SI ranks Big East 5th best conference

[dff6]

Sad, but it's hard to argue against the data as presented.

"The idea is to compare what actually happened over the past 10 seasons against what the stats say would have happened, had the past 10 seasons played out under the new alignments. Would the realigned Big East have been in the same ballpark as the actual Big East? No, it turns out, not at all."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ce.rankings/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_wr_a1

 

[Class of 72]

 One man's stats with many flaws.

Over the past 5 years no conference has received more NCAA bids than the Big East with 40. The Big East was in the top 3 in winning % over the past 5 years.

Conference winning percentage (2007-11)

Big 12: 28 bids, 43-27, .614

ACC: 28 bids, 39-26, .600

Big East: 40 bids, 56-39, .589

Big Ten: 29 bids, 39-29, .574

Pac-12: 24 bids, 32-24, .571

SEC: 23 bids, 29-22, .569

Sweet 16 and beyond (2007-2011)

ACC: 8 teams, 12-6, .667

Big East: 11 teams, 16-10, .615

SEC: 8 teams, 8-7, .533

Big 12: 10 teams, 10-9, .526

Big Ten: 10 teams, 8-10, .444

Pac-12: 9 teams, 5-9, .357



Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...tate-michigan-wisconsin-indiana#ixzz1vdVwJS9U

 

[MCNPA]

 Problem is that these predictions don't take into account the likely improvement by teams coming in. SMU hiring Larry brown and seems like they'll make an attempt to be a real player. What happens if Jim Boeheim retires which is very likely?? Are they the same huge acquisition? A lot still to play out after re-alignment.

 

[logen]

 Problem is that these predictions don't take into account the likely improvement by teams coming in. SMU hiring Larry brown and seems like they'll make an attempt to be a real player. What happens if Jim Boeheim retires which is very likely?? Are they the same huge acquisition? A lot still to play out after re-alignment.

 

I agree completely; just utter nonsense......

 

[MCNPA]

 Problem is that these predictions don't take into account the likely improvement by teams coming in. SMU hiring Larry brown and seems like they'll make an attempt to be a real player. What happens if Jim Boeheim retires which is very likely?? Are they the same huge acquisition? A lot still to play out after re-alignment.

 

I agree completely; just utter nonsense......

 

Not to mention that teams like SJU, Rutgers, providence, USF all moving up in the league. There will be more parity top to bottom and new players rising to the top.

 

[dff6]

 Problem is that these predictions don't take into account the likely improvement by teams coming in. SMU hiring Larry brown and seems like they'll make an attempt to be a real player. What happens if Jim Boeheim retires which is very likely?? Are they the same huge acquisition? A lot still to play out after re-alignment.

 

I agree completely; just utter nonsense......

 

Not to mention that teams like SJU, Rutgers, providence, USF all moving up in the league. There will be more parity top to bottom and new players rising to the top.

 

I agree, the analysis in the SI articile fails to account for a lot of things, like the potential upswings of the remaining BE teams (e.g., SJU, Rutgers, USF), as well as possible downswings in the exiting programs (e.g., Cuse), and of course, there are more ways to measure a conference's strength as pointed out by Class of 72's post. But, the article looks back over the last 10 years as if the realignments had already occurred and then extrapolates what the realigned conferences would have done over those last 10 years. Obviously, there's a fair amount of speculation involved because, for example, you cannot necessarily assume that Syracuse and Pitt would have had the same records in the ACC as they had in the BE, but the point is, the BE is a weaker conference as of today without Cuse, Pitt and WVA. Personally, I don't think the BE is below the Big 10 and the SEC from a conference strength standpoint, but if Cuse, Pitt and WVA remain in the BE, there wouldn't even be an argument.

 

[Jnaw17]

 Problem is that these predictions don't take into account the likely improvement by teams coming in. SMU hiring Larry brown and seems like they'll make an attempt to be a real player. What happens if Jim Boeheim retires which is very likely?? Are they the same huge acquisition? A lot still to play out after re-alignment.

 

I agree completely; just utter nonsense......

 

Not to mention that teams like SJU, Rutgers, providence, USF all moving up in the league. There will be more parity top to bottom and new players rising to the top.

 

I agree, the analysis in the SI articile fails to account for a lot of things, like the potential upswings of the remaining BE teams (e.g., SJU, Rutgers, USF), as well as possible downswings in the exiting programs (e.g., Cuse), and of course, there are more ways to measure a conference's strength as pointed out by Class of 72's post. But, the article looks back over the last 10 years as if the realignments had already occurred and then extrapolates what the realigned conferences would have done over those last 10 years. Obviously, there's a fair amount of speculation involved because, for example, you cannot necessarily assume that Syracuse and Pitt would have had the same records in the ACC as they had in the BE, but the point is, the BE is a weaker conference as of today without Cuse, Pitt and WVA. Personally, I don't think the BE is below the Big 10 and the SEC from a conference strength standpoint, but if Cuse, Pitt and WVA remain in the BE, there wouldn't even be an argument.

 

The analysis in this article is ridiculous. Weren't Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia better for having played In the Big East? You can't just realign the teams looking backwards and assume all other variables would remain the same. Any decent statistical analyst would find serious faults with his conclusions. Dumb article.