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 RockyBalboa (Post 279109)

I want a tourney win too.

Conference Championships in Bball are great, but going 1 and out all the time is disheartening.

No one remembers last years team except for 2 things: Fight night in Vegas and bowing out in the 1st game again.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 279136)

I generally agree with this. Does the 4 championships mean regular season or conf tourney championships? I still believe the tourney win metric is a bit arbitrary and you're forcing that on us because it fits for your agenda.

When they compare the Cowboys to the Steelers do they talk about playoff victories ever?

Originally Posted by Spaz (Post 279139)

I want one as well - and badly.


Still, I'll remember the players, team, and how well they played at home, the home-court winning streak, and the conference championship for a long time.

Originally Posted by mpfunk (Post 279140)

I don't recognize conference tournament victories as anything. Conference champion means the team that won the conference, not some team that got hot for 3-4 games and won some sham that exists only to make money for the conference.

Cowboys and the Steelers is not a relevant comparison to college hoops. Again, I point to 1998 vs 1999 Utah as the best example of why tournament wins are such an important metric. The clearly superior Utah team is forever viewed as the inferior team because of tournament performance.

Originally Posted by mpfunk (Post 279141)

You will remember it but no one outside of BYU will remember it. College hoop fans still remember names like Bryce Drew, Harold "the Show" Arcenaux, and Stephen Curry.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 279142)

So BYU has been clearly superior to Utah the last decade yet they will forever be viewed as inferior to Utah because of the tourney performance? Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by mpfunk (Post 279166)

I am saying that in the 10-years that the MWC has been in existence that Utah has been the superior program.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 279167)

And you base that on tourney wins. But then you turn around and say tourney wins are not a measure of who is superior but who is more memorable.