The Big Ten was 6-8 vs the ACC this year. Does that mean the ACC is just as good as the Big 10?
Last edited:
When did the Big Ten...
- Thread starter down2cyz
- Start date
The Big Ten was 6-8 vs the ACC this year. Does that mean the ACC is just as good as the Big 10?
Not according to the non conference RPI rankings (RPI rankings are something you mentioned earlier in the thread).
College Basketball Conference Stats from StatSheet.com
I'm not saying throw out non conference or that it doesn't mean anything, I'm just saying its ridiculous to say "take the NCAA tournament and throw it out the window in determining what conference/teams are the best." IMO the NCAA tourney is a much better gauge of conference/team strength than non conference as teams can get better or worse as the season goes on. That's all.
Please give it up. The Big XII has a losing record against the West Coast Conference... does that mean the WCC is better?
No which only fuels my argument on why the NCAA tournament is a better gauge of team/conference strength than non conference play.
So you think non conference games played in November and December are the best way to judge a team/conference strength come March?
The problem with that depends on the seeds and matchups. The Big Ten is looking at having 3 teams with a #2 seed or better. That means they will play a minimum of 6 games where the Big Ten team is a heavy favorite, and potentially 3 more games where they will still be the favorite just not by quite as much. Any upsets in their bracket or on the other half of the bracket could make them a favorite all the way until they would reach the Final Four. which means they would have the potential to be the favorite in 12 total games. So the Big Ten is looking at having far more favorable matchups in the NCAA Tournament then any other conference which doesn't exactly make for a great comparison of conference strength.
Last edited:
I get your argument that a team can lose a fluke game (ISU/Hampton, etc) but I'm talking conference strength as a whole. If 5 teams from one conference get upset in the first round is that 5 fluke games? What if no teams from a certain conference get past the sweet 16 what does that mean? I think the NCAA tourney is the best way to judge a conference as a whole, as for a specific team that's a completely different story
Taking the season as a whole is a much better way of gauging conference success than the NCAA tournament. You have a sample size of 32 or however many games than just one. Just because Mizzou lost in the first round last year, doesn't mean they had a bad season.
Last edited:
Same can be said about non-conference schedule. We played and lost at Iowa so didn't beat a B1G school...if we had them at home or played a team like Nebraska in non conf instead we are more than likely 1-0 against the B1G.
Last year in the NCAA Tournament the SEC was 10-3 and the Big XII was 10-6. Based on NCAA Tournament records the SEC was the better conference.
6 of the SEC's 10 wins were from Kentucky. The other 3 teams from the SEC were #5 seed Vandy (1-1 lost to the #4 seed), #7 seed Florida (3-1 lost to the #3 seed), and #9 seed Alabama (0-1 lost to the #8 seed)
5 of the Big XII's 10 wins were from Kansas (5-1 lost to a #1 seed). The other 5 teams #2 seed Mizzou (0-1 lost to the #15 seed), #3 seed Baylor (3-1 lost to a #1 seed), #8 seed Iowa State (1-1 lost to a #1 seed), #8 seed Kansas State (1-1 lost to a #1 seed), and #11 seed Texas (0-1 lost to the #6 seed).
I'm thinking more along the lines that what if 4 big ten teams lost first round or only one gets past the second round, how can you throw that out the window? There are obviously a lot of variables with seeds/matchups just like you have with non conference schedule I just don't see how you can throw out and disregard the NCAA tournament to judge how good a conference is as a whole.
Is a 1 and done tournament really the best way to judge a conference's strength? Was Norfolk State a better team then Mizzou last year? No. They were better then them on a 1 game only basis and in the NCAA Tournament that is all you need to be. Did Kansas and their run to the Championship game prove the Big XII was a great conference? They didn't face a single digit seed in the tournament until they faced #1 UNC in the Elite Eight. Kansas beat a 15, a 10, and an 11 which by all accounts those are teams a program like Kansas should beat every single time.
Were K-State and Iowa State solid basketball teams last year? I would say they were. Both were teams capable of making nice runs in the Tournament and both got absolutely screwed by the selection committee. They were doomed to face #1 seeds in the 2nd round and face almost certain elimination. Seeding is critical in the NCAA Tournament and then you need lots of luck.
Basing relative strength based on teams advancing again doesn't tell you the whole story. If it did then Norfolk State and Lehigh were just as good as Iowa State since they all made the 2nd round. Ohio was better then Iowa State because they made it to the Sweet Sixteen right?
It is the variables that you mentioned above that make NCAA Tournament results a less reliable way to judge conference strength.
Really to judge NCAA performance you need to judge it vs expected performance (IE a 10+ seed should be expected to lose its first game but a 7 and better should be expected to win it, a 4and better should make the sweet 16, etc) to see if teams were overseeded, and then you see if this was a pattern throughout the conference's seeding. You cant really look at any one game when judging a conference, but the aggregate can tell a story.
Which year was it when the Big Ten had a ton of hype yet had just one team make it out of the first weekend? I'm thinking it was 4-6 years ago. It's surprisingly hard to look up NCAA tourney records by conference, at least where I'm looking.
I just remember thinking I'd never seen such a flop. I seem to think they had a lot of 4-8 seeds that year unlike this year where it's going to be a lot of very high seeds.
I just remember thinking I'd never seen such a flop. I seem to think they had a lot of 4-8 seeds that year unlike this year where it's going to be a lot of very high seeds.
The Big 10 has 2 great teams in the top, 2 good teams in the top, a soft middle and bad 4 flat out bad teams at the bottom. The Big 12 doenst have that great team but 6 good teams, along with 2 bad teams. Part of the reason the Big 10 gets the pub is because atleast once a week they have a key matchup of the top teams that gets the headlines.
