Pac-12 in the NCAAs
Well the top of the conference appears to be strong. The Pac-12 went 8-1 in the opening round. That was the best winning percentage of any conference.
Cal needs a quality HC to compete with Arizona, ucla, Oregon, and (sigh) $C.
Combined with the women, the Pac-12 is 16-2 so far. Nice showing!
True Blue Golden Bear
Selection committee biffed it choosing 9 teams in the so called best conference, the ACC.
Originally Posted by RJABear
Isn't this RPI system flawed? If your conference has a few nice early wins (the whole landscape changes by Feb/Mar), then that great RPI is locked in from late December to March no matter what happens.
Interestingly, composite ratings systems that DO take margin of victory (and opponents' margin of victory etc.) into account (unlike RPI) did NOT have the ACC as the best conference, even before the tourney started. That honor went to the Big 12, which still has Kansas, Baylor, West Virginia in the sweet 16 as it turns out. Here's Sagarin for MBB - scroll down for conference aggregate ratings.
Originally Posted by KoreAmBear
All of the rating systems had the Pac-12 fairly low but tended to be in agreement that the Pac-12 was mostly just 3 really good teams, a couple mediocre ones (looks like SC may have been a bit better than mediocre when healthy) and then a very weak tail end (man OSU was just terrible and hurt the whole league badly).
For the women, Sagarin has had the Pac-12 as by far the best conference top to bottom throughout the season, even though the very top couple teams (UConn, Baylor) are in other conferences: Sagarin WBB Ratings. Even the 3rd best conference (ACC) per Sagarin has 5 teams (!) deemed worse than the worst Pac-12 team (Arizona #81): Wake Forest, UNC, Pittsburgh, Clemson, BC. A Pac-12 team may not win the championship for the women, but anyone that has ever said during this season that the Pac-12 is not the best conference in WBB top-to-bottom is nuts.
Not bringing these up to say that Sagarin (or Pomeroy or BPI) are any kind of silver bullet (far from it), but in my opinion, they are less flawed than the RPI. No matter what, it's a tough choice, even if the committee were unbiased. If the conference has nice early wins as the ACC did, how do you objectively determine during selection time that they have gotten worse or that others have gotten better over the course of the season when each conference mostly just plays itself January - March? Even if they could and did watch all the games (ha), it's hard for them to know when teams look good because they are good versus the competition being bad. So it does end up coming down to those early season inter-conference match-ups to determine relative strengths.
Last edited by OneKeg; 03-20-2017 at 11:12 AM.
Reason: Added links
Well, here's another way of looking at it....
The selection committee chooses 68 teams to compete - so there are useless discussions around bubble teams, but there aren't any DESERVING teams that get left out. You can also discuss seedings, but that is more about entertainment and location - and we've seen enough upsets over the years to appreciate both sides of how accurate that has been.
Anyway, by selecting 9 teams from the ACC, that also affords them the opportunity to embarrass themselves. Which they sort of did. However, the P12, B12, Big lEast and others have had their share of embrassments as well in the past.
On the other hand, I believe the NCAA Tourney $$$$ is allocated by number of teams invited - as well as how far they progress. So, perhaps there is an argument here that ECMB is at play and ACC is getting more $$$ than they deserve.
True Blue Golden Bear
Good analysis. I'd better use a different metric before picking Duke and Louisville in my Final Four.
Originally Posted by OneKeg