How the Conferences are stacking up in Tourney
- Thread starter della
- Start date
Teams left by conference:
AAC:
Houston
ACC:
Duke
North Carolina
Miami
Big 12:
Kansas
Texas Tech
Iowa State
Big East:
Villanova
Providence
Big Ten:
Purdue
Michigan
MAAC:
St. Peter's
PAC 12:
Arizona
UCLA
SEC:
Arkansas
WCC:
Gonzaga
AAC:
Houston
ACC:
Duke
North Carolina
Miami
Big 12:
Kansas
Texas Tech
Iowa State
Big East:
Villanova
Providence
Big Ten:
Purdue
Michigan
MAAC:
St. Peter's
PAC 12:
Arizona
UCLA
SEC:
Arkansas
WCC:
Gonzaga
The crazy thing about the tournament is a large chunk of the seedings are determined by how well you performed in the OOC season. If you and other schools in your conference performed poorly during OCC games, your ceiling is very, very limited. Notre Dame went 15-5 in ACC play and almost missed the tournament.
Within the OOC season, you're really only looking at 4-7 games that are especially meaningful for a resume. That's an extremely small sample size. And on top of that, these most crucial games were played 3-4 months ago. Teams aren't playing at the same level in March as they were in November or December.
So, I look at the ACC and see that we had an 8 and 10 seed reach the Sweet 16. We had an 11-seed that went toe-to-toe with Texas Tech. Overall, we're 8-2 in the tournament, including wins over a 1 seed, a 2 seed, a 6 seed, and two 7 seeds. Duke probably still wasn't worthy of a 1 seed. But, Miami, UNC, and ND could have all been higher seeds.
Similarly to the ACC, the Pac-12 had a lot of success last March, in spite of not being awarded with any high seeds. They had a 5 seed (Colorado), a 6 seed (USC), a 7 seed (Oregon), an 11 seed (UCLA), and a 12 seed (Oregon State). They put 4 teams in the Sweet 16 and 3 in the Elite 8. They were obviously much better than their seed line indicated.
Within the OOC season, you're really only looking at 4-7 games that are especially meaningful for a resume. That's an extremely small sample size. And on top of that, these most crucial games were played 3-4 months ago. Teams aren't playing at the same level in March as they were in November or December.
So, I look at the ACC and see that we had an 8 and 10 seed reach the Sweet 16. We had an 11-seed that went toe-to-toe with Texas Tech. Overall, we're 8-2 in the tournament, including wins over a 1 seed, a 2 seed, a 6 seed, and two 7 seeds. Duke probably still wasn't worthy of a 1 seed. But, Miami, UNC, and ND could have all been higher seeds.
Similarly to the ACC, the Pac-12 had a lot of success last March, in spite of not being awarded with any high seeds. They had a 5 seed (Colorado), a 6 seed (USC), a 7 seed (Oregon), an 11 seed (UCLA), and a 12 seed (Oregon State). They put 4 teams in the Sweet 16 and 3 in the Elite 8. They were obviously much better than their seed line indicated.
I mean, it's hard to judge a conference when they, as a whole, underachieve in OOC. I think we should get more Big 12 vs SEC Challenges during the conference schedule. Give a better barometer for how these conferences actually stack up.
I tell you this though, we need to get out of the mindset that ANY conference deserves more than 7 bids. How many times do we need to get fooled by the Big 10?
Nope, it just means that the SEC was way over valued. Alabama was a 6 seed? Wake Forest was every bit as good as them and they were left out of the tournament.
Spot on here. Need more OOC games sprinkled through the whole season so we can see how teams improved.
And yeah, 6 seems like a good limit for the Big 10 from now on.
Not directly. Teams make runs in the tournament all the time. Michigan is playing well right now. My overall point is that no conference is dominant enough that their average teams should get the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, I can't fault the committee a whole lot. ACC massively underachieved out of conference. But I would note that most of the top teams in the P6 conferences are going to have similar winning percentages, winning about 70-80% of their leagues games. The difference in seed lines is mostly because of what occurred in those games outside of the conference.
But, you do wonder if a team is overvalued simply because they had more opportunities to get quality wins. Alabama is a team that comes to mind. They obviously had AMAZING OOC wins over the likes of Gonzaga, Houston, and Baylor (they also lost 3 OOC games). They were also 9-9 in the SEC. They looked very ho-hum at times, and lost their last three games before Selection Sunday, and were still given a 6 seed. They're a tricky team to evaluate.
Those OOC games appear to be absolutely critical for how the numbers will hold up in analyzing the overall strength of a conference. I'll never forget the Big East in 2011. They did well in OOC season, and were rewarded accordingly. They had 9 schools that were a 6 seed or higher. And of those 9 schools, UConn was the only one that survived the first weekend. In cases like that, it's kind of hard to tell how good some of those teams really are. If the conference strength is high, and you hold serve on your home court, you'll have plenty of quality wins to boost up your resume. Who's to say a 10 or 11 seed in a different conference couldn't do the same.
I still find it interesting how USC went 15-5 in the Pac 12 last year and received a 6 seed, while Ohio State went 12-8 in the Big Ten and received a 2 seed. That discrepancy blows my mind. But yes, would be cool if there were conference challenges in February. Maybe even just random OOC games in February, too. Just interesting to see similar results with overachieving and underachieving conferences seemingly every year in the tournament.
We play a big 10/ACC challenge but we are both smart enough not to guage everything we talk about based on a handful of games………….unlike others down south.
We have the Big 12 vs SEC Challenge. Also the Big 12 vs Big East Battle.
TTU played Miss St in the SEC Challenge.
TTU played @ Providence in the Big East Battle.
TTU played Tennessee at Madison Square Garden in the Jimmy V Classic.
TTU played Gonzaga at Phoenix, Arizona in the Jerry Colangelo Classic.
Man i posted sarcastically in a thread when the brackets were released that the acc was gonna roll the ncaaT like the pac12 did last year. Too bad i didnt bet $$$$ on it lol
ACC fans were probably the least confident in the ACC going into the tourney. I'm pretty sure that all of you thought your teams sucked, including Duke fans. 🤣
We were comparing ourselves to our standard of basketball over the years. We weren’t paying attention to other conferences. Not until the tourney did we realize that one of our worst seasons would still eclipse other conferences.
Every league is down relative to the best years. This year's KU team would get rolled by Self's best teams, but in this field, they have a chance.
A lot of good teams, no truly elite teams.
I think it's one of the deepest fields in a while, but I don't think the top teams compare to the "up" years.
Yeah, more talent is dispersed throughout these days. 14 and 15 seeds are way better these days than 25 years ago. But most years, the best teams aren’t quite as stacked.
I see that- obviously transfer portal has been a huge game changer in college bball, but the extra Covid year has helped some teams stay really old this season and last season- heck, could be for next season too..
And Charlie Moore, heck look at Coleman at KU- guy is legit 25, I think..
Yeah...I figured the field would be a lot deeper this year (compared to last year, anyway), but I thought the teams at the very top were a little more loaded than they've turned out to be.
That would be quite the impressive feat given that there aren’t any ACC teams in the South region.
Similar threads
