two cents
01-09-2004, 04:38 AM
At the start of conference play, I wrote a post in this thread (http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004089.html) asserting the strength of the Big 12 among the power conferences in wcbb this year. I built that assertion on the records of the top leagues against one another during non-conference play. There were just a few games remaining to be played at the time. Here are the updated standings:
2003-2004
Record of each conference vs. other teams from the power
conferences:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12 31 14 .689 ----
Big East 25 23 .521 7.5
Big 10 22 23 .489 9.0
SEC 20 22 .476 9.5
ACC 13 20 .394 12.0
PAC 10 11 20 .355 13.0
[source: compiled from collegrpi.com]
</pre>
Now that the regular season is completed, we can evaluate how the conferences have performed against quality competition as measured by the RPI which allows us to include performance against good teams which are outside of the major conferences as well as to more accurately (still imperfectly) evaluate performance against the better competition within the power conferences.
Below are the records of each of the power conferences against teams in the top 50 RPI. I've included Conference USA because they are likely to get more teams in the dance than the ACC and maybe the Pac 10. These records were compiled using the RPI rankings thru games on Wednesday, Mar 3. That included nearly all regular season games (not KU at ISU though) of the major conferences, but preceded the start of the SEC tourney, In other words, it's a snapshot of the records just before the start of significant post-season play. Some of the rankings have changed of course. For instance, Nebraska has fallen from 50 to 56 in early post-season play. Nevertheless, these records present a representative picture.
2003-2004
Record of each conference vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12 19 12 .613 ----
SEC 24 24 .500 3.5
Big East 15 19 .441 5.5
Big 10 12 19 .387 7.0
ACC 7 21 .250 10.5
PAC 10 7 23 .233 11.5
CUSA 3 25 .107 14.5
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
Not surprisingly, the results parallel those of the earlier analysis. The Big 12 has produced the best results against top-flight competition. It is the only conference with an overall winning percentage against top 50 opponents. There is a big gap between the Big 12 and the SEC and then another big gap between the Big 10 and the ACC.
Some of you have probably already noticed that the SEC played the most games against top 50 competition. Hold your applause for the SEC, please.... Tennessee played 13 of those 48 games (27%) all by their lonesome. Now it is true that even removing those 13 games, the SEC played more top 50 opponents (35) than any other conference. However that is also deceptive. The SEC plays only 14 conference games. Each of the other conferences play 16 league games, except for the Pac 10 which plays 18 league games. [CUSA also plays just 14 games] Collectively, SEC teams had 24 more opportunities to schedule quality out of conference opponents than did the Big 12 with the same number of teams (and 44 more chances than Pac 10 teams). They did okay in that respect, but nothing special. Pac 10 teams actually built the toughest non-conference schedules on the whole.
It is also worth noting that Tennessee went 11-2 against these opponents substantially boosting the conference winning percentage. The remainder of the conference produced a 13-22 (.371) record which would place them between the Big 10 and the ACC. To be fair, let's look at the record of each of the other conferences, as well, with their highest ranked team removed from the analysis.
2003-2004
Record of each conference with highest ranked team removed vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12(w/o Texas) 14 11 .560 ----
Big East(w/o UConn) 12 18 .400 4.5
SEC(w/o Tenn) 13 22 .371 6.0
Big 10(w/o Penn St 6 16 .273 6.5
PAC 10(w/o Stanford) 6 21 .222 9.0
ACC(w/o Duke) 4 19 .174 9.0
CUSA(w/o Houston) 2 23 .080 12.0
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
Hmmmm........now far be it from me to suggest that Duke has feasted on a cupcake conference schedule......but......La Tech and Old Dominion...........
MOVE OVER!!!
I think it is self-evident that Texas and Kansas State are the conference champions which faced the greatest challenges within their own league. Are two #1 seeds in the offing for the Big 12? It probably won't happen, but it will give hoopscoopers in Dallas who have a chance to read this something to chew on along with barbecue. (Wish I were there!) We'll leave the little desserts with icing for those east of the Mississippi and west of the Rockies.
Okay, let's see how the conferences compare if we just look at the teams ranked in the top 50 plus the bubble teams:
2003-2004
Record of each conference's top 50 and bubble teams vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12 18 9 .667 ----
SEC 23 15 .605 .5
Big East 14 11 .560 3.0
Big 10 12 9 .571 3.0
ACC 5 10 .333 7.0
CUSA 3 12 .200 9.0
PAC 10 3 15 .167 10.5
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
The top 9 teams in the Big 12 collectively won 2/3 of their games against high caliber opponents.
Again, without the highest ranked teams:
2003-2004
Record of each conference's top 50 and bubble teams with highest ranked team removed vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12(w/o Texas) 13 8 .619 ----
Big East(w/o UConn) 11 10 .524 2.0
Big 10(w/o Penn St 6 6 .500 2.5
SEC(w/o Tenn) 12 13 .480 3.0
ACC(w/o Duke) 2 8 .200 5.5
CUSA(w/o Houston) 2 10 .167 6.5
PAC 10(w/o Stanford) 2 13 .133 8.0
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
Man...tough conference...never seen anything like it.
This sport is in transition and the Big 12 has made a breakthrough. It can lead the country into a new epoch of growth in popularity and quality of play.
It has already set new standards in attendance, development of talent, and rigor of competition.
There are many impressive individuals who participate on this board. There have been some outstanding posts in the last couple of weeks considering the likelihood of our conference's bubble teams making the tourney. Nebraska and Iowa State fans have been very frank in admitting that the precedents lie against their teams. The arguments have been persuasive if a bit discouraging.
And yet...
In my opinion, any team that can get within 1 game of .500 in this league deserves a bid. Winning 7 games out of 16 in this conference is an impressive achievement. The evidence suggests that it is much more difficult than achieving a record of .500 or slightly better in any of the other major conferences.
Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa State were each 1-1 against top 50 opponents in non-conference play. That doesn't sound too impressive on its own, but let's compare these results against the other bubble teams vs out of conference competition:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Non-Conf Overall
vs Top 50 Conf
Arkansas 1-1 5-9
Mississippi 1-3 7-7
W Virginia 0-1 10-6
Iowa 1-3 10-6
Maryland 0-3 8-8
N Carolina St 0-4 8-8
Clemson 1-0 7-9
UCLA 1-3 11-7
Washington 1-2 9-9
Southern Cal 0-4 11-7
Memphis 1-3 9-5
Marquette 0-2 9-5
Louisville 0-2 11-3
Total 7-31 115-89
</pre>
As a group, the bubble teams from the other top 6 conferences in the country have an out of conference winning percentage of .184 against top 50 opponents.
The 3 bubble teams from the Big 12 have a .500 winning percentage against that same level of competition which is as good as the SEC conference as a whole even with Tennessee's sensational record included!!!
Now who on the selection committee could rationally argue that these teams have no business in the tournament?
Or compare these 3 to some of the teams from other conferences that are likely to receive at large berth seeds of 7 or better:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Non-Conf Overall
vs Top 50 Conf
Florida 1-3 8-6
Auburn 1-2 9-5
Villanova 0-1 12-4
Notre Dame 2-4 12-4
Ohio State 0-2 11-5
North Carolina 1-1 12-4
</pre>
All of these teams have earned their spots in the tourney and their good seeds, but Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa State belong in the event with seeds in the 10 to 12 range.
I understand the precedents, but it is time to recognize a basic fact:
The strength of this conference overall, top to bottom, is a new precedent in this sport. Let's hope the selection committee is bold enough to follow suit.
Nine teams in this league have earned the right to test themselves on the proving ground of the NCAA tourney. Let the victories fall where they may.
[This message has been edited by two cents (edited 03-11-2004).]
2003-2004
Record of each conference vs. other teams from the power
conferences:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12 31 14 .689 ----
Big East 25 23 .521 7.5
Big 10 22 23 .489 9.0
SEC 20 22 .476 9.5
ACC 13 20 .394 12.0
PAC 10 11 20 .355 13.0
[source: compiled from collegrpi.com]
</pre>
Now that the regular season is completed, we can evaluate how the conferences have performed against quality competition as measured by the RPI which allows us to include performance against good teams which are outside of the major conferences as well as to more accurately (still imperfectly) evaluate performance against the better competition within the power conferences.
Below are the records of each of the power conferences against teams in the top 50 RPI. I've included Conference USA because they are likely to get more teams in the dance than the ACC and maybe the Pac 10. These records were compiled using the RPI rankings thru games on Wednesday, Mar 3. That included nearly all regular season games (not KU at ISU though) of the major conferences, but preceded the start of the SEC tourney, In other words, it's a snapshot of the records just before the start of significant post-season play. Some of the rankings have changed of course. For instance, Nebraska has fallen from 50 to 56 in early post-season play. Nevertheless, these records present a representative picture.
2003-2004
Record of each conference vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12 19 12 .613 ----
SEC 24 24 .500 3.5
Big East 15 19 .441 5.5
Big 10 12 19 .387 7.0
ACC 7 21 .250 10.5
PAC 10 7 23 .233 11.5
CUSA 3 25 .107 14.5
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
Not surprisingly, the results parallel those of the earlier analysis. The Big 12 has produced the best results against top-flight competition. It is the only conference with an overall winning percentage against top 50 opponents. There is a big gap between the Big 12 and the SEC and then another big gap between the Big 10 and the ACC.
Some of you have probably already noticed that the SEC played the most games against top 50 competition. Hold your applause for the SEC, please.... Tennessee played 13 of those 48 games (27%) all by their lonesome. Now it is true that even removing those 13 games, the SEC played more top 50 opponents (35) than any other conference. However that is also deceptive. The SEC plays only 14 conference games. Each of the other conferences play 16 league games, except for the Pac 10 which plays 18 league games. [CUSA also plays just 14 games] Collectively, SEC teams had 24 more opportunities to schedule quality out of conference opponents than did the Big 12 with the same number of teams (and 44 more chances than Pac 10 teams). They did okay in that respect, but nothing special. Pac 10 teams actually built the toughest non-conference schedules on the whole.
It is also worth noting that Tennessee went 11-2 against these opponents substantially boosting the conference winning percentage. The remainder of the conference produced a 13-22 (.371) record which would place them between the Big 10 and the ACC. To be fair, let's look at the record of each of the other conferences, as well, with their highest ranked team removed from the analysis.
2003-2004
Record of each conference with highest ranked team removed vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12(w/o Texas) 14 11 .560 ----
Big East(w/o UConn) 12 18 .400 4.5
SEC(w/o Tenn) 13 22 .371 6.0
Big 10(w/o Penn St 6 16 .273 6.5
PAC 10(w/o Stanford) 6 21 .222 9.0
ACC(w/o Duke) 4 19 .174 9.0
CUSA(w/o Houston) 2 23 .080 12.0
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
Hmmmm........now far be it from me to suggest that Duke has feasted on a cupcake conference schedule......but......La Tech and Old Dominion...........
MOVE OVER!!!
I think it is self-evident that Texas and Kansas State are the conference champions which faced the greatest challenges within their own league. Are two #1 seeds in the offing for the Big 12? It probably won't happen, but it will give hoopscoopers in Dallas who have a chance to read this something to chew on along with barbecue. (Wish I were there!) We'll leave the little desserts with icing for those east of the Mississippi and west of the Rockies.
Okay, let's see how the conferences compare if we just look at the teams ranked in the top 50 plus the bubble teams:
2003-2004
Record of each conference's top 50 and bubble teams vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12 18 9 .667 ----
SEC 23 15 .605 .5
Big East 14 11 .560 3.0
Big 10 12 9 .571 3.0
ACC 5 10 .333 7.0
CUSA 3 12 .200 9.0
PAC 10 3 15 .167 10.5
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
The top 9 teams in the Big 12 collectively won 2/3 of their games against high caliber opponents.
Again, without the highest ranked teams:
2003-2004
Record of each conference's top 50 and bubble teams with highest ranked team removed vs. out of conference opponents ranked in the top 50 RPI:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Conf W L Win% GB
Big 12(w/o Texas) 13 8 .619 ----
Big East(w/o UConn) 11 10 .524 2.0
Big 10(w/o Penn St 6 6 .500 2.5
SEC(w/o Tenn) 12 13 .480 3.0
ACC(w/o Duke) 2 8 .200 5.5
CUSA(w/o Houston) 2 10 .167 6.5
PAC 10(w/o Stanford) 2 13 .133 8.0
[source: collegerpi.com(thru Mar 3, 2004)]
</pre>
Man...tough conference...never seen anything like it.
This sport is in transition and the Big 12 has made a breakthrough. It can lead the country into a new epoch of growth in popularity and quality of play.
It has already set new standards in attendance, development of talent, and rigor of competition.
There are many impressive individuals who participate on this board. There have been some outstanding posts in the last couple of weeks considering the likelihood of our conference's bubble teams making the tourney. Nebraska and Iowa State fans have been very frank in admitting that the precedents lie against their teams. The arguments have been persuasive if a bit discouraging.
And yet...
In my opinion, any team that can get within 1 game of .500 in this league deserves a bid. Winning 7 games out of 16 in this conference is an impressive achievement. The evidence suggests that it is much more difficult than achieving a record of .500 or slightly better in any of the other major conferences.
Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa State were each 1-1 against top 50 opponents in non-conference play. That doesn't sound too impressive on its own, but let's compare these results against the other bubble teams vs out of conference competition:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Non-Conf Overall
vs Top 50 Conf
Arkansas 1-1 5-9
Mississippi 1-3 7-7
W Virginia 0-1 10-6
Iowa 1-3 10-6
Maryland 0-3 8-8
N Carolina St 0-4 8-8
Clemson 1-0 7-9
UCLA 1-3 11-7
Washington 1-2 9-9
Southern Cal 0-4 11-7
Memphis 1-3 9-5
Marquette 0-2 9-5
Louisville 0-2 11-3
Total 7-31 115-89
</pre>
As a group, the bubble teams from the other top 6 conferences in the country have an out of conference winning percentage of .184 against top 50 opponents.
The 3 bubble teams from the Big 12 have a .500 winning percentage against that same level of competition which is as good as the SEC conference as a whole even with Tennessee's sensational record included!!!
Now who on the selection committee could rationally argue that these teams have no business in the tournament?
Or compare these 3 to some of the teams from other conferences that are likely to receive at large berth seeds of 7 or better:
<pre style="font-size: 10pt">
Non-Conf Overall
vs Top 50 Conf
Florida 1-3 8-6
Auburn 1-2 9-5
Villanova 0-1 12-4
Notre Dame 2-4 12-4
Ohio State 0-2 11-5
North Carolina 1-1 12-4
</pre>
All of these teams have earned their spots in the tourney and their good seeds, but Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa State belong in the event with seeds in the 10 to 12 range.
I understand the precedents, but it is time to recognize a basic fact:
The strength of this conference overall, top to bottom, is a new precedent in this sport. Let's hope the selection committee is bold enough to follow suit.
Nine teams in this league have earned the right to test themselves on the proving ground of the NCAA tourney. Let the victories fall where they may.
[This message has been edited by two cents (edited 03-11-2004).]