Moving Mavs One Win From Dance

[CMJ]

They advanced to the Southland Final with a victory today.

[CMJ]

UTA ended up having a pretty good season, even if they don't win the final. Their Southland record was only around .500 but obviously the Mavs have put it altogether at the end of the year. Plus, they won 20 games. I still wish we beat them, but the loss isn't as bad as it was last year(when they ended up having a craptastic season after defeating us).

Edited March 15, 2008 by CMJ

[SUMG]

SFA...lost to Northwestern (La.) State.....69-66 in the other SLC semi-final.

SFA is 26-5....think they'll get a NIT bid?

[CMJ]

I'm not sure if Lamar or SFA had the tiebreaker. One of'em is getting in automatically. Both probably should be in.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

SFA...lost to Northwestern (La.) State.....69-66 in the other SLC semi-final.

SFA is 26-5....think they'll get a NIT bid?

This loss by SFA is a perfect example of why I hate that conferences like the Southland, reward their tourney team winner, the conference's spot in the Dance. Why not reward SFA for a great season, instead of a down couple of days.

[SUMG]

I'm not sure if Lamar or SFA had the tiebreaker. One of'em is getting in automatically. Both probably should be in.

You're right, buddy. I forgot about the automatic bid for regular season champs.

[SUMG]

This loss by SFA is a perfect example of why I hate that conferences like the Southland, reward their tourney team winner, the conference's spot in the Dance. Why not reward SFA for a great season, instead of a down couple of days.

Would you apply that same rule to The Sun Belt? Because, if so.....we wouldn't have been in The Dance last year.

[CMJ]

This loss by SFA is a perfect example of why I hate that conferences like the Southland, reward their tourney team winner, the conference's spot in the Dance. Why not reward SFA for a great season, instead of a down couple of days.

Hell, the ACC started back in the days when each conference only had 1 bid. Can you imagine 40-50 years ago when the ACC was one of the 2-3 best leagues in the country - the sort of fights that conference tournament had?

I'm sorry...it's great drama.

I love the fact the NIT now rewards the regular champs if the NCAA doesn't take them. Great rule stipulation from a few years back.

Edited March 15, 2008 by CMJ

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Hell, the ACC started back in the days when each conference only had 1 bid. Can you imagine 40-50 years ago when the ACC was one of the 2-3 best leagues in the country - the sort of fights that conference tournament had?

--You are greatly overrating the ACC...or at least what the ACC was like then during the 60's, 50's and early 70's..... The teams were all white and even they came out of the Southeast and rarely played teams that were integrated. True they did often make the final four but Kentucky (also all white) from that area and the SEC made it a lot more often than the ACC. UCLA was dominating the West most of that time and winning many championships. In middle America the MVC (Missouri Valley and Big 8) both integrated were far better conferences. At one time my senior year (65-66) The top 10 [they did not ratemore than 10 then contained 5 MVC teams, Texas Western (UTEP which won it all ) and UCLA and three other ones, likely Kentucky (which lost to UTEP) probably one ACC team, and someone else (Kansas?). These MVC teams all made the final four during that era. Cincinnatti (won it all twice before UCLA started its run) Lousiville, Bradley, Wichita State, Drake, and Memphis... and maybe some other ones made the final four . We were a member of the MVC and there was was great basketball teams coming to Denton.

If you doubt me look at who the best NBA players were then and where they came from.... not the ACC... They did become famous for starting their post-season tournament..... no one else had one. Unfortunate for the MVC they alwasy played UCLA as the semi-final game and could not get to the finals without defeating UCLA ..well not until 1973. One of the reason UCLA dominated so much was they were integrated and were raiding the Southeast and which had all white teams plus the inner cities some. --- may not sound like it but I am white. No one will ever do again what UCLA did becasuse the world has changed. By 1972 most of the schools in South had integrated and was taking a lot of the local talent.. UCLA last won in 1975.

1986 | Louisville def. Duke 72-69

1985 | Villanova def. Georgetown 66-64

1984 | Georgetown def. Houston 84-75

1983 | NC State def. Houston 54-52

1982 | North Carolina def. Georgetown 63-62

1981 | Indiana def. North Carolina 63-50

1980 | Louisville def. UCLA 59-54

1979 | Michigan St. def. Indiana St. 75-64

1978 | Kentucky def. Duke 94-88

1977 | Marquette def. North Carolina 67-59

1976 | Indiana def. Michigan 86-68

1975 | UCLA def. Kentucky 92-85

1974 | NC State def. Marquette 76-64

1973 / UCLA def. Memphis 87-66

1972 | UCLA def. Florida St. 81-76

1971 | UCLA def. Villanova* 68-62

1970 | UCLA def. Jacksonville 80-69

1969 | UCLA def. Purdue 92-72

1968 | UCLA def. North Carolina 78-55

1967 | UCLA def. Dayton 79-64

1966 | UTEP def. Kentucky 72-65

1965 | UCLA def. Michigan 91-80

1964 | UCLA def. Duke 98-83

1963 | Loyola (Ill.) def. Cincinnati 60-58 (OT)

1962 | Cincinnati def. Ohio St. 71-59

1961 | Cincinnati def. Ohio St. 70-65 (OT)

1960 | Ohio St. def. California 75-55

1959 | California def. West Virginia 71-70

1958 | Kentucky def. Seattle 84-72

1957 | North Carolina def. Kansas 54-53 (3 OT)

1956 | San Francisco def. Iowa 83-71

1955 | San Francisco def. La Salle 76-73

1954 | La Salle def. Bradley 92-76

1953 | Indiana def. Kansas 69-68

1952 | Kansas def. St. John's 80-63

1951 | Kentucky def. Kansas St. 68-58

1950 | CCNY def. Bradley 71-68

Edited March 15, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[CMJ]

UCLA last won in 1995.

Schools from the ACC reached the Final Four in

1957

1962

1963

1964

1966

1967

1968

1969

1972

1974

1977

1978

1981

.....I quit because now you're into the more modern day time period. I don't know SE66...looking at that list - says to me the ACC was a pretty damn good conference. Maybe not Champions..but Final Four participants nearly every year. Even in an era where the tourney was 16-24 schools - which was the case for much of that time - that still means winning the Regional. A tough feat.

Edited March 15, 2008 by CMJ

[NT03]

SFA...lost to Northwestern (La.) State.....69-66 in the other SLC semi-final.

SFA is 26-5....think they'll get a NIT bid?

If they didn't have the bad loss to a 10 - 21 Nicholls St. , I'd say they would have a good chance at an at large BIG DANCE bid. Good OOC wins @ OU ( 22-10) & @ San Diego ( 21-13) , but 4 of the Lumberjacks 26 wins were versus Non DI schools. Looks like NIT bound.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

UCLA last won in 1995.

Schools from the ACC reached the Final Four in

1957

1962

1963

1964

1966

1967

1968

1969

1972

1974

1977

1978

1981

.....I quit because now you're into the more modern day time period. I don't know SE66...looking at that list - says to me the ACC was a pretty damn good conference. Maybe not Champions..but Final Four participants nearly every year. Even in an era where the tourney was 16-24 schools - which was the case for much of that time - that still means winning the Regional. A tough feat.

--You are correct about the 1995 championship but the run of the 60-70s ended in 1975.. Wooten retired and they no longer had the recruiting advantage they had earlier over the ACC (which was all white, Southern blacks left the area to play). You ae also correct about the ACC making the final four a lot.. but you need to understand that the regions at the final four were exactly that. No teams played out of their region. The Southern region consisted of the ACC, the SEC, and not much else of any note. As a result one of the two almost always had a team in the final four. Making the Final Four for ACC was not that difficult if they could win their conference and beat the SEC champion, usually Kentucky (also all white). They in turn would ALWAYS play an Eastern team or Big-10 team in the first FINAL FOUR round . Making the final-two was more difficult since there was very good teams in that group especially the Big-10. Meanwhile the Midwest region would always play the WEST in the first Final Four round and often this should have been the championship game since often these were the two best teams....UCLA dominated the West for a long time although SF did well for a while (I think they dropped basketball after cheating occured) . The Big-8 with the two Kansas universities and the Missouri Valley with Louisville, Cincinnatti, Bradley, etc dominated the midwest region although Houston (independent then) did very well too. Often times the the two best teams were playing in the semi-finals... The Western team (UCLA?) against the Midwest team (often from Kansas or the MVC unless Houston made it).

--The ACC was dominated by North Carolina and Duke..which had to then defeat Kentucky (Rupp) to get to the final four... not much else was in that region.... and all of them had all-white teams. Things changed greatly in the late 70's when regions were not truly regional champions anymore and the the team make-ups changed as well. Also multiple teams came from conferences instead of just one. The MVC changed greatly then also as some MVC teams formed the Metro conf with a few other teams (CUSA now) because of football reasons and UNT went independent thinking they would become a SWC member...... --they didn't...thanks to SMU.

---Other things also changed about 1976...two teams per conference were allowed in , the true regional system was scrapped and teams became seeded according to perceived ability. Until then you will the see the finals was the WEST/MIDWEST against the EAST/SOUTH . The SWC during that period was pretty awful. It improved when Houston was added in mid 70's and Arkansas got a lot better.

Edited March 15, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[CMJ]

Maryland was the first ACC school to integrate....in 1962.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Maryland was the first ACC school to integrate....in 1962.

ok-- but the rest had't. Maryland is not typical of the rest of the ACC which are considered in Southern States. The situation that existed is also one reason the Missouri Valley was as good as it was. Those schools were integrated and were on the edge of the Deep South and was getting a lot of the best athletes. Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, St.Louis, Tulsa were nearby and Bradley, Drake and Wichita was in the same conference and recruited the south as well. Can't say that North Texas other than pulling athletes from Texas when the SWC wasn't. The situation also explains why we had Joe Green and 9 future NFL athletes on one team at one time. When they were recruited they had limited good options unless they went far away.

In short the ACC was a good basketball conference but people have seemed to forgotten that the MVC was better. The media was rather ACC freindly also compared to the MVC (you know why) . Times have really changed, if you did not live then, then you can't understand. I went to an integrated high school (very few minorities however) but the the blacks in my class could not attend college in my hometown (I could) or go to the SWC schools. The guy that sat behind me in Geometry was apretty good student and athlete... his younger brother made the NFL after attending independent Houston... The situation is the reason the Texas Western (UTEP) story made so much news in 1965 when they defeated all-white Kentucky in the final game. UTEP had several white players..just did not start any of them.

Edited March 15, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[CMJ]

North Carolina integrated in 1967(Dean Smith as coach, so no shocker) and I believe the rest followed soon after(NC State in 1968) - not sure about Duke, Wake, etc...

Point is, it wasn't as late as you made it out to be. And they were a quality league beforehand.

I never said they were the premiere conference in the USA back then. I said they were in the top 2-3 - and most stats seem to point that out. You had the MVC and who else? The Pac 10 maybe - I'm not sure how strong it was other than UCLA. The SEC? Not really - except for Kentucky. The SWC? Nope. The Big 8 had Kansas. All the strong schools up East like St. Johns were independents.

(And many of them still went to the NIT because the NCAA almost never invited Privates...which is why the NIT was still relevant until the late 60's/early 70's)

Edited March 15, 2008 by CMJ