2014 and onward better basketball conference ACC vs. B1G

[Alsacs]

From 1985 64 team Tournament ERA

1. Duke 4 NCs, 4 Runnerups, 11 Final Fours
2. North Carolina 3 NCs, 9 Final Fours
3. Louisville 2 NCs, 4 Final Fours
4. Syracuse 1 NC, 2 runnerups, 4 Final Fours
5. Georgia Tech 1 runnerup, 1 Final Four
6. NC State
7. Pittsburgh
8. Boston College
9. Virginia
10. Notre Dame
11. Wake Forest
12. Miami
13. Florida State
14. Clemson
15. Virginia Tech

B1G
1. Michigan State 1 NC, 1 runnerup, 6 Final Fours
2. Indiana 1 NC, 1 runnerup, 3 Final Fours
3. Michigan 1 NC, 3 runnerups, 4 Final Fours( Yes, the Fab 5 happened)
4. Maryland 1 NC, 2 Final Fours
5. Ohio State 1 runnerup, 2 Final Fours
6. Illinois 1 runnerup, 2 Final Fours
7. Wisconsin 1 Final Four
8. Purdue
9. Iowa
10. Minnesota
11. Penn State
12. Rutgers
13. Nebraska
14. Northwestern

Which conference is better now, and in the future? IMO, UConn and their 3 NC and 4 Final Fours could tip the balance either way. I think the ACC has a better middle and the bottom 4 of the B1G are putrid. Anybody who thinks the B1G is going to be dominate in basketball after 1 year once wants to take a small sample size and blow it up. I don't even think the B1G ended being that great last year. 2 Elite 8 teams, 1 Final Four team versus the Big East 3 Elite 8 teams, 2 Final Four teams, and the NC.

 

[longtimefan]

From 1985 64 team Tournament ERA

1. Duke 4 NCs, 4 Runnerups, 11 Final Fours
2. North Carolina 3 NCs, 9 Final Fours
3. Louisville 2 NCs, 4 Final Fours
4. Syracuse 1 NC, 2 runnerups, 4 Final Fours
5. Georgia Tech 1 runnerup, 1 Final Four
6. NC State
7. Pittsburgh
8. Boston College
9. Virginia
10. Notre Dame
11. Wake Forest
12. Miami
13. Florida State
14. Clemson
15. Virginia Tech

B1G
1. Michigan State 1 NC, 1 runnerup, 6 Final Fours
2. Indiana 1 NC, 1 runnerup, 3 Final Fours
3. Michigan 1 NC, 3 runnerups, 4 Final Fours( Yes, the Fab 5 happened)
4. Maryland 1 NC, 2 Final Fours
5. Ohio State 1 runnerup, 2 Final Fours
6. Illinois 1 runnerup, 2 Final Fours
7. Wisconsin 1 Final Four
8. Purdue
9. Iowa
10. Minnesota
11. Penn State
12. Rutgers
13. Nebraska
14. Northwestern

Which conference is better now, and in the future? IMO, UConn and their 3 NC and 4 Final Fours could tip the balance either way. I think the ACC has a better middle and the bottom 4 of the B1G are putrid. Anybody who thinks the B1G is going to be dominate in basketball after 1 year once wants to take a small sample size and blow it up. I don't even think the B1G ended being that great last year. 2 Elite 8 teams, 1 Final Four team versus the Big East 3 Elite 8 teams, 2 Final Four teams, and the NC.

Louisville now has 3 NC's.

 

[Alsacs]

Louisville now has 3 NC's.

I said from 1985 on that is where I put my Final Fours, NCs, runnerups from because that is when the Tournament expanded to 64 teams and it became the modern NCAA Tournament format.

 

[longtimefan]

I said from 1985 on that is where I put my Final Fours, NCs, runnerups from because that is when the Tournament expanded to 64 teams and it became the modern NCAA Tournament format.

I guess you have to draw a line somewhere; but yours excludes (among other things) all of Wooden's titles.

 

[stuckinbig11]

The Fab Five won ZERO games. Check the records.

 

[Alsacs]

I guess you have to draw a line somewhere; but yours excludes (among other things) all of Wooden's titles.

UCLA is among the bluebloods of basketball they went to 3 straight Final Fours under Ben Howland, Jim Harrick won the 1995 NC, and Steve Lavin has numerous Sweet 16s.
If I was ranking all-time UCLA would be top 3 with North Carolina and Kentucky. I was just using the modern era in tracking the two conferences I think we will become the best in college basketball.

 

[Alsacs]

The Fab Five won ZERO games. Check the records.

Do you count the 1990 SU Lacrosse title because even though ESPN reminds us each LAX postseason about it SU counts it as they should. I don't care about Ed Martin the damn Fab 5 went to 2 Final Fours and were the runners-up two times to Duke and North Carolina.

 

[longtimefan]

UCLA is among the bluebloods of basketball they went to 3 straight Final Fours under Ben Howland, Jim Harrick won the 1995 NC, and Steve Lavin has numerous Sweet 16s.
If I was ranking all-time UCLA would be top 3 with North Carolina and Kentucky. I was just using the modern era in tracking the two conferences I think we will become the best in college basketball.

I guess it comes down to how one defines "modern"--which may be a function of the age of the definer.

 

[Shermthegeneral]

Wow! The ACC Is top heavy! Last years Big East had 11 teams make it to the Final Four since 1979

 

[moqui]

I guess it comes down to how one defines "modern"--which may be a function of the age of the definer.

1985 is commonly understood, because that was the year the field expanded to 64 teams and all byes were eliminated. There are very clear differences between the eras.

Wooden's record is amazing, but he would not have achieved it in the modern era. The best teams were heavily concentrated East of the Mississippi, and the NCAA made no effort to balance the regions. UCLA had to win 2 games against relatively weak competition (relative to that in the East) to get to the Final Four. Today, they would have to win 4 games against balanced fields.

You can possibly date the modern era to 1975, when the tournament first expanded to 32 teams and the rule allowing no more than one school per conference was eliminated, but it wasn't until 1985 that the tourney as we know it today came into form. In either case, UCLA's great run is not a part of the modern era; it's more like college basketball's "middle ages."

 

[Alsacs]

Wow! The ACC Is top heavy! Last years Big East had 11 teams make it to the Final Four since 1979

The Big East hasn't been that dominant. The conference just hasn't had a Duke or North Carolina leading the pack. Since 1985
UConn 3 NCs, 4 Final Fours 1999, 2004, 2009, 2011
Louisville 2 NCs, 4 Final Fours 1986, 2005, 2012, 2013
Syracuse 1 NC, 2 runnerups, 4 Final Fours 1987, 1996, 2003, 2013
Villanova 1 NC, 2 Final Fours 1985, 2009
Georgetown 1 runnerup, 2 Final Fours 1985, 2008
Marquette 1 Final Four 2003
St. John's 1 Final Four 1985
Providence 1 Final Four 1987
West Virginia 1 Final Four 2010

The ACC is better than the Big East IMO. We just saw things through Big East lenses. You seem to be on the Big East bandwagon and the Marquette Final Four and Louisville first two are from other conferences.

 

[longtimefan]

1985 is commonly understood, because that was the year the field expanded to 64 teams and all byes were eliminated. There are very clear differences between the eras.

Wooden's record is amazing, but he would not have achieved it in the modern era. The best teams were heavily concentrated East of the Mississippi, and the NCAA made no effort to balance the regions. UCLA had to win 2 games against relatively weak competition (relative to that in the East) to get to the Final Four. Today, they would have to win 4 games against balanced fields.

You can possibly date the modern era to 1975, when the tournament first expanded to 32 teams and the rule allowing no more than one school per conference was eliminated, but it wasn't until 1985 that the tourney as we know it today came into form. In either case, UCLA's great run is not a part of the modern era; it's more like college basketball's "middle ages."

I've made the anti-UCLA argument many times myself. But, if you break it down year-by-year, it's very likely that they would have won at least 6 of the 10 championships that Wooden got regardless of the changed era. I mean, Alcindor and Walton are likely 2 of the 3 best college centers of all time, and Wooden knew how to utilize them. That's 5 championships. And his first 2 teams totally dominated what was supposed to be the best team in the country in the finals--Duke with Jeff Mullins, and Michigan with Cazzie Russell. I expect at least one of those 2 Bruins' teams would have come through.
Yes, UCLA only had to win 4 games--but, so did all of the other teams of the era, and no one else came close to their level of excellence.

 

[moqui]

I've made the anti-UCLA argument many times myself. But, if you break it down year-by-year, it's very likely that they would have won at least 6 of the 10 championships that Wooden got regardless of the changed era. I mean, Alcindor and Walton are likely 2 of the 3 best college centers of all time, and Wooden knew how to utilize them. That's 5 championships. And his first 2 teams totally dominated what was supposed to be the best team in the country in the finals--Duke with Jeff Mullins, and Michigan with Cazzie Russell. I expect at least one of those 2 Bruins' teams would have come through.
Yes, UCLA only had to win 4 games--but, so did all of the other teams of the era, and no one else came close to their level of excellence.

the UCLA dynasty is a fact - and an important one in NCAA history; one can't diminish it. but, as you note, there is not much chance they would have won all 10 of those championships if played under the modern system. Even you concede that their accomplishments would have been diminished by 40%; we'll never know because it could even have been more than 40% - the more you play, the more chances to lose. An underdog gets lucky for 40 minutes and an entire season comes crashing down. which is why those titles - which I don't deride or diminish - cannot be considered part of the modern era.

 

[longtimefan]

the UCLA dynasty is a fact - and an important one in NCAA history; one can't diminish it. but, as you note, there is not much chance they would have won all 10 of those championships if played under the modern system. Even you concede that their accomplishments would have been diminished by 40%; we'll never know because it could even have been more than 40% - the more you play, the more chances to lose. An underdog gets lucky for 40 minutes and an entire season comes crashing down. which is why those titles - which I don't deride or diminish - cannot be considered part of the modern era.

I come from the opposite end--not that they would have lost at least 40% of those championships, but that they would have won at least 60% of them. The ones in jeopardy would have been the 2 Sidney Wicks/Curtis Rowe teams, and the Wooden swan song team in '75. I allowed as to how one of the two pre-Alcindor teams could have lost, but I think they both would have been big favorites.

From my point of view, the "Modern Era" truly began when UCLA and Alcindor played Houston and Hayes in front of 50,000 at the Astrodome in '68.

 

[moqui]

I come from the opposite end--not that they would have lost at least 40% of those championships, but that they would have won at least 60% of them. The ones in jeopardy would have been the 2 Sidney Wicks/Curtis Rowe teams, and the Wooden swan song team in '75. I allowed as to how one of the two pre-Alcindor teams could have lost, but I think they both would have been big favorites.

From my point of view, the "Modern Era" truly began when UCLA and Alcindor played Houston and Hayes in front of 50,000 at the Astrodome in '68.

well, in my version of the modern era, the Bruins only get Alcindor and Walton for 2 seasons, max. Depending on what particular period of the modern era, maybe they even jump straight out of high school.

It is a lot easier to build a dynasty when there is no competition west of the Mississippi and you are guaranteed to keep your stars for four years. UCLA might not win 40% of those titles in this environment

 

[longtimefan]

well, in my version of the modern era, the Bruins only get Alcindor and Walton for 2 seasons, max. Depending on what particular period of the modern era, maybe they even jump straight out of high school.

You lost me there. The "less than 4 year player" era (in the NBA) did not begin until the '80's.