[poll] Best MBB Conference of the last few years

[mj4cy]

For me, its definitey the Big East.
You have UCONN, Nova, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, West Virginia who have all been a top 10 team in the recent years...Also Marquette was a final four team a couple years ago, Cincy is on the rise, Georgetown is on the rise.....also, note that I don't take conference RPI into account because some conferences have more teams than others.

 

[cgwarrior33]

you cant really count marquette and cincy for a couple years. remember, they have only been in the big east one year and prior to that conference USA. not saying that conference USA is a bad league or that niether team is good. just hard to consider them in the big east right away.

for me its the ACC. there is soo much parity (sp) in the league. Va Tech, Miami, FSU were all competitive. year in and year out they have several of the top teams in the nation and they have alot of fun players and coaches to watch. Big12, Big East, and SEC all close behind.

 

[mj4cy]

I can count them because I'm talking about the present...yes they have done well in CUSA, but a change of conference doesn't change their merit.....but we will have to see if they can keep it up.

 

[cgwarrior33]

i agree with you their. its just a lil too soon to consider them part of the legacy of the big east. give me 3 years and i will be saying how they helped to strengthen the big east in basketball. my recent memory is of them in CUSA. but good post and a thought provoking poll/question....

 

[mj4cy]

What did the 3 people that picked other choose?

 

[Wesley]

Mountain West?

 

[mj4cy]

ARe you serious Wesley??? You'd put Mountain West ahead of Big East, ACC, Big 12 and Big 10??? All of those conferences have 4-5 teams better than the best team in the Mountain West. Air force is decent, UNLV is decent, Utah had a losing record...the list goes on

 

[sdsmith4]

It is definitely not the Big 12, at least not recently, it comes down to the ACC and Big East, Big East has UCONN and NOVA that have done really well, than they have Pitt, WV, Syracuse, Louisville in the next tier recently, and than you add Cincy and Marquette who could have good teams, who knows. The ACC has Duke and UNC, and than in the next tier you have Wake Forest, NC State, Boston College. So overall I guess the Big east has the deepest talent, but the ACC has the most talent up top cuz you can't compare you Duke and UNC. If Kentucky picks it up again I would consider the SEC fairly close with Florida these days. The Big 12 is rising if they Texas can keep it up with all the new guys and losing most of the old guys and than Kansas has almost the entire team back.

 

[shadow]

The Big 10, year in year out, is better than the Big 12. No question. IMHO, it is probably either the ACC or Big East given the year with maybe the Big 10. Then you have the Big 12, PAC-10, and SEC probably in that order as the norm for the Power conferences. The MVC, CAA, along w/ the MWC and WAC have shown the ability to play with the big boys as well.

 

[discombobulated]

The big ten is better year in and year out?!?!? yes this year they got more teams in the tourney, but look at the last 5 years. big ten was lucky to get four in 3 of those years. In addittion the big 12 ownes them head to head.
The big East is a joke. it has 18 teams, they don't even all play each other once. sure they have like 5 or 6 good teams at the top, but they also have 8-10 teams at the bottom that are straight baylor terrible.
I would have to vote for the acc, just because of the consistancy of the top teams. they have an incredibly soft bottom however and usually the race consists of duke, unc, and whoever the third team feels like being that year.
Top to bottom i am going homer on this and saying the 12. There are only 4 lower level teams, and two of those are making huge strides as of late. If mizzu, isu, and kstate turn it around, with the consistant improvement of baylor and atm, top to bottom it will be hard to see how we won't get 7-8 teams in consistantly. that is good. when the beast does it, so what that means that a number of teams equal to the number in most other conferences total don't get in. If we do it, that means all but 4 or 5.

 

[mj4cy]

[quote1146811925=discombobulated]
The big East is a joke. it has 18 teams, they don't even all play each other once. sure they have like 5 or 6 good teams at the top, but they also have 8-10 teams at the bottom that are straight baylor terrible.

[/quote1146811925]



Big East is a joke huh? Well In the last 4 years, they've produced two different national championship teams. UCONN and Syracuse.....Villanova, louisville, and pittsburg have been top notch programs lately. West Virginia has had a great last two years. Cincy, Marquette and Seton Hall are all on the cusp of becomming very good. Marquette was to the final four a couple eyars ago. There were only 4 teams out of 18 in the conference with losing records...and considering their compitition, thats remarkable.

 

[discombobulated]

why is that remarkable? I don't think any major canference team should ever have a losing record. If you know you arent any good, you give yourself a nice kstate schedule and win 12 games before you even get to conference. Marquestte was not in the beast at that time, and in addittion, george mason was in the final four this year, does that make thier conference great? They have a group of really good teams, a group of mid level teams, then a bunch of absolte stinkers. Look back a few years, the big 12 had 3 of the final four teams. the acc wins almost every year with thier top heavy conference. the big 12 is just better top to bottom.
I would agree that if the top 12 beast teams played the big 12, they win win more than lose, but that is not a fair comparison, that leaves off 6 not good teams. they set a record this year by getting 1 more team in the tourney than the total number the big 12 has had in several times, yet they had 6 more teams to choose from. that is not a ratio that to me speaks dominance.

 

[discombobulated]

forgot to mention, if seaton hall is "on the cusp" why did they can thier head coach?

 

[mj4cy]

Well according to statistics, for each win you must have a loss....and for the B-east to have 3-4 teams with a geat conference record, a few teams will have to lose a lot...thus creating a losing record! It is virtually impossible to have every team with a winning record. In fact i dont think its ever happened where every team has had a winning record. Also, the big 12 has never had 3 final four teams in. The year Marquette made it, the Big 12 had 2, KU and Texas. The number of teams vary in every conference, so I'm not sure thats even worth bringing up. Just because they have more teams doens't make their top teams any worse. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who controls the dance next year.

 

[JCloned]

I haven't looked up the Big Dance statistics for wins/loss ratio for the teams that get in, but going from my memory, I think Big East is top 2 or 3, but not 1

 

[mj4cy]

The stastics probably don't add up to the Big East being the best, but in the beginning of this forum, I said I was going on just my gut instinct....and I think that the big east will be the best next year..

 

[CTAClone]

[quote1146853551=shadow]
The Big 10, year in year out, is better than the Big 12. No question. [/quote1146853551]

Who cares if they got more teams in the tourney...look how long they lasted.

As far as the Big East, I think you do have to look at the conference top to bottom, and Big East doesn't look as strong then. Those bottom four teams all have sub .500 overall records. However, compared with all the other conferences last year, they would have to be the best. I think to judge the conference you have to look at the teams that finished in the middle of the pack in the conference, and the Big East was strong last year with Pitt, Georgetown and Marquette.

 

[shadow]

[quote1146874185=CTAClone]
[quote1146853551=shadow]
The Big 10, year in year out, is better than the Big 12. No question. [/quote1146853551]

Who cares if they got more teams in the tourney...look how long they lasted.

[/quote1146874185]

I was thinking more along the lines of how well they do in the tourney and just overall perception of the league. I did a little research last night, both conferences are pretty even. Final 4s since 2000: Big 10:6, Big 12: 5. Teams in the NCAA tourney: the Big 10 had 2 more teams since 2000. I also looked at Big 10 vs. Big 12 in the tourney; 4 to 4. So, statistically both conferences are pretty even; it was just my perception and maybe bias (I grew up an Illinois fan and just finished my frosh year at ISU so perception is changing a little). So I'd prolly interchange either one at the 3 or 4 spot. I still have the Big East at 1, ACC at 2.

 

[Wesley]

Best league for overachievers might be the MVC.

 

[Wesley]

Maybe in the last 6 months, especially if you are thinking UNI, Creighton, Witchita State, Bradley, & Southern Illinois. How about the ACC if you went back 10 years for an average.