- May 3, 2016
Indiana is 12-11 and people still have them as comfortably in at this point. I don’t see it
I know it's easy to say this, but since 2001—a year after Michigan State won the last NCAA for the conference— they've tied the ACC for most Final Four participants (14) and are second in title game appearances (7 vs. 9 for the ACC). They also have had the most different teams appear in the finals (6) over that time. As a conference, they certainly aren't underperforming...and if I went a year back, they get a title and pass the ACC on Final Four appearances. And if I go two years back, that gap widens.
2001: Michigan State, Final Four
2002: Indiana, Runner-up
2005: Illinois, Runner-up
2005: Michigan State, Final Four
2007: Ohio State, Runner-up
2009: Michigan State, Runner-up
2010: Michigan State, Final Four
2012: Ohio State, Final Four
2013: Michigan, Runner-up
2014: Wisconsin, Runner-up
2015: Wisconsin, Runner-up
2015: Michigan State, Final Four
2018: Michigan, Runner-up
2019: Michigan State, Final Four
14 Final Four Teams, 6 different title game participants in 7 appearances (0 titles)
2001: Duke, Champion
2001: Maryland, Final Four
2002: Maryland, Champion
2004: Georgia Tech, Runner-up
2004: Duke, Final Four
2005: North Carolina, Champion
2008: North Carolina, Final Four
2009: North Carolina, Champion
2010: Duke, Champion
2015: Duke, Champion
2016: North Carolina, Runner-up
2016: Syracuse, Final Four
2017: North Carolina, Champion
2019: Virginia, Champion
14 Final Four teams, 5 different title game participants in 9 appearances (8 titles)
2002: Kansas, Final Four
2002: Oklahoma, Final Four
2003: Kansas, Runner-up
2004: Oklahoma State, Final Four
2008: Kansas, Champion
2012: Kansas, Runner-up
2016: Oklahoma, Final Four
2018: Kansas, Final Four
2019: Texas Tech, Runner-up
9 Final Four teams, 2 different title game participants in 3 appearances (1 title)
2001: Arizona, Runner-up
2006: UCLA, Runner-up
2007: UCLA, Final Four
2008: UCLA, Final Four
2017: Oregon, Final Four
5 Final Four teams, 2 different title game participants in 2 appearances (0 titles)
2003: Syracuse, Champion
2004: UConn, Champion
2007: Georgetown, Final Four
2009: UConn, Final Four
2009: Villanova, Final Four
2010: West Virginia, Final Four
2011: UConn, Champion
2012: Louisville, Final Four
2013: Louisville, Champion
2013: Syracuse, Final Four
2016: Villanova, Champion
2018: Villanova, Champion
12 Final Four teams, 4 different title game participants in 6 appearances (6 titles)
2006: Florida, Champion
2006: LSU: Final Four
2007: Florida, Champion
2011: Kentucky, Final Four
2012: Kentucky, Champion
2014: Kentucky, Runner-up
2014: Florida, Final Four
2015: Kentucky, Final Four
2017: South Carolina, Final Four
2019: Auburn, Final Four
10 Final Four teams, 2 different title game participants in 4 appearances (3 titles)
Not picking (only) on you specifically, but this statement is all bluster when it comes to college basketball. Every year, the best team is far more likely to not win the tournament than it is to win it. So, when it comes to objectively evaluating the past performance of a team or conference, a championship should only be counted as marginally better than a finals appearance, which is only marginally better than a Final 4 appearance, etc.I prefer championships over participation trophies. But that's just me.
I think you are badly underestimating just how difficult it is to win it all. You need 3 things.nice resume for an historic bunch of losers. downright 'back in the day' buffalo bills super bowl choke artist level. im sure that their moms are proud, tho. pretty funny how big 10 gets the 'they're all giants, country farmboy dominators' label, equivalent to 'them eastern city kids, they all streetwise gangsta ballin', in your face, unguardable beasts.' and don't forget those kali/west coast surfer dudes with their supposed high flyin, scoring machine tags. all 3 labels -ridiculous.
until proven otherwise, im sticking with 'big 10- a decades long chokers festival of hype,' cuz, ya know, that's what their record sez.
aaaaaannnnnnddddd, here's the list of benificiaries of big ten hype. check out the ones since their last natty. count me as unimpressed.
Big Ten Conference Players Drafted in the NBA - RealGM
I hope someone does a rigorous study of this topic. It could be fascinating to learn how results from this crowdless season compare to those of a "normal" season as it pertains to home-court advantage. For example, if it turns out that road teams fared equally or worse relative to a normal season, it would raise the question if crowds matter at all (to the game outcome). Regardless of the results of such studies, it would definitely be interesting.
Interesting. The findings of that study align with a study I heard described on the Freakonomics podcast. The study found that crowds had no influence on the teams, but they have a statistically significant affect on the referees. Even more interestingly (in my opinion), the physical proximity of the crowd was measurably correlated to the magnitude of the effect on the referees. In other words, a team with a stadium that has more space between the playing field and the crowd enjoyed less of a home-field advantage that a team with a more compact stadium. I wonder if this contributes to the perceived homerism that Duke enjoys at Cameron Indoor.There have already been some preliminary analyses that basically home/away doesn't exist this year in CBB. I'm sure a big part of it are studies such as these that suggest no crowds benefits away teams when it comes to refereeing and getting less calls against them than normal
Causal effects of an absent crowd on performances and refereeing decisions during Covid-19
'You need 3 things.I think you are badly underestimating just how difficult it is to win it all. You need 3 things.
2. You need to play well all the time. In the 1-done format an off day, a key injury, can mean the end of the line. 2006 UConn is exhibit A. Talent out the ears. Didn’t click one day and it was a disaster.
3. Coaching. There is a reason why so few coaches have multiple titles. But there are also some excellent coaches who never quite get over the hump. Which brings us to #4
4. You need to have some luck or at least get some breaks or the right karma or whatever you want to call it. Donyell Marshall was one of the best free throw shooter in the country. He missed and UConn lost. On the other hand Brimah a 50% free throw shooter makes his in 2014 and it’s off to the races. Or the 1998 team gets UNC in what is basically a home game for them. Fast forward and 2014 gets Iowa State and Michigan State in what is essentially home games for us. Sometimes it is somebody else screws up and your path opens or closes. 1995 UConn had a terrific team. I thought they had only 1 team that scared me. UCLA and they were losing in the sweet 16. Then Edny goes coast to coast to score the winner at the buzzer. We have to play them in the Elite 8 and lose. Luck, karma whatever you want to call it teams seldom win without it.
Even the teams with more than 4 championships are total losers too!Not picking (only) on you specifically, but this statement is all bluster when it comes to college basketball. Every year, the best team is far more likely to not win the tournament than it is to win it. So, when it comes to objectively evaluating the past performance of a team or conference, a championship should only be counted as marginally better than a finals appearance, which is only marginally better than a Final 4 appearance, etc.
That said, as a UConn fan, I totally agree with you. Anyone with fewer than 4 championships is a total loser!
Yup exactly, I’m afraid of this too. There just aren’t enough OOC games this year to accurately measure how good teams really are. Every analyst has a raging h**d on for the B10 when in reality we aren’t even sure how good Michigan and OSU are vs the field.
rather than proving the big10 is overrated because its second and third best teams can lose to garbage MSU in back to back games, this will be ignorantly spun into MSU being a dark horse and the BIG10 getting TWELVE teams into the tourney
this is an interesting link. they have us ranked #19 on the road warrior list. now, that's a resume builder. my 'ranking methodology' has three data inputs: overall record, sos, and road record. also, an optional essay input for 'bbut, bbut' if there is an hugely significant factor not accurately reflected in those 3 categories, only to be used rarely as once u start the 'bbut bbut'
I suspect they will have 2 week 2 teams left by 16. With occasional viewing samples, I really don’t think Big10 teams play like the BE, ACC and B12. The SEC is closer in style but much more quick and physical. Interestingly, the “standard” Hurley shoot late in the clock and hold scoring down would play right into the hands of a Michigan, Illinois or Iowa.Yup exactly, I’m afraid of this too. There just aren’t enough OOC games this year to accurately measure how good teams really are. Every analyst has a raging h**d on for the B10 when in reality we aren’t even sure how good Michigan and OSU are vs the field.