(06-02-2012 05:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  If you are going to use that then count Syracuse, I didn't because going forward they will not be members.

......................

But this is way off topic. The point being the SEC is Kentucky with a little Florida & Arkansas and the 11 drawfs in Basketball. The SEC is a Football/Baseball league.

I did use that and I did count Syracuse, and even counting Syracuse the fact is that in the past quarter-century, the SEC has had MORE DIFFERENT teams win the national title than has the Big East.

As to the other point, yes, the SEC is a "football conference", but only in the sense that their schools themselves, save for Kentucky, prioritize football. But NOT in the sense of the SEC being a weak basketball conference when compared to other BCS-AQ conferences. That is just not true.

Heck, if you compare the Big East to the SEC in basketball since the inception of the Big East in 1980, they have VERY similar national achievements. Both have 6 national titles, and IIRC the Big East has one more final 4, it is something like 19 to 18 in final 4 appearances. Very close.

You're a strange one. The correct cut-off is the 64 team NCAAs, not 25 years ago. And using that as the cut-off then "true" Big East winners have been Villanova, SU, and UConn (3 times) and the SEC would be Arkansas, Kentucky (three) and Florida (twice).

So even in this regard in terms of number of teams with one extra NC to the SEC

Take it one step further and look at "true" Final Four representation and Big East teams have been there 16 times while the SEC has been 13 times. But it is in this area that we see what Maize is referring to.

Of the 13 Final Fours the SEC has had since 1985, 6 were from Kentucky, 4 from Florida, 2 from Arkansas and 1 from LSU. So basically 3 teams account for all but one Final Four appearance since the tourney expanded to 64 or more teams.

Meanwhile, just using "true" Big East appearances, 9 different teams have represented the conference in Final Four appearances. So the depth and breadth of the Big East has been far superior to the SEC, if not in terms of NCs actually won.

But you knew this. Which is why you remain a strange poster to me, arguing for arguments sake sometimes.

Well, i guess i get to correct you this time: I know that in addition to those SEC Final 4s you listed (bolded above), LSU has actually been to the Final 4 twice (1986, 2006), and Mississippi State made the Final 4 in 1996.

Also, there is no reason why "since the expansion to 64 teams" is any better ("more correct") a cut-off than "past 25 years". We can use any cutoffs we want. I used past 5, past 10, past 15, past 20, and past 25 years, surely a very fair and comprehensive coverage of recent history.

The fact that the SEC has had more different national champs than has the Big East in the past 25 years means that the SEC does not suffer by comparison to the Big East in that department.

Finally, not sure it makes sense to talk about Big East having "greater depth and breadth" of final 4 when Big East has had more teams than the SEC for the past 20 years. E.g., since founding of Big East in 1980, SEC has had 6/12 teams make Final 4 (50%) and Big East 9/18, also 50%. Yeah, i know it's a little more complicated than that, since SEC wasn't at 12 teams before 1992 and Big East has gone from 8 teams to 18 since its inception, but it is basically correct.

Bottom line: Since the inception of the Big East in 1980, both conferences have exactly 18 Final 4 appearances and 6 national titles. That is CLOSE, sorry about that.

Steve, if you are trying to say SEC is historically on par with the BIG EAST in regards to Men Basketball from top to bottom you are in the minority.

Kentucky...great program...Florida Top 15 All Time Program & Arkansas Top 30 All Time program but really outside of Kentucky in regards to Basketball the rest of the SEC doesn't compare.

But if that what you believe. That a Tennessee is on par with Georgetown historically or a Vanderbilt is on par with Cincinnnati historically then have it. That your opinion, most would view it as wrong but it is what it is.

By the way just about everyone uses the start of the field of 64 as the cutoff. Just remember this when the SEC or any other league can get 3 out of the 4 schools in the Final Four in the era of the 64 school field then call me. The ironic thing is the 4th school in that Final Four is a incoming BIG EAST School-(Memphis)....the other 3 were Saint John's, Georgetown & of course the Champ that year Villanova.

(06-02-2012 07:51 PM)Maize Wrote:  Steve, if you are trying to say SEC is historically on par with the BIG EAST in regards to Men Basketball from top to bottom you are in the minority.

Kentucky...great program...Florida Top 15 All Time Program & Arkansas Top 30 All Time program but really outside of Kentucky in regards to Basketball the rest of the SEC doesn't compare.

But if that what you believe. That a Tennessee is on par with Georgetown historically or a Vanderbilt is on par with Cincinnnati historically then have it. That your opinion, most would view it as wrong but it is what it is.

By the way just about everyone uses the start of the field of 64 as the cutoff. Just remember this when the SEC or any other league can get 3 out of the 4 schools in the Final Four in the era of the 64 school field then call me. The ironic thing is the 4th school in that Final Four is a incoming BIG EAST School-(Memphis)....the other 3 were Saint John's, Georgetown & of course the Champ that year Villanova.

Florida is way to high in your listing unless your history starts in 2000. Before that they were exceedingly irrelevant, even by conference standards. Conversely Arkansas probably deserves to be quite a bit higher for their achievements under Nolan Richardson and Eddie Sutton, the last decade or so notwithstanding.

That being said, the Big East pretty clearly wins this argument. Kentucky is better than whomever you choose as the Big East's premier program, but it's pretty clear that you would have to go pretty far down the list before an SEC team wins for the breadth of its historical achievement.

(06-02-2012 08:04 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 07:51 PM)Maize Wrote:  Steve, if you are trying to say SEC is historically on par with the BIG EAST in regards to Men Basketball from top to bottom you are in the minority.

Kentucky...great program...Florida Top 15 All Time Program & Arkansas Top 30 All Time program but really outside of Kentucky in regards to Basketball the rest of the SEC doesn't compare.

But if that what you believe. That a Tennessee is on par with Georgetown historically or a Vanderbilt is on par with Cincinnnati historically then have it. That your opinion, most would view it as wrong but it is what it is.

By the way just about everyone uses the start of the field of 64 as the cutoff. Just remember this when the SEC or any other league can get 3 out of the 4 schools in the Final Four in the era of the 64 school field then call me. The ironic thing is the 4th school in that Final Four is a incoming BIG EAST School-(Memphis)....the other 3 were Saint John's, Georgetown & of course the Champ that year Villanova.

Florida is way to high in your listing unless your history starts in 2000. Before that they were exceedingly irrelevant, even by conference standards. Conversely Arkansas probably deserves to be quite a bit higher for their achievements under Nolan Richardson and Eddie Sutton, the last decade or so notwithstanding.

That being said, the Big East pretty clearly wins this argument. Kentucky is better than whomever you choose as the Big East's premier program, but it's pretty clear that you would have to go pretty far down the list before an SEC team wins for the breadth of its historical achievement.

Florida started become relevent under Lon Kruger so really it was the early 90s when they become good. You're probably right about Arkansas especially under Sutton with Moncrief & Ron Brewer.

UK is the standard and really the only program that makes SEC Basketball relevent.

But if Steve is trying to say the SEC is on par with the BIG EAST historically with Basketball then nothing else needs to be said...lol...

Now I said my piece on this entire thread...it is what it is.

(06-02-2012 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 08:23 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Now Mark you know SEC fans are against that.
Quit teasing the hapless SEZ basketball faithful.

Do you realize that the SEC has won 3 of the last 7 basketball national titles, and that historically, only the ACC and PAC have won titles more than the SEC?

SEC basketball is Kentucky and a Florida team that caught lightning in a bottle for a couple years.

I guess Arkansas won a championship 20 years ago, but they've slipped back into obscurity.

(06-02-2012 07:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 05:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  If you are going to use that then count Syracuse, I didn't because going forward they will not be members.

......................

But this is way off topic. The point being the SEC is Kentucky with a little Florida & Arkansas and the 11 drawfs in Basketball. The SEC is a Football/Baseball league.

I did use that and I did count Syracuse, and even counting Syracuse the fact is that in the past quarter-century, the SEC has had MORE DIFFERENT teams win the national title than has the Big East.

As to the other point, yes, the SEC is a "football conference", but only in the sense that their schools themselves, save for Kentucky, prioritize football. But NOT in the sense of the SEC being a weak basketball conference when compared to other BCS-AQ conferences. That is just not true.

Heck, if you compare the Big East to the SEC in basketball since the inception of the Big East in 1980, they have VERY similar national achievements. Both have 6 national titles, and IIRC the Big East has one more final 4, it is something like 19 to 18 in final 4 appearances. Very close.

You're a strange one. The correct cut-off is the 64 team NCAAs, not 25 years ago. And using that as the cut-off then "true" Big East winners have been Villanova, SU, and UConn (3 times) and the SEC would be Arkansas, Kentucky (three) and Florida (twice).

So even in this regard in terms of number of teams with one extra NC to the SEC

Take it one step further and look at "true" Final Four representation and Big East teams have been there 16 times while the SEC has been 13 times. But it is in this area that we see what Maize is referring to.

Of the 13 Final Fours the SEC has had since 1985, 6 were from Kentucky, 4 from Florida, 2 from Arkansas and 1 from LSU. So basically 3 teams account for all but one Final Four appearance since the tourney expanded to 64 or more teams.

Meanwhile, just using "true" Big East appearances, 9 different teams have represented the conference in Final Four appearances. So the depth and breadth of the Big East has been far superior to the SEC, if not in terms of NCs actually won.

But you knew this. Which is why you remain a strange poster to me, arguing for arguments sake sometimes.

Well, i guess i get to correct you this time: I know that in addition to those SEC Final 4s you listed (bolded above), LSU has actually been to the Final 4 twice (1986, 2006), and Mississippi State made the Final 4 in 1996.

Also, there is no reason why "since the expansion to 64 teams" is any better ("more correct") a cut-off than "past 25 years". We can use any cutoffs we want. I used past 5, past 10, past 15, past 20, and past 25 years, surely a very fair and comprehensive coverage of recent history.

The fact that the SEC has had more different national champs than has the Big East in the past 25 years means that the SEC does not suffer by comparison to the Big East in that department.

Finally, not sure it makes sense to talk about Big East having "greater depth and breadth" of final 4 when Big East has had more teams than the SEC for the past 20 years. E.g., since founding of Big East in 1980, SEC has had 6/12 teams make Final 4 (50%) and Big East 9/18, also 50%. Yeah, i know it's a little more complicated than that, since SEC wasn't at 12 teams before 1992 and Big East has gone from 8 teams to 18 since its inception, but it is basically correct.

Bottom line: Since the inception of the Big East in 1980, both conferences have exactly 18 Final 4 appearances and 6 national titles. That is CLOSE, sorry about that.

+1 for corrections.

Okay, thanks for the corrections. How I forgot Miss. State is beyond me since they were the team we beat to face Kentucky in the championship game in 1996.

But it appears you have been trying to skew this analysis from the start until this last post. First by having the cut-off be 25 years and then by having it limited to only teams who were in the conference at the time they played in the NCAA count.

And even then, the best you could get it to is tied. Throw in Louisville, Cincinnati, and Marquette's numbers overall and the balance definitely tips in the Big East's favor, even with taking Syracuse out.

The SEC has one great program in Kentucky and two next level down programs in Florida and Arkansas. They are excellent at the top, but have lacked the top to bottom strength of the ACC, Big East, and Big Ten.

Obviously, your mileage varies.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-01-2012 03:22 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The NCAA basketball tournament started as a Conference Champs Only format.

The NCAA Tournament is wonderful, but crowning a champion is really now just a sideline. It's really about brackets.

(06-02-2012 01:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 10:14 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Maize, if basketball mattered, Kansas would have been one of the first schools every conference would have wanted. Since they weren't...

Basketball does matter, just not as much as football. A top hoops program like Kansas would be a big asset to any conference with its own network because the conference networks have a lot of room for hoops.

KU's realignment problem is K-State. If KU could go anywhere without worrying about KSU's fate, or hypothetically if they were the only FBS school in their state (like Nebraska and Missouri) or even the only major-conference school in their state (like Colorado), KU would have more options.

That's even more true for Oklahoma. OU is a more valuable property than every other school that's moved in the last few years -- Nebraska's value is roughly equal, but OU is clearly more valuable than every other mover from 2010 to 2012.

None of the schools moving into a top conference in the last 10 years have had "little brother issues". Those issues are a deal-breaker unless the "big brother" school has as much value as Texas.

If it came down to conference armageddon, KU may be able to shake free of K-State. But until it comes to that, we are very closely aligned, and it's tough to share a small market (particularly if you factor in the fact that Missouri has a decent chunk of the KC market as well). You're right in noting that while hoops is a secondary factor, it's not the only factor that made KU a likely outsider until the recent reset of the Big 12. At the same time, it is relevant to realignment that schools like KU, Kentucky, and (despite recent struggles) Indiana bring hoops strength to the conferences to which they belong.

Which relates to another point in this thread, that of concentration of success. Certainly the vast bulk of the SEC's success on a national level in hoops can be attributed to Kentucky - but the same can be said of most conferences in most sports. For example, the standard bearer for PAC football is USC, for the B1G it's Michigan and Ohio State, for the Big 12 it's Oklahoma and Texas. Likewise, in hoops KU is the leader for the Big 12, and aside from Maryland taking the 2002 title the vaunted ACC hasn't had a national title winner aside from UNC and Duke in nearly 30 years now. The SEC's recent run in football doesn't show the inevitability of them being kings of college football, but it does show a remarkable breadth of success.

(06-02-2012 06:56 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  If basketball doesn't't matter then why did the BE invite Memphis?

I believe that the BE invited Memphis because the conference as a whole realized that there was little it could do to stave off the coming loss of AQ status in football. They wanted to keep Louisville, Cincinnati and Connecticut in the conference and believed adding a basketball school like Memphis was the best way to remain viable in football. Since a lot of the football playing members and a couple of the basketball members are former member of CUSA, they have at least had a relationship with Memphis.

So, basketball matters to the Big East, but the realignment was still made necessary by football concerns. Basketball is important to individual schools, fan bases and conferences, but basketball is not driving this bus.

(06-02-2012 08:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  Florida started become relevent under Lon Kruger so really it was the early 90s when they become good. You're probably right about Arkansas especially under Sutton with Moncrief & Ron Brewer.

UK is the standard and really the only program that makes SEC Basketball relevent.

But if Steve is trying to say the SEC is on par with the BIG EAST historically with Basketball then nothing else needs to be said...lol...

Now I said my piece on this entire thread...it is what it is.

I don't understand why you would argue the "historical" relevence of the Big East in anything since their entire history is only what? 32 years?

OK, the Big East plays good college basketball. You know it, every else should know it, no one is arguing that point. It is the "little man syndrome" arrogance that Big East fans show that is so off-putting. You don't have to denegrate the accomplishments of other teams or other conferences to prove you belong at the big boys table. And constantly touting Big East basketball, when conference realignment is driven by football seems out of place. Every discussion, whether it's about realignment or playoff format, seems to have a Big East fan bringing some element more suited to basketball into it.

(06-02-2012 11:34 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Which relates to another point in this thread, that of concentration of success. Certainly the vast bulk of the SEC's success on a national level in hoops can be attributed to Kentucky - but the same can be said of most conferences in most sports. For example, the standard bearer for PAC football is USC, for the B1G it's Michigan and Ohio State, for the Big 12 it's Oklahoma and Texas. Likewise, in hoops KU is the leader for the Big 12, and aside from Maryland taking the 2002 title the vaunted ACC hasn't had a national title winner aside from UNC and Duke in nearly 30 years now. The SEC's recent run in football doesn't show the inevitability of them being kings of college football, but it does show a remarkable breadth of success.

Excellent point. The SEC, with 5 different national champs in 14 seasons of BCS competition, is remarkable for its breadth of success. Nobody else has ever done that in either football or basketball.

In hoops, those around here who claim the Big East has great "breadth of success" compared to SEC should be aware that 50% of the Big East's six national hoops titles are by one school (Uconn 3/6), which is the same for the SEC since 1980 (UK 3/6).

Big East fans like myself may not like it, but when it comes down to it, the national titles and final 4s are the exact same since the founding of the Big East: 6 and 18.

(06-02-2012 08:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Okay, thanks for the corrections. How I forgot Miss. State is beyond me since they were the team we beat to face Kentucky in the championship game in 1996.

But it appears you have been trying to skew this analysis from the start until this last post. First by having the cut-off be 25 years and then by having it limited to only teams who were in the conference at the time they played in the NCAA count.

That's not "skewing the analysis", it's accurately reporting it. Obviously, a conference should only get credit for achievements won by teams when they were in that conference.

To count Arkansas's 1990 Final 4 appearance in the SEC column, or Louisville's 1986 national title in the Big East column, would be massive skewage.

As for limiting myself to 25 years, that is also no more a "skewed" analysis than you trying to use the advent of the 64 team tourney as the starting point. Plus, my analysis was sensitive to unfolding patterns over time, as i looked at a range of cutoffs from 5 to 25 years. I at least then did the most accurate thing, which was simply to compare the Big East and SEC from ground zero, the founding of the Big East.

Not sure how you compare the BigEast to anyone anymore - as its line-up has been so drastically changed since they started a FB conference. Which BigEast should we be comparing? Pre-FB?, pre-1st ACC raid?, post-1st ACC Raid?, post-2nd ACC raid?, the whole thing lacks enough consistency to talk much about who they are/were/will be better than. It makes my head hurt.

Personally, I think the Post-1st ACC raid BigEast BB has been awesome - but the next line-up lacks some of their national respect. After that, pre-FB BigEast BB was also very well respected. The thing about the BigEast is that they have not been so dominated by one program, the way the Pac-12, SEC, Big12 and ACC have been (actually 2 programs in the ACC). It makes it more interesting to watch - and gives it the perception of more depth. The Big10/11/12 has the same perception of depth because when any of Purdue, MichiganSt, Wisconsin, or OhioSt wins the conference, poeple don't automatically assume "Indiana had an off-year". But when someone other than Kentucky wins the SEC, everyone thinks it "must be a down year for Kentucky", not "wow, Florida is great this year". The national perception is basicly: "SEC BB is Kentucky"...although lately (15 years or so) Florida (which is not just lightning in a bottle for a couple of years).

The SEC is not as deep of a BB league year to year as the BigEast has been; but it has one of the (what??) 6 premiere BB programs in the country: UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Indiana, Duke

(06-03-2012 02:15 AM)nert Wrote:  Personally, I think the Post-1st ACC raid BigEast BB has been awesome - but the next line-up lacks some of their national respect. After that, pre-FB BigEast BB was also very well respected. The thing about the BigEast is that they have not been so dominated by one program, the way the Pac-12, SEC, Big12 and ACC have been (actually 2 programs in the ACC). It makes it more interesting to watch - and gives it the perception of more depth.

Yes, the 80s and 2000s have been great times for the Big East but the 90s were a waste-land. In 1985 alone, the Big East had three Final 4 teams and the national champion. For the decade we had 8 Final 4 appearances (by 6 different teams) and two national titles.

Then, in the entire 1990s we had 2 Final 4 teams and a national champion and that carried on through 2002. A thirteen straight season stretch with just two Final 4 teams, 1996 Syracuse and 1999 Uconn.

But since 2003 we've had 8 Final 4s (by 6 different teams) and three national titles. Glory days again!

And, there have been dominant teams. E.g., since 1999, Uconn has 4 of our 9 Final 4 appearances and 3 of our 4 national titles. In the 1980s, Georgetown had 3 of our 8 Final 4 appearances and 1 of 2 national titles. In both eras, no other team had more than 1 Final Four appearance.

Final 4 appearances by Big East teams:

Georgetown: 4
Uconn: 4
Syracuse: 3
Villanova: 2
UofL: 1
WVU: 1
Seton Hall: 1
Providence: 1
St Johns: 1

(06-03-2012 01:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 08:43 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Okay, thanks for the corrections. How I forgot Miss. State is beyond me since they were the team we beat to face Kentucky in the championship game in 1996.

But it appears you have been trying to skew this analysis from the start until this last post. First by having the cut-off be 25 years and then by having it limited to only teams who were in the conference at the time they played in the NCAA count.

That's not "skewing the analysis", it's accurately reporting it. Obviously, a conference should only get credit for achievements won by teams when they were in that conference.

To count Arkansas's 1990 Final 4 appearance in the SEC column, or Louisville's 1986 national title in the Big East column, would be massive skewage.

As for limiting myself to 25 years, that is also no more a "skewed" analysis than you trying to use the advent of the 64 team tourney as the starting point. Plus, my analysis was sensitive to unfolding patterns over time, as i looked at a range of cutoffs from 5 to 25 years. I at least then did the most accurate thing, which was simply to compare the Big East and SEC from ground zero, the founding of the Big East.

And again, while I respect you as a poster, this is why I consider you a strange poster.

This is what you are reacting to

Cincinnati, Louisville & Marquette are members now and really only been members since 2005 and they are still very strong basketball schools currently. Also was talking historically and historically the member schools of the BIG EAST top to bottom are much stronger basketball schools then the entire membership of the SEC. Any argument of that is unless you are trying to say the middle and the bottom of the SEC is as good as the ACC or BIG EAST..if so that is

Perception of Big East basketball is based upon the teams that are in the league, not how the league may or may not have been constituted in the past.

You restricted the analysis to come to an entirely different, yet accurate, point in terms of numbers, but still lost the overall arching point in terms of strength top to bottom anyway. You're better than this.

Cheers,
Neil