I feel that Final Four point to be disingenuous

I feel that Final Four point to be disingenuous
by GriffinGold16 (2020-07-31 23:59:59)

In reply to: The Big 10 has not done well in the NCAA tourney. Lot's of posted by Domerduck

Saying "her top 9 include 75% of final four participants in the last eight years" is basically meaningless. UConn, Notre Dame, and Stanford account for 53% of them already. How many final fours have UCLA and ASU been to since 2012? None.

Using success in the tournament is fine, but the state of the league recently is such that there's a few elite teams and then a drop-off. It's called March Madness for a reason - with the exception of those elite teams, it just takes one bad game or an exceptional one for a better team to be upset by a worse team. (Heck, even Baylor and Notre Dame have fallen to worse teams in the mid-decade.) Sure, B1G teams haven't fared well in the past few seasons, but that's just one piece of the puzzle.

You're correct on ASU/UCLA, but only Maryland has made a

Final 4 from the Big 10 the last 15 years and as I said that was 1 year after they made the Final 4 the year before in the ACC. Still I believe both ASU/UCLA have made multiple Sweet 16s in those last 8 years as have several other PAC12 schools (Stanford, Oregon, & Oregon State). Other than Maryland, not sure there are any Big 10 schools that made multiple Sweet 16s since 2012.

My main point was UConn, Baylor, & South Carolina are good choices for a recruit as they currently dominate their conferences. Then choosing multiple options from the PAC12 & ACC make sense given they both have had multiple teams make the Final 4 in the last 8 years with the PAC12 having 5 different teams and the ACC having 4 different teams. Maryland is the lone Big 10 team to make it and as I said they have clearly underperformed in the NCAA tourney while in the Big 10. It's not surprising Betts (the top recruit in the nation) didn't have a Big 10 team on her list.