Debunking Dumb Theories (Conference strength matters)

Latest theory. Illinois can't win the national championship because of their weak conference. Currently the Big Ten has a conference rank of 5. Let's look at the rank of the some of the previous champion's conference.

2004 UConn 3rd
2003 Syracuse 6th
2002 Maryland 2nd
2001 Duke 3rd
2000 Michigan St. 1st
1999 UConn 5th

* It seems ironic that the Big 10 is the last conference ranked #1 to have a national champion.

So considering the current rank of the Big 10, 33% of the past 6 champions have come from a conference as weak or weaker than Illinois's conference.

Conference RPI numbers are not readily available before then. If anyone can find them please send them to me.

So as you can see, there is a correlation between a major conference and a NCAA champion, but how good the conference is, is irrelevant. The last champion not to come from a major conference was UNLV in 1990. One other point to note, major conferences have better teams so you can't assume that national champs have to be from a major conference they just have the best teams. This theory just doesn't hold.

Now you may argue that the way that the conference rank is calculated is not accurate. Well that is what people point to, to say that the Big 10 is in a down year. If you disagree, show me another metric to use and I will show you that using that metric proves that conference strength does not determine champions.