Ranking seven major conferences as March approaches

[fluoxetine]

fluoxetine, I don't know who you root for or what you mission is, but you post some of the most stupid posts on this board.

What in hell is your agenda?

Read the follow up.

If you want to rank conferences only by how good the top of the conference is, that's fine but I don't see why it is necessarily correct. If we consider only say the top 25% of each conference, I'd give you:

ACC
SEC
Big 10
Big 12
Big East
AAC
Pac 12

 

[kyjeff1]

LOL at anyone that thinks the BIG doesn't have any bad teams. How about IU, Northwestern, Nebraska, Rutgers, Penn State and Illinois. Look at those records and tell me they're good teams. GTFOH.

Also, LOL at anyone bragging that they're conference is getting X amount of teams in. Jeez man, they have to find 68 freaking teams. Congrats on having a bunch of above average teams cough...BIG....cough....twelve...cough

Way to value mediocrity. The ACC is the best conference, anyone that argues differently is just being a homer and apparently okay with everyone getting a freaking trophy.

 

[KStateFootball82]

LOL at anyone that thinks the BIG doesn't have any bad teams. How about IU, Northwestern, Nebraska, Rutgers, Penn State and Illinois. Look at those records and tell me they're good teams. GTFOH.

Also, LOL at anyone bragging that they're conference is getting X amount of teams in. Jeez man, they have to find 68 freaking teams. Congrats on having a bunch of above average teams cough...BIG....cough....twelve...cough

Way to value mediocrity. The ACC is the best conference, anyone that argues differently is just being a homer and apparently okay with everyone getting a freaking trophy.

Goes in cycles. Last year Big 12 was best. This year ACc is best. Next year who knows?

 

[fluoxetine]

LOL at anyone that thinks the BIG doesn't have any bad teams. How about IU, Northwestern, Nebraska, Rutgers, Penn State and Illinois. Look at those records and tell me they're good teams. GTFOH.

I wouldn't call any of them good but I would call them mediocre. None of them are all that bad.

Also, LOL at anyone bragging that they're conference is getting X amount of teams in. Jeez man, they have to find 68 freaking teams. Congrats on having a bunch of above average teams cough...BIG....cough....twelve...cough

I don't know about bragging but having 80% of your teams in the top 40 is a thing. Like, the ACC has five teams that would finish last in the Big Ten and Big 12.

Way to value mediocrity. The ACC is the best conference, anyone that argues differently is just being a homer and apparently okay with everyone getting a freaking trophy.

Meh, I already said if you only want to compare which conference has the best good teams while ignoring that bad teams then I agree the ACC wins.

 

[kyjeff1]

Goes in cycles. Last year Big 12 was best. This year ACc is best. Next year who knows?

BIG12 was never best last year, not at any time. What criteria are you using?

 

[KStateFootball82]

Goes in cycles. Last year Big 12 was best. This year ACc is best. Next year who knows?

BIG12 was never best last year, not at any time. What criteria are you using?

Everything - regular season and tourney.

Reg Season: Conf RPI #1 all season long. Best non-con record and SOS of all conferences (again this year).

Tourney: 80% (8/10) Of league in tourney (a record in NCAA history). 4/16 sweet 16. 3/8 in elite 8 (30% Of the league in the final 8). 1 in FF.

There is NO debate for last year. Any contrary view falls on Deaf ears.

You have to be a real idiot to not comprehend my post here.

 

[fluoxetine]

The Big 12 was the best last year if you look at all the teams.

 

[kyjeff1]

I wouldn't call any of them good but I would call them mediocre. None of them are all that bad.



I don't know about bragging but having 80% of your teams in the top 40 is a thing. Like, the ACC has five teams that would finish last in the Big Ten and Big 12.



Meh, I already said if you only want to compare which conference has the best good teams while ignoring that bad teams then I agree the ACC wins.

Each conference is playing themselves. The only true way to know is how each conference fares in the tournament.

Watching BIG12 teams beat other BIG12 teams and SEC teams beat other SEC teams can only tell you so much.

If I was a fan of a BIG12 program, I would certainly brag on the conference, but it would bother me that nobody but KU can even come close to winning a title.

A title is the ultimate bragging right and the BIG12 (and BIG10) really lags there. I mean, KU has won it twice in 30 years and that's it. That's the sign of mediocrity.

The BIG East has been killing it and they're practically a mid major conference.

The ACC is the King in the titles race, but the SEC is right behind them.

I just think the NCAAT is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[kyjeff1]

Everything - regular season and tourney.

Reg Season: Conf RPI #1 all season long. Best non-con record and SOS of all conferences (again this year).

Tourney: 80% (8/10) Of league in tourney (a record in NCAA history). 4/16 sweet 16. 3/8 in elite 8 (30% Of the league in the final 8). 1 in FF.

There is NO debate for last year. Any contrary view falls on Deaf ears.

You have to be a real idiot to not comprehend my post here.

But what has the BIG12 accomplished in the tournament?

 

[KStateFootball82]

The Big 12 was the best last year if you look at all the teams.

Thank you

 

[KStateFootball82]

Everything - regular season and tourney.

Reg Season: Conf RPI #1 all season long. Best non-con record and SOS of all conferences (again this year).

Tourney: 80% (8/10) Of league in tourney (a record in NCAA history). 4/16 sweet 16. 3/8 in elite 8 (30% Of the league in the final 8). 1 in FF.

There is NO debate for last year. Any contrary view falls on Deaf ears.

You have to be a real idiot to not comprehend my post here.

But what has the BIG12 accomplished in the tournament?

We are talking the best of last year. You said no. I say yes. I wasn’t addressing prior years. Nice change of topic there!

U know I’m right for 17-18 season.

And jury is out for 18-19 season. If Big 12 does the same thing again, that’s two in a row. Right now looking like we could. KU losing their studs hurts them as a final four, but ISU, kstate and tech have the teams to go to a FF.

 

[KStateFootball82]

I wouldn't call any of them good but I would call them mediocre. None of them are all that bad.



I don't know about bragging but having 80% of your teams in the top 40 is a thing. Like, the ACC has five teams that would finish last in the Big Ten and Big 12.



Meh, I already said if you only want to compare which conference has the best good teams while ignoring that bad teams then I agree the ACC wins.

Each conference is playing themselves. The only true way to know is how each conference fares in the tournament.

Watching BIG12 teams beat other BIG12 teams and SEC teams beat other SEC teams can only tell you so much.

If I was a fan of a BIG12 program, I would certainly brag on the conference, but it would bother me that nobody but KU can even come close to winning a title.

A title is the ultimate bragging right and the BIG12 (and BIG10) really lags there. I mean, KU has won it twice in 30 years and that's it. That's the sign of mediocrity.

The BIG East has been killing it and they're practically a mid major conference.

The ACC is the King in the titles race, but the SEC is right behind them.

I just think the NCAAT is where the rubber meets the road.

Big 12 enters league play annually last 6 years as #1 conference RPI. It’s not #3 and then after league #1.

And yes if I’m looking historically, ACC is above the Big 8/12 hands down.

 

[ExitFlagger]

But what has the BIG12 accomplished in the tournament?

Jesus. Not only do you guys shift the goalposts, you change the argument entirely. Do you realize you were discussing last year alone? Apparently you've become confused.

What's the point of arguing with you anyway? You finally admitted that you shift the goalposts to whatever necessary to "win" the argument, like a 12 year old.

 

[fluoxetine]

Each conference is playing themselves. The only true way to know is how each conference fares in the tournament.

Watching BIG12 teams beat other BIG12 teams and SEC teams beat other SEC teams can only tell you so much.

If I was a fan of a BIG12 program, I would certainly brag on the conference, but it would bother me that nobody but KU can even come close to winning a title.

A title is the ultimate bragging right and the BIG12 (and BIG10) really lags there. I mean, KU has won it twice in 30 years and that's it. That's the sign of mediocrity.

The BIG East has been killing it and they're practically a mid major conference.

The ACC is the King in the titles race, but the SEC is right behind them.

I just think the NCAAT is where the rubber meets the road.

There was a whole out of conference schedule in the beginning of the year that we are using as the basis of comparison.

 

[kyjeff1]

We are talking the best of last year. You said no. I say yes. I wasn’t addressing prior years. Nice change of topic there!

U know I’m right for 17-18 season.

And jury is out for 18-19 season. If Big 12 does the same thing again, that’s two in a row. Right now looking like we could. KU losing their studs hurts them as a final four, but ISU, kstate and tech have the teams to go to a FF.

You know you're right? It's not a fact you know. This is an opinion. LOL

 

[ExitFlagger]

There was a whole out of conference schedule in the beginning of the year that we are using as the basis of comparison.

Oh, you mean the first half of the season? No, we don't look at that. Unless the SEC has a good OOC record (never).

 

[KStateFootball82]

There was a whole out of conference schedule in the beginning of the year that we are using as the basis of comparison.

Oh, you mean the first half of the season? No, we don't look at that. Unless the SEC has a good OOC record (never).

There’s more than just the tourney imo. Tourney is the highest value to determine a team or conference success. But there 5-6 components

 

[ExitFlagger]

There’s more than just the tourney imo. Tourney is the highest value to determine a team or conference success. But there 5-6 components

The tourney is honestly one of the worst ways to determine conference strength.

Does UVA shitting the bed one night vs a no-name playing out of their minds erase what they did all year?

I think we all know by now that it's the most random and unpredictable event in sports. Regardless, 30+ games tell us a little more than a few.

 

[kyjeff1]

There was a whole out of conference schedule in the beginning of the year that we are using as the basis of comparison.

Oh, so November and December are more important than the end of the season? Makes sense.

 

[kyjeff1]

Jesus. Not only do you guys shift the goalposts, you change the argument entirely. Do you realize you were discussing last year alone? Apparently you've become confused.

What's the point of arguing with you anyway? You finally admitted that you shift the goalposts to whatever necessary to "win" the argument, like a 12 year old.

So I said I move goalposts? Right.

Yeah, I don't know why you argue with me, you're just as hard headed.

 

[fluoxetine]

Oh, so November and December are more important than the end of the season? Makes sense.

Huh?

Your post said we can't compare now because the conferences are only playing each other. Obviously the tournament contains additional inter-conference games that will be used to update the comparisons but we already have had a bunch of inter-conference play and can use that to estimate the relative strength of conferences.

 

[KStateFootball82]

There’s more than just the tourney imo. Tourney is the highest value to determine a team or conference success. But there 5-6 components

The tourney is honestly one of the worst ways to determine conference strength.

Does UVA shitting the bed one night vs a no-name playing out of their minds erase what they did all year?

I think we all know by now that it's the most random and unpredictable event in sports. Regardless, 30+ games tell us a little more than a few.

UVA and the ACC Of 17-18 is a great case study. By no means did that signal the ACC was shit last year. At all. Small brained people clearly thought so. ACC was top 3, prob #2.

Here is my pecking order:

1) NCAA tourney performance as a whole, champions and distance, # teams in vs # teams in conference
2) non-conference performance and overall conference RPI and SOS
3) # AP or Coaches top 25 rankings and # teams in top 10/15
4) teams in top 50 Ken-Pom and other statistician productions
5) conference challenge (if you play in one)

 

[ExitFlagger]

So I said I move goalposts? Right.

Yeah, I don't know why you argue with me, you're just as hard headed.

Yeah, you admitted the other day that you'll shift the argument/criteria to whatever it takes to "win."

Becuz Internetz is surrus bidniss.

 

[kyjeff1]

Yeah, you admitted the other day that you'll shift the argument/criteria to whatever it takes to "win."

Becuz Internetz is surrus bidniss.

Oh wow, so you're taking a post I made as a joke and acting like I truly roll that way?

I thought you were better than that.

It was more of a joke than anything, but truth be told, if you were a fan of an SEC team, you would be arguing the SEC is better, don't lie and say you wouldn't. We all have a homer side.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Oh wow, so you're taking a post I made as a joke and acting like I truly roll that way?

I thought you were better than that.

It was more of a joke than anything, but truth be told, if you were a fan of an SEC team, you would be arguing the SEC is better, don't lie and say you wouldn't. We all have a homer side.

Call it a joke all you want, but there's no denying that you (and 95% of UK fans) do it.

And no, I'm not going to argue in favor of something that clearly isn't true. Only people who live vicariously through college athletes would do that.

 

[kyjeff1]

Call it a joke all you want, but there's no denying that you (and 95% of UK fans) do it.

And no, I'm not going to argue in favor of something that clearly isn't true. Only people who live vicariously through college athletes would do that.

You're doing exactly what you're accusing UK fans of doing. The only difference is you don't realize your at least as big a homer as any UK fan you can point to.

This is hilarious. It would take a total stranger 5 minutes to figure you out. Your agendas on here are blatantly obvious. You're as obvious as Rockycard is.

If there was a list made of homers on this board, you're easily top 5, you argue for KU and the BIG 12 to the end no matter what it is about and you would do the same thing for the SEC and UK if you were a UK fan, don't even try to deny it. At least I compliment other teams, I've never seen you do that.

 

[kyjeff1]

UVA and the ACC Of 17-18 is a great case study. By no means did that signal the ACC was shit last year. At all. Small brained people clearly thought so. ACC was top 3, prob #2.

Here is my pecking order:

1) NCAA tourney performance as a whole, champions and distance, # teams in vs # teams in conference
2) non-conference performance and overall conference RPI and SOS
3) # AP or Coaches top 25 rankings and # teams in top 10/15
4) teams in top 50 Ken-Pom and other statistician productions
5) conference challenge (if you play in one)

How many teams in the BIG12 have a legit shot to get to a final 4 this year? I count zero.

How many out of the SEC? I count 3.

SEC>BIG12

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

How many teams in the BIG12 have a legit shot to get to a final 4 this year? I count zero.

How many out of the SEC? I count 3.

SEC>BIG12

The Big Ten had a team in the national championship game last year while the ACC didn’t even have a team make the Final Four. Does that mean the Big Ten was better than the ACC last year?

The Big East won the title.... does that mean that the Big East was the best conference in basketball?

 

[kyjeff1]

The Big Ten had a team in the national championship game last year while the ACC didn’t even have a team make the Final Four. Does that mean the Big Ten was better than the ACC last year?

The Big East won the title.... does that mean that the Big East was the best conference in basketball?

You had 1 big east team in the sweet 16.
But you had 4 ACC teams. Two of them had to play each other.
There were also 4 BIG12 teams in the SS and 3 of them made it to the E8.
So the BIG12 showed out in the NCAAT. They have a legit case for best overall conference last year and hey, maybe they can do the same thing this year.
I know the tournament is random and upsets happen, but how can you compare conference strength during conference play when teams are just playing each other home and away?

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

You had 1 big east team in the sweet 16.
But you had 4 ACC teams. Two of them had to play each other.
There were also 4 BIG12 teams in the SS and 3 of them made it to the E8.
So the BIG12 showed out in the NCAAT. They have a legit case for best overall conference last year and hey, maybe they can do the same thing this year.
I know the tournament is random and upsets happen, but how can you compare conference strength during conference play when teams are just playing each other home and away?

The ACC and Big 12 were the two best conferences last year and neither team played in the title game.

The Big Ten was trash last year and played in the title game.


The tournament is too small of a sample size to consider it the be-all-end-all when comparing conferences.

 

[kyjeff1]

The ACC and Big 12 were the two best conferences last year and neither team played in the title game.

The Big Ten was trash last year and played in the title game.


The tournament is too small of a sample size to consider it the be-all-end-all when comparing conferences.

I'm not saying it should be the be all end all, the regular season has to account for something. But really good teams avoid upsets more times than not.

Again, it goes back to what you value.

I guess I would feel differently about the BIG12 & BIG10 if they had better tournament success, but more times than not, the tournament proves that those conferences are what what we thought they were. Very good, but missing really good top end teams.

I just don't care that the middle and bottom teams in league A are > the middle and bottom teams in league B.

I mean, does anyone really care about Auburn, Iowa, Wisconsin, Baylor, Texas and Florida? F no.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

I'm not saying it should be the be all end all, the regular season has to account for something. But really good teams avoid upsets more times than not.

Again, it goes back to what you value.

I guess I would feel differently about the BIG12 & BIG10 if they had better tournament success, but more times than not, the tournament proves that those conferences are what what we thought they were. Very good, but missing really good top end teams.

I just don't care that the middle and bottom teams in league A are > the middle and bottom teams in league B.

I mean, does anyone really care about Auburn, Iowa, Wisconsin, Baylor, Texas and Florida? F no.

Do you think the Big Ten and Big East had more top end teams than the ACC last year? The ACC didn’t have a single final four team. The Big Ten and Big East played for a national title.

Small sample size.

 

[ExitFlagger]

You're doing exactly what you're accusing UK fans of doing. The only difference is you don't realize your at least as big a homer as any UK fan you can point to.

This is hilarious. It would take a total stranger 5 minutes to figure you out. Your agendas on here are blatantly obvious. You're as obvious as Rockycard is.

If there was a list made of homers on this board, you're easily top 5, you argue for KU and the BIG 12 to the end no matter what it is about and you would do the same thing for the SEC and UK if you were a UK fan, don't even try to deny it. At least I compliment other teams, I've never seen you do that.

No...I’m not. I don’t move the posts 5 times in the course of an argument.

I’m more homerish than the average KU fan on this board because they’re not homerish at all collectively. But I’m 50x more rational than the average UK fan. Prove me wrong. Find an irrational take.

I really don’t pump up the Big 12 at all and I was as negative regarding this KU team as anyone until the last few weeks. I do jab at Kentucky more than most programs. What’s that got to do with homerism?

Lotsa fail, per usual.

 

[kyjeff1]

No...I’m not. I don’t move the posts 5 times in the course of an argument.

I’m more homerish than the average KU fan on this board because they’re not homerish at all collectively. But I’m 50x more rational than the average UK fan. Prove me wrong. Find an irrational take.

I really don’t pump up the Big 12 at all and I was as negative regarding this KU team as anyone until the last few weeks. I do jab at Kentucky more than most programs. What’s that got to do with homerism?

Lotsa fail, per usual.

LMAO, you should see you from my perspective. It's hilarious.

 

[kyjeff1]

Do you think the Big Ten and Big East had more top end teams than the ACC last year? The ACC didn’t have a single final four team. The Big Ten and Big East played for a national title.

Small sample size.

Each of those conferences had 1 team that made it through, but the ACC had more top end teams that we're good enough to get to a FF and possibly win it.

I would put the trio of Duke, UNC and Florida State up against any other conference last year. JMO

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

Each of those conferences had 1 team that made it through, but the ACC had more top end teams that we're good enough to get to a FF and possibly win it.

I would put the trio of Duke, UNC and Florida State up against any other conference last year. JMO

And yet not a single one of those teams could win their region. Florida State and UNC were in the same region and still lost that region to a team from a conference that was bad last year.

The tournament just isn’t a great indicator of overall conference strength.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

It's crazy watching the best conference(s) not accomplish squat. With that said, congrats on your mythical opinionated title. Who/what ever it is.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

I really don’t pump up the Big 12 at all and I was as negative regarding this KU team as anyone until the last few weeks. I do jab at Kentucky more than most programs. What’s that got to do with homerism?

Lotsa fail, per usual.

Most do, It comes with the territory. Not many punch down.

 

[sgrooms]

Why are people still using RPI?

 

[Chimaera717]

Think Big 10's liable to get 8 in the Tourney (Minnesota's collapsing, so it could be 7 if they drop to Rutgers or NW, which they shouldn't but could). SEC and B12 should each get 8. SEC *could* get 9, if South Carolina keeps winning at their current clip and takes a win or two in the conference tourney. Also possible Oklahoma could play themselves out of a bid, considering they're probably going 2-3 or 1-4 in their last 5.

Bubble is so unbelievably weak this year that the last couple games and first two rounds of conference tourneys are really going to matter, and I wouldn't be surprised if a team like Minny or Oklahoma backed their way into the tournament simply because the bubble is such hot garbage.

So I guess I'd rank the conferences:

ACC (all about the midrange depth - UofL, Cuse, VaTech, NC State would all be competitive at the top of most other conferences)
B10/SEC 2-3 on any given day, the differences are very slight top to bottom. SEC's got the two best teams of the bunch, but also winless, hapless Vanderbilt.
B12 might have been the #2, but KU's been decimated by injury and cheating and I think K-State and Iowa State are paper tigers. Not a single good non-conference win between them.
Big East
American
PAC 12 (do they even count as a major conference? They're worse than some mid-majors)