Blog Entry

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)

Posted on: March 21, 2009 1:27 pm

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- The "Story of the day" in the Friday recap wasn't that the Big Ten is 4-3. It was the two latenight overtime games, both of which just happened to include Big Ten schools. That was the story. The subsequent sentence about the Big Ten's record through the first round of this NCAA tournament was merely a throw-away line used to add more information, and everybody except insecure Big Ten fans seem to understand as much.

Had the ACC been in those two latenight overtime games, I would've pointed out the ACC's record.

Same goes for the Pac-10.

Or the Big 12.

Or anybody.

Honestly, it's that simple.

And either way, it's not like the record was fabricated or something.

The Big Ten really is only 4-3.

Here's how that stacks-up against the other BCS leagues ...

Big 12: 6-0
Big East: 6-1
Pac-10: 5-1
Big Ten: 4-3
ACC: 3-4
SEC: 1-2

Category: NCAAB

Since: Mar 20, 2009
Posted on: March 22, 2009 7:29 pm

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)

Parish, the Big Ten was not matched up very nicelly in the Tournament, and the funny ting is if MSU wins it alll, you will chock on your words because they are ten big ten champs. Go Green, Kansas is next. Didnt we beat them bad this year.  

Since: Feb 15, 2009
Posted on: March 22, 2009 1:05 pm

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)




Since: Feb 15, 2009
Posted on: March 22, 2009 1:04 pm


Enough of these hack articles in which the so-called "experts" include a conference's record like it is supposed to mean something.

The story should be about the problems with the seeding process, not the record.

Sure, the Big East is going to be 6-1. Look at the seeds the teams were given and the opponents they drew:

#1 Louisville vs #16 Morehead St
#6 WVU vs #11 Dayton
#1 Uconn vs #16 Chattanooga
#6 Marquette vs #11 Utah St
#3 syracuse vs #14 SF Austin
#3 Villanova vs #14 American
#1 Pitt vs #16 ETSU

The Big East should have won all those games. Syracuse and Villanova should have been 4 and 5 seeds
and would have draw better opponents. Marquette and WVU as 6 seeds? Please. They should have been playing in 7 vs 10 or 8 vs 9 matchups which would have been more balanced...not the WVU put up a fight aginst Dayton.

Since: Mar 21, 2009
Posted on: March 22, 2009 10:10 am

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)


Very funny!  Like it. The Big 10 fans have always not been vocal relative to others (particularly the SEC, ACC and the Big East) even if theyhave made so many negative comments of the Big 10 over the past few years.  True, the Big 10 was relatively down and comments, if they came from fans of other conferences can be expected to be biased, of course.  So there was really no need to be vocal.  Actually, even during the early 2000's  when the Big 10 was the strongest conference in basketball and football, can you remember the Big 10 fans being very vocal about it?  I don't think so.   Being fans of one of the most powerful and prestigious conferences is enough. And yes, that's a biased statement because I'm a fan.  Even your statements about the BIg 10 is fine by me as you might also be a fan of the conferences in the West.

But when a "journalist" shows bias, that is different.  Even if it is a blog.  Why? Because unlike a fan making comments, a columnist has s following and subscribers, which may affect how they form their opinion.  If the complete facts are presented, without agenda, innuendo or bias, and a reader concludes the Big 10 is performing so poorly (or more strongly, sucks) in the tournament, that's fine.  AT least they had the clean facts from which they based their opinion.  That's the point Parrish does not get or even if he does, will not admit that he does.

Since: Oct 9, 2006
Posted on: March 22, 2009 9:40 am

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)

I didn't know there still were Big Ten fans.  I figured they all would have been bored to sleep by now after the last few years of slow, tedious, mediocre play.


Good for them.  It's nice to now they all made the transition from rabbit ears to digital converter box as well.  Old people aren't tech-challanged as they're made out to be.

Since: Mar 21, 2009
Posted on: March 22, 2009 1:05 am

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)

Of course, you're saying these now. Fine, the Big Ten is ONLY 4-3, no one is raising hell about you saying that.  You're the one who do not get the point of your readers. But then again, who do you think makes comments here Parrish?  Whackos? What a way to say thanks to your readers! If what you're saying is that the statement you made is just a throw-away line, maybe a better statement would have been: "As it was, the Big Ten ended up losing three games as expected, finishing Round 1 at 4-3."  Neutral. statement of fact, no color. However, the way you exressed your so-called throw-away line had the feeling that you're putting the Big Ten losing three games in the first round in the spotlight.  If you have a Journalism backgoround, you'll understand.  But maybe, since you're an expert and a regular writer, you do understand what we all are saying but you just don't want to admit fault as you also are only realizing that maybe your sub-conscious intention showed though in your throw-away line.

As I said in my previous posting to your original blog post (and as Uncle Miltie once again pointed out),  the Big Ten is performing as expected.  They're ONLY 4-3, but they're doing okay, not like what your throw-away line implied.  By the way,  thanks for calling us whackos.  You can sink to OUR level apparently.  See ya, EXPERT! (and yes, the implications of my throw-awat line are intentional! =)


Since: Oct 8, 2007
Posted on: March 21, 2009 11:03 pm

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)

How on earth did the Big East underachieve, Uncle Miltie(lol)? With 3 #1 seeds, the other BE contestants are by-lines, and doing pretty well, at that. Of course, somebody is going to drop a game, so what? Big Ten fans should try to be a bit more level with all this. The only conferences stinking it up are the ACC, and SEC(though they only had 3 teams to begin with - and now none). ACC only has 2 teams left, B-12 dropped a couple more teams today. Purdue got a good win, Mich lost to a very good Ok team, I'd say things are playing out pretty well for everyone. And it is the tourney after all, shiii happens...



Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posted on: March 21, 2009 3:36 pm

A better way to evaluate it.

Assuming that you and other analysts are OK with the seedings, a better way to look at the tournament record is how many wins a conference has vs. how many it is expected to have.  Seedings are intended to assume that a higher seed will beat a lower seed.  Therefore, if a lower seed upsets a higher seed, it should knock the perception of that conference.


Through Round 1, Here's how the conference stack up compared to how they should have done based on seeding:


Big 12:  Expected to win 5 (3 Kansas, 3 Mizzou, 2 Oklahoma, 7 Texas, 8 OK State), won 6 (+9 Texas A&M)

Big East: Expected to win 7 (1 UConn, 1 Pitt, 1 Louisville, 6 Marquette, 3 Syracuse, 3 Villanova, 6 West Virgina), won 6 (-WVU)

Pac 10: Expected to win 3 (7 Cal, 4 Washington, 6 ASU), won 5 (+10 USC, +12 Arizona)

Big 10: Expected to win 4 (2 MSU, 5 Purdue, 5 Illinois, 8 Ohio St), Won 4 (-Illinois, - Ohio State, +10 Michigan, +12 Wisconsin)

ACC: Expected to win 6 (4 Wake, 7 BC, 7 Clemson, 1 UNC, 2 Duke, 5 Fla St.), Won 3 (-Fla St, -Wake, -Clemson, -BC, +10 Maryland)

SEC: Expected to win 1 (8 LSU), Won 1


Broken down by seeds and expectations that go with those seeds, the Pac 10 and Big 12 exceeded expectations, the Big 10 and SEC met expectations, and the Big East and ACC underachieved.  I think this is a much better way to evaluate conferences performance in the tournament, not just straight W-L.


Since: Mar 21, 2009
Posted on: March 21, 2009 2:43 pm

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)


 If you didn't already try to "dis" the Big 10 you did it in this post saying "Big Ten wackos" and "insecure Big Ten fans."


And in the first post you should've chosen a different word instead of "just" when saying "just four wins". Then your blog probably would've been received differently.

Since: Jun 24, 2008
Posted on: March 21, 2009 2:16 pm

Just to clarify (for you Big Ten wackos)

Oh come on, surely you can't be surprised that is how people took it. Not when you spent about as much space in that section on the "throwaway line" as you did describing perhaps the two most exciting games of the tourney.

Unless you're just incredibly naive about how your writing makes things sound, by including the item on how the Big Ten is JUST 4-3 you clearly intended it either a) as a slam against the Big Ten, in which case the response is justified or b) to get reaction from Big Ten fans, in which case you expected it and we're all just playing into what you want. Either way, fine. But don't pretend you've been completely misinterpreted and call the fans who respond wackos. Either you did see this reaction coming or you sure as heck should have.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or