2020-2021 B1G Basketball Thread

[MaximumSam]

There have been 36 tournaments since expansion in 1985. Only two have been won by teams from outside the major conferences and one of those is now in a major conference:

• Louisville won it all in 1986 as a member of the Metro Conference. They are now in the ACC.
• UNLV won it all in 1990 as a member of the Big West Conference. They are now in the MWC.

It has been more than 30 years since a team from outside the major conferences won it all.

Championships by CURRENT league of the winner:

• 13, ACC
• 7, B-East
• 6, SEC
• 4, B1G
• 3, B12
• 2, P12
• 1, MWC.

Championships by team:

• 5, Duke
• 4, UNC, UCONN
• 3, Villanova, Kentucky
• 2, Kansas, Louisville, Florida
• 1, Zona, Arkansas, Baylor, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, UNLV, Virginia.

I don't know that we would still consider the Big East a major conference in this context. 

[medinabuckeye1]

I don't know that we would still consider the Big East a major conference in this context.

They are in CBB. They are typically ranked among the top conferences and two of their teams have won a combined three of the last seven tournaments. 

[MaximumSam]

They are in CBB. They are typically ranked among the top conferences and two of their teams have won a combined three of the last seven tournaments.

Well, yes, they are a good basketball conference. But does being good equate to being major? The AAC has been "better" than the ACC at times in football, but they aren't a major conference. Given the economics of college sports, I don't know that I would consider a group of good basketball programs a major conference. If Gonzaga wins a couple titles in the next few years, does that mean their conference is major?

[847badgerfan]

I consider the BE as a major in basketball. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Well, yes, they are a good basketball conference. But does being good equate to being major? The AAC has been "better" than the ACC at times in football, but they aren't a major conference. Given the economics of college sports, I don't know that I would consider a group of good basketball programs a major conference. If Gonzaga wins a couple titles in the next few years, does that mean their conference is major?

For your Gonzaga hypothetical, no. Note above that I referenced BOTH Championships and conference ranking. IMHO, conference ranking is more important. The B1G hasn't won a title in more than 20 years but is indisputably "Major" because they are consistently ranked as one of the top conferences.

Gonzaga is a great program individually but that alone does not make for a major conference.

On the AAC football example, there are two loosely related differences:

First, in CFB the P5 control the CFP so if you aren't part of that then you aren't major.

Second is consistency. Being better than one of the five once in a while is great, but unless you can maintain it for many years, you can't overtake them.

[OrangeAfroMan]

There have been 36 tournaments since expansion in 1985. Only two have been won by teams from outside the major conferences and one of those is now in a major conference:

• Louisville won it all in 1986 as a member of the Metro Conference. They are now in the ACC.
• UNLV won it all in 1990 as a member of the Big West Conference. They are now in the MWC.

It has been more than 30 years since a team from outside the major conferences won it all.

Championships by CURRENT league of the winner:

• 13, ACC
• 7, B-East
• 6, SEC
• 4, B1G
• 3, B12
• 2, P12
• 1, MWC.

Championships by team:

• 5, Duke
• 4, UNC, UCONN
• 3, Villanova, Kentucky
• 2, Kansas, Louisville, Florida
• 1, Zona, Arkansas, Baylor, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, UNLV, Virginia.

Well damn, the big, fat lie isn't only in football, but in basketball, too.  Except that in basketball, the bait is much sweeter and thus, more misleading. 
I did not know that.

[MaximumSam]

For your Gonzaga hypothetical, no. Note above that I referenced BOTH Championships and conference ranking. IMHO, conference ranking is more important. The B1G hasn't won a title in more than 20 years but is indisputably "Major" because they are consistently ranked as one of the top conferences.

Gonzaga is a great program individually but that alone does not make for a major conference.

On the AAC football example, there are two loosely related differences:

First, in CFB the P5 control the CFP so if you aren't part of that then you aren't major.

Second is consistency. Being better than one of the five once in a while is great, but unless you can maintain it for many years, you can't overtake them.

Either way, I believe UConn was in the AAC when they won their last championship

[bayareabadger]

Well damn, the big, fat lie isn't only in football, but in basketball, too.  Except that in basketball, the bait is much sweeter and thus, more misleading. 
I did not know that.

The lie is ... that if you compete on the field of play, you might not win? 

The flexibility of this complaint is still odd. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

The lie is pretending that the have-nots have a chance.  They do, but only by definition.  The results have shown a natural separation, and that's the important part.  Everyone covering their eyes, pretending there isn't a natural separation.

There are separations in each conference.  And there's a national separation.  

All I'm advocating for is to recognize it exists and to set up the system that way.  If San Jose State, Memphis, and Buffalo aren't on equal footing with Ohio St, USC, and Texas, then stop pretending they are by having them in the same system.  

If SJST, Memphis, and Buffalo were on actual equal footing, THEN I wouldn't make sense.  And from the basketball results over 30 years, it looks like they should do the same there....that a ticket to the dance isn't worth very much at all.  It's just that the hopeful keep pretending there's hope, when actually there is none.

[MaximumSam]

The lie is pretending that the have-nots have a chance.  They do, but only by definition.  The results have shown a natural separation, and that's the important part.  Everyone covering their eyes, pretending there isn't a natural separation.

Of the final four participants, three had never won a national championship before and the fourth was an 11 seed with a long and glorious basketball history.  It is utter baloney to say the "have-nots" don't have a chance. 

[bayareabadger]

The lie is pretending that the have-nots have a chance.  They do, but only by definition.  The results have shown a natural separation, and that's the important part.  Everyone covering their eyes, pretending there isn't a natural separation.

There are separations in each conference.  And there's a national separation. 

All I'm advocating for is to recognize it exists and to set up the system that way.  If San Jose State, Memphis, and Buffalo aren't on equal footing with Ohio St, USC, and Texas, then stop pretending they are by having them in the same system. 

If SJST, Memphis, and Buffalo were on actual equal footing, THEN I wouldn't make sense.  And from the basketball results over 30 years, it looks like they should do the same there....that a ticket to the dance isn't worth very much at all.  It's just that the hopeful keep pretending there's hope, when actually there is none.

The argument seems to be, if you have not won the whole shebang, then you should not be a part of the proceeding. It's odd, because if such a team does win, you'd be telling us how it's a case of a team like those 9-7 New York Giants, just hot at the right time.

This is college sports. It's unbalanced by nature. I guess you could split it up into two, three or four different titles, but why would you? I don't think anyone is pretending one half isn't better than the other, they just don't care. And the weirdest part is the only ones who seem to really care are the ones that seem so frightfully offended to just put those small schools into an arena where the natural separation would take its course. If the big teams don't need to be protected from the small teams, why in the hell does it matter?

If 36 years of winning is all we need to upend a system, why stop at this level? Every conference has imbalance. Three SEC teams have never won a conference title, throw em out. Shoot, UF didn’t win one for its 52 years in the SEC, and needed seven more years to win one without cheating. Vandy is never gonna win the SEC, and if you tried to throw them out, they’d pitch a damn fit.

I mean, “a ticket to the dance isn't worth very much at all”? That’s ridiculous. Go to any of the athletes at your school and ask if it’s worth something to go to state, even if they’re gonna get wiped. It’s pretty obvious what the answer is.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Their feelings and the reality of the situation are two very different things.

And yes, I suppose I would support a evolving conference or top tier of programs.  No, Vanderbilt has no business playing football in the SEC.  They're a charter member (1933) and have won nothing.  They're spending $300 million on sports upgrades to continue winning nothing.  

No, it's not some great travesty.  It's not a big deal at all.  But I don't see the EVIL in it, as you may.  Why not have an ever-shrinking top level?  I don't see the problem with exploring that.

[MaximumSam]

Their feelings and the reality of the situation are two very different things.

And yes, I suppose I would support a evolving conference or top tier of programs.  No, Vanderbilt has no business playing football in the SEC.  They're a charter member (1933) and have won nothing.  They're spending $300 million on sports upgrades to continue winning nothing. 

No, it's not some great travesty.  It's not a big deal at all.  But I don't see the EVIL in it, as you may.  Why not have an ever-shrinking top level?  I don't see the problem with exploring that.

College football appears to have that right now. Even the haves are mostly left out of the conversation, and this season the same handful of programs will likely be in the postseason again. As a fan of one these teams, I suppose that is nice, but it doesn't feel very healthy for the sport.

On a side note we might, possibly, get a little variety with the extra COVID season perhaps benefiting the have not teams.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Idk, we have 2 dominant programs that are fluid in their ways.  
Anytime I think "yawn, boring dominance by the kings" I think of the 70s.  I believe the top 10 teams in the 70s are the top 10 programs, all-time (or not far off).  Anyway, did Bo or Woody ever really deviate from their modus operandi?  I don't believe so.  Bear Bryant reluctantly fell in line and ran the wishbone, didn't he?  Not a big departure from 3-yards and a cloud of dust + dominant defense.  
.
But now, we have Saban tossing out his entire offensive system for something that will put up points.  That passes a lot.  That scores quickly.  And he's remained on top while doing so.  THAT is the amazing part to me.
But a game here or there, and things could be very different.  Clemson's had close calls.  Honestly, the world should be thankful Auburn has been as tough vs the Tide as they have, otherwise Alabama would have colonized Mars by now, so to speak.