Ranking conferences

It seems just as wrong to consider a conference to be a "power conference" in basketball due to past years performance as it is in CFB.

Also, dividing conferences into two groups, power and mid major seem silly as well.

I think there should be 4 conference teirs, which would change from year to year based on performance that year.

My criteria is:

Tier 1, or power conference: At least 4 teams in the Tournament.

THis year, based on Jerry Palms projections, that would place the following:

ACC (4 teams)

A10 (4 Teams)

Big 12 (6 Teams)

Big East (8 teams)

Big Ten (9 Teams)

Mountain West (4 teams)

SEC (6 Teams)

Notablly left out of tier 1 is the Pac 12.

Tier two would be multibid leagues with less than 4 but at least one at large bid.

C-USA (2)

MVC (2)

WCC (2)

I am not sure which ones to place in the tier 3 but these are conferences that have an at large quality winner but will only get one bid so I am not sure who all to put here but I will do my best:

Ivy League (Harvard)

Horizon League

Ohio Valley

WAC

The rest are tier 4 and have no at large worthy teams at all.

I think you basically got it right.  A few thoughts:

Completely agree with Big 10 deserving more than either Big East or Big 12.  

Not sure SEC deserves 6, but it will be close.  I'd say 5.  

PAC12 is weak, but they will likely get 2 and perhaps 3.  The teams are Cal in front and a host of others (Wash, Ore, Colo, Stanford, Az, Or St)

Summit league is decent and Oral Roberts is an at large.

I think it's interesting that the ACC, the A-10, and the MWC seem to be similar as far as strength and sending the same number to the tourney.  I wouldn't be surprised if the ACC sneaks in one more and the MWC has one drop out, but we'll see.  

 

I like the analysis.  I do think you can make five tiers, keep the four you have and add a higher tier for conferences that put in six or more; because it shows a greater depth of quality in those special conferences.

According to Palm's analysis, the Colonial is a one bid league, I disagree.  I think two of those teams will have tourney resumes at the end of the year, five fighting with two losses.

When you start putting in 6 or more teams it doesn't neccearily say that the conference as a whole is better than the 4 or 5 bid leagues.  It generally means its just a bigger conference.  

You might be right Trolly, and a certain application of logic stands behind your point; but lets not forget that the 9th placed team in the Big East just one the NC.  I guess you could say that some of the bigger conferences have better quality and higher standards, some of them don't.  Conference USA hasn't exactly filled the brackets with their teams, how's the Pac 12 doing, the Southern, Southeastern, Sun Belt, Southland.

My point is, depth of quality versus sheer numbers.  I think when you get to half or nearly half of the shools making it, you're looking at depth of quality.  Maybe, better than saying "6" it'd be better to say "one below half" are a step above.

When you start putting in 6 or more teams it doesn't neccearily say that the conference as a whole is better than the 4 or 5 bid leagues.  It generally means its just a bigger conference.  

Well, that's definitely the situation with the Big East. I don't think it's very good this year, as I think the B1G, Big XII, and SEC are all better conferences. It's also a bit unfair to the Big XII, which only has ten teams right now. It should get five in, which is fairly impressive for a ten-team conference. However, with the B1G, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12 (which are all twelve-team conferences at the moment), six bids is impressive. The B1G will definitely get six teams, as I think it's the best conference in the country right now (although I won't watch it if there are good games on from other conferences). The SEC will get five or six. I think six, but Arkansas and Ole Miss are so bubbly right now that nobody knows.

Another conference that is good, but won't have a huge amount of bids is the MWC. It only has eight teams, but the quality of those eight teams is very good.

The big 12 is the most overrated conference this year in my opinion with several bad teams at the bottom and teams with inflated records due to playing nobody out of conference - Iowa st, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas st. Check out these teams non conference schedules... Hard to say how good these teams really are... I also think Kansas is a bit overrated based on their resume. Remember that sully didn't play in the OSU game... Plus they lost to Davidson.

The Big 12 overrated? Really? Three top 10 teams. K-state and Iowa State both either ranked or close to it. Several bad teams at the bottom? Their is exactly one, Tech. And as for Kansas being overrated, look at their resume. A win over Georgetown, double-digits over Ohio State, K-State, and Baylor. Their losses? Neutral court to Kentucky, Duke, and Davidson. Road to Iowa State and Mizzou. All tourney teams. Average margin in those losses? About 6 points, with the worst being 10, to Kentucky. Think before you speak.

Yes - I think the B-12 is overrated.  The conference has 3 very good teams and a bunch of other teams that are either bad (Texas Tech, A&M and Oklahoma St) or didn't play anyone out of conference so they have gaudy records.  Iowa St has only 6 losses because they didn't play anyone out of conference.  It's that simple.  As I said, they lost to Michigan and also lost 2 two MVC teams that probably won't make the NCAA tournament (Northern Iowa and Drake).  These were the only RPI top 100 teams they played OOC, and they lost all of these games (actually Drake isn't even top 100).   The other middle of the pack B-12 teams also didn't play very challenging OOC slates.   

I said Kansas is a little overrated, as despite dropping a little in the rankings they are believed by many to be a final 4 team, and I just don't think they are that good.  Elite 8 maybe, Sweet 16 probably (and possibly 1 more depending on the match up).  

Perhaps using the number of teams is not as good as using the percentage of teams...

The B1G Ten, IF, IF, IF it deserves to have 9 teams in the tournament would have 75% of the conference at the dance. Just as an example.

Set the tiers, maybe, as:

Tier 1: 75% or more
Tier 2: 50% to 74.9%
Tier 3: 25% to 49.9%
Tier 4: 0.1% to 24.9%
Tier 5: 0%

So a conference with 6 of 12 teams in the tourny is equal to a conference with 8 of 16 steams is equal to a conference with 3 of 6 teams. 

None of these are really good measures.  You'd need to assign some kind of point system in order to give more weight for making the tournament as a 1 seed as compared to squeaking by as a 12 seed (and in between).  Also - NIT bids would probably be relevant for this analysis too (the bottom of a conference is still part of a conference's overall strength.  NIT teams are good enough to win games at home.  Pitiful bottom feeders like BC and Utah are not.  These should be differentiated somehow if any comparison is going to be fair).   

Think of it this way - say you are comparing two 12 team conferences. 

Conference A = 6 NCAA bids, 3 NIT bids

1 one seeds
1 two seed
2 three seeds
1 four seed
1 six seed

Conference B = 8 NCAA bids, 0 NIT bids

1 two seed
1 five seed
1 nine seed
2 eleven seed
2 twelve seeds
1 FIRST FOUR

This is an extreme example, but it's pretty obvious to me that conference A should be considered stronger, despite conference B getting more teams in the field.  Conference B in this example has only two teams favored to make it past round 1.        

Big 10 is the best conference this year, but if I see one more person use NCAA tourney and Northwestern together again, im going to lose it. They are not anywhere near deserving of even consideration.

Big 12 has 3 beast teams, two tourney capable teams and 5 garbage squads.

Big East has 1 elite, 2 very legitamate and about 4 more legit tourney teams then a lot of mediocre to bad teams(as well as garbage).

The ACC flat out sucks   

SEC has a title contender and 2 more very good teams with a couple more good teams after that and then awful.

Pac 12 is all who sucks less


All in All, Big 10 is the best(but Northwestern sucks) and after that it's more of a take your pick. Top heavy Big 12? Deeper top half BE?         

I'm not a B-10 fan, but right now Northwestern has enough on its resume for a tournament bid.  RPI in the 30s, 8 total losses (the worst being to Purdue), and wins vs Michigan St, Illinois and Seton Hall.  That's more than good enough right now.

Look at the bubble and tell me who you prefer.  Umass simply because they have only 6 losses?  Not a good reason.  Palm has UMass as one of the first 4 missing the tournament right now.  Check it out.   They have one decent win over a team in the field - St Louis.  And St Louis is no lock for the tournament.  The next best wins at home against Davidson and St Joes are not better than having a neutral court win over SHU and a road win at Illinois.  Not even close.   And look at UMass 6 losses.  They have 4 losses to teams without a shot to make the tourney, a loss to Miami (before Miami got their forwards back), and a blow out loss to FSU.  No way is this a better resume.

And how about Washington with 7 losses?  Are you going to reward this team over NW for playing in a crappy conference and managing to lose one only one less game than NW.  Their RPI is 76.  Why is that?  They don't have a single win over a tournament contending team - not one RPI top 50 win on their whole resume.  Who cares if they are winning the PAC 12?  Are you giving Akron an At Large bid for winning the MAC?  I ask because right now Akron has the same number of losses as Washington, a better RPI, and a win @ Miss St which is better than anything on Washington's resume.   Think the MAC East is so much worse than the PAC 12?  You sure of that?  Ohio is 19-4 (wins over NI and Marshall).  Kent St is 16-6 (win @ WVU), Buffalo is 13-6 (win @ Dayton).  Don't get me wrong, the MAC is no powerhouse conference, but the PAC 12 is really really bad.  How many games do you think Utah, USC or Arizona St would win there?  Seriously...  

Big 10 is the best conference this year, but if I see one more person use NCAA tourney and Northwestern together again, im going to lose it. They are not anywhere near deserving of even consideration.

I do agree that the Big 10 is the best conference this year. However, it has its "garbage" squads too. Iowa, Nebraska, and Penn State all fall under this category. Northwestern isn't garbage, but they're very mediocre. 

And you made it sound like the SEC has five good teams and seven garbage teams, which is far from true. I understand what you think about Ole Miss, but I disagree. Arkansas is a home warrior, but if you're matched up with them at BWA, you're practically screwed. LSU's mediocre (see Northwestern), but even they have been able to pick off good teams (see Marquette). Tennessee is very talented, and dangerous at home (ask Florida and Kentucky). Even Auburn is competitive, so I'd say they're along the same lines as Iowa. Georgia and South Carolina are garbage, lol.

The ACC flat out sucks 

We shall see about that come tourney time, my friend. As always, the ACC will go deep into the tourney with at least one team, more probably two.

The big 12 is the most overrated conference this year in my opinion with several bad teams at the bottom and teams with inflated records due to playing nobody out of conference - Iowa st, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas st. Check out these teams non conference schedules...

1) Texas - Played UCLA; Temple; and North Carolina ooc.  Texas has the 16th toughest SOS in the country.

2) Kansas St. - Played Virginia Tech, Long Beach St (1st in conference); W. Virginia; and Alabama.

3) Oklahoma - Played Oral Roberts (tourney bound); Arkansas; and Cincinnati.  Oklahoma has the 17th toughest SOS in the country.

4) Iowa State - Fair point here, but that's about all.  They did play Michigan and Iowa, but not much else.


Also, as far as calling Kansas overrated - they have played the 4th overall toughest schedule of any team in the country, and are still ranked top 10.  I would call that impressive instead of overrated.

Aren't you guys moving to the Big 12 next year?  You want to criticize your new conference, fine, but do it with backable facts at least.

Hizzle - what I should have said is these teams didn't play many decent teams OOC, and lost the few games they did play against good competition.  Believe me, it serves my interest to hype up K-State and the B-12 since WVU beat them.  I just don't think the middle of the B-12 pack is very impressive this year.  See below:

1) Texas - Played UCLA; Temple; and North Carolina ooc. 

UCLA is not a good team.  The UNC game was a blow out loss.  Temple I'll give you as a decent win (though it was at home), but in Texas' case, they literally have only one other RPI top 100 win (at home against Iowa St).  Seems like a pretty mediocre resume to me for a 9 loss team.

Texas has the 16th toughest SOS in the country.

Actually, their OOC schedule is ranked 132.  The reason the overall schedule is so good is because they happened to have played 5 games already against the top 3 teams in the B-12 (as I said, those 3 teams are very good and have very good computer numbers). They lost all 5 of those games by the way. 

2) Kansas St. - Played Virginia Tech, Long Beach St (1st in conference); W. Virginia; and Alabama.

WVU is the best of these teams and K-State lost that one.  V-Tech is not very good this year.  Alabama and LBSU are okay, but my point really was that K-State didn't play any ranked opponents at all and these were the only 4 opponents K-State played OOC that were capable of beating even a major conference bottom feeder.  So its no wonder K-State has only 6 losses total.

3) Oklahoma - Played Oral Roberts (tourney bound); Arkansas; and Cincinnati.  Oklahoma has the 17th toughest SOS in the country.

They lost the Cincy game and also got blown out by St Louis.  Arkansas and Oral Roberts are bubble teams.  So essentially, they went 2-2 against the bubble.    See Texas explanation about schedule. 

4) Iowa State - Fair point here, but that's about all.  They did play Michigan and Iowa, but not much else.

Iowa is not a good team.  They lost the Michigan game and also lost to two middle of the road MVC teams. 
 

I see both Iowa State and K. State as good teams.  Both have competed against good competition and have shown significant potential.

K State has the big 3 all in a row in Feb, so they have a good shot at winning one of them.  Iowa State has 4 games against the leader board.  Don't expect them to lose all four.  I would expect them both to make the tourney with just one more big win each.  Neither are yet deserving of being ranked, but I believe they have very good components.  Both Royce White and Rodney McGruder, respectively, have the ability to beat teams if they have career nights.  

I came up with a system a while back for assigning points for each team that made it to the tournament, plus additional points for the seed, divided by the number of teams in the conference.

I think what I came up with was 5 points per team plus 16 points for a 1 seed, 15 for a 2 seed etc.

Then you add up all the points, divide by whatever number of teams in the conference and then you compare the final score.

i just used the formula of 5 points per team in, plus points for seed based on the seed of the opening opponent (1 seed gets 16 points etc)

I came up with 134 total points for the Big Ten and then divided by 12, which is the number of schools in the conference to come up with a conference score of 11.16

Next I will run the Big East.