Conference performance in the tourney so far
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!!!)
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:29 AM ^
The Pac12 is ass my dude.
Truck stop conference.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:47 AM ^
Hey! The Pac-12 was actually 0-3! Let's not forget UCLA and ASU losing in play-in games....
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:22 PM ^
Yeah but nobody pretends that the Pac-12 is the best thing since sliced bread, and Pac-12 fans have enough sense to not talk shit to fans from other conferences.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:37 PM ^
They probably do talk but it's while we're in bed over here in Michigan. Also I'm assuming they all sound like Bill Walton so they don't make sense anyway.
THE PAC-12 IS THE CONFERENCE OF CHAMPIONS NINE TEAMS FROM THIS CONFERENCE SHOULD GET INTO THE TOURNAMENT DAVE HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A VOLCANO WHEN ITS ERUPTING
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:48 PM ^
The Pac 12 is still seen as a major conference and their fans are ardent in their belief that they are the best. So are a large portion of their media. Arrogance is alive and well in the Pac 12.
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).
You’ve never been around UCLA or Zona fans...or listened to Bill Walton call a game.
THE CONFERENCE OF CHAMPIONS!!!
Or as it should be known, the Conference of Stanford.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:32 AM ^
Can't make threads on the phone but Dave Brandon killed founder of toys r us.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:39 AM ^
Being 94 might have also played a role in killing him.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:53 AM ^
A male born in the '20s had a life expectancy of 58 years. Charles better that by 36.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:56 AM ^
I wonder how diminished that life expectancy is due to WWII.
War is bad.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:06 PM ^
WWII didn't start until '39, I'm not sure it would have been reflected in the life expectancy of someone born in the '20s.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:10 PM ^
pretty sure there were a couple of 18 and 19 year olds that fought in WWII
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.
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.
Quite a few younger even. My grandfather lied about his age, and enlisted at the ripe old age of 16, in 1938.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:22 PM ^
You may want to rethink that statement.
EDIT I may be way off here. Nm
He literally started Toys R Us right after he came back to the states from the war.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:08 PM ^
With his surname I wouldn't count out a comeback.
Especially this time of year.
He didn't want to grow up.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:55 AM ^
Nope, it was Brandon for sure.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^
And he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for LandryHD and those meddling MgoBloggers.
Still hungover I see.
Guess it's a good thing that you're on your phone!
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:42 AM ^
and one I hate to point out, but the ACC can get two teams to the Final Four when you consider FSU. They won't, but they can.
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:42 AM ^
Was a BIG FARCE...it was ALWAYS VIllanova and then no one else. That conference is a Joke!
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.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:37 PM ^
MSU could be considered a mediocre team..I mean...their resume sucked.
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.
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).
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^
SEC. SO DEEP. SO GOOD. Barely can contain my erection.
Dickey V. and ESPN two weeks ago.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:18 PM ^
they were a mirage.
Quiet this morning on Sports Center, not even mentioning M/TAMU’s game.
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.
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::)
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:17 PM ^
I'd welcome the opportunity to even our record with Purdue for the season. A national champ should not have a losing record to any team.
And, besides, every one of our games with them this year has been fantastic (ref hose-job notwithstanding).
March 23rd, 2018 at 11:57 AM ^
Please edit this post, there are two paths for the ACC and one of those paths is to beat us.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:25 PM ^
involves a sad one way trip back to Tallahassee!
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
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.
March 23rd, 2018 at 12:22 PM ^
How are people so bad at context? By seed the SEC has outperformed the big ten. Michigan winning is awesome but nothing about the big tens performance suggests it was underrated as a conference.