Big XII vs. Big 10

[tm3308]

The irony of YOU calling anyone else an idiot is the real story of this post.

In reality, and I can't expect you to understand, is there is a huge difference between saying Iowa State would have a better record in football playing Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota every year, and iola fan trying to prop up their pathetic existence by coat tailing the three good teams in their league.

It's like Steve Martin in Roxanne saying that even though the other guy slept with Darryl Hanna, since he used his words to get her there. It was like he slept with her too.

1. He didn't call anyone an idiot, if you bother to read his post carefully.

2. Huge difference? Seems a lot more nuanced than obvious, if you ask me. Big 12 football had OU, Baylor and OSU carrying the torch. After that, there were a three decent teams (Texas, KSU and TT) and four terrible ones. (ISU, WVU, TCU and KU). The B1G had MSU and OSU at the top, with three above average teams (Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin), two more that were pretty average but had decent records (Minnesota and PSU) and the rest were varying degrees of bad, except for Purdue, which was downright awful.

The Big 12 was better, but the SOS argument that comes from some posters on this board is not really any different than what B1G fans are saying now.

 

[heitclone]

As much as I hate to admit it as a Big XII fan, it is pretty clear the Big 10 ended up being the better league the last few years. They have 3 - Elite 8 teams compared to zero for the Big XII.

Makes me really, really sad.

So by this logic the AAC is also better than the big 12, you also think the Pac 12 and SEC are better than the big 12 too?

 

[heitclone]

1. He didn't call anyone an idiot, if you bother to read his post carefully.

2. Huge difference? Seems a lot more nuanced than obvious, if you ask me. Big 12 football had OU, Baylor and OSU carrying the torch. After that, there were a three decent teams (Texas, KSU and TT) and four terrible ones. (ISU, WVU, TCU and KU). The B1G had MSU and OSU at the top, with three above average teams (Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin), two more that were pretty average but had decent records (Minnesota and PSU) and the rest were varying degrees of bad, except for Purdue, which was downright awful.

The Big 12 was better, but the SOS argument that comes from some posters on this board is not really any different than what B1G fans are saying now.

The thing is, not everyone plays the same schedule in the b1G. In football MSU had the easiest b1G schedule anyone could ask for, their best regular season wins were Nebby and Iowa, it was very big 12 north-ish, they lost to the only rated team they played in the regular season (ND....)....in bball Nebraska's tourney appearance was more about who/where they didn't have to play than who they beat. I mean Iowa had home and homes with all the b1g's big boys, Nebraska only saw Michigan St and Wisky once. Nebby isn't a tourney team with Iowa's b1G schedule.

With unbalanced schedules, Iowa State WOULd win games in football in the b1G, the years we got the "easy" draw from the other division. Just like the big 12 north days.

 

[tm3308]

The thing is, not everyone plays the same schedule in the b1G. In football MSU had the easiest b1G schedule anyone could ask for, their best regular season wins were Nebby and Iowa, it was very big 12 north-ish, they lost to the only rated team they played in the regular season (ND....)....in bball Nebraska's tourney appearance was more about who/where they didn't have to play than who they beat. I mean Iowa had home and homes with all the b1g's big boys, Nebraska only saw Michigan St and Wisky once. Nebby isn't a tourney team with Iowa's b1G schedule.

With unbalanced schedules, Iowa State WOULd win games in football in the b1G, the years we got the "easy" draw from the other division. Just like the big 12 north days.

Sure, if the Big Ten schedule they got was also one of the easy slates. If you're trading OU/OSU/Baylor for OSU/Wisconsin/Penn State, you might be facing less-dominating competition, but you would probably still lose.

 

[Cycl1]

Sure, if the Big Ten schedule they got was also one of the easy slates. If you're trading OU/OSU/Baylor for OSU/Wisconsin/Penn State, you might be facing less-dominating competition, but you would probably still lose.

Which is why every 5 years or so iowa has a decent season which they then brag about forever in which they probably only beat one good team.

 

[SammyWild]

1. He didn't call anyone an idiot, if you bother to read his post carefully.

2. Huge difference? Seems a lot more nuanced than obvious, if you ask me. Big 12 football had OU, Baylor and OSU carrying the torch. After that, there were a three decent teams (Texas, KSU and TT) and four terrible ones. (ISU, WVU, TCU and KU). The B1G had MSU and OSU at the top, with three above average teams (Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin), two more that were pretty average but had decent records (Minnesota and PSU) and the rest were varying degrees of bad, except for Purdue, which was downright awful.

The Big 12 was better, but the SOS argument that comes from some posters on this board is not really any different than what B1G fans are saying now.

This whole Iowa State winning and iola collapsing thing has gotten to you.

Please cite examples of Iowa State fans trying to boost themselves because Oklahoma beat Alabama. I can cite 10 examples of iola fan trying to pretend like they belong in the conversation with the other three teams.

And cute that you completely ignore the punching bags in your conference. Indiana has less football tradition than Iowa State. Purdue had been awful. Illinois terrible. Minnesota had a great year but has been God awful, and will be again when kill levees

A pretty good rule of thumb is that just because they beat iola doesn't mean they're any good.

Sorry to be the first grown up to burst that bubble for you.

 

[mikeiastat]

The B1G's top 3 teams were probably stronger than the Big 12's top 3 teams IMO. But overall, the Big 12 was better due to it's MUCH better depth.

I don't even agree with this much. ISU had a #1 seed resume. Got stuck with a #3. Put MSU in front of the record ISU had against the top25, RPI top25, and 50, and they are the overall #1.

The BIG's second best team just lost by more points than the Big XII's 4th place team lost by to the same UCONN team. Just sayin' if you're going to pick and choose tourney results and say these things, I guess ISU was better than MSU by your standard. Why would it matter that it was one round later. Throughout the year the BIG XII was the better conference.

Please stop the nonsense Hawk fans. 3 final four teams from the BoneG wouldn't have changed the fact that Throughout the year The Big XII was tougher. matchups will always be matchups and just that.

 

[mikeiastat]

Really, you mean Mitch McGary has been playing in the tournament AND I'VE BEEN MISSING IT?!

You can make this case with MSU, but they were pretty damn tough even at half strength. But the Michigan team you're seeing now is the same one Big Ten teams saw all year. They lost McGary and had to adjust, and they're still playing without him. So there's no bait and switch on Michigan's part here. And the games played in the OOC had no real impact for UM; they didn't beat any of the top OOC teams they played with McGary (ISU, Arizona, Duke), so it's not like they padded their metrics before losing him for the year.

The Big 12 was hurt by Embiid and Niang going down, no question. But do any of the other Big 12 teams that got bounced early have similar mitigating circumstances?

Personally, I'd call the conference race a wash this year. The Big 12 was slightly better in the regular season and (if KU/ISU hadn't lost key players) the B1G has been slightly better in the tournament (3 Elite Eight teams to what likely would have been 2 for the Big 12).

I know you aren't usually this dense, so please just follow along. McGary was hurt at the end of the Non-conf. Therefore the games that were most effected by the injury came at the start of the BIG schedule. They have since found a replacement and gotten back a comfortable level of play with the replacement. With McGary maybe they're even better. They never had McGary for BIG play. But they did for Non-con. This inflates the SOS for all the other BIG teams. Also The replacement probably wasn't playing at the level he is now when he makes his first start. So to some extent yes, This is a better team than what actually played in much of the BIG schedule. It shouldn't be this hard to understand.

 

[deanvogs]

I don't even agree with this much. ISU had a #1 seed resume. Got stuck with a #3. Put MSU in front of the record ISU had against the top25, RPI top25, and 50, and they are the overall #1.

The BIG's second best team just lost by more points than the Big XII's 4th place team lost by to the same UCONN team. Just sayin' if you're going to pick and choose tourney results and say these things, I guess ISU was better than MSU by your standard. Why would it matter that it was one round later. Throughout the year the BIG XII was the better conference.

Please stop the nonsense Hawk fans. 3 final four teams from the BoneG wouldn't have changed the fact that Throughout the year The Big XII was tougher. matchups will always be matchups and just that.

Where are you getting your "facts"? The final Massey rankings don't take into account NCAA games, and they had the B1G the #1 conference.

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

 

[JohnnyFive]

Where are you getting your "facts"? The final Massey rankings don't take into account NCAA games, and they had the B1G the #1 conference.

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

The what rankings?

 

[mikeiastat]

Where are you getting your "facts"? The final Massey rankings don't take into account NCAA games, and they had the B1G the #1 conference.

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

The RPI, you know the standard by which all the tournament teams are primarily judged by. Who the **** uses Massey ratings. Who is massey? Oh your right. That is always used for ranking and selecting teams.

 

[deanvogs]

The RPI, you know the standard by which all the tournament teams are primarily judged by. Who the **** uses Massey ratings. Who is massey? Oh your right. That is always used for ranking and selecting teams.

I can't believe you people don't know what Massey is??? Try google, it will help. You can point to one matrix all you want, it is one matrix. The simple fact is 36 of 65 matrix say that the B1G is the toughest, and when you take an avg. of all the matrix, the B1G was the strongest.

Oh, and the RPI isn't the only way to rank and select teams, otherwise the seeding would just follow the RPI and it isn't even close to doing that.

 

[mikeiastat]

I can't believe you people don't know what Massey is??? Try google, it will help. You can point to one matrix all you want, it is one matrix. The simple fact is 36 of 55 matrix say that the B1G is the toughest, and when you take an avg. of all the matrix, the B1G was the strongest.

Oh, and the RPI isn't the only way to rank and select teams, otherwise the seeding would just follow the RPI and it isn't even close to doing that.

More data doesn't mean better data.
The people who make the decision to put a team into the tourney don't give a **** about Massey. I know who he is. It was a joke. To say that massey means very little in the selection process and thus your path to a championship. (you know the main objective of the whole season) The selection committee does however rely heavily on the RPI. No it doesn't follow it directly, but it is the primary ranking tool and the base for all calculations for the selection process. Seeding doesn't follow it exactly, nor does it follow Massey. so in that they are a wash, yet I've never heard the selection process even mention massey, so forgive me if I stick with the measure that actually gets used in just about every single move that the committee makes.

 

[deanvogs]

More data doesn't mean better data.
The people who make the decision to put a team into the tourney don't give a **** about Massey. I know who he is. It was a joke. To say that massey means very little in the selection process and thus your path to a championship. (you know the main objective of the whole season) The selection committee does however rely heavily on the RPI. No it doesn't follow it directly, but it is the primary ranking tool and the base for all calculations for the selection process. Seeding doesn't follow it exactly, nor does it follow Massey. so in that they are a wash, yet I've never heard the selection process even mention massey, so forgive me if I stick with the measure that actually gets used in just about ever single move that the committee makes.

The simple fact is the Big12 and the B1G were so close in conference strength that is it dumb to even debate it. Like it or not, many VERY RESPECTABLE matrix said the B1G was stronger, and others the Big12 stronger. In every case it was close either way. To say like you did that it was a "fact" that the Big12 was stronger is just a homer being a homer.

 

[GWad]

The Big XII is clearly the best conference in the country.

 

[mikeiastat]

The simple fact is the Big12 and the B1G were so close in conference strength that is it dumb to even debate it. Like it or not, many VERY RESPECTABLE matrix said the B1G was stronger, and others the Big12 stronger. In every case it was close either way. To say like you did that it was a "fact" that the Big12 was stronger is just a homer being a homer.

And again, I'll defer to the governing body. The NCAA. Jerry down the street and all his friends can say that by the spread the BoneG is stronger, but in the end it doesn't matter a lick. What the NCAA thinks and the committee thinks is all that matters until the actual games are actually played and they pretty clearly show in just about every matrix that counts that the Big XII was stronger. (teams in the tourney, RPI, % of conference in the tourney) 3 BIG teams does not define the conference. and Looking at the other metrics is just like saying well the cubs out hit the cards 18- 3 so they are better. Well the card's won the game 12 - 3. Only one means a lick at the end of the year for conference strength. and it isn't anything that uses Margin of victory.

Every tom **** an harry can say that a eating establishment is 4 stars, great and best of the best, but until you are rated a four star you aren't really a four star. Tom **** and Harry really only matters in your neck of the woods if that. Again, your superior MSU lost to the same exact team in UCONN by more points than ISU did. So how exactly does an elite 8 loss differ from a sweet 16 loss? Its a good bet that full strength ISU destroys MSU. By those standards.

I realize there are a thousand ways to rank teams. I just chose to use the ones that actually are useful and mean something. Elite 8 teams, final four teams and even NC are all well and good, but they are just one thing. and speaks very little to the conf strength. the higher up you go the more of an outlier they become. They mostly mean a lot on the team level. If ISU gets MSU's seeding and vice-versa they would have been looking at the exact opposite. MSU done in the sweet 16, and ISU done in the Elite 8. They lost to the same team.

 

[JohnnyFive]

Ok after today we have an answer which is the best conference.

It's clearly the SEC because they have two schools in the Final Four. The Big 12/Big 10 just don't quite stack up to the SEC, since, you know, the entire season should be judged by a game or two or three in the NCAA tournament.

All hail the SEC.

 

[kingcy]

So if one Big 12 team would have made the Final Four to go with the Big 10 team that made the Final 4 does that mean the conferences would be equal?

 

[SCarolinaCy]

Gotta like their Bigs.