Tweet
Big 12 and Big East. If UConn is so good how is it they can almost lose to a 4 seed in the NIT?
Under-rated would be the Colonial.
Under-rated would be the Colonial.
-
-
I scoff at the big east's failure in the big dance. However I watched enough Big East games this year to know that they are loaded with talent and good teams. So I rated them at Good ... and they were, are. For F's sake, UCONN is playing for the national title and it isn't like they were tops in the conference.
I think the Colonial was rated just right. They got 3 teams in. I team that I thought was the best, ODU, got knocked out early ... by the other half of the national championship possibility.
If anything I think the Big12 was given more love then it deserved. Texas, K-State, Missou and even A&M were made out to be better then they were. KU's loss to VCU was a statistical fluke (a wonderful fluke) so I don't count that in my over under rating stuff.
By the way unless the Big 10 is rated at the absolute bottom of everything in the universe I always think they are over rated. -
It is difficult to argue that the Big East is that overrated. It is hands down the best bball conference in the country, and the ninth best team in it is playing for the national title."The more difficult the victory, the greater the happiness in winning."
-- PeleComment
-
Is it difficult to argue that only two of their eleven teams in the tournament won two games?Comment
-
two second round matchups paired off big east schools. That eliminated the chance of a couple teams winning more. I dont get the reasoning that because only one team made the final four or the championship that the conference is overrated. only 4 out of 64 make the final four and only 2 the championship. did you expect all 4 to be big east schools?Originally posted by benishockComment
-
i see the big 10 as being the most overrated and the biggest joke of the tourney. funny that the committee was run by a big 10 guy and the conference got 7 teams in? not one makes the elite 8 even?Originally posted by fuball7Comment
-
Two very good points. On the Big East, I think most felt that their seeding would lend to them as getting more teams past the first weekend, let alone the first day. They did have two match-ups in the second round, which garunteed that two teams WOULDN"T make the sweet 16, but it also garunteed that two would. It just so happens that the only ones that made it from the Big East played in the garunteed game.Originally posted by fuball7Livin the dreamComment
-
That cuts both ways because is also guarantees that one team advances.Originally posted by fuball7
The argument about the Big East being over-rated has nothing to do with the number of their teams in the Final Four. It has everything to do with the number of teams that lost in the first two rounds and how consistently those losses were to teams seeded significantly lower than the Big East squads.
Saying the Big East was over-rated is not the same thing as saying the Big East was bad. It merely is saying that they were not so good as to merit a record number of NCAA bids for a conference.
(BTW, talking about UCONN being the 9th best team in the conference is somewhat misleading because the Big East lacks balanced scheduling due to its size. Furthermore, UCONN winning the Big East tournament also suggests that they were better than the 9th best team in the conference - and unlike other Big East teams with less than impressive conference records, they earned their way into the dance rather than having it handed to them)."Cotton scared me - I left him alone." - B4MSU (Bear Nation poster) in reference to heckling playersComment
-
Well that wouldn't really be an argument now would it? It would be a fact.Originally posted by benishock
Imo, the results of this year's tournament speak to the parity in college basketball, but not necessarily to an overrated Big East. Each year we see the gap between BCS and non-BCS getting smaller, which you wouldn't gather if you only listened to the talking heads on ESPN. However, when discussing conference strengths/rankings as a whole, you can't JUST look at what happens in the NCAA tournament, you must look at the entire season. We can pick single game outcomes and suggest they mean this and that until the cows come home. For example, the second worst team in the Big East, South Florida, beat VCU (whom we lost to, at home no less), a final four team. But that alone does not make the Big East the strongest conference in the country. When you have 11 teams +/- 1 that can consistently go out and compete with any team in the country year after year, all in one conference, then it stands to reason that it is the best conference in the country. I'm all about showing more love for non-BCS teams like our Shox, but I also think we should be reasonable. I watched a lot of Big East basketball this year, and imo all 11 of those teams deserved to be in the Dance."The more difficult the victory, the greater the happiness in winning."
-- PeleComment
-
The Big Ten is another story entirely. Definitely overrated!"The more difficult the victory, the greater the happiness in winning."
-- PeleComment
-
All BCS conferencesI have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
Using the data from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3286167
For each multiple bid conference. I used the same thing as I did in the Big East thread.
O/UT = Actual wins - Tourney Average per seed.
O/UH = Actual wins - Historical Expected wins
AO/UT = Average vs Tourney Average
AO/UH = Average vs Historical
Code:Conf O/UT O/UH #in AO/UT AO/UH Big 10 (2.00) (2.19) 7 (0.29) (0.31) Big East (2.50) (4.93) 11 (0.23) (0.45) Big 12 (2.50) (2.42) 5 (0.50) (0.48) SEC 1.00 0.66 5 0.20 0.13 ACC 1.75 0.10 4 0.44 0.03 CAA 1.25 3.24 3 0.42 1.08 MT Wes (2.25) (0.89) 3 (0.75) (0.30) PAC10 2.25 2.09 3 0.75 0.70 A10 1.50 0.39 3 0.50 0.13 One Bid 1.5 3.03 20 0.08 0.15
Comment
-
Questions:Originally posted by jdmee
Where do Historical Expected Wins come from?
For the final two columns, "Average" what?
Just a cursory look at these stats leaves me very skeptical. I suspect there is a strong correlation between conferences with high seeds and especially high negative values. These stats will always make the conferences with low seeds look good and those with high seeds look bad.
A more telling method would be to compare the conferences for each seeding, ie how did B.East #1s do against ACC #1s over a range of years, how did MVC #9s do against M.West #9s over a range of years, etc... Of course that would be waaaaaay more work too. :)"The more difficult the victory, the greater the happiness in winning."
-- PeleComment
-
Big 10 is the most overrated conference and there shouldn't even be an argument.Comment
-
The Big Least overall was the most overrated conference.
The fact that their conference champion is in the final 4 doesn't change the fact that too many of their teams underachieved in the big dance.
They were a good conference, but they shouldn't have had 11 bids and many of them got better seeds than they should have gotten.Comment
Comment