Since 1960 only three teams have won a national title in BB not playing in what would have been last years Power 5 and BE conferences. I know not every team was playing in these conf.'s all along ( I'm only talking about teams that were in these leagues last year ), but what it says is your chances of winning a title are very, very slim, which kind of scares me about our chances going in to tournament out of this league. 1963 ( I won't mention this team still pisses me off ), UTEP in 1966 and UNLV in 1990 are the only ones and you can see it's been a long time. Would have liked to seen what would have happened had BE stayed together, we never really got to play there at full strength, article I read predicted in the long run an average of 4 teams each from AAC and nBe. Just don't like our chances out of this league, but we'll see, maybe someday we'll get the right matchups. Your thoughts.
The issue is whether the conference was "major" AT THAT TIME. For example, Marquette won a title as an independent in 1977.
It's also important to note that once you're in the Final Four, it's a 2-game crapshoot. The best team in the Final Four probably only wins 40% of the time. So the important thing is being able to get to the Final Four in the first place. And there's plenty of examples of non power conference teams who have made the Final Four. Butler, George Mason, Wichita State, Memphis, and VCU have all done it in the last seven years. Heck, Butler did it twice and they didn't even have a superstar player (just a superstar coach).
(05-24-2013 11:47 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]The issue is whether the conference was "major" AT THAT TIME. For example, Marquette won a title as an independent in 1977.
It's also important to note that once you're in the Final Four, it's a 2-game crapshoot. The best team in the Final Four probably only wins 40% of the time. So the important thing is being able to get to the Final Four in the first place. And there's plenty of examples of non power conference teams who have made the Final Four. Butler, George Mason, Wichita State, Memphis, and VCU have all done it in the last seven years. Heck, Butler did it twice and they didn't even have a superstar player (just a superstar coach).
But they did not win.
(05-24-2013 11:51 AM)CincyBro Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2013 11:47 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]The issue is whether the conference was "major" AT THAT TIME. For example, Marquette won a title as an independent in 1977.
It's also important to note that once you're in the Final Four, it's a 2-game crapshoot. The best team in the Final Four probably only wins 40% of the time. So the important thing is being able to get to the Final Four in the first place. And there's plenty of examples of non power conference teams who have made the Final Four. Butler, George Mason, Wichita State, Memphis, and VCU have all done it in the last seven years. Heck, Butler did it twice and they didn't even have a superstar player (just a superstar coach).
But they did not win.
Outside of Michigan State you could have said that same thing about the entire Big Ten.
The unpredictability of March is why I love the tourney.
Winning a national title and being able to compete for one year in year out are two completely different matters. Winning a national championship usually involves a great deal of luck, particularly in this day and age. Building a program that puts your team in the sweet 16 or elite 8, and thus in a reasonable position to compete for the title in any given year, is extremely difficult. Its very rare for a team to fluke its way to playing on the second weekend two or three years in a row. Being in a conference that is perceived as inferior makes building a consistently excellent team more difficult because of recruiting. But unless you are playing
below the red line conference affiliation has very little impact on a average program's long term probability of winning a title.
(05-25-2013 02:04 AM)Mopper Wrote: [ -> ]Winning a national title and being able to compete for one year in year out are two completely different matters. Winning a national championship usually involves a great deal of luck, particularly in this day and age. Building a program that puts your team in the sweet 16 or elite 8, and thus in a reasonable position to compete for the title in any given year, is extremely difficult. Its very rare for a team to fluke its way to playing on the second weekend two or three years in a row. Being in a conference that is perceived as inferior makes building a consistently excellent team more difficult because of recruiting. But unless you are playing below the red line conference affiliation has very little impact on a average program's long term probability of winning a title.
Then why did teams from the P5 win 99.9%
of the titles the last 60 years.
The current landscape is really a power eight in basketball because you can add the Big East, American, and the Mountain West to those other leagues. You still have a few good programs left in the A-10, WCC, and Missouri Valley; however, most of the really good programs have consolidated to the top eight leagues.
The top eight conferences will produce over 90 percent of the at-larege bids every season and in some years I could the other leagues combining for as little as one or two at-large bids combined.
I view national titles as being program specific. Just because Boston College, Wake Forest, UVA, and Virginia Tech are in the ACC doesn't give them a better chance at winning a title than Cincinnati, Memphis, or UConn.
(05-25-2013 08:19 AM)CincyBro Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2013 02:04 AM)Mopper Wrote: [ -> ]Winning a national title and being able to compete for one year in year out are two completely different matters. Winning a national championship usually involves a great deal of luck, particularly in this day and age. Building a program that puts your team in the sweet 16 or elite 8, and thus in a reasonable position to compete for the title in any given year, is extremely difficult. Its very rare for a team to fluke its way to playing on the second weekend two or three years in a row. Being in a conference that is perceived as inferior makes building a consistently excellent team more difficult because of recruiting. But unless you are playing below the red line conference affiliation has very little impact on a average program's long term probability of winning a title.
Then why did teams from the P5 win 99.9%
of the titles the last 60 years.
Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams the top 8 conferences have produced two thirds of the teams in the tournament basically every year. Teams from those conferences win it more often than not because there are more of them playing in any given year. The odds are proportionally better that one of those teams will get the right breaks in a given year. It is not like UC is going to be playing in the sun belt all of a sudden. UC still has more money, resources and support than 80 percent of the college basketball world. Playing the AAC takes any chance UC would have of playing in the Football championship game and throws it out the window, but the same line of thought does not hold in basketball.