ADVERTISEMENT

Why does the big ten keep failing in march?

Whaaat? Iowa always underperforms in the tourney . They got knocked out by a 13 seed last year . They shot their load in the BIG tourney
I said their offensive style is the most tourney ready, didn’t say Fran executes it as well as he could.
 
The league hasn’t been top heavy lately.
Purdue should not have lost to St Peters, but even still the league as a whole last year had some 3 & 4 seeds and then everyone else was in that 7 to 11 range.
2021 Illinois (1 seed) lost to Loyola Chicago in the second round. That’s pretty bad. That was a really good Illinois team that just underperformed.
I think when you look at the B1G, one of the reasons it struggles in the tournament is the conference doesn’t have the basketball equivalent of an OSU, Umich, & PSU that the conference has in football.
The big 12 has had Kansas for the longest time. Acc had Duke, UNC, and Virginia for a long time.
Even the SEC has had Kentucky and now a few others are getting there.
It’s just feels like the B1G hasn’t had the dominant power that gets 5 star players every year. Yes, MSU has been good, but they were never Duke or Kansas.
The B1G just sorta feels like a toss up league lately and I don’t think that translates well in the tournament
 
This is just dumb. Big Ten has a ~8% chance (this is from Bart's model. You can quibble with the exact number.. it won't change the point a lot) at the title this year. Obviously this will be different year to year but missing an 8% shot 22 times in a row is a 16% chance. It's not remarkable in the slightest.
Trying to figure which quote is more appropriate:

“Figures don’t lie but liars do figure”

Or

“Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics”

Fluoxetine uses BART(If life were that simple) to bolster an inherently weak argument that ignores 22 years of failure.

After 22 years, 67 tourney games a year, you can of course argue it’s all random or chance. I wouldn’t be that passive in thinking but that’s just me.

Call me “just dumb” but IMHO the answer is beyond BART, luck, chance and mere statistics.
 
Last edited:
Teams in the big 10 are always over hyped and overrated. It’s a tough conference top to bottom but there’s never a superior team and the style of play doesn’t translate to winning outside the b10
 
Agree with all of the above. League is so uber competitive it grinds you down. Then there are the two elephants in the room. First, officiating is much different and better in the NCAA. Then the other biggie is that the B1G conference tourney is the last to end so the least amount of time to prepare and the least amount of rest…after the most competitive tourney.
Iowa had to win four games in four days and then go play an NCAA tourney with the least amount of rest. Purdue too. Can you really confidently say not a factor??
All of this adds up. It certainly doesn’t help. It’s not all chance or pure variables.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that fans from every conference would say all these same things ("grind", many games, unsuitable and/or poor officiating, etc.) are holding them back.

I think it was just bad luck; many teams got to finals, but none won...
Do believe B1G deeper than most if not all. For example Nebraska beats #7 Creighton at Creighton. 2nd worst team in league?
Granted only the eye test but do believe B1G more physical and plodding then most. Certainly most centers over the years. Garza, Kofi, etc.
Do believe discrepancy between way Officiating is in the B1G and the NCAA is the greatest of any conference.
Do believe having least amount of time to rest and prepare for tourney due to last tourney decided is a factor. Nova, Cuse, and UConn appear to have benefited over the years with tourney final on Saturday?

Parity is so fine that any edge between great teams is significant. As you point out many teams have gone to the finals… but haven’t won. When you haven’t won in 22 years and counting, I don’t think it’s just bad luck. I think it’s something that bears addressing.
 
Last edited:
Had this discussion with some big east friends this week and they brought up some interesting points and curious to hear your opinions.

Their main premise was that the big ten conference as a whole is very long, big, tough and physical teams. And if youre not long big tough and physical youll get bullied in conference play. However once you get to march its more quick, fast and teams that play with pace.

Their points kinda made sense to me. What do you think?

Rings pretty true. Also, significantly less NBA talent in Big 10 compared to SEC and ACC (although KY and Duke account for most of that gap). At bottom, quick and talented guard play seems to dominate the tournament and the Big 10 is lacking in that department.
 
Yet last year it was a battle of the bigs. McCormack v Bacot. Big Man v Big Man
 
As many others have said…the biggest factor variance/bad luck. There isn’t some obvious reason that 7 big team teams can play their way to the Title Game, but suddenly the conference isn’t all that good.

Worst excuse to me is officiating…like, do people not a) look around and see these guys doing games across several conferences throughout the week and b) see the same guys doing our conference games doing the NCAA Tournament games?
 
ADVERTISEMENT