I just thought a would take a moment and throw out an analytical perspective of the Big-12 conference in the NCAA Tourney, though not too deeply. So here goes.....
When it comes to the Big-12 there is no escaping or denying that Iowa State and Baylor royally and exceptionally let the Big-12 down. Ignore the seedings, which from year to year the seeding for the 13th and lower seeds can vary significantly, depending on just who got automatic berths.
What is at issue here is that there is just no way that Iowa State should have lost to UAB. I don't check every year, but I am pretty sure (per the Cygarin Ratings) that the loss to UAB was the lowest power ranked loss of the Fred Hoiberg era. If it wasn't THEE worst, it is a very close candidate. You do no not...and should not.....expect to lose to such a lowly ranked team, on a neutral court, in a sudden death tournament.
But it did, and Baylor is similar. In the context of the Big-12, my point is that 3-seed losses of both Iowa State and Baylor are ridiculously unlikely. They serve to skew the performance of the Big-12 in a remarkably profound way. That just has to be kept in mind when observing the performance of the Big-12 overall....especially when criticisms of the Big-12 being "exposed" are being thrown around.
One of the biggest irritations I have with analysts evaluating conference involvement in the tournament is observing the "number" of conference teams in it. The Big-12 tied with the Big-10 with seven teams that made the Big Dance. Two other conferences had six bids.
But, the percentage of participation is staggeringly in favor of the Big-12....
Big-12 70%
Big East: 60%
Big-10 50%
ACC: 40%
SEC: 35%
There is no question that the Big-12 dominated the field from the standpoint of members that made the Dance. Futhermore, one has to recognize that when there is that high of a percentage, there is most likely a huge spectrum of teams that are in, and that includes teams that are going to be the lower seeds...and high probability if losing.
My point is....the 70th percentile team from the Big-12 losing in the Dance...is profoundly better than the 70th percentile team in any other conference that didn't even make the NIT. Yet the Big-12 gets criticized for those losses and having been "exposed".
The next thing that has to be evaluated in the Big-12 was there were five teams that were virtually power rating identical, and darned near identical in conference records. All one has to do is look at where the conference standings were before the last game of each team, and realize that the five top standings were undetermined by several positions.
The relevance of that..... is looking at how all five virtually equal teams did in the NCAA tournament, and two of those survived to make the Sweet-16. From a power ranking standpoint, quite frankly it was virtually equal which of those five made it, and which three didn't....it was a crapshoot.
Seeding is somewhat irrelevant....because a blink of an eye would have totally reversed the entire seeding of the Big-12's top five teams.
So, as it stands, here is the percentage of each conference represented in the Sweet-16.....
ACC: 33%
PAC-12: 25%
Big-12: 20%
Big-10: 14%
Big East: 10 %
In all due respect, I don't see how this is embarrassing at all! Once again, if you look at the absolute equal competitiveness (as indicated by power rankings) instead of what seeds the teams acquired...I hardly see where the Big-12 has exposed anything negative at all....it just wasn't the teams expected via seeding.
Would the nation feel better if it was two of three of Iowa State, Baylor, or Kansas in the Sweet-16 instead of Oklahoma and West Virginia? You betcha.....but they shouldn't have. All five teams were virtually identical, and odds were that roughly half would fall out simply because every game from 32 up is a near toss-up game...and it was rather random which it would be.
Simply put, from a conference as a whole analysis....the Big-12 is exactly where they should have been expected to be, and they are still neck and neck (plus or minus just one team) with the other best teams in the conference.
Again....you have to look the "percentage" of the conference involvement, and not the "number". Conferences with more teams simply have a numbers advantage to get in to the tournament, and likewise advance in the tournament.
However, going forward from here is a different story......
The Big-12 is clearly and undeniably the strongest conference top to bottom with just about every way measurable...as long as you measure the entire conference, or even the top two-thirds. There is really not even anybody that is close.
Just to give you a quantifiable example, the mid-point power ranking for the Big-12 is 84.62. The next conference after that is Big East at 82. 95.
That may not seem to be a big difference, but in rankings it means the difference between 29th and 41st, and it goes down from there with all other conferences.
What that is saying is that the top-half of the Big-12 is comprised of top-30 teams, and the top-half of all other conference dips to below top-40 teams.
That includes the ACC conference, which has five teams in the Sweet-16....but only got just over half of the percentage of teams in the Big Dance that the Big-12 did.
Here is the "however"......
The Big-12 has six teams (60%) in the power ranking top-25 and seven teams in the top-45 (70%). That's why they got seven teams in.
The ACC has five teams (33%) in the power ranking top-25 and seven teams in the top-45 (45%). If you notice, the ACC is about one half the strength of the Big-12.
But here is the difference.......
The Big-12 has six teams in the top-25....but they are all ranked between 13th and 24th!
The ACC has only five teams in the top-25....but all five are ranked are ranked higher than the entire six of the Big-12.
Make no mistake that if conference means "conference" the Big-12 has no equal in the country this year, and the Big-12 rightfully dominated the field from a percentage of conference participation standpoint.
But the potential of a deep run into the NCAA tournament, the "conference" as a whole is irrelevant....all that matters is your small handful of flagship teams....... And the ACC has that hands down, with nobody even remotely close.
SUMMARY
Bringing this full circle, had Iowa State and Baylor won their first games, this stood to be an epic year for the conference in the NCAA tournament. But they didn't and is us and them that gave the Big-12 a black eye.
Perception is perception and that isn't going to change, but the fact of the matter is....Iowa State and Baylor were good enough teams that they darned well should have been in the Sweet-16.
And that doesn't make the Big-12 any less strong just because the didn't. Top the bottom, the Big-12 has no equal.
But an individual flagship championship team? Not so much, and that probably included Iowa State for the get-go this year.
(In my opinion.)
This post was edited on 3/25 2:04 PM by Cygarin
When it comes to the Big-12 there is no escaping or denying that Iowa State and Baylor royally and exceptionally let the Big-12 down. Ignore the seedings, which from year to year the seeding for the 13th and lower seeds can vary significantly, depending on just who got automatic berths.
What is at issue here is that there is just no way that Iowa State should have lost to UAB. I don't check every year, but I am pretty sure (per the Cygarin Ratings) that the loss to UAB was the lowest power ranked loss of the Fred Hoiberg era. If it wasn't THEE worst, it is a very close candidate. You do no not...and should not.....expect to lose to such a lowly ranked team, on a neutral court, in a sudden death tournament.
But it did, and Baylor is similar. In the context of the Big-12, my point is that 3-seed losses of both Iowa State and Baylor are ridiculously unlikely. They serve to skew the performance of the Big-12 in a remarkably profound way. That just has to be kept in mind when observing the performance of the Big-12 overall....especially when criticisms of the Big-12 being "exposed" are being thrown around.
One of the biggest irritations I have with analysts evaluating conference involvement in the tournament is observing the "number" of conference teams in it. The Big-12 tied with the Big-10 with seven teams that made the Big Dance. Two other conferences had six bids.
But, the percentage of participation is staggeringly in favor of the Big-12....
Big-12 70%
Big East: 60%
Big-10 50%
ACC: 40%
SEC: 35%
There is no question that the Big-12 dominated the field from the standpoint of members that made the Dance. Futhermore, one has to recognize that when there is that high of a percentage, there is most likely a huge spectrum of teams that are in, and that includes teams that are going to be the lower seeds...and high probability if losing.
My point is....the 70th percentile team from the Big-12 losing in the Dance...is profoundly better than the 70th percentile team in any other conference that didn't even make the NIT. Yet the Big-12 gets criticized for those losses and having been "exposed".
The next thing that has to be evaluated in the Big-12 was there were five teams that were virtually power rating identical, and darned near identical in conference records. All one has to do is look at where the conference standings were before the last game of each team, and realize that the five top standings were undetermined by several positions.
The relevance of that..... is looking at how all five virtually equal teams did in the NCAA tournament, and two of those survived to make the Sweet-16. From a power ranking standpoint, quite frankly it was virtually equal which of those five made it, and which three didn't....it was a crapshoot.
Seeding is somewhat irrelevant....because a blink of an eye would have totally reversed the entire seeding of the Big-12's top five teams.
So, as it stands, here is the percentage of each conference represented in the Sweet-16.....
ACC: 33%
PAC-12: 25%
Big-12: 20%
Big-10: 14%
Big East: 10 %
In all due respect, I don't see how this is embarrassing at all! Once again, if you look at the absolute equal competitiveness (as indicated by power rankings) instead of what seeds the teams acquired...I hardly see where the Big-12 has exposed anything negative at all....it just wasn't the teams expected via seeding.
Would the nation feel better if it was two of three of Iowa State, Baylor, or Kansas in the Sweet-16 instead of Oklahoma and West Virginia? You betcha.....but they shouldn't have. All five teams were virtually identical, and odds were that roughly half would fall out simply because every game from 32 up is a near toss-up game...and it was rather random which it would be.
Simply put, from a conference as a whole analysis....the Big-12 is exactly where they should have been expected to be, and they are still neck and neck (plus or minus just one team) with the other best teams in the conference.
Again....you have to look the "percentage" of the conference involvement, and not the "number". Conferences with more teams simply have a numbers advantage to get in to the tournament, and likewise advance in the tournament.
However, going forward from here is a different story......
The Big-12 is clearly and undeniably the strongest conference top to bottom with just about every way measurable...as long as you measure the entire conference, or even the top two-thirds. There is really not even anybody that is close.
Just to give you a quantifiable example, the mid-point power ranking for the Big-12 is 84.62. The next conference after that is Big East at 82. 95.
That may not seem to be a big difference, but in rankings it means the difference between 29th and 41st, and it goes down from there with all other conferences.
What that is saying is that the top-half of the Big-12 is comprised of top-30 teams, and the top-half of all other conference dips to below top-40 teams.
That includes the ACC conference, which has five teams in the Sweet-16....but only got just over half of the percentage of teams in the Big Dance that the Big-12 did.
Here is the "however"......
The Big-12 has six teams (60%) in the power ranking top-25 and seven teams in the top-45 (70%). That's why they got seven teams in.
The ACC has five teams (33%) in the power ranking top-25 and seven teams in the top-45 (45%). If you notice, the ACC is about one half the strength of the Big-12.
But here is the difference.......
The Big-12 has six teams in the top-25....but they are all ranked between 13th and 24th!
The ACC has only five teams in the top-25....but all five are ranked are ranked higher than the entire six of the Big-12.
Make no mistake that if conference means "conference" the Big-12 has no equal in the country this year, and the Big-12 rightfully dominated the field from a percentage of conference participation standpoint.
But the potential of a deep run into the NCAA tournament, the "conference" as a whole is irrelevant....all that matters is your small handful of flagship teams....... And the ACC has that hands down, with nobody even remotely close.
SUMMARY
Bringing this full circle, had Iowa State and Baylor won their first games, this stood to be an epic year for the conference in the NCAA tournament. But they didn't and is us and them that gave the Big-12 a black eye.
Perception is perception and that isn't going to change, but the fact of the matter is....Iowa State and Baylor were good enough teams that they darned well should have been in the Sweet-16.
And that doesn't make the Big-12 any less strong just because the didn't. Top the bottom, the Big-12 has no equal.
But an individual flagship championship team? Not so much, and that probably included Iowa State for the get-go this year.
(In my opinion.)
This post was edited on 3/25 2:04 PM by Cygarin
