Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Handy Johnson

Question?

Recommended Posts

If the B1G is "down" how can the 5th place team be playing in the National Title game? I guess "down" is a polite way of saying Indiana, Maryland, & Wisconsin aren't very good so Nebraska can pound sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that the Big Ten is down has nothing to do with the top teams in the league. It's simply because there was no middle of the Big Ten this year. Here's a look at the number of teams each year that were below .500 overall since Nebraska joined the league:

 

2017-2018: 6

2016-2017: 3

2015-2016: 4

2014-2015: 4

2013-2014: 3 (Plus Rutgers in the AAC, so 4 if you count them)

2012-2013: 4 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 5 if you count them)

2011-2012: 2 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 3 if you count them)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shawn Eichorst's Toupee said:

The notion that the Big Ten is down has nothing to do with the top teams in the league. It's simply because there was no middle of the Big Ten this year. Here's a look at the number of teams each year that were below .500 overall since Nebraska joined the league:

 

2017-2018: 6

2016-2017: 3

2015-2016: 4

2014-2015: 4

2013-2014: 3 (Plus Rutgers in the AAC, so 4 if you count them)

2012-2013: 4 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 5 if you count them)

2011-2012: 2 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 3 if you count them)

 

Oh sure, bring facts to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize you can only play the teams that advance but Michigan also benefited from some upsets. They played the #'s 14, 6, 7, 9 & 11 on their way to the championship. And they just got blown out by a #1. I don't think the Big 10 was as bad as lots of people thought and when Villanova makes 3's they are unstoppable. So yes I'm still pissed Nebraska didn't make the tournament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shawn Eichorst's Toupee said:

The notion that the Big Ten is down has nothing to do with the top teams in the league. It's simply because there was no middle of the Big Ten this year. Here's a look at the number of teams each year that were below .500 overall since Nebraska joined the league:

 

2017-2018: 6

2016-2017: 3

2015-2016: 4

2014-2015: 4

2013-2014: 3 (Plus Rutgers in the AAC, so 4 if you count them)

2012-2013: 4 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 5 if you count them)

2011-2012: 2 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 3 if you count them)

 

bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shawn Eichorst's Toupee said:

The notion that the Big Ten is down has nothing to do with the top teams in the league. It's simply because there was no middle of the Big Ten this year. Here's a look at the number of teams each year that were below .500 overall since Nebraska joined the league:

 

2017-2018: 6

2016-2017: 3

2015-2016: 4

2014-2015: 4

2013-2014: 3 (Plus Rutgers in the AAC, so 4 if you count them)

2012-2013: 4 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 5 if you count them)

2011-2012: 2 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 3 if you count them)

 

 

FWIW, here's what it looks like this season:

 

Regular Season: Teams Under 50%

Big Ten: 6 (42% of conference)

ACC: 3 (20%)

Big East: 2 (20%)

Pac-12: 2 (16%)

SEC: 2 (14%)

Big 12: 1 (10%)

 

Conference: Teams Under 50%

Big 12: 5 (50%)

Big Ten: 7 (50%)

SEC: 7 (50%)

Pac-12: 5 (41%)

ACC: 6 (40%)

Big East: 3 (30%)

 

Entire Season: Teams Under 50%

Big Ten: 6 (42%)

ACC: 3 (20%)

Big East: 2 (20%)

Pac-12: 2 (16%)

SEC: 2 (14%)

Big 12: 1 (10%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Handy Johnson said:

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but if the teams I mentioned (Indiana, Maryland, Wisconsin) had our exact same record and schedule, 100% they would have been in.

Still don't buy this narrative. Quad 1 wins was the barometer this year, and at 1-6 we lined up more with the Davidsons & the Tulanes of the world. I don't think this committee would have put Kentucky or Duke in with a 1-6 quad 1 record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Still don't buy this narrative. Quad 1 wins was the barometer this year, and at 1-6 we lined up more with the Davidsons & the Tulanes of the world. I don't think this committee would have put Kentucky or Duke in with a 1-6 quad 1 record. 

 

Creighton was 2-9 in Quad 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Still don't buy this narrative. Quad 1 wins was the barometer this year, and at 1-6 we lined up more with the Davidsons & the Tulanes of the world. I don't think this committee would have put Kentucky or Duke in with a 1-6 quad 1 record. 

And... Alabama had a 2-8 road record. 

 

And... Oklahoma finished the regular season 4-11

 

And... Arizona State finished 8-10 in a freaking conference that went 0-fer in the tournament

 

I could sit here and point out all the negative blemishes on multiple bubble teams that made it in.  That is the problem.  Folks with your thought process completely rule out the negatives of the teams that had no business getting an invite!

 

Does it matter that their lists would be considerably longer? 

 

The problem lies in what they used for criteria, and to be honest it was a complete joke.  At this point it obviously doesn't matter, but I will forever be pissed about how dumb that criteria was.  Nothing you can post will change my opinion!  Just like nothing I post will change yours.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of selection stuff was new this year:

The quad system was new this year;

Valuing early season wins as much as (or more than) late season losses was new this year;

Getting teams into the Tournament (including the Committee Chair's own team) who were <.500 over their last 15 games, with multiple blowout losses in those games, was new this year; and

Omitting a B1G team, whose record got B1G school into the dance for 61 years straight, was new this year.

Edited by Swan88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, big red22 said:

And... Alabama had a 2-8 road record. 

 

And... Oklahoma finished the regular season 4-11

 

And... Arizona State finished 8-10 in a freaking conference that went 0-fer in the tournament

 

I could sit here and point out all the negative blemishes on multiple bubble teams that made it in.  That is the problem.  Folks with your thought process completely rule out the negatives of the teams that had no business getting an invite!

 

Does it matter that their lists would be considerably longer? 

 

The problem lies in what they used for criteria, and to be honest it was a complete joke.  At this point it obviously doesn't matter, but I will forever be pissed about how dumb that criteria was.  Nothing you can post will change my opinion!  Just like nothing I post will change yours.

 

 

I wasn't on the committee?.......just pointing out that there was a strong correlation between who the committee chose and quad 1 wins. I'm not arguing that its the right way to do it, just saying it was obvious that's how it was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, OmahaHusker said:

Villanova played an average game tonight and still wiped Michigan. Fact is Michigan didn't play anyone on their way to the championship. Hell they shouldn't have even gotten past Houston.

 

True, but Michigan probably played their second worst game of the season (behind their loss to us). You see that shooting percentage? Ugly. 

 

An average Michigan versus an average Nova would'e been a pretty good game. Michigan was terrible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

Well that makes me wonder why they weren't closer to the bubble. Didn't realize we had a losing record against quad 2 teams as well, certainly didn't help our cause. I really wish you didn't paste that link, I think the next 4 hours will be spent perusing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HuskerFever said:
22 hours ago, Shawn Eichorst's Toupee said:

The notion that the Big Ten is down has nothing to do with the top teams in the league. It's simply because there was no middle of the Big Ten this year. Here's a look at the number of teams each year that were below .500 overall since Nebraska joined the league:

 

2017-2018: 6

2016-2017: 3

2015-2016: 4

2014-2015: 4

2013-2014: 3 (Plus Rutgers in the AAC, so 4 if you count them)

2012-2013: 4 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 5 if you count them)

2011-2012: 2 (Plus Rutgers in the Big East, so 3 if you count them)

 

 

FWIW, here's what it looks like this season:

 

Regular Season: Teams Under 50%

Big Ten: 6 (42% of conference)

ACC: 3 (20%)

Big East: 2 (20%)

Pac-12: 2 (16%)

SEC: 2 (14%)

Big 12: 1 (10%)

 

Conference: Teams Under 50%

Big 12: 5 (50%)

Big Ten: 7 (50%)

SEC: 7 (50%)

Pac-12: 5 (41%)

ACC: 6 (40%)

Big East: 3 (30%)

 

Entire Season: Teams Under 50%

Big Ten: 6 (42%)

ACC: 3 (20%)

Big East: 2 (20%)

Pac-12: 2 (16%)

SEC: 2 (14%)

Big 12: 1 (10%)

 

I don't know why I dug into this further. It just gets more and more depressing.

 

If you look only at the middle teams in each conference and see how they performed, this is what you get:

 

Regular Season: Middle Teams Under 50%

Big Ten: 1

ACC: 0

Big 12: 0

Big East: 0

SEC: 0

Pac-12: 0

 

Conference: Middle Teams Under 50%

Big 12: 2

Big Ten: 2

SEC: 2

Pac-12: 1

ACC: 1

Big East: 0

 

Entire Season: Middle Teams Under 50%

Big Ten: 1

ACC: 0

Big 12: 0

Big East: 0

SEC: 0

Pac-12: 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Well that makes me wonder why they weren't closer to the bubble

 

Until they beat Villanova they were real close. You also forget they went undefeated vs non-D1 opponents 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Well that makes me wonder why they weren't closer to the bubble.

 

They were actually pretty close. I remember USA Today came out with their final bracket just before the Selection Sunday show and it had Creighton as one of the First Four out. I think they were more of a 10 or 11 seed, but the logistics helped them. The fact that they couldn't play in the Midwest region and couldn't be paired against another Big East team inflated their seeding a bit.

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.

×