Analysis: Was Big Ten disrespected with NCAA seedings?

I mean we can try and justify the results by making excuses for the committee but the answer is very simple. They pulled up the RPI rankings, shrugged, said "this is probably right" and plugged them in before getting ready to watch the two hour selection show.

This year shows the least input from the committee that I can recall and destroys the "we use things other than RPI" narrative.

Agree with Maui Invitational and Duke. Ugly times. Wondered where this program was headed at that point.

Beating Notre Dame was a good win and especially the way Indiana won in comeback fashion.

20-3 since Duke for the rest of the regular season before letting a desperate Michigan team hang around and that's a recipe for disaster.

Penn State was a bad loss but Maryland, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan ... all had a bad loss, too. Maryland lost to Minnesota.

What you don't mention is that we lost our leading scorer going into the Big Ten and went 15-3 and won the title outright by two games. You can say all you want about Blackmon's defense but a lot of teams don't recover when they lose their leading scorer.

Indiana also lost Robert Johnson for the stretch run of the Big Ten and won all of its final regular season games despite that fact.

IU was the No. 10 ranked team in the nation in the final poll ... and got a 5 seed. Michigan State was the No. 2 ranked team in the nation and got a 2 seed.

I think you make some good points but I think there's more to the story that you're painting, too.

That's because I ran out of paint. Nice post.

Agree with Maui Invitational and Duke. Ugly times. Wondered where this program was headed at that point.

Beating Notre Dame was a good win and especially the way Indiana won in comeback fashion.

20-3 since Duke for the rest of the regular season before letting a desperate Michigan team hang around and that's a recipe for disaster.

Penn State was a bad loss but Maryland, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan ... all had a bad loss, too. Maryland lost to Minnesota.

What you don't mention is that we lost our leading scorer going into the Big Ten and went 15-3 and won the title outright by two games. You can say all you want about Blackmon's defense but a lot of teams don't recover when they lose their leading scorer.

Indiana also lost Robert Johnson for the stretch run of the Big Ten and won all of its final regular season games despite that fact.

IU was the No. 10 ranked team in the nation in the final poll ... and got a 5 seed. Michigan State was the No. 2 ranked team in the nation and got a 2 seed.

I think you make some good points but I think there's more to the story that you're painting, too.

As a follow up, I'm not sure how the loss of Blackmon hurt us. He was always the weak link in our defense, (not that it's particularly great now, but it's better than it was). His offense was nice, of course, but even there, one could probably make an argument that his absence has diversified the offensive, and ultimately led to better overall balance. Yes, a lot of teams wouldn't recover if they'd lost a player of Blackmon's offensive prowess, but most teams aren't stocked with scorers like we either. We took the loss in stride, and kept on shooting.

Johnson, to me, was the bigger loss, and it's true, we did well without him. 

As to the rankings, I'm not sure how to take them. We jettisoned up the rankings in the last week or so, probably faster than we should have. MSU might have a legitimate bone with the committee, but it's difficult to argue with the four #1's ahead of them, or their regional placement. Iowa State is the lone major shock as far as I'm concerned. How they finagled a #4 is a mystery.

Absolutely Cal has 10 loses and got a 4 seed we have three 5 seeds with less losses

They had to do some trickery in order to get IU and pUKe to play each other.

Couldn't seed Kentucky 5 after beating a and m and seeding them 3. Couldn't seed us 3 after losing to Michigan. (In order to make the matchup work)

 

No one will convince me it's not intentional until we have 3 tournaments in a row where that doesn't occur.

One thing I found interesting was Matt Painter's remarks on the Big Ten Network last night when he was asked about the Big Ten's seeding. He felt Michigan State was a 1 and he thought Indiana was a 3. He said that Purdue was really looking forward to playing IU on Saturday because they were a team ranked ahead of them and that you always want to play those kinds of teams at this point of the year.

 

I agree about Blackmon Jr. on defense but I still think losing him hurts a team. And there's no doubt IU needs Johnson back this week, if not for the first game but especially in the second game if IU is able to get there.

I'm always one for a good conspiracy theory and in this case I do think something doesn't smell right. But if we get IU-Kentucky on Saturday I cannot wait to watch that point guard matchup.

 

They had to do some trickery in order to get IU and pUKe to play each other.

Couldn't seed Kentucky 5 after beating a and m and seeding them 3. Couldn't seed us 3 after losing to Michigan. (In order to make the matchup work)

 

No one will convince me it's not intentional until we have 3 tournaments in a row where that doesn't occur.

I'm sure this will upset a lot of people, but here goes.

 

We sucked at the Maui tournament this year

We sucked at Duke, who's having an unusually bad year by their standards

We got blown out at Michigan State, who up until that time, sure as hell didn't resemble a #1 seed

We got beat by Wisconsin, who's having an unusually bad year by their standards

We got beat by a horrendous Penn State squad

We played, by all accounts, one of the easiest Big Ten Schedules one could play.

We played in a conference that by all accounts, is having one of it's worst, top to bottom years in decades

We lost to a piss poor Michigan team in our first game in the BTT. In our back yard. With that team having had less than 24 hours to recover since their last game. And that team, having made the NCAA as a "PLAY-IN" game, which tells you what the NCAA thought about Michigan

 

The summary is thus: We're a good team, not a great one, who played in a good conference, not a great one, who played a good schedule, not a great one, and who's recent history in tournaments sucks at a biblical rate. Yeah, a #5 seeding is probably close to being spot on.

Yea, we faltered on the big stage away from home when we had a chance to impress some people. Some will say this doesnt matter but it does.

5 bucks says the PAC 12 isnt around at final four time.

Yea, we faltered on the big stage away from home when we had a chance to impress some people. Some will say this doesnt matter but it does.

 

A lot of teams seeded above IU did the same and in some cases worse. Looking at the seeding objectively, it is hard to make the case that the BIG tournament or several other conference tournaments for that matter, really made much difference in overall seeding. Nor, apparently, did actual conference success(or lack thereof especially for the middle of the pack Big 12 and PAC 12 teams) mean much. 

Michigan State should have been a #1 seed (over either Virginia OR Oregon)

Indiana and Purdue should have been 3 or 4 seeds

 

The ACC and the Pac-12 were overvalued, and the Big Ten got hosed.

The seedings weren't great, but I feel pretty good about where we are at. The big ten did get hosed but if they are playing right, this team can beat unc, kensucky, and chatt. Im not sold on north Carolina. I think they are more flawed than people think

5 bucks says the PAC 12 isnt around at final four time.

I only have 1 left by the Sweet 16. 

I looked at the Sagarin ratings and:

IU was ranked higher than 3/4 of the three seeds
IU was ranked higher than 3/4 of the four seeds (UK was the four ranked above us).
Both IU and UK should have had higher seeds.

On the other side of the coin....of the 4 twelve seeds Chattanooga is the lowest rated.
Better get past that game.

The seedings weren't great, but I feel pretty good about where we are at. The big ten did get hosed but if they are playing right, this team can beat unc, kensucky, and chatt. Im not sold on north Carolina. I think they are more flawed than people think

I would have agreed with you 3-4 weeks ago but UNC is really coming together.
Unfortunately UK is also playing as well as they have all year.

That's one of the ones I didn't get for sure. They got a 4 over Purdue, too, and could meet them in the second game so maybe we'll find out pretty quickly if the Big Ten had a beef.

Iowa State seeded as a 4. WHAT A JOKE.
In the last 12 games (one of the columns in the RPI) Iowa State went 5-7!
The RPI's of the 5 teams they beat are:
169
27 (home won)
168
84
169

Really baffling. Rarely say this but hope PU absolutely smokes them.

I only have 1 left by the Sweet 16.

I agree. PAC12 was not great this year but in spite of that UCLA was 10th in the league with 3 burger boys. Wonder how that would be received here?

I agree. PAC12 was not great this year but in spite of that UCLA was 10th in the league with 3 burger boys. Wonder how that would be received here?

Little Tom Crean simply doesn't understand IU basketball. Steve Alford: All American does.

Kidding aside, Oregon, Utah--meh.

I think somebody has already done the homework on this but what was the highest March Madness seeding given to a Big Ten regular season champ in the history of college basketball.?

If you recall the 13 season, were we not the #1 overall seed?