|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 31, 2006 15:25:19 GMT -5
Apparently the ACC is still the best conference in America ... I don't have insider but I am going to assume from the title of the piece and its opening paragraphs that it is going to slight the Big East at the expense of the ACC. Could someone with insider please confirm this? tinyurl.com/bhbkwlink fixed: ModIts a big link, just cut an paste it. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by georgetowngrad05 on Jan 31, 2006 15:29:57 GMT -5
The story is being previewed for the next couple days I believe, so anyone can access it, just click on the link...
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 31, 2006 15:33:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I followed that right up until the part about seed deviation.
Then I had an aneurysm.
|
|
|
|
Post by IlladelpHoya on Jan 31, 2006 15:34:50 GMT -5
This is an historical analysis, doesn't mention anything about this year.
Very useful.
I'll save everyone some time. The ACC has done well in the tournament historically.
There will be a quiz.
|
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by CO_Hoya on Jan 31, 2006 15:36:52 GMT -5
Very quick summary:
1986-1995: ACC was best conference at outperforming seeding in NCAA tourn
1996-present: BE is best conference at outperforming seeding in NCAA tourn
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Jan 31, 2006 15:39:25 GMT -5
I would tweak the analysis slightly, although the results might be the same. Rather than compare how a given seed has done relative to the average level of performance, I would evaluate success in the tournament based upon how a seeded team did relative to the expectations for that seed--i.e. a no. 1 seed should score 0 if it reachs the final four, less if it doesn't and more if it advances to the championship game, an 8 seed should win one game, anybody 9 or lower should win zero, etc.
You would still effectively be comparing the conferences on the same scale because would expect choker conferences like the Big 12 and Pac 10 to have huge minuses.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jan 31, 2006 15:40:12 GMT -5
This is a very stupid article and it's conclusions are meaningless. Too bad the guy spent so much time on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 31, 2006 18:22:37 GMT -5
The guy also fails to take into account how ACC teams' seeds are usually inflated. Of course the ACC will have the best average seed if each of their teams is seeded 1 to 2 spots higher than they should be year after year. Not to mention the ACC is usually top heavy (meaning they'll have a 1 or 2 seed for sure, but their weaker teams never sneak into the tourney as a 10 or 11 seed).
|
|
Just Cos
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Eat 'em up Hoyas
Posts: 1,509
|
Post by Just Cos on Jan 31, 2006 18:37:43 GMT -5
"After the Big East ransacked Conference USA of its better teams..."
Ummm...thanks for mentioning why this all started!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,896
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 31, 2006 18:38:54 GMT -5
The guy also fails to take into account how ACC teams' seeds are usually inflated. Of course the ACC will have the best average seed if each of their teams is seeded 1 to 2 spots higher than they should be year after year. Not to mention the ACC is usually top heavy (meaning they'll have a 1 or 2 seed for sure, but their weaker teams never sneak into the tourney as a 10 or 11 seed). Well, that's why he measures performance vs. seed. The ACC did well in the eighties and early nineties versus their seeds. The Big East was best versus seeds in the last ten years. So generally, they've been a bit underseeded. The analysis isn't perfect, of course, and hardly says one is better, but it does point to the ACC being a bit overseeded relative to the BE. |
|
cincyhoya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 165
|
Post by cincyhoya on Jan 31, 2006 18:39:56 GMT -5
The guy also fails to take into account how ACC teams' seeds are usually inflated. Of course the ACC will have the best average seed if each of their teams is seeded 1 to 2 spots higher than they should be year after year. Not to mention the ACC is usually top heavy (meaning they'll have a 1 or 2 seed for sure, but their weaker teams never sneak into the tourney as a 10 or 11 seed). Couldn't agree more that seedings tend to seem high for the ACC. However, that only enhances the article's arguement about the ACC doing better than the seed's average (i.e., say NC State should have been an 8 and got a 6 and it "overacheived by 1.5 wins" as a 6, that probably would translate to overacheiving by 2 or so wins if it got the proper 8 seed). Honestly, I hate damn near every team in the ACC, but I can't argue that it may outperform our beloved BE more often than not. We tend to have one team at least overacheive, someone good meet expectations and at least a couple flame-outs... |
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,909
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 1, 2006 0:36:56 GMT -5
"After the Big East ransacked Conference USA of its better teams..." Ummm...thanks for mentioning why this all started! I remember reading an article or listening to a TV analyst recently talking about the number of teams the Big East would get into the tournament. The guy mentioned that the "greed" of the conference and its expansion might hurt it, as the committee might not want to take more than seven teams. I started yelling and cursing about how the greed of the ACC and three schools started the whole thing, but of course this was not mentioned. |
|
