 |  |
 |
|
| Friday, February 14 Bracket Banter |
||||||||||
|
Answering questions, questioning answers ... and otherwise waiting for the wind chill to get above Z-E-R-O!
Conference Call No one talks about the ACC. I saw a little ACC bashing, just from people wanting to give some love to the SEC or the Big 12. The ACC is by far the best basketball conference in the nation. Look at the out-of-conference records. All of the ACC schools are a combined 79-17 out-of-conference this year. Some teams have a lesser SOS, but so do other conferences. Do other conferences have as good out-of-conference schedules? And the ACC typically performs well in the tourney. They have the best winning percentage of any conference at .658 (296-154). They have had a team in the Final Four for the last six years and have won the tourney the last two years. They have had six teams in the Final Four over the last five years, with only the Big Ten matching that. Duke has the best all-time winning percentage in the tourney at .765 (75-23). No one gives the ACC credit because conference games cause trouble for a majority of the conference. The top six ACC teams have not lost a home conference game. Teams like Georgia Tech and Virginia are great teams that could get looked over because of tough conference play. I will give no love to the SEC or Big 12 until people respect the ACC more. Who do you think has the toughest conference, and hence, (should) receive more bids for the dance. Thanks for answering questions and keep up the good work.
Arthur Christianson, I suppose, probably because I've never had a particular allegiance to a single conference, that the whole "my conference is betters than yours" thing never really made much sense to me. I mean, there are clearly groups of conferences (ACC/SEC, MEAC/SWAC) that achieve at relatively the same level year after year, but there are no definitive criteria -- or need for them, in my book -- to differentiate within those groups. I would also to further examine a few of Arthur's assertions:
There are certainly years when the ACC is clearly best, just as there are years when maybe the Big Ten or SEC could say the same. Again, I don't believe it is possible to determine with any degree of certainty which of the top conferences is the best over time.
OK, let's do that (using only Division I games) for the six BCS leagues:
ACC 78-20 (.796) The ACC comes out on top here by a relatively insignificant margin over the Big 12 and SEC. There is then a notable drop-off among leagues 4-6.
As a matter of fact, yes:
SEC No. 2 (SOS non-conference) Here we find the long-lost "smoking gun." The ACC this year was last among the "Big Six" in terms of non-conference schedule strength. It even finishes below the Big East, which is really saying something. So, if you combine this data with the non-conference winning percentages above, you'd have to rate at least the SEC (and maybe the Big 12) above the ACC with respect to non-league performance.
Neither team is great this year by any measure, and I daresay it is not the overwhelming power of the ACC that is keeping them at or near the dreaded NCAA bubble. For comparison, let's say these are the fourth and fifth teams out of the ACC. Let's then look at the fourth and fifth teams from some of the other major conferences: Virginia vs. Georgia Tech
RPI: 42-57 UGa vs. Auburn
RPI: 5-26 Edge: SEC (over ACC) Oklahoma State vs. Mizzouri
RPI: 7-18 Edge: Big 12 (over ACC)
Prior to this season, most would have picked the Big 12 (because of the number of potential elite teams at the top). Now that the SEC has nearly matched the number of elite teams, its greater depth puts it right with the SEC. I can't determine a significant difference, and neither can anyone else. What I do know is that the ACC is no better than third, at least this year. And that's before we look at head-to-head results for this season: ACC vs. Big 12 vs. SEC ACC is 1-0 vs. Big 12 and 3-5 vs. SEC Big 12 and SEC are 4-4
I'll Take Manhattan ... They would have a 26-4 record under that scenario. If they lose one or two down the stretch, the question is moot. But what if it did happen? Thanks Joe! P.S.: I am nice to you when you don't slight the best team in New York!!
Matt Callahan First of all, I never needed to be convinced about the Jaspers as the top team in the MAAC. But when our projections began in mid-January, they were not yet leading the league. Hence, other teams had to be listed as the automatic bid recipient at that time. The larger question of Manhattan's potential at-large candidacy is obviously a hot topic, and rightfully so. As best I can project (prior to Thursday's loss), Manhattan can finish the regular season at 24-3. My rough calculations in that scenario give them an RPI around 40 with a schedule strength in the 200 range. Let's see how that compares to 1995:
Manhattan: 1995 vs. 2003 This comparison would seem to suggest a very optimistic scenario for Manhattan should they not capture the MAAC automatic bid. However, it is worth noting that NCAA Selection Committee philosophy has evolved quite dramatically during the intervening eight years. Fewer and fewer non-majors have received at-large bids since the Jaspers in '95 and the College of Charleston in '94. Perhaps more instructive is to compare the potential 2003 profile of Manhattan with the case of Butler last year:
Butler/2002 vs. Manhattan/2003 I continue to believe that Butler should have received an at-large bid last year. RPI notwithstanding, the Bulldogs had more than Indiana as a high-profile scalp. Butler also won at Purdue and Ball State on the way to a 13-0 start. This year's Jaspers are close to that (wins over Seton Hall and St. John's), but not all the way there. Bottom line: I strongly believe that dominant regular season champions from respectable conferences should be rewarded. We'll know in a month if the NCAA agrees.
Bracket Bits If you win your conference tournament, or get an automatic bid, you should be in the "field of 64," not the "play-in game of two." Chris Reppert By rule (as voted by Division I membership), there can be no fewer than 34 at-large bids in a given year. Evidently there was fear at some point that the number of conferences would keep growing and thereby squeeze out a few at-large teams. The current state of affairs came about in 2001 when the Mountain West became the 31st conference to gain an automatic bid. Few remember that in 1983 (four) and 1984 (five), when the "main" bracket was 48 teams, several opening round games were held to determine the lowest seeds. Joe Lunardi is the resident Bracketologist for ESPN, ESPN.com and ESPN Radio. He may be reached at bracketology@comcast.net. |
|
|||||||||
