Jay Bilas and "League Rankings"

[Shox21]

Jay Bilas and "League Rankings" (per ESPN)


1. Big Ten
2. Big 12
3. ACC
4. Big East
5. SEC
6. Pac-10
7. Mountain West
8. Atlantic 10
9. Conference USA
10. Horizon/MAAC


10. Colonial and MAC
OK, this is a cop-out to declare a tie at No. 10, but it gives props to some leagues that seldom get any ink. Butler, Gonzaga and Wichita State will likely be better than any team offered by the CAA or MAC. And you could make a case for the WAC, the West Coast Conference or the Missouri Valley, but I like the Colonial and MAC in the 10th-place tie. The CAA has three teams that can play with anyone in VCU, George Mason and Old Dominion, and the best player in the league is Hofstra's Charles Jenkins, whose team probably won't finish in the top half of the league. William & Mary should be good again, after a 22-win season that included victories over Maryland, Richmond and Wake Forest.

[Capitol Shock]

I don't know enough about the other leagues but obviously I'm disappointed. Northern Iowa finished the year as the 13th best team and now they are completely off the radar. We are predicted to finish above them and have been mentioned as a top 25 team. Creighton and MSU are getting some press but our conference isn't in the top 11?

I think that we are being talked down again as a conference. I would be interested to get Elgin's opinion.

[Steeleshocker]

On the plus side, we are mentioned in the same sentence with Gonzaga and Butler. That's something we'd definitely like to see more of.

[Cdizzle]

The real problem isn't with the Valley's absence in the Top 10. The problem is the Pac-10's inclusion.

[ShockerFever]

Seriously? The Horizon, MAAC, and MAC are top-to-bottom better than the Valley?

What the hell has the MAC done? Or even the MAAC?

Yeah, the Valley has trended down but not THAT far down.

[Shox21]

The real problem isn't with the Valley's absence in the Top 10. The problem is the Pac-10's inclusion.

Here is Billas' thoughts on the Pac 10:

7. Pac-10
UCLA and Arizona were down last season and several teams underperformed in a league in transition. The Pac-10 put a measly two teams in the 2010 NCAA tournament, its fewest since 1988. And not a single team in the conference finished the season with fewer than 10 losses, which is remarkable. This year, things will be improved but not back to what the Pac-10 is used to. Washington should be the best team in the league, but are the Huskies better than a 4-seed going into the season? The Huskies, Arizona, UCLA and Washington State could wind up as the best teams, but there is not a team in the league to be afraid of


If there is not a team in the Pac 10 to be afraid of, why does he have them listed at No. 7?

[im4wsu]

Re: Jay Bilas and "League Rankings"

Jay Bilas and "League Rankings" (per ESPN)


1. Big Ten
2. Big 12
3. ACC
4. Big East
5. SEC
6. Pac-10
7. Mountain West
8. Atlantic 10
9. Conference USA
10. Horizon/MAAC


10. Colonial and MAC
OK, this is a cop-out to declare a tie at No. 10, but it gives props to some leagues that seldom get any ink. Butler, Gonzaga and Wichita State will likely be better than any team offered by the CAA or MAC. And you could make a case for the WAC, the West Coast Conference or the Missouri Valley, but I like the Colonial and MAC in the 10th-place tie. The CAA has three teams that can play with anyone in VCU, George Mason and Old Dominion, and the best player in the league is Hofstra's Charles Jenkins, whose team probably won't finish in the top half of the league. William & Mary should be good again, after a 22-win season that included victories over Maryland, Richmond and Wake Forest.

Is this NEW MATH? I count thirteen conferences listed, eleven in the first top 10 and then the Colonial/MAC stated as being tied for the number 10 spot.

So does that mean the MVC is 4th or lower?

[Shox21]

Re: Jay Bilas and "League Rankings"

Jay Bilas and "League Rankings" (per ESPN)


1. Big Ten
2. Big 12
3. ACC
4. Big East
5. SEC
6. Pac-10
7. Mountain West
8. Atlantic 10
9. Conference USA
10. Horizon/MAAC


10. Colonial and MAC
OK, this is a cop-out to declare a tie at No. 10, but it gives props to some leagues that seldom get any ink. Butler, Gonzaga and Wichita State will likely be better than any team offered by the CAA or MAC. And you could make a case for the WAC, the West Coast Conference or the Missouri Valley, but I like the Colonial and MAC in the 10th-place tie. The CAA has three teams that can play with anyone in VCU, George Mason and Old Dominion, and the best player in the league is Hofstra's Charles Jenkins, whose team probably won't finish in the top half of the league. William & Mary should be good again, after a 22-win season that included victories over Maryland, Richmond and Wake Forest.

Is this NEW MATH? I count thirteen conferences listed, eleven in the first top 10 and then the Colonial/MAC stated as being tied for the number 10 spot.

So does that mean the MVC is 4th or lower?

The confusion is my fault:

The numbers 1 - 10 are Bilas' "conference power prognostications prior to last season". The following is his order for this year:

1. Big Ten
2. Big East
3. Big 12
4. ACC
5. SEC
6. Atlantic 10
7. Pac 10
8. Mountain West
9. Conference USA
10. Colonial/MAC

Sorry -- just didn't read quite as carefully as I should have.

[ShockerFever]

Color me officially confused.

I don't suppose you have a link to any of this?

[Shox21]

Color me officially confused.

I don't suppose you have a link to any of this?

Sorry, let's try this again. Here is the link: http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-coll...jay&id=5658059 but unless you are an Insider, you won't be able to access it. Here are the pertinent parts:

What makes a league the toughest and best is entirely subjective and perhaps best defined in the manner the U.S. Supreme Court defined obscenity: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. The best conference has to have contenders for national honors at the top, strength in the middle with NCAA tournament-worthy teams, and at least competitive squads among those bringing up the rear.

Let's start this annual exercise in futility by looking back at my conference power prognostications prior to last season:


1. Big Ten
2. Big 12
3. ACC
4. Big East
5. SEC
6. Pac-10
7. Mountain West
8. Atlantic 10
9. Conference USA
10. Horizon/MAAC


...


This year, the rankings won't look that much different, but when would it? The usual suspects are in the top 10 -- it is just the order that has to be tweaked a bit.

So here goes nothing ...

1. Big Ten
2. Big East
3. Big 12
4. ACC
5. SEC
6. Atlantic 10
7. Pac 10
8. Mountain West
9. Conference USA
10. Colonial/MAC

Bilas has a separate paragraph on each one of his current picks explaining his rationale. I already posted what he had to say about the Pac-10 this year.

[Ashockalypse]

Bilas is part of the establishment that wants to keep the Valley and everyone like it down. Its not that he is out to get the Valley, its that he only ranks the top 6 and then just draws straws on the rest. He's an idiot.

[BOBB]

The Valley sucks lately. Plain and simple. Our bottom five or six teams are pretty terrible. We need a strong WSU, Creighton and SIU to make the league good. Any of those teams have down years and the league will suffer. Last year SIU and Creighton were down and we did not help ourselves with our schedule. This year has the potential to be deja vu all over again, even though I think we'll be pretty dang good. Hopefully Creighton picks it up and UNI doesn't fall off too much.

[ShockTalk]

Truth of the matter is that the MVC is starting to lose touch with the other big mid-majors - Atl-10, MWC, and to a lesser degree, C-USA. We are trying to stay ahead of the Colonial, Horizon, WCC, WAC, and MAC with a couple more conferences not far behind them.

It will take more than one or two quality teams, with quality years, for the Valley to get back into the upper mid-major group. There are a lot of unknowns about the MVC this year and it wouldn't take much of a stumble for the Valley to fall into the 12-13 RPI conference range.

[WstateU]

Bilas is part of the establishment that wants to keep the Valley and everyone like it down. Its not that he is out to get the Valley, its that he only ranks the top 6 and then just draws straws on the rest. He's an idiot.

Poppycock!

[hamshock]

We have been a one-bid league for awhile. Until the league requires stronger scheduling I can't argue with him not having us on there. Granted, the MAC doesn't impress me. If you look at the top of the Valley it's ok. Bradley always disappoints despite having the talent. IlSU has the one of the weakest schedules in D1 and will be down this year. Creighton will get better now that douchebag McGee is gone. UNI will be good. MSU will be good. We will be good. UNI, MSU, and WSU does not a power conference make when you balance that with Evansville, Drake, and probably InSU at the bottom. Without football we are fighting uphill. Without scheduling requirements our RPI as both teams and a league will continue to suffer. What makes you think we SHOULD be ranked ahead of the others? If the MAC has three good teams at the top and a bunch of mediocre or crappy teams at the bottom what makes the Valley stand out? If you watch the NCAA tournament you will notice the level of athlete and basketball played is better than the Valley. It sucks for us. Until the league commits to being a top six-eight league in basketball nothing is going to change.

Signed,
Bitter at the Valley for bringing us, Creighton (ug), UNI, and MSU down. Shame on the Valley.