Hey, maybe Big Ten isn't all that bad

For years now, maybe decades, readers have enjoyed criticizing me for my criticism of Big Ten basketball.

All that means is that my strategy worked.

You see, the Big Ten issue deflected attention from how stupid my annual NCAA Tournament predictions are.

Not everyone fell for the misdirection play, of course. Daniel Goodman didn't.

"When I saw Louisville," he e-mailed, "I almost spit my coffee all over the paper."

Yes, I picked Louisville to make the championship game and the Cardinals lost in the first round. At least they weren't my pick to win the title. That was Kansas, a second-round loser.

"Maybe you should turn to weather forecasting," e-mailed J.O. Sullivan (or if it's J. O'Sullivan I couldn't even get that right). "Only kidding."

Hey, I suppose you kidders picked Butler to beat Syracuse and Kansas State to advance to the Final Four.

Anyway, back to the Big Ten. Michigan State qualified for the national semifinals Sunday. Don't the Spartans get there every year?

Todd Switzer e-mailed last week, "We went down this road last year with the Big Ten - you disparaging it, and the league proving its mettle in the tournament."

Todd, my man, didn't you notice that I didn't pick any of the Final Four teams?

"What will it take," Mr. Switzer continued undeterred, "for you to look at the actual results of the past 10 years and finally give some credit where it's due?"

The funny thing about this subject is that I believe the Big Ten overall was better this season than it has been for at least a decade.

That was even before Michigan State's postseason run. Purdue was a better choice for the Final Four before Robbie Hummel was injured. With one more player worth of depth, Ohio State would have been the best of all.

This wasn't like the past when the Big Ten played plodding, boring, ugly basketball during the regular season, which translated well to the postseason.

The conference actually was more up-tempo this season. Maybe that's why it won the ACC/Big Ten challenge.

But this isn't merely about styles and systems. It's more about players, as basketball always is. Big Ten teams appear to have altered their recruiting philosophies.

The change was visible last season. The conference clearly had more athletic players than in previous years.

The conference's latest wave of coaches - Purdue's Matt Painter, Minnesota's Tubby Smith and Ohio State's Thad Matta among them - have something to do with this.

They seem to prefer a different kind of player than those programs had in the past. That's the only way they could compete with Michigan State's Tom Izzo.

Wisconsin's Bo Ryan, perhaps the league's best tactician if Izzo isn't, still plays a methodical game, but Illinois recently began bringing in more speed and quickness.

The point generally is that the Big Ten is entering the 21st century by adding the style that I wanted to the substance that I ignored.

If they keep it up I might have to pick the conference to do something in the NCAA Tournament next year.

Meanwhile, how 'bout them Louisville Cardinals?