The Big Ten Biffed It During March Madness

Vendors Russ Adams, John Hagan and Donald Morris chat about the world of sports with Executive Assistant Patrick Edwards.

Russ: Hey there, everybody. Welcome to this week’s edition of SportsWise! Gentleman, we got a good one. It may hurt to discuss, but it must be done. So, what was the deal with the Big Ten? This year’s Madness, Big Ten nowhere near represented as all had expected.

Donald: Nine teams in the tournament…

Patrick: Out of only 14 teams in the conference.

John: That many make it out of one conference—with that percentage—should mean something. It should mean they’ve been tried and tested, and have come through the fire elevated and ready.

Donald: You would think so, right?

John: I would.

Russ: So, at the time of this printing, only one Big Ten team remained: Michigan.

Patrick: Wow…only one Big Ten team in the Sweet Sixteen.

Russ: So, fellas, what’s the deal? What’s going on with the Big Ten as it relates to men’s basketball and March Madness 2021?

Donald: Helluva question, Russ. Well, this year could, easily, be considered one of the worst in tournament history for the Big Ten. The first weekend, the conference finished 7-8 overall. In the second round alone—six games—they were 1-5.

Russ: And, so, #1-seeded Michigan was the only team the Big Ten had to represent the conference in the Sweet Sixteen. Patrick: So, what was or is the problem, y’all?

John: The obvious answer is that the entire conference was overrated. I mean, in one conference, to have two #1 seeds (Illinois and Michigan) and two #2 seeds (Ohio State and Iowa) in an NCAA tournament is absolute madness, but to have had three of these top seeds go out so quickly was beyond madness.

Donald: It’s absolute insanity is what it was. I mean, we all know that every game is about matchups, right? Then, being one-and-out, the combination of these two things opens it up for something like this to happen. Take each individual from Illinois and, odds are—but definitely not guaranteed—they are on another level than some of these mid-majors’ players. But, as we all know, a cohesive team is always stronger than an individual…or a team full of individuals.

Patrick: Good point. That makes it interesting to see some of the teams that our Big Ten teams lost to: #15-seeded Oral Roberts over #2-seeded Ohio State, #13-seeded North Texas over 4th-seeded Purdue. Now, 10th-seeded Rutgers fell to a second-seeded Houston, so not an upset, but they did blow a 9-point lead late.

Russ: You know what else could be a part of this? The Big Ten seems to be committed to bringing in local talent, which isn’t a horrible thing, considering the talent is still pretty high.

Patrick: I get that. Sometimes, even when we do get a bluechip talent, they become “local” if that makes any sense.

John: It could simply be a case of luck, right? I mean, even back in the day when the Michigan State teams and the random Big Ten team made those tourney runs, they— the teams and players—felt slightly less-than compared to the other top teams out there.

Donald: Yeah, it could be that…or, like I mentioned earlier, simply a matchup thing. Objective: Be ahead at the end of 40 minutes.

Patrick: Agreed. And let me add that when we’re only watching the Big Ten play, they’re beating up one another, looking like superstars; however, once matched up with the top players from the other teams or, even, a very team-strong unit, stuff changed a bit.

Russ: Overrated...but we’ll be back!