[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's not get carried away here.

If you go back and look at the Final Four to 1997, both the ACC and Big Ten each have had 10 teams.

Nat'l champions is a little too narrow, and just making the tournament a bit too broad.

I suppose you could also look at Sweet Sixteen appearances over that time to determine the number of quality teams between the two conferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, NC is too broad and making the field is too narrow because they dont show what you want them to show. Odds are the Big10 would be better in SOME category that you could arbitrarily define.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, so agree on one first and then look.

I think Final Four is the best for determining depth at the top. Sweet Sixteen is good for looking at which conference has the best top 5 teams or so.

I don't think anyone would argue that the lower half of the ACC is much better than the lower half of the Big Ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not something like "wins in the NCAA tourney"? Final Fours is ok, I guess, but again its pretty high variance since its rare that more than one team from any conference makes it, and the Final Four isnt really that much different than Elite Eight. I'd say overall conference tourney record is better than NC, FF or 64.

Or maybe they could organize some games directly between the teams in each of the conferences and add up who has the best overall records. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'm a Big Ten/Big East guy but I think its pretty obvious that the ACC pwns the Big 10 except in the highest possible variance situations.

Edit to say I have no idea what the comparative tourney records are and I dont plan on looking it up, just offering it as a possible criteria.