First 2009 March Madness thread

[horseofcourse]

Is the Big East really that good this year? Or is it a case that it is finally a good conference to actually match the complete nonsensical hype they get every year when they are vastly overrated. Are 6 of the 8 eilite 8 and 3 or 4 of the final 4 really coming from the Big East?? Maybe all the new teams have indeed made it the supreme super conference. But since the NCAA tourney went to 64 teams in 1985, the Big East is at best the 5th best conference in tourney performance...clearly far behind the ACC, Big 10, SEC, Big 12. Are we now just seeing the effect of the additions of Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville??

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Is the Big East really that good this year? Or is it a case that it is finally a good conference to actually match the complete nonsensical hype they get every year when they are vastly overrated. Are 6 of the 8 eilite 8 and 3 or 4 of the final 4 really coming from the Big East?? Maybe all the new teams have indeed made it the supreme super conference. But since the NCAA tourney went to 64 teams in 1985, the Big East is at best the 5th best conference in tourney performance...clearly far behind the ACC, Big 10, SEC, Big 12. Are we now just seeing the effect of the additions of Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville??

Count me as one of those that hasn't bought into the hype. I think it's a good conference. I don't think it's anywhere near a great one. I think that 4-16, there isn't a conference that can compete with them. But their top teams haven't shown me that they are better than the top four from the ACC. I think people mistake parity for toughness. I don't think WV beating Pitt or Syracuse beating UConn shows how good those teams are. I think it shows instead how vulnerable Pitt and UConn are. We'll see how it plays out but I don't think there is more than one Big East team in the Final Four. If that.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Is the Big East really that good this year? Or is it a case that it is finally a good conference to actually match the complete nonsensical hype they get every year when they are vastly overrated. Are 6 of the 8 eilite 8 and 3 or 4 of the final 4 really coming from the Big East?? Maybe all the new teams have indeed made it the supreme super conference. But since the NCAA tourney went to 64 teams in 1985, the Big East is at best the 5th best conference in tourney performance...clearly far behind the ACC, Big 10, SEC, Big 12. Are we now just seeing the effect of the additions of Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville??

Like I said earlier in this thread, the Big East has three great teams, four very good ones, and a bunch of dreck. 1-7, there's no other conference that can compete, but after that, it ain't much.

[horseofcourse]

Since going to 64 teams in 1985, the ACC has had 22 final 4 teams, the Big 10--16, the SEC...14, the Big 12...12, and the big East 11, PAC 10...9. And if you consider that 5 of those 11 big East appearances came in 1985 and 1987...it is even worse for the Big East. Just go the last 20 years and the final 4 appearances are...

ACC--20
Big 10--15
SEC-- 13
Big 12--9
PAC 10--8
Big East--6

Since 1985, multiple teams in the final 4...Big 10--5 times, ACC 4 times, Big 12 and SEC 3 times, big East 2 times. Years with no final 4 teams...ACC 6 times, Big 10--12 times, SEC 13 times, Big 12--15 times, Big East--15 times.

To be fair the Big East has done great when they get to the final 4 with 4 titles and 4 runner ups, compared to 6 and 5 for the ACC, 5 and 3 for the SEC, 3 and 5 for the Big 10, 2 and 3 for the Big 12 and 2 and 2 for the Pac 10. So of their 11 final 4 teams, 8 have reached the championship game compared to 11 out of 22 for the ACC. 8 out of 14 for the SEC, 8 out of 16 for the Big 10, 5 out of 12 for the Big 12, and 4 out of 9 for the PAC 10.