NCAA Tourney: How have the conferences fared historically....

[Wingate1217]

Since BB season is over and another thrilling year has passed I thought I would complete a quick analysis of how the conferences have fared since the tourney began back in 1939....This and ESPN pissed me off saying the Big Ten sucks.....

I developed a methodology which awarded points based on a couple of criteria:

1) Making the NCAA tournement field (3 points);
2) Making the final four (7 points);
3) Making the championship game( 10 points) and;
4) Winning the whole ball of wax (15 points).

All the points are accumalative so if you win it all the team would get awarded 35 points. I overlooked all sanctions (such as OSU's 1999 Final Four) and discounted the fact that the NIT was the big game for many years. All numbers are correct up to tonight's championship game. I also did not include the Big East since that conference is a lot younger than the rest of the five conferences listed here. Finally I took the total score divided by the number of teams in the league to get an average contribution score per conference team.

1. Big Ten (1333 total points) 45 Final Fours, 25 Nat'l Games, 10 Champs (121.18) avg. No help from NW as they contributed zero points
2. Pac 10 (1211) 34 FF, 22 NG, 15 Champs (121.1) can you say UCLA...
3. ACC (1389) 43FF, 23 NG, 11 Champs, (115.75) Duke & UNC
4. Big 12 (1111) 35 FF, 14 NG, 5 Champs (92.58)
5. SEC (1097) 29 FF, 15 NG, 10 Champs (91.42) Kentucky.....

So ESPN can choke on this based on the numbers as the Big Ten doesn't have to hang their head around any other conference...

 

[Jake]

ESPN is just message board fodder for teens growing up in the 21st century. Facts and figures just get in the way when "exposed" tells the whole story.

Good stuff, wingate. I'd give you greenies if I could. I would only add "Kansas" next to the Big 12 line.