# Ok so what conferences are the best this year?



## I_Bleed_Orange_Juice (Nov 8, 2003)

Ok so what conferences are the best this year?
*
Real Time RPI Thursday's games included*

BE - 9
SEC - 6
B12 - 6
P10 - 5
B10 - 5
ACC - 4
A10 - 3
MVC - 3
Cusa- 1

*Pomeroy Ratings Wednesday's games included*

BE - 9
B12 - 9
P10 - 7
B10 - 6
SEC - 5
ACC - 5
A10 - 1
MVC - 1
Cusa- 1

*
An eye opener to say the least...*

How can they keep pimping the PAC 10? Are you serious? We'll see next week how overrated that conference is. Absolutely ridiculous. If they don't take at least 8 Big East teams there should be an investigation. Remember that is just 50% of the conference, Every other conference gets 50% of their teams in every year or two. Its time the Big East gets some damn respect.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Duke and the ACC are the bestest and Syracuse and the Big East stink!!!


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

1.Big East
2.Pacific 10
3.ACC
4.SEC
5.Big 12
6.Big 10
7.WCC
8.MVC
9.MWC
10.CAA


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> 1.Big East
> 2.Pacific 10
> 3.ACC
> 4.SEC
> ...



No A-10.

IMO,
1. Pac-10
2. Big East
3. Big 12
4. ACC
5. SEC
6. Big Ten
7. A-10 (although they are deeper then the Big Ten)


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

JuniorNoboa said:


> No A-10.
> 
> IMO,
> 1. Pac-10
> ...


Complete agree


----------



## Gtown07 (Dec 10, 2003)

I dont know guys. Would you rather play Rutgers or Oregon State? Would you rather play G'town, L'ville, ND, UConn and Pitt (not to mention Marquette!) or UCLA, Stanford, Wazzu, USC and ASU? I understand the media has forced "The Pac 10 is the best team in the country" down our throats but I just don't see how. And I think just like the ACC last year the Pac 10 will disappoint in the tournament. 

To preempt the quant's response with pointing to Conference RPI or Sargarin, etc. just give it the eye test fellas. Even Lunardi himself said those conference rankings are bunk and the Big East is the best conference.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Gtown07 said:


> I dont know guys. Would you rather play Rutgers or Oregon State? Would you rather play G'town, L'ville, ND, UConn and Pitt (not to mention Marquette!) or UCLA, Stanford, Wazzu, USC and ASU? I understand the media has forced "The Pac 10 is the best team in the country" down our throats but I just don't see how. And I think just like the ACC last year the Pac 10 will disappoint in the tournament.
> 
> To preempt the quant's response with pointing to Conference RPI or Sargarin, etc. just give it the eye test fellas.


Uh oh.... here comes the unbiased eyes test again. 

Once again you prove no make faulty arguments (Subjective or objective)


----------



## Gtown07 (Dec 10, 2003)

Can I be honest with you. Quantitative analysis can be just as easily misconstrued and biased as qualitative. I can go on Ken Pomeroy's site and prove my point while you can prove the same point with similar statistics.

However I will use your paradigm for the Orange thread. For this one? Come on. The Big East is the best conference. I look at numbers alright. I look in March. Who advanced the most teams the farthest.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Gtown07 said:


> I dont know guys. Would you rather play Rutgers or Oregon State? Would you rather play G'town, L'ville, ND, UConn and Pitt (not to mention Marquette!) or UCLA, Stanford, Wazzu, USC and ASU? I understand the media has forced "The Pac 10 is the best team in the country" down our throats but I just don't see how. And I think just like the ACC last year the Pac 10 will disappoint in the tournament.
> 
> To preempt the quant's response with pointing to Conference RPI or Sargarin, etc. just give it the eye test fellas. Even Lunardi himself said those conference rankings are bunk and the Big East is the best conference.


How can you compare the top 5 vs the top 5 in a conference, when ose is a 16 team league and one is a 10 team league. Of course the top 5 in the Big East will be better... no ehit. It hardly proves they are a tougher conference.... it proves they have a better fifth place team because they are a larger conference.

Here is a fairer way to look at it.. even using the eyes test!!!!

UCLA, Stanford
vs
Georgetown, Louisville, Notre Dame, UConn
DRAW


Washington St. USC, Arizona St
vs
Marquette. Pitt, West Virginia, Villanova
DRAW

Arizona, Oregon, California
vs
Syracuse, Cincinnati, Seton Hall, Providence
DEFINITE EDGE - PAC-10


Washington, Oregon St
vs 
Depaul, St. John's. South Florida, Rutgers
EDGE = PAC-10 At the bottom Washington is the best team.

If you want to argue the conferences are similar that is fine... and say they are 1,1A. But to argue that the Big East is clearly better then the other is a farce on both quant and qual analysis.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Gtown07 said:


> I look in March. Who advanced the most teams the farthest.


You so realize that comparing how many teams a 16 team conference advances on a gross level, to that of what a 10 team conference, does not prove your point.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I am grew up in Big East country, but I don't really think I am a homer for anything other than the MVC. However after watching the Pac-10 play all year, this league is not the best in America. It's more mediocre in the middle than anything else. Arizona and Oregon are not good teams. They are okay teams, but they are not "good". And Arizona State didn't win any road games of significance other than Arizona. The Pac-10 only deserves 5 teams and Arizona is the 5th team because they went out and played someone.

Big East to me is the best league in the country and all you have to do is watch the games. The games are so competitive from top to bottom. Yes the bottom of the league was bad, but watch come NCAA tournament time. The Big East is going to rock this tournament, this year.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Original Comments were uncalled for - I should not have made them.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

HKF said:


> I am grew up in Big East country, but I don't really think I am a homer for anything other than the MVC. However after watching the Pac-10 play all year, this league is not the best in America. It's more mediocre in the middle than anything else. Arizona and Oregon are not good teams. They are okay teams, but they are not "good". And Arizona State didn't win any road games of significance other than Arizona. The Pac-10 only deserves 5 teams and Arizona is the 5th team because they went out and played someone.
> 
> Big East to me is the best league in the country and all you have to do is watch the games. The games are so competitive from top to bottom. Yes the bottom of the league was bad, but watch come NCAA tournament time. The Big East is going to rock this tournament, this year.


O can accept subjective analysis from someone who I know is not continoulsy biased time and time again, and who's knowledge I trust and has proven to be of value. I respect YOUR opinion, HKF.

But I do think at the end of the day .500 in either conference is about the same thing,,, I do beleive that Washington and California are harder then St. John's, Depaul, or South Florida.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Gtown07 said:


> I look at numbers alright. I look in March. Who advanced the most teams the farthest.


Equally dumb way to draw your conclusion.

NCAA Tournament wins based on...
1) How teams matchup
2) Who has more heart/Who steps up (individual or team)
3) Talent

In that order, with #3 being the smallest factor. A factor, no doubt, but not even the 2nd more important factor.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

TM said:


> Equally dumb way to draw your conclusion.
> 
> NCAA Tournament wins based on...
> 1) How teams matchup
> ...


I disagree but not 100%. I think talent is a much bigger factor than you're leading on and I mean NBA talent.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

#1 on the list? #2?



> and I mean NBA talent.


Guys like Carmelo and Wade who lead their teams to Final Fours/Championships - I can agree with you because obviously those situations happen... I'm talking NCAA tournament/conference tournaments though. When I see dudes like TJ Sorrentine and Taylor Coppenrath (Vermont) leading their squads to NCAA upsets and conference championships, Joe Alexander leading WVU through the Big East tournament, Kent State's run in 2002, etc. That makes me believe those 3 things are in that order.

*However*, like I said, I can agree with what you're saying too. The teams that win and 9 times out of 10 make it to the Final four have those NBA superstars. But "winning more games in March" (as said by our other poster) makes me think earler round wins (1st round, 2nd round, Sweet 16, etc.) are based on my 3 factors.


----------



## Gtown07 (Dec 10, 2003)

You know what the funny thing about you guys calling me bias is that I admit whenever I am wrong. 
And I have said many times that the Big East or G'town was going to be or is weak. See my comments earlier this year about the Big East (I was wrong obviously) and G'town for most of the season. And I've said it in the past, although the last two years I've been very outspoken (probably over the line b/c I enjoy getting people into an arg) about the Big East. 

Lets take a look at what I've stated over the last two years:

Last year I said G'town was a final 4 team and they were. Also last year I said the Big East had a better top 5 than the ACC. That was proven correct if your gauge was the tourney. Although I'm brash and tend to offend people my comments are usually pretty fair and when they aren't correct I admit it unlike most.



In terms of the actual argument. The Pac 10 has the worst of all the teams in the BE or Pac 10 and even Cal and their other bottom feeders - in my opinion - would have trouble with Providence, Seton Hall, and Cinci. 


I think the main argument against the big east is lack of depth. But in conference play this year every game was a hard fought game. See below for a few examples.

a. See Rutgers winning TWO straight against ranked teams one on the road, one at home. 
b. Cinci, Seton Hall this whole season. 
c. Although USF is weak, they played Uconn and Gtown very very tough. I'm sure more games but that is from memory.

And I think it is hard to argue that the BE's top 6 can be touched.


In terms of TM and JN's arguments. "Depth is low and its unreasonable to say the BE's top tier is better than other conferences bc there are 16 teams."

Well b/c the conference has 16 teams you may have to evaluate the conference slightly different than a 10 team conference. I personally think it is the toughest conference to win the regular season championship. (Gtown's record aside)

I also think stats from 10-14 pre-season in November and December is a weird way to evaluate teams. I understand the importance of statistics but sample sizes are so small in college ball its hard to only look to them. I prefer the eye test. This is coming from someone who strongly prefers the numbers game in most cases.

If you guys think I'm biased that's fine. But these are my thoughts.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> No A-10.
> 
> IMO,
> 1. Pac-10
> ...



wow i agree with that. I was thinking on my top 10 list, 1 to 5 is what I was thinking.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

Gtown07 said:


> You know what the funny thing about you guys calling me bias is that I admit whenever I am wrong.
> And I have said many times that the Big East or G'town was going to be or is weak. See my comments earlier this year about the Big East (I was wrong obviously) and G'town for most of the season. And I've said it in the past, although the last two years I've been very outspoken (probably over the line b/c I enjoy getting people into an arg) about the Big East.
> 
> Lets take a look at what I've stated over the last two years:
> ...


Lol. Obviously Oregon St is horrible, no one would argue differently. But Cal is a pretty good team. They have at least 2 and maybe even 3 future NBA players on that team. So yeah, I think they could handle those teams. But regardless, you're talking about a 9th place team in a conference 10. Which means a comparably seeded team in the Big East would be your 14th or 15th place team and thats St Johns or South Florida. As opposed to Cincy which is almost the middle ranked team in the Big East.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

HKF said:


> I am grew up in Big East country, but I don't really think I am a homer for anything other than the MVC. However after watching the Pac-10 play all year, this league is not the best in America. It's more mediocre in the middle than anything else. Arizona and Oregon are not good teams. They are okay teams, but they are not "good". And Arizona State didn't win any road games of significance other than Arizona. The Pac-10 only deserves 5 teams and Arizona is the 5th team because they went out and played someone.
> 
> Big East to me is the best league in the country and all you have to do is watch the games. The games are so competitive from top to bottom. Yes the bottom of the league was bad, but watch come NCAA tournament time. The Big East is going to rock this tournament, this year.


Arizona? Umm surrrre. Except for the fact that ASU is clearly a better team. Let's not ignore ASU thrashing Xavier by 22 points, wins against Stanford, USC, and oh by the way a SWEEP of Arizona.

Hell even Oregon swept Arizona. 3 Pac 10 teams are on the bubble, and one of them went 0 for 4 versus the other two. Doesn't sound like a close argument to me.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Arizona played the #2 schedule in the country and was missing Bayless for one game against ASU (the first one), then missing Wise for the second game. 

ASU played a non-conference schedule in the #300's and didn't win a road game of significance all year, other than Arizona. Oregon friggin lost to Oakland of the Summit League and had zero heft in the non-con. Please, I said Arizona is not that good, but they at least played a real schedule and won some games. If the most you can say for Oregon and ASU is that they beat Arizona, then they should be in the NIT.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

HKF said:


> If the most you can say for Oregon and ASU is that they beat Arizona, then they should be in the NIT.


He didn't though, he said that ASU played and beat Xavier, Stanford, and USC...whom I might add will be a couple of 3 seeds and a 5 seed respectively.

Yay, Arizona played the number 2 SOS...and they went an amazing 19-14. Lots of teams could've done that.

Arizona doesn't deserve to be in.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

The Big East is the best top to bottom. They are fairly weak at the bottom but that is a consequence of having 16 freaking teams in your league. The top 8-10 teams are all very solid and all were very capable of making the tournament.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If you want to keep Arizona out, that's fine, but ASU and Oregon shouldn't be in either and only 4 teams should get in from the Pac-10.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

HKF said:


> If you want to keep Arizona out, that's fine, but ASU and Oregon shouldn't be in either and only 4 teams should get in from the Pac-10.


I understand not using head to head record when 2 teams resumes aren't really close to each other. But when you have 3 teams like Oregon, ASU, and Arizona that are soo closely bunched together, how can you justify only Arizona getting in after having gone 0 for 4 against the rest? Injuries are no excuse, everybody gets injuries. Hell the Bruins don't even have a single guard on the bench because of the season-ending injury to Roll in the beginning of the year. Luc has probably missed just as many games (or close to it) as Bayless has, and people seem to think we have very little depth in general. Obviously we're a more talented team but injuries never became an excuse.

Edit: Just checked - Luc missed 6 games from injury, Bayless 4.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You are comparing the Bruins team to an Arizona team that goes six deep. Michael Roll is garbage, get the **** outta here with that nonsense. Missing Bayless and going 1-3 without him is a big deal, considering he is ARIZONA'S LEADING SCORER.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

HKF said:


> You are comparing the Bruins team to an Arizona team that goes six deep. Michael Roll is garbage, get the **** outta here with that nonsense. Missing Bayless and going 1-3 without him is a big deal, considering he is ARIZONA'S LEADING SCORER.


I didn't compare anybody, I just gave an example as to why injuries can't be an excuse. How deep were the Bruins when Roll and Luc were out? In fact, Keefe was out too, he was redshirting the season up until 2 months ago. Roll may not be great but his injury was of huge significance to us because a) he's by far our best passer into the post b) he's our best pure shooter c) he is the ONLY backup for our guards so without him Collison, Westbrook, and Shipp have to pretty much always be in.

I might give you AZ being better than Oregon cause I don't think the Ducks are very good at all, but no way AZ is better than ASU.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

ASU played the 308 best out of conference schedule in the country. They only won one road game against a good team and that's Arizona. They have a SOS in the 80's and an RPI in the 80's. Like I said, if you want to keep Arizona out, then ASU shouldn't be going either. Arizona and ASU shouldn't be compared period because their resumes are not at all equal.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

The whole Arizona thing is unprecedented. Too bad you guys haven't been listening to the ESPNU podcast the last 4 weeks. They've talked about it about twice every week. HKF has hit it on the head.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

HKF said:


> ASU played the 308 best out of conference schedule in the country. They only won one road game against a good team and that's Arizona. They have a SOS in the 80's and an RPI in the 80's. Like I said, if you want to keep Arizona out, then ASU shouldn't be going either. Arizona and ASU shouldn't be compared period because their resumes are not at all equal.


What good is it to play a strong SOS like AZ did and lose to a bunch of teams, and then lose 10 games in the Pac-10, and then lose in the 1st round of the pac 10 tournament? A strong SOS should get you ready to play well in-conference, and AZ didn't do that. Conference play is more important than non-conference play IMO (especially in the Pac 10 since we play a true round robin).


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

ASU got shafted with Oregon and AZ in.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

oregon, yes. arizona, absolutely not.


----------



## mike (Jun 11, 2002)

TM said:


> Duke and the ACC are the bestest and Syracuse and the Big East stink!!!


HAHA


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

nominate that for post of the year, mike


----------

