schmolik

Hello, college basketball fans!

It may surprise you, but here's the facts...

By NCAA wins:
Big 10 - 30 NCAA appearances, 55 wins, 14 Sweet 16's, 6 Final Fours, 1 Title
Big 12 - 29 NCAA appearances, 43 wins, 11 Sweet 16's, 4 Final Fours
Big East - 25 NCAA appearances, 42 wins, 12 Sweet 16's, 2 Final Fours, 2 Titles
ACC - 20 NCAA appearances, 40 wins, 10 Sweet 16's, 5 Final Fours, 2 Titles
SEC - 30 NCAA appearances, 37 wins, 11 Sweet 16's, 1 Final Four
Pac 10 - 24 NCAA appearances, 33 wins, 9 Sweet 16's, 1 Final Four

By percentage:
ACC: 69.0%
Big 10: 65.5%
Big East: 64.6%
Big 12: 59.7%
Pac 10: 57.9%
SEC: 55.2%

The ACC has the best percentage, but the Big 10 has by far the most wins, has
the most Sweet 16's, and has the most Final Fours. Only the Big 10 has had four
different teams make the Final Four (ACC and Big 12 three each). The Big 10 has
had eight different teams (MSU, Wisc, Ill, Pur, Ind, OSU, Iowa, and PSU) make
the Sweet 16. By contrast, the ACC has had only three teams make the 2nd
weekend of the NCAA's. Only the Big 2 (Duke and Maryland) from the ACC have won
more than five games in the NCAA over the past five years. Six Big 10 teams
have won that many.

Michigan State - 17
Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana - 7 each
Ohio State and Purdue - 6 each

Another amazing thing about the 14 Sweet 16's and six Final Fours is that the
Big 10 hasn't had a top three seed in the past two seasons. They have had just
five top three seeds over that span (Michigan State #1 in 1999, 2000, and 2001,
Ohio State #3 in 2000, and Illinois #1 in 2001) and four top two seeds. So nine
Sweet 16 teams were seeded four or lower. Duke alone has been seeded three or
higher all of the past five seasons, and Maryland has been four of the past
five seasons. Yet, the ACC has only 10 Sweet 16's as opposed to 14 by the Big
10. Consider that top three seeds "should" make the Sweet 16 (fours and fives
could go either way). The ACC should have made the Sweet 16 far more times than
the Big 10.
Instead, the Big 10 has made more. I'm sure the other conferences have gotten
far more top two and top three seeds than the Big 10 has over the past five
seasons, yet none of them have made more Sweet 16's and Final 4's.

The Big 10 is right up there with the ACC, and you can argue they are even
ahead of the ACC during the past five seasons when it comes to the NCAA
tournament. Too bad that success doesn't carry over to December. But I'd much
rather win in March than December.

Schmolik

kstarheel

Yeah, that's it. Narrow the window so the Big 10 looks better. Open
it up for 25 years or more and the ACC is and always will be the bomb.

jbird

I though ACC (especially dook) fans don't like to go back in time cause
then you have to talk about UCLA.

PP PP
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP tttttt ttttttt
PP PP ii ttt ttt
PP ii ii it tt tt tt tt
PP iii iii ttt tt

tonyf

How convenient to stop your stats at five years. The three previous
years KY won it all twice and came within a couple of free throws of
wining the third. I almost believe this could be because that makes
you right with you rating the conferences. Yes sir, we can just pick
and choose what stats we use to bolster our opinion.
tonyf

joseph jeong

jbird <jbird@pitt.edu> hypothesized the following:
:
:


:> > The Big 10 is right up there with the ACC, and you can argue they are even
:> > ahead of the ACC during the past five seasons when it comes to the NCAA
:> > tournament. Too bad that success doesn't carry over to December. But I'd much
:> > rather win in March than December.
:> >
:> > Schmolik
:>
:> Yeah, that's it. Narrow the window so the Big 10 looks better. Open
:> it up for 25 years or more and the ACC is and always will be the bomb.
:
:
: I though ACC (especially dook) fans don't like to go back in time cause
: then you have to talk about UCLA.

i have no problems with the Wooden UCLA era[0]. i do think whenever we do
this kind of comparisons, era adjustments are needed. then again it's a
lot easier to say it than to do it. i think baseball might be the only
sport that it might be possible and still maintain a semblance of
accuracy.

go back 25 years and i think the ACC looks good. go back more and i
would assume Pac-10 and SEC (because of UK?) start looking a whole lot
better too.


-joseph
[0] it's great to use that against Duke and in the past UNC fans.

schmolik

I thought five was a nice round number. It was either that or ten years. Maybe
I should've gone with ten.

Tell you what, I'll add 1997 and 1998 if you wish. Then we can see the pathetic
SEC performance of teams other than Kentucky. If I recall, only one other team
in the SEC won a game in the tournament those two years, and they had four top
four seeds lose (including a 2 seed) lose in the 1st round. I'm doing the SEC a
favor by only going back five years.

Schmolik

tonyf

No I wouldn't want you to add just those two years. That would
turn your round five into a odd seven. It isn't about props for the
SEC. They also had another championship team in the 90's with
Arkansas. I think ten years would been ok. I don't consider the
tournament record alone when I think of good conferences. I
wonder if there is a way to include the SOS, W\L records (in and
out of conference), tournament seeds and tournament games won.
tonyf