No "LOVE" for us on Big Ten Network

[DonLightfoot]

I was flipping back and forth between the North Carolina/Wake and Wisconsin/Iowa games and the play by play commentators on the Big Ten Network were promoting their "Big Ten and Beyond" post game show. Their "specialists" were to discuss the Big Ten teams (obviously) and then have a discussion about the National scene. This latter discussion included hype and review on undefeated teams like Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio State. Iowa State, Wichita State, etc. However, no hype or reference really to the Orange. Then they discussed the usual "freshmen" subject and were very critical of the four key players that have dominated the talk since the start of the year (mainly due to inconsistency or underachieving). I wonder if that criticism was due to none of the players in question being in the Big 10. Again, no reference to Ennis who certainly has over achieved from initial ratings.

The guys doing the roundtable are obviously employed by the Big Ten network so perhaps none of this is surprising. Anyway, just thought I would share my observation.

 

[Toga]

I congratulate you in being able to watch the BTN without falling asleep.

 

[NKR1978]

Good. If there's one place I don't want to be hyped it's on that joke of a network or by anything associated with that conference.

 

[jncuse]

I watched part of the show after the game... well didn't really watch but kept it on as I was on the net.

I did stop at one point when the host asked if the Big 10 was the best conference in America. I was actually surprised that the two analysts did not really embrace the idea.

Decourcy says its too hard to tell - other than some elite tournaments , teams just done play other top teams enough.

Jackson said the BiG lacks the star presence from prior years to say they are the best, but they may still be. After top 4, no one has stepped up. Says that teams and roles only define themselves in conference play, so its too early too call.

I was surprised to see that sort of non-biased response, when many think the BiG is the best.

 

[CaptainJ]

If only Notre Dame hadn't collapsed against Ohio State in the final minute, maybe that would have been the elite matchup they needed to see.

 

[zeekay]

Jackson said the BiG lacks the star presence from prior years to say they are the best, but they may still be. After top 4, no one has stepped up. Says that teams and roles only define themselves in conference play, so its too early too call.

I was surprised to see that sort of non-biased response, when many think the BiG is the best.

Let me see a list of a few previous champs:

2001 Duke
2002 Maryland
2003 Syracuse
2004 Connecticut
2005 North Carolina
2006 Florida
2007 Florida
2008 Kansas
2009 North Carolina
2010 Duke
2011 Connecticut
2012 Kentucky
2013 Louisville

I don't see a lot of BigTen teams there, does anyone else? Until they start winning titles it's ridiculous to assume that their inflated rankings actually mean that they have dominant teams. Yes they do make final fours on occasion but if they truly have 3 out of the top 5 teams every year like they do according to ranking, they should be winning a championship every other year. Which doesn't happen.

 

[jncuse]

Let me see a list of a few previous champs:

2001 Duke
2002 Maryland
2003 Syracuse
2004 Connecticut
2005 North Carolina
2006 Florida
2007 Florida
2008 Kansas
2009 North Carolina
2010 Duke
2011 Connecticut
2012 Kentucky
2013 Louisville

I don't see a lot of BigTen teams there, does anyone else? Until they start winning titles it's ridiculous to assume that their inflated rankings actually mean that they have dominant teams. Yes they do make final fours on occasion but if they truly have 3 out of the top 5 teams every year like they do according to ranking, they should be winning a championship every other year. Which doesn't happen.

I don't disagree with your position at all.

My point was more about the BTN analysts on the show, being surprisingly reasonable about the BiG basketball.

We certainly don't see them being reasonable when it comes to overrating their football conference.

 

[pfister1]

Let me see a list of a few previous champs:

2001 Duke
2002 Maryland
2003 Syracuse
2004 Connecticut
2005 North Carolina
2006 Florida
2007 Florida
2008 Kansas
2009 North Carolina
2010 Duke
2011 Connecticut
2012 Kentucky
2013 Louisville

I don't see a lot of BigTen teams there, does anyone else? Until they start winning titles it's ridiculous to assume that their inflated rankings actually mean that they have dominant teams. Yes they do make final fours on occasion but if they truly have 3 out of the top 5 teams every year like they do according to ranking, they should be winning a championship every other year. Which doesn't happen.

What is even more striking when you look at that list is that with the exception of Kansas in 2008, no one west of Kentucky has won a National Championship since Michigan State in 2000. Mentally I think of Louisville and Lexington as being in the south, when in reality they are closer to B1G territory maybe than the south, but still is only 1/3 of the country participating?

 

[sufandu]

Let me see a list of a few previous champs:

2001 Duke
2002 Maryland
2003 Syracuse
2004 Connecticut
2005 North Carolina
2006 Florida
2007 Florida
2008 Kansas
2009 North Carolina
2010 Duke
2011 Connecticut
2012 Kentucky
2013 Louisville

I don't see a lot of BigTen teams there, does anyone else? Until they start winning titles it's ridiculous to assume that their inflated rankings actually mean that they have dominant teams. Yes they do make final fours on occasion but if they truly have 3 out of the top 5 teams every year like they do according to ranking, they should be winning a championship every other year. Which doesn't happen.

We have to be careful when using only championships to judge the quality of a whole league. Your list suggests the ACC was better than the Big East from 2001-2013 and the SEC was nearly as good. While the ACC has more championships through that period, The Big East was a significantly deeper conference, and everyone knows the SEC rarely has more than 2 or 3 good teams. The B1G has had years where they've been very deep, but this year they don't have any elite teams (maybe MSU by the end of the year :noidea. Honestly, I don't know that there is any one conference that anyone can say is head and shoulders above the others.

 

[NKR1978]

We have to be careful when using only championships to judge the quality of a whole league. Your list suggests the ACC was better than the Big East from 2001-2013 and the SEC was nearly as good. While the ACC has more championships through that period, The Big East was a significantly deeper conference, and everyone knows the SEC rarely has more than 2 or 3 good teams. The B1G has had years where they've been very deep, but this year they don't have any elite teams (maybe MSU by the end of the year :noidea. Honestly, I don't know that there is any one conference that anyone can say is head and shoulders above the others.

I will use whatever criteria I can to make the B1G look like a mid major.

 

[sufandu]

What is even more striking when you look at that list is that with the exception of Kansas in 2008, no one west of Kentucky has won a National Championship since Michigan State in 2000. Mentally I think of Louisville and Lexington as being in the south, when in reality they are closer to B1G territory maybe than the south, but still is only 1/3 of the country participating?

Maybe east coast bias isn't bias, it's reality.