"Power Conferences"

[panther2317]

Here's a look at the mulitple bid conferences this year and who is still playing basketball:

ACC: 7 Bids (1 in the Sweet 16)
A-10: 2 bids (0 in the Sweet 16)
Big 12: 4 bids (2 in the Sweet 16)
Big East: 6 bids (2 in the Sweet 16)
Big Ten: 6 bids (1 in the Sweet 16)
Colonial: 2 bids (0 in the Sweet 16)
Horizon: 2 bids (1 in the Sweet 16)
Valley: 2 bids (1 in the Sweet 16)
Mountain West: 2 bids (1 in the Sweet 16)
Pac-10: 6 bids (3 in the Sweet 16)
SEC: 5 bids (3 in the Sweet 16)
WAC: 2 bids (0 in the Sweet 16)

The other Sweet 16 team, Memphis is from 1 bid league Conference USA.

[UNI MadCat]

I guess I dont really see what you are getting at here. Assuming you are saying "power conferences" to mean BCS schools... 12 of the 16 teams are from "Power Conferences". Are you saying that they didnt show up? 15 out of 48 games over the weekend involved teams from a "power conferences" knocking out a team from another power conference limiting how much "power" they could come out with. Three more BCS teams could have made it but lost in the 2nd round to a Butler, UNLV and SIU. Every team that is in the Sweet 16 was ranked at the end of the year. So really, this NCAA is going more to form than in the past.

Again, I guess I dont understand what you are reaching for here.

[Marc Wigim]

I think the Big Ten's impressive showing yet again of six bids and only one Sweet 16 is a pretty good point to make.

[GonzoCat]

Maybe he is saying that with 26 or 81% of the at large bids and very favorable seeding, the power conferences put 12 or 46% of those bids into the sweet 16.

Contrast that with the "mid-major" conferences getting 6 or 19% of the at larges and putting 4, or 67% of those into the sweet 16.

You might not be able to draw any conclusions from those numbers, but I think they are interesting to be aware of.

Three more BCS teams could have made it but lost in the 2nd round to a Butler, UNLV and SIU.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with that statement. Seems like it makes the case for the mid-majors to me. How about this - 3 more mid-majors could have made the sweet 16, but lost in the first round to another mid-major.

[panther2317]

UNI Madcat...why do you think I'm always trying to "get at" something. I've always giggled at the title "Power Conferences" and "Mid-Majors" because I think the line defining those two titles has been erased a long time ago.

But if you're looking for me to make a statement...I think Gonzo already made it for me. The smaller % of teams getting into the tournament from the "mid-major" conferences garners a larger % of the teams in the Sweet 16 (and it would be even larger if Xavier and VCU would not have lost OT games.)

The other thing I think those #'s show is that the SEC and the Pac 10 were stronger than I was ready to give them credit for. I can acknowledge that the TOP teams in the BCS leagues are very talented...it's when you get 6-8 teams in from a "power conference" instead of the 3rd place team from a "mid-major" conference that I'll have an issue.

Look at Arkansas and Stanford if you need further illustration.

[UNI MadCat]

I just wanted to ask. You made a post with some numbers laid out with no explanation. I was just curious.

[UNI MadCat]

Maybe he is saying that with 26 or 81% of the at large bids and very favorable seeding, the power conferences put 12 or 46% of those bids into the sweet 16.

Contrast that with the "mid-major" conferences getting 6 or 19% of the at larges and putting 4, or 67% of those into the sweet 16.

You might not be able to draw any conclusions from those numbers, but I think they are interesting to be aware of.



I don't understand what point you are trying to make with that statement. Seems like it makes the case for the mid-majors to me. How about this - 3 more mid-majors could have made the sweet 16, but lost in the first round to another mid-major.

I wasn't really arguing one way or the other. In general, for all the *****ing there is about who should have been in or out or seeded this way and that, the best teams rose to the top regardless of what conference they came from. Simple as that.

I guess I just thought if the point of the thread was to say, "the power conferences aren't really that powerful" my rebuttle was simply that the right teams made it on. All 16 teams were ranked in top 25. The only slight surprise was my Badgers going down but even a bias fan like me could see that it was going to happen sooner rather than later with their play down the stretch without Butch (the team won't admit it but I will).

[UNI MadCat]

Maybe he is saying that with 26 or 81% of the at large bids and very favorable seeding, the power conferences put 12 or 46% of those bids into the sweet 16.

Contrast that with the "mid-major" conferences getting 6 or 19% of the at larges and putting 4, or 67% of those into the sweet 16.

You might not be able to draw any conclusions from those numbers, but I think they are interesting to be aware of.

Actually, they put 2 of the at larges, or 33%, into the Sweet 16. UNLV and Memphis were not at-larges.

You can use numbers to "prove" everything, especially when the numbers you use are flawed.

Look, my only point was that the "us" vs "them", "bcs" vs "mid-majors" talk gets old.

Somebody has to lose these games. Somebody has to win. Good teams won and good teams lost this past weekend.

All I wondered was what this post "proved".

[UNI MadCat]

I think the Big Ten's impressive showing yet again of six bids and only one Sweet 16 is a pretty good point to make.

That is an overgeneralization. This doesn't prove anything about the B10.

The Big Ten advanced 5 of 6 teams to the second round and their one loss was a 12 seed almost upsetting a 5. In two of those wins (MSU & Purdue) the higher seed "upset" the lower seed... granted it was a 9 over an 8 but still considered an "upset". In the 2nd round the B10 was in every game until the last second and advanced 1 team. Wisconsin was the only disapointment.

Again... its a tournament. Good teams win. Good teams lose. Someone has to advance.

People put way to much emphasis on how a win or a loss in a tournament "defines" a league and/or a conference. It really doesn't.

Butler and UNLV are the only "surprises" in the final 16 and, honestly, if anyone truly didn't see those two teams as pretty significant contenders for one of the 16 spots then they didn't pay much attention to college basketball this year.

I guess my argument is that there is nothing to argue or be griping about or bragging about or anything really.

Again, I guess I didnt really understand what this thread was getting at. And now since I've participated in it more than the topic starter, I'll give it up.

[panther2317]

I just posted the numbers. I'm not trying to prove anything. I just find them interesting. Is that ok?

[Matt Trump]

People put way to much emphasis on how a win or a loss in a tournament "defines" a league and/or a conference. It really doesn't.
I guess my argument is that there is nothing to argue or be griping about or bragging about or anything really.

I thought that coaches were hired/fired and players became lottery picks due to tourney performances. We as basketball fans judge our teams based on performance in the NCAA tourney. Its why Tom Davis got canned at Iowa and why they want Alfords head. Its what got Coach MacDermott a fat contrat at ISU and took our program to a new level.

[panther2317]

I'm sorry...I didn't know I had to "get at" or "prove" something in an internet sports board thread. I'm not "popping off" or "melting down" about anything...I just found the #'s interesting.

[GonzoCat]

Actually, they put 2 of the at larges, or 33%, into the Sweet 16. UNLV and Memphis were not at-larges.

You can use numbers to "prove" everything, especially when the numbers you use are flawed.

You're right, and just in the interest of full disclusure, 6 of the major media conferences still in it were not at larges, so they put a total of 6 out of 26, or 23% of their at larges into the sweet 16.

You're also right that you can use numbers to prove anything. Given enough time the selection committee could even come up with numbers to justify the teams they put in the tourney and their seedings.

I think there will always be a "us" vs. "them" mentality as long as they keep treating "us" unfairly as compared to "them". I fully expect there will only be 4 non-major media conference at large teams selected for the tourney next year. It's a simple pattern with only one slight variance which was corrected in the following year. 12-->9-->8-->6--> ?

[Matt Trump]

Gonzo, I like your use of "non-major media conference" teams!

[ejacobson]

On PTI this afternoon on ESPN, it was stated the according to Billy Packer any conference who can get only one team to the sweet 16 is a mid-major and therefore, the ACC and B10 are from here on mid-majors, at least as long as Packer's theory is used. Just thought that was funny, but most college Bball fans know Packer is full of it.