Monday, March 13, 2006
Let the madness begin!
Apologies to co-bloggers on my extended hiatus. Two weeks of travel (including one in Japan) and then one week of frantic recovery pretty much crowded out all other activities. Well, not including basketball, of course, for tis the season for excellent college hoops.
Back in the 1980s the Big Ten and the Pac Ten were anomolies among major conferences in that they did not have post-season conference tournaments for the automatic qualifying berth in the NCAA. The Big Ten stuck to its guns until well into the late 1990s, and for good reason. Post-season tournaments to determine a conference champion are pretty stupid when you think about it. After all, if you've slugged it out with a full round robin conference schedule for 2 1/2 months, why should the "true" champion be determined by one frantic, scrambling weekend of games?
But during this period the Big Ten found itself perceived as a declining basketball power. I never truly subscribed to this notion, but in the 80s in particular, and the 90s to a lesser extent, it did seem as though Big Ten teams seemed to fade sooner than they should have come mid-March. Purdue in particular seemed a chronic underachiever in the NCAA tournament even when dominating Big Ten play for several years. Meanwhile Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Arkansas, UNLV, Connecticut, and Kansas all made multiple trips to the Final Four.
There was some interesting speculation during that time that the absence of a conference tournament was putting the Big 10 at a disadvantage. The intensity of the conference tourney was a crucible that the championship teams had to weather over three or four days, the perfect preparation for what was to come. Certainly it appeared as though teams from the ACC and SEC were entering the big dance with momentum and a level of intensity that teams from the Big Ten lacked. Extreme examples are evident, say, in the unlikely post season run of the 1983 NC State Wolfpack, juxtaposed against the 1986 upset of #3 seed Indiana at the hands of Cleveland State and a guard named Mouse McFadden.
Of course if you look at the history, the Big Ten has been well represented in the Final Four over the years. And the adoption of the post-season conference tournament was all about TV money, not whether or not there was a correlation between a tournament and success in the NCAAs. But the Big Ten has faired pretty well in the years since, sending 8 teams between 1999 and 2005 (Michigan State 4 times, along with Ohio State, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois).
Looking back at the historical appearances pre-Big 10 tourney, it doesn't appear as though the league was at any particular disadvantage. There was a disturbing five year gap between Indiana's two championships (1981 and 1987) when no Big Ten team made the Final Four, and it was probably during that drought that the question came up in the first place. Since then, the league has held its own.
Still, having watched the Iowa Hawkeyes come from behind to win three close games and capture the Big 10 Tournament Championship, I can certainly see how a team might ride the momentum from such a performance into overachievement in the big dance. Iowa is not good enough to coast through the first two rounds, and despite a #3 seed probably will have its hands full in round one. But having gone through the crucible of a tough conference tournament, perhaps those boys from Iowa are a little bit better prepared for the challenges to come than they were, say, back in 1982 when they lost to farookin' Idaho in the second round.
Let the games begin!
Back in the 1980s the Big Ten and the Pac Ten were anomolies among major conferences in that they did not have post-season conference tournaments for the automatic qualifying berth in the NCAA. The Big Ten stuck to its guns until well into the late 1990s, and for good reason. Post-season tournaments to determine a conference champion are pretty stupid when you think about it. After all, if you've slugged it out with a full round robin conference schedule for 2 1/2 months, why should the "true" champion be determined by one frantic, scrambling weekend of games?
But during this period the Big Ten found itself perceived as a declining basketball power. I never truly subscribed to this notion, but in the 80s in particular, and the 90s to a lesser extent, it did seem as though Big Ten teams seemed to fade sooner than they should have come mid-March. Purdue in particular seemed a chronic underachiever in the NCAA tournament even when dominating Big Ten play for several years. Meanwhile Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Arkansas, UNLV, Connecticut, and Kansas all made multiple trips to the Final Four.
There was some interesting speculation during that time that the absence of a conference tournament was putting the Big 10 at a disadvantage. The intensity of the conference tourney was a crucible that the championship teams had to weather over three or four days, the perfect preparation for what was to come. Certainly it appeared as though teams from the ACC and SEC were entering the big dance with momentum and a level of intensity that teams from the Big Ten lacked. Extreme examples are evident, say, in the unlikely post season run of the 1983 NC State Wolfpack, juxtaposed against the 1986 upset of #3 seed Indiana at the hands of Cleveland State and a guard named Mouse McFadden.
Of course if you look at the history, the Big Ten has been well represented in the Final Four over the years. And the adoption of the post-season conference tournament was all about TV money, not whether or not there was a correlation between a tournament and success in the NCAAs. But the Big Ten has faired pretty well in the years since, sending 8 teams between 1999 and 2005 (Michigan State 4 times, along with Ohio State, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois).
Looking back at the historical appearances pre-Big 10 tourney, it doesn't appear as though the league was at any particular disadvantage. There was a disturbing five year gap between Indiana's two championships (1981 and 1987) when no Big Ten team made the Final Four, and it was probably during that drought that the question came up in the first place. Since then, the league has held its own.
Still, having watched the Iowa Hawkeyes come from behind to win three close games and capture the Big 10 Tournament Championship, I can certainly see how a team might ride the momentum from such a performance into overachievement in the big dance. Iowa is not good enough to coast through the first two rounds, and despite a #3 seed probably will have its hands full in round one. But having gone through the crucible of a tough conference tournament, perhaps those boys from Iowa are a little bit better prepared for the challenges to come than they were, say, back in 1982 when they lost to farookin' Idaho in the second round.
Let the games begin!
1 Comments:
By 
Cassandra, at
Tue Mar 14, 07:24:00 AM:
Well I was wondering why you were so quiet! Glad everything is OK.
