Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 279030)

Funk doesn't point out BYU's failure in the tournament because he is ignorant of the regular season or because he's blinded by Utah's success in the tournament. He does it because he knows it pisses you off.

I agree with you that 10 years is a very solid measuring stick for regular season success and I didn't realize BYU had been so consistent. That is impressive.

But the bottom line is that none of that matters, because teams are remembered for what happens in the Big Dance. For example, I have a neighbor who loves to pointout that in '99, the Utes were knocked out in the 2nd round by Miami (Ohio). He is giddy when he reminds me that that Utah team had 3 of the 5 starters from the Final Four team from the previous year. It bugs him that I agree that the Utes choked that year, because the tournament is what matters in college basketball.

My point? That was the year the Utes went undefeated in conference play and also won the conference tournament. Complete domination of conference play isn't what folks remember.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 279069)

Your measure of success isn't a little arbitrary?

Here's my new metric: Final Four appearances * 5 + conference championships. Now tell me who's #1 in the conference over last ten years. Argue why that's any less relevant than tourney wins.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 279039)

Gino Torreta won a Heisman.

Originally Posted by cougjunkie (Post 279089)

So did Jason White and Andre Ware.

Heisman has lost its luster.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 279091)

Add Charlie Ward to that list too.

Yes it has. It's still something nice to claim, but it's not what it used to be.

Originally Posted by mpfunk (Post 279082)

Really there are two factors that you should look at in evaluating the top team in the conference, tournament wins and conference championships. I think you need to give a lot stronger weight to the tournament wins. I think the 1998 Utah vs 1999 Utah is a great example of why the tournament wins matter most. Talk to a fan of any major college basketball program and they will always talk about tourny wins first and foremost. People remember tournament upsets or great tournament performances, but they don't remember who won their conference.

I would rank the MWC as follows over the past 10-years:

1) Utah (4 tournament wins, 6 tournament appearances, 4 championships)
2) BYU (0 tournament wins, 5 tournament appearances, 4 championships)
3) UNLV (3 tournament wins, 3 tournament apperances, 1 championship)

BYU and UNLV are very close and if not for the fewer tournament appearances, UNLV should be ahead of BYU.

Originally Posted by cougjunkie (Post 279092)

How can we forget Eric Crouch?

Originally Posted by mpfunk (Post 279082)

Really there are two factors that you should look at in evaluating the top team in the conference, tournament wins and conference championships. I think you need to give a lot stronger weight to the tournament wins. I think the 1998 Utah vs 1999 Utah is a great example of why the tournament wins matter most. Talk to a fan of any major college basketball program and they will always talk about tourny wins first and foremost. People remember tournament upsets or great tournament performances, but they don't remember who won their conference.

I would rank the MWC as follows over the past 10-years:

1) Utah (4 tournament wins, 6 tournament appearances, 4 championships)
2) BYU (0 tournament wins, 5 tournament appearances, 4 championships)
3) UNLV (3 tournament wins, 3 tournament apperances, 1 championship)

BYU and UNLV are very close and if not for the fewer tournament appearances, UNLV should be ahead of BYU.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 279096)

Or Carson Palmer? Or Chris Weinke?

The list goes on.....

Originally Posted by cougjunkie (Post 279099)

Matt Leinart should added to the list, as well as Rashaan Salaam and Danny Wuerffel.