(04-20-2024 04:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  What makes forecasting B12 basketball so hard...
1) Houston and Baylor have been transformed into elite level programs over the past six to ten years. It's hard to tell whether these programs can continue at the recent levels, or if they will revert to the average of what they themselves have averaged over the past couple of decades.

Valid point but the thing I’d say about looking at UHs performance in past decades is that it all just depends on how far back you want to go, as each of the last 6 decades of our history will tell you a drastically different story about our program and what our future prospects might look like. I think there are likely two guarantees with our future. The first is that as long as Kelvin Sampson is our HC, we will continue to be a player on the national scene (T-25, tournament fixture, etc). The second is that no matter who replaces him (his son is the current coach in waiting), we’re virtually guaranteed to take a step back. With that said, whoever does replace him will inherit a far better program than the one Sampson turned into a power. So Im holding out hope that that step back won’t be a large one. Last thing I’ll add is that it’s my personal belief that we have not yet peaked under Sampson. Look out for us this year because we’ve got a squad.

You could make an argument for any of the Big 12, ACC, and Big East as being the best conference.

You can't make a reasonable argument for anyone else, in my opinion.

(04-20-2024 10:46 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 10:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  For what it's worth ...

Leagues (as constructed next year) with the most members ranked in the top 25 winningest programs of all-time list:

Big 12 (six): Arizona, BYU, Cincinnati, Kansas, Utah and West Virginia

Big Ten (six): Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue, UCLA and Washington

ACC (four): Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame and Syracuse

Big East (three): Connecticut, St. John's and Villanova

SEC (two): Kentucky and Texas

Ivy (two): Penn and Princeton

Others: Temple (AAC) and Western Kentucky (C-USA)

Worth noting: If you take the next 25 all-time winningest programs to go to a top 50, the Big 12 (again, based on membership starting next year) offers only two. The Big Ten offers five, followed by the SEC (four) and, in a tie, the ACC (three) and the Big East (three).

I think the best measure isn’t all-time wins or performance in the past five years, but somewhere in between. Say, the past 20-30 years. That is a better predictor of the future or statement on the current state of affairs than who is hot right now (5 years) or who did things 50 years ago.

WKU has a lot to be proud of. So does Temple. But they are not superior programs to Gonzaga, or the Big 12’s Baylor, or NC State, or a host of other schools.

Another thing that needs to be talked about is that the SEC and Big 12 have figured out how to game the NET rankings, but their real strength, or lack thereof, shows up in the NCAA tournament. The ACC schedules tough non conference games and takes its share of losses. The Big 12 and SEC play lower Quad games and lots of home games and rack up wins and NET rankings. But what happens in March? Kentucky flames out early. No one from the Big 12 makes the Elite 8, with flagship Kansas failing to make the Sweet 16.

Look, I’m not comparing the Big 12 to my alma mater’s conference. Obviously the Big 12 is light years ahead of the Sun Belt. But to proclaim #1 when not a single team is top 8 is silly, especially when you see what the ACC and Big East are doing.

There actually might not be a "best measure." Instead, there are likely four to six metrics that could be (depending on your perspective) rather equal.

When considering best men's basketball leagues, I include some elements that some other posters might not: attendance averages, number of players in the NBA, number of coaches with career winning percentages of .650 or better, "famous" arenas, success in the NIT, etc. I go beyond NCAA tourney success and all-time wins and take a comprehensive look. And my feeling is that with the conferences configured as they will be starting next season, the Big Ten and the SEC will be the two "best" men's basketball leagues (at least most seasons) moving forward.

Maybe I'll be proved wrong.

(04-21-2024 02:19 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(04-20-2024 04:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  What makes forecasting B12 basketball so hard...
1) Houston and Baylor have been transformed into elite level programs over the past six to ten years. It's hard to tell whether these programs can continue at the recent levels, or if they will revert to the average of what they themselves have averaged over the past couple of decades.

Valid point but the thing I’d say about looking at UHs performance in past decades is that it all just depends on how far back you want to go, as each of the last 6 decades of our history will tell you a drastically different story about our program and what our future prospects might look like. I think there are likely two guarantees with our future. The first is that as long as Kelvin Sampson is our HC, we will continue to be a player on the national scene (T-25, tournament fixture, etc). The second is that no matter who replaces him (his son is the current coach in waiting), we’re virtually guaranteed to take a step back. With that said, whoever does replace him will inherit a far better program than the one Sampson turned into a power. So Im holding out hope that that step back won’t be a large one. Last thing I’ll add is that it’s my personal belief that we have not yet peaked under Sampson. Look out for us this year because we’ve got a squad.

Yes, Houston has a storied past. I idolized the Big E’s turnaround fadeaway jumper growing up. In the early 80s, UVa played an epic set of back-to-back games matching Sampson v Ewing & Sampson v Olajuwon. UVa won both matchups of 7’+ titans, then promptly lost to Chaminade. Guy Lewis was an all-time great coach with an incredibly long tenure.

The Big Ten and The SEC were overrated, as usual, this season. The Big 12 was overrated this year because it gamed the rankings system.

It has been and always will be The Big East and The ACC.

Even in a supposed “down year” The ACC had 3 of the Final 8.

Its about championships and depth in football and it’s the same thing in basketball. The Big Ten and The SEC don’t win basketball championships.

If Shead and McCullar never get injured, I imagine the narrative about the Big 12 is a lot different.

(04-22-2024 06:51 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  If Shead and McCullar never get injured, I imagine the narrative about the Big 12 is a lot different.

Fair point.

Big 12 basketball has been strong and will continue to be so with the four schools joining.

I simply feel the additions to the Big Ten and SEC will elevate those two leagues to the top of the men's hoops future P5 hierarchy.

I'm not as "pro any specific conference" as some posters. So I would like to think I take a reasonably unbiased look at this.

Bumping after seeing ESPNs recent way too early top-25.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket...-25-season

The Big 12 has 4 of the top 5 (UH #1, Kansas #2, ISU #3, and Baylor #5). No other power conference has a T-5 team as Gonzaga is ranked 4th. The top 10 rounds out with Bama, Duke, UNC, Arizona (also B12), and UConn.

(04-18-2024 07:55 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  With the demise of the Pac-12, here are my projections for the relative rankings of the top dozen basketball leagues for 24/25:

1. Big 12
2. SEC
3. Big Ten
4. Big East
5. ACC
6. MW
7. WCC
8. AAC
9. A-10
10. MVC
11. Ivy
12. WAC

You guys are wasting a lot of ink on this topic.

The way basketball works is teams are put together, with huge year after year turnover at the major level. The best prospects go pro in one or two years, while others transfer. And in basketball you only have five players on the floor, only two or three who really make a difference.

And that's the thing, the two guys who matter make sure they are on a team (at a school) where they will be one of those two guys. Any program of decent salt with a coach who can sell himself as an asset to players going pro has the upper hand at winning the recruiting and transfer lottery to have a championship competing team. And it really is more about the coaches than the school. The big influence a "blue blood" has is the ability to write a very large check for the coach, which gives them a better shot at landing the right guy. Power shifts from conference to conference, based on what school is hot.

I did an analysis a couple years back of the NBA draft over the past 10 years and discovered that the number of players per school was essentially identical for the SEC, ACC and Pac-12 with the Big 12 a little behind, then the Big Ten and Big East bringing up the rear. If you excluded Gonzaga the other schools outside these six (soon to be five) conferences had roughly 1/20th the number of prospects per school. The Big East has since improved with UConn and everyone having to up their game, tightening up the gap. The B1G trails I suspect because they play a bit less wide-open style and have a number of schools who build more like upper mid-majors with a number of three and four year players. But the bottom line is the conferences are pretty much dead even on a per school player production basis.

And if you think about it that makes sense. These conferences have FOX, CBS and ESPN coverage and promotion, guaranteeing exposure. The "elevator spacing" theory explains the talent spreading so evenly. Nobody who thinks they are an NBA prospect wants to be a 3rd or 4th option or coming off the bench. So, talent looks for where they can play and a coach they like. This is very different than football.

As for who performs better the last decade or so, its a mix of luck and coaching (also some luck in who you hired) combined with a few 50-50 game wins that gave that conference an edge over the other one. But don't read stink into it. The coach who recruited great for conference X could be doing the same for conference Y next year.