FWIW, I went back and took a look at the teams that have made the Elite Eight over the past 10 NCAA basketball tournaments. Using the current conference affiliations for this season, the number of elite eight appearance for team in their respective conferences breaks down as follows:

 

1) Big 12 - 17

2) Big East - 16

3) SEC -10

4) ACC -9

5) Pac 10 -8

5) Big 10 -8

 

Seems like the SEC has respresented themselves fairly well.

 

Would be interesting to see how many different teams from each conference make that up.

 

Big 12: Kansas (6), Texas (3), Oklahoma (3), Missouri (2), Oklahoma St, Baylor, Kansas St.

 

Big East: Connecticut (5), Louisville (3), West Virgina (2), Villanova (2), Georgetown, Syracuse, Pittsburg, Marquette

 

SEC: Kentucky (4), Florida (3), Alabama, Louisianna St, Tennessee

 

ACC: North Carolina (5), Duke (2), Maryland, Georgia Tech

 

Pac 12: Arizona (3), UCLA (3), Oregon (2)

 

Big 10: Michigan St. (4), Wisconsin, Ohio St, Indiana, Illinois

Is it me or has Calipari done a 180 from his views on scheduling. Seems like when he came here it was about taking on all comers. Talking about how important scheduling was to seeding. As a season ticket holder. Writing that check is easier with North Carolina, Louisville, & St. Johns on the schedule. I'm that guy from eastern Kentucky he was talking about yesterday when the discussion was about Rupp Arena and ticket prices.

Wild aberration. Historically, the SEC has UK and whomever is "up" that year, usually a rotating cast between Miss. St., Vandy, LSU, Florida, Bama or Tennessee. Never all at the same time. If the NCAA basketball tourney was done the BCS way, the entire country would be complaining that the SEC should lose its automatic bid.

 

No doubt the SEC has been down as a whole for the last 6 or so years. However your last statement is way off saying people would be wanting the SEC to lose its automatic bid. Especially since over the last 6 or 7 years the SEC has produced two national championships. Several teams in the top 10 and 5, and then one of the top teams in basketball in UK in 2009-2010 and then a final four last year. So yes a whole the SEC has not been that strong, however it still has produced some top teams usually each year. Which is something you can't say about the Big East in football, there has been no schools who have even been much of a threat to win a National Championship.

 

You should have just stuck with the the SEC as whole has been weak for awhile now, because that would be hard for people to argue with.

delete

Is it me or has Calipari done a 180 from his views on scheduling. Seems like when he came here it was about taking on all comers. Talking about how important scheduling was to seeding. As a season ticket holder. Writing that check is easier with North Carolina, Louisville, & St. Johns on the schedule. I'm that guy from eastern Kentucky he was talking about yesterday when the discussion was about Rupp Arena and ticket prices.

 

I think the issue is that the SEC will go to an 18 game schedule which means 2 less non-conference games. Which could eliminate 1 sometimes 2 home games in a season the way the current schedule is set up with UL and UNC being either both home or both away in a given year.

Okay, here's something I've worked on in the past & just polished here in the last several minutes. The following numbers go back to 1989-90 & run through 2010-11 (22 seasons). It looks at the performances of each respective conference and the success each conference has had in: Final Four berths & National championships.

 

Most Final Four Berths

 

1. ACC- 21

2. Big 10- 15

3. SEC- 13

4. Big East- 9

4. Big 12- 9

6. Pac 10- 8

 

Most National Championships

 

1. ACC- 8

2. SEC- 5

3. Big East- 4

4. Pac 10- 2

5. Big 10- 1

5. Big 12- 1

 

Number of Schools To Make Final Four

 

1. Big 10- 7 (Mich St, Mich, Ohio St, Illinois, IU, Wisc, Minnesota)

2. Big East- 5 (UConn, Syracuse, G'Town, WVU, Villanova)

2. SEC- 5 (UK, Florida, Arkansas, LSU, Miss State)

4. ACC- 4 (Duke, UNC, Maryland, Ga. Tech)

4. Big 12- 4 (Kansas, Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Texas)

6. Pac 10- 3 (Arizona, UCLA, Stanford)

 

Number of Schools To Win National Title

 

1. ACC- 3 (Duke, UNC, Maryland)

1. SEC- 3 (UK, Florida, Arkansas)

3. Pac 10- 2 (Arizona, UCLA)

3. Big East- 2 (UConn, Syracuse)

5. Big 10- 1 (Michigan State)

5. Big 12- 1 (Kansas)

 

When you take those four categories & add up the conference's respective ranking in each category & then divide by the number of categories, here's what you come up with:

 

1. ACC- 1.75

2. SEC- 2

3. Big East- 3

4. Big 10- 3.25

5. Big 12- 4.5

6. Pac 10- 4.75

 

Are there better ways or other time spans in which we can evaluate conferences? I'm sure there are. But I believe by looking at college basketball during the 90's and 2000's, we get a grasp of which conferences are stronger/weaker over a lengthy amount of time. The categories I use measure both quality & quantity...and they measure what we cherish most (Final Fours & titles).

 

Now, here's the thing...I would rank the ACC & Big East as the top two conferences in the last 22 seasons--particularly because I think the Big East is improving greatly from its disaster in the 1990's. You have to have the ACC just because of Duke & Carolina who have dominated this time span, with UCONN probably next in line.

 

But to say that the SEC would "lose its automatic bid" is absolutely ridiculous. The Pac-10 might. The Big 12 might. But no way with the SEC. They're not the cream of the basketball BCS crop, but they're far from the bottom feeders too.

No doubt the SEC has been down as a whole for the last 6 or so years. However your last statement is way off saying people would be wanting the SEC to lose its automatic bid. Especially since over the last 6 or 7 years the SEC has produced two national championships. Several teams in the top 10 and 5, and then one of the top teams in basketball in UK in 2009-2010 and then a final four last year. So yes a whole the SEC has not been that strong, however it still has produced some top teams usually each year. Which is something you can't say about the Big East in football, there has been no schools who have even been much of a threat to win a National Championship.

 

You should have just stuck with the the SEC as whole has been weak for awhile now, because that would be hard for people to argue with.

 

Over the last 6 years UC, UL and WVU were all very close to playing in the BCS Title game. You get that close, you're a threat...

Okay, here's something I've worked on in the past & just polished here in the last several minutes. The following numbers go back to 1989-90 & run through 2010-11 (22 seasons). It looks at the performances of each respective conference and the success each conference has had in: Final Four berths & National championships.

 

Most Final Four Berths

 

 

1. ACC- 21

2. Big 10- 15

3. SEC- 13

4. Big East- 9

4. Big 12- 9

6. Pac 10- 8

 

Most National Championships

 

1. ACC- 8

2. SEC- 5

3. Big East- 4

4. Pac 10- 2

5. Big 10- 1

5. Big 12- 1

 

Number of Schools To Make Final Four

 

1. Big 10- 7 (Mich St, Mich, Ohio St, Illinois, IU, Wisc, Minnesota)

2. Big East- 5 (UConn, Syracuse, G'Town, WVU, Villanova)

2. SEC- 5 (UK, Florida, Arkansas, LSU, Miss State)

4. ACC- 4 (Duke, UNC, Maryland, Ga. Tech)

4. Big 12- 4 (Kansas, Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Texas)

6. Pac 10- 3 (Arizona, UCLA, Stanford)

 

Number of Schools To Win National Title

 

1. ACC- 3 (Duke, UNC, Maryland)

1. SEC- 3 (UK, Florida, Arkansas)

3. Pac 10- 2 (Arizona, UCLA)

3. Big East- 2 (UConn, Syracuse)

5. Big 10- 1 (Michigan State)

5. Big 12- 1 (Kansas)

 

When you take those four categories & add up the conference's respective ranking in each category & then divide by the number of categories, here's what you come up with:

 

1. ACC- 1.75

2. SEC- 2

3. Big East- 3

4. Big 10- 3.25

5. Big 12- 4.5

6. Pac 10- 4.75

 

Are there better ways or other time spans in which we can evaluate conferences? I'm sure there are. But I believe by looking at college basketball during the 90's and 2000's, we get a grasp of which conferences are stronger/weaker over a lengthy amount of time. The categories I use measure both quality & quantity...and they measure what we cherish most (Final Fours & titles).

 

Now, here's the thing...I would rank the ACC & Big East as the top two conferences in the last 22 seasons--particularly because I think the Big East is improving greatly from its disaster in the 1990's. You have to have the ACC just because of Duke & Carolina who have dominated this time span, with UCONN probably next in line.

 

But to say that the SEC would "lose its automatic bid" is absolutely ridiculous. The Pac-10 might. The Big 12 might. But no way with the SEC. They're not the cream of the basketball BCS crop, but they're far from the bottom feeders too.

Nice work. :thumb:

Over the last 6 years UC, UL and WVU were all very close to playing in the BCS Title game. You get that close, you're a threat...

 

I agree, if Petrino, Rich Rod, and Kelly never left their teams, the Big East would have been very competitive. If not for a fluke loss to Pitt a few seasons back, I believe that West Virginia could have won the national title.

Okay, here's something I've worked on in the past & just polished here in the last several minutes. The following numbers go back to 1989-90 & run through 2010-11 (22 seasons). It looks at the performances of each respective conference and the success each conference has had in: Final Four berths & National championships.

 

Most Final Four Berths

 

1. ACC- 21

2. Big 10- 15

3. SEC- 13

4. Big East- 9

4. Big 12- 9

6. Pac 10- 8

 

Most National Championships

 

1. ACC- 8

2. SEC- 5

3. Big East- 4

4. Pac 10- 2

5. Big 10- 1

5. Big 12- 1

 

Number of Schools To Make Final Four

 

1. Big 10- 7 (Mich St, Mich, Ohio St, Illinois, IU, Wisc, Minnesota)

2. Big East- 5 (UConn, Syracuse, G'Town, WVU, Villanova)

2. SEC- 5 (UK, Florida, Arkansas, LSU, Miss State)

4. ACC- 4 (Duke, UNC, Maryland, Ga. Tech)

4. Big 12- 4 (Kansas, Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Texas)

6. Pac 10- 3 (Arizona, UCLA, Stanford)

 

Number of Schools To Win National Title

 

1. ACC- 3 (Duke, UNC, Maryland)

1. SEC- 3 (UK, Florida, Arkansas)

3. Pac 10- 2 (Arizona, UCLA)

3. Big East- 2 (UConn, Syracuse)

5. Big 10- 1 (Michigan State)

5. Big 12- 1 (Kansas)

 

When you take those four categories & add up the conference's respective ranking in each category & then divide by the number of categories, here's what you come up with:

 

1. ACC- 1.75

2. SEC- 2

3. Big East- 3

4. Big 10- 3.25

5. Big 12- 4.5

6. Pac 10- 4.75

 

Are there better ways or other time spans in which we can evaluate conferences? I'm sure there are. But I believe by looking at college basketball during the 90's and 2000's, we get a grasp of which conferences are stronger/weaker over a lengthy amount of time. The categories I use measure both quality & quantity...and they measure what we cherish most (Final Fours & titles).

 

Now, here's the thing...I would rank the ACC & Big East as the top two conferences in the last 22 seasons--particularly because I think the Big East is improving greatly from its disaster in the 1990's. You have to have the ACC just because of Duke & Carolina who have dominated this time span, with UCONN probably next in line.

 

But to say that the SEC would "lose its automatic bid" is absolutely ridiculous. The Pac-10 might. The Big 12 might. But no way with the SEC. They're not the cream of the basketball BCS crop, but they're far from the bottom feeders too.

You really should include Louisville in the BE numbers.

You really should include Louisville in the BE numbers.

 

Is Louisville not included at all, or are you simply talking about pre Big East days?

Roy Williams On the Kentucky-North Carolina series continuing…

“I’ve been asked this question a lot and I’m sure Cal has been asked it a thousand times more than I have, I love these kind of series but everyone has to understand the landscape of college basketball is changing. We’re sitting here at 16 conference games and maybe the next year we’ll be at 19, who knows. I love games like this but North Carolina and Kentucky didn’t play for about eight or nine of ten years, I wasn’t at North Carolina at that time but both schools survived. Am I interested in continuing to play Kentucky? Yes. Am I interested in making a concrete statement up here? No. John and I should have an opportunity to talk about that and see what else we have on the schedule and I think that’s what John has been eluding to this week, I think he has more questions about it then I do. Regardless of what the Kentucky fans say about who they’d like to get rid of we have to save this thing too, it’s a two-way street kind of thing.”

You really should include Louisville in the BE numbers.

 

I thought about that (you'd also have to include Marquette & UC in the Big East & Arkansas 1990 in the SEC, because they were in a different conference). But they weren't in the conference when their accomplishments happened. The conferences don't count them as accomplishments, so I didn't either.

 

If I did include them, that would give the Big East three more FF teams & 3 different teams. The SEC would get 1 more FF team.

 

But again, I didn't provide the info to bring down the Big East. I think it's been the best conference since it expanded to its current makeup. I was providing this to show that the SEC is far from the sloucher that some make it out to be.

Roy Williams On the Kentucky-North Carolina series continuing…

“I’ve been asked this question a lot and I’m sure Cal has been asked it a thousand times more than I have, I love these kind of series but everyone has to understand the landscape of college basketball is changing. We’re sitting here at 16 conference games and maybe the next year we’ll be at 19, who knows. I love games like this but North Carolina and Kentucky didn’t play for about eight or nine of ten years, I wasn’t at North Carolina at that time but both schools survived. Am I interested in continuing to play Kentucky? Yes. Am I interested in making a concrete statement up here? No. John and I should have an opportunity to talk about that and see what else we have on the schedule and I think that’s what John has been eluding to this week, I think he has more questions about it then I do. Regardless of what the Kentucky fans say about who they’d like to get rid of we have to save this thing too, it’s a two-way street kind of thing.”

 

Did you copy/paste that off another site?

I thought about that (you'd also have to include Marquette & UC in the Big East & Arkansas 1990 in the SEC, because they were in a different conference). But they weren't in the conference when their accomplishments happened. The conferences don't count them as accomplishments, so I didn't either.

 

If I did include them, that would give the Big East three more FF teams & 3 different teams. The SEC would get 1 more FF team.

 

But again, I didn't provide the info to bring down the Big East. I think it's been the best conference since it expanded to its current makeup. I was providing this to show that the SEC is far from the sloucher that some make it out to be.

 

I still don't think those numbers disprove my point. If anything, it shows that the top team in the SEC is really good each year, the second banana is pretty good, and the rest suck.