Best Conference

[Tornado man]

You'd rather compare the strength at the bottom? People who say "the dance" or bowls don't matter in determining conference strength, generally, are people who lose a lot. If 7 Big12 teams get in "the dance," the outcomes could tell a lot about this league.

Say four are knocked out in the first game. That would suggest to me that the league is overrated. Say 2 make the Final 4, that would suggest just the opposite. But if one makes the finals and the rest sort of fall out along the way, it suggests the conference is nothing beyond average.

I agree. The NCAA tourney is the proving ground. From the first day of practice, every team points to one thing: March madness. That's when the light goes on, and there is pressure to perform. If a team gets upset - like ISU against UAB, Mich State against Middle Tennessee, etc. - it means they were overrated in the first place.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

You'd rather compare the strength at the bottom? People who say "the dance" or bowls don't matter in determining conference strength, generally, are people who lose a lot. If 7 Big12 teams get in "the dance," the outcomes could tell a lot about this league.

Say four are knocked out in the first game. That would suggest to me that the league is overrated. Say 2 make the Final 4, that would suggest just the opposite. But if one makes the finals and the rest sort of fall out along the way, it suggests the conference is nothing beyond average.

Using the NCAA tournament and bowls games as a measuring stick isn't a great assessment. Weird things happen in the tournament and if you are in a game late with an underdog the crowd absolutely turns on you. **** happens in the dance and it happens every year. Not all paths to the elite 8 or final 4 are created equally. One upset and the entire half of a regional bracket can be blow wide open. Two big upsets and the path gets much less treacherous. The tourney really comes down to whether or not the ball bounces your way if you are going to make a deep run.

 

[ArgentCy]

A large tournament is the best and only way to determine the best teams and conference. However, the problem becomes that each game is only one game. If each matchup was a best of 5 then you would likely get a true representation. With only one game you can easily get teams that are not as good upsetting better teams.

 

[HFCS]

I say this a lot but as long as we're 10 teams our conference is going to continue getting KILLED by sports media who I think are required by law to be horrible at simple math.

Big Ten vs Big 12 NCAA invites this year is perfect, and perfectly easy to do the math they refuse to do. Both conferences are likely to get 7 bids this year. That'd be half of the Big Ten (that's 50% for sports media who can't do percentages) and 70% of the Big 12.

Math impaired sports writer says that puts them on similar footing. Person who knows math says 70% of your conference being tourney worthy teams is much harder than half of them missing the tournament.

Same thing happens with # of bowl teams.

The 15 team ACC needs 11 bids to best the Big 12 if we get 7 teams in. They'd need 12 teams just to match the Big 12 in the dance if Tech gets.

 

[ChampFantana]

The Big 12 is currently 6-1 vs. the ACC. Six of the seven games were played on a neutral court, the other was played at an ACC venue (UVA).

KU over Duke
WVU over UVA
BU over Louisville
ISU over Miami
OU over Clemson
KSU over BC
UNC over OSU

 

[CarlHungus]

The older you get, the more important bottom strength is....you'll find that out someday.

So, the big 12 is a power bottom?

 

[HoopsTournament]

You'd rather compare the strength at the bottom? People who say "the dance" or bowls don't matter in determining conference strength, generally, are people who lose a lot. If 7 Big12 teams get in "the dance," the outcomes could tell a lot about this league.

Say four are knocked out in the first game. That would suggest to me that the league is overrated. Say 2 make the Final 4, that would suggest just the opposite. But if one makes the finals and the rest sort of fall out along the way, it suggests the conference is nothing beyond average.

I am saying that Rothsrein is wrong when he said ACC is better top TO BOTTOM. So it is not a case of rather comparing it. It is a case for showing why his anecdotal data point is invalid. You are trying to argue something different. I do think that ACC is the best conference at the top. But that is not the point that I am making.

 

[Sigmapolis]

If you chop the worst five or so teams out of the ACC...

Likely...

VT
Pitt
GT
NCST
BC

...and make people play a double round-robin, including road games, against the remainder of the ACC then, yeah, it is probably better than the Big 12.

That's just not how it works.

Getting wins in the Big 12, night in and night out, is harder than anywhere else.

Those five might all be worse, and many of them significantly worse, than UT and OU.

 

[randomfan44]

I agree. The NCAA tourney is the proving ground. From the first day of practice, every team points to one thing: March madness. That's when the light goes on, and there is pressure to perform. If a team gets upset - like ISU against UAB, Mich State against Middle Tennessee, etc. - it means they were overrated in the first place.

It doesn't mean they were overrated. A seed is a reward given for performance to date, not a predictor of future success.

A tourney upset means they played worse that day than what they were rated prior to that day.

 

[surly]

It doesn't mean they were overrated. A seed is a reward given for performance to date, not a predictor of future success.

A tourney upset means they played worse that day than what they were rated prior to that day.

So, high seeds are not expected to excel in the tournament relative to lower seeds? Please.

 

[Tornado man]

It doesn't mean they were overrated. A seed is a reward given for performance to date, not a predictor of future success.

A tourney upset means they played worse that day than what they were rated prior to that day.

No, the purpose of seeding, and the reason why it was invented, is to prevent the best teams (or individuals) from playing against each other earlier than they should be. So of course it's a "predictor of future success."

 

[cyclones500]

I have to come to defense of randomfan44, who responded to a specific part of your post:

If a team gets upset - like ISU against UAB, Mich State against Middle Tennessee, etc. - it means they were overrated in the first place.

And response was:
It doesn't mean they were overrated. A seed is a reward given for performance to date.

I realize I’m cherry-picking portions of both posts, but Random was making a point that you can’t judge worthiness of seed position based on tournament outcome.

 

[surly]

I have to come to defense of randomfan44, who responded to a specific part of your post:

If a team gets upset - like ISU against UAB, Mich State against Middle Tennessee, etc. - it means they were overrated in the first place.

And response was:
It doesn't mean they were overrated. A seed is a reward given for performance to date.

I realize I’m cherry-picking portions of both posts, but Random was making a point that you can’t judge worthiness of seed position based on tournament outcome.

As you stated, it's completely out of context, which was, generally, that the league will get 70% of its teams in 'the dance.' Their performance will give us a clue about how good the conference is relative to others. To deny that seems foolhardy to me.