BTW, OSU (West) is currently in the middle of Rutgersing vs. OSU (Central), for anyone who’s stopped watching.
1 Like
Nobody is saying you can’t place more importance personally, as a team, as a fan, or whatever on postseason games. This is obvious and I’d be absolutely shocked at anyone who doesn’t look at it that way. You’re right, everyone is working towards that goal and it really, really sucks to miss out on it. No argument here.
It’s also just not relevant to the point, which is that while it might bias your own reaction more, it’s not statistically more relevant when throwing out takes about how awful the Big Ten actually was.
This article really extrapolates these results to a broader conclusion: Five questions from Illinois' March Madness upset loss to Loyola Chicago
It probably takes things too far, but I’m also inclined to think it isn’t just bad luck that the conference hasn’t won a title since 2000.
1 Like
But these things are not statistically equivalent.
To suggest that the Big Ten is lacking top-tier players is… absolutely absurd. Just look at the All-America teams.
1 Like
Do you also think playoff performance is just a crapshoot? As a Yankees fan, pretty much all most of us care about is can you perform in the PS. I don’t think RS stats and PS stats are fungible. They’re different.
1 Like
I’m not really sure exactly what his thesis is, even though he’s a pretty well respected national CBB writer.
1 Like
There isn’t enough high-level talent in the league. Not consistently, at least. That means you can put together great teams, but you’ll go 20 years (Michigan State won the Big Ten’s most recent national title in 2000) without cutting down the nets.
He then attempts to prove this by pointing to NBA draft picks, but those are a terrible proxy for postseason success in college basketball, because the NBA drafts on a completely different set of criteria. Cade Cunningham may be the best NBA prospect in the country, but that doesn’t somehow make the Big XII a great conference.
1 Like
You know, you guys can feel free to have your takes. You can place more statistic importance on this segment of the season to objectively rank conference ability. It’s up to you. I can’t stop it lol. Your opinions are your opinions and you’re not going to change them.
Just don’t act like it’s some haha “F you Kenpom nerds” moment like you were above. Because if you’re actually a statistician, you know that’s BS. Mirman, this is not directed towards you. Have a good night.
Yeah, I agree that pro potential is not a great translation and then you have Izzo with a Jaren Jackson and whatnot. I do think Big Ten teams that have lost in the FF have tended to be less talented than the teams they’ve lost to, though. Like even that Duke team vs Wisconsin - there was a pretty big raw talent disparity.
Forget what I said lol - just saw your edit, my bad.
1 Like
It’s even more idiotic to go off of postseason stats in baseball.
I think there was more raw talent on the '13 Michigan team than the Louisville team. Also, if (a) the referees could count fouls on Luke Hancock or (b) they could recognize a block when they saw one, we might not be having this conversation. (That team, though, is admittedly the exception). (Edit: brain fart; I know better. 
)
I know there’s this school of thought, I just really disagree with it. 
I definitely agree that the 2013 game is not a good example of a disparity. Therefore, it is fitting to note that we were robbed 
1 Like
I thought for a minute that Oregon St was going to Rutgers away this lead.
1 Like
To be fair, at this point in the Rutgers game, Rutgers had not yet begun Rutgersing.
1 Like
I’m terrible at multi focusing, so I missed Oregon State re-extending the lead. My heart is not in this game, Rutgers ripped it out already.
In 15 years when, Rutgers has won their 5th straight NCAA Title under Lord Emperor Pikiell, us true believers are all going to look back and laugh at the non-believers who use terms like “Rutgersing”, like we do now with the term “Clemsoning” in football.
6 Likes
It is known.
1 Like