Rating the BCS Conferences (2008-09)

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
25,146
Reaction score
5,964
Points
113
I'll have the final conference tallies for the 2008-09 NCAA Tournament tomorrow (hopefully after MSU joins elite company with its 3rd national title). Regardless of tonight's outcome, here's how I'd rate the 6 BCS conferences for this season. This takes into account regular season & postseason performance.

1. Big East -- Despite not having a team reach the final, this was easily the best conference this season. No matter how favorable the seeds (and they were deserved), 5 to the Sweet 16, 4 to the Elite 8 & 2 to the Final Four is getting it done. However, can the "best conference ever" talk please now subside?

2. Big 12 -- This vastly undersold league (even moreso than the Big 10) proved its metttle in the NCAA Tournament. Oklahoma, Mizzou & Kansas proved to be elite squads (Sweet 16 or better), while Oklahoma State, Texas & Texas A&M all advanced to the 2nd round.

3. Big 10 -- Torched all year by the likes of Digger Phelps & Bobby "I quit on my team" Knight despite having impressive regular-season wins on its resume (to name a few, see Illinois over Mizzou; Michigan over Duke; Michigan over UCLA; Michigan State over Kansas; Michigan State over Texas; Michigan State over Oklahoma State; Minnesota over Louisville; Northwestern over Florida State; Ohio State over (ESPN "super team") Notre Dame; and Purdue over Boston College) the league sucked it up, took the criticism to heart & produced when it mattered most in the NCAA Tournament. No conference, save for perhaps the Big 12, did more with its NCAA seedings than the Big 10. And no, it wasn't only Michigan State (idiots like Mike Freeman's battle cry) carrying the banner. And though I don't put much stock in the NIT in terms of rating the conferences (never know how teams will react to being in it), it doesn't hurt that the Big 10's only bubble team (Penn State) that failed to make the NCAA beat the likes of Florida (on the road) and ESPN darling Notre Dame on its way to the NIT crown.

4. ACC -- Commissioner John Swofford should get down on his knees and thank God for Roy Williams and the University of North Carolina. Otherwise, this conference was a complete bust in the NCAA. Weren't we told all year about the "depth" of the ACC (including you, Coach K), the likes of Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State & Wake Forest? How'd that go for ya'? The only reason the Arrogant Coast Conference gets the #4 spot is because (again) the Tar Heels are carrying the banner.

5. Pac 10 -- Not really a surprise considering all the players the league lost after last season. Has to be disappointing for the league that it's best team (Washington) didn't reach the second weekend despite being seeded to do so, but I don't think the league should be embarrassed. Getting 6 teams into the tournament (including Arizona to the Sweet 16) was an accomplishment in what was clearly a down year.

6. SEC -- No contest. Only 3 teams make the field, all played to their seed. Despite what Jimmy Dykes thinks, this league was clearly a bust all season & proved that during the NCAAs. Don't expect the SEC to have many seasons like this one.

Thoughts? Disagreements?
 

Very good analysis, SS, as usual. Wouldn't it be nice if the taking-heads just kept to the facts and were unbiased reporters? Well, I guess that would not sell advertising nor would it massage their respective egos.
 

Looks good to me, I agree with you on the Big 12, they had a great post season and showed the nation that pretty good basketball is being played in the Midwest. One other point, regarding Penn State's NIT title-I agree with you that not much stock can be put into it, because you don't know teams will respond to capping the season off in the secondary tournament. However, I do think that the teams that make it past the first couple games are giving pretty solid effort. So when Penn State won at Florida and defeated Notre Dame and Baylor at MSG, I think those games were probably between teams giving their all. And Penn State defeating Notre Dame in the semifinals proves that Notre Dame wasn't a NCAA worthy team that fell victim to a brutal schedule.
 

I don't think it's unfair to point out that the Big East has 16 teams and the ACC has 14. It's only reasonable to expect them to have more teams in the dance, and more quality teams. It would be interesting to list the big conferences in order of the number of teams that didn't make the NCAA tourney. Nobody want's to talk about that.
 

Media Bias

needs to be admitted. Whether the bias is driven by style preferences in the game, friendships, geography, or ignorance (i.e. the eastern media not seeing the midwest play often enough), they need to admit it. Please, to jsut ahve one talking head admit that because they don't see the BT or B12 play very often, they can't compare would be super. Throw us a bone, please!

And Dykes is the biggest dork of them all. One of the stupidest comments of the year came after the Gophers beat Wisconsin the second time. "This game will hurt the Big Ten, because the score was so low." Huh?!!
 



Sorry WAG, I honestly didn't see that post. I guess great minds think (and post) alike.;)

I think both of us should just get the ball rolling for 2009-10 and declare, "The Big 10 will suck." That way we can join the talking heads/blogging geeks in following the company line and not bother to support our assertions with hard facts. It's a much easier sound bite & more cache for clowns like Phelps & Freeman to criticize with the masses instead of actually digging for facts and coming to their own conclusions.
 

Completely agree with these, as well as the analysis.
 




goosemeister said:
the acc has 12--not 14--teams.
Click to expand...

my bad, went to the standings to confirm the number for the Big East and saw the atlantic 10 next to it and didn't really read carefully or think about it as my target was only the Big East. Only saw Atlantic and counted. oopsy.

But still, if we had five more quality programs in the big 10 we'd have more great teams every year too. It's pretty simple math. I think the pundits being typical math idiots, see more quality teams and automatically equate it to better basketball. No, it's just more teams.

Sede any conferance as favorably as the big East and I guarantee better results. I mean really, look at any 1 and tell me your impressed they won in their first two rounds. so now they're in the 16 and we're suppose to be impressed? same with a 2,3 or 4. it's a little self fulfilling if you ask me.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom