium dogs in the fight. Purdue certainly wasn't a top dog late. Purdue when you really look at them is a well coached team getting the most of their guys. They are not particularly athletic.
Iowa for sure isn't athletic. The game plan is a gimmick. OSU is athletic and young. MSU is athletic and messing a few parts. Maryland looked physically no where near Bama. NW and PSU seem very well coached but missing a bit athletically. IU isn't a complete team as exploited by Iowa. Illinois is on the verge of being good or a hot mess and it isn't clear which way it will go...lot's of turnover. Mich is a medium hot mess. Nebby just can't get over the hump.
Bottom line is the Big doesn't have the horses and it's really apparent. The Big doesn't have the big man play and they don't have the Pt Guard play. Iowa sans Murray looks like a smaller city AAU team with mostly good kids and honor-roll students that every team needs a few of, but not your team mostly being of.
I do think that PM getting about the same playing time as Murray 1 and then more than Murray 2 and both Murrays "developing waiting period" has led to a lack of team unity and not necessarily from the Murray's. In otherwords.... the local club teams' coaches kid getting favoritism. It's human nature.
The ACC has dropped with no K or NC. Izzo only one left from Big. Coaching is a part of it.
It seems a conference without a top dog has a bunch of medium dogs in the fight. Purdue certainly wasn't a top dog late. Purdue when you really look at them is a well coached team getting the most of their guys. They are not particularly athletic.
Iowa for sure isn't athletic. The game plan is a gimmick. OSU is athletic and young. MSU is athletic and messing a few parts. Maryland looked physically no where near Bama. NW and PSU seem very well coached but missing a bit athletically. IU isn't a complete team as exploited by Iowa. Illinois is on the verge of being good or a hot mess and it isn't clear which way it will go...lot's of turnover. Mich is a medium hot mess. Nebby just can't get over the hump.
Bottom line is the Big doesn't have the horses and it's really apparent. The Big doesn't have the big man play and they don't have the Pt Guard play. Iowa sans Murray looks like a smaller city AAU team with mostly good kids and honor-roll students that every team needs a few of, but not your team mostly being of.
I do think that PM getting about the same playing time as Murray 1 and then more than Murray 2 and both Murrays "developing waiting period" has led to a lack of team unity and not necessarily from the Murray's. In otherwords.... the local club teams' coaches kid getting favoritism. It's human nature.
Dadman
Well-Known Member
Pretty simple really- watching the B1G games during the year, all have fundamental flaws. Been that way for years. Watching the NCAA tourney, there are just better all around teams out there. B1G is over rated as a conference, and while Purdue was slightly better than the pack in the middle, it wasn't by much.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
I agree man. We as fans always think the BIG is a juggernaut, because that is where our favorites teams play. Is not the case. It has been overrated in my eyes. I agree that there is a lot of parity, mediocre parity.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
The Big Ten and college hoops in general has a ton of parity now. The mid majors are throwing everything into hoops. Furthermore, this AAU stuff and year round play has made it so there are a bunch of really, really good players, but of course there are very few elite players. The crazy thing is you go watch Furman play the regional teams in the southeast and by the end of the year those teams, which would probably go well under .500 in the Big Ten, are completely capable of beating pretty much any Big Ten team if they have a decent shooting night.
Someone at my office was saying the other day that Furman may need to come up with a million bucks a year for their coach after one tournament win and no one is batting an eye about them getting the necessary donations. These schools know that two wins in the tournament is a godsend for recruiting the general student body. It's also a godsend if they land a future NBA star. One of my colleagues went to Davidson and he heard that as of a couple years ago almost a quarter of their applications mentioned Steph Curry.
We as Iowa fans get grumpy when we suck in the tournament, but for many of these smaller schools the tournament is viewed as a path forward to getting out of an existential crisis. The higher ed model in the US is simply not sustainable and a bunch of schools are going to close, but the P5 schools ain't going anywhere. But schools like Bradley, Furman, Drake, Wofford, Valparaiso, etc. would sell their soul and give their left nut to get the exposure that Loyola Chicago got with its miracle run a few years ago. It completely changes the trajectory of the school. And the coaches at the smaller schools are all vying to be the next Coach K or Calipari. They'll grind 10x harder than Brad Underwood or Fran or Juwan Howard to grab that next rung on the ladder.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
And another point with these teams (mid majors) is that they are often senior or veteran laden. They have players that stick around and have experience instead of bolting early. This has provided them to be more competitive in the tournament, which explains their success over the past decade plus. These teams often run a system with veterans and the coaches coach them to play pretty good defense.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Definitely. Even an absolute freak like Ja Morant or Zion Williamson can only do so much when you have a team starting five guys who are 22 who have played together for 2 or 3 solid years. And the elite guys probably don't really give a shit if they lose. "Oh no, we lost, welp, I have a meeting with my agent and I have to figure out what shoe deal to sign..." There's way more shared sacrifice and chemistry with the dudes potentially playing their last ever game.
