I've been meaning to say something for awhile. But being so superstitious, I decided to wait until 'Nova was out of the tournament, lest I would say something to jinx the Cats.
I have seen alot of buzz from fans claiming that their respective conference is best based upon how many schools they had sent to the tournament and the record of teams during the tournament. I was glad to hear Clark Kellogg address this last night during the 'Nova-UNC game. Teams play one on one, not conference v. conference. Anyone who saw 'Nova dismantle Duke knows that they would have done that 9 games out of 10. 'Nova was that much superior to Duke. Last night showed a completely different result. UNC was the superior team. They completely controled the game almost from start to finish. If the ACC is so superior to the Big East or the Big East superior to the ACC, then how can this be explained? The real explanation is that there are several strong conferences including the Big East, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and PAC 10. Within those conferences are strong and weak teams, but to say that one conference is superior makes little sense.