The best conference?

[Olympic Fan]

I've always believed that conference strength is measured -- over time -- in NCAA Tournament play.

A year ago, the massively hyped Big 12 flopped big time in NCAA play (5-7 with just two Sweet 16 teams and none in the Elite Eight). Meanwhile, the ACC kicked butt -- 17-5 with five Sweet 16 teams, three Elite Eight teams and the national champ.

After the first day of the 2016 tournament, the major conferences stack up this way:

ACC (seven bids) 4-0 (although tomorrow could be tough with Pitt and Syracuse seeded to lose as 10th seeds)
Big 10 (seven bids) 2-1 (although that includes Michigan's win in the play-in game)
Big East (five bids) 2-1*
Big 12 (seven bids) 2-2 (poised for another lackluster year)
SEC (three bids) 1-1 (Vandy out in the play-in round)
American (four bids) 1-1
Pac 12 (seven bids) -- 1-3

I've got to admit, after listening to the clueless Charles Barkley tell me how great the Pac 12 was (because that's the conference he gets to see), it was sweet to see the conference flounder

* That was counting Seton Hall as losing to Gonzaga ... they were down big, but have made a comebacker. Still down, but back in range. So I may be premature about this one.

[Doria]

I really don't get the love the Big 12 has received these past couple years in terms of the tourney. While the top is strong, and definitely has produced some of the most entertaining games I've seen this season, their non-top teams feel like they often wash out early (not just these two years). I know they've had some good years, too, but I don't get the narrative, for the most part.

And the PAC 12 is even worse (knock on wood WRT Oregon)!

[Wander]

I think you can use NCAA tournament performance as part of the equation, but it has to be more complex than just win-loss records. I'm just not convinced the 7th best team in Conference A losing a close game to the 5th best team in Conference B should count as a even a small strike against Conference A.

I'd say the Big 12 and the ACC are equal in power if you remove Boston College from consideration.

[madscavenger]

.................................And the PAC 12 is even worse (knock on wood WRT Oregon)!

Knock on wood? You must mean the Ducks. If it were the Beavers, it would be chew on wood.

[flyingdutchdevil]

What bothers me to no end is that the Pac Whatever hasn't won the tournament since 1997 and the Big 10 hasn't won since 2000 (Maryland was ACC) and they still get so much love, year in and year out. As a matter of fact, for the last twenty years (1996-2015), the split by conference is as follows:

ACC: 6
Big East: 6
SEC: 5
Big 12: 1
Big 10: 1
Pac #: 1

I'm surprised that the Big East was been pretty amazing at winning natties.

[gurufrisbee]

I always take note of conference performance in the tournament as well. There are always two other big factors, IMO, worth remembering.

1) It's not just their record, but their record versus what their seeding SHOULD have produced. For example, today I doubt Pitt and Cuse add a lot to the ACC resume, but they really shouldn't be expected to. If Texas gets two wins it's a lot more impressive for the Big 12 than if North Carolina only gets two wins for the ACC.

2) Conference strength should always be considered in terms of the ENTIRE conference. This is what drove me nuts about the Big East for so long. They would have a good top half, but the bottom half was some of the worst teams in the world. Sure that means you have one good game each week - and also one glorified practice with an automatic win. One of the reasons the ACC is always the best conference is that top to bottom it's stronger than anyone else. This is why we also tend to get several NIT teams and why we always end up with teams whose NIT bubble got burst too - the whole conference is good and they usually all (or nearly all) warrant consideration to keep playing beyond the ACC tournament.

[budwom]

yup, first round matchups don't tell me all that much. The matchups on Saturday and Sunday will be a lot more interesting.

[Duke79UNLV77]

The RPI can be gamed on a team and, perhaps even more so, a conference level. See the MVC a few years ago. Not that the Big 12 is the MVC, but I think it also has figured out the RPI over the past couple of years. As Jim Sumner has pointed out, the ACC last year far outperformed the Big 12 in the regular season (as well as the post-season) in terms of non-conference top 25 wins. To me, that's a better measuring stick in terms of really good teams than is being penalized because you clobbered a +200 team instead of a +100 team. Also, as impressive as Kansas's string of conference championships is, I also see that as somewhat of an indictment on the Big 12 over time. No way that could have happened in the ACC.

[MCFinARL]

What bothers me to no end is that the Pac Whatever hasn't won the tournament since 1997 and the Big 10 hasn't won since 2000 (Maryland was ACC) and they still get so much love, year in and year out. As a matter of fact, for the last twenty years (1996-2015), the split by conference is as follows:

ACC: 6
Big East: 6
SEC: 5
Big 12: 1
Big 10: 1
Pac #: 1

I'm surprised that the Big East was been pretty amazing at winning natties.

Well, since 1996, it's really that UConn has been pretty amazing at winning natties, with four, and the last one was as a member of the American Conference in 2014. Other than that, there is just Syracuse in 2003 and Louisville in 2013, and both are now in the aCC. So that would be 5 for the Big East (since the last UConn wouldn't count). Is there another one I missed?

[yancem]

I always take note of conference performance in the tournament as well. There are always two other big factors, IMO, worth remembering.

1) It's not just their record, but their record versus what their seeding SHOULD have produced. For example, today I doubt Pitt and Cuse add a lot to the ACC resume, but they really shouldn't be expected to. If Texas gets two wins it's a lot more impressive for the Big 12 than if North Carolina only gets two wins for the ACC.

2) Conference strength should always be considered in terms of the ENTIRE conference. This is what drove me nuts about the Big East for so long. They would have a good top half, but the bottom half was some of the worst teams in the world. Sure that means you have one good game each week - and also one glorified practice with an automatic win. One of the reasons the ACC is always the best conference is that top to bottom it's stronger than anyone else. This is why we also tend to get several NIT teams and why we always end up with teams whose NIT bubble got burst too - the whole conference is good and they usually all (or nearly all) warrant consideration to keep playing beyond the ACC tournament.

Yeah but the fact that the higher seeded teams should win more games should show up in the conference record and getting more higher seeds means you have more good teams. The conference record should be a pretty good indicator of the strength of the conference. Now if teams under or over perform their seeds, that is more of a reflection of the conference being under or over rated by the committee (or just had a bad night/match up but how do you factor that?).

[Olympic Fan]

Just to clarify -- the Big 12 flop a year ago wasn't just about the lower seeded teams from the conference.

The best team in the conference (Kansas) lost in the second round. The second best team in the conference (Iowa State) lost in the FIRST round.

Oklahoma did reach the Sweet 16, but maxed out there. The fourth best team in the conference (Baylor) lost in the first round.

I agree that losing Texas Tech and even Baylor in the first round this year is not necessarily a sign that the Big 12 is going to flop again.

Just as Syracuse or Pitt losing today, won't be that big a knock on the ACC.

But what the Big 12 did a year ago would be the equivalent of UNC losing to Providence Saturday, Virginia losing to Hampton yesterday, Miami getting to the Sweet 16. Duke losing to UNCW.

If that happened, we'd never hear the end of how overrated the ACC was -- and we'd go into next season having to erase a lot of skepticism.

I'm not saying that Thursday's 4-0 mark proves anything about the ACC ... let's see how many teams we put in the Sweet 16 (especially vis a vis the other power conferences)

Still, it was a great first day for the ACC.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Just to clarify -- the Big 12 flop a year ago wasn't just about the lower seeded teams from the conference.

The best team in the conference (Kansas) lost in the second round. The second best team in the conference (Iowa State) lost in the FIRST round.

Oklahoma did reach the Sweet 16, but maxed out there. The fourth best team in the conference (Baylor) lost in the first round.

I agree that losing Texas Tech and even Baylor in the first round this year is not necessarily a sign that the Big 12 is going to flop again.

Just as Syracuse or Pitt losing today, won't be that big a knock on the ACC.

But what the Big 12 did a year ago would be the equivalent of UNC losing to Providence Saturday, Virginia losing to Hampton yesterday, Miami getting to the Sweet 16. Duke losing to UNCW.

If that happened, we'd never hear the end of how overrated the ACC was -- and we'd go into next season having to erase a lot of skepticism.

I'm not saying that Thursday's 4-0 mark proves anything about the ACC ... let's see how many teams we put in the Sweet 16 (especially vis a vis the other power conferences)

Still, it was a great first day for the ACC.

What does it say about the ACC if and when Syracuse wins, which they likely are (up 17, 9 min to go)?

[sagegrouse]

And #10 Syracuse has a 20-point lead with eight minutes to go against #7 Dayton.

[Tom B.]

And #10 Syracuse has a 20-point lead with eight minutes to go against #7 Dayton.

Not a great couple of days for the Miller brothers.

[luburch]

Not a great couple of days for the Miller brothers.

Rumor has it that they wanted to lose early so they could get started on filming "We're the Millers 2"

[Duke79UNLV77]

I think we can at least safely say that the Conference of Champions is not the best conference. Sorry, Bill Walton.

[Doria]

If that happened, we'd never hear the end of how overrated the ACC was

Though--judging by history--regardless of what happens, we'll still never hear the end of this.

[CDu]

What bothers me to no end is that the Pac Whatever hasn't won the tournament since 1997 and the Big 10 hasn't won since 2000 (Maryland was ACC) and they still get so much love, year in and year out. As a matter of fact, for the last twenty years (1996-2015), the split by conference is as follows:

ACC: 6
Big East: 6
SEC: 5
Big 12: 1
Big 10: 1
Pac #: 1

I'm surprised that the Big East was been pretty amazing at winning natties.

That pretty much is just UConn winning titles. They have 4 of them. Syracuse and Louisville have the other two. Of course, none of those teams are in the Big East anymore, and two are in the ACC now. The top of the ACC is incredibly strong right now.

[PackMan97]

Oregon St goes down. Cal on the ropes.

Pac 12 is packing up and heading home.

[CDu]

Oregon St goes down. Cal on the ropes.

Pac 12 is packing up and heading home.

Hopefully Oregon decides to do the same soon. Heck, toss Utah in there too.

[Wander]

To be fair, Cal got horribly unlucky and is playing without 2 starters on very short notice. But yeah, not a great showing for the Pac-12 so far.

[PackMan97]

There is still a minute left, but I'm calling it. Hawaii upends Cal.

If Oregon avoids becoming a sports trivia answer, the Pac 12 will have a total of TWO teams in the round of 32.

[77devil]

There is still a minute left, but I'm calling it. Hawaii upends Cal.

If Oregon avoids becoming a sports trivia answer, the Pac 12 will have a total of TWO teams in the round of 32.

I agree that the Pac 12 is sucking wind and is generally overrated except in the mind of Bill Walton. But to be fair to Cal, they played today without two of their best players.

[TruBlu]

I agree that the Pac 12 is sucking wind and is generally overrated except in the mind of Bill Walton. But to be fair to Cal, they played today without two of their best players.

He still has a mind?!? Link, please.

[Saratoga2]

I agree that the Pac 12 is sucking wind and is generally overrated except in the mind of Bill Walton. But to be fair to Cal, they played today without two of their best players.

Yes Cal was hurting with injuries but they have Cal, Colorado, Arizona, Oregon St and USC all losing when higher seeds. Clearly, the PAC 12 was over rated. Oregon has to carry their banner now.

Michigan State has lost a 2/15 matchup. They were often spoken of as a 1 seed in the tournament and were playing good ball coming in. I had them going a long way in the tournament. It just shows you that mid major teams can and do defeat national powers. The fact that Duke had to really scramble to beat UNC-Wilmington is not an unusual event in the tournament. The difference is that we survived and moved on.

The ACC has 5 teams of 7 moving on with ND and Pitt still to play. Good start for the league.

[Furniture]

Very happy for our Loud G and Syracuse!

[Olympic Fan]

Tough loss for Pitt -- they led most of the way ... fell behind by four late, got a 3 from Artis, but Robinson missed a potential game-winner with five seconds left.

First loss for the ACC in this tournament ... we need Notre Dame to take out Michigan to go 6-1 i9n the first round.

Also, first good news for the Pac 12 -- Oregon seems to be rolling.

But on the Big 12 front -- West Virginia is struggling with Stephen F. Austin

[devildeac]

Tough loss for Pitt -- they led most of the way ... fell behind by four late, got a 3 from Artis, but Robinson missed a potential game-winner with five seconds left.

First loss for the ACC in this tournament ... we need Notre Dame to take out Michigan to go 6-1 i9n the first round.

Also, first good news for the Pac 12 -- Oregon seems to be rolling.

But on the Big 12 front -- West Virginia is struggling with Stephen F. Austin

The Duke "curse" strikes Pitt. I think there was an internet "bet" when I was challenged (along with another chatter) to put my money where my mouth was when I predicted Pitt would exit the NCAAT early. (whistling softly)

[DukieInKansas]

I can't believe I just saw that! Down goes TX

[OldPhiKap]

I can't believe I just saw that! Down goes TX

Holy Northern Iowa!!!!!!!!!!!!! Crazy finish!!!!!!

[Doria]

That was an amazing finish.

Close finish in the Cincy-St. Joe's game, too. I dislike Cincy, but I felt pretty bad for that kid on the final play.

[Olympic Fan]

Okay, conference standings after the complete first round (conferences with three or more bids):

ACC 6-1
Big East 4-1
Atlantic 10 2-1
SEC 2-1
Big Ten 5-3
Big 12 3-4
Pac 12 2-5
American 1-3

I will suggest the ACC is extraordinarily well positioned to do well in the second round. UNC and Virginia should be heavily favored. Duke, Syracuse and Notre Dame are matched against lower seeded upset winners. So is Miami, although I think Wichita State offers a significant challenge to the 'Canes.

A year ago, the ACC put five teams in the Sweet 16 -- a record for the league and something that had only been done once before in history. It's not farfetched to think it could happen again (although if I had to bet, I'd guess four of the six make it.

The Big 12 has a losing record -- AGAIN -- but I think they are better situated to get past the Sweet 16 this year. The league's two best teams (Kansas and Oklahoma) are still alive.

Also, two states put three teams into the round of 32:

Indiana (Butler, Indiana and Notre Dame)
Iowa (Iowa, Iowa State, Northern Iowa)

A bunch, including North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Kansas and Connecticut have two teams in the round of 32.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That was an amazing finish.

Close finish in the Cincy-St. Joe's game, too. I dislike Cincy, but I felt pretty bad for that kid on the final play.

Everything tonight was awesome. This is why I love March Madness.

[BlueDevil2K]

Okay, conference standings after the complete first round (conferences with three or more bids):

ACC 6-1
Big East 4-1
Atlantic 10 2-1
SEC 2-1
Big Ten 5-3
Big 12 3-4
Pac 12 2-5
American 1-3



I prefer to look at performance relative to expectations (as measured by seed). Among the 9 multi-bid conferences:


MVC +2 (+Wichita State +Northern Iowa)
ACC +1 (+Syracuse)
Big East +1 (+Providence +Butler -Seton Hall)
American +1 (+UConn)
SEC +0
A10 +0 (+VCU -Dayton)
Big 10 -2 (-MSU -Purdue)
Big 12 -4 (-West Virginia -Baylor -Texas -Texas Tech)
Pac 12 -5 (-Cal -Arizona -Oregon State -USC -Colorado)

Obviously the 1-bid conferences with low seeds that won over-performed:

11 Gonzaga
12 Yale
12 AR-Little Rock
13 Hawaii
14 SF Austin
15 MTSU

In case anybody wants to play with it, here's the full data:

Conference #Remaining +Vs. Seed (Teams Remaining)

ACC 6 +1 +Syracuse (1 UNC, 1 UVa, 3 Miami, 4 Duke, 6 Notre Dame, 10 Syracuse)
Big East 4 +1 +Providence +Butler -Seton Hall (2 Villanova, 2 Xavier, 9 Providence, 9 Butler)
Big 10 4 -2 -Purdue -MSU (5 Maryland, 5 Indiana, 7 Iowa, 7 Wisconsin)
Big 12 3 -4 -West Virginia -Baylor -Texas -Texas Tech (1 Kansas, 2 Oklahoma, 4 Iowa State)
SEC 2 +0 (3 Texas A&M, 4 Kentucky)
MVC 2 +2 +Wichita State +Northern Iowa (11 Wichita State, 11 Northern Iowa)
Atlantic 10 2 +0 +VCU -Dayton (8 St Joe’s, 10 VCU)
Pac-12 2 -5 -Cal -Arizona -Oregon State -USC -Colorado (1 Oregon, 3 Utah)
American 1 +1 +UConn (9 UConn)

11 Gonzaga
12 Yale
12 AR-Little Rock
13 Hawaii
14 SF Austin
15 MTSU

[CDu]

I always hate using single-elimination tournaments as any definitive measure of best conference. I mean, is Michigan St any less of a team simply because MT happened to shoot a ridiculous 58% from 3? Fluky things happen in single-elimination tourneys. Thankfully, our teams avoided those flukes.

That being said, it was a very good start for the ACC. The high seeds all held serve, while the underdogs split. Hopefully all but one of the ACC teams will still be playing come Monday.

[YmoBeThere]

Being a transplant to Texas, I prefer to think of the state level issue as 2-3. I suggest Stephen F. Austin and TAMU play for the state Title after the tournament.

[captmojo]

Jesperson hit that shot from 45 feet as easily as it would have seemed to be taken from 4 or 5 feet.
Good things happen when you use the backboard. That bit of wisdom is now not lost on the team from Cincinnati. But, a dunk really is prettier. Ain't it? ;)


As to the title question, I am still confused over the conference named 12 that contains 10. And the bunch called 10 that has 12.
These are strange times, indeed.

[DukieInKansas]

Jesperson hit that shot from 45 feet as easily as it would have seemed to be taken from 4 or 5 feet.
Good things happen when you use the backboard. That bit of wisdom is now not lost on the team from Cincinnati. But, a dunk really is prettier. Ain't it? ;)


As to the title question, I am still confused over the conference named 12 that contains 10. And the bunch called 10 that has 12.
These are strange times, indeed.

Have another beer. It will help it make sense. :D

[captmojo]

Have another beer. It will help it make sense. :D

I've tried, and it didn't work. But that is from a sense of looking for answers. As for the factor of concern, it was a blessing. :cool:

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I've tried, and it didn't work. But that is from a sense of looking for answers. As for the factor of concern, it was a blessing. :cool:

Try again? It's still over two hours til tip off, gotta fill the hours somehow.

I'd do the same thing, but I think my employees might think it odd.

[Olympic Fan]

I prefer to look at performance relative to expectations (as measured by seed).

I understand why you feel that this is a better measure, but I disagree.

In the first place, measuring against seed gives too much credits to the dolts on the selection committee. At least a half-dozen of the so-called upsets -- according to seed -- were actually predicted by Vegas. In the second place, when you are trying to determine conference strength, I'd still argue that the real measure is how many the league wins and how long its teams last in the tournament, regardless of seed. Is the MVC the strongest conference because two of its teams were underseeded? Or does the ACC get credit because it put seven teams in the field and earned some high seeds.

Really, the only real debate here -- for the strongest conference -- is between the four leagues that got seven bids. Those leagues showed a depth that can't be matched by a successful two or thre bid conference.

But I also agree with Cdu's point -- a single-elimination tournament is a poor way to measure strength ... at least for any one year.

But over time, NCAA results do matter. I ould argue that over the last decade or so, Villanova has had a better regular season performance than Michigan State. So why is Michigan State perceived (rightly) as a championship contender while most expect 'Nova to fold in the early rounds? Because in both cases, that's why has happened.

In the years between 1980 and 2005, the ACC was far and away the best conference in postseason play (and the fondly remembered Big East wasn't even close). The ACC wasn't the best every single year -- the vagaries of the single-elimination tournament -- but it was almost always the best or the second best ... and over any reasonable time frame, it was clearly the best.

The ACC slipped in the 2006-2014 era. It was almost a two-team league (as Duke and UNC were the only two teams with any real success).

I started this thread by pointing out that the ACC was coming off a dominant NCAA performance in 2015. But that's just one year. That's why this year -- and the next -- are so important.

The much-hyped Big 12 folded like Rubio's campaign in last season's NCAA ... if they do it again this year, it's got to call all the league's accolades into question. And really, where does the perception come from? When has the Big 12 ever really dominated in postseason (maybe 2003?).

I know the NCAA Tournament is not the be-all and end-al of college basketball. But it's the ultimate measure or a team and a conference. Anybody can slip every once in a while. Duke is the best NCAA performer in the modern era (since the 64-team field was adopted in 1985), despite Lehigh and Mercer. Michigan State is the second-best NCAA performer in the 21st Century, despite Middle Tennessee State.

I think it would mean a lot if the ACC were once again record the best NCAA showing this season -- a second year in a row. Despite the strong first-round showing, the real measure will be how many teams get to the Sweet 16 -- and beyond. I'll be pulling for the ACC today and tomorrow, hoping we can go 5-1 in the second round (and you can guess the cheating bastards that I want to see lose today). I want to see Duke's league recognized once again as the nation's best basketball conference and the Big 12 exposed as the fraud it is.

[BandAlum83]

I've tried, and it didn't work. But that is from a sense of looking for answers. As for the factor of concern, it was a blessing. :cool:

You need to drink 8 beers from a 6 pack. It will all make sense then.

[gurufrisbee]

Okay, conference standings after the complete first round (conferences with three or more bids):

ACC 6-1
Big East 4-1
Atlantic 10 2-1
SEC 2-1
Big Ten 5-3
Big 12 3-4
Pac 12 2-5
American 1-3

.

Big Can't Count does NOT get credit for a Play In win. They are 4-3 and a disappointment since only 1 was not expected to win in the first round.

Big Wish we had 12 is again disappointing, but not nearly as bad as last year.

Big East looks good but their two not favored seeds were 9's, so it was fairly reasonable to think they could have easily gone 5-0.

I see the SEC as 2-0. Play in games don't count as losses either. But the SEC is a disappointment for only getting two teams in anyways - and they both are expected to make it to next weekend.

Pac 12 is a disaster. Not too bad to lose as an 8, but they lost both 8's and you would have wished for at least one. Arizona failed. Oregon St. failed. Cal, was unlucky, but failed. And now at this point, Oregon and Utah pretty much both need Final Four runs.

ACC clearly is winning the Conference Competition as rated by the NCAA tournament. Pitt was the only loss and that was expected. Always have been the best conference and it's showing again.

[BD80]

... Also, two states put three teams into the round of 32:

Indiana (Butler, Indiana and Notre Dame)
Iowa (Iowa, Iowa State, Northern Iowa)

A bunch, including North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Kansas and Connecticut have two teams in the round of 32.

You forgot MICHIGAN! They have ... um ... hold on ... there's ... um ... give me a second ...

never mind

[Olympic Fan]

And the first two teams to reach the Sweet 16 were from which conference?

[dukelifer]

And the first two teams to reach the Sweet 16 were from which conference?

I would be shocked if not at least 4 teams in the sweet 16

[OldPhiKap]

I will happily take a UNC loss and fight from there.

[throatybeard]

I will happily take a UNC loss and fight from there.

You're a tough but fair negotiator.

[tbyers11]

I would be shocked if not at least 4 teams in the sweet 16

I'd be shocked if not 5. UNC and UVA as 1 seeds. Syracuse is a decent favorite (6 points by Pom and Vegas). Notre Dame only 1 point Vegas over SFA but still favored

[SCMatt33]

I'd be shocked if not 5. UNC and UVA as 1 seeds. Syracuse is a decent favorite (6 points by Pom and Vegas). Notre Dame only 1 point Vegas over SFA but still favored

If it's 5, I think we can all agree on who we hope is the 1!

[Newton_14]

I will happily take a UNC loss and fight from there.

As will I kind sir! UVA just punched their ticket so we are 3 for 3 so far today. Let's hope the cheats go down tonight and then Cuse and Irish punch their tickets tomorrow. That would make my weekend!

[pfrduke]

Utah continued the Pac-12's storied performance in this postseason. Woof.

[Potato Head]

I can't in good faith get behind this metric for measuring conference strength. I do agree that generally the tourney games often reveal a team's true character and who has better intangibles like better coaching and execution. But it's also a single elimination tournament. Like it's tempting to say maybe Michigan State weren't all that they were made out to be, but also maybe they just had an off game and ran into a buzz saw mid major. Weird stuff happens when the sample size is that small. Doing it over a 4 or so year period might be better, and I bet it would also more reliably reveal the ACC's greatness.

[Olympic Fan]

After the third day (halfway though the second round):

ACC: 10-1 (four Sweet 16 teams; six left alive)
MVC: 3-1 (no Sweet 16 teams; one left alive)
A-10: 2-1 (no Sweet 16 team; two teams left alive)
Big Ten: 6-3 (one Sweet 16 team; four teams left)
Big 12: 5-4 (two Sweet 16 teams; three teams left)
Big East: 4-3 (no Sweet 16 teams; two left alive)
SEC: 2-2 (no Sweet 16 teams; 1 left alive)
American: 1-4 (No Sweet 16 teams; 0 left alive)
Pac 12: 2-6 (No. Sweet 16 teams; one team left alive)

PS -- Potato Head ... check post No. 41 in this thread ... it addresses your concerns

[kAzE]

10-1

Is there any question which league is the best? The Pac 12, and SEC are nearly extinct after 3 days, Big 10 and Big 12 are both suffering heavy casualties, and we still have 6 ACC teams alive. I was winning my office pool until late today. I can't believe I had UK losing to Kansas in the championship on my bracket . . . I had Virginia and then switched UK in 10 minutes before brackets locked . . . I feel pretty dumb right now.

[gurufrisbee]

After the third day (halfway though the second round):

ACC: 10-1 (four Sweet 16 teams; six left alive)
MVC: 2-1 (no Sweet 16 teams; one left alive)
A-10: 2-1 (no Sweet 16 team; two teams left alive)
Big Ten: 5-3 (one Sweet 16 team; four teams left)
Big 12: 5-4 (two Sweet 16 teams; three teams left)
Big East: 4-3 (no Sweet 16 teams; two left alive)
SEC: 2-1 (no Sweet 16 teams; 1 left alive)
American: 1-4 (No Sweet 16 teams; 0 left alive)
Pac 12: 2-6 (No Sweet 16 teams; one team left alive)


Adjusted for those of us who don't believe First Four play in games should count in this

[Avvocato]

Adjusted for those of us who don't believe First Four play in games should count in this

Of course First Four games should count. They are tournament games.

[Indoor66]

Of course First Four games should count. They are tournament games.

I beg to differ with you on that point. IMO they are not tournament games; they are play-in games to get into the tournament.

[HK Dukie]

I prefer to look at performance relative to expectations (as measured by seed). [/FONT]

I understand your sentiment and it is indeed part of the story but not all of it for two reasons.

(1) It does not give any benefit to a strong regular season performance, nor even in some cases a strong post season performance. Lets say the ABC conference had 4 number 1 seeds. All of them made the Elite 8 and lost. This would say they were 4 games "below expectation". However the ABC conference placed 4 teams into the elite 8. That should place them as the best or second best conference of the year even though they were below the simplistic calculation of a 1 seeds expectations. Why should we penalize a conference just because the committee overvalued their seeds? On a relative basis the conference was perhaps not as good as evaluated entering the tournament, but it could still easily be the best conference when evaluating not just the whole body of work (regular plus post season) but also as seen in the example above on just the post season results too.

(2) The win shares for the seeds are fractional and not whole numbers. For example a 1 seed is not expected to win all 4 regional games and then maybe 1 or 2 in the final four. It historically has performed at 3.3 wins per one seed in the NCAA tournament. 11 seeds on average win 0.6 games each. However the simplistic model of who is favored vs who is not would assign 0 wins to that 11 seed when historically they should have won 0.6 on average. So an 11 seed that wins against a 6 seed and loses to a 3 seed (ignore the play in game if applicable) would have gone 1-1, and added 0.4 wins beyond expectation. A 4 seed that makes the sweet 16 would have won 2 games. Combine this with an average wins of 1.6 per tournament and you can see that Duke has already outperformed it's seed by 0.4 wins (2-1.6) without taking into account anything that happens in the future.

To use expectations in the analysis you need to make sure it is the right expectations (win shares per seed are best IMHO) and also recognize that the absolute level of performance for a conference in terms of how many teams they advance to later stages of the tournaments is ultimately the more important absolute metric of success. The ACC placing 4-6 teams into the sweet 16 this year pretty much puts to rest the argument of other conferences being the best this season. The ACC is at least as good as the others right now, and probably much better, regardless of expectations or early season performance.

I believe the 5 teams the ACC sent to the sweet 16 in 2015 was a record. If the ACC places another record of 5-6 teams this year, in some ways it has a chance to be the best conference of all time. I wouldn't go that far unless 3 ACC teams make the final 4 but it has clearly established itself as at least tied for the best if not clearly the best this season.

[MarkD83]

The discussion of a conference's record in the NCAA as a measure of superiority is a fascinating discussion but often times we are too analytical on this board. I tend to look at this metric by the way it is used by the talking heads at CBS and ESPN. ESPN will use the number of teams a conference has in the Sweet 16 as well as the conference's record in the NCAA in a graphic to affirm or disavow to the casual basketball fan the relative strength of a conference. In fact for many years they have used this metric to highlight the "weakness" of the ACC.

So now is the time to embrace this metric. The ACC is 10-1 so far with the possibility of 6 teams in the Sweet 16. This is why Pittsburgh and Syracuse who were 9-9 in the ACC deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. In fact, as ACC fans if Notre Dame and Syracuse win today and the ACC is 12-1 with 6 teams in the Sweet 16 we should exploit the "flawed" metric of conference record to ask why Clemson and Virginia Tech who were both 10-8 in the ACC were excluded from the NCAA tournament.

This sets the stage for the 2016-17 season and asks why couldn't the ACC have 9 teams in the NCAA next year.

(I have selfish reasons for this stance. I grew up in Big East country and still get flack from high school friends about the year the Big East had 3 teams in the Final Four. Until the ACC puts 4 teams in the Final Four I will still get grief.)

[uh_no]

The discussion of a conference's record in the NCAA as a measure of superiority is a fascinating discussion but often times we are too analytical on this board. I tend to look at this metric by the way it is used by the talking heads at CBS and ESPN. ESPN will use the number of teams a conference has in the Sweet 16 as well as the conference's record in the NCAA in a graphic to affirm or disavow to the casual basketball fan the relative strength of a conference. In fact for many years they have used this metric to highlight the "weakness" of the ACC.

So now is the time to embrace this metric. The ACC is 10-1 so far with the possibility of 6 teams in the Sweet 16. This is why Pittsburgh and Syracuse who were 9-9 in the ACC deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. In fact, as ACC fans if Notre Dame and Syracuse win today and the ACC is 12-1 with 6 teams in the Sweet 16 we should exploit the "flawed" metric of conference record to ask why Clemson and Virginia Tech who were both 10-8 in the ACC were excluded from the NCAA tournament.

This sets the stage for the 2016-17 season and asks why couldn't the ACC have 9 teams in the NCAA next year.

(I have selfish reasons for this stance. I grew up in Big East country and still get flack from high school friends about the year the Big East had 3 teams in the Final Four. Until the ACC puts 4 teams in the Final Four I will still get grief.)

I think tournament record, like plus minus, can have some uses, but when examined in a vacuum, could be very misleading.

First of all, there are some inherent problems with using any teams "tournament record". Every team will have exactly one loss, unless they were the champion...but a large minority of teams are the champion in any given year...So ultimately all we're looking at is wins per team....which isn't THAT bad, but doesn't account for any sort of quality of win...

Second, it makes no account for the quality of a win UNC beating a 16 seed is counted the same as any other win. if a conference gets two 1 seeds in the tournament who each end up with 1 win, and another conference gets two 12 seeds into the tournament who each get one win...they each have the same number of wins, but one conference (the latter) performed substantially better.

Third, it takes no account of bubble teams. Conference A had 2 #1 seeds and two bubble teams that got in. The bubble teams petered out early. Conference B had the other 2 #1 seeds, and their two bubble teams DIDN'T get in. Conference A's record got sandbagged because two crappy teams got in who invariably lost early. The ACC would look "worse" if clemson and VT had gotten in, and does look worse because of Pitt's loss....they'd look even better had not pitt even gotten in. Basically teams are penalized for playing their butts off to get a bid that they might not otherwise deserve. This comes up in pro-ranks as well with "playoff records"...some teams or players are anihilated for having bad playoff records....but you know what? they beat the other teams that didn't make the playoffs at all.

So anyway, what IS a good tournament metric? I think it has to depend on a couple of things:
1) quantity is important. 2 teams in the final 4 should be better than 1 team in the final 4 (or any other round). Yes this means that a conference with fewer teams has a tougher road to "best conference"...but number of teams reflects the overall quality of the conference anyway.
2) How well a team performs relative to its seed is important. the ACC shouldn't be rewarded for beating up a 16 seed, nor should it be punished for a bubble team losing its first game to a top ranked team.
3) consistency is important. A conference who has teams that go consistently far is better than one who has a team that goes really far, and one that doesn't. This might just be my opinion....but a conference with 2 final four teams is better than a conference with a champion and one first round loss.

So what metric would I propose? I don't know...i'll leave that exercise to you...because I'm generally fine with the eye test for this anyway.

[BD80]

...because I'm generally fine with the eye test for this anyway.

Charles Barkley's "eye test" lead him to maintain that the Pac-12 was the best conference.

"Eye" of the beholder eye guess.

[fidel]

1) quantity is important. 2 teams in the final 4 should be better than 1 team in the final 4 (or any other round). Yes this means that a conference with fewer teams has a tougher road to "best conference"...but number of teams reflects the overall quality of the conference anyway.
2) How well a team performs relative to its seed is important. the ACC shouldn't be rewarded for beating up a 16 seed, nor should it be punished for a bubble team losing its first game to a top ranked team.
3) consistency is important. A conference who has teams that go consistently far is better than one who has a team that goes really far, and one that doesn't. This might just be my opinion...but a conference with 2 final four teams is better than a conference with a champion and one first round loss..

I like this. A couple thoughts:

1) Quantity plus Rank: Give points based on inverse of ranking (#1 - 64 pts, #64 - 1 pt). For a conference, the more teams, the more points. The better the ranking, the more points.
2) Quality of Rankings: You got a high ranking? You better win. Conference loses ranking pts with each loss (points go to other teams conference). First round - all points (except 8/9 - half points), Second round, half points. Once you reach the sweet 16, I'd suggest its an even field. Further points now earned.
3) Win points. From 16-team bracket, 4 points per win. More teams, more points.

[Wander]

In fact, as ACC fans if Notre Dame and Syracuse win today and the ACC is 12-1 with 6 teams in the Sweet 16 we should exploit the "flawed" metric of conference record to ask why Clemson and Virginia Tech who were both 10-8 in the ACC were excluded from the NCAA tournament.


No, we shouldn't. There was no reasonable argument to include Virginia Tech and Clemson and we shouldn't make ourselves look like fools by trying to make one. Tournament performance cannot, by definition, be used to argue the validity of bubble selections or seeding.

If the tournament results continue as expected, I'm completely ready to say the ACC is the best conference this year (before the tournament started, I'd say it was close between the Big 12 and the ACC, with the Big 12 a little ahead). Though it's long been a mystery to me as to why I should care, and to why I should have pride in cheating UNC or thuggish Louisville or dumpster fire BC getting some sort of partial credit for Duke's success.

[MarkD83]

Well...I guess my post was misinterpreted so one last comment and then I will just read along.

I think we all agree that conference wins in the NCAA is a FLAWED metric. However it is a flawed metric used by those who have a voice to push their agenda. For many years that agenda was to keep as many ACC teams out of the NCAA as possible. Now the flawed metric is on the side of the ACC, so whether VT or Clemson deserve to be in the NCAA or not is not relevant. It is time to use the flawed metric to the advantage of the ACC.

Does it make us look foolish to push this agenda, perhaps, but I would rather be foolish and have 9 ACC teams in the NCAA than be right and have 3-4 teams like we did for so many years.

[gurufrisbee]

I think we all agree that conference wins in the NCAA is a FLAWED metric.

I would not agree with that. I would say it's an INCOMPLETE metric but taken in the right context I think it's actually a really good tool in aiding in the discussion and evaluation about comparing conferences.

The same thing happens in football when they compare how each conference does in bowl games. However if you just take it as numbers it's really wrong because the Pac 12 always gets the majority of it's bowl games against Mountain West and WAC teams because little bowl games out west try to stick with teams out west. I actually think it's even more important in college basketball where teams are getting in or being left out of the tournament based on conference strength (real and percieved).

Yes, when the ACC dominates like they are right now, there is a good argument that they should have gotten more teams in like Va Tech or Clemson. There is also the argument that some mid majors should have gotten more teams rather than bubble teams from conferences that weren't that good (think there really was a good argument for all those Big Can't Count teams or Pac 12 or Tulsa or Vandy over St Mary's or Monmouth?).

And yes, you absolutely base it on how many wins relative to seed. Not straight wins because clearly a 1 beating a 16 isn't the same as a 12 beating a 5. And not relative to historic performance by seed. #1 seeds ABSOLUTELY are expected to win 4+ games. Kansas is expected to win 6 this year. The cheaters are expected to win 5. The ACC is expected to win 14 games. Even while we're off to a great start, if they fall short of that the tone of the conversation about the conference will dramatically change from how good it is right now to how disappointing it turned next weekend.

[Olympic Fan]

Now 11-1 with five Sweet 16 teams ...

To put that into context -- in the entire history of the NCAA tournament, leagues have managed five Sweet 16 teams just three times -- the Big East once and the ACC in 2015 and now 1016.

No conference has ever gotten to six Sweet 16 teams -- something the ACC can do if Syracuse beats Middle Tennessee.

[weezie]

Charles Barkley's "eye test" lead him to maintain that the Pac-12 was the best conference.

"Eye" of the beholder eye guess.

Stink eye?

[uh_no]

Stink eye?

f-Eye-nal Four?

[dukelifer]

Now 11-1 with five Sweet 16 teams ...

To put that into context -- in the entire history of the NCAA tournament, leagues have managed five Sweet 16 teams just three times -- the Big East once and the ACC in 2015 and now 1016.

No conference has ever gotten to six Sweet 16 teams -- something the ACC can do if Syracuse beats Middle Tennessee.

Well the leagues are now much bigger so perhaps one should be looking at the fraction of the league that gets in.

[TexHawk]

I always find these threads/conversations fascinating, they happen in both hoops and football, and I always just sort of throw my hands up and try to walk away. I do enjoy other perspectives though, because from flyover/Big12 country, it's much different.

Most of this is thread is focused towards the "talking heads", which I get. But we all know that is a fruitless exercise. The Big12 had a terrible NCAA tournament last year, no question, but what exactly do people expect to happen when Oklahoma beats a Top 10 Villanova by 23 points in the non-conference schedule? Do you expect ESPN to say... "Um, well, the Big12 had a rough tournament 9 months ago, so let's not get excited about this one win. Let's talk some more about Duke, UNC, UVA, UK, Arizona, etc, because they play in real conferences."?

Iowa State was a much better team in 2015 than 2016. That's not really debatable. They won the conference tournament, had a fantastic coach who is now making millions coaching pros, but they fell on their face in the 1st round. Today they find themselves in the Sweet 16, with a worse team, and a questionable coach. Yet now the Big12 is "better"? That doesn't make any sort of sense in my mind.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No conference has ever gotten to six Sweet 16 teams -- something the ACC can do if Syracuse beats Middle Tennessee.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to this thread - that accomplishment means nothing. :)

Seriously though, I don't see how potentially accounting for 37.5% of the Sweet Sixteen this year doesn't potentially bolster our number of teams next year.

I know it doesn't "mean" anything in regards to anyone's resume for next year's tourney (spoiler alert! DUKE is the #1 overall seed!) but you know when the committee is choosing between a bubble MAC team and a UNC team with 12 losses, the success of the ACC in this year's tournament through two rounds will be whispering in their ears.

[throatybeard]

Sample size, sample size, sample size.

[DukieInKansas]

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to this thread - that accomplishment means nothing. :)

Seriously though, I don't see how potentially accounting for 37.5% of the Sweet Sixteen this year doesn't potentially bolster our number of teams next year.

I know it doesn't "mean" anything in regards to anyone's resume for next year's tourney (spoiler alert! DUKE is the #1 overall seed!) but you know when the committee is choosing between a bubble MAC team and a UNC team with 12 losses, the success of the ACC in this year's tournament through two rounds will be whispering in their ears.

But, unfortunately, unc is suffering from a multiple year, multiple sport, post season ban next year so it won't matter what their record is. ;)

One can dream, can't one?

[Olympic Fan]

With Syracuse's win today, that's 12-1 with six Sweet 16 teams!

You can pooh-pooh that if you want, but it is the greatest first and second round success rate of any conference in history.

Obviously the tournament is not over and the ultimate success of the ACC will depend on what happens in the third round and beyond.

But I repeat what I said earlier -- no conference has ever won 12 games through the first two rounds ... and no conference has ever put six teams in the Sweet 16.

I know that's not a huge same size, but expand it -- the ACC has now put 11 teams in the Sweet 16 in the last two years. The ACC has had at least four teams in the Sweet 16 11 times -- more than twice as many times as the next best conference.

That's a 30-year sample of sustained strength.

And if kicking butt in NCAA play is not the best measure of a conference's strength, what do you think is, winning the ACC/Big Ten Challenge ... winning the Maui invitational. So what that Oklahoma dominated Villanova in December -- Wake Forest, the 14th best team in the ACC, beat Big Ten Champion Indiana on a neutral court. What does that prove?

[dukelifer]

With Syracuse's win today, that's 12-1 with six Sweet 16 teams!

You can pooh-pooh that if you want, but it is the greatest first and second round success rate of any conference in history.

Obviously the tournament is not over and the ultimate success of the ACC will depend on what happens in the third round and beyond.

But I repeat what I said earlier -- no conference has ever won 12 games through the first two rounds ... and no conference has ever put six teams in the Sweet 16.

I know that's not a huge same size, but expand it -- the ACC has now put 11 teams in the Sweet 16 in the last two years. The ACC has had at least four teams in the Sweet 16 11 times -- more than twice as many times as the next best conference.

That's a 30-year sample of sustained strength.

And if kicking butt in NCAA play is not the best measure of a conference's strength, what do you think is, winning the ACC/Big Ten Challenge ... winning the Maui invitational. So what that Oklahoma dominated Villanova in December -- Wake Forest, the 14th best team in the ACC, beat Big Ten Champion Indiana on a neutral court. What does that prove?

Sadly, it may prove that UNC IS the best team in the country this year.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Sadly, it may prove that UNC IS the best team in the country this year.

The game on April 4 will prove which team is best this year.

[DukePA]

According to ESPN, https://www.facebook.com/ESPNCBB/photos/a.189791905753.138852.51903790753/10153496589370754/?type=3&theater
the ACC is the first conference to have 6 teams in the Sweet 16 in the same season.

[royalblue]

Sadly, it may prove that UNC IS the best team in the country this year.

I believe that UVA has a very good chance to beat the cheats if they meet in the final four. I think the ACC championship was played at a very high level. I hope you are wrong but my fear is growing
each day.
A double digit seed will make the elite 8 but I wonder how many times a double digit seed has worn the home unis for more than 1 game in a tourney?

[Wander]

I know it doesn't "mean" anything in regards to anyone's resume for next year's tourney (spoiler alert! DUKE is the #1 overall seed!) but you know when the committee is choosing between a bubble MAC team and a UNC team with 12 losses, the success of the ACC in this year's tournament through two rounds will be whispering in their ears.

I honestly think it wouldn't have any effect, but your example, which I know you made sort of as a joke, illustrates my point. I don't want a 12 loss UNC team to get in over a bubble MAC team. UNC cheats and sucks. Who here is rooting for them? Louisville's coach is a thug. Syracuse's coach is whiny as hell. I don't want Duke fans thinking that Notre Dame's coach is a potential Duke successor given how consistently awful he is at coaching defense. I don't want any of these teams to do well and would far prefer watching Wichita State or Monmouth or SF Austin in the tournament. I'll root for UVA and Miami, but there are also specific non-ACC teams I'll root for.

Any reasonable person would say that the ACC is the best conference over long timescales (to start with, it has 2 of the consensus top 6 programs of all time, while Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, and Kansas are alone), and that would be true even if every ACC team was upset in this year's tournament in the first round.

Conference pride is totally overrated, especially now given that it's only money and not geographically driven.

[BluDvlsN1]

This was posted on Twitter, thought you guys might enjoy.

Also saw a comment i'll share:

The NCAA MBB Tournament should be renamed "The ACC invitational" :cool:

https://twitter.com/accmbb/status/711705546768949248

[OldPhiKap]

Sample size, sample size, sample size.

To be fair, the ACC has unusually big hands.

[kAzE]

6 teams in the sweet 16, and the 4th best team in the conference didn't make the field due to self imposed sanctions. Even though it would mean UNC winning, I'm rooting for 6 in the elite 8. How insane would that be? ACC tournament round 2. Best conference hands down.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

6 teams in the sweet 16, and the 4th best team in the conference didn't make the field due to self imposed sanctions. Even though it would mean UNC winning, I'm rooting for 6 in the elite 8. How insane would that be? ACC tournament round 2. Best conference hands down.

You CANNOT root for unnch-cheaters

[devildeac]

6 teams in the sweet 16, and the 4th best team in the conference didn't make the field due to self imposed sanctions. Even though it would mean UNC winning, I'm rooting for 6 in the elite 8. How insane would that be? ACC tournament round 2. Best conference hands down.


You CANNOT root for unnch-cheaters

Cheer for unc? Simple answer. No. Never.

[BluDvlsN1]

Cheer for unc? Simple answer. No. Never.

Never.

But, if the situation presented itself to beat them head up for our 6th Natty, well, nuff said!

;)

6124

[devildeac]

Never.

But, if the situation presented itself to beat them head up for our 6th Natty, well, nuff said!

;)

6124

Wilson mentioned this on another thread. I really, really don't ever want to see this. I don't think I could cope with this possibility/reality and doubt I'd handle it well.

[gocanes0506]

Wilson mentioned this on another thread. I really, really don't ever want to see this. I don't think I could cope with this possibility/reality and doubt I'd handle it well.

True dat. I will never pull for the Cheats in any game.

[gurufrisbee]

Yes, the two teams I'm mostly rooting for in the next round are Duke and Indiana!

[devildeac]

Yes, the two teams I'm mostly rooting for in the next round are Duke and Indiana!

Or, Duke and whoever plays unc.

[Olympic Fan]

Okay, the second round is done. I have the multi-bid conferences ranked this way at this point:

1. ACC -- 12-1 (six Sweet 16 teams)
2. Big Ten -- 8-4 (three Sweet 16 teams)
3. Big 12 -- 6-4 (three Sweet 16 teams)
4. Big East -- 5-3 (one Sweet 16 team)
5. SEC -- 3-2 (one Sweet 16 team)
6. MVC -- 3-2 (no Sweet 16 team)
7. A-10 -- 2-2 (no Sweet 16 team)
8. Pac 12 -- 3-6 (one Sweet 16 team)
9. American -- 1-4 (no Sweet 16 team)

For all its troubles, the Big 12 still has a chance to do something with three teams still alive -- the Virginia-Iowa State game will be a big one for ACC supremacy. So will the UNC-Indiana game. I'd love to see the ACC do well, but I wouldn't mind losing the latter.

[HK Dukie]

Or, Duke and whoever plays unc.

I would have rooted for UNC over Kentucky in a sweet 16 match up for ACC pride reasons. However in a title game I would have cheered for Kentucky because Duke is compared to UNC in titles quite a bit.

A bit strange I know, but it is what it is.

[Olympic Fan]

Is this conference ranking meaningless?

Don't ask the accountants -- the ACC's success is worth a cool $30 million to the conference:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15029265/acc-stands-make-more-30-million-ncaa-tournament-success

[kAzE]

Cheer for unc? Simple answer. No. Never.

Once I sit down and watch the game, there's just no way I could ever make myself cheer for them to win, but it's still fun to think about 6 ACC teams in the elite 8. I'd confidently guess that's never been done. I'd be surprised if even 4 from one conference has ever been done.

[brevity]

...it's still fun to think about 6 ACC teams in the elite 8. I'd confidently guess that's never been done. I'd be surprised if even 4 from one conference has ever been done.

Fun fact: on the Louisville/Anaheim side of the bracket, Miami and Duke have to upset higher seeds to reach the Elite Eight. Meanwhile, on the Philadelphia/Chicago side of the bracket, UNC, Notre Dame, Virginia, and Syracuse will all face lower seeds.

[gurufrisbee]

Once I sit down and watch the game, there's just no way I could ever make myself cheer for them to win, but it's still fun to think about 6 ACC teams in the elite 8. I'd confidently guess that's never been done. I'd be surprised if even 4 from one conference has ever been done.

Since we've never had six teams in the sweet sixteen from the same conference, that does seem like a very confident guess that there never was six teams in the elite eight from the same conference. But I am also very curious if anyone has heard what the record for elite eight teams from the same conference is. I know the Big East got three in the final four one year, so it has to be at least three. Four seems like a good guess.

[Ichabod Drain]

Okay, the second round is done. I have the multi-bid conferences ranked this way at this point:

1. ACC -- 12-1 (six Sweet 16 teams)
2. Big Ten -- 8-4 (three Sweet 16 teams)
3. Big 12 -- 6-4 (three Sweet 16 teams)
4. Big East -- 5-3 (one Sweet 16 team)
5. SEC -- 3-2 (one Sweet 16 team)
6. MVC -- 3-2 (no Sweet 16 team)
7. A-10 -- 2-2 (no Sweet 16 team)
8. Pac 12 -- 3-6 (one Sweet 16 team)
9. American -- 1-4 (no Sweet 16 team)

For all its troubles, the Big 12 still has a chance to do something with three teams still alive -- the Virginia-Iowa State game will be a big one for ACC supremacy. So will the UNC-Indiana game. I'd love to see the ACC do well, but I wouldn't mind losing the latter.

Going back to last year's tournament the ACC is 29-6 over the last two years. That's just ridiculous. Obviously we'll pick up either five or six more losses as the tournament finishes, but the fact the ACC has won 29 of it's last 35 NCAA tournament games is pretty astounding.

[throatybeard]

The game on April 4 will prove which team is best this year.


Generally, it proves which team won a capricious single-elimination tournament.

Or, "the college playoffs," as Chris Webber calls it.

[luburch]

Generally, it proves which team won a capricious single-elimination tournament.

Or, "the college playoffs," as Chris Webber calls it.

Timeout, you mean to tell me that Chris Webber doesn't know all the details?

[OldPhiKap]

Timeout, you mean to tell me that Chris Webber doesn't know all the details?

When Chris Webber said during our game "that was a double dribble!" I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Yeah, he knows about those too. (And especially about them not getting called).

[Jeffrey]

The best conference?

I've always believed that conference strength is measured -- over time -- in NCAA Tournament play.

I've got to admit, after listening to the clueless Charles Barkley tell me how great the Pac 12 was (because that's the conference he gets to see), it was sweet to see the conference flounder.

You do not seem to understand Chuck and his priorities. Chuck measures the best conference by which one has the hottest cheerleaders. His secondary measure is best food concessions.

[devildeac]

You do not seem to understand Chuck and his priorities. Chuck measures the best conference by which one has the hottest cheerleaders. His secondary measure is best food concessions.

Wonder if he spends a lot of time (and $$) here:

http://www.kfcyumcenter.com/plan-your-visit/arena-food-beverage

[OldPhiKap]

You do not seem to understand Chuck and his priorities. Chuck measures the best conference by which one has the hottest cheerleaders. His secondary measure is best food concessions.

I sat courtside at a game years ago when Chuck was with the Sixers. He gave the business to the Hawks cheerleaders all game long. Very entertaining.

[captmojo]

When it comes to 'those people' over yonder, across I-40, I no longer actively cheer against them. That's really poisonous.
I prefer an attitude of indifference. I truly do not care.

[captmojo]

To be fair, the ACC has unusually big hands.
Probably clowns. :)


Wilson mentioned this on another thread. I really, really don't ever want to see this. I don't think I could cope with this possibility/reality and doubt I'd handle it well.
Me either. It's always been a horror of mine. I think it has been taken under considerations by the various committees over the years. God bless them.


You can pooh-pooh that if you want, What does that prove?
How loudly Santa can fart in July.
Well, that's the answer to my all-time favorite math word problem.

[sagegrouse]

Fun fact: on the Louisville/Anaheim side of the bracket, Miami and Duke have to upset higher seeds to reach the Elite Eight. Meanwhile, on the Philadelphia/Chicago side of the bracket, UNC, Notre Dame, Virginia, and Syracuse will all face lower seeds.

Does this mean that, if the favorites all win in the Phil/Chicago side of the bracket, by Saturday AM the ACC may be absolutely gah-RAN-teed two place in the Final Four?

[pfrduke]

Does this mean that, if the favorites all win in the Phil/Chicago side of the bracket, by Saturday AM the ACC may be absolutely gah-RAN-teed two place in the Final Four?

Depends on your definition of favorite. Gonzaga over Syracuse is one of the bigger spreads of the weekend right now - the Zags are favored by 4.5

[Jeffrey]

Wonder if he spends a lot of time (and $$) here:

http://www.kfcyumcenter.com/plan-your-visit/arena-food-beverage

Time? Yes. Money? Not sure. Chuck got spoiled by Vegas comps. Fortunately for Vegas, Chuck never realized he actually paid more than $10 per drink and $100 per steak.

[Jeffrey]

I sat courtside at a game years ago when Chuck was with the Sixers. He gave the business to the Hawks cheerleaders all game long. Very entertaining.

According to Chuck, he gave them most of his business post-game.

[rasputin]

Generally, it proves which team won a capricious single-elimination tournament.

Or, "the college playoffs," as Chris Webber calls it.

Chris Webber has been making a fool of himself announcing these games.

At one point over the weekend he remarked that a team coming from behind had "expanded a lot of energy."

Earlier, he was trying to use the word "relegated" but he said "regulated."

What a maroon.

[Jeffrey]

Chris Webber has been making a fool of himself announcing these games.

At one point over the weekend he remarked that a team coming from behind had "expanded a lot of energy."

Earlier, he was trying to use the word "relegated" but he said "regulated."

What a maroon.

Mercy, mercy! Chris is the smartest of the Fab Five!

[BD80]

You do not seem to understand Chuck and his priorities. Chuck measures the best conference by which one has the hottest cheerleaders. His secondary measure is best food concessions.

Valid metrics. Still tough to quantify, but fun to try

[throatybeard]

I'm not sure how impressed to be by this six-in-the-sweet-sixteen thing.

On the one hand, it's only happened twice. But on the other, it hasn't been very long that stable (-ish) conferences even had 14 or 15 or 16 teams. 6/16 is probably bound to happen now and then when somebody has 15 teams to start with instead of eight. Some of these same schools were ones that had BE fans crowing that they placed eleven teams in the tournament a few years ago.

I mean, three of these six teams are Syracuse, Miami, and Notre Dame.

So in 2000, the exact same sixteen schools could make the sweet sixteen, and we wouldn't even be talking about this. Saying "the ACC placed six teams in the sweet sixteen in 2015 and 2016, wow, we're amazing," is an awful lot like an expansive stretch from "wow, the ACC sure has a lot of schools in it now, 40% of which are pretty good this year."

[Listen to Quants]

With Syracuse's win today, that's 12-1 with six Sweet 16 teams!

You can pooh-pooh that if you want, but it is the greatest first and second round success rate of any conference in history.

Obviously the tournament is not over and the ultimate success of the ACC will depend on what happens in the third round and beyond.

But I repeat what I said earlier -- no conference has ever won 12 games through the first two rounds ... and no conference has ever put six teams in the Sweet 16.

I know that's not a huge same size, but expand it -- the ACC has now put 11 teams in the Sweet 16 in the last two years. The ACC has had at least four teams in the Sweet 16 11 times -- more than twice as many times as the next best conference.

That's a 30-year sample of sustained strength.

And if kicking butt in NCAA play is not the best measure of a conference's strength, what do you think is, winning the ACC/Big Ten Challenge ... winning the Maui invitational. So what that Oklahoma dominated Villanova in December -- Wake Forest, the 14th best team in the ACC, beat Big Ten Champion Indiana on a neutral court. What does that prove?


All the data available, to answer your question. The updated Sagarin conference average ratings are:

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVG TEAMS WIN50%

1 BIG 12 = 85.00 84.80 ( 1) 10 84.90 ( 1)
2 ATLANTIC COAST = 84.01 83.73 ( 2) 15 83.95 ( 2)
3 BIG EAST = 82.07 81.55 ( 4) 10 81.88 ( 3)
4 BIG TEN = 81.98 81.39 ( 5) 14 81.78 ( 5)
5 PAC-12 = 81.89 81.75 ( 3) 12 81.87 ( 4)
6 SOUTHEASTERN = 80.36 80.55 ( 6) 14 80.52 ( 6)


I'm happy enough with that as a guess.

[throatybeard]

Also, football-driven expansion has destroyed ACC basketball.

Wait, no, that argument looks beyond ridiculous now.

[Listen to Quants]

Chris Webber has been making a fool of himself announcing these games.

At one point over the weekend he remarked that a team coming from behind had "expanded a lot of energy."

Earlier, he was trying to use the word "relegated" but he said "regulated."

What a maroon.

What do I think of the announcer Chris Weber? "average"

[nocilla]

I'm not sure how impressed to be by this six-in-the-sweet-sixteen thing.

On the one hand, it's only happened twice. "

This is the first time actually. Last year it was 5 teams which tied the record. But your overall point still stands.

[Faison1]

I'm not sure how impressed to be by this six-in-the-sweet-sixteen thing.

On the one hand, it's only happened twice. But on the other, it hasn't been very long that stable (-ish) conferences even had 14 or 15 or 16 teams. 6/16 is probably bound to happen now and then when somebody has 15 teams to start with instead of eight. Some of these same schools were ones that had BE fans crowing that they placed eleven teams in the tournament a few years ago.

I mean, three of these six teams are Syracuse, Miami, and Notre Dame.

So in 2000, the exact same sixteen schools could make the sweet sixteen, and we wouldn't even be talking about this. Saying "the ACC placed six teams in the sweet sixteen in 2015 and 2016, wow, we're amazing," is an awful lot like an expansive stretch from "wow, the ACC sure has a lot of schools in it now, 40% of which are pretty good this year."

I'm in agreement with you in the sense that I'm not a big fan of expansion. Having said that, I think your comments are a bit negative. The ACC was brutal this year. Am I surprised we have 6 teams in the Sweet Sixteen? No. Am I proud of the ACC even though we have a bunch of Big East teams in it? Yes.

Something has definitely been lost since the days of the 8 team format...but man, at least expansion in hoops has been positive on the whole. Adding Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt makes the league by far the best in basketball.

My only wish is that we could somehow get the round robin format going again. Home and Aways with Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse every year would be awesome. In my perfect world, we would get freshman to stay for more than one year....Round Robins and Upper Class talent!! Can you imagine???

[tbyers11]

(2) The win shares for the seeds are fractional and not whole numbers. For example a 1 seed is not expected to win all 4 regional games and then maybe 1 or 2 in the final four. It historically has performed at 3.3 wins per one seed in the NCAA tournament. 11 seeds on average win 0.6 games each. However the simplistic model of who is favored vs who is not would assign 0 wins to that 11 seed when historically they should have won 0.6 on average. So an 11 seed that wins against a 6 seed and loses to a 3 seed (ignore the play in game if applicable) would have gone 1-1, and added 0.4 wins beyond expectation. A 4 seed that makes the sweet 16 would have won 2 games. Combine this with an average wins of 1.6 per tournament and you can see that Duke has already outperformed it's seed by 0.4 wins (2-1.6) without taking into account anything that happens in the future.

To use expectations in the analysis you need to make sure it is the right expectations (win shares per seed are best IMHO) and also recognize that the absolute level of performance for a conference in terms of how many teams they advance to later stages of the tournaments is ultimately the more important absolute metric of success. The ACC placing 4-6 teams into the sweet 16 this year pretty much puts to rest the argument of other conferences being the best this season. The ACC is at least as good as the others right now, and probably much better, regardless of expectations or early season performance.

I believe the 5 teams the ACC sent to the sweet 16 in 2015 was a record. If the ACC places another record of 5-6 teams this year, in some ways it has a chance to be the best conference of all time. I wouldn't go that far unless 3 ACC teams make the final 4 but it has clearly established itself as at least tied for the best if not clearly the best this season.

I agree with many of the posts above that best conference cannot be wholly determined by NCAA tourney performance. However, how each conference fares in the tourney is a big part. A certain number of teams making the sweet 16 is also a major criteria but as HK Dukie mentioned above, performance relative to seed expectation is probably the best measurement

So what HK Dukie referred to as win shares per seed I have also seen referred to Performance Against Seed Expectations (PASE). Here is a table of PASE for the 64 team era (1985-2015). Basically summing all the wins by every single team at a certain seed over 31 tournaments and dividing by the number of teams. By this method the average 1 seed over the last 31 years has won 3.35 games


Seed PASE 1985-2015
1 3.35
2 2.39
3 1.82
4 1.56
5 1.11
6 1.14
7 0.89
8 0.75
9 0.55
10 0.62
11 0.56
12 0.53
13 0.25
14 0.18
15 0.06
16 0.00

If we use PASE values for all the teams in the major conferences here are expected wins based on PASE for each conference that fit this bill. I define major as 5 or more teams. Sorry SEC you don't count. Play-in game wins also do not count here.


Teams PASE Wins Max wins
ACC 7 12.45 12 25
Big 12 7 12.11 6 15
Pac 12 7 10.25 3 7
Big Ten 7 8.07 7 15
BE 5 7.02 5 9

Based on the quality of its teams relative to seed, the ACC was expected to have the best performance with 12.45 wins for the entire tournament. The Big 12 was just behind at 12.11. Although the Pac 12 and Big Ten also had 7 teams they weren't expected to do nearly as well. In fact, the Big East (BE) was expected to have nearly as many wins with 2 fewer teams than the Big Ten. The Wins column is how many wins each conference has so far. The max wins column is the maximum number of wins each conference could achieve if it members only lost to other conference members.

ACC - You can see that after 2 rounds the ACC needs only one more win to surpass its expected total for the entire tourney.
Big 12 - Under-performed so far but could reach could reach its PASE value with some FF runs by its remaining members.
Pac 12 - The Pac 12 sucks. While an Oregon title run would be great for the conference, the conference as a whole would still greatly underperform.
Big Ten - Despite Michigan State's upset, the Big Ten needs just one more win to meet expectations as the rest of its teams were all seeded 5 or higher
Big East - Needs a Villanova FF run to meet expectations

The remaining games, especially the teams that make the Final Four and the eventual National Champion, still have a lot to say about the best conference in this year's tourney. However, on a purely numerical basis the ACC would require a total collapse combined with great finish by either the Big 12 or the Big Ten to not be considered the best conference in the 2016 NCAA tourney

[throatybeard]

Guys, guys, guys, simmer down. You're trying to crack a walnut with an array of scary needles. Don't make this so complicated.

The ACC is the best conference because Duke University is in it.

[BD80]

Guys, guys, guys, simmer down. You're trying to crack a walnut with an array of scary needles. Don't make this so complicated.

The ACC is the best conference because Duke University is in it.

And the B1G whatever isn't because they accepted Maryland.

"I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member." Woody Allen, "Annie Hall"

[throatybeard]

And the B1G whatever isn't because they accepted Maryland.

Man, that was great. Let them walk in free agency, now the B1G is paying them one of those stupid 12-year contracts, and we got Louisville with the compensatory draft pick.

[Atldukie79]

I really enjoyed the analysis from Tbyers11 regarding determining the best conference based on the expected wins by seed. (too long to embed in my post)

My only quibble with the post is the statement regarding determining the best conference: "performance relative to seed expectation is probably the best measurement".

To me, this is the perfect metric to determine performance against expectations in the tourney. But it does not include the dynamic that a higher seed represents a body of work through the season that in and of itself reflects the strength of a conference. It discounts the achievement of attaining the best seed.

I think the eye test clearly shows the ACC (so far) to be the strongest conference based on:
1) 7 tournament teams (and one Cardinal outlier!) (reward for regular season achievement)
2) 6 Sweet 16 teams (recognizes tourney success)
3) Performance against expectations (looking good, but is yet unresolved...more to come)

[Indoor66]

And the B1G whatever isn't because they accepted Maryland.

"I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member." Woody Allen, "Annie Hall"

He stole that line from Grouch Marx (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/18/groucho-resigns/).

[Tom B.]

Chris Webber has been making a fool of himself announcing these games.

At one point over the weekend he remarked that a team coming from behind had "expanded a lot of energy."

Earlier, he was trying to use the word "relegated" but he said "regulated."

What a maroon.

At least he hasn't captivized anyone yet.

And you're forgetting a very important upside to having Webber as a commentator -- when he's talking, Len Elmore isn't.

[captmojo]

He stole that line from Grouch Marx (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/18/groucho-resigns/).

Lots of referenced examples are listed in the link you provided. None among them involve the story I seem to recall from the book, Groucho and Me.

What I recall, involved his refusal of membership after having been selected for such when he learned of Hillcrest Country Club's policy of not being accepting of Jews as members. Thereby resulting in his refusal, after learning of the club's policy while awaiting their answer to his application.

I tried to plant that one in my tiny mind because I thought of it as being one of the wittiest comebacks ever made.

[Doria]

Unless Indiana pulls out a miracle, which I don't see happening, looks like ACC teams will be half of the elite eight. Pretty impressive.

[Eternal Outlaw]

Half of elite 8, Final 4, and Title game.

Hopefully the title game rep is Virginia, really don't want to see any of the other three in it.

[Olympic Fan]

Assuming UNC doesn't blow a 20-point lead in the last few minutes (well, I can dream):

Current conference rankings:

1. ACC 16-3 ... four Elite Eight teams
2. Big 12 8-5 ... two Elite Eight teams
3. Big 10 8-7 ... no Elite Eight teams
4. Big East 6-3 ... one Elite Eight team
5. Pac 12 4-6 ... one Elite Eight team
6. MVC 3-2
7. SEC 3-3
8. Atlantic 10 2-2
9. American 1-4


Because of the brackets, the ACC is guaranteed two Final Four teams ... and one team in the championship game.

The ACC will have a 19-6 record going into the title game -- that's guaranteed to be the most wins by any conference in any tournament in NCAA history.

Interesting that for all the talk about what a wide open tournament this was going to be, the final eight includes four No. 1 seeds, two No. 2 seeds, plus a No. 6 seed (Notre Dame) and a No. 10 (Syracuse).

Also, the ACC record over the last two years is currently 33-8 with seven Elite Eight teams. Interestingly, six different ACC schools have reached the Elite Eight in the last two seasons -- Duke, Louisville, UNC, Virginia, Syracuse and Notre Dame -- Notre Dame is the only one to do it twice in a row. Throw in NC State and Miami as teams that have reached the Sweet 16 in that span ... that's eight of 15 teams over the last two years.

I'm just guessing, but I expect an ACC vs. Big 12 battle for the national title. Personally, I hope it's Virginia so I can pull for the ACC (although I'd pull for Notre Dame because of Brey).

Just one passing observation. I wouldn't discount Notre Dame Sunday because of their bad loss to UNC in the ACC semifinals. Remember 2015, when they edged Duke in South Bend, lost by 30 to Duke in Durham, then beat Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals two weeks later.

[Blue KevIL]

Assuming UNC doesn't blow a 20-point lead in the last few minutes (well, I can dream):

Current conference rankings:

1. ACC 16-3 ... four Elite Eight teams
2. Big 12 8-5 ... two Elite Eight teams
3. Big 10 8-7 ... no Elite Eight teams
4. Big East 6-3 ... one Elite Eight team
5. Pac 12 4-6 ... one Elite Eight team
6. MVC 3-2
7. SEC 3-3
8. Atlantic 10 2-2
9. American 1-4


Because of the brackets, the ACC is guaranteed two Final Four teams ... and one team in the championship game.

The ACC will have a 19-6 record going into the title game -- that's guaranteed to be the most wins by any conference in any tournament in NCAA history.

Interesting that for all the talk about what a wide open tournament this was going to be, the final eight includes four No. 1 seeds, two No. 2 seeds, plus a No. 6 seed (Notre Dame) and a No. 10 (Syracuse).

Also, the ACC record over the last two years is currently 33-8 with seven Elite Eight teams. Interestingly, six different ACC schools have reached the Elite Eight in the last two seasons -- Duke, Louisville, UNC, Virginia, Syracuse and Notre Dame -- Notre Dame is the only one to do it twice in a row. Throw in NC State and Miami as teams that have reached the Sweet 16 in that span ... that's eight of 15 teams over the last two years.

I'm just guessing, but I expect an ACC vs. Big 12 battle for the national title. Personally, I hope it's Virginia so I can pull for the ACC (although I'd pull for Notre Dame because of Brey).

Just one passing observation. I wouldn't discount Notre Dame Sunday because of their bad loss to UNC in the ACC semifinals. Remember 2015, when they edged Duke in South Bend, lost by 30 to Duke in Durham, then beat Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals two weeks later.

Coincidentally, the exact same seed match-ups took place in the 1987 Elite Eight:

AP #1 UNLV (West 1 seed) defeated AP #6 Iowa (West 2 seed) 84-81
AP #3 Indiana (Midwest 1 seed) defeated Unranked LSU (Midwest 10 seed) 77-76
Unranked Providence (Southeast 6 seed) defeated AP #4 Georgetown (Southeast 1 seed) 88-73
AP #10 Syracuse (East 2 seed) defeated AP #2 North Carolina (East 1 seed) 79-75

[dukelifer]

Assuming UNC doesn't blow a 20-point lead in the last few minutes (well, I can dream):

Current conference rankings:

1. ACC 16-3 ... four Elite Eight teams
2. Big 12 8-5 ... two Elite Eight teams
3. Big 10 8-7 ... no Elite Eight teams
4. Big East 6-3 ... one Elite Eight team
5. Pac 12 4-6 ... one Elite Eight team
6. MVC 3-2
7. SEC 3-3
8. Atlantic 10 2-2
9. American 1-4


Because of the brackets, the ACC is guaranteed two Final Four teams ... and one team in the championship game.

The ACC will have a 19-6 record going into the title game -- that's guaranteed to be the most wins by any conference in any tournament in NCAA history.

Interesting that for all the talk about what a wide open tournament this was going to be, the final eight includes four No. 1 seeds, two No. 2 seeds, plus a No. 6 seed (Notre Dame) and a No. 10 (Syracuse).

Also, the ACC record over the last two years is currently 33-8 with seven Elite Eight teams. Interestingly, six different ACC schools have reached the Elite Eight in the last two seasons -- Duke, Louisville, UNC, Virginia, Syracuse and Notre Dame -- Notre Dame is the only one to do it twice in a row. Throw in NC State and Miami as teams that have reached the Sweet 16 in that span ... that's eight of 15 teams over the last two years.

I'm just guessing, but I expect an ACC vs. Big 12 battle for the national title. Personally, I hope it's Virginia so I can pull for the ACC (although I'd pull for Notre Dame because of Brey).

Just one passing observation. I wouldn't discount Notre Dame Sunday because of their bad loss to UNC in the ACC semifinals. Remember 2015, when they edged Duke in South Bend, lost by 30 to Duke in Durham, then beat Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals two weeks later.
Hard to believe it won't be UNC in the finals representing the ACC. I agree Notre Dame will play better this time but UNC is on a roll. No one has come close. I am worried about UVA. Syracuse is a weird team and UVA may feel the pressure. UVA gets into shooting droughts. Then it is Cuse and UNC in the FF and no way UNC loses. If somehow Kansas is not on the other side of the Finals- could get upset today- UNC will beat the other half easily. If benevolent - the basketball Gods should bring Kansas, Oklahoma, UNC and UVA to the FF. That would be a fitting end to this season. But if not- the only thing that will derail UNC is the pressure.

[bob blue devil]

Fun thread. Could someone define what it means to be the "best conference"? Once we tie that down, the analysis should be simple. I think looking at the data without defining the question is unproductive.

[freshmanjs]

The ACC is experiencing hollow success.

- 3 of the best programs in the conference are major cheaters
- Syracuse should not be in this tournament based on resume and has actually been rewarded for cheating
- Syracuse got to the elite 8 by playing the 2nd or 3rd easiest round of 32 game in the history of the tournament and then playing an 11 seed in the sweet 16
- UNC is, of course, a good team but living on borrowed time. The stall game worked

Go Virginia and Notre Dame. Hope Syracuse and UNC get crushed.

[bob blue devil]

The ACC is experiencing hollow success.

- 3 of the best programs in the conference are major cheaters
- Syracuse should not be in this tournament based on resume and has actually been rewarded for cheating
- Syracuse got to the elite 8 by playing the 2nd or 3rd easiest round of 32 game in the history of the tournament and then playing an 11 seed in the sweet 16
- UNC is, of course, a good team but living on borrowed time. The stall game worked

Go Virginia and Notre Dame. Hope Syracuse and UNC get crushed.

True and sad. We're the SEC of basketball. I'm so disappointed by the conference and, by implication, the commitment to integrity by the underlying institutions. Can Duke lead a renewed commitment to integrity by the conference? Push for more accountability and/or higher standards?

[captmojo]

For all the previously mentioned reasons, and the fact that there will be someone other than a Duke team holding the Championship, I want to see a first-timer win it. I'd also like it to be a member of the ACC.
Go Hoos!

[throatybeard]

I see that the closer we get to the Final Four, the less it matters that our numbers deep in the tourney mainly have to do with M&A with the Big East and a roster of fifteen schools rather than the eight or nine of yesteryear. The trend of the ACC to get way more awesomer by the week continues apace!

[dukelifer]

Hard to believe it won't be UNC in the finals representing the ACC. I agree Notre Dame will play better this time but UNC is on a roll. No one has come close. I am worried about UVA. Syracuse is a weird team and UVA may feel the pressure. UVA gets into shooting droughts. Then it is Cuse and UNC in the FF and no way UNC loses. If somehow Kansas is not on the other side of the Finals- could get upset today- UNC will beat the other half easily. If benevolent - the basketball Gods should bring Kansas, Oklahoma, UNC and UVA to the FF. That would be a fitting end to this season. But if not- the only thing that will derail UNC is the pressure.

Oh Boy. Let's see if UNC handles the pressure now. No psychological barriers for Roy now. It looks all clear from here.

[WakeDevil]

I do not see the point in adding interconference games to the record. It's what you do against outsiders.

[Olympic Fan]

I do not see the point in adding interconference games to the record. It's what you do against outsiders.

Subtracting interconference games does lower the overall win total, but it improves the league's winning percentage (since every interconference game is by definition a .500 proposition).

A year ago, the ACC was 17-5 overall, but that includes Louisville d. N.C. State ... so by your definition, the ACC was 16-4 -- 80.0 percent!

This year, the ACC will be 16-3 when the survivor of the four-team ACC mini-tournament reaches the national title game. So either 16-4 again ... or 17-3 -- 85 percent!

Any way you measure it, the ACC is having the greatest two-year run that any conference has ever had in NCAA Tournament play!

[throatybeard]

I do not see the point in adding interconference games to the record. It's what you do against outsiders.

The point of it is cherry-picking evidence and ignoring sample size in order to prove how good the ACC supposedly is.

[Henderson]

The ACC has been dominant this year in the NCAA tourney. But let's not get too cocky about this. The Big East has dominated the tourney in the past. Then they went bye-bye when so many teams went bye-bye. Now Villanova is in the Final Four again.

With so many conference realigments, it's foolhardy to crow too loudly about this conference or that. There's no question the ACC has excelled this year in the tourney, but if one takes a longer perspective, it cautions humility regarding one's conference.

And I'll root against the ACC in the natty game if the stars don't align correctly.

[Olympic Fan]

The ACC has been dominant this year in the NCAA tourney. But let's not get too cocky about this. The Big East has dominated the tourney in the past. Then they went bye-bye when so many teams went bye-bye. Now Villanova is in the Final Four again.

With so many conference realigments, it's foolhardy to crow too loudly about this conference or that. There's no question the ACC has excelled this year in the tourney, but if one takes a longer perspective, it cautions humility regarding one's conference.

And I'll root against the ACC in the natty game if the stars don't align correctly.

Let's be clear ... this is not a one-year thing. This is the second straight year of ACC dominance in the NCAA Tournament (17-5 with five S16, three Elite Eight and the national champion last year; 16-3 with SIX s16, four Elite Eight so far this year).

The Big East NEVER has had a two-year NCAA run close to this good. Nobody has.

Besides, I hate to see the Big East referenced as some tourney super power. They have had some remarkable individual tournaments. But they never sustained success over any extended period.

The greatest conference in NCAA play was the old 8/9 team ACC. Between 1980 (which happens to be the beginning of the Big East and the expansion of the NCAA tournament) to 2005, the ACC had more wins (256 to 206 for the Big East), more national titles (8 to 5), twice as many Final Fours (26 to 13) and the best NCAA winning percentage (676.9 percent to 62.8 for the Big East).

That's a 26-year span where the ACC was CLEARLY the most powerful conference. Actually, it's a pretty close race between the Big Ten and the Big East for second-best in that era.

After 2005, the ACC slumped and the expanded Big East enjoyed its greatest success. Still, even during that era, the Big East was not as good (64.0 percent NCAA wins) as the ACC was for its 26-year prime.

Now the ACC has rebounded. Over the last two years, the league has established itself as once again the strongest conference in NCAA play -- and it's not close. I understand that it's just a two-year run ... but don't try to minimize what the ACC has accomplished in 2015-16.

I don't know if it will continue next year and beyond. Just understand that no other conference -- and especially not the second-best Big East -- has ever had a two-year run like this.

[Wander]

The Big East NEVER has had a two-year NCAA run close to this good. Nobody has.


Setting aside the weirdness of using "two-year NCAA run" as a metric, I'm not sure you can say that the Big East's 1984 and 1985, which featured two different Big East national champions, a year with three Big East Final Four teams which no other conference has ever done, and a higher percentage of its teams in the tournament than the current two-year ACC run (even if you want to include Louisville this year) is "not close" to this good.

[dukelifer]

Setting aside the weirdness of using "two-year NCAA run" as a metric, I'm not sure you can say that the Big East's 1984 and 1985, which featured two different Big East national champions, a year with three Big East Final Four teams which no other conference has ever done, and a higher percentage of its teams in the tournament than the current two-year ACC run (even if you want to include Louisville this year) is "not close" to this good.

So far the current big east and the old big east is doing pretty well.

[Olympic Fan]

Setting aside the weirdness of using "two-year NCAA run" as a metric, I'm not sure you can say that the Big East's 1984 and 1985, which featured two different Big East national champions, a year with three Big East Final Four teams which no other conference has ever done, and a higher percentage of its teams in the tournament than the current two-year ACC run (even if you want to include Louisville this year) is "not close" to this good.

I just brought up the two-year metric because Henderson suggested that it was just this year ... I agree that a two-year metric is not that definitive, but provided numbers to show that the definitive long-term run was the ACC from 1980-2005. Is 26 years long enough?

As for the Big East in 1984-85, that was indeed a good two-year run. The Big East won 24 games in that two year span, including two straight national championships.

Of course, the ACC has won two straight on several occasions (1982-83, 2001-02 and 2009-10), plus a three-year run (1991-93), something the Big East never did.

And as for those 24 Big East wins in 1984-85, it pales next to the ACC's 35 wins (and counting) over the past two seasons.

As for the highest percentage thing -- the record is 75 percent, set by the ACC in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1991. The Big East never reached the 75 percent mark (as the ACC did four times).

[Wander]

I just brought up the two-year metric because Henderson suggested that it was just this year ... I agree that a two-year metric is not that definitive, but provided numbers to show that the definitive long-term run was the ACC from 1980-2005. Is 26 years long enough?

As for the Big East in 1984-85, that was indeed a good two-year run. The Big East won 24 games in that two year span, including two straight national championships.

Of course, the ACC has won two straight on several occasions (1982-83, 2001-02 and 2009-10), plus a three-year run (1991-93), something the Big East never did.

And as for those 24 Big East wins in 1984-85, it pales next to the ACC's 35 wins (and counting) over the past two seasons.

As for the highest percentage thing -- the record is 75 percent, set by the ACC in 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1991. The Big East never reached the 75 percent mark (as the ACC did four times).

You will hear no argument from me that the ACC is the best conference historically. In fact, I think it is kind of obvious, as we have 2 of the consensus all-time best 6 programs and no other conference has more than 1, and we probably have 4 of the top 10 with Louisville and Syracuse. I just don't think it's clear that these past two years of the ACC are better than 84-85 was for the Big East, at least if Villanova or Oklahoma wins the title this year.

[sagegrouse]

You will hear no argument from me that the ACC is the best conference historically. In fact, I think it is kind of obvious, as we have 2 of the consensus all-time best 6 programs and no other conference has more than 1, and we probably have 4 of the top 10 with Louisville and Syracuse. I just don't think it's clear that these past two years of the ACC are better than 84-85 was for the Big East, at least if Villanova or Oklahoma wins the title this year.

Here's the list, per Wikipedia:


Rk Yrs Wins College

1 112 2178 Kentucky
2 117 2153 Kansas
3 105 2140 North Carolina
4 110 2062 Duke
5 114 1920 Syracuse
6 119 1849 Temple
7 96 1803 UCLA
8 108 1795 St. John's
9 110 1795 Notre Dame
10 115 1756 Indiana
11 101 1755 Louisville
12 113 1738 Brigham Young

[Skitzle]

You will hear no argument from me that the ACC is the best conference historically. In fact, I think it is kind of obvious, as we have 2 of the consensus all-time best 6 programs and no other conference has more than 1, and we probably have 4 of the top 10 with Louisville and Syracuse. I just don't think it's clear that these past two years of the ACC are better than 84-85 was for the Big East, at least if Villanova or Oklahoma wins the title this year.

I woud definitely trade not being the top conferenece for a NOVA/OK Championship.

[devildeac]

Here's the list, per Wikipedia:


Rk Yrs Wins College

1 112 2178 Kentucky
2 117 2153 Kansas
3 105 2140(*) North Carolina
4 110 2062 Duke
5 114 1920 Syracuse
6 119 1849 Temple
7 96 1803 UCLA
8 108 1795 St. John's
9 110 1795 Notre Dame
10 115 1756 Indiana
11 101 1755 Louisville
12 113 1738 Brigham Young


Clarified. ;)

[throatybeard]

I move that we adjourn and all read up on some basics of statistics before continuing.

I've felt this way for exactly two years.

[-jk]

Here's the list, per Wikipedia:


Rk Yrs Wins College

1 112 2178 Kentucky
2 117 2153 Kansas
3 105 2140 North Carolina
4 110 2062 Duke
5 114 1920 Syracuse
6 119 1849 Temple
7 96 1803 UCLA
8 108 1795 St. John's
9 110 1795 Notre Dame
10 115 1756 Indiana
11 101 1755 Louisville
12 113 1738 Brigham Young


It looks like this came from the pre-season ncaa record book, but I can't tell - does the Syracuse number include the 101 vacated wins they lost on appeal? Granted it doesn't drop them much, much the same as unc losing 400ish games for 18 years of cheating only drops them to around 10th all time.

-jk

[sagegrouse]

It looks like this came from the pre-season ncaa record book, but I can't tell - does the Syracuse number include the 101 vacated wins they lost on appeal? Granted it doesn't drop them much, much the same as unc losing 400ish games for 18 years of cheating only drops them to around 10th all time.

-jk

You are right; the table is as of one year ago. Here's the intro to the table:


This is a list of top Men's Division I college basketball teams ranked by the number of wins through the end of the 2014–15 season:

[Wander]

Here's the list, per Wikipedia:


Rk Yrs Wins College

1 112 2178 Kentucky
2 117 2153 Kansas
3 105 2140 North Carolina
4 110 2062 Duke
5 114 1920 Syracuse
6 119 1849 Temple
7 96 1803 UCLA
8 108 1795 St. John's
9 110 1795 Notre Dame
10 115 1756 Indiana
11 101 1755 Louisville
12 113 1738 Brigham Young


Interesting, thanks. I think total number of wins should be part of the equation, but not all of it. I'd say the top 6, which I think everyone agrees on, are in some order: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and UCLA. The next four are debatable but I would probably vote in some order for Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, and UConn. That gives the ACC 4 of the top 10, the Big Ten 2 of the top 10, and the Pac12, Big12, SEC, and American 1 each.

[Faison1]

I move that we adjourn and all read up on some basics of statistics before continuing.

I've felt this way for exactly two years.

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.

[Olympic Fan]

Came across some more pro-ACC stats.

Since 1985 (when the NCAA went to the 64 team field -- and all numbers reflect actually conference membership):

-- The ACC has had 166 bids. 85 of those entries have reached the Sweet 16 -- that's 51.2 percent. Nobody else is close. The SEC actually is second in that category with 62 of 151 entries in the Sweet 16 -- 41.1 percent. The mighty Big East is under 40 percent.

Think about that -- in 31 seasons, over half the ACC teams that get NCAA bids make it to the Sweet 16.

-- The ACC had had 46 teams reach the regional finals -- 27.7 percent. The SEC is again second at 22.5 percent. The Big East is at 21.8 percent.

-- The ACC has had 27 teams reach the Final Four -- 16.3 percent. The Big 10 is second with 12.3. The Big East is at 9.6 percent.

The Big East actually has received more NCAA bids in this span (188 -- 22 more than the ACC). But the ACC has had 49 more wins (going into Saturday's semifinals) -- a significantly better winning percentage (68.6 percent) than the second place Big East (61.7 percent).

The ACC has more NCAA titles, more Final Fours, more Elite Eights, More Sweet 16s, more NCAA wins ... and just the third most NCAA bids.

That's raw accomplishments, If you prefer percentages, the ACC has a higher NCAA winning percentage, a higher percentage of conference entries in the Sweet 16, Elite Eight and Final Four.

Of course, the fact that the ACC is on the greatest two-year run in NCAA history is just icing on three decades of ACC dominance (and doesn't include the period 1980-84, when the NCAA allowed more than two teams per conference in the field wasn't bad -- the ACC won two more national titles and had five Final Four teams -- by four different schools in that five year span).

[throatybeard]

I will happily take a UNC loss and fight from there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7FFJUz0tdo

[Skitzle]

I think you can use NCAA tournament performance as part of the equation, but it has to be more complex than just win-loss records. I'm just not convinced the 7th best team in Conference A losing a close game to the 5th best team in Conference B should count as a even a small strike against Conference A.

I'd say the Big 12 and the ACC are equal in power if you remove Boston College from consideration.

Can we trade BC for Villanova?

[throatybeard]

Can we trade BC for Villanova?

Plus, let's lose Maryland in favor of Louisville.