|
Post by huskervbfan on Dec 18, 2006 13:37:15 GMT -5
No question in my mind. Pac-10 still rules at the top conference. I admit that I questioned whether three of their teams would make it to the Final four but they did. That was very impresssive.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 18, 2006 13:45:29 GMT -5
Big 12 against Pac 10: 1-4 (but what a Big One it was!) Big 12 against Big 10: 2-1 Pac 10 against Big 10: 2-0 Sample sizes might be small, but you can still draw your own conclusions. I thought Nebraska beat UCLA then Stanford, which means at least two wins by Nebraska. Like I said - I don't consider this transitive by any means. I remember seeing some "stream of conciousness" email sent by a coach who (toungue and cheek) claimed that his team was #1 because his team beat another team, which beat another team, and about three times more removed beat the #1 ranked team in the country. It was actually some rather funny stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2006 13:50:52 GMT -5
I thought Nebraska beat UCLA then Stanford, which means at least two wins by Nebraska. Good catch, BC. I modified my previous post. (My first chart did not include the Final Four and in my angst over the Final, I forgot UCLA's loss in the semi's)
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Dec 18, 2006 17:23:45 GMT -5
So what are you saying? In the previous 5 years that a Pac-10 team won the title, that doesn't necessarily rub off on the rest of the Pac-10? Like I said in another thread - Nebraska was the class of the Big 12. This who thread seems like some sort of exercise in transitive logic. Nebraska won the championship, which then makes them the best team in NCAA D-I, which makes the Big 12 the best conference, which makes (here's the elephant in the room that nobody has pointed out yet) Baylor a better team. I can think of a better question to ask about conference strength. How many Big 12 teams had a realistic shot of winning the national championship? Yo, Adrian. (I'm in a Rocky mood, since its coming out soon) Baylor beat Nebraska a game this year losing 3-1. So did Stanford. Baylor's just as good as Stanford. I like this logic. ;D
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on Dec 18, 2006 23:09:00 GMT -5
I don't know about the Pac 10 vs Big 12 arguement but I definately think that they should consider taking more Big 12 schools to the NCAA tournament. This season, it looks like a 7th place baylor was a better choice than many other bubble teams in other weaker conferences.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 18, 2006 23:26:06 GMT -5
I don't know about the Pac 10 vs Big 12 arguement but I definately think that they should consider taking more Big 12 schools to the NCAA tournament. This season, it looks like a 7th place baylor was a better choice than many other bubble teams in other weaker conferences. The NCAA has a published criteria for selection. Given their criteria, I can't fault the selection committee for leaving Baylor out. If you have a RichKern.com subscription, check the following: www.richkern.com/vb/rankings/TeamSheet.asp?Div=DI&VBYear=2006&abbr=ba
|
|
|
Post by bearwatch on Dec 19, 2006 9:02:14 GMT -5
I wouldn't fault them either. It was colorada's fault!!!
|
|