cuseroc Wrote:

esayem Wrote:

Eastside_J Wrote:

esayem Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

esayem Wrote:2 things:

UNLV actually won just 1 national championship.

Conference affiliation is not important: Gonzaga, Butler, So. Illinois, Xavier to name a few current examples. Those schools would shard on half the Huge East, sorry 16 is ridiculous. I am not dissing the conference, just pointing out BCS conference affiliation is rather irrelevant to the hardwood.

You're making it seem like UNLV didn't accomplish much. They won a national title, and then went undefeated the following year all the way to the Final Four and lost. That was a great run by UNLV.

Nice try, but all I was saying is they won a single title, not multiple.

BCS conference affiliation is unimportant?

That has got to be news to the schools you listed (gonzaga, butler, Xavier, So Ill) since not only have none of them ever been to a championship game, not a single one has ever been to a final four.

Here are some quick ones for you...

Q: 2000 -2007 there have been 28 final four spots. How many were reached by non-bcs schools????
A: 3 -George Mason, Marquette Louisville

Q 1990-2000 there were 40 final four spots How many were reached by non-bcs schools???
A: 3 - Umass, Cincinnati, UNLV

Soooo in the last 17 years of basketball 6 teams out of 68 have reached the final four that weren't part of a BCS conference. If you subtract out the ones in that group that are now BCS schools ( Cincinnati, Marquette, Louisville) it leaves you with 3 total schools in 17 years who have made it to a final four. None made it to the championship game.

Still think BCS affiliation isn't an issue on the hardwood?

Can you tell me what that has to do with the BCS tag? Didn't think so. BCS stands for Bowl Championship Series, not Basketball Conference Superiority. When a non-BCS team beats a BCS team in football then it is big news a lot of the time, in basketball it happens on the daily. Final Fours and championships are hard enough to reach and most big time programs only have the strength to get there; it is the program/coach which is most important for college basketball, not the BCS. Thanks for your time.

He made a good point though Esayem. You look at all of the basketball schools, of which there are well over 300. Then you look at the basketball programs that play in bcs conferences, of which there are only 73. Why is it that the overwhelming majority of the times that the 73 bcs schools are winning the national championships and getting to the final 4? I dont believe its a coincidence. I think also that the BCS does not directly have much to do with basketball, but it does indirectly allow the bcs basketball schools some significant advantages, such as much higher revenues and being able to pay more for good basketball coaches and facilities, being on tv more often etc... Most of the bcs conferences all play major football. Its also interesting that it has been 20 years or more since a basketball school that doesnt play D1a football has won it all as well.

Athletic departments with more resources and higher budgets, yes, I agree. I am just making it a point that the BCS does not decide who plays for the title or who makes the tourney. BCS has nothing to do with college basketball. Is it a coincidence, no. Those conferences have the marquee athletic departments. My point is: Marquette, Louisville, and Cincinnati were all elite basketball programs before BE invites. As far as basketball goes, they just play more of a North-Atlantic schedule. I hope the BCS is rendered irrelevant in favor of schedule strength only. Then hoops wouldn't be so convoluted; I could make two equally exceptional basketball conferences out of the BE now by adding a few schools to each side. Trust me, I know the ACC is far from perfect, look at our idiotic football ideas!