Hello, college basketball fans!
This past month, we finished another college basketball season and another NCAA Tournament. Congratulations to Kentucky for winning the championship.
The offseason will be filled with people debating about various teams and conferences. Any time a head coaching job opens, people will discuss the state of the basketball program.
When Illinois's head coach position opened up, people debated on whether Illinois was a good program or not. Some people said it was a great program; others said it wasn't. When people said Illinois "reached" for Brad Stevens or Shaka Smart, they were implying that their current schools were "better" than Illinois.
Often, the strength of a program is judged heavily by recent events. But that can be short-sighted. Ohio is not a better program now than Duke.
Also, people may debate whether or not one conference is stronger than another. I don't believe the SEC is the best basketball conference just because one of their teams won the championship. I think the overall performance of a conference in a tournament has to be taken into account. Likewise, one year alone should not define a conference.
So this article measures the performance of NCAA basketball schools in the NCAA Tournament since 2000. My criteria is tournament wins, and I counted wins for each team in the six "major" conferences as well as other strong mid-major schools.
For the purposes of this article, only wins in the Round of 64 or later count (wins in "First Four" games do not count). A team should not be credited for winning an extra game because they were one of the last four at-large teams to get a bid. Plus, the "First Four" format is only two years old.
I show each major conference's performance, using each conference's future alignment (as of April 2012) instead of the present alignment, as well as the top schools and the worst BCS conference teams.