Best conference -- according to ESPN it's the Big 12

[Olympic Fan]

Lead story on ESPN's basketball page is an article by John Gasaway, making the argument that the Big 12 is the nation's best conference.

It's an insider article, so I can't link.

He's arguing that all 10 Big 12 teams are likely to get NCAA bids.

This will mark the third straight year that ESPN will have pushed the Big 12 as the nation's best conference.

Of course, in both 2015 and 2016 the Big 12 flopped big time in the NCAA Tournament, while the ACC has posted the two best tournament performances in NCAA history.

I suppose that if ESPN keeps pushing the Big 12 as the best conference, they'll get it right eventually.

[Devilwin]

Do they even watch basketball? lol:rolleyes:

[Edouble]

Lead story on ESPN's basketball page is an article by John Gasaway, making the argument that the Big 12 is the nation's best conference.

It's an insider article, so I can't link.

He's arguing that all 10 Big 12 teams are likely to get NCAA bids.

This will mark the third straight year that ESPN will have pushed the Big 12 as the nation's best conference.

Of course, in both 2015 and 2016 the Big 12 flopped big time in the NCAA Tournament, while the ACC has posted the two best tournament performances in NCAA history.

I suppose that if ESPN keeps pushing the Big 12 as the best conference, they'll get it right eventually.

The blame for all of this rests solely on Austin Nichols' shoulders.

[pfrduke]

Lead story on ESPN's basketball page is an article by John Gasaway, making the argument that the Big 12 is the nation's best conference.

It's an insider article, so I can't link.

He's arguing that all 10 Big 12 teams are likely to get NCAA bids.

This will mark the third straight year that ESPN will have pushed the Big 12 as the nation's best conference.

Of course, in both 2015 and 2016 the Big 12 flopped big time in the NCAA Tournament, while the ACC has posted the two best tournament performances in NCAA history.

I suppose that if ESPN keeps pushing the Big 12 as the best conference, they'll get it right eventually.

I haven't read the article, but I don't see how all 10 teams get bids, just given the likely impact on W/L record of conference play. The 10th place team is almost certainly going to have 13+ conference losses, plus a conference tournament loss, which means they're likely to have 15-17 losses overall. And depending on the teams they beat in conference, the resumes won't really be that impressive.

The top 4 have had really good starts - Kansas, Baylor, West Virginia, and Iowa State have multiple good wins (well, just 1 for Iowa State) and no bad losses. They should be tournament teams.

But the other 6 do not have great profiles. TCU hasn't beaten anyone who's likely to make the tournament in non-conference play (best chance will be SMU Wednesday); Texas already has 3 losses and their best win is Alabama (not likely to make the tournament); Texas Tech has a horrible non-conference schedule, lost to their only major conference opponent (Auburn, not likely to make the tournament), and has 1 top-100 win (Rice, by 1 point, and I'd say it's more likely that Rice falls out of the top 100 than Texas Tech makes the tourney); Oklahoma State has wins over UConn and Georgetown (which may sound better than they are, given the tough starts those teams have had) but lost to Maryland and got housed by UNC; Oklahoma beat Clemson, but lost to Northern Iowa and Wisconsin. Kansas State's best win is either UN-Omaha or UW-Green Bay at home (seriously) and lost to their only top-100 opponent (Maryland). None of those resumes are strong. Collectively, there's maybe one or two quality wins in that group of 6 teams.

Now, maybe one or more of those teams will score multiple wins over the Kansas, Baylor, West Virginia, Iowa State group to raise their profile, but beating nobodies in the pre-season and then beating each other shouldn't get ALL of them into the tournament (I'm sure it will get 2-3 of them in).

[TexHawk]

I haven't read the article, but I don't see how all 10 teams get bids, just given the likely impact on W/L record of conference play. The 10th place team is almost certainly going to have 13+ conference losses, plus a conference tournament loss, which means they're likely to have 15-17 losses overall. And depending on the teams they beat in conference, the resumes won't really be that impressive.

The top 4 have had really good starts - Kansas, Baylor, West Virginia, and Iowa State have multiple good wins (well, just 1 for Iowa State) and no bad losses. They should be tournament teams.

But the other 6 do not have great profiles. TCU hasn't beaten anyone who's likely to make the tournament in non-conference play (best chance will be SMU Wednesday); Texas already has 3 losses and their best win is Alabama (not likely to make the tournament); Texas Tech has a horrible non-conference schedule, lost to their only major conference opponent (Auburn, not likely to make the tournament), and has 1 top-100 win (Rice, by 1 point, and I'd say it's more likely that Rice falls out of the top 100 than Texas Tech makes the tourney); Oklahoma State has wins over UConn and Georgetown (which may sound better than they are, given the tough starts those teams have had) but lost to Maryland and got housed by UNC; Oklahoma beat Clemson, but lost to Northern Iowa and Wisconsin. Kansas State's best win is either UN-Omaha or UW-Green Bay at home (seriously) and lost to their only top-100 opponent (Maryland). None of those resumes are strong. Collectively, there's maybe one or two quality wins in that group of 6 teams.

Now, maybe one or more of those teams will score multiple wins over the Kansas, Baylor, West Virginia, Iowa State group to raise their profile, but beating nobodies in the pre-season and then beating each other shouldn't get ALL of them into the tournament (I'm sure it will get 2-3 of them in).

Normal caveats should apply to early season games obviously, BUT... KP has 9 of the 10 Big12 schools in the Top 50. The outlier is Texas (#71), and they have the talent and profile to rise. The ACC is dragged down by GTech and BC, both below the Top 150. Couple that with KU's win over Duke, Baylor's over Louisville, and WVU's over UVA, and you can see how the argument might makes sense if you squint. (Of course, that ignores UNC over OSU... but I prefer to believe that neither of those schools actually exist.)

Some dude is just looking for some clicks here. I would be majorly surprised if the Big12 got more than 7 bids. OU/OSU/TTech/Texas are probably on the bubble, and KSU/TCU should both fall back to reality soon.

[uh_no]

They also don't have Boston College....by far the worst team in a power conference.

[El_Diablo]

They currently have 6 teams in the top 40 (kenpom) and a few more not far below that, but a couple of those Big 12 teams are going to get exposed once they start playing each other: 6 of them are currently sub-200 in SOS, and 2 of them are sub-300, including Texas Tech (#335 SOS). And the committee is generally not going to give a bid to a team that is 6-10 or worse in its conference just because it beat a bunch of cupcakes in November. I'd say 7 from the Big 12 is likely, 8 is reasonable, 9 is a stretch, and 10 is highly unlikely. For example, it's possible the Longhorns pick up their game at some point, but they already have turned in some real clunkers, with double-digit losses to Northwestern, Colorado, and UT-Arlington. That's not exactly sponge-worthy.

[pfrduke]

I wondered how the ACC's 5-10 teams (per Pomeroy, again) stack up against the Big XII's 5-10. The resumes of the ACC teams collectively are better. The overall records are almost identical, but the ACC has one more top 50 win and 4 more 51-100 wins (plus no sub-100 losses). Plus, all of these teams have the bottom of the ACC to get conference wins against. So I would say each of the ACC's 5-10 teams are more likely than their Big XII counterpart to get into the NCAA tournament (also, the ACC's #4 team - Virginia or Louisville, depending on your POV, is probably better than Iowa State, and at the very least has a better current resume than Iowa State).

This compares Syracuse, Notre Dame, Miami, FSU, Virginia Tech, and Clemson against Kansas State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma State, and Texas. The next three teams in the ACC - Pitt, State, and Wake - have resumes that are only slightly worse. So the ACC has 13 quality teams against the Big XII's 10.




ACC
Big XII


W/L
37-8
37-9


Top 50
2-7
1-3


51-100
11-1
7-5


Sub 100
24-0
28-1

[pfrduke]

Normal caveats should apply to early season games obviously, BUT... KP has 9 of the 10 Big12 schools in the Top 50. The outlier is Texas (#71), and they have the talent and profile to rise. The ACC is dragged down by GTech and BC, both below the Top 150. Couple that with KU's win over Duke, Baylor's over Louisville, and WVU's over UVA, and you can see how the argument might makes sense if you squint. (Of course, that ignores UNC over OSU... but I prefer to believe that neither of those schools actually exist.)

Some dude is just looking for some clicks here. I would be majorly surprised if the Big12 got more than 7 bids. OU/OSU/TTech/Texas are probably on the bubble, and KSU/TCU should both fall back to reality soon.

I could see an argument that the Big XII is the toughest conference in the aggregate because their top 10 teams are comparable to the ACC's top 10 and they aren't dragged down by Georgia Tech and BC. I think the ACC has 13 teams that are at least as good as the 10th best Big XII team, both in terms of talent and resume, so I could also see the argument that you should not penalize a conference for its two worst teams. And I honestly don't feel that attached to the identification of "best" conference (much of an ACC homer as I am).

I was more responding to the notion that all 10 could get bids. None of the 6 worst teams in the conference have out of conference resumes that would overcome having, say, an 18-15 record. I guess if Kansas, Baylor, or West Virginia shocked and tanked in the conference season and TCU, Texas Tech, and K State each went 13-5, we might be able to have this conversation, but that's so speculative (and so unlikely) that it's not even really worth discussing (and probably not the thesis of the article, which, again, I haven't read). I don't really see any way that one of the bottom teams would be able to overcome going 7-11 in conference play (much less something worse) unless multiple of those 7 wins are over the KU, WVA, Baylor, ISU group. It would be one thing if all of the conference picked up wins over top 50 opponents in the pre-season, but that's very much not the case.

Maybe the point is that going into conference play, all 10 teams are contenders for bids, of which the conference may ultimately get 7 or 8. I don't necessarily disagree with that - not too dissimilar from the old days of the 9-team ACC when everyone probably thought they had a tournament chance going into conference play. Of course, I think 13 teams fit that description in the ACC.

[TKG]

ESPN has pushed this agenda for each of the past several years. Two observations: 1) it's December and 2) get back to us in March.

[weezie]

ESPN has pushed this agenda for each of the past several years. Two observations: 1) it's December and 2) get back to us in March.

Agreed. Shut the thread.

[53n206]

Before the thread is shut let me say that I am surprised that Texas, with Shaka coaching, is not doing a lot better.

[duketaylor]

pay them more than the ACC for basketball rights, maybe they already are, if so, my bad. Please, no way they're better. Seems like a ploy to have an ACC-Big whatever challenge so they can benefit.

[duketaylor]

http://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3163/a-comparison-conference-television-deals

Not that it supports my argument, because it doesn't but...

Not gonna pay for less viewership, doesn't mean better, but does indicate popularity which usually means better. To some degree, at least.

[uh_no]

Before the thread is shut let me say that I am surprised that Texas, with Shaka coaching, is not doing a lot better.

It's his second year...he barely has any of his own players there yet....give him some time.

[burnspbesq]

They also don't have Boston College...by far the worst team in a power conference.

YMMV, but KenPom has BC 15 spots ahead of Wazzu.

[uh_no]

YMMV, but KenPom has BC 15 spots ahead of Wazzu.

ah. I think it may have moved since I last looked. I think BC started in the 200+ range.

[OldPhiKap]

With Syracuse and UVA taking bad losses lately, and UNC doing its usual face-plant in the ACC-B1? Challenge, the conference has seemed to underperform expectations so far. But it's way early.

[rthomas]

If only ESPN were rating the best whiners.

[OldPhiKap]

If only ESPN were rating the best whiners.

Would Len Elmore host the show?

[Indoor66]

Would Len Elmore host the show?

Absolutely not. He would be a candidate.

[JasonEvans]

... all 10 Big 12 teams ...

How can they be the best if they can't even do basic math? A 3-year-old could tell you that calling a conference with 10 teams in it the Big 12 is just plain stupid.

http://www.daddylibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/Counting-1-to-10-by-Daniel-Nunn-and-Rebecca-Rissman.jpg

-Jason "unless you expect everyone in the conference to finish within a game of .500, someone is going to have a bad conference record and not be under NCAA tourney consideration... just plain dumb by ESPN" Evans

[A-Tex Devil]

Before the thread is shut let me say that I am surprised that Texas, with Shaka coaching, is not doing a lot better.

Texas has no true point guard, can't shoot and can't hit free throws. They will be salty by the end of the year, but that is a combination that will always lead to an abysmal start and is tough to overcome.

They should have beaten Michigan last night. They did beat a decent Bama team. But barring a total collapse they will be at worst a bubble team and at best a 7ish seed. Just like last year.

[Olympic Fan]

Texas has no true point guard, can't shoot and can't hit free throws. They will be salty by the end of the year, but that is a combination that will always lead to an abysmal start and is tough to overcome.

They should have beaten Michigan last night. They did beat a decent Bama team. But barring a total collapse they will be at worst a bubble team and at best a 7ish seed. Just like last year.

FWIW, Pomeroy projects Texas to finish 13-18 (5-13 in the Big 12). If he's anywhere close to right, that's not even close to the bubble.

[flyingdutchdevil]

FWIW, Pomeroy projects Texas to finish 13-18 (5-13 in the Big 12). If he's anywhere close to right, that's not even close to the bubble.

Matt Coleman - I hope you're listening. And you won't have Jared Allen next year.

[English]

Matt Coleman - I hope you're listening. And you won't have Jared Allen next year.

Nor will he have Jarrett Allen.

[A-Tex Devil]

FWIW, Pomeroy projects Texas to finish 13-18 (5-13 in the Big 12). If he's anywhere close to right, that's not even close to the bubble.

I'm not worried about a 7 game sample size projecting out to the whole year. They put it together in conference play last year when they were left for dead after losing to Tech and TCU. My guess is that they'll go about 10-8 in conference, but will be a bubble team based on the fact they'll probably have 5 or 6 losses before conference season starts. Whether 10-8 is good enough is a whole separate matter.

But Shaka is going to have to get some offensive talent into UT. He seems to have the same problem Rick Barnes does in that he will be perennially just good enough unless he has a transcendent offensive talent. But his team will play good enough D to take down any team on a given night.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Nor will he have Jarrett Allen.

Are they brothers? ;)

Thanks for the correction

[Indoor66]

Are they brothers? ;)

No, but one eats at Subway, a lot.

[OldPhiKap]

No, but one eats at Subway, a lot.

Not anymore. Insert foot long joke here.