Big Ten 'Failing' in the Big Dance

As the whole world takes a break from the opening weekend of the March tournament, one of the big talking points is the Big Ten again failing to deliver for the second year in a row. Nine teams got into the tournament, six made it to the field of 32 and only two are in the Sweet 16. This is after nine teams got in to the brackets last year, six made it to the second round but only one made it to the Sweet 16.

Those aren't great numbers; the Big Ten was 3-4 in games where they were the same or underdog seed but the problem was Wisconsin and Iowa getting upset. In games where the Big Ten was the favored seed they were 6-3. Now, the bracket is always about the upsets and Cinderella stories and the Big Ten only has Michigan delivering those thus far while having top teams bowing out early. Last season in games where the Big Ten was the same or underdog seed they were 3-4 but in games where they were the favorite seed the Big Ten finished 5-5. That is with a 2 and 4 seed upset in the first round, and 1 and 2 seed eliminated in the second round. There was no upset run by a Big Ten team but top teams went home early so that was the narrative, and rightfully so. However, last season's bracket performance is bleeding into this years. Yes, there were disappointing opening weekend showings with only one real upset run at this point, but it's not the same as last year.

Just for comparison, how about the SEC this tournament? Kentucky and Auburn as 2 seeds didn't make it to the Sweet 16 and neither did 3 seed Tennessee. Will the narrative be that the SEC disappointed again next year? Unlikely. Now, in fairness there were only six SEC teams in but they were favored in, based on seeding, every game and have a 4-5 in the opening weekend. Last year the SEC had seven teams in. In games where they were the same or underdog seed the SEC finished 0-3 and in games where they were favored it was 7-3. The top seeds did their business, though 3 seed Tennessee was eliminated early so they covered their narrative, but will this season's performance linger into the narrative next year?

Now, the real comparison needs to go against the Big 12 and ACC, the two conferences that battle with the Big Ten for top basketball conference. Notre Dame, North Carolina and Miami pulled off big upsets for the ACC with no upsets going against this season. Last year Virginia got upset early and Florida State was the only team to carry the banner before bowing out to 1 seed Michigan with UNC out in the first round and no Duke. That potential narrative was rebuffed by a down regular season, but three teams in the Sweet 16 will be the ultimate narrative.

This year the Big 12 was lauded as the top conference in basketball and has Kansas, Texas Tech, and the upset special Iowa State in the Sweet 16. However, Baylor as a 1 seed, though a trendy upset pick, was out in the second round. Last season Kansas bowed out early and very little was done besides the national champion Baylor. Of course, that carries a lot of weight, but it was a very unimpressive performance from the rest of the conference.

The differences are that the Big Ten has suffered back-to-back seasons of big early upsets with very little in the pro upset column. If it wasn't for Baylor last year then neither of the ACC or Big 12 would have much to talk about while we wait to see how the rest of this year's bracket plays out. Don't get me wrong, having a national champion, or even Final 4 appearance, helps the overall narrative for a conference and historically the Big Ten seems to fall short here.

A big negative in Big Ten's column is the national champion conversation, having not won since Michigan State in 2000. Since then the ACC has won seven titles, the Big 12 has won two and the SEC has won three. The ACC certainly has its case set, but that's not a ton of hardware across the other big basketball conferences. Now, any title is more than zero, but it isn't like the Big Ten hasn't been there. Since that Michigan State title the Big Ten has seven appearances in title games, the ACC has nine appearances, the Big 12 has five and the SEC has four.

What about the Final 4? Since 2000 the Big Ten has 14 Final 4 appearances, the ACC has 14 appearances, the Big 12 has 11 and the SEC has ten. All of the numbers are there minus the nets ultimately being cut down at the end of the bracket. Is that the most important? Yes, however you can't look at the numbers and say the Big Ten is a regular disappointment based on the lat two tournaments while there are plenty of upsets every tournament but the consistency of getting to the final weekend is there.

The only argument that could be made to take Michigan State out of the Big Ten in comparison to those numbers (eight Final 4 appearances and six title appearances). If you're going to do that though, what happens when you take Kentucky out of the SEC (six Final 4's and two title appearances), Kansas out of the Big 12 (five Final 4's and two title appearances) and one of Duke or North Carolina out of the ACC? The ACC has two teams with the consistency which is why they're historically the best conference, but the Big Ten holds up versus the others.

If you look at the historical number of wins the blue bloods are of course at the top; Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA and Duke. After that the next Big 12 team is Texas at 11th. For the SEC the next one is Arkansas at 14th. Louisville and Syracuse are in the next grouping after the top five, but if you look at the next through and through ACC member it's Maryland at 31 (who has since joined the Big Ten). For the Big Ten, up first is Indiana (considered a blue blood) at 8th. Michigan State is 12th while Illinois is at 20th and Purdue is 21st where only Oklahoma makes an appearance before them for either the ACC, Big 12 or SEC.

The criticism that the Big Ten gets some of the most teams in each year and hasn't delivered a national championship is one that has its merits, but the notion that they fail in March just isn't true. There is consistency there for making the run to the final weekend and title game, despite not having a blue blood for the past and present and also has had more runs, outside of the ACC, if you remove their top team.

Maybe this isn't the year again for the Big Ten, which just adds to the “They haven't won since 2000.” but over the course of history the Big Ten has had just as much success as any of the power basketball conferences. The ACC is the class, but based on the justification for the Big Ten's criticism, then the SEC better be feeling the heat, and it has been a decade since they won a title. Winning it all is the point the Big Ten can be hammered on, but it's not like they fail to deliver in consistency to that last game.