University of Illinois beat, Champaign

Don't let your feelings get in the middle of this. The Big Ten is a large step below the ACC and Big East. Sorry, but it's just fact. Look at the numbers. Look at how terrible the Big Ten was in the tourney this year and how it has never won the ACC-Big Ten Challenge.

Not all teams in the Big 10 play plodding, but overall, yes, the conference is slower, lower scoring and more about physicality than others. I'm sorry if that offends you, Wisky.

 

No feelings, JME, other than an aversion to stale assumptions.
I'm not saying the B10 is annually on par with the ACC and BE, but I'd say calling it a large step below is a stretch.
The two main arguments you keep leaning on are last year -- it's one friggin' year ... how about the year before? -- and the Challenge, a made-for-TV event held long before conference play even starts. (Read: Who gives a flying fart?)

Slower? B.S.
Lower scoring? That's because they play defense, a concept foreign to track meets games in the ACC.
More about physicality? You darn right. Something wrong with that?

Your concern for me is touching, but I don't play basketball in the Big Ten, so I don't see how I could be offended.
Like I said, I just hate antiquated opinions that have all the relevancy of post-"Dangerous" Michael Jackson but still get spewed forth like they're fact.

 

The only reason it may seem stale to you is because people say it every year ... because its true.

Again, the numbers don't lie. The Big Ten used to be great but is well below the ACC and Big East.It's trademark programs -- Indiana and Michigan -- don't resemble what they once were. Izzo is great at MSU but has been down for several years now. Maybe OSU will help revive it. There is plenty of evidence, some of which I listed and you ignored, but it's not worth going into it.

 

Save for Illinois' breakout season in '05, the Big Ten produces teams more qualified to play rugby than basketball.

Nothing more thrilling than a 15-12 Wisconsin-Michigan State matchup with 2 minutes to go in the first half.

 

Although the ACC has never lost an ACC-Big Ten Challenge since they started playing them in 1999, three of the challenges were 5-4 victories and another was a 6-5 victory. That's hardly a sign of dominance. In fact, it's a clear sign of the parity between the two conferences.

As for the plodding style of the Big Ten, we Midwesterners like to refer to this as defense.

 

I would admit the ACC is better across the board.

But I do think the Big Ten plays a lot more defense.

 

There's no doubt that the ACC is the best basketball conference.

But listening to the predictions every year gets old. The person who downplayed the preseason polls obviously is missing the point. Those polls clearly indicate that: a) voters don't know shit; and b) that voters are inclined to believe a mediocre ACC team is as good as the second or third best team in the nation's second-best conference.

 

This is a highly productive conversation for this thread.

 

Nine of the 11 Big Ten teams have been in the Final Four since 1980, seven since 1992. Can the ACC make that claim?

Let me answer that for you.

Since 1980, North Carolina, Duke, North Carolina State, Maryland, Virginia and Georgia Tech are the only ACC schools who can make the same claim. And since '92, only UNC, Duke, Maryland and Georgia Tech have made it.

(Boston College made it in '94, but they weren't in the ACC at the time)

The Big Ten is the most put-upon conference in the nation that least deserves it.

You want to talk about a conference that gets attention out of all proportion to its accomplishments? The Big 12.

 

I think Bubbler's point is much of the reason why the ACC is considered to be the best basketball conference. In the ACC, you know Duke and Carolina are going to be good and there's going to be another good team from the grouping of Wake, GT and Maryland.

In the Big Ten, the good teams change on a fairly regular basis. Sure Michigan State has had a good run for a decade and Illinois has been good for the last six, seven years, but other than that, it changes. Sometimes Ohio State is good, sometimes Wisconsin is really good, etc.

The difference to me is that the ACC is usually better at the top, but the Big Ten usually has more depth through the conference standings. Which is better? That's a personal opinion in what is valued.

Thanks to having a collegerpi.com subscription, I looked back over the past ten years and found this:

The Big Ten has received 54 NCAA tournament berths in that span while the ACC has received 46.
Both leagues have had nine teams in the Final Four
The ACC has three national titles to the Big Ten's one.

 

Any word on whether the position has been filled as of yet?

 

Exactly what I'm talking about.
Seriously, my man ... one game six years ago. Put a little effort into this, please. That's all I ask.

accguy: Great post.