kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 3, 2008 15:56:10 GMT -5
I just read a startling blog entry that seems to add up. Since 1990 the ACC has had 19 Final Four appearances. The Big East has had 5. The Big East has had less than every single other power conference. Duke and UNC have each had more final four appearances than the entire Big East. There are occasional snickers on this board about the ACC, UNC, Duke, etc. And once again this year there is an ACC team in the Final Four, and no Big East team. I knew UConn pulled up lame in the 90s, and the conference wasn't deep, but I didn't realize just how bad it was. No, the ACC didn't have 19 FF appearance. Duke and UNC had 15 appearances, and the rest of the ACC had 4. That's a big difference. Georgia Tech made it way back in 1990 and again in 2004, and UMCB had two straight appearances in 2001-2002.
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Apr 3, 2008 16:31:28 GMT -5
Since 1985: ACC: 6 SEC: 5 Big East: 4 Big 10: 3 Pac 10: 2 Big 12: 1 UNLV: 1 Louisville: 1 If you're going back to 1985, why not go back one more year to 1984? ;D Tempting, I know, but no field of 64...
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 3, 2008 16:42:05 GMT -5
Oh, lord. That stat heads are at it.
What is this, baseball?
Can't we just all agree that the ACC sucks and leave it at that?
;D
EDIT: And Syracuse too. They suck. I believe that was the point of the original article, that UMCP, Georgia Tech, Syracuse and a few others all suck.
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Apr 3, 2008 17:09:52 GMT -5
pash - go back to my post about tournament appearances, performance vs. seed and championships won. Final Fours are just not that important. Also, given the fact that we weren't playing them at the time, I think that counting Louisville's and Marquette's appearances for us would not be right - glad you added the caveat. Oh, lord. That stat heads are at it. What is this, baseball? Can't we just all agree that the ACC sucks and leave it at that? ;D EDIT: And Syracuse too. They suck. I believe that was the point of the original article, that UMCP, Georgia Tech, Syracuse and a few others all suck. Twist my arm...
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 3, 2008 17:34:25 GMT -5
Pash, you're still missing the point.
Reaching the Final Four is simply not the definitive measure of quality. It's a cherry picked stat to make the ACC look good. Is Xavier a bad team? UNC last year? Why the heck would you evaluate a team solely on its ability to make a Final Four?
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Apr 3, 2008 18:38:11 GMT -5
"It is obvious that basketball programs at BCS schools reap great financial support from their football programs." Possibly true, but your statistic is a correlation, not causation. Most of the BCS schools happen also to be large state schools who have committed vast sums of money to all athletics. It isn't just a matter of football feeding the beast. Large schools with money tend to do well in football and basketball and there aren't many large schools with money who emphasize one and not the other. Sure, it may be just correlation from what is stated, but just because it's correlation doesn't mean it's not also causation. It often seems that BCS football has been at schools first, and then they've been able to sprout decent basketball squads. I'm not saying it's necessarily one way or the other, just simply that it's unfair to say it's "only" correlation without someone giving some sort of further proof one way or the other. Plus, I would wager that it's much easier to start a basketball program if you have a football program already going than the other way around. Oh well.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 3, 2008 18:52:45 GMT -5
Moe,
I'm sure there is some causation -- traditional football powers like Texas taking money and investing in an expensive coach and facilities. Of course.
But there's also a lot of noice. UConn is a BCS school, but their basketball was not funded by football. Nor was UCLA's. UNC's. Kentucky's. Indiana's. Michigan State. Louisville. Duke. Maryland -- heck, most of the ACC. Kansas.
Go through the list of current top basketball programs and the reality is that very few are recent upstarts funded by football money. I would say that Florida and Texas are. USC, if you consider them a top team. Tennessee has seen a resurgence, but Pearl was not high priced and they really have risen without investment. Texas A&M has improved, but again, not really through money.
It's not that it can't be done. It can. But the vast majority of BCS schools that are hgihly successful in basketball fall into these three categories:
1. Much better at basketball than football or much better at basketball first (UCLA, Duke, Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas, Arizona, Maryland, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Stanford).
2. Good at both sports, but were good at basketball long before football money got crazy (Michigan, Oklahoma State, Michigan State?, Syracuse, Ohio State, West Virginia)
3. Recently improved but without using a lot of money to do so (WVU, Tennessee, A&M, Wisconsin)
I would say all those schools greatly outweigh the Floridas, Texases and Southern Cals of the world.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Apr 3, 2008 19:46:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree for the most part, don't think it's this clear cut, though... Also, just wanted to posit the causation and correlation part.
Plus, would you put Michigan and Ohio State under #2? Even WVU? It's hard to say how much money teams under #3 spend to improve... obviously, there will be times where you make the right hires, things fall into place, but each one under #3 just so happens to be a big state school with a big time football program. So, I get the feeling that overall it's more of a mix, as you said in your previous post, seeing as obviously, there are tons of programs out there that have had both. Although, I feel like big time college football did start to make a lot more money than big time college basketball a lot earlier, and probably still makes more.
Anyway, let's not forget the major point behind this -- which is that Williams is copping out. The fact is that saying it's this easy to sprout up a basketball program for small schools is just plain crap. Do I think it's easier if you have a football program? Sure. Is it necessary? No. Is it easy if you've got nothing? No. The fact is that he does have the resources, and he's still sucking.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 3, 2008 20:17:51 GMT -5
Michigan was good before the crazy spending days of sport spending, which is fairly recent. They are good because they are the state school, not because their football team bought them an arena and a billion dollar coach.
Ohio State has an argument. They were the team of Jerry Lucas in the 60s, and Jimmy Jackson -- again, long before money from football was a big factor. But their resurgence is money funded now -- nice facilities, paid a crapload for Matta.
WVU was great under West and Hot Rod Hundley. They fell off, but came back under Beilien, who was not a big money hire and didn't win by big recruiting. Yeah, they have a good football team, but you're really going to tell me that they took the BCS proceeds and bought a good basketball team.
The implication here is that BCS schools are hugely advantaged and can just buy a program because of football. I don't see it. Most of them spend all their BCS money on football to begin with. They are big schools with a big draw and lots of money to begin with; rarely does it have anything to do with the insanity of football money over the last 10-20 years.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 3, 2008 22:04:56 GMT -5
Or maybe, VC, he's referring to GW's football-less athletic program since the Twerps have descended to their level and are fighting them for our scraps these days? Or American
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Apr 4, 2008 2:55:29 GMT -5
pash - the point about not using Final Four appearances is that it is not and should not be anything more than one game better than an Elite Eight appearance and one game worse than a National Final appearance. Thus, any analysis that relies on Final Four appearances (instead of total tournament performance) is somewhat bunk, as it totally discounts losses prior to the Elite Eight and victories after getting to the Final Four. Sure, getting to the Final Four is nice but, as you noted, getting to the Sweet Sixteen is better than getting to the second round; this is why the results at each stage should be included in any analysis. A National Championship, meanwhile, is a quantum leap up from an appearance in the title game and, therefore, merits special inclusion in determining program and conference success.
While seeding is subjective, it is widely acknowledged to be relatively accurate within a couple of seeds in the vast majority of cases. Thus, performance versus seed-expectation is, indeed, an important metric of success, just as level of competition would be in any responsible rating system. Surely, a 1 seed beating a 16 seed is not as impressive as an 8 seed beating a 9 seed, even if each seed was off by as much as two from a God's-eye view. Let's say a 1 seed beat a 16 and an 8, losing to a 4 in the Sweet Sixteen, while an 11 seed beats a 6 and a 3 before losing to a 2; both have won two games, reaching the same round, but clearly the 11 seed would be said to have had the better performance. Perhaps a hybrid metric, giving victories a weighted value based on seed defeated, could be used.
Getting invited is similarly accurate, with only a handful of teams under serious consideration for final inclusion/exclusion. As a measure of season success, one cannot argue that tournament participation is not also a quantum milestone. However, your point about looking over a number of seasons to reduce the effects of fluke performances (or inclusions/exclusions) is entirely correct.
No matter the metric, the ACC, with its relatively high invitation rate and many deep runs in the tourney, will look good. However, more holistic ratings would keep that image from being overstated as has been the case so often in the media with adherence to more limited stats such as Final Four appearances.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Apr 4, 2008 7:28:19 GMT -5
Michigan was good before the crazy spending days of sport spending, which is fairly recent. They are good because they are the state school, not because their football team bought them an arena and a billion dollar coach. Ohio State has an argument. They were the team of Jerry Lucas in the 60s, and Jimmy Jackson -- again, long before money from football was a big factor. But their resurgence is money funded now -- nice facilities, paid a crapload for Matta. WVU was great under West and Hot Rod Hundley. They fell off, but came back under Beilien, who was not a big money hire and didn't win by big recruiting. Yeah, they have a good football team, but you're really going to tell me that they took the BCS proceeds and bought a good basketball team. The implication here is that BCS schools are hugely advantaged and can just buy a program because of football. I don't see it. Most of them spend all their BCS money on football to begin with. They are big schools with a big draw and lots of money to begin with; rarely does it have anything to do with the insanity of football money over the last 10-20 years. OK, I have no problem with that. I think I've missed my point, I don't really disagree with you. The whole gist of the conversation seems to simply go back to the causation correlation part -- big state schools have big time football programs and big time budgets. Thus, if they don't have big time basketball (I would say that there are more big states schools missing basketball programs and having football programs than the other way around), they can at least use their large budgets to give it the ol' college try (thus, why I don't think it's so clean cut). Smaller schools don't have this luxury, and thus can't pour their entire budgets just into basketball to create a program, as Williams claims. (Being fairly young, I suppose I just always had the impression that football came first, or at least made a lot more money, obviously one must take into account the schools behind these programs...) Of course, in some way I suppose what Williams is saying is that it's easier to try to start up a basketball program in a small school than, say, a football program (which I think would be accurate, I don't think I need to go into details here). However, just because it's relatively easier to start a basketball program, doesn't mean it's easy in general for these small schools, because it isn't. I think that's my real point here.
|
|