Who Will be the Next Big East National Champ?

[pki1998]

Ok lets look at a fairly current sample say the 21st century. In that time we've seen Kentucky, UNC 2x, Duke 2x, Ville, UConn 2x, Florida win but then REPEAT, MSU all repeat for titles. So of the 13 national title 10 have been repeats. I said in my post that times have changed and there is rarely going to be a new team win it now and I believe that 10/13 shows that pretty well.

Again repeating a premise doesn't make it true. It's better to admit that you are wrong then ignoring facts. When you look at the 21st century (2001 - present) there have been 13 champions. Of which three teams (Maryland, Syracuse and Florida) Have won their first championship, Florida has won two of them as such 4 out of 13 the championships won this century was by teams that had not won one in the 20th century. That's approximately 31% of the time. Plus I fail to see how your 13 year period of the 21 st century is significantly more relevant than the 15 year period expressed in my original post, that was included to prempt such an arguement. If we go to my fifteen year period I would get to include UCOnn which has won 3 titles since 1999 (it's first). So under the same math that's 7 championships won in 15 years by teams that had never won one before 1999 or approximately 47%. Or if even if you want to try saying that repeats prove your point. 4 new schools have won there first championship in the last 15 years , you still get approximately 27% first time champions in the last 15 years. I fail to see that as rare. And before you say the last 15 years are a fluke. In addition to UConn the 90s had four more schools win there first championship.

Why is the 21st century relevant? Because I said the college basketball landscape is different NOW, not in the 90s, not in the 80s, I don't give a darn about those times. They aren't now. And no Florida doesn't count when they win their second, a repeat is a repeat not a special exception because they hadn't won one before.

I guess 13 years is really relevant but 15 years is totally irrelevant. But even if we confine it to the 13 years and don't cont a repeat that's 3 out of 13 or 23%. I don't think many people would say on chance in three is rare. Facts are facts your premise is wrong. Further more the recent trend of teams outside of the power conferences making the final four (GM, VCU, Butler, WSU) would indicate that it is much more likely for a small conference school too win a title now than in the 90s or 80s

[TheHall]

Why is the 21st century relevant? Because I said the college basketball landscape is different NOW, not in the 90s, not in the 80s, I don't give a darn about those times. They aren't now. And no Florida doesn't count when they win their second, a repeat is a repeat not a special exception because they hadn't won one before.

I guess 13 years is really relevant but 15 years is totally irrelevant. But even if we confine it to the 13 years and don't cont a repeat that's 3 out of 13 or 23%. I don't think many people would say on chance in three is rare. Facts are facts your premise is wrong. Further more the recent trend of teams outside of the power conferences making the final four (GM, VCU, Butler, WSU) would indicate that it is much more likely for a small conference school too win a title now than in the 90s or 80s

To your point, it's actually more parity (ie better chance for newbies) in cbb now than in the 80's & the early 90's. Once the straight from hs and the 1 & done games kicked in cbb basketball's top programs have found it harder to dominate like before. Look at this season- UK,UNC, Duke, Kansas- meh.

[XUFan09]

Ok lets look at a fairly current sample say the 21st century. In that time we've seen Kentucky, UNC 2x, Duke 2x, Ville, UConn 2x, Florida win but then REPEAT, MSU all repeat for titles. So of the 13 national title 10 have been repeats. I said in my post that times have changed and there is rarely going to be a new team win it now and I believe that 10/13 shows that pretty well.

Again repeating a premise doesn't make it true. It's better to admit that you are wrong then ignoring facts. When you look at the 21st century (2001 - present) there have been 13 champions. Of which three teams (Maryland, Syracuse and Florida) Have won their first championship, Florida has won two of them as such 4 out of 13 the championships won this century was by teams that had not won one in the 20th century. That's approximately 31% of the time. Plus I fail to see how your 13 year period of the 21 st century is significantly more relevant than the 15 year period expressed in my original post, that was included to prempt such an arguement. If we go to my fifteen year period I would get to include UCOnn which has won 3 titles since 1999 (it's first). So under the same math that's 7 championships won in 15 years by teams that had never won one before 1999 or approximately 47%. Or if even if you want to try saying that repeats prove your point. 4 new schools have won there first championship in the last 15 years , you still get approximately 27% first time champions in the last 15 years. I fail to see that as rare. And before you say the last 15 years are a fluke. In addition to UConn the 90s had four more schools win there first championship.

Why is the 21st century relevant? Because I said the college basketball landscape is different NOW, not in the 90s, not in the 80s, I don't give a darn about those times. They aren't now. And no Florida doesn't count when they win their second, a repeat is a repeat not a special exception because they hadn't won one before.

So 2000 is significantly more relevant than 1999? That doesn't make much sense. He started with the last 15 years, a nice, round number. If you wanted to use a parameter of eight years, okay, that's significantly different. But 13 vs. 15 is close enough to just be arbitrary after he already set a range.

His point continues to stand that newcomers are not a very rare occurrence. A minority occurence, yes, but not some statistical anomaly. And yes, Florida's first does count. They actually count toward both categories, newcomers and repeat champions. You can't just hold them to one category because it suits your argument. Some teams win a championship and that's that (like Maryland). Others win a championship and it's the beginning of more (like Florida and UConn). But they both started with zero before joining the party.

And really, a team's history really doesn't carry too much importance. UConn has multiple championships but based on the current state of different programs, there are programs that are more likely to win their first championship before UConn wins another. Arizona is one of the favorites to win the title this year, not because they are past winners and not newcomers, but because this year they have a really good team.