Best Conference

[wadesworld]

I know this has been discussed here before, but now that March has arrived it is interesting to look at possible NCAA bids and rankings and reconsider what conferences are the best in the country.

In my opinion, if we give every other conference the benefit of the doubt in terms of bubble teams getting in, and we leave out the teams in the Big East that could realistically be left out (or realistically get in, but for this case am leaving them out), you probably leave out Seton Hall and the loser of UConn/WVU and get 8/16 teams.  Best case, the ACC gets 6 teams, the SEC gets 6 teams, the Big 12 gets 7 teams, the Big 10 gets 7 teams, and the Pac 12 gets 3 teams.  In this case, the Big East gets 50% of its teams in and the other conferences get 58% of their teams in at best.  Not a huge difference.

In reality, chances are the Big East gets 9/16 teams, and if Seton Hall gets 2 wins chances are there are 10/16 teams in, for 56% or 63% of its teams in.  Both Northwestern (Big 10) and Texas (Big 12) are in essentially in the same boat as Seton Hall is for the Big East, needing a decent-strong showing in their Conference Tournament or a lot of dominos to fall into place to make it into the field.  So there is a very good chance that the Big East ends up with the most overall bids AND the highest percentage of its teams in the field.

The SEC has the #1 team and then only 1 other ranked team.  They are clearly behind the Big East.  The ACC has 2 top 10 teams and then only 1 other ranked team.  Again, clearly behind the Big East.  

Then you look at the 3 conferences that are clearly above the rest in the Big East, Big 12, and Big 10.  The Big 12 has 2 top 10 teams, 1 other top 15 team, and the #25 team in the country.  The Big East has 2 top 10 teams, 1 other top 15 team, and the #s 23 and 26 teams in the country.  The Big 10 has 3 top 10 teams (only 1 without a top 5, though) and 2 more top 15 teams.  I think it's probably safe to say that the Big 10 is slightly better, but it's not as wide of a margin as people seemed to make it out to be all year long.

[MarquetteDano]

Yeah, I have to admit the Big East ended up better than I was expecting.  I think it is pretty clear the Big Twelve-en and Big Ten-elve are better conferences this year but that's about it.

We (the Big East, that is) need to bring it in the tourney though.  We were only 13-10 last year despite having a single team go 6-0.

Hope Notre Dame doesn't do its annual early exit in the tourney.  Yes, I admit it, I am forced to cheer for N.D. in the tourney.  Good for the conference.

[PJDunn]

No way the Pac 10 gets 3 teams.  The big debate out here is whether UW (the one with stonger academics) gets a bid if they lose the first game of the conference tourney.  When is the last time a regular season champ of a major conference was a legitimate bubble team?

[wadesworld]

No way the Pac 10 gets 3 teams.  The big debate out here is whether UW (the one with stonger academics) gets a bid if they lose the first game of the conference tourney.  When is the last time a regular season champ of a major conference was a legitimate bubble team?

That's why I said essentially it would be "worst case" for the Big East, meaning the BE's bubble teams miss the tourney and everyone else's makes it.  Cal, Washington, and Arizona are all "bubble" teams.

[PJDunn]

I got that...just think it is amazing that the pac 12 might only get 1 team in this year.  The conference was 1-31 against top 50 teams.  All that and SI just released an expose of the debacle at UCLA.  Howland is a bust.  Just a wasteland. 

[brewcity77]

The Big East is again killed by DePaul. Best, deepest conference, but that albatross drags us down.

[Hoopaloop]

The Big East is again killed by DePaul. Best, deepest conference, but that albatross drags us down.

More than just DePaul.  Six of our teams are 100 or worse in the RPI right now.  That's nearly 38% of our conference is in that territory.  As you mentioned, DePaul is horrible and near 200.

The Big Ten has three teams below 100, or 25%. 

[Lennys Tap]

 If the Big 1? gets their 8 (or possibly 9) that Loop predicted and the Big East gets less (as he also opined) that will prove that the Big 1? is far superior. If the Big 1? gets 7 (or 6) and the Big East gets 9 (or 10) it will be (to him) meaningless. And if the Big 1? fares better in the tournament, that will prove their superiority. If they don't it will be meaningless because the tournament is just a crapshoot. Easy, no?

[brewcity77]

More than just DePaul.  Six of our teams are 100 or worse in the RPI right now.  That's nearly 38% of our conference is in that territory.  As you mentioned, DePaul is horrible and near 200.

The Big Ten has three teams below 100, or 25%.

Yeah, but a higher horrible percentage. Illinois and Minnesota may be clinging to top-100 RPI status, but they are just as bad as Rutgers or Pitt.

[Hoopaloop]

If the Big 1? gets their 8 (or possibly 9) that Loop predicted and the Big East gets less (as he also opined) that will prove that the Big 1? is far superior. If the Big 1? gets 7 (or 6) and the Big East gets 9 (or 10) it will be (to him) meaningless. And if the Big 1? fares better in the tournament, that will prove their superiority. If they don't it will be meaningless because the tournament is just a crapshoot. Easy, no?

I just use the ratings and what Jay Bilas tells me.

RPI #1  Big Ten
Ken Pom #1  Big Ten
Jay Bilas  #1 Big Ten

Conferences don't win NCAA tournament games, teams do.

Easy, no?

[Hoopaloop]

Yeah, but a higher horrible percentage. Illinois and Minnesota may be clinging to top-100 RPI status, but they are just as bad as Rutgers or Pitt.

Not sure what you mean by higher horrible percentage? 

[brewcity77]

Not sure what you mean by higher horrible percentage? 

They have just as many horrible teams as us. Illinois may be 77 in RPI, but have gone 2-8 in their past 10. They are 4-10 away from home. They are a bad basketball team whose RPI is artificially inflated by 2 good wins. I'm pretty confident Rutgers would kick their ass. Minnesota is the same case. 89 RPI (doesn't meet your sub-100 category) but 3-7 in their past 10. They aren't a good team, but they are artificially inflated by early season success.

Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, that's 5 really bad teams, or 41.7% of the conference. In addition, the Big East only has 5 sub-100 teams, but I'll give you Pitt (currently at 98). That's still 37.5% if you include Pitt, lower than the Big Ten.

Or just look at the percentage of top-75 teams. The Big East has 10, or 62.5%, the Big Ten has 7, or 58.3%. You constantly try to massage the numbers to make the Big Ten look better, but they can be massaged in both directions. Earlier in the season, the Big Ten looked better. But considering how their bid total has likely crashed from 8-9 down to 6-7, it's pretty evident that the Big Ten isn't nearly as good as people thought it was, and as the Big East has gone from 7-8 to 9-10, it's pretty evident that the Big East is a bit better than people thought it was. Yet you still cling to the Big Ten as the obviously superior conference. But when you look at the percentage of top-75 (read: tourney worthy teams), the Big East is simply the better league.

[Hoopaloop]

That seems to be your opinion, which you are entitled to.  I'm using those computer rating systems because they just process the data and come up with an unbiased answer.  The same formula is applied equally to all teams and looks at the entire body of work, not just a small sample size of games.

A few more

Nolan Power Index #1 Big ten  (#3 Big East)
Sagarin Ratings #1 Big Ten (#3 Big East)

I can't find a major computer rating system anywhere that doesn't have the Big Ten #1 and the Big East either 2, 3 or even 4th.

[slingkong]

I'm using those computer rating systems because they just process the data and come up with an unbiased answer.

The BCS computers have shown over and over again how supposedly unbiased algorithms are biased by putting emphasis on certain variables over others.  I'm not saying you're wrong in thinking that the Big Twelevenen is #1, but I'm also not saying you're right.  As the OP said, it comes down entirely on what you emphasize in your analysis.  After all, there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

[CTWarrior]

I love the Big East, but the Big 10+ is better than us this year.

It is amazing to me how few games there are between the conferences.  But what games there are favor the Big 10+.

Marquette (Big East 14-4) wins at Wisconsin (Big 10 12-6) 61-54
Notre Dame (Big East 13-5) loses to Indiana (Big 10 11-7) 69-58 on a neutral court
Seton Hall (Big East 8-10) loses to Northwestern (Big 10 8-10) 80-73 on a neutral court
DePaul (Big East 3-15) loses to Minnesota (Big 10 6-12) 86-85 on a neutral court
South Florida (Big East 12-6) loses to Penn State (Big 10 4-14) 53-49 on a neutral court

That's all I could find.  Small sample size, but on neutral floors their bubble team beat our bubble team and their worst team beat a 12-6 team from our conference.  Our win over Wisconsin is nice, but that is a second place team beating a 4th place team.

You can say the Big East teams are playing better now, but if they look better when they're playing other Big East teams, isn't that an indictment of the Big East?

[Hoopaloop]

The BCS computers have shown over and over again how supposedly unbiased algorithms are biased by putting emphasis on certain variables over others.  I'm not saying you're wrong in thinking that the Big Twelevenen is #1, but I'm also not saying you're right.  As the OP said, it comes down entirely on what you emphasize in your analysis.  After all, there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

The BCS computers have ratings the way they were supposed to originally work and then separate ones that the BCS actually uses.  Each year the guys that run those ratings say the non-sanitized version they have is much better, but the BCS took away things like margin of victory and such.

There is no perfect system.  I do, however, feel a system applying the same standards all the time that doesn't have a bias will give you an unbiased result in terms of interpretation.  Especially when every system out there, despite what the emphasis on the variables are (which are unique to each system), are coming up with the same answer.  Or another way to put it, there is a consensus across the board on who the best conference is this year with those rating systems. Plus Jay Bilas. 

[hairy worthen]

More than just DePaul.  Six of our teams are 100 or worse in the RPI right now.  That's nearly 38% of our conference is in that territory.  As you mentioned, DePaul is horrible and near 200.

The Big Ten has three teams below 100, or 25%. 

If the big 1? is better, it is only slightly better and you could argue either way as evidenced by the previous posts in this thread. Even if the big 1? is better, so what? What does that prove? They play the tournament to determine the best team not the best conference. What is your stock in the big 11 er 12 or what ever it is? ok the big 1? is better does that make you feel better now?

[brewcity77]

Personally, I still think the Big 12 is actually the strongest, especially with how ISU has come on. Kansas and Mizzou are as good a 1-2 as any conference in the country, and Baylor might be the best #3 team there is. I think KSU and ISU are locks, and Texas should be in. But like the other conferences, they have some stinkers (TT, OSU) as well.