vs Illinois

[MSUMatt28]

you're right, I overlooked Maryland - so that's 3 teams with winning records in conference. And yes, they beat Iowa twice, but Iowa has one win vs. the top half of the conference beating uofm at home.

We have yet to play 2 of the top 5 teams (uofm and wisc) and so far among those, only played Purdue 2x and we split with them. Of the 8 games left, only 2 are from the bottom 1/3 of the conference. We have to play uofm 2x and wisco. So at a minimum, no matter how hard or easy you think the schedule has been, it's definitely going to be tougher going forward.

I don't think uofm is unbeatable by any stretch but they haven't lost to any shitty teams like we have. We really shot ourselves in the foot losing to IU and Ill and no longer control our own destiny. If we win out we'll eliminate uofm and wisco but still need Purdue to drop one just for a piece of the conference title.

Less of a concern to me than the schedule is how they're playing going forward. The team that was stepping onto the court 2-3 weeks ago would have no problem with the remaining schedule. Now? Hard to say. Not sure the level the team was playing at back then can be re-established. At least they do have 5 of their final 8 at home.

Purdue might have the easiest path going forward. Again, I don't think I'm a fan of the 20 game conference schedule. It makes the whole thing even more of grind. It does potentially make for less imbalance in the conference schedules. I think a better solution would be to not have 14 team conferences.

 

[Spartanmack]

Less of a concern to me than the schedule is how they're playing going forward. The team that was stepping onto the court 2-3 weeks ago would have no problem with the remaining schedule. Now? Hard to say. Not sure the level the team was playing at back then can be re-established. At least they do have 5 of their final 8 at home.

Purdue might have the easiest path going forward. Again, I don't think I'm a fan of the 20 game conference schedule. It makes the whole thing even more of grind. It does potentially make for less imbalance in the conference schedules. I think a better solution would be to not have 14 team conferences.

two or three weeks ago they were playing well enough to compete with uofm but not well enough to say they would have no problem with them.

I think wisco has it relatively easier as well but they have one more loss than purdue. uofm's schedule is probably slightly tougher than ours.

To me, the 14 team "super conference" is the problem. I've hated every expansion including Penn State - I still don't consider them a real Big 10 team and it's been over 20 years now.

 

[SpartyNash]

two or three weeks ago they were playing well enough to compete with uofm but not well enough to say they would have no problem with them.

I think wisco has it relatively easier as well but they have one more loss than purdue. uofm's schedule is probably slightly tougher than ours.

To me, the 14 team "super conference" is the problem. I've hated every expansion including Penn State - I still don't consider them a real Big 10 team and it's been over 20 years now.

12 should be the max in my mind. I was a toddler when Penn State joined so it?s natural to me that they?re in the conference. I am kind of in the same boat now with Nebraska, the Big 12 is probably a better fit for them but I am so used to them now that they seem to fit in well. Maryland and Rutgers are tougher to embrace, especially the latter, and I likely never will.