Let me preface this by saying I have no idea who this person is, I unfortunately had this RT'd onto my timeline. That said, this is the dumbest, most incorrect take about college hoops I've ever seen. In fact if I see anything like this I just immediately have zero respect for whatever you say when it comes to basketball. Now lets get into it because there's a lot to unpack here.
First - thinking the 'hassle' of one-and-done isn't worth it is just wildly incorrect. Kentucky and Duke both have won titles based on OAD's. Syracuse won a title won thanks to a OAD. Ohio State made a title game. Saying you 'can't win' with one-and-done's like we hear so often, is just flat out incorrect. Speaking in absolutes is the dumbest thing you can do when talking about anything in sports. We heard you can't win shooting a ton of threes - Nova won doing that. We heard you can't win without a true big - we've seen teams do that. We heard you can't win with OAD - we've seen that happen. We heard you can't play slow - there are countless teams that have won with slow tempo, most notably Virginia.
Second - using the Big 10 as some sort of 'look at how right' things are! During a ringz argument? The Big 10 hasn't won a title since 2000. Outside of the Pac-12, they are the most disappointing conference if you want to be an idiot and just scream about titles. Not winning a title in two decades?!? Does that mean playing in the Big 10 isn't worth the hassle because you can't win there? Makes you think.
Third - stop screaming about ringzzz in college hoops. It's the worst thing you can do. Don't get me wrong, I understand why a ton of casual fans will just look at the NCAA Tournament, the only part of college hoops they watch, and make an argument based around that. Remember, we're talking about a 1-game scenario. There's nothing like the NCAA Tournament. People who say 'well college football if you lose in the regular season you're out of the title hunt.' Saban has won all but 1 national titles with a loss. That's false. The NFL you're talking about winning 3 games, at most 4. There's simply nothing like the NCAA Tournament. It's why it's the best thing in the world and the worst way to actually determine the best team. Shit, the 'best team' has only won the NCAA Tournament twice this past decade - 2012 Kentucky and 2016 Nova. Other than that the best team in the country hasn't won. Again, awesome way to determine a champion but the worst way to actually determine the best team in the country. Stop basing things off of that - otherwise the entire Big 10 and anything west is worthless. They haven't won titles since 2000 and 1997 respectively. That's the longest streak in the NCAA Tournament more than anything else.
There's not another sport where the view on a coach changes year by year more than college hoops.
There was a running joke that Jay Wright's contract included working for CBS every second weekend in the NCAA Tournament. He was a choke artist - losing in the Round of 32 as a 1 and 2 seed. He made one Final Four (despite having tons of talent) in his first 14 years. Yet he was always a good coach! The two titles doesn't change that. Same goes for Tony Bennett. Everyone said he was a great regular season coach but chokes all the time. He won a title and now everyone agrees he's a top-5ish coach in America. He didn't do anything different. He didn't change anything. And think how close Virginia was from not winning a title and how the conversation about Bennett would be different. Whether Diakite doesn't hit a buzzer-beater, Kyle Guy misses free throws or De'Andre Hunter misses a three. That's why the NCAA Tournament is so stupid to form a judgement around. That's before we even get into someone like Tom Izzo. He's known for being wildly successful in March. He has 1 title. ONE! He's had plenty great recruiting classes, NBA players, etc. Yet he just has 1 title. Should we be bashing him? The answer is of course not. But this argument goes both ways.
Again, there has been a title won by Kentucky! That's the dumbest part of this whole argument. If Cal didn't win a title, sure, I'd get the argument more. But he already won one. To go with that he has the most tournament wins (by a long shot) 70% of his Kentucky career has been in the Elite 8 or further. His 8 NCAA Tournament losses are by a combined 37 points. That's how fucking small the margin for error is in this thing. If it was a series setup and he only had one title, I'd listen to the argument.
Maybe next year is the chance the Big 10 has to snap a TWENTY YEAR losing streak in the NCAA Tournament. Maybe that'll show it's not a hassle playing in a conference that relies on playing multiple bigs and then gets sped up during the NCAA Tournament. You're jut a fucking moron if you speak in absolutes like that tweet.