The history of conference tournament champs winning the NCAA tournament disagrees.

It's over 60% if I'm not mistaken.

I guess they are good for betting purposes.Surprise!! the better teams win the conference tournaments.Do you know which of these conference tournament champions also won the regular season?

This is true. But that doesnt and shouldnt really matter to anyone. Stuff is still on the line for MANY schools going in.

I agree that many schools need a win or two to pad their resume, but they have had 30+ games to prove their worth and their standing should be based on that alone. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the games, I just don't put much stock in who wins the tournaments. In addition, I hate to see a good mid-major that won their league season lose a bid because they lost a league tournament game.That doesn't seem right.

reclegend22;1098537 wrote:Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you said here. I happen to think the accomplishments are equal -- and both are f*cking amazing -- but I think an argument could be made either way. As a fan of the ACC, though, I have always valued and loved the conference tournament more than the regular-season. But that's just because the tournament is held to a different standard in that area of the country.

Sorry buddy, gotta disagree with ya on this.

Yes, both are ridiculous accomplishments...but 8 straight regular season championships is monumental. 10 of 13 conf. tourney titles isn't monumental.

SportsAndLady wrote:Sorry buddy, gotta disagree with ya on this.

Yes, both are ridiculous accomplishments...but 8 straight regular season championships is monumental. 10 of 13 conf. tourney titles isn't monumental.

Unless you're Webster from the dictionary fortune, I'm not sure you are the person who determines what is and what is not monumental. I can say this, the 10 ACC championships Duke has won in the past 13 years is more ACC championships than North Carolina, the second-winningest basketball team in history, has won since 1979. That's of pretty great importance, if you ask me.

We shall agree to disagree.

SportsAndLady;1098561 wrote:Sorry buddy, gotta disagree with ya on this.

Yes, both are ridiculous accomplishments...but 8 straight regular season championships is monumental. 10 of 13 conf. tourney titles isn't monumental.

Technically they haven't won it 8 straight years. There were a few ties in there

reclegend22;1098570 wrote:Unless you're Webster from the dictionary fortune, I'm not sure you are the person who determines what is and what is not monumental. I can say this, the 10 ACC championships Duke has won in the past 13 years is more ACC championships than North Carolina, the second-winningest basketball team in history, has won since 1979. That's of pretty great importance, if you ask me.

We shall agree to disagree.

Monumental means in the middle of the UCONN/Cuse game, the announcers randomly bring up 8 straight conference titles being one of the greatest all time accomplishments in college basketball.

You won't hear the Duke accomplishment on a random game.

Literally every column I've read on the accomplishment has called it one of the best accomplishments in college basketball history, to win EIGHT straight regular season titles. It's monumental.

wildcats20;1098571 wrote:Technically they haven't won it 8 straight years. There were a few ties in there

Actually you'd be right if you said theoretically. But technically, the conference determines conf. regular season winners to both parties in the case of a tie.

So yes, 8 straight is technically correct. But 3 times they've tied, yes.

SportsAndLady;1098646 wrote:Monumental means in the middle of the UCONN/Cuse game, the announcers randomly bring up 8 straight conference titles being one of the greatest all time accomplishments in college basketball.

You won't hear the Duke accomplishment on a random game.

Literally every column I've read on the accomplishment has called it one of the best accomplishments in college basketball history, to win EIGHT straight regular season titles. It's monumental.

After Duke won its 10th title in 13 years last year, I'm sure a ton of superlatives were thrown around, as will be the case if Duke wins an 11th in 14 this year.

Again, we shall agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to budge a centimeter on this topic. That much we both know for a fact. I'll just leave it at this: Both the Kansas feat and the Duke feat are the greatest accomplishments for conference championship runs in their respective conferences.

Also, I think Kentucky should get a mention as well. From 1992 to 2004, the 'Cats also won 10 SEC tournament titles in 13 years. And Kentucky has won 37 of the last 52 SEC championships. Those deserve major recognition, no matter era or competition or whatever. I know KU has won an ungodly amount of overall conference titles as well, the most in history, I believe.

SportsAndLady;1098648 wrote:Actually you'd be right if you said theoretically. But technically, the conference determines conf. regular season winners to both parties in the case of a tie.

So yes, 8 straight is technically correct. But 3 times they've tied, yes.

Glad one of us knew what I was trying to say lol

SportsAndLady wrote:You won't hear the Duke accomplishment on a random game.

You hear about Duke accomplishments during random games pretty much every week of the season lol. That's why many think "DSPN" sucks and have Coach K drinking games when Dick Vitale mentions him. I'm just reporting things I always hear other fanbases (namely Carolina and Cats Pause) talk about all the time.

Yeah we'll agree to disagree lol

My opinion...

The 8 straight is more impressive.

But that's because the other option is Dook.

wildcats20;1098684 wrote:My opinion...

The 8 straight is more impressive.

But that's because the other option is Dook.

Lol.

wildcats20;1098684 wrote:My opinion...

The 8 straight is more impressive.

But that's because the other option is Dook.

After thinking about things a bit more, I would agree that the 8 straight is more impressive.

My impression, because of what rec just said about Kentucky. 8 straight is more impressive cause it hasn't been done before. Duke and uk have won 10 out of 13.

Laley23;1098902 wrote:My impression, because of what rec just said about Kentucky. 8 straight is more impressive cause it hasn't been done before. Duke and uk have won 10 out of 13.

Actually, Kentucky has done it before. The Wildcats won nine consecutive SEC championships from 1944 to 1952.

So, in terms of longevity, I'd say that Kentucky's streak is the most impressive, and certainly unprecedented. I'd even go a step further and say that no team will ever match winning 37 conference titles in 52 years like the Wildcats have. Kentucky has just been ridiculous over time.

(Gonzaga has won like 12 in a row, but that's a joke. I'm sorry but playing against Pacific Ocean College just isn't that meaningful. Saint Mary's, San Diego and Pepperdine have been good in the West Coast at different times, but the Zags are probably locks to win the conference almost every year until Mark Few either retires or leaves.)

1944 to 1952? come on lol

How many games did duke win in order to claim their tournament championship?? How many games did Kansas win in order to claim their regular season championship?

SportsAndLady;1099179 wrote:1944 to 1952? come on lol

Lol, yeah, I knew you would say that. And I agree with you, too. I mean, Jeremy Lin wouldn't even have been allowed in the state at that time, let alone a black guy. Lol.

But, nine has been done. Just wanted to put that out there. Of course, I would never have known that without wikipedia.

Elijah Johnson
B-Mac (just think if he wasn't ruled ineligible this year??!! The coaches say in practice he takes Taylor to school, which is part of the reason why the coaches think TT has had such a breakout year)
Releford
Perry Ellis
Withey

I think 9 straight shouldn't be an issue

Prescott;1099193 wrote:How many games did duke win in order to claim their tournament championship?? How many games did Kansas win in order to claim their regular season championship?

I understand that a regular-season consists of more games and thus requires more wins. We all get it.

I do, however, think that the amount of prep work, detail, drive, focus and mental fortitude it takes to win three or four games on consecutive days to win the conference tournament title while getting everyone's best performance of the year -- and, when you're Duke, UNC, UK or KU, you get the opposing team's best shot each and every night out -- is being highly undervalued by many here. And Duke's done it 10 times since 1999, and is looking for its fourth straight this March.

That, to me, is a monumental accomplisment.

thus requires more wins

They require more of everything..

That, to me, is a monumental accomplisment.

In your mind it might be monumental.In my mind it means nothing....Some coaches don't mind losing early in conference tournament so their teams can prepare for the real tournament...... The only conference tournaments that matter are the mid-major tournaments that determine who gets a ticket to the NCAA's.

Its such bullshit to say coaches dont mind losing. They may say that, but they, along with everyone involved, play for titles. All season long you have less than 4 days to prepare for an opponent. To think they actually want to lose, or dont mind it, to get an entire week off is nonsense. When you go out on the court, you want to win. They want conference regular season titles. They want conference tournament titles. They want Regional titles. They want National titles. Yes, some are better and more important that others. But they dont EVER want to lose one. Thats just dumb.

Its such bull**** to say coaches dont mind losing.

I don't think so. Pro football coaches do it every year.

Prescott;1099400 wrote:I don't think so. Pro football coaches do it every year.

You can't tell the difference between the two?

LOL

Prescott;1099400 wrote:I don't think so. Pro football coaches do it every year.

When Thad Matta doesnt play his starting 5 I will buy into this argument.

Not to mention, that argument isnt the same because they arent playing for a title in week 16 or 17. They have it all locked up.

If football had a tournament before the playoffs (which helped your seed as well), you would see all coaches trying to win it.