How conferences have fared since re-alignment.

[jontaejones]

I was in a little bit of a geeky mood this morning.

Didn't take as long as it might have seemed. These numbers are since 2014. I think the numbers are right. Looks right.

Also, Louisville was still in the American in 2014, and tmrw's game has not been counted yet, obviously.

 

[tducey]

Good work you've done here, appreciate the effort, thanks for sharing.

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

Tier 1:

Cincinnati
SMU
UConn
Memphis

Tier 2:

Temple
Houston

And the rest...

I can't wait to see Wichita State getting invited to the American Athletic because we really need it. But still, we and probably UConn need to get the fuck out because we don't belong in this CUSA 2.0.

Still disappointed the Big XIII didn't expand, but nothing can be done about it.

 

[tabascojet]

aint no one go into realignment for basketball.....

 

[rmilia1]

aint no one go into realignment for basketball.....

Big East? Lol

 

[tabascojet]

Big East? Lol

by default.....im sure they wish they still had some football money for doing nothing

 

[Deep Creek]

Tier 1:

Cincinnati
SMU
UConn
Memphis

Tier 2:

Temple
Houston

And the rest...

I can't wait to see Wichita State getting invited to the American Athletic because we really need it. But still, we and probably UConn need to get the fuck out because we don't belong in this CUSA 2.0.

Still disappointed the Big XIII didn't expand, but nothing can be done about it.

Probably did you a favor. Big 12 ain't long for the world either. It dies as soon as OU and Texas want it to.

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

Probably did you a favor. Big 12 ain't long for the world either. It dies as soon as OU and Texas want it to.

That was a awful typo. My bad lol.

I used to flirt with the idea of us in the Big 10 beforehand, but no way Ohio State would've let us in.

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

And this is happening:

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

The American really needed that addition

Wichita State definitely makes it a more viable league

Cincinnati, Wichita State and UConn are top level programs in the league

Then there's SMU who has been great lately

Memphis, Temple and Tulsa have been traditionally strong in basketball in the past, they haven't been at their best lately though.

Houston has potential, and Tulane has a former NBA coach for some reason

 

[BamaDude]

Not surprised that the ACC has the most teams in each of the categories you listed - and the most championships over that period, but except for their top two or three teams, they tend to be over-represented & over-seeded as a conference each year. The opposite seems to hold true for the SEC in representation & overall seeding.

Based on the stats supplied by jontaejones, above, here's how the various conferences rank in advancing their teams once they are in the tournament:

Reaching the Sweet 16:
SEC 8/16 .500
Pac 10/21 .476
ACC 13/28 .464
WCC 3/7 .428
B-10 11/27 .407
B-12 10/27 .370
B.East 4/22 .181
AAC 2/12 .166
A-10 1/15 .066

With a 68-team field, I would say a .400 or better winning percentage through the first three rounds is pretty good, and a league with a .500 winning percentage should be getting more teams in. On the other hand, the Big 12, Big East, American & A-10 seem to be over-represented.

Reaching the Elite 8:
SEC 6/16 .375
ACC 8/28 .285
WCC 2/7 .285
Pac 4/21 .190
B-10 5/27 .185
B-12 3/27 .111
B.East 2/22 .090
AAC 1/12 .083
A-10 1/15 .066

Again, the SEC leads in percentage of teams advancing, with the same four leagues bringing up the rear. It appears the WCC should be getting higher seeds and/or more teams in the tournament each year.

Final Four appearances:
SEC 4/16 .250
ACC 4/28 .142
WCC 1/7 .142
B-10 3/27 .111
AAC 1/12 .083
Pac 1/21 .047
B.East 1/22 .045
B-12 1/27 .037
A-10 0/15 .000

I would say that the AAC, Pac-12, Big East, Big-12 & A-10 probably have most of their teams seeded too high, on average.

What conclusions do the rest of you draw?

 

[ericd7633]

Not surprised that the ACC has the most teams in each of the categories you listed - and the most championships over that period, but except for their top two or three teams, they tend to be over-represented & over-seeded as a conference each year. The opposite seems to hold true for the SEC in representation & overall seeding.

Based on the stats supplied by jontaejones, above, here's how the various conferences rank in advancing their teams once they are in the tournament:

Reaching the Sweet 16:
SEC 8/16 .500
Pac 10/21 .476
ACC 13/28 .464
WCC 3/7 .428
B-10 11/27 .407
B-12 10/27 .370
B.East 4/22 .181
AAC 2/12 .166
A-10 1/15 .066

With a 68-team field, I would say a .400 or better winning percentage through the first three rounds is pretty good, and a league with a .500 winning percentage should be getting more teams in. On the other hand, the Big 12, Big East, American & A-10 seem to be over-represented.

Reaching the Elite 8:
SEC 6/16 .375
ACC 8/28 .285
WCC 2/7 .285
Pac 4/21 .190
B-10 5/27 .185
B-12 3/27 .111
B.East 2/22 .090
AAC 1/12 .083
A-10 1/15 .066

Again, the SEC leads in percentage of teams advancing, with the same four leagues bringing up the rear. It appears the WCC should be getting higher seeds and/or more teams in the tournament each year.

Final Four appearances:
SEC 4/16 .250
ACC 4/28 .142
WCC 1/7 .142
B-10 3/27 .111
AAC 1/12 .083
Pac 1/21 .047
B.East 1/22 .045
B-12 1/27 .037
A-10 0/15 .000

I would say that the AAC, Pac-12, Big East, Big-12 & A-10 probably have most of their teams seeded too high, on average.

What conclusions do the rest of you draw?

My conclusion is that you shouldn't draw conclusions relative to how a conference performs in the tournament as a justification that a conference should have received more teams/better seeding. Yes, the SEC had great tournament results in 2017. That doesn't translate, however, that teams like Georgia, Alabama etc... should have made the field. Same with Gonzaga and the WCC, just because Gonzaga made the E8 and FF, doesn't mean BYU should have made the tournament, for example.

 

[BamaDude]

Some years, yes, and some years, no. I'm not sure the SEC deserved another team this year, but there have been times in the recent past when they should have had more teams. Just as there were times when the WCC should have had 3 teams in, while the Big 12 or the Big East should have had one or two fewer teams.

 

[ericd7633]

Some years, yes, and some years, no. I'm not sure the SEC deserved another team this year, but there have been times in the recent past when they should have had more teams. Just as there were times when the WCC should have had 3 teams in, while the Big 12 or the Big East should have had one or two fewer teams.

You're going to have to be more specific. And I honestly can't think of a year when the WCC should have had 3 teams in the field, in years when there weren't 3 teams in the field. You're essentially arguing that because Gonzaga has been an elite program since realignment(3 S16's, 2 E8's and a FF) that somehow the WCC deserves more bids? That doesn't make any sense. And again, you're going to have to be more specific on who those teams from the Big East and Big 12 that shouldn't have made it.

 

[jontaejones]

Not surprised that the ACC has the most teams in each of the categories you listed - and the most championships over that period, but except for their top two or three teams, they tend to be over-represented & over-seeded as a conference each year. The opposite seems to hold true for the SEC in representation & overall seeding.

Based on the stats supplied by jontaejones, above, here's how the various conferences rank in advancing their teams once they are in the tournament:

Reaching the Sweet 16:
SEC 8/16 .500
Pac 10/21 .476
ACC 13/28 .464
WCC 3/7 .428
B-10 11/27 .407
B-12 10/27 .370
B.East 4/22 .181
AAC 2/12 .166
A-10 1/15 .066

With a 68-team field, I would say a .400 or better winning percentage through the first three rounds is pretty good, and a league with a .500 winning percentage should be getting more teams in. On the other hand, the Big 12, Big East, American & A-10 seem to be over-represented.

Reaching the Elite 8:
SEC 6/16 .375
ACC 8/28 .285
WCC 2/7 .285
Pac 4/21 .190
B-10 5/27 .185
B-12 3/27 .111
B.East 2/22 .090
AAC 1/12 .083
A-10 1/15 .066

Again, the SEC leads in percentage of teams advancing, with the same four leagues bringing up the rear. It appears the WCC should be getting higher seeds and/or more teams in the tournament each year.

Final Four appearances:
SEC 4/16 .250
ACC 4/28 .142
WCC 1/7 .142
B-10 3/27 .111
AAC 1/12 .083
Pac 1/21 .047
B.East 1/22 .045
B-12 1/27 .037
A-10 0/15 .000

I would say that the AAC, Pac-12, Big East, Big-12 & A-10 probably have most of their teams seeded too high, on average.

What conclusions do the rest of you draw?

The SEC is a top heavy conference. You have UK, UF who have done most of the heavy lifting and the several mediocre programs. But football/athletic $. So, those teams can get Final 4 talented teams, but cannot sustain.

The Big 12 is a medium heavy conference. So is the Big East. Not a lot of Final 4 caliber teams, but not much dead weight.

The ACC and Big 10 in my eyes are the best conferences. Multiple Final 4 caliber schools, consistency and pedigree. You see it in the results a bit, although the B10 has been down the past few years.