Printable View
ACC>PAC Ten. Without UCLA the PAC Ten is a joke, and you know that. We can come back here at the end of the season and re-examine this, I feel pretty confident in the fact that the ACC will win more games than the PAC Ten in this years NCAA Tournament even if the PAC Ten gets more teams in. You can listen to Billy Backer, Jay Bilas or whoever you want I'll look at history and the facts.
Again, I thought we were talking about this year? Youre saying the pac-ten is a joke this year? That makes no sense, not even stats can make that look like a valid claim.
And youre saying without ucla the pac ten is a joke, thats like saying unc or duke never existed. wtf is that? Damn, anyone can randomly come up with stuff like that. Well if John Crockett never existed, pv would have 5 national titles and a win over Oak Hill lmao, absurd.
Did I ever say that Billy Packer, Bilas, or Davis were right? Again, nooooope. But they are guys that actually do have alot more credibility than say, you and they are guys that are HUGE ACC supporters. I never said your opinion was wrong either, but youre not even on the same page with this one. You must have skipped half of what I posted.
The facts as you call them are that youre arguing with yourself in this thread. I didnt say anything about the pac ten being better than the acc so Im not even sure why you keep making it a point to say otherwise. I didnt compare the two conferences, why do you keep doing it?
the problem ppl run into with rating conferences is thinking that if someone says "Conf A is better than Conf B" then a fan of Conf B seems to think they mean their conference sucks
I don't think the PAC 10 sucks at all...at the very worst they're one of the top 3 in the nation...but at the same time I don't think they should get 60% of their conference in the tourney
UK 7 Natl titles..
look for #8 in 2055
I think pvfan missed the boat on that one. Thats exactly what Im saying. I never said anything about the ACC. They are a seperate entity and its impossible to evaluate one conference against another without sufficient data to support any claim. With 64 teams though, we get a nice variety of teams and some pretty watered down teams that dont deserve to make it. 65 teams is enough to determine a champion though.
Which goes back to another point that I keep saying, there isnt any best team. You could play the ncaa tournament 10 times and it come out 10 different ways with 10 different winners. If you watch basketball and play basketball enough, you know that(especially the college level) its a game of inches. Thats why the ncaa tournament becomes so crazy. Most teams are evenly matched and thats when you throw the retarded conference debate out the window. Any team that makes the ncaa tournament is a dangeous team and a pretty good team. Simple as that. Conference affiliation means very little.
You keep moving back and forth between the past and the present. Who really knows what the hell you are even talking about? I don't think the PAC Ten is terrible, I do think the ACC is better and I think the numbers past, today, and the future will support that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why just go by the final four though? Theres alot of great teams that dont make the final four. 1996 Kansas didnt make the elite 8 and they would blow any team in the nation away the last 2-3 years. When did I compare the two conferences in the tournament anyway? I just said, the pac 10 has represented well in the tournament. Did I say, hey look at all of those final fours? <span style="color: #FF6666">And when do years past mean anything if we are talking about this year.</div></div></span>
Isn't this a little hypocritical......when we're talking about VT being good in football, the argument about no national championships vs Miami's many national championships comes up.
I don't like to live in the past though...if a team is good at the present, then a person has a reason to brag.
By the way, I like both VT and Miami....Miami had the best team in the history of college football a few years ago but VT has the upper hand right now (this will probably change in a couple of years with Miami having the upper hand again and probably winning a few more national titles).
Liking both teams, I'll root for the ACC conference...it's just a pride thing.
I'm just happy VT is in the position they are in...i thought coming into the season we would have 13-15 wins and finish around 7th in the conference
VT was picked last in the conference at the beginning of the year and if they win out will finish third and go to back-to-back NCAA tournaments which is pretty unheard of for VT basketball, and it looks to only get better barring attrition
and mega is right, winning the title in bball requires talent, experience and a WHOLE lotta luck...especially this year when there's about 15 different teams who could win it all depending on matchups
Maryland doesn't deserve to go to the NCAA Tournament.
that's a heartbreaker...i almost turned it off when Maryland went up 59-39