The Conference Breakdown

General NCS Basketball4

The ACC is 4-0 after the first round of the NCAA Tournament. The Big Ten got six bids and is 3-3 – nice work Iowa & Wisconsin and Michigan State.

Based on this and the performance of other conferences, Florida State has got to feel more jobbed than they did on Sunday. Why does the conference bother beating the Big 10’s ass every year in the ACC/Big Ten Challenge if it doesn’t mean anything?

ACC: 4-0
SEC: 5-1
Pac-10: 3-1
Big East: 5-3
Big 10: 3-3
Big 12: 2-2
MVC: 2-2
A10: 1-1
CAA: 1-1
C-USA: 1-1
MWC: 0-2
WAC: 0-2

General NCS Basketball

4 Responses to The Conference Breakdown

  1. BJD95 03/18/2006 at 2:55 PM #

    The key is – don’t point fingers at the Missouri Valley Conference, as Billy Packer did. Despite their 4 teams getting seeds of 7, 10, 11, and 13, they went a respectable 2-2. The ACC did go 4-0, but the only team not seeded as a DECISIVE first round favorite favorite was NC State. And 2 of those favored teams (UNC, BC) were very nearly eliminated.

    But Air Force and Utah State simply did not belong in the tournament, and never challenged Illinois or Washington.

  2. rj 03/18/2006 at 4:46 PM #

    “Why does the conference bother beating the Big 10’s ass every year in the ACC/Big Ten Challenge if it doesn’t mean anything?”

    Because making the tournament’s based on the whole season and not one game maybe?

    FSU beat a team that went 3-13 in the Big 10, and that was their best non-conference win. The rest of their season was one win over Duke, and that was their only win over a good team (1-5 against teams in the NCAA Tourney, 3-7 on the road with those victories against Jacksonville, Miami, and Wake Forest). What else?

  3. TexPack 03/18/2006 at 8:45 PM #

    Texas A&M played a similar OOC schedule to FSU. Maybe even worse. I would agree that AFA and USU looked more overmatched than any of the other bubble teams that got in.

  4. rj 03/18/2006 at 9:36 PM #

    A&M though made their conference tournament’s semifinals at least.

Leave a Reply