ESPN Wrong Again - B1G BB Just Fine

There were no super conferences this season, and some of the non-P5 powers e.g. Gonzaga were way overrated as well. Actually, I think MSU getting to the FF does mean the B1G was underrated. They were nothing special all season, and while they have improved since the conference tournament, this is far from a great MSU team. They are beating teams they should not be able to compete with if the Big Ten was as bad as rated.
The tournament has been fun, but I can't look at the results and think there was any conference that stood out. Certainly not the Big12, that was the biggest disappointment I have seen from a conference in a while.

goldy93 said:

So, what does that mean? When the B1G was #1 or #2 in RPI that was better than they normally are and sitting at #4 is back to the norm? So, the B1G was not down, just returning to normal after atypical years?

I do not think that is what people are thinking in this thread. I think they believe that simply due to MSU and Wisky making it to the final 4 it somehow proves the B1G as a whole was better, which is illogical.

Click to expand...

As to your first paragraph, yes, that's exactly what I meant. As to the second paragraph, "what people are thinking in this thread" has never been a guiding principle for me during a single moment of posting here.

But there is a more fundamental issue here. RPI, BPI, Sagarin, Pomeroy, and whatever other indexes are followed out there are just rough measures of strength or weakness. When two conferences or teams are close in measurement, drawing conclusions about which one is "better" is just foolish.

I'll use the most recent Sagarin conference ratings for illustration. The second ranked conference, the Big East, has a rating score of 82.89, the third ranked ACC's is 82.8, and the fourth ranked Big Ten is at 82.78. These measures are virtually identical and are so close that no inference should be drawn about which of these three is the strongest or weakest. Unfortunately, innumerate schmucks will just look at the rankings and say "The Big Ten is only the 4th best conference!"

In contrast to those measures above, the 7th ranked conference, the Atlantic 10, has a measure of 76.65. There's enough difference there to make a reasonable conclusion that the A10 is weaker than the three conferences listed above.

corcoran1 said:

The tournament has been fun, but I can't look at the results and think there was any conference that stood out. Certainly not the Big12, that was the biggest disappointment I have seen from a conference in a while.

Click to expand...

The committee took 70% of the Big 12 teams into the NCAA tournament. Almost every time they take a disproportionately large number from a conference, the results bite them in the a$$. Nevertheless, they never seem to learn from that mistake and one can be confident that they will repeat that choice in the future.

goldy93 said:

So, what does that mean? When the B1G was #1 or #2 in RPI that was better than they normally are and sitting at #4 is back to the norm? So, the B1G was not down, just returning to normal after atypical years?

I do not think that is what people are thinking in this thread. I think they believe that simply due to MSU and Wisky making it to the final 4 it somehow proves the B1G as a whole was better, which is illogical.

Click to expand...

I don't think its illogical.
And it makes me happy to reflect that we beat one of the final four teams on their court. We were good enough to do that. So maybe we didn't suck as much as we thought.
Works for me.

ACC & Big Ten will be #1 and #2, Final Four results will determine that

Trying to tab the best conference for 2014-15 IMO now clearly is down to a 2-horse race. ... the ACC and Big Ten.

I see it this way heading into the Final Four. This combines regular-season performance with NCAA performance, and considers the NIT and CBI meaningless. How a conference performs in non-NCAA consolation tournaments (the NCAA ship has already sailed) is irrelevant.

Pac 12 finishes #3 no matter what. Solid performances by Arizona, Oregon, UCLA, and Utah. All 4 of its entrants played to at least their seed.

Big XII finishes #4 no matter what happens next weekend. Great regular season (and the XII deserves credit for that, the regular season does matter, it's what determines how many teams you get in the field) but with favorable seeds (Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas) just too stinky of a NCAA performance to be ranked ahead of any of the top 3.

If it's a Duke-Kentucky title game, I'd have to put the ACC at #1 and the Big Ten at #2. Duke, Notre Dame, North Carolina, and NC State all will have played to their seed or better and for the most part looked good doing so.

If it's a Duke-Wisconsin title game, #1 conference goes to the winner, #2 to the loser.

If Michigan State beats Duke, Big Ten is #1 no matter what happens in Kentucky-Wisconsin game.

Kentucky is the lone wolf from the SEC to get to at least the Sweet 16, so the SEC and Big East can fight it out for #5. Certainly the edge to the SEC if Kentucky nabs the championship.

bleedsmaroonandgold said:

It seems like in football and basketball, the goalposts constantly move for the national media. When the B1G points to a strong regular season, the response is that postseason performance is what defines the real winners. When the B1G points to a strong postseason, the response is that winning a few bowl games or a few teams doing well in a single elimination tournament doesn't make you a good conference because they could be flukes.

Click to expand...

^ This.