Conference performance in the tourney so far

Submitted by trueblueintexas on

Every year I like to track how the conferences perfom overall in the tourney. I think it gives some indication of which conferences are the strongest. Seeding plays a big role, but I also believe this time of year you have to simply play the games and let the results speak for themselves. 

For some reason (cough, cough ESPN) the SEC was getting a lot of love prior to the start of the tournament. 

Weeeeeeelllllllll, why don't we take a look at how the conferences are performing so far in the tourney, shall we?

 

Conference: SEC ACC Big12 B1G
# of teams in: 8 9 7 4
Seeds: 3,4,5,6,7,7,8,9 1,2,2,5,6,8,9,9,11 1,5,6,6,9,10,10 2,3,3,5
Round 1: 6-2 5-4 4-3 4-0
Round:2: 2-4 4-1 4-0 2-2

Sweet16:

0-2 1-0 1-0 1-0
Elite 8: Sorry, no more teams 3 teams pending* 3 teams pending 1 team pending
Total record: 8-8 10-5 9-3 7-2
         

* two of the ACC teams face each other for the Elite 8 today. Only one ACC team can make the Final Four due to bracket canabalization. (Yay!!! - good seeding and placement NCAA committee - my goodness you got something right!)

- Note: I do not count play-in games.

The Pac12 was 0-1 so they are not charted.

THE MVC IS 3-0!!!

The Big East had six teams. A collective record of 5-5. Only Villanova remains (although they are very good). This is the conference with two #1 seeds.

I could have waited to do this after today's games, but as the results show, there would still be nothing to talk about for the SEC.

The Big12 is doing quite well for itself given it's seeding disadvantage, but there are tough tests ahead for them to claim truly elite performance.

The ACC took a couple big hits and now finds itself in a weird position. Three teams left, but only one path to the Final Four and that path may have to go through Kansas playing basically a home game.

Sor those of you keeping score at home, with roughly half the number of teams in the tourney, if Purdue wins today, the B1G will be performing equal or better than the other major conferences (with a chance for more!!!)

FrankMurphy

March 23rd, 2018 at 1:04 PM ^

Maybe it's different in SoCal, but the college basketball fans I know here in the Bay Area are pretty open about admitting that the Pac-12 sucks (then again, it's been a long time since Cal and Stanford did anything on the hardwood to be proud of).

UM2k1

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:18 PM ^

I’m sure they did, but when he was born, no one knew there would be another huge war, and as such, dying in said war would net be figured in the life expectancy calculation.



Now if we were discussing average age at death (something wholey different), the. WWII would have an affect.

trustBlue

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:48 PM ^

In practice, the way that average life expectancy is calculated = average age of death. That's why life expectancy calculations are skewed downward by war or high infant mortality rates. 

What you really want to capture is "longevity", but there's no simple way to calculate average longevity without making somewhat arbirtrary choices to ignore deaths before a certain age.

ak47

March 23rd, 2018 at 11:48 AM ^

Yeah thats why Xavier won the conference, Butler beat ohio state, the entire conference was in the top 100 in kenpom.

This is a crappy way to look conferences. The big ten had an advantage because none of its mediocre teams made the tournament leaving only high seeds. Based off seeding the big ten actually underperformed by only getting two teams in the sweet 16.

MI Expat NY

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:39 PM ^

Not to mention, conferences don't play in the tournament, teams do.  It infuriates me when, as last night, someone says "it's the Big 12 vs. the SEC."  No, it's Kansas State vs. Kentucky.  The outcome of this game says virtually nothing about the respective conferences.  

About the only time you can say it really is one conference vs. another is in events like the ACC-Big 10 challenge, where they actively try and match up teams based on conference pecking order.  And even then, the results can be skewed by poor predictions on conference pecking order or simply based on how the matchups worked.  

 

trustBlue

March 23rd, 2018 at 1:01 PM ^

Comparing performance relative to seeding is also a crappy way to consider respective performance. 

If you have Conference A with four 1 seeds, and Conference B with four 9 seeds. Conference B can lose all four games in the first round and will still be considered to have performed up to its seeding.

Meanwhile, if Conference A gets 3 out of 4 teams the Final Four, while the other loses in the Elite 8, it will have "underformed" despite going 15-1.  

While its hard to compare based on wins alone due to the fact that some teams play tougher schedules than others, its still the most appropriate way to evaluate respective performance (absent schedule-adjusted fancystats).

ak47

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:05 PM ^

This is a bad take. By seeding the SEC would have been expected to go 7-1 in the first round and get 2 wins in the second round and have two teams in the sweet 16 and none in the elite eight. In reality they went 6-2 in the first round, got 2 teams in the sweet 16 and none in the elite 8.

The big ten on the other underperformed its seeding by only getting 2 teams in the sweet 16. So at this point the SEC has actually performed about to expected based on seeds while the big ten underperformed its seeds.

NFG

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:55 PM ^

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. All of the sports world heralded that conference's depth and made claims about having 4 teams or more in the Sweet 16 or more. Bottom line is they didn't pan out. None of the pundits were/are taking seeding into consideration, unlike you. It was Kentucky is talented and playing well. Sign them up for the Final 4, Texas A&M physicallity, Tennessee's tempo, Mizzou's lottery pick being back and more. 

canzior

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:52 PM ^

By seeding?  ESPN didn't seed the tournament. The constant slobbering over the SEC and promoting them as though they were really good...turned out to not be true. Same as in football. "They play SEC talent every week" so they are allowed to lose? They affect perception of the conference with the weekly circle jerk and it's all crap.

4th phase

March 23rd, 2018 at 1:56 PM ^

The b1g basically performed as expected and no Nebraska and PSU did not deserve a bid.
But, you cannot have watched the SEC play those games and say they "met expectations". Auburn was obliterated against a lower seed. Tennessee lost to a lower seed. Those two teams were touted all year as top 15ish teams. Yes Kentucky was a 5 so *technically* they would not be projected to make the S16 or E8 if they played the 4 and 1. But they played the 13 and 9. So your argument doesn't hold there. If you're looking at seeds, Arkansas lost by 17 to a lower seed and Mizzou lost to a lower seed (barely) by 13.

Florida and Alabama did about what you'd expect.

The only SEC team that outperformed was aTm and we just beat them by 27.

NittanyFan

March 23rd, 2018 at 2:41 PM ^

at least as of the moment.

Michigan has advanced 1 more round than a #3 seed should.

Ohio State advanced equal with a #5 seed.

Michigan State underachieved by 1 round vs. a #3 seed.

Purdue is even with their #2 seed (acknowledging that their 3rd round game is yet to be played).

Add that all up, and we're even.

ScruffyTheJanitor

March 23rd, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^

Would be simultaneously amazing and absolutely gut wrenching. It would make me hate Matt Painter and I don't want to hate him.

It's probably my favorite Big Ten rivalry at this point, because it's based on mutual respect, contrasting play styles, and a paucity of Jabronis.

J.

March 23rd, 2018 at 11:59 AM ^

Why would you hate Matt Painter?  Win or lose, you can be relatively sure that both teams are going to give an honest effort and nobody's banner is going to have to come down.  I don't have any ill will toward P.J. Carlesimo or Dean Smith, and my disdain for Mike Krzyzewski has nothing to do with the 1992 championship game.

I want another Michigan national championship banner as much as the next guy, but if they have to lose in the national championship game, there are many more objectionable foes to whom to lose than Purdue. (::cough:: Duke ::cough::)

lhglrkwg

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:08 PM ^

It always seemed somewhat apparent to me that the SEC was overrated and I'm glad the tournament has further confirmed that. It was tempting to say the SEC beat themselves up like the Big 12 is, but it seems clear at this point that it was a league of a bunch of 7-9 seeds. Nobody really that good

remdog

March 23rd, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^

to B1G teams was seriously unjust.  Nebraska clearly deserved a spot in the tourney with a 13-5 conference record.  The ACC, while good, does not deserve 9 teams in the tourney.  That's ridiculous.  And 8 teams for the SEC was beyond ridiculous.  To have an average of 8 teams from the SEC, ACC and Big 12 while the B1G has only half that number is a travesty.

The selection committee is biased or grossly incompetent.