Yes, these are predictions, but it is usually close to accurate barring tourney upsets..and definitely gets in the heads of the talking heads and others.
If these come to fruition, It would be laughable. No one can explain the continued push for the Big 10 this year. Last year they looked stupid not taking 5th place Wake Forest who was 13-7 in ACC play and 25-10 overall....and Virginia who was 6th place, 12-8 in conference, and 21-14 overall. This year, they want to leave out a 3rd place ACC double-by finisher in Clemson who is 14-6 in conference and 22-9 overall...and instead take a team that is in 12th place in the Big 10 with a losing conference record....3 teams with losing conference records overall. At the least, they could start with requiring a team to have a winning record in conference play...heck, at least.500.
Big 10 - 10 teams
SEC - 8 teams
Big 12 - 7 teams
ACC & Big East - 5 teams
Here are the head scratchers to me that jump out...I am sure there are others.
IN the tourney
Wisconsin - 12th place in Big 10; 9-11 in conf, 17-13 overall, 78 in .NET...Why not just take the entire conference at this point?
Penn State - 10th place in Big 10; 10-10 in conf, 19-12 overall, 56 in .NET
Rutgers - 9th place in Big 10; 10-10 in conf, 18-13 overall
Mississippi State - 9th place in the SEC; 8-10 in conf and 20-11 overall.
West Virginia - 8th place in the 10-team Big 12; 7-11 in conf and 18-13 overall. Being 24th in .NET is a problem.
OUT of the tourney
Clemson - 3rd place in the ACC; 14-6 in conf play and 22-9 overall, 61 in .NET
UNC being out is less shocking...but at least they had a winning 11-9 record in conference play...unlike Wisconsin, Miss. State, and West Virginia who could not even get to .500.
I would even stack the 10-10 ACC teams in Syracuse and Wake Forest again the 10-10 teams from the Big 10 in Rutgers and Penn State.
If these come to fruition, It would be laughable. No one can explain the continued push for the Big 10 this year. Last year they looked stupid not taking 5th place Wake Forest who was 13-7 in ACC play and 25-10 overall....and Virginia who was 6th place, 12-8 in conference, and 21-14 overall. This year, they want to leave out a 3rd place ACC double-by finisher in Clemson who is 14-6 in conference and 22-9 overall...and instead take a team that is in 12th place in the Big 10 with a losing conference record....3 teams with losing conference records overall. At the least, they could start with requiring a team to have a winning record in conference play...heck, at least.500.
Big 10 - 10 teams
SEC - 8 teams
Big 12 - 7 teams
ACC & Big East - 5 teams
Here are the head scratchers to me that jump out...I am sure there are others.
IN the tourney
Wisconsin - 12th place in Big 10; 9-11 in conf, 17-13 overall, 78 in .NET...Why not just take the entire conference at this point?
Penn State - 10th place in Big 10; 10-10 in conf, 19-12 overall, 56 in .NET
Rutgers - 9th place in Big 10; 10-10 in conf, 18-13 overall
Mississippi State - 9th place in the SEC; 8-10 in conf and 20-11 overall.
West Virginia - 8th place in the 10-team Big 12; 7-11 in conf and 18-13 overall. Being 24th in .NET is a problem.
OUT of the tourney
Clemson - 3rd place in the ACC; 14-6 in conf play and 22-9 overall, 61 in .NET
UNC being out is less shocking...but at least they had a winning 11-9 record in conference play...unlike Wisconsin, Miss. State, and West Virginia who could not even get to .500.
I would even stack the 10-10 ACC teams in Syracuse and Wake Forest again the 10-10 teams from the Big 10 in Rutgers and Penn State.
Bracketology: The Big 12 is actually the Big 14, and it's a perplexing puzzle
The Big 12 has a bloated 14 schools for 2023-24 and is about to learn that
www.espn.com
