Not much respect. Not necessarily in number of teams but the alignment. Three teams (and three of the top 4) in one region and none in another region? Then again, an 11-7 OSU does not get in but a couple 9-9 teams from the PAC 12 get in (including 19-12 Oregon State and USC) and I believe they are represented in every region.
Sure seems BIG got screwed.
- Thread starter hdhntr1
- Start date
Agree. I think something went on behind the scenes to crap on the Big 10. But realistically, the only Big 10 team who can make the Final 4 is MSU.
Here is just one example: The Big 10 beat the ACC head to head in the regular season, yet the second place ACC team gets a 1 seed and the first place Big 10 team doesn't? Huh??? UVA is really good, but they didn't beat UNC, a team who only beat the 9th best Big 10 team by 11 on a neutral floor......
MSU should have been a 1. IU and PU should have gotten the 4's that Iowa St and Cal received. Iowa State lost 11 games and most of their meaningful games in the last 6 wks. UK should be a 3. This committee wanted IU vs UK in that 2nd round for tv no matter what.
Not only did we lack the usual National Championship contender, but our conference also had some really, really nasty-bad teams like Rutgers. Even Michigan and Ohio State crapped the bed compared to recent results.
if we are honest, the big ten has 5 poor teams, including us. Not a knock against us because we are an up and comer team. But osu gets blown out monstrously by good teams. Sorta how our football team beat all the suck teams, plus the occassional upset, but got crucified and exploited by the really good teams. I think that was osu problem.
You mean like a 1-17 Washington State in the PAC? How about an 0-18 BC and 2-16 Wake Forest in the ACC? I could go on but what is the point? Most conferences have a brutal team or two. MSU ranked 2 and wins the championship and gets a 2. IU and PU should probably been 3 seeds rather than the dreaded 5-12 matchups. PU was ranked 13 and won a couple to get into the finals game and gets a 5? IU wins the conference, ranked #10 and gets a 5? 3 of the top 4 in one region and none in one region? It was a hatchet job pure and simple and it cost us as well.
Last edited:
I think the Big Ten got the proper amount of teams in, I just think a few of them are under-seeded (MSU, Indiana, and Purdue are probably a seed too low). I also question the amount of love the ACC, and especially the Pac 12 got. I'm very anxious to see how the Pac 12 does. Oregon a 1 seed? Oregon State a 7? Colorado and USC 8 seeds? Oregon State could barely do anything away from home when they played Power 5 competition and lost at home to Valparaiso (a team the committee left out). And the ACC got a little more love than they should have in my opinion too. Virginia has the resume of a clear 2- as someone pointed out, they didn't win the regular season conference crown or the tournament. Syracuse should not have gotten in, and I think a few of their other teams are seeded a little high.
The bracket is never perfect, but it appears more flawed than usual this year. I think the Big 10 got a tiny bit of disrespect on seeding, but I have bigger issues with the respect some of these other conferences got. I truly think mid-major teams like St. Bonaventure, Valparaiso, and St. Mary's should have gotten in over a few of these other major conference teams that got in (Syracuse, Oregon State, USC, etc.).
The BIG could have gotten one more in (What was the last time an 11 win BIG team did not get in) but 7 is not terrible. But the seedings were bad and showed no respect.. Plus putting three teams in one region and none in another is pretty much a screw job. I mean 2,3,2,0? Come on. Did any other conference with 5-7 bids get screwed this way? They stacked the deck. Then getting only one team in the NIT? Compare that to all the ACC and PAC love.
Ohio State is actually the first Big Ten team to have 11 wins in conference and not make it in. That being said, you look at their resume, and it is not impressive. I agree with them not getting in.
They have two good looking wins- Kentucky and Iowa both at home. That win over Kentucky was early in the season when they were not nearly as good as they are now, and they played Iowa when Iowa was at their lowest point of the season. They caught both of those teams at the best times possible. Their best win besides that? A home win against Michigan. Their best win after that is at NU (seriously). They beat up on the bottom of the Big Ten more than anyone. In their seven games against the top four teams in the conference (three against MSU, two against Maryland, one against Indiana, one against Purdue), they went 0-7 with an average loss margin of 20 points. For comparison, we got man-handled by the top four teams in conference (luckily only playing those four teams a total of five times) and only lost by an average of 18.5 points.
They had their chances in conference to get good wins and couldn't even compete. Throw in three losses OOC to Louisiana Tech, Memphis, and UT-Arlington...and you can see how an 11 win conference team didn't make it in.
You don't think Michigan State is a contender for the National Championship. The #2 ranked team in the country. What season have you been watching. I actually think Maryland and Purdue have a good chance to get to the final four.
The problem is that PU is in the same region as MSU PU should have been in the West.
I did not have as much of a problem with the OSU slight as I did with the seeding. And with teh NIT Creighton gets in but NU doesn't? What did they do to earn a spot? And Marquette out? Sorry bu selections don't make much sense
Similar threads
