My god, son...you are so clueless.
You just don't understand the concept of relativity when it comes to comparing between conferences.
I'm just going to start with 4 since some of the others are a little hard to read.
4. "Winning the MVC is easier for a bubble team than winning the Big 10" I assume you mean it's easier for a bubble team to win the Valley than it is for a bubble team to win the Big 10. Well, no kidding. A "bubble team" is generally a top MVC team whereas a bubble team is generally a middle to lower middle Big 10 team. Has anyone argued differently? The questions are this. A) Is it harder to BECOME a bubble team in the valley than it is to become a bubble team in the Big 10. To become a bubble team in the valley you have to become among the best in the conference. To become a bubble team in the Big 10 you have to be in the top 1/2. You have to outperform a larger % of your peers in the valley. B) will a "bubble team" from the Big 10 get in before a "bubble team" from the Valley. The answer to that is probably yes in most cases because they have many benefits that the valley team doesn't. SOS, more chances for "marquee wins" and higher tolerance for bad losses.
5. I assume you are talking about Indiana State. Again you are not thinking right. Indiana State was 3rd in the MVC last year with a 12-6 record. Is it surprising to you that a 3rd place team in a conference won the Tourney? That's comparable to Michigan or Wisco winning the Big 10 title. I'll give you that the conference tourney process does allow "undeserving teams" in sometimes. Of course, you will grasp this as your "I WIN!" moment but all of your talk only proves you can't tell the difference between placing a team like Nebraska in the MVC and thinking that would lead to dominance. Most years the better teams get through the conf. tourney.
Regarding finishing in the top 1/2:
The Big 10 has gotten 7 teams in the tourney 2 of the last 3 years. 6 or 7 in 3 of 5. I was surprised that the Big 10 was so weak that it got 4 and 5 in other years. Suppose that makes the big 10 an EASIER road to the dance in those years?
Listen. I'm done having these conversations with you. You are being intentionall dense. I promise you every mid major in the country would prefer to be in a conference where 5 bids is a BAD year. Where they could play on national tv most nights. Where they get 6-10 ranked foes a year. Where they can afford to pay a coach $1m (on the low end) v. paying $250k. Where you have to win your conference regular season or tourney to make it to the dance. As opposed to playing second...third....5th...10th fiddle in their OWN STATE. As opposed to getting on TV once a year maybe. As opposed to having to whore yourself out for "buy games" if you want a chance to play a ranked team in the OOC.
Get your head out of pomeroy's backside and actually PAY ATTENTION to college basketball for a change.
By the way...if you think NU was the 45th best team in the nation last year you are out of your mind.
You just don't understand the concept of relativity when it comes to comparing between conferences.
I'm just going to start with 4 since some of the others are a little hard to read.
4. "Winning the MVC is easier for a bubble team than winning the Big 10" I assume you mean it's easier for a bubble team to win the Valley than it is for a bubble team to win the Big 10. Well, no kidding. A "bubble team" is generally a top MVC team whereas a bubble team is generally a middle to lower middle Big 10 team. Has anyone argued differently? The questions are this. A) Is it harder to BECOME a bubble team in the valley than it is to become a bubble team in the Big 10. To become a bubble team in the valley you have to become among the best in the conference. To become a bubble team in the Big 10 you have to be in the top 1/2. You have to outperform a larger % of your peers in the valley. B) will a "bubble team" from the Big 10 get in before a "bubble team" from the Valley. The answer to that is probably yes in most cases because they have many benefits that the valley team doesn't. SOS, more chances for "marquee wins" and higher tolerance for bad losses.
5. I assume you are talking about Indiana State. Again you are not thinking right. Indiana State was 3rd in the MVC last year with a 12-6 record. Is it surprising to you that a 3rd place team in a conference won the Tourney? That's comparable to Michigan or Wisco winning the Big 10 title. I'll give you that the conference tourney process does allow "undeserving teams" in sometimes. Of course, you will grasp this as your "I WIN!" moment but all of your talk only proves you can't tell the difference between placing a team like Nebraska in the MVC and thinking that would lead to dominance. Most years the better teams get through the conf. tourney.
Regarding finishing in the top 1/2:
The Big 10 has gotten 7 teams in the tourney 2 of the last 3 years. 6 or 7 in 3 of 5. I was surprised that the Big 10 was so weak that it got 4 and 5 in other years. Suppose that makes the big 10 an EASIER road to the dance in those years?
Listen. I'm done having these conversations with you. You are being intentionall dense. I promise you every mid major in the country would prefer to be in a conference where 5 bids is a BAD year. Where they could play on national tv most nights. Where they get 6-10 ranked foes a year. Where they can afford to pay a coach $1m (on the low end) v. paying $250k. Where you have to win your conference regular season or tourney to make it to the dance. As opposed to playing second...third....5th...10th fiddle in their OWN STATE. As opposed to getting on TV once a year maybe. As opposed to having to whore yourself out for "buy games" if you want a chance to play a ranked team in the OOC.
Get your head out of pomeroy's backside and actually PAY ATTENTION to college basketball for a change.
By the way...if you think NU was the 45th best team in the nation last year you are out of your mind.
