Updated the latest conference numbers. I would have to say Big Ten was underrated and Big East and ACC still looking a bit overrated this year.
Conference Bids Win-Loss Sweet 16 Elite Eight Final Four
Big Ten 5 9-4 3 1 1
Big Twelve 7 9-7 2 2 0
Big East 8 8-7 2 1 1
ACC 6 7-5 1 1 1
SEC 4 6-4 2 2 0
PAC-10 2 3-2 1 0 0
Mid Majors 14 15-13 4 1 1
Small Conf 19 4-19 1 0 0
Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 21, 2010, 06:58:49 PM
See below on conference results thus far. A lot of people bad mouthing the Big Ten but they have been the best thus far. I combined all of the Mid Majors just to see the numbers in total. Pretty impressive by them. Between them and the small conferences (i.e. Cornell) they have five Sweet Sixteen teams. ACC and Big East looking very overrated.
Conference Bids Win-Loss Sweet 16 Teams
Big Ten 5 7-2 3
Big Twelve 7 7-5 2
Big East 8 6-6 2
ACC 6 5-5 1
SEC 4 4-2 2
Mid Majors 14 13-10 4
Small Conf 19 4-18 1
Another reason why expansion is going to be wonderful....you'll see more of those mid-majors in the tournament and they proving their worth again this year.
bump... updated to Final Four.
i dont think the tournament is a good metric of which conferences were overrated/underrated in a given year. maybe once you get to the elite 8/final four it has a little more bearing because the best of each conference are more likely to play, but head to head matchups are everything in march.
example: MU loses to a strong Washington team in the first round, in one of the best played games of the first two days. UW skirts by Wofford at the last second and is blown out by Cornell. Records: BEast 0-1, Big 11: 1-1. Add to that that UW beat MU earlier in the year. But what do you think would have been the result of an MU vs. Bucky game in March?
You are missing the 2 SEC teams in the elite 8. (UK - UT)
Quote from: MU_B2002 on March 31, 2010, 11:57:13 AM
You are missing the 2 SEC teams in the elite 8. (UK - UT)
You're right... column issue. Updated it.
i thin most of the underated over rated stuff is a bunch of junk. First of all everyone for the six months up til January was saying the BE would be way down this year. They were way down. Syracuse was better, WVU was Bteer, cincy bteer, SJU better, everyone else was the same or down. I think the BE was way down this year as opposed to last. Then the media starts saying the BE may be better than last year? HUH!?!?!? No way. Not even close. Then the BE losses some TNCAA tourney gmaes and those same media types say the BE was over rated. Sorry folks but Louisville, ND, MU etc. losing in the first round were teams that should have lost in the first round or maybe even not made it at all going into the season given what they had lost. If Mu losing to Washington ( who was #9 preseason) contributes to the basis that the BE was over rated then I guess it is even more reason I dont listen to those guys. Then the Big ten over acheived even though everyone and there brother had MSU, OSU and Purdue in their preseason top 10.
I think the BE and B10 finished about where everyone thought they would. menaning they neither overacheived or under acheived.
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on March 31, 2010, 03:05:54 PM
i thin most of the underated over rated stuff is a bunch of junk. First of all everyone for the six months up til January was saying the BE would be way down this year. They were way down. Syracuse was better, WVU was Bteer, cincy bteer, SJU better, everyone else was the same or down. I think the BE was way down this year as opposed to last. Then the media starts saying the BE may be better than last year? HUH!?!?!? No way. Not even close. Then the BE losses some TNCAA tourney gmaes and those same media types say the BE was over rated. Sorry folks but Louisville, ND, MU etc. losing in the first round were teams that should have lost in the first round or maybe even not made it at all going into the season given what they had lost. If Mu losing to Washington ( who was #9 preseason) contributes to the basis that the BE was over rated then I guess it is even more reason I dont listen to those guys. Then the Big ten over acheived even though everyone and there brother had MSU, OSU and Purdue in their preseason top 10.
I think the BE and B10 finished about where everyone thought they would. menaning they neither overacheived or under acheived.
This I agree with. I think the Big East had much lower expectations to start the year then we went something like 43-0 to start the season and everyone was saying that it just "reloaded". The reality is that we met PRE-season expectations not MID-season expectations.
That said, there were more than a few posters around here saying the Big Ten sucked but the reality was they were not too bad. They arguably have the best record in the tourney. They had more Sweet Sixteen teams than the Big East yet the Big East had eight bids and the Big Ten five.
One could argue the NCAA tourney is a crapshoot and it is not indicative of a conference's strength. I simply don't agree with the argument. The NCAA is, in fact, the most important event on the NCAA calendar. Being lucky, getting the right matchup, barely winning... I don't care. Winning is winning.