Anyone find the "best conference" arguments pointless?
I'm going to get right to the point. After the ACC killed the Big 10 in the annual Challenge, and because the ACC is #1 in the RPI and the Big 10 is #6, it is easy to conclude that the ACC is better. However, I feel this is a pointless argument for this reason:
Only the top 3 teams in a conference AT MOST have a realistic shot at winning it all. Now look at the top three teams in each conference and here's how I'd rank their chances of winning the whole thing.
In my mind the Big 10 has a much better shot at sending multiple teams in the elite 8 than the ACC. Now of course the ACC is better from top to bottom, but why does that really matter? People remember titles and long tournament runs. Remember when MSU got to the final four a few years ago? People trashed the Big 10 that year to, but it just so happened MSU and Illinois made it to the final four and Wisconsin lossed in the elite 8 to NC in a game they almost won. What conference really was more successful? And yes I realize NC won it all, which kind of weakens that example, but that was just one team, not 3 in the elite 8. ACC was considered better that year like every year though (MSU beat Duke in the sweet 16 that season).
So my basic point is I'll take 3 teams with a legit shot at the elite 8 over 2 and one long shot.....and can anyone even imagine a Paulus led Duke team having a shot anyways?