Houston loses to Lubbock Christian

[Alydar]

The big east was getting 7 or 8 teams into the NCAAs. That's not scrap.

Yes it is. 64 teams get in the tournament but only maybe 15 belong in a national championship tournament. On the men's side the are maybe 40 teams in that category. The bottom half of the BE were 8 bad teams. The AAC has 10 teams this year. Take out UConn, Louisville, Rutgers and USF and you have 6 stinkers. That means there are 12 stinker in-conference games this year while there were 8 last year. More, certainly, but not enough to despair over.

Sure, in my dreams I would love to see UConn in a conference with MD. Duke, UNC, Tenn, Louis, Ken., & ND but that isn't happening.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Lots of good points, I think sometimes some posters confuse UConn (unintentionally) with a regular school, while others simply isolate UConn from reality too much.

Whatever the reasons students pick schools, students picking UConn are not going to be swayed by the conference UConn is in. It isn't the reason anyone is choosing UConn - and won't be as long as UConn remains the dominant (or, as Tony pointed out about Tennessee) a top team in the game. The fear that I think some minimize (and others make too much of) is what happens post Geno and what happens due to the financial constraints of the AAC. To make an RU comparison, lowered athletic budgets (at least for now) have constricted the travel budget for WBB. UConn's athletic budget will suffer as long as they are in the AAC.

I also think you overstate the specific appeal of NC's and the "guarantee" of winning them. I think most top recruits just want to be in a position of contending for a NC with a prominent school that they think can contend. That is why the "top" of WBB is still talented player heavy (and UConn heaviest of all).

And ESPN will continue to showcase the top teams, of which you are currently top dog. They do it in all sports. They do it in their national coverage of early NCAA rounds. Can't blame them, who wants to watch Podunk play Timbuctoo?

 

[Vowelguy]

Yes it is. 64 teams get in the tournament but only maybe 15 belong in a national championship tournament. On the men's side the are maybe 40 teams in that category. The bottom half of the BE were 8 bad teams. The AAC has 10 teams this year. Take out UConn, Louisville, Rutgers and USF and you have 6 stinkers. That means there are 12 stinker in-conference games this year while there were 8 last year. More, certainly, but not enough to despair over.

Sure, in my dreams I would love to see UConn in a conference with MD. Duke, UNC, Tenn, Louis, Ken., & ND but that isn't happening.

Even by your standards, that amounts to 16 " stinkers" next year. Not only up from 8, but the two extra conference gAmes likely come at the expense of two quality non- conf games. UConn is unlikely to reduce its non- conf stinkers because it needs the extra home games for revenue.

 

[doggydaddy]

I think to look at a conference schedule for more than the current year makes no sense. No one right now knows if Uconn will still be in the AAC for the 2014-15 season. Conference realignment has been crazy and predicting it just doesn't work.

That is part of Geno's sales pitch to recruits. He will promise them that they will play the toughest OOC schedule (very Tenessee of me). They will be challenged by that and the coaching staff in practice.

And for this year, they play Louisville twice and RU twice. They will be at the top of the SOS chart.

If playing a weaker conference schedule that is partially offset by a tougher OOC schedule is the reason you don't want to go to Uconn, then you don't belong there.

 

[Wonkster]

Wingate is D II. You're probably thinking of Winthrop.

Or maybe he's thinking of Winthorpe ...

 

[Jim]

Serious question -- how many student athletes don't go to Stanford because Stanford plays in the PAC-12? It seems to me the AAC and PAC-12 are similar. Both have a few good teams at the top plus a bunch that would be thrilled if they made the NCAA tournament.

 

[Vowelguy]

Serious question -- how many student athletes don't go to Stanford because Stanford plays in the PAC-12? It seems to me the AAC and PAC-12 are similar. Both have a few good teams at the top plus a bunch that would be thrilled if they made the NCAA tournament.

The PAC 12 is waaaaaay better than the AAC.

And Stanford probably has the best academic reputation among scholarship d1 schools. It surely is a unique case.

 

[Vowelguy]

Here is the Sagarin rating for the the top conferences last year:

( 1) B12 86.1
( 2) B10 83.4
( 3) SEC 82.9
( 4) BgE 81.4
( 5) ACC 81.1
( 6) PAC 77.9
( 7) WeC 71.9
( 8) MoV 71.0
( 9) A10 70.4
(10) CUS 70.3

The AAC teams had an average of 76.5.
The following year, it falls to 73.6.

 

[doggydaddy]

Here is the Sagarin rating for the the top conferences last year:

( 1) B12 86.1
( 2) B10 83.4
( 3) SEC 82.9
( 4) BgE 81.4
( 5) ACC 81.1
( 6) PAC 77.9
( 7) WeC 71.9
( 8) MoV 71.0
( 9) A10 70.4
(10) CUS 70.3

The AAC teams had an average of 76.5.
The following year, it falls to 73.6.

With each team playing Uconn twice, their SOS will be better even with big losses. Just like the BE SOS will go down not playing Uconn, Louisville and ND. They should be right around The PAC at fourth or fifth. Not great, but not horrendous.

 

[Jim]

Here is the Sagarin rating for the the top conferences last year:

( 1) B12 86.1
( 2) B10 83.4
( 3) SEC 82.9
( 4) BgE 81.4
( 5) ACC 81.1
( 6) PAC 77.9
( 7) WeC 71.9
( 8) MoV 71.0
( 9) A10 70.4
(10) CUS 70.3

The AAC teams had an average of 76.5.
The following year, it falls to 73.6.

I don't see a big difference between PAC-12's 77.9 rating and AAC's 76.5. Secondly, for you to assume the following year score of 73.6 you have to also assume UCONN loses 4 games this year (I don't think so). And lastly, you didn't answer my question -- do you think Stanford loses recruits because of the conference they play in?

 

[Fightin Choke]

I don't see a big difference between PAC-12's 77.9 rating and AAC's 76.5.

I don't think many UConn fans are lamenting this year's conference strength, although it certainly took a hit from last year (81.4 to 76.5). The bigger drop occurs next year when the AAC drops to 73.6, pushing it closer to the West Coast (71.9), Missouri Valley (71.0) and Atlantic 10 (70.4) conferences than to any of the remaining Big 5 conferences.

Secondly, for you to assume the following year score of 73.6 you have to also assume UCONN loses 4 games this year (I don't think so).

No, that assumption is not necessary at all. Sagarin's system rewards SOS, and with the weaker conference, UConn's SOS drops, so they could very realistically have a better record this season and a lower Sagarin rating. Granted UConn's OOC SOS is outstanding this season, but it was outstanding last season as well, which suggests the rating will drop in 2013-14.

And lastly, you didn't answer my question -- do you think Stanford loses recruits because of the conference they play in?

He DID answer your question. In post #57 above, he wrote "And Stanford probably has the best academic reputation among scholarship d1 schools. It surely is a unique case." Besides that, the PAC12 will be a significantly stronger conference top-to-bottom than the AAC for the 2014-15 season.

 

[Phil]

As is often the case, a single valued stat doesn’t tell the whole story. According to the average of the Sagarin ratings, the B12, B10 and SEC were stronger conferences. Yet what did that get those three conferences? Zero teams in the Final Four.
When it comes to bragging rights, I’m sure some yahoo will triumphantly point to a higher average for, say the SEC than the BE. Yet, when it comes to bragging rights, three of the Final Four and the NC blow that argument away. The best the other conferences can say is that the bottom of the BE is really, really bad, while the bottom of their conference is merely, really bad. Not exactly a recruiting pitch that sells, even if it does roll off the tongue.

 

[semper]

I hope you guys are right about recruiting...time will tell, unless, and I fervently hope for it, we get outta here.

 

[meyers7]

At least Seton Hall didn't lose to DII Philadelphia, they cruised to an 87–85 blowout. In OT. SH was down by as much as nine in second half but tied it up on two free throws with six seconds left in regulation.

So maybe Philadelphia will be able to give a UCONN a game? Oh wait, we beat Seton Hall by 60 last year......nevermind.

 

[meyers7]

When I think of Houston I instantly think of Elvin Hayes and that great game vs UCLA in the Astro Dome.

Ah I must be younger, I immediately think of Phi Slamm Jamma and that great game vs Louisville in the national semis.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Here is the Sagarin rating for the the top conferences last year:

( 1) B12 86.1
( 2) B10 83.4
( 3) SEC 82.9
( 4) BgE 81.4
( 5) ACC 81.1
( 6) PAC 77.9
( 7) WeC 71.9
( 8) MoV 71.0
( 9) A10 70.4
(10) CUS 70.3

The AAC teams had an average of 76.5.
The following year, it falls to 73.6.

Um, VG, can you use accurate numbers when tearing up the AAC? As you know we've gone all over this months ago and the figures came out that the teams from this year's AAC were ahead of the PAC. Ring a bell? No need to make up bogus numbers for the conference and then put it far behind the PAC. In fact, the 2013-2014 AAC was less than 2 points behind the vaunted ACC, or at least vaunted in the messages above.

Again, the number you meant to use was 79.2 (79.182). As to what you want to do for the conference skipping into the future, who knows? But saying anything definite about 2014-15 off of 2012-13 numbers is just ludicrous since way more than half of the starting players throughout WCBB will be different by then.

The numbers you meant to use (UConn 111.60 + Lou 92.56 + USF 86.04 + Rut 80.48 + SMU 73.24 + UCF 71.02 + Cinci 70.55 + Temp 70.21 + Memphis 69.15 + Houston 66.94).

And please don't go citing modes or medians to justify an AAC attack. On the lighter side, Houston was the worst rated of the now AAC teams last year, and there's always a chance that the AAC can trade them for Sam Houston, which had a 0.39 better Sagarin rating last year.

 

[meyers7]

I agree with you its not a competitive conference for UConn. It may be for many of the other teams. However how many conferences have 3 or more top 20 teams? I mean really good top 20 teams?

To sorta answer your question. Top 25 by conference.

Coaches Poll
AAC - 2 (UCONN, Louisville)
ACC - 4 (Duke, ND, Maryland, UNC)
A10 - 1 (Dayton)
Big10 - 4 (Penn St, Nebraska, Purdue, Michigan St)
Big12 - 4 (Baylor, OK, OK St, Iowa St)
Pac12 - 4 (Stanford, Cal, Colorado, UCLA)
SEC - 6 (TN, KY, LSU, Texas A&M, SC, GA)

AP Poll
AAC - 2
ACC - 4
A10 - 1
Big10 - 4
Big12 - 4
Pac12 - 3 (No UCLA)
SEC - 6
WCC - 1 (Gonzaga)

 

[Phil]

And please don't go citing modes or medians to justify an AAC attack.

Don't go dissing medians. While modes aren't of much use for stats such as this, medians ought to get more prominence in sports. My main example is in football. Average yards per carry for a player in a game is close to meaningless, and usually is dependent on whether the carrier broke free once or twice or did not. Which would you rather have, a player who gets one or two yards per carry most of the time, but breaks one in 10 for 40 yards, or someone who gets 4 yards each and every carry? The first has a YPC of 5, the second a YPC of 4. The first got you one first down, and contributed to several 3 and outs. The second helped you march down the field. The first has a media of 2, the second a median of 4.

The median tells the story of the better ball carrier. There must be someone who has studied this, but I haven;t seen it.

I wouldn't be surprised if median strength was a better metric for conference strength than average. Hard to prove, because it isn't easy to figure out which conferences are stronger.

 

[Phil]

To sorta answer your question. Top 25 by conference.

Coaches Poll
AAC - 2 (UCONN, Louisville)
ACC - 4 (Duke, ND, Maryland, UNC)
A10 - 1 (Dayton)
Big10 - 4 (Penn St, Nebraska, Purdue, Michigan St)
Big12 - 4 (Baylor, OK, OK St, Iowa St)
Pac12 - 4 (Stanford, Cal, Colorado, UCLA)
SEC - 6 (TN, KY, LSU, Texas A&M, SC, GA)

AP Poll
AAC - 2
ACC - 4
A10 - 1
Big10 - 4
Big12 - 4
Pac12 - 3 (No UCLA)
SEC - 6
WCC - 1 (Gonzaga)

Looks like the SEC may be back, even if they had to bring in an outsider. Still they'd have 5 without TAMU, so they've at least persuaded the pre-season voters they are back.

 

[Wonkster]

... On the lighter side, Houston was the worst rated of the now AAC teams last year, and there's always a chance that the AAC can trade them for Sam Houston, which had a 0.39 better Sagarin rating last year.

Sam Houston? Are you talking about the Sam Houston Institute of Technology?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Don't go dissing medians. While modes aren't of much use for stats such as this, medians ought to get more prominence in sports. My main example is in football. Average yards per carry for a player in a game is close to meaningless, and usually is dependent on whether the carrier broke free once or twice or did not. Which would you rather have, a player who gets one or two yards per carry most of the time, but breaks one in 10 for 40 yards, or someone who gets 4 yards each and every carry? The first has a YPC of 5, the second a YPC of 4. The first got you one first down, and contributed to several 3 and outs. The second helped you march down the field. The first has a media of 2, the second a median of 4.

The median tells the story of the better ball carrier. There must be someone who has studied this, but I haven;t seen it.

I wouldn't be surprised if median strength was a better metric for conference strength than average. Hard to prove, because it isn't easy to figure out which conferences are stronger.

I do agree with absolute profundity of medians for some things, but you can't go changing the stats you are arguing with in the middle of a discussion, and since Sagarin uses means to compare conferences, that what we live off of.

And when it comes down to judging a conference, that little thing about having a team winning an NC really is a nice kicker. And for that if I had to choose between say two 6-team conferences which had the following compositions: Big TopHeavy (111, 92, 74, 72, 71, 70 --- median = 73) and Big BeautifulBalance (86, 85, 84 82, 80, 81 --- median = 83), I'd definitely go with the less happy median of BTH for producing an NC dominator.

And Wonks, rumor is that Sam Houston is moving north to a campus around Cleveland and becoming the OHio Sam Houston Institute of Technology. May have misheard that one though.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Um, VG, can you use accurate numbers when tearing up the AAC? As you know we've gone all over this months ago and the figures came out that the teams from this year's AAC were ahead of the PAC. Ring a bell? No need to make up bogus numbers for the conference and then put it far behind the PAC. In fact, the 2013-2014 AAC was less than 2 points behind the vaunted ACC, or at least vaunted in the messages above.

Again, the number you meant to use was 79.2 (79.182). As to what you want to do for the conference skipping into the future, who knows? But saying anything definite about 2014-15 off of 2012-13 numbers is just ludicrous since way more than half of the starting players throughout WCBB will be different by then.

The numbers you meant to use (UConn 111.60 + Lou 92.56 + USF 86.04 + Rut 80.48 + SMU 73.24 + UCF 71.02 + Cinci 70.55 + Temp 70.21 + Memphis 69.15 + Houston 66.94).

And please don't go citing modes or medians to justify an AAC attack. On the lighter side, Houston was the worst rated of the now AAC teams last year, and there's always a chance that the AAC can trade them for Sam Houston, which had a 0.39 better Sagarin rating last year.

Vowelguy's numbers initially confused me as well, but then I realized that he used the centralized mean, not the arithmetic mean, just as Sagarin used the centralized mean in his conference ranking comparison. Sagarin shows you how to do the rankings this way, and vowelguy went through the trouble of computing them Sagarin's way from Sagarin's raw data (because Sagarin never computed them for the teams using the present conference alignment). I am certain that VG did this because I went through the same computations using a spreadsheet last night before I posted above (post #61).

Don't go dissing medians. While modes aren't of much use for stats such as this, medians ought to get more prominence in sports. My main example is in football. Average yards per carry for a player in a game is close to meaningless, and usually is dependent on whether the carrier broke free once or twice or did not. Which would you rather have, a player who gets one or two yards per carry most of the time, but breaks one in 10 for 40 yards, or someone who gets 4 yards each and every carry? The first has a YPC of 5, the second a YPC of 4. The first got you one first down, and contributed to several 3 and outs. The second helped you march down the field. The first has a media of 2, the second a median of 4.

The median tells the story of the better ball carrier. There must be someone who has studied this, but I haven;t seen it.

I wouldn't be surprised if median strength was a better metric for conference strength than average. Hard to prove, because it isn't easy to figure out which conferences are stronger.

So Phil, you should be happy because the centralized mean that Sagarin and VG used is measure of central tendency (like the median) that carried far more information than a simple median. Of what use would it be to compare conferences by simply comparing the ranking of their middle team (or teams) and ignoring the rest of the teams?

That said, I agree that what's happening at the top of a conference is FAR more important than what's happening in the middle. There is no way that the B1G conference was a better basketball conference than the BE, even though the B1G had a higher measure of central tendency AND a higher arithmetic mean than the BE! Having UConn, Notre Dame and Louisville in the same conference representing 75% of the FF and 100% of the NC game defines complete dominance.

 

[jsloanjr]

Only UCONN knows their fate in what Conference they will be in by 2015 or 2016.........My gut tells me the B10.........They need a solid East coast/New England and NYC market.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Yeah, well I'm sure there are many ways of cranking these numbers, but using a system that is centered on the middle part of a conference seems a little whacked to me, since most of those teams don't make it to the tournament. But yeah if I was the fan of a middling conference, I would love the centralized mean.

The top three in the AAC from last year's Sag ratings are UConn at 111.60, Louisville at 92.56, and USF at 86.04 vs. the PAC at 97.50, Cal at 90.90 and UCLA at 87.52. Not sure what that centralized means are for these two groups who all involved real teams that went to the tournament and compiled a sterling 12-2 record for the current AAC bunch and a not shabby 7-3 record for the PAC group, but even if for some reason you like the PAC group better you could not argue that they were way ahead of the AAC group with the two NC-game teams.

 

[Phil]

Vowelguy's numbers initially confused me as well, but then I realized that he used the centralized mean, not the arithmetic mean, just as Sagarin used the centralized mean in his conference ranking comparison. Sagarin shows you how to do the rankings this way, and vowelguy went through the trouble of computing them Sagarin's way from Sagarin's raw data (because Sagarin never computed them for the teams using the present conference alignment). I am certain that VG did this because I went through the same computations using a spreadsheet last night before I posted above (post #61).


So Phil, you should be happy because the centralized mean that Sagarin and VG used is measure of central tendency (like the median) that carried far more information than a simple median. Of what use would it be to compare conferences by simply comparing the ranking of their middle team (or teams) and ignoring the rest of the teams?

That said, I agree that what's happening at the top of a conference is FAR more important than what's happening in the middle. There is no way that the B1G conference was a better basketball conference than the BE, even though the B1G had a higher measure of central tendency AND a higher arithmetic mean than the BE! Having UConn, Notre Dame and Louisville in the same conference representing 75% of the FF and 100% of the NC game defines complete dominance.

I agree that if we (Boneyarders) are comparing conferences, we care more about the top end than the bottom. But that's through the lens of a fan of a top team. What if you are a fan of a team ranked, say #100. You hear that the school is going to try to set up some games against one of the power conferences. They haven't yet decided whether to approach conference A or conference B.You might feel differently about say, the old Big East and the SEC. You might see several potential wins against the old BE, bit so many against the SEC. You'll lose to the top end of either conference, but by 30 to the best SEC team and by 50 to the best BE teams. You might prefer playing games against the BE, because you have a better shot at knocking off the bottom end, and you can imagine the yearly writeup - you won't say you beat Seton Hall, you'll say you took on and defeated a BE team. So you might view the BE as "weaker" simply because the top end is so far away it doesn't matter, and in the end you care about, the teas are weaker.

I'm throwing out the argument that Sagarin and others may emphasize a central tendency measure because their audience is everyone, not just fans of the top teams. I'm not sure, I'm mostly speculating.