This season's most over-rated conference?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

% = wins / expected wins
(expected record, actual record)

Final Conference Results:

Colonial: 188% (3.2-5.8, 6-3)
P10: 122% (4.1-4.9, 5-4)
A10: 111% (2.7-3.3, 3-3)
ACC: 104% (7.7-4.3, 8-4)
SEC: 99% (7.1-4.9, 7-5)
BE: 90% (14.4-8.6, 13-10)
B10: 84% (8.3-5.7, 7-7)
MWC: 83% (4.8-2.2, 4-3)
Big 12: 71% (7.0-3.0, 5-5)
CUSA: 0% (0.8-1.2, 0-2)

The Big 12 was far and away the most disappointing conference. The CAA was far and away the most pleasant surprise. The Big East was only slightly under expectations.

[ShockTalk]

% = wins / expected wins
(expected record, actual record)

Final Conference Results:

Colonial: 188% (3.2-5.8, 6-3)
P10: 122% (4.1-4.9, 5-4)
A10: 111% (2.7-3.3, 3-3)
ACC: 104% (7.7-4.3, 8-4)
SEC: 99% (7.1-4.9, 7-5)
BE: 90% (14.4-8.6, 13-10)
B10: 84% (8.3-5.7, 7-7)
MWC: 83% (4.8-2.2, 4-3)
Big 12: 71% (7.0-3.0, 5-5)
CUSA: 0% (0.8-1.2, 0-2)

The Big 12 was far and away the most disappointing conference. The CAA was far and away the most pleasant surprise. The Big East was only slightly under expectations.

In light of 1 of their 11 teams winning the National Championship, how would you view the performance of the rest of the Big East, JH4P?

Maybe you would know this over the last 10 years, but I would think that most conferences would have performed better than expected if they had a school win the NC, particularly if that school was not a 1 or 2 seed.

[Kung Wu]

Y'all got tunnel vision. Clearly the most overrated conference was the SWAC.

They had good non-con wins against Kennesaw St., Oakwood College [Don't even know what division this is], and Albany State (Ga.) [Division II].

Nevermind that they lost EVERY SINGLE NON-CON game except those above.

With their 300+ RPI I think we expected them to only lose to University of Texas - San Antonio by 4 points, but they clearly showed they were way overated in this NCAA tourney by losing by 9.

For a team that came out of the DEAD LAST rated conference in the country (33 of 33), I really expected them to want it more.

Maybe time to stop focusing on the power 6 and now focus on the other end of the poor methodology utilized by the NCAA for tourney selection?

[ShockTalk]

% = wins / expected wins
(expected record, actual record)

Final Conference Results:

Colonial: 188% (3.2-5.8, 6-3)
P10: 122% (4.1-4.9, 5-4)
A10: 111% (2.7-3.3, 3-3)
ACC: 104% (7.7-4.3, 8-4)
SEC: 99% (7.1-4.9, 7-5)
BE: 90% (14.4-8.6, 13-10)
B10: 84% (8.3-5.7, 7-7)
MWC: 83% (4.8-2.2, 4-3)
Big 12: 71% (7.0-3.0, 5-5)
CUSA: 0% (0.8-1.2, 0-2)

The Big 12 was far and away the most disappointing conference. The CAA was far and away the most pleasant surprise. The Big East was only slightly under expectations.

Another question, JH4P. Since your "expected results" already take into account for a % of expected upsets, what are your thoughts on this: The 2 Big 6 conferences that did better than expected had only 3 and 4 teams in the tourney. The 4 Big Six who underperformed all had at least 5 teams in and averaged 7 teams (and that group even included the NC team).

[wufan]

Y'all got tunnel vision. Clearly the most overrated conference was the SWAC.

They had good non-con wins against Kennesaw St., Oakwood College [Don't even know what division this is], and Albany State (Ga.) [Division II].

Nevermind that they lost EVERY SINGLE NON-CON game except those above.

With their 300+ RPI I think we expected them to only lose to University of Texas - San Antonio by 4 points, but they clearly showed they were way overated in this NCAA tourney by losing by 9.

For a team that came out of the DEAD LAST rated conference in the country (33 of 33), I really expected them to want it more.

Maybe time to stop focusing on the power 6 and now focus on the other end of the poor methodology utilized by the NCAA for tourney selection?

I'm all for 32 conferences getting auto-bids. That's half the field and perfect IMO.

[wufan]

% = wins / expected wins
(expected record, actual record)

Final Conference Results:

Colonial: 188% (3.2-5.8, 6-3)
P10: 122% (4.1-4.9, 5-4)
A10: 111% (2.7-3.3, 3-3)
ACC: 104% (7.7-4.3, 8-4)
SEC: 99% (7.1-4.9, 7-5)
BE: 90% (14.4-8.6, 13-10)
B10: 84% (8.3-5.7, 7-7)
MWC: 83% (4.8-2.2, 4-3)
Big 12: 71% (7.0-3.0, 5-5)
CUSA: 0% (0.8-1.2, 0-2)

The Big 12 was far and away the most disappointing conference. The CAA was far and away the most pleasant surprise. The Big East was only slightly under expectations.

Another question, JH4P. Since your "expected results" already take into account for a % of expected upsets, what are your thoughts on this: The 2 Big 6 conferences that did better than expected had only 3 and 4 teams in the tourney. The 4 Big Six who underperformed all had at least 5 teams in and averaged 7 teams (and that group even included the NC team).

How did the BCS conferences do if you remove their auto-bid?

[Trigger]

Whatever the case is for being overrated the BCS schools provide the NCAA champions regardless of their tournament record as a league. The MVC needs a team to continuously get in the tournament and make runs each year. Then and only then will the non-BCS conferences gain the respect at a national level. Plus this would help more than one team get in from the MVC.

VCU had a good run but we'll see what they do next year. Until then they are no better than George Mason. Nice run but VCU was lucky to get in and some of that is contributed to them beating WSU. Butler is now a different story and I think they have a special coach.

Overrated is subjective but you have to earn respect and that takes time. No one from the MVC has stepped up to the plate. It could easily be the Shocks with a great foundation in place.

[ShockTalk]

Whatever the case is for being overrated the BCS schools provide the NCAA champions regardless of their tournament record as a league. The MVC needs a team to continuously get in the tournament and make runs each year. Then and only then will the non-BCS conferences gain the respect at a national level. Plus this would help more than one team get in from the MVC.

VCU had a good run but we'll see what they do next year. Until then they are no better than George Mason. Nice run but VCU was lucky to get in and some of that is contributed to them beating WSU. Butler is now a different story and I think they have a special coach.

Overrated is subjective but you have to earn respect and that takes time. No one from the MVC has stepped up to the plate. It could easily be the Shocks with a great foundation in place.

As would be highly expected given the size of their budgets, high priced coaches, so on and so forth.

Nevertheless, you are correct in respect to non-Big 6 conferences and their teams. If Elgin does not wish (or cannot get) to force SOS requirements on the Valley, it will be up to WSU and 1 to 3 more schools to do it on their own. Hopefully, they will distinctly separate themselves from the rest of the league and get multiple bids going again. The question is, aside from Creighton, who has the $s and current program to do it.

[SubGod22]

Whatever the case is for being overrated the BCS schools provide the NCAA champions regardless of their tournament record as a league. The MVC needs a team to continuously get in the tournament and make runs each year. Then and only then will the non-BCS conferences gain the respect at a national level. Plus this would help more than one team get in from the MVC.

VCU had a good run but we'll see what they do next year. Until then they are no better than George Mason. Nice run but VCU was lucky to get in and some of that is contributed to them beating WSU. Butler is now a different story and I think they have a special coach.

Overrated is subjective but you have to earn respect and that takes time. No one from the MVC has stepped up to the plate. It could easily be the Shocks with a great foundation in place.

As would be highly expected given the size of their budgets, high priced coaches, so on and so forth.

Nevertheless, you are correct in respect to non-Big 6 conferences and their teams. If Elgin does not wish (or cannot get) to force SOS requirements on the Valley, it will be up to WSU and 1 to 3 more schools to do it on their own. Hopefully, they will distinctly separate themselves from the rest of the league and get multiple bids going again. The question is, aside from Creighton, who has the $s and current program to do it.

Money is a big issue, but UNI could be a current program capable of helping in that regard. Outside of that, we'd probably have to wait on Bradley to get things back together for a potential consistent 4th.

[wufan]

UNI is a good program and a good fit for the Valley if they could just put some cash together to keep it that way! UNI with Doug McDermott last year would have been a GREAT team.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In light of 1 of their 11 teams winning the National Championship, how would you view the performance of the rest of the Big East, JH4P?

The 10 teams other than UConn were a disappointment (as a whole... let's not forget Marquette). I don't think any of us are debating that.

Maybe you would know this over the last 10 years, but I would think that most conferences would have performed better than expected if they had a school win the NC, particularly if that school was not a 1 or 2 seed.

When one part of a group does well, the whole group benefits. What is your point?

[ShockTalk]

In light of 1 of their 11 teams winning the National Championship, how would you view the performance of the rest of the Big East, JH4P?

The 10 teams other than UConn were a disappointment (as a whole... let's not forget Marquette). I don't think any of us are debating that.

Maybe you would know this over the last 10 years, but I would think that most conferences would have performed better than expected if they had a school win the NC, particularly if that school was not a 1 or 2 seed.

When one part of a group does well, the whole group benefits. What is your point?

Let me word it differently: I would think that most conferences would have better than "expected results" (as opposed to "under expectations") if they had a school win the NC and that school was not a 1 or a 2 seed.

To be not so polite: As compared to the norm, the Big East must have really sucked as a conference in the Dance for them to finish "under expections" as a whole to off set the performance of their 3rd seeded UConn winning the NC. The Big East has gotten a lot of bids to the Dance the last 2 years and both years, did poorly as a whole. Just bad luck? And let's not play the "but they won the NC" card as they had, by far, the best odds of doing so. They had 11 teams, many with good seeding, to give them 11 chances for 1 team to get hot or have an easier path to that NC.

From a statistical point of view, any thoughts on my second post to you?

[ShockerFever]

Look, the Big East was easily the most overrated conference this year. Sure, their conference has the National Champion in it, but the overall display of the conference, as a WHOLE, in the tournament was piss poor.

No one is gonna convince me otherwise.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I think we all agree the Big East underperformed. We are simply debating "by how much?" The key question seems to be "How much should UConn's national championship balance out the dissapointment of many other teams?"

Here's a thought. Remove UConn altogether. That takes away 6 wins and 1 loss (Cincy lost to UConn). At that point, the rest of the Big East won 70% of their "expected win total". Now compare to the Big 12, who won 71%. Whatever value you want to give to UConn's Championship, surely it is enough to bump the Big East well ahead of the Big 12.

Something else to consider. Remove UConn's final 2 wins and say they simply stopped playing once they reached the Final 4. This reduces part of the impact of UConn playing so many more games than any other Big East team. What are we left with? At this point, this Big East comes out to 85% of expected wins, ever so slightly ahead of the Mountain West and Big Ten. Once again, whatever value you want to put on UConn's National Championship, surely it is enough to move the Big East ahead of those 2 conferences.

I'm not arguing that the Big East wasn't a disappointment. I'm simply saying that they were far from the BIGGEST disappointment.

ShockTalk, let me know if you still want me to address your point more directly. I feel like my answer might ramble, so I'll wait and see if you think this post is "good enough".

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

How did the BCS conferences do if you remove their auto-bid?

Conference - Without Auto Bids (With Auto Bids)
Pac 10 - 125% (122%)
ACC - 118% (104%)
Big Ten - 86% (84%)
Big East - 70% (90%)
SEC - 63% (99%)
Big 12 - 59% (71%)

Not surprisingly, the auto bid winners tended to overperform for the most part. These teams were hot enough to win their conference tourneys heading into the Big Dance.