ACC Basketball a Dud

[Fishy]

I'd like to see a UNC-UConn comparison for the past 25 years. That would be an interesting read. So would Duke-UConn.

1989-2014 Scientific Analysis

UConn > UNC
UConn > Duke

You're welcome.

 

[btstimpy]

You keep talking about shooty hoops like I give a damn.

Typical ACC fan.

If you haven't noticed, it's what this discussion has been about.

But if you want to concentrate on football, the story isn't much better. Syracuse dusted Minnesota in it's bowl game this season. Perhaps people were watching in Toronto. I'll let you inform the board of Minnesota's conference affiliation. You can also let everyone know how Rutgers made out in the Pinstripe Bowl.

 

[btstimpy]

No, ACC is hyped every season because they are ESPiN's sole property and their little darling. As a former BE fan, I got news for you regarding some of the teams you guys added. Fruits, Pitt, and ND will choke regularly in the NCAA and exit early, most likely to higher seeds. UL is the only team that has some life recently.

UCONN has the best NCAA tournament performance record of any team for the last 25 years. I am pretty confident Ollie will keep that trend going. UCONN has carried the BE banner in the NCAA for many years. This won't change regardless which conference we are in.

The Big East decided to run off and hide on FS1. I would submit that ESPN spent the whole season hyping the Big XII in basketball this season. Brent Musburger hasn't spent that much time in Oklahoma in his life.

 

[SouthronCross]

1989-2014 Scientific Analysis

UConn > UNC
UConn > Duke

You're welcome.

You're a swell guy, Fishy. But, I was hoping for just a little more than that. Thanks, anyway.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I'd like to see a UNC-UConn comparison for the past 25 years. That would be an interesting read. So would Duke-UConn.

Here you go:

http://m.ctpost.com/uconn/article/D...UConn-has-long-been-5360287.php?cmpid=twitter

I updated the tournament win record % based on recent results:

Since 98-99

1.) Michigan State -- 40-15, six Final Fours, one national championship;

2.) UConn -- 36-8 , five Final Fours, three national championships;

3.) Duke -- 39-13, four Final Fours, two national championships;

4.) Kansas -- 39-15, four Final Fours, one national championship;

5.) Florida -- 33-10, three Final Fours, two national championships;

6.) North Carolina -- 34-11, four Final Fours, two national championships;

7.) Kentucky -- 34-12, three Final Fours, one national championship;

8.) Lousville -- 24-12, three Final Fours, one national championship.


BTW, it was a crime UCONN did not get into the NCAA last year despite being qualified. Current kids had nothing to do with the APR stuff and they all got great APR scores. It is a crime NCAA did that against UCONN last year but that's another post.

 

[SouthronCross]

Here you go:

http://m.ctpost.com/uconn/article/D...UConn-has-long-been-5360287.php?cmpid=twitter

I updated the tournament win record % based on recent results:

Since 98-99

1.) Michigan State -- 40-15, six Final Fours, one national championship;

2.) UConn -- 36-8 , five Final Fours, three national championships;

3.) Duke -- 39-13, four Final Fours, two national championships;

4.) Kansas -- 39-15, four Final Fours, one national championship;

5.) Florida -- 33-10, three Final Fours, two national championships;

6.) North Carolina -- 34-11, four Final Fours, two national championships;

7.) Kentucky -- 34-12, two Final Fours, one national championship;

8.) Lousville -- 24-12, three Final Fours, one national championship.

Thank you, sir. Much obliged.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Thank you, sir. Much obliged.

Between UCONN men and women since 1999, UCONN has been to 17 final fours. UCONN has 10 35+ win seasons. Rest of the country combined only achieved that 12 times. There are no two dominate basketball programs than UCONN for the last 25 years.

http://the-boneyard.com/threads/rea...-womens-success-since-1999.56922/#post-913325

We haven't always taken the easy road either (*cough* Duke *cough*). In 2011 when we won the last title, UCONN has to play both Arizon and SDSU in Anaheim, CA. Those were virtual home games for SDSU and Arizona. UCONN won them both before going on to win the title. In fact, we lost number of Elite 8 games at the other team's home state. One against UCLA in CA and the other against UNC in Greensboro.

 

[btstimpy]

You know what's funny? I don't think it's the threat of UCONN or Kansas, or any other individual conference movement, or the production/performance of the Big 10, or SEC or any other conference that makes people in the ACC wake up tasting bile at night. They've been second fiddle to those other conferences in football and basketball for a long, long time.

What's got to have the Tobacco Road folks up at night, is the cold hard reality, that in the future - the NEAR future - the American Athletic Conference might just out perform them. We will need the bottom half of the basketball conference to elevate through recruiting, and do it quickly, and we'll need our football programs to get into the bowl games and win them.

That potential has got to have people in the ACC really upset, and is probably the reason that the AAC was ignored in that article. They can ignore us, but it's not going to make us go away.

The American Athletic Conference is our home for the forseeable future, and what we need to do is win, as an individual program, and with each member of the conference winning in their individual ways, helping the others elevate themselves.

The ACC is second fiddle to only one in football and basketball since Jim Delaney took the job at the Big Ten Conference in 1989, and way ahead of another one you misjudge as quality. This article will help you get a better grasp of the reality. The media hype and rankings every year don't match the reality where the Big Ten is concerned. It does where the SEC is concerned. And the ACC hasn't done too bad. Maybe Rutgers will make big changes to these numbers going forward. Who knows?

http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/why-big-ten-badly-needs-2014-ncaa-title

 

[UConn990411]

Not really. The Big XII would need to worry more about that.

This is an incredibly simple perspective (although not an unsurprising one, considering the source).

On a year-to-year football basis, the ACC will never touch the B1G, SEC or even the B12 so long as Texas and Oklahoma are still there. That means the ACC's calling card will have to be basketball, and that's precisely why the conference added Syracuse and Pitt the last time around.

Unfortunately for the ACC, it's been filled with a bunch of pretenders after Duke and UNC for years and years and years (and even Duke and UNC have been underperforming in the tourney since 2010). Conversely, the B1G has a number of programs - MSU, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. -that have helped the conference become every bit as good as the ACC. Adding UConn and Kansas would mean the top of the B1G (MSU, Kansas, UConn, OSU, Michigan) would go toe-to-toe with the top of the ACC (Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville), while the depth of the B1G would blow the ACC right out the water.

Then, there's the fact that the B1G and ACC are clearly competing for dominance in NYC. As we saw this past weekend, UConn would help the B1G in that regard.

I'm not overly confident in UConn getting into the B1G, and there's plenty of GOR obstacles preventing Kansas from getting out of the Big 12. But pretending those two wouldn't impact the ACC is simply preposterous.

 

[SouthronCross]

Between UCONN men and women since 1999, UCONN has been to 17 final fours. UCONN has 10 35+ win seasons. Rest of the country combined only achieved that 12 times. There are no two dominate basketball programs than UCONN for the last 25 years.

http://the-boneyard.com/threads/rea...-womens-success-since-1999.56922/#post-913325

We haven't always taken the easy road either (*cough* Duke *cough*). In 2011 when we won the last title, UCONN has to play both Arizon and SDSU in Anaheim. Those were virtual home games. UCONN won them both before going on to win the title. In fact, we lost number of Elite 8 games at the other team's home state. One against UCLA in CA and the other against UNC in Greensboro.

I remember the UNC-UConn game in Greensboro. You had a PG whose name escapes me at the moment. Tough guy who could seemingly get into the lane at will.

I believe that we also played a regular season game as well. That was 2005, IIRC.

TBT, I do not remember the last time we made a Final Four without beginning the NCAAT in either G'boro or Charlotte. Unless it was in 2000, the one that comes to mind was way back in 1981. No team should ever play in their home state, unless it happens to be hosting the Final Four.

 

[itgoeslike]

Curious: How does it work? Accumulating tourney credits? Is it a simple 1:1 Win/Loss? (i.e. 1 win = 1 credit?)

It is simply games played. Each year the tourney establishes a valuation for a unit (or game played). This year the valuation is estimated at $250,106 per unit. That valuation applies to games played this year and any game the conference earned in the previous 5 years. So, a game played this year will earn a payout for the next 5 years as well. Per the article posted below, and assuming a 2% increase in valuation year-over-year, a single game played this year will payout nearly $1.6M over the term of 6 years. I believe the only game excluded from receiving a unit is the championship game. Play-in games may also receive less than the full unit value. The 11 games that the AAC will have played in through Saturday will amount to $2,751,166 which will payout approximately $17.38M over the total six years. I posted a second link that also has some good data.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm...gle-ncaa-tournament-win-is-worth-1-6-million/

http://winthropintelligence.com/201...all-tournament-this-years-unit-payouts-after/

 

[Sea Goat]

Thanks For TheLumberjack commentsiquote="btstimpy, post: 913474, member: 2673"]The ACC is 9-3-3 against the Big Ten in an ESPN orchestrated head to head event in the past 15 years. The ACC just traded Maryland for Louisville, and the Big Ten added Rutgers. While Virginia lost to Wisconsin this season while sorting out the point guard position, Virginia did win on the home court of Wisconsin last season in Madison. That's not being buried by anyone. And Virginia has beaten Maryland 6 out of the past 7 meetings. Michigan and Michigan State both lost this year in the Big Ten-ACC challenge to other ACC schools.

UConn and Kansas would both help the Big Ten in basketball, no doubt. But I do doubt that Nebraska, Michigan, or Ohio State are itching to bring Charlie Weiss and Kansas fooball onto their football strength of schedule anytime soon particularly after adding Rutgers and Maryland. I could be wrong because this AAU fetish is driving the bus, but I wouldn't think that the Big Ten would want to dilute its football even more to add basketball strength. The Big Ten already has 7 or 8 good basketball programs. They had 5 Big Ten teams in the top 10 at some point this year, but I'm not predicting a Big Ten team to win the NCAA tournament. Wisconsin is all that remains.[/quote]
a

First off, no real Tobacco Road fan who seriously follows college basketball thinks that Syracuse is a better program than UConn. They're out of their freaking minds if they do.

The reason UConn gets the hatred it gets down here...and its JMHO...is that the ill-informed media made it sound as if UConn was the lone BE school responsible for the lawsuit. And, CT's former AG Blumenthal always being seen on TV during this time did nothing to change that narrative.

It almost NEVER got reported that VPI was in on it, too. At least until former VA Gov Mark Warner intervened on their behalf. Pitt's name was never mentioned, that I remember.

The NC schools were for UConn, as were UVA, and Maryland, if memory serves.

Right now, football is clearly driving the bus for conference media contracts. But, sports networks need content, and, basketball is the absolute best thing, content-wise, for them. I honestly believe Swofford knew this, which is why he pushed for UConn. But, the blowback from the other ACC schools forced him to compromise, and, not just on which school was eventually picked. Now, I have absolutely nothing against Louisville. But, I feel the ACC missed the boat by passing you all over.

Of course, you all already knew I thought this.

th

The ACC is second fiddle to only one in football and basketball since Jim Delaney took the job at the Big Ten Conference in 1989, and way ahead of another one you misjudge as quality. This article will help you get a better grasp of the reality. The media hype and rankings every year don't match the reality where the Big Ten is concerned. It does where the SEC is concerned. And the ACC hasn't done too bad. Maybe Rutgers will make big changes to these numbers going forward. Who knows?

http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/why-big-ten-badly-needs-2014-ncaa-title

Stimp,

The ACC is second fiddle to only one in football and basketball since Jim Delaney took the job at the Big Ten Conference in 1989, and way ahead of another one you misjudge as quality. This article will help you get a better grasp of the reality. The media hype and rankings every year don't match the reality where the Big Ten is concerned. It does where the SEC is concerned. And the ACC hasn't done too bad. Maybe Rutgers will make big changes to these numbers going forward. Who knows?

http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/why-big-ten-badly-needs-2014-ncaa-title

Stimp,

Time for you to go away...

I've been polite - but the last time the Cavaliers were relevant was during the reign of King Charles. You (ACC) blew it - you could have done the right thing and maintained your credibility, but you threw it away with Louisville. The ACC won't amount a patch on the B1G's ass when all is said and done. The sad thing is that the ACC was the architect of their own disaster. Bring it on - I'll take all ACC apologists on with half my brain tied behind my back!

 

[btstimpy]

This is an incredibly simple perspective (although not an unsurprising one, considering the source).

On a year-to-year football basis, the ACC will never touch the B1G, SEC or even the B12 so long as Texas and Oklahoma are still there. That means the ACC's calling card will have to be basketball, and that's precisely why the conference added Syracuse and Pitt the last time around.

Unfortunately for the ACC, it's been filled with a bunch of pretenders after Duke and UNC for years and years and years (and even Duke and UNC have been underperforming in the tourney since 2010). Conversely, the B1G has a number of programs - MSU, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. -that have helped the conference become every bit as good as the ACC. Adding UConn and Kansas would mean the top of the B1G (MSU, Kansas, UConn, OSU, Michigan) would go toe-to-toe with the top of the ACC (Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville), while the depth of the B1G would blow the ACC right out the water.

Then, there's the fact that the B1G and ACC are clearly competing for dominance in NYC. As we saw this past weekend, UConn would help the B1G in that regard.

I'm not overly confident in UConn getting into the B1G, and there's plenty of GOR obstacles preventing Kansas from getting out of the Big 12. But pretending those two wouldn't impact the ACC is simply preposterous.

The Big XII would need to worry because it is one of their teams being discussed.

You talk about the ACC being full of basketball pretenders year after year. The Big Ten has won exactly one (1) NCAA men's basketball championship in the past 25 years. ONE. The ACC nine (9). You call that close? The ACC has won four (4) Football National Championships in the past 25 years. The Big Ten has won only two (2). You call that close? It is closer than basketball. I'll grant you this, but half. You need to go back and identify the real pretenders, and they are not in the ACC.

 

[UConn990411]

The Big XII would need to worry because it is one of their teams being discussed.

You talk about the ACC being full of basketball pretenders year after year. The Big Ten has won exactly one (1) NCAA men's basketball championship in the past 25 years. ONE. The ACC nine (9). You call that close? The ACC has won four (4) Football National Championships in the past 25 years. The Big Ten has won only two (2). You call that close? It is closer than basketball. I'll grant you this, but half. You need to go back and identify the real pretenders, and they are not in the ACC.

Typical ACC fan living on your past laurels.

Who gives a duckk about the past 25 years? Certainly not recruits.

At the moment, basketball recruits seem to be more attracted to Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana than any ACC schools other than UNC and Duke. And for good reason. The coaching in the ACC is incredibly mediocre after the top, and most of the elite coaches in the conference (K, Roy, Boeheim, soon to be Pitino) have but a few years left. On the other hand, the top B1G coaches (Izzo, Beilein, Thad Matta, Crean) still have plenty of years left.

Oh, and you conveniently left Kansas and UConn's combined titles (4) off your arbitrary "NC in the past 25 years" list. We're talking about a hypothetical conference with them, aren't we? And that number grows to five if you extend the range to an even more arbitrary 26 years.

 

[btstimpy]

Time for you to go away...

I've been polite - but the last time the Cavaliers were relevant was during the reign of King Charles. You (ACC) blew it - you could have done the right thing and maintained your credibility, but you threw it away with Louisville. The ACC won't amount a patch on the B1G's ass when all is said and done. The sad thing is that the ACC was the architect of their own disaster. Bring it on - I'll take all ACC apologists on with half my brain tied behind my back!

I'm happy with 20 straight years in a row in the Director's Cup top 30. I'd like to finish first at some point, but the consistency is good. Only 14 College athletics department can claim that. It defines relevancy. My response was to an uninformed poster about the ACC being way behing the Big Ten and SEC in football and basketball. The ACC isn't, and now that poster is informed. It wasn't about a comparison to UVA. They were referring to the ACC. Here are your relevant athletics departments since 1994 from an overall perspective including football and basketball. All of the P5 are represented.

Arizona
Arizona State
California
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio State
Penn State
USC
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
Virginia

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I'm happy with 20 straight years in a row in the Director's Cup top 30. I'd like to finish first at some point, but the consistency is good. Only 14 College athletics department can claim that. It defines relevancy. My response was to an uninformed poster about the ACC being way behing the Big Ten and SEC in football and basketball. The ACC isn't, and now that poster is informed. It wasn't about a comparison to UVA. They were referring to the ACC. Here are your relevant athletics departments since 1994 from an overall perspective including football and basketball. All of the P5 are represented.

Arizona
Arizona State
California
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio State
Penn State
USC
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
Virginia

As for Olympic sports, CA schools will ALWAYS dominate. In fact, close to 50% of Olympians in this country come from CA. It is not by accident either due to the weather and location. Oh yeah, I don't live far from the Stanford campus and I will be the first to tell you how nice the weather is. In fact, it is almost 6 PM now and it is like close to 60 degrees outside and sunny. I still get to get tennis in T-shirt and shorts every weekend.

A combination of nice weather and a great education make it easy to attract recruits for Olympic sports. Does it make it fair? No, but CA schools do have a built-in advantage no one on the East Coast can beat.

In fact, I also got a degree from Santa Clara University. It is a small school but it has higher Director's ranking than many P5 schools. It also sits right in the heart of Silicon Valley.

 

[btstimpy]

Typical ACC fan living on your past laurels.

Who gives a duckk about the past 25 years? Certainly not recruits.

At the moment, basketball recruits seem to be more attracted to Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana than any ACC schools other than UNC and Duke. And for good reason. The coaching in the ACC is incredibly mediocre after the top, and most of the elite coaches in the conference (K, Roy, Boeheim, soon to be Pitino) have but a few years left. On the other hand, the top B1G coaches (Izzo, Beilein, Thad Matta, Crean) still have plenty of years left.

Oh, and you conveniently left Kansas and UConn's combined titles (4) off your arbitrary "NC in the past 25 years" list. We're talking about a hypothetical conference with them, aren't we? And that number grows to five if you extend the range to an even more arbitrary 26 years.

Kansas and UConn have won some Basketball Championships yes. And Neither of them are in the Big Ten.

Living on past Laurels? You need to go back and look for the dates of the last Big Ten basketball and football championships. Some of these recruits you reference were in swaddling clothes. Wisconsin has a chance this year. You'll know this weekend.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Kansas and UConn have won some Basketball Championships yes. And Neither of them are in the Big Ten.

Living on past Laurels? You need to go back and look for the dates of the last Big Ten basketball and football championships. Some of these recruits you reference were in swaddling clothes. Wisconsin has a chance this year. You'll know this weekend.

Hopefully, we will have something to say about that.

 

[Sea Goat]

I'm happy with 20 straight years in a row in the Director's Cup top 30. I'd like to finish first at some point, but the consistency is good. Only 14 College athletics department can claim that. It defines relevancy. My response was to an uninformed poster about the ACC being way behing the Big Ten and SEC in football and basketball. The ACC isn't, and now that poster is informed. It wasn't about a comparison to UVA. They were referring to the ACC. Here are your relevant athletics departments since 1994 from an overall perspective including football and basketball. All of the P5 are represented.

Arizona
Arizona State
California
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio State
Penn State
USC
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
Virginia

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him?

 

[Stray_Dog]

LOL. The B1G didn't add Kansas and UConn. It added Rutgers. You should be commenting on how that helped the B1G's basketball handicap going forward. The SEC casts a football shadow over everyone. The B1G certainly doesn't. I also wouldn't say that Kansas' NCAA performance this year in Men's Basketball was their best. UConn and Kentucky are this year's Cinderellas making the Final Four from 7 and 8 seeds. It happens alot with all the parity in college basketball and all the turmoil with one and dones. It is a great accomplishment to get hot at the right time in the tournament.

So you feel that UConn was fairly ranked as a 7th seed? By you claiming UConn a Cinderella team...I will give you this...not by beating ISU but by beating MSU maybe...however, we do have a history of meeting our teams prior NCAA tournament foes who beat us in a previous year and come back to beat them. It is why in our Dream Team season with Tate George and Co. when we met Duke and did beat them...they have always been that first team we recall beating after losing to. Don't believe me that this has happened repeatably to UConn look at our history.
Back to the earlier point, most believe we should have been a 4 or 5 seed. If that is the case, would you still say we a re a Cinderella team. ...And what Cinderella team beats the team which sustained only two losses, one of them being from the Cinderella Huskies!!! I do believe more now than ever, that you have a certain arrogance about you. You spout facts but then interject your opinion on basis of the facts you put fourth. Only problem you only provide half the facts, those facts which make your story look good. Not sure if you get this model of reporting from Fox or CNN, perhaps you do it here because the internet doesn't lie

 

[Stray_Dog]

So you feel that UConn was fairly ranked as a 7th seed? By you claiming UConn a Cinderella team...I will give you this...not by beating ISU but by beating MSU maybe...however, we do have a history of meeting our teams prior NCAA tournament foes who beat us in a previous year and come back to beat them. It is why in our Dream Team season with Tate George and Co. when we met Duke and did beat them...they have always been that first team we recall beating after losing to. Don't believe me that this has happened repeatably to UConn look at our history.
Back to the earlier point, most believe we should have been a 4 or 5 seed. If that is the case, would you still say we a re a Cinderella team. ...And what Cinderella team beats the team which sustained only two losses, one of them being from the Cinderella Huskies!!! I do believe more now than ever, that you have a certain arrogance about you. You spout facts but then interject your opinion on basis of the facts you put fourth. Only problem you only provide half the facts, those facts which make your story look good. Not sure if you get this model of reporting from Fox or CNN, perhaps you do it here because the internet doesn't lie

Oh, and I know UConn didn't beat them the year of the Dream season, sorry if you were confused on the point, but rather it was when in 1999 we had to beat them for our first championship....such an awesome feeling!!!

 

[btstimpy]

So you feel that UConn was fairly ranked as a 7th seed? By you claiming UConn a Cinderella team...I will give you this...not by beating ISU but by beating MSU maybe...however, we do have a history of meeting our teams prior NCAA tournament foes who beat us in a previous year and come back to beat them. It is why in our Dream Team season with Tate George and Co. when we met Duke and did beat them...they have always been that first team we recall beating after losing to. Don't believe me that this has happened repeatably to UConn look at our history.
Back to the earlier point, most believe we should have been a 4 or 5 seed. If that is the case, would you still say we a re a Cinderella team. ...And what Cinderella team beats the team which sustained only two losses, one of them being from the Cinderella Huskies!!! I do believe more now than ever, that you have a certain arrogance about you. You spout facts but then interject your opinion on basis of the facts you put fourth. Only problem you only provide half the facts, those facts which make your story look good. Not sure if you get this model of reporting from Fox or CNN, perhaps you do it here because the internet doesn't lie

UConn and Kentucky are established programs with historical success in the NCAA tournament. For this reason they won't be called Cinderella like VCU was a couple of year ago. By Cinderella I mean an unpredicted lower seed making the final 4. Sure Dayton was more of a Cinderalla as an 11 seed, but Dayton didn't make the final 4. A 7 and 8 seed are not supposed to make the final 4. That's all. They aren't supposed to make the Sweet 16 either really. It happens sometimes though. UVA made the Final 4 in 1984 as a 7 seed. Kentucky didn't get it together until the SEC tournament. UConn is on a hot streak in the NCAA.

 

[upstater]

The ACC is 9-3-3 against the Big Ten in an ESPN orchestrated head to head event in the past 15 years. The ACC just traded Maryland for Louisville, and the Big Ten added Rutgers. While Virginia lost to Wisconsin this season while sorting out the point guard position, Virginia did win on the home court of Wisconsin last season in Madison. That's not being buried by anyone. And Virginia has beaten Maryland 6 out of the past 7 meetings. Michigan and Michigan State both lost this year in the Big Ten-ACC challenge to other ACC schools.

UConn and Kansas would both help the Big Ten in basketball, no doubt. But I do doubt that Nebraska, Michigan, or Ohio State are itching to bring Charlie Weiss and Kansas fooball onto their football strength of schedule anytime soon particularly after adding Rutgers and Maryland. I could be wrong because this AAU fetish is driving the bus, but I wouldn't think that the Big Ten would want to dilute its football even more to add basketball strength. The Big Ten already has 7 or 8 good basketball programs. They had 5 Big Ten teams in the top 10 at some point this year, but I'm not predicting a Big Ten team to win the NCAA tournament. Wisconsin is all that remains.

I'm just looking at this: UConn, Kansas, Michigan St., Indiana, Michigan, Ohio St., Wisconsin, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Purdue.

Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, NC State and Virginia are not going to cut it against those 12.

 

[upstater]

UConn and Kentucky are established programs with historical success in the NCAA tournament. For this reason they won't be called Cinderella like VCU was a couple of year ago. By Cinderella I mean an unpredicted lower seed making the final 4. Sure Dayton was more of a Cinderalla as an 11 seed, but Dayton didn't make the final 4. A 7 and 8 seed are not supposed to make the final 4. That's all. They aren't supposed to make the Sweet 16 either really. It happens sometimes though. UVA made the Final 4 in 1984 as a 7 seed. Kentucky didn't get it together until the SEC tournament. UConn is on a hot streak in the NCAA.

UConn was underseeded. For heaven's sake, UConn's RPI was 22. We played and beat Florida, Harvard, Maryland, Washington, Indiana, in the OOC. UConn should have been a 4 or 5 seed.

 

[upstater]

The ACC is second fiddle to only one in football and basketball since Jim Delaney took the job at the Big Ten Conference in 1989, and way ahead of another one you misjudge as quality. This article will help you get a better grasp of the reality. The media hype and rankings every year don't match the reality where the Big Ten is concerned. It does where the SEC is concerned. And the ACC hasn't done too bad. Maybe Rutgers will make big changes to these numbers going forward. Who knows?

http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/why-big-ten-badly-needs-2014-ncaa-title

The ACC lost BCs bowl after BCS bowl. The ineptitude was mind boggling.

Have a look at this: http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/4/26/1444886/sec-dominates-bcs-automatic