Dickie V ranks the conferences
- Thread starter SoCal_Knight
- Start date
Woo Top five !
NCAA tournament early round exits and no Championships recently make this probably correct
NCAA tournament early round exits and no Championships recently make this probably correct
After the top two, I think the next 3 are all about the same it just depends on what you like. The BIG has more parity, the Big East and ACC tend to have better top end teams most years, but weaker at the bottom of the conference.
I can always find something to quibble with, but I think Dickie V's assessment is pretty reasonable.
It really depends on what the criteria is. Are you going by depth or what’s the top of the conference like. The top of the B1G isn’t good. However, the depth is there and that’s undeniable. I really don’t see how the Big East is better than the B1G
Tournament performance also, I'm sure, weighs heavily for Vitale. Big East was 12-4 in the tournament last year, with five teams (7-4 if you exclude UConn). Big 10 was 6-8 with eight teams.
After how last season ended, I can't knock putting the big east ahead of the big 10 going into this year.
I hear you but if 5 teams are 4 seeds and 10 teams are 8 seeds. 5 teams have a higher probability of winning than the 10 teams. What’s the better conference?
Purdue was a 1 seed that lost to a 16. Seeding and probability of winning is also a hard argument to make for the big 10 last year.
I think if you get a lot of teams selected, it speaks to depth - but if you get a lot of teams that move forward, it speaks to quality/strength at the top. Both should be considered.
There's the "steel sharpens steel" argument that going against tough opponents makes you stronger, so deeper conferences should have stronger teams at the top... but if you aren't consistently showing up in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8, it's hard to make an argument that you're one of the top conferences in the country.
Last year the Big Ten got 1 to the Sweet 16 and none to the Elite 8 (2 teams seeded 4th or better). The prior year, 2 to the Sweet 16 and none to the Elite 8 (3 teams). The prior year, 1 to the Sweet 16 and 1 to the Elite 8 (5 teams).
Out of 48 teams in the last three Sweet 16s, just 4 have been from the Big Ten, despite there being 10 seeded 4th or better. Of the 24 teams in the last three Elite 8s, just 1 has been from the Big Ten (despite there being 5 teams seeded 2nd or better).
At the end of the day, the Big Ten needs to find ways to succeed at the end of the year.
There's the "steel sharpens steel" argument that going against tough opponents makes you stronger, so deeper conferences should have stronger teams at the top... but if you aren't consistently showing up in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8, it's hard to make an argument that you're one of the top conferences in the country.
Last year the Big Ten got 1 to the Sweet 16 and none to the Elite 8 (2 teams seeded 4th or better). The prior year, 2 to the Sweet 16 and none to the Elite 8 (3 teams). The prior year, 1 to the Sweet 16 and 1 to the Elite 8 (5 teams).
Out of 48 teams in the last three Sweet 16s, just 4 have been from the Big Ten, despite there being 10 seeded 4th or better. Of the 24 teams in the last three Elite 8s, just 1 has been from the Big Ten (despite there being 5 teams seeded 2nd or better).
At the end of the day, the Big Ten needs to find ways to succeed at the end of the year.
I think the tournament gets hot teams, sometimes the best team in the country and a lot of random outcomes. Not sure it should be the judge. Was the 16th team better than Purdue? Random event. What would have happened if that ransom event didn’t occur?
I get it. If they don’t step up in the tourney the perception will persist. Still think the deepest conference has as much claim as the top heavy do to best conference consideration.
At the end of the day, there's a season ending tournament that pits the best teams from each conference against each other .. if you consistently struggle in that environment, it's a decent indicator of your top end strength against peer conferences.
Yes, there are fluke games... but the big ten seems to perennially struggle in March.
Both depth and top end strength should factor in, imo
One of Bill Parcell's more memorable quotes is, "You are what you're record says you are". We can't continue to say the B10 is a deep conference and expect to send 8-10 teams to the tournament if we keep coming up short and not having any teams make deep runs. Let's hope we can change the narrative this year and send 1 to 2 teams to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8.
I think Dickie V's ranking conference assessment is reasonable given the B10's recent lack of tournament success.
I think Dickie V's ranking conference assessment is reasonable given the B10's recent lack of tournament success.
Too bad for the Houston meltdown or we could have helped the narrative. Win that and face a team we already beat earlier in the year in Sweet 16.
I think Bill Parcell was referencing teams are what their record says they are and referring to the regular season. That would make us #2 and Big 12 or 8 or whatever is the best
A number one falling to a sixteen raises questions as to how good the one is
That then becomes a bad reflection for the rest of the conference, unless other BIG teams outperform what wad expected of them
We haven't had enough teams surviving deep, imo, and in the end
its not a good perception, and you question the league strength overall
Might want to start by not playing the last conference championship game. While may make money, think it does more harm than good for the Big Dance.
Preseason rankings have 2 B1G teams in Top 5, but it's the 4th best conference?? LMAO
Let me know what that rankings looks like once you add UCLA and USC and get back to me with something realistic. It's been a Top 3 league for the last 6 to 7 years, irregardless of the NCAA title result.
Let me know what that rankings looks like once you add UCLA and USC and get back to me with something realistic. It's been a Top 3 league for the last 6 to 7 years, irregardless of the NCAA title result.
Tournaments are so different than the regular season I have no idea why people cannot come to grips with that.
What if the NCAA Tourney was double-elimination? Do you think the same teams that won titles would just win anyway?
Do you think last year's champ UCONN could win the Big Ten regular season title? They came in third last season in the Big East. And the number 2 team Nova won the Big East Tourney.
Why do so many just allow the NCAA Tourney results from last year to determine what conferences are strong or overrated?
What if the NCAA Tourney was double-elimination? Do you think the same teams that won titles would just win anyway?
Do you think last year's champ UCONN could win the Big Ten regular season title? They came in third last season in the Big East. And the number 2 team Nova won the Big East Tourney.
Why do so many just allow the NCAA Tourney results from last year to determine what conferences are strong or overrated?