BYU most dominant MWC program over ten years
 

from Wrubell
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=498&sid=4519239

I didn't realize this, but this is pretty cool. Ten years is a legitimate time period for comparison.

There's no trend emerging that would make me think this will change over the next 3-5 years.

Who cares. I want a tourney win.

I do too, badly. And funk will ignorantly completely dismiss this because of the no tourney wins. But this is clearly significant.

The question I have that is an honest one is whether there's something about winning in the tourney that is significantly different than the MWC success.

Theory A: good teams are successful in every metric, be it total winning percentage, conference winning percentage, conference championships, post season success, etc. If there's an incongruent metric between NCAA success and other areas, it's most likely a data insufficiency issue or some random quirk, and over time, you will see those metrics come together.

Theory B: metrics of college basketball success are unequal. Regular season success is meaningless as a metric because the game completely changes in the post season. Future success in the post season can only be predicted by past success in the tourney NOT any other metric such as winning percentage or conference championships.

It's obvious funk is blinded by Utah's situation because Utah compared to BYU has such a quirky data relationship in post season success vs regular season success (especially last ten years). It's immature and silly for him not to acknowledge theory A to some degree.

But I'd like to understand more about this and admit there may be a partial inkling of truth to theory B.

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.

This is a good point. Very much like National Championships and Heismans vs random bowl games.

Gino Torreta won a Heisman.

I still claim ignorance about a BYU national championship because it wasn't talked about in Europe, though you do make a point, despite the fact that football post season is different than hoops. Without a playoff, post season really is subjective. Playoffs leave no questions.

Wrubbell shows his colors as a complete homer. Over the past 10-years the best programs in the conference are Utah and UNLV. They are the only programs that have had any real success. BYU hasn't even had the best season the past two years that has been UNLV.

The biggest stage in college hoops is the NCAA tournament. Teams are defined by their success in the tournament more than anything else. Regular season success isn't meaningless but it is secondary to tournament success. Would you rather have what UNLV did in 2006-2007 or what BYU did in 2006-2007?

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.

Only for you young whipper snappers.

I'm stil glued to the National Invitational Tournament in New York City!