Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jimmykc

Big Ten + Bile

Recommended Posts

Last night's picks still made my oatmeal hard to digest this morning so permit me this little screed and perhaps I'll feel better. First, let me congratulate Mr. Loonardi with a special nod toward his toupee. He was right and it appears that he and his ilk who have never touched a basketball not made of Nerf material have it figured out. This is how the game is played now and putting the pieces of a team together and building toward a peak at tournament time is no longer a viable paradigm. Who you play is now more important than how you play. So their made-up jobs are safe as long as the NCAA doesn't open the tourney to everyone and ban the league tournaments. Secondly, while I realize the economic and academic reasons for making the move, as a fan of the "major" sports of basketball and football, I wish we had stayed in the Big 12 where we were one of the originals. Certainly we would be in the NCAA tourney today if we had still been there. Water under the bridge, but we will always be considered a "stepchild" in the Big Ten (and I even consider Penn State in the same category). We should be grateful for our Volleyball and Bowling successes and not expect anything else. I have to wonder if the league might have kicked up more of a fuss if the team with our exact credentials would have been Indiana, Wisconsin, or The Ohio State University. Actually, I do feel a bit better now, but the only thing which would really cheer me up would be winning the NIT. With the virtually insurmountable seed we have inherited, I fear this will not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jimmykc said:

Last night's picks still made my oatmeal hard to digest this morning so permit me this little screed and perhaps I'll feel better. First, let me congratulate Mr. Loonardi with a special nod toward his toupee. He was right and it appears that he and his ilk who have never touched a basketball not made of Nerf material have it figured out. This is how the game is played now and putting the pieces of a team together and building toward a peak at tournament time is no longer a viable paradigm. Who you play is now more important than how you play. So their made-up jobs are safe as long as the NCAA doesn't open the tourney to everyone and ban the league tournaments. Secondly, while I realize the economic and academic reasons for making the move, as a fan of the "major" sports of basketball and football, I wish we had stayed in the Big 12 where we were one of the originals. Certainly we would be in the NCAA tourney today if we had still been there. Water under the bridge, but we will always be considered a "stepchild" in the Big Ten (and I even consider Penn State in the same category). We should be grateful for our Volleyball and Bowling successes and not expect anything else. I have to wonder if the league might have kicked up more of a fuss if the team with our exact credentials would have been Indiana, Wisconsin, or The Ohio State University. Actually, I do feel a bit better now, but the only thing which would really cheer me up would be winning the NIT. With the virtually insurmountable seed we have inherited, I fear this will not happen.

SPOT-ON, we are relegated to 2nd class citizen status in this Conference, and the nauseating degree of fawning over at the BTN regarding THE Ohio St and Michigan makes me weep for the sound of Jay Randolf's voice. I'm proud to say I own a degree from a legendary Big 8 institution and not some watered down, bastardized, hodge podge  of schools we belong to now.

Edited by Handy Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to an analyst on the CBS Sports HQ app (don't know who it was). He was asked why only four team made it into the Dance. He didn't mention Nebraska, but he said that the conference had only four bids is because the following teams weren't as good as expected: Northwestern, Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland and Wisconsin. The implication was, of course, that it was Nebraska — and to some extent, Penn State — who was good, and thus easier to overlook. He wasn't dissing Nebraska, because he then went on to say the Big Ten was a really good conference, and that he wouldn't be surprised to see two conference teams in the Final Four. At the same time, he said he didn't expect any Big 12 teams in the Final Four.

 

We've speculated that Nebraska's lack of historical basketball success had to play at least an unconscious role in our NCAA non-selection and eventual bizarre NIT seeding. I'm beginning to think that argument has some merit. It certainly didn't churn anyone's butter on BTN that we're not in. And while Beilein and Painter both noted that more Big Ten teams should have been in, they weren't adamant. (And they weren't Adam Ant.)

 

Edited by jayschool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jimmykc said:

Last night's picks still made my oatmeal hard to digest this morning so permit me this little screed and perhaps I'll feel better. First, let me congratulate Mr. Loonardi with a special nod toward his toupee. He was right and it appears that he and his ilk who have never touched a basketball not made of Nerf material have it figured out. This is how the game is played now and putting the pieces of a team together and building toward a peak at tournament time is no longer a viable paradigm. Who you play is now more important than how you play. So their made-up jobs are safe as long as the NCAA doesn't open the tourney to everyone and ban the league tournaments. Secondly, while I realize the economic and academic reasons for making the move, as a fan of the "major" sports of basketball and football, I wish we had stayed in the Big 12 where we were one of the originals. Certainly we would be in the NCAA tourney today if we had still been there. Water under the bridge, but we will always be considered a "stepchild" in the Big Ten (and I even consider Penn State in the same category). We should be grateful for our Volleyball and Bowling successes and not expect anything else. I have to wonder if the league might have kicked up more of a fuss if the team with our exact credentials would have been Indiana, Wisconsin, or The Ohio State University. Actually, I do feel a bit better now, but the only thing which would really cheer me up would be winning the NIT. With the virtually insurmountable seed we have inherited, I fear this will not happen.

I have a friend who teaches at IU in Bloomington. She said she considers Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers as "adjunct" Big Ten universities. (I just realized, after hearing this and my friend at KU — who said that the NCAA experience is overblown and we should just concentrate on making an NIT run — that I need better friends.)

Edited by jayschool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jimmykc said:

 I wish we had stayed in the Big 12 where we were one of the originals.

 

Last Friday I did a trade show at the Clink (still trying to get the smell off me), and a buyer from Kansas came up to my booth.  Asked what I had, I said, "Let's talk important things first.  KU or K-State?"  He replied, "KU, of course."  So we had a 5 minute discussion on all things college sports.  He asked how NU was doing in the B1G, and I said alright.  He then tells me NU and MU made a mistake leaving the Big 12.  I said that I understand that argument but Texas really sucks and pretty much forced our hand.  He understood, but really missed the old rivalries.  I said, "Me too."

 

The reason I share this discussion is we were never a part of the Big 12.  We were a huge part of the Big 8.  The other 7 members of the Big 8 abandoned us when negotiations to form the Big 12 happened.  We didn't fit with Texas.  We don't fit with Delaney. 

 

So jimmy, I wish the "originals" had stayed with us. 

Edited by cipsucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

OK,  then let's lace up our bowling shoes and settle the question of who rightfully belongs in this league once and for all... on the lanes.

Our Rifle team will kick their backsides too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jayschool said:

I have a friend who teaches at IU in Bloomington. She said she considers Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers as "adjunct" Big Ten universities. (I just realized, after hearing this and my friend at KU — who said that the NCAA experience is overblown and we should just concentrate on making an NIT run — that I need better friends.)

 

WE WILL ALWAYS BE YOUR FRIEND JAYSCHOOL.B)

Edited by Silverbacked1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jayschool said:

I have a friend who teaches at IU in Bloomington. She said she considers Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers as "adjunct" Big Ten universities. (I just realized, after hearing this and my friend at KU — who said that the NCAA experience is overblown and we should just concentrate on making an NIT run — that I need better friends.)

BTN feels the same way about the three schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jayschool said:

I was listening to an analyst on the CBS Sports HQ app (don't know who it was). He was asked why only four team made it into the Dance. He didn't mention Nebraska, but he said that the conference had only four bids is because the following teams weren't as good as expected: Northwestern, Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland and Wisconsin. The implication was, of course, that it was Nebraska — and to some extent, Penn State — who was good, and thus easier to overlook. He wasn't dissing Nebraska, because he then went on to say the Big Ten was a really good conference, and that he wouldn't be surprised to see two conference teams in the Final Four. At the same time, he said he didn't expect any Big 12 teams in the Final Four.

 

We've speculated that Nebraska's lack of historical basketball success had to play at least an unconscious role in our NCAA non-selection and eventual bizarre NIT seeding. I'm beginning to think that argument has some merit. It certainly didn't churn anyone's butter on BTN that we're not in. And while Beilein and Painter both noted that more Big Ten teams should have been in, they weren't adamant. (And they weren't Adam Ant.)

 

 

Came across the Vegas conference win totals for the tourney today.  Thought it was pretty interesting.  I'll just list these  6 conferences:

 

ACC (9 teams) - over 14 (-110)

                             under 14 (-110)

 

SEC (8 teams) - over 8.5 (-110)

                             under 8.5 (-110)

 

Big East (7 teams) -  over 8.5 (-120)

                                     under 8.5 (+100)

 

Big 12 ( 7 teams) - over 8.5 (-110)

                                  under 8.5 (-110)

 

Big 10 (4 teams) - over 8 (-130)

                                 under 8 (+110)

 

Pac 12 (3 teams) - over 3 (-110)

                                  under 3 (-110)

 

So the 4 teams from the Big 10 are supposed to win virtually the same amount of games as the mighty SEC and Big 12 with half as many teams?  That should tell you all you need to know about the strength of those 2 conferences. 

 

Said this in another thread but you can't tell me the drop off from the 4th to 5th best team in the Big 10 is equivalent of the distance between a 5 seed in the dance and a 4 or 5 seed in the NIT. 

 

It appears both us and Penn St were fighting some name bias due to not being "basketball" schools.  I can understand the arguments for neither team making the tourney but they should be seeded higher in the NIT.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tjp21 said:

 

Came across the Vegas conference win totals for the tourney today.  Thought it was pretty interesting.  I'll just list these  6 conferences:

 

ACC (9 teams) - over 14 (-110)

                             under 14 (-110)

 

SEC (8 teams) - over 8.5 (-110)

                             under 8.5 (-110)

 

Big East (7 teams) -  over 8.5 (-120)

                                     under 8.5 (+100)

 

Big 12 ( 7 teams) - over 8.5 (-110)

                                  under 8.5 (-110)

 

Big 10 (4 teams) - over 8 (-130)

                                 under 8 (+110)

 

Pac 12 (3 teams) - over 3 (-110)

                                  under 3 (-110)

 

So the 4 teams from the Big 10 are supposed to win virtually the same amount of games as the mighty SEC and Big 12 with half as many teams?  That should tell you all you need to know about the strength of those 2 conferences. 

 

Said this in another thread but you can't tell me the drop off from the 4th to 5th best team in the Big 10 is equivalent of the distance between a 5 seed in the dance and a 4 or 5 seed in the NIT. 

 

It appears both us and Penn St were fighting some name bias due to not being "basketball" schools.  I can understand the arguments for neither team making the tourney but they should be seeded higher in the NIT.

 

 

 

The Big Ten was very top heavy this year.   There is no bias.   It has nothing to do with the names on the jerseys.   It has everything to do with the names on the win columns on the resumes.   The two most prolific OOC wins by Nebraska and Penn State are Boston College (12th team in the ACC) and Pittsburgh (dead last in the ACC).   That's pathetic.   

 

Now we did a great job of winning the games we should.   But that wasn't a part of the criteria (see also St Marys and USC and MTSU) but that's not bias.   Whether it should have been part of the criteria is the argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nustudent said:

The Big Ten was very top heavy this year.   There is no bias.   It has nothing to do with the names on the jerseys.   It has everything to do with the names on the win columns on the resumes.   The two most prolific OOC wins by Nebraska and Penn State are Boston College (12th team in the ACC) and Pittsburgh (dead last in the ACC).   That's pathetic.   

 

Now we did a great job of winning the games we should.   But that wasn't a part of the criteria (see also St Marys and USC and MTSU) but that's not bias.   Whether it should have been part of the criteria is the argument

Agreed.  The application of the criteria was not wrong, though you could certainly argue OSU and USC.  It's this new quadrant metric system in it's current form that I have a problem with.  The de-emphasis on losing is astounding.  One win over a quality opponent negates, what, 3 losses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Red: Thanks for the video! Doesn't get much better in America than the Cohen Bros, Jeff Bridges, Kenny Rogers, and bowling all in one package. A more positive start to the day than yesterday. I might even decide to amend my prediction for tomorrow's game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jimmykc said:

Mr. Red: Thanks for the video! Doesn't get much better in America than the Cohen Bros, Jeff Bridges, Kenny Rogers, and bowling all in one package. A more positive start to the day than yesterday. I might even decide to amend my prediction for tomorrow's game.

At may age, it's a positive start today day when I wake up and am on the right side of the grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jayschool said:

I have a friend who teaches at IU in Bloomington. She said she considers Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers as "adjunct" Big Ten universities. (I just realized, after hearing this and my friend at KU — who said that the NCAA experience is overblown and we should just concentrate on making an NIT run — that I need better friends.)

 

Remind your Hoosier friend that Nebrasketball is 5-4 against Indiana in Big Ten hoops. And NU is 1-0 in football, too. 'Adjunct' that up the wazoo, IU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nustudent said:

The Big Ten was very top heavy this year.   There is no bias.   It has nothing to do with the names on the jerseys.   It has everything to do with the names on the win columns on the resumes.   The two most prolific OOC wins by Nebraska and Penn State are Boston College (12th team in the ACC) and Pittsburgh (dead last in the ACC).   That's pathetic.   

 

Now we did a great job of winning the games we should.   But that wasn't a part of the criteria (see also St Marys and USC and MTSU) but that's not bias.   Whether it should have been part of the criteria is the argument

 

I wasn't using the bias statement to explain why we didn't get in. I can certainly see the argument for why we didn't get a bid. Where I feel like our name affected things was when the discussion of the league came in. I live outside the Big 10 footprint, so I don't get a lot of Big 10 talk on my local radio or in the paper. Around here pundits were always quick to say the Big 10 wasn't any good. If you have 4 teams who are seeded on the 5 line or better, you don't have a bad league. My argument is that part of the reason it's easy for people to discredit the league is because they see that Nebraska and Penn St were in the 5th/6th spots. 

 

If it was say Indiana and Maryland who finished 5th and 6th I don't think people would be so quick to discredit the league.  I also don't think Indiana or Maryland get a 5 seed in the NIT if they put up the season we did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, tjp21 said:

 

I wasn't using the bias statement to explain why we didn't get in. I can certainly see the argument for why we didn't get a bid. Where I feel like our name affected things was when the discussion of the league came in. I live outside the Big 10 footprint, so I don't get a lot of Big 10 talk on my local radio or in the paper. Around here pundits were always quick to say the Big 10 wasn't any good. If you have 4 teams who are seeded on the 5 line or better, you don't have a bad league. My argument is that part of the reason it's easy for people to discredit the league is because they see that Nebraska and Penn St were in the 5th/6th spots. 

 

If it was say Indiana and Maryland who finished 5th and 6th I don't think people would be so quick to discredit the league.  I also don't think Indiana or Maryland get a 5 seed in the NIT if they put up the season we did. 

I could buy this take if the stats didn't show the Big 10 was weak.   There's no bias in stating the Big 10 had 7 100+ RPI teams.    There's no bias in stating the Big 10 only had 2 51-100 ranked RPI teams.   The Big 10's non-con results are biased.   They are just really weak.   

If the Big 10 had a strong non-con with a bunch of good wins and people were saying the Big 10 was bad, I could buy it.   But that wasn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The metric (RPI) that determines who is strong and weak is what is flawed.  The numbers aren't flawed because that is what the committee uses.  The metric is what is flawed.  According to everyone the Big 10 was weak.  Their thinking wasn't flawed if they were using the numbers that are used in College Basketball.  The metric is what is flawed and needs changed.

 

I 100% agree that the Big 10 was not as weak as everyone says.  But the numbers said otherwise.  Those flawed numbers screwed us over, but that is what they use and we (Big 10) didn't do a very good job of exploiting that.

Edited by hskr4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

The metric (RPI) that determines who is strong and weak is what is flawed.  The numbers aren't flawed because that is what the committee uses.  The metric is what is flawed.  According to everyone the Big 10 was weak.  Their thinking wasn't flawed if they were using the numbers that are used in College Basketball.  The metric is what is flawed and needs changed.

 

I 100% agree that the Big 10 was not as weak as everyone says.  But the numbers said otherwise.  Those flawed numbers screwed us over, but that is what they use and we (Big 10) didn't do a very good job of exploiting that.

 

Sadly though, BPI and SOR had the Big Ten at #5 and Pac-12 at #6. Even if you just account for the top half of the teams.

Edited by HuskerFever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

The metric (RPI) that determines who is strong and weak is what is flawed.  The numbers aren't flawed because that is what the committee uses.  The metric is what is flawed.  According to everyone the Big 10 was weak.  Their thinking wasn't flawed if they were using the numbers that are used in College Basketball.  The metric is what is flawed and needs changed.

 

I 100% agree that the Big 10 was not as weak as everyone says.  But the numbers said otherwise.  Those flawed numbers screwed us over, but that is what they use and we (Big 10) didn't do a very good job of exploiting that.

The RPI can certainly use some revamping....

But the Big 10 went 21-32 against other major competition (ACC/Big East/Big 12/SEC/Pac12).   And mixed in a number of losses to low/mid majors (some quality, some not).  And of those 21 wins, only 10 of them were over teams that are in the tournament.

That is not a metric that is flawed.    This is why our RPI was what it was and why the opinion of the Big 10 was bad.   Perception was bad because it matched the performance.

The Big 10 may not have been as bad as what everyone says it was.   The issue is/was...the Big 10's (as a conference on the whole) on court performance, only supports the negative opinions.

 

And I think everyone, even the Big 10 detractors, that the top 4 (Michigan as the 4th) is legit.   Of those 21 wins, 10 of them are by the top 4 teams.  The bottom 10 teams combined to go 13-26.   That's why the Big 10's middle and lower pack isn't getting any love.

 

Edited by nustudent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

The metric (RPI) that determines who is strong and weak is what is flawed.  The numbers aren't flawed because that is what the committee uses.  The metric is what is flawed.  According to everyone the Big 10 was weak.  Their thinking wasn't flawed if they were using the numbers that are used in College Basketball.  The metric is what is flawed and needs changed.

 

I 100% agree that the Big 10 was not as weak as everyone says.  But the numbers said otherwise.  Those flawed numbers screwed us over, but that is what they use and we (Big 10) didn't do a very good job of exploiting that.

According to the other metrics outside of the RPI

 

# of Top 100 teams per conference

 

Massey Rating System: (9) 6 teams in the Top 50 and 3 more in the Top100 - Nebraska 37

Team Rankings: (N/A) Site information is gone, they had 10 teams from the Big 10 in the Top 100 last I checked - Nebraska 63

Kenpom: (11) 6 teams in the Top 50 and 5 more in the Top 100 - Nebraska 57

BPI: (12) 6 teams in the Top 50 and 6 more in the Top 100 - Nebraska 63

SOR:  (10) 5 teams in the Top 50 and 5 more in the Top 100 - Nebraska 31

 

You know what!  I am sick of proving how shitty the RPI is.  You are a 1000% correct,and it should be tossed out the window next year!

 

Edited by big red22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, nustudent said:

The RPI can certainly use some revamping....

But the Big 10 went 21-32 against other major competition (ACC/Big East/Big 12/SEC/Pac12).   And mixed in a number of losses to low/mid majors (some quality, some not).  And of those 21 wins, only 10 of them were over teams that are in the tournament.

That is not a metric that is flawed.    This is why our RPI was what it was and why the opinion of the Big 10 was bad.   Perception was bad because it matched the performance.

The Big 10 may not have been as bad as what everyone says it was.   The issue is/was...the Big 10's (as a conference on the whole) on court performance, only supports the negative opinions.

 

And I think everyone, even the Big 10 detractors, that the top 4 (Michigan as the 4th) is legit.   Of those 21 wins, 10 of them are by the top 4 teams.  The bottom 10 teams combined to go 13-26.   That's why the Big 10's middle and lower pack isn't getting any love.

 

I get that this is what is used and it's wrong.  How many of those Big 10 lose those non-conference games later in the year.  No way with lose to UCF and most likely St John's.  Hell I bet we beat that school in Omaha later in the year.  Point is teams get better as the year goes on.  Using nothing but metrics you get OU who was tanking it at the end in the tournament.  System needs fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×