(01-29-2019 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 12:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  For the entire decade of the 1980s, there was not a single mid-major who made the Final Four.

In the 1990s, 4 or 5 mid-majors made the Final Four (UNLV, UNLV, Cincinnati, UMass, Utah). Cincinnati was arguably not a mid-major because they had been in a "major" conference for the past 15 years and had 2 national titles.

In the 2000s, 3 or 4 mid-majors made the final 4 (Marquette, Louisville, George Mason, Memphis). Louisville was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

From 2010-2018, 6 or 7 mid-majors have made the final four (Butler, Butler, VCU, UConn, Wichita, Gonzaga, Loyola). UConn was arguably not a mid-major because it had previously been in a "major" conference and had 2 national titles.

Kind of makes my point. In some 40 years, only four schools (UMass, George Mason, VCU and Loyola) that are outside the conferences I proposed for a top tier made it as far as the Final Four (with none winning). I can live with their being in a second tier.

They're in those leagues NOW. They weren't when they made these achievements.

Butler was in the Horizon the two years they made the title game.

Yes, they are. I'm not proposing that we re-create conferences as they existed in the past. And I'm not suggesting that every school in the 8 top conferences is equally capable of winning. But they are conferences consisting of self-selected peer institutions who want to compete against each other, that collectively are clearly superior to most D-I conferences in most sports. That's as close as we are likely to get to a reasonable division of the 350 or so D-I schools.

Maybe the 101 schools I grouped together isn't the perfect number. But it's way better than the 350+ we have now.