(03-28-2016 08:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing bout that Ken which I was saying on another thread- the Big East got so many units because they were getting 8-11 teams in yearly into the tourney.

The ACC is getting a lot of their units based off of winning in the tourney....

It'll be interesting to see if the ACC can keep on getting as many wins as they have.....

The Big East's record 2009 year (7 bids, 17 wins) looked a lot like the ACC's record year this season (7 bids, 18 wins). Both had 2 final four teams. The ACC will add at least one more win (for no additional units) that the Big East didn't get.

but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing bout that Ken which I was saying on another thread- the Big East got so many units because they were getting 8-11 teams in yearly into the tourney.

The ACC is getting a lot of their units based off of winning in the tourney....

It'll be interesting to see if the ACC can keep on getting as many wins as they have.....

The Big East's record 2009 year (7 bids, 17 wins) looked a lot like the ACC's record year this season (7 bids, 18 wins). Both had 2 final four teams. The ACC will add at least one more win (for no additional units) that the Big East didn't get.

but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

To be fair, I think that every close case is going to fall the ACC's way for the next couple of years and UL will be back. I can see the ACC getting 8-9 very regularly - even if UNC gets a ban next year. And I think that there will be occasional 10 (or more) team years.

(03-28-2016 09:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing bout that Ken which I was saying on another thread- the Big East got so many units because they were getting 8-11 teams in yearly into the tourney.

The ACC is getting a lot of their units based off of winning in the tourney....

It'll be interesting to see if the ACC can keep on getting as many wins as they have.....

The Big East's record 2009 year (7 bids, 17 wins) looked a lot like the ACC's record year this season (7 bids, 18 wins). Both had 2 final four teams. The ACC will add at least one more win (for no additional units) that the Big East didn't get.

but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

To be fair, I think that every close case is going to fall the ACC's way for the next couple of years and UL will be back. I can see the ACC getting 8-9 very regularly - even if UNC gets a ban next year. And I think that there will be occasional 10 (or more) team years.

10 or more? considering 40% of the league hasn't been to a tourney in 5 tournaments now, that's a bit much. I mean nothing this year was going to get VT, GT, or FSU in the tourney. They have the same resumes next year- they aren't making the tourney.

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing bout that Ken which I was saying on another thread- the Big East got so many units because they were getting 8-11 teams in yearly into the tourney.

The ACC is getting a lot of their units based off of winning in the tourney....

It'll be interesting to see if the ACC can keep on getting as many wins as they have.....

The only year was 2009, with 17 wins.
The Big East's record 2009 year (7 bids, 17 wins) looked a lot like the ACC's record year this season (7 bids, 18 wins). Both had 2 final four teams. The ACC will add at least one more win (for no additional units) that the Big East didn't get.

but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

Only in 2009, with 17 wins.

(03-28-2016 09:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 09:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing bout that Ken which I was saying on another thread- the Big East got so many units because they were getting 8-11 teams in yearly into the tourney.

The ACC is getting a lot of their units based off of winning in the tourney....

It'll be interesting to see if the ACC can keep on getting as many wins as they have.....

The Big East's record 2009 year (7 bids, 17 wins) looked a lot like the ACC's record year this season (7 bids, 18 wins). Both had 2 final four teams. The ACC will add at least one more win (for no additional units) that the Big East didn't get.

but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

To be fair, I think that every close case is going to fall the ACC's way for the next couple of years and UL will be back. I can see the ACC getting 8-9 very regularly - even if UNC gets a ban next year. And I think that there will be occasional 10 (or more) team years.

10 or more? considering 40% of the league hasn't been to a tourney in 5 tournaments now, that's a bit much. I mean nothing this year was going to get VT, GT, or FSU in the tourney. They have the same resumes next year- they aren't making the tourney.

The Big XII sent 70%, and we both know you're cherry picking numbers. FSU won the ACC the year before your window, and GT and WF aren't anywhere close to being as hopeless as you're making them sound. WF was ranked #1 as recent as 2009(?).

(03-29-2016 06:07 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing bout that Ken which I was saying on another thread- the Big East got so many units because they were getting 8-11 teams in yearly into the tourney.

The ACC is getting a lot of their units based off of winning in the tourney....

It'll be interesting to see if the ACC can keep on getting as many wins as they have.....

The only year was 2009, with 17 wins.
The Big East's record 2009 year (7 bids, 17 wins) looked a lot like the ACC's record year this season (7 bids, 18 wins). Both had 2 final four teams. The ACC will add at least one more win (for no additional units) that the Big East didn't get.

but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

Only in 2009, with 17 wins.

wrong...
2011 the BE got 22 units with only 13 wins(12 before the title game)
2012 BE got 23 units with 14 wins
2013 BE got 19 units with 13 wins(12 before title game)
so in 3 years the BE got 64 units with only 40 wins.

The ACC on the other hand here last 2 years-
2015 ACC got 21 units with 17 wins(16 before the title game)
2016 ACC got 25 units with 19 or 20 wins(19 before title game)
so in 2 years the ACC got 46 units with 36 or 37 wins

That's the big difference. Is the ACC going to be able to keep up this pace of winning games in the tourney like this?

(03-28-2016 09:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 06:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing bout that Ken which I was saying on another thread- the Big East got so many units because they were getting 8-11 teams in yearly into the tourney.

The ACC is getting a lot of their units based off of winning in the tourney....

It'll be interesting to see if the ACC can keep on getting as many wins as they have.....

The Big East's record 2009 year (7 bids, 17 wins) looked a lot like the ACC's record year this season (7 bids, 18 wins). Both had 2 final four teams. The ACC will add at least one more win (for no additional units) that the Big East didn't get.

but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

To be fair, I think that every close case is going to fall the ACC's way for the next couple of years and UL will be back. I can see the ACC getting 8-9 very regularly - even if UNC gets a ban next year. And I think that there will be occasional 10 (or more) team years.

It would have been more this year if we didn't self imposed...but as you said even if UNC is hit with a Ban Next year-(And with what Emmert said to Davis about Post Season Bans to Seth Davis I don't think they will be hit with that) Louisville will more than pick up the slack...Louisville is loaded for 2016-2017...

Adding units earned for participation to my earlier analysis, the top 6 conferences look like this.

...................UNITS / MEMBER
CONF......2009 Align....2016 Align.

B1G..........8.36.............7.00
Big East....7.50..............6.00
Big 12.......6.67.............7.40
ACC..........6.00.............8.07
SEC..........4.83.............4.50
PAC..........4.80.............4.75

It would appear that the ACC and Big 12 are stronger post-realignment, and the Big East and B1G are weaker. Those four have been, and remain, clearly ahead of everybody else.

Another measure of conference strength is its depth, or the degree to which just a couple of powerful teams dominate their conferences. Based on their current member configuration, I calculated the number of NCAAT units earned over the past 6 years by the top 2 teams in each conference as a percentage of the total units earned by all the conference members. In this case, the smaller the percentage, the better.

The results are:

1....ACC.......31%
2....BE.........37
3....B1G.......38
4....B12.......42
5....PAC.......47
6....A10.......49
7....AAC.......58
8....MWC......60
9....SEC.......62
10..WCC......88
11..MVC.......94

(03-29-2016 11:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Adding units earned for participation to my earlier analysis, the top 6 conferences look like this.

...................UNITS / MEMBER
CONF......2009 Align....2016 Align.

B1G..........8.36.............7.00
Big East....7.50..............6.00
Big 12.......6.67.............7.40
ACC..........6.00.............8.07
SEC..........4.83.............4.50
PAC..........4.80.............4.75

It would appear that the ACC and Big 12 are stronger post-realignment, and the Big East and B1G are weaker. Those four have been, and remain, clearly ahead of everybody else.

The BIG EAST IMO came out very well post realignment...they have a great contract with Fox and more importantly they are still considered a Power Basketball Conference...nobody would dare call them "Mid Major".

(03-29-2016 11:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Adding units earned for participation to my earlier analysis, the top 6 conferences look like this.

...................UNITS / MEMBER
CONF......2009 Align....2016 Align.

B1G..........8.36.............7.00
Big East....7.50..............6.00
Big 12.......6.67.............7.40
ACC..........6.00.............8.07
SEC..........4.83.............4.50
PAC..........4.80.............4.75

It would appear that the ACC and Big 12 are stronger post-realignment, and the Big East and B1G are weaker. Those four have been, and remain, clearly ahead of everybody else.

The SEC and PAC are in a low period for basketball, but I bet they bounce back.

(03-29-2016 12:00 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Adding units earned for participation to my earlier analysis, the top 6 conferences look like this.

...................UNITS / MEMBER
CONF......2009 Align....2016 Align.

B1G..........8.36.............7.00
Big East....7.50..............6.00
Big 12.......6.67.............7.40
ACC..........6.00.............8.07
SEC..........4.83.............4.50
PAC..........4.80.............4.75

It would appear that the ACC and Big 12 are stronger post-realignment, and the Big East and B1G are weaker. Those four have been, and remain, clearly ahead of everybody else.

The BIG EAST IMO came out very well post realignment...they have a great contract with Fox and more importantly they are still considered a Power Basketball Conference...nobody would dare call them "Mid Major".

People from the AAC and A10 would...

(03-29-2016 08:15 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 06:07 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

Only in 2009, with 17 wins.

wrong...
2011 the BE got 22 units with only 13 wins(12 before the title game)
2012 BE got 23 units with 14 wins
2013 BE got 19 units with 13 wins(12 before title game)
so in 3 years the BE got 64 units with only 40 wins.

The ACC on the other hand here last 2 years-
2015 ACC got 21 units with 17 wins(16 before the title game)
2016 ACC got 25 units with 19 or 20 wins(19 before title game)
so in 2 years the ACC got 46 units with 36 or 37 wins

That's the big difference. Is the ACC going to be able to keep up this pace of winning games in the tourney like this?

Right, they had several years with >20 units earned, but only one year with >15 wins. You had said they had no years with >15 wins.

In general, the NCAA tournament selection committee was very generous in its invitations to the Big East from 2006-13. Given the number of wins that the ACC has achieved the past two years, that same generosity ought to now be extended to the ACC.

(03-29-2016 12:17 PM)ivet Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:00 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Adding units earned for participation to my earlier analysis, the top 6 conferences look like this.

...................UNITS / MEMBER
CONF......2009 Align....2016 Align.

B1G..........8.36.............7.00
Big East....7.50..............6.00
Big 12.......6.67.............7.40
ACC..........6.00.............8.07
SEC..........4.83.............4.50
PAC..........4.80.............4.75

It would appear that the ACC and Big 12 are stronger post-realignment, and the Big East and B1G are weaker. Those four have been, and remain, clearly ahead of everybody else.

The BIG EAST IMO came out very well post realignment...they have a great contract with Fox and more importantly they are still considered a Power Basketball Conference...nobody would dare call them "Mid Major".

People from the AAC and A10 would...

And they could not be more mistaken...

(03-29-2016 12:07 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 11:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  Adding units earned for participation to my earlier analysis, the top 6 conferences look like this.

...................UNITS / MEMBER
CONF......2009 Align....2016 Align.

B1G..........8.36.............7.00
Big East....7.50..............6.00
Big 12.......6.67.............7.40
ACC..........6.00.............8.07
SEC..........4.83.............4.50
PAC..........4.80.............4.75

It would appear that the ACC and Big 12 are stronger post-realignment, and the Big East and B1G are weaker. Those four have been, and remain, clearly ahead of everybody else.

The SEC and PAC are in a low period for basketball, but I bet they bounce back.

Pac 12 yes....the SEC just don't see it anytime soon...

Yet another measure of conference performance is the number of times one (or more) of its teams was in contention for the championship. Over the past 6 years, 7 conferences had more than one member make it to the Elite Eight. Following is the total number of Elite Eight appearances by those seven conferences and which schools earned them.

ACC...14..UNC, Louisville, Syracuse, Duke, Notre Dame and Virginia
B1G....8...Wisconsin, Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan
SEC....8...Kentucky, Florida
B12....5...Kansas, Oklahoma, Baylor
PAC....4...Arizona, Oregon
BE......3...Butler, Villanova, Marquette
A10....2...VCU, Dayton

Combined, teams now in these conference accounted for 45 out of 48 Elite Eight appearances.

(03-29-2016 12:21 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 08:15 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 06:07 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 08:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  but there again you had other big Big East years with more teams in but fewer wins.... don't think the BE ever got more than 15 wins in any one year.... but still had some 20+ unit years.

Only in 2009, with 17 wins.

wrong...
2011 the BE got 22 units with only 13 wins(12 before the title game)
2012 BE got 23 units with 14 wins
2013 BE got 19 units with 13 wins(12 before title game)
so in 3 years the BE got 64 units with only 40 wins.

The ACC on the other hand here last 2 years-
2015 ACC got 21 units with 17 wins(16 before the title game)
2016 ACC got 25 units with 19 or 20 wins(19 before title game)
so in 2 years the ACC got 46 units with 36 or 37 wins

That's the big difference. Is the ACC going to be able to keep up this pace of winning games in the tourney like this?

Right, they had several years with >20 units earned, but only one year with >15 wins. You had said they had no years with >15 wins.

In general, the NCAA tournament selection committee was very generous in its invitations to the Big East from 2006-13. Given the number of wins that the ACC has achieved the past two years, that same generosity ought to now be extended to the ACC.

I dunno...
2012 Seton Hall was 20-12 and missed
2011- no one was really close to missing
2010- SH was 19-13 and USF was 20-13 and missed
2009- PC 19-13 missed.
2008- Syracuse was 19-13 and missed
2007- WVU was 22-9 and missed.

so no, the Big East didn't get a whole hell of a lot of generosity...

If 2016 repeats itself in 2017- sorry but no way Clemson, VT,GT, or FSU make the tourney.

(03-29-2016 01:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I dunno...
2012 Seton Hall was 20-12 and missed
2011- no one was really close to missing
2010- SH was 19-13 and USF was 20-13 and missed
2009- PC 19-13 missed.
2008- Syracuse was 19-13 and missed
2007- WVU was 22-9 and missed.

so no, the Big East didn't get a whole hell of a lot of generosity...

If 2016 repeats itself in 2017- sorry but no way Clemson, VT,GT, or FSU make the tourney.

I see what you mean. Talking past each other. I thought you meant wins by the conference in the tourney.

I remember "back in the day" when winning 17 games as a member of the Big East was enough to get you in.

(03-29-2016 02:34 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 01:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I dunno...
2012 Seton Hall was 20-12 and missed
2011- no one was really close to missing
2010- SH was 19-13 and USF was 20-13 and missed
2009- PC 19-13 missed.
2008- Syracuse was 19-13 and missed
2007- WVU was 22-9 and missed.

so no, the Big East didn't get a whole hell of a lot of generosity...

If 2016 repeats itself in 2017- sorry but no way Clemson, VT,GT, or FSU make the tourney.

I see what you mean. Talking past each other. I thought you meant wins by the conference in the tourney.

I remember "back in the day" when winning 17 games as a member of the Big East was enough to get you in.

it's not been like that in 15 years. I remember back in 2000 Georgia got in from the SEC with a 16-14 record. Those days are long gone.