Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nelsonmuntz, post: 4477097, member: 833"] P6 OOC records against each other and the top mid-majors through 12/22. [TABLE] [TR] [TD]Conference (by order of their NET rankings[/TD] [TD]vs. P6[/TD] [TD]vs. MWC, WCC, AAC[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]B-12[/TD] [TD]29-15 (4.4 total games per team)[/TD] [TD]7-1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]B1G[/TD] [TD]30-30 (4.3 gpt)[/TD] [TD]4-5[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SEC[/TD] [TD]25-18 (3.1 gpt)[/TD] [TD]11-11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Big East[/TD] [TD]21-28 (4.9 gpt)[/TD] [TD]4-6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Pac 12[/TD] [TD]13-20 (2.75 gpt)[/TD] [TD]14-10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]ACC[/TD] [TD]24-31 (3.7 gpt)[/TD] [TD]3-4[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] The Big 12 and SEC will play a challenge in late January, so their games per team will go up approximately .8 or so per team). A few takeaways: The B12 is just really good this year. No tricks involved, they scheduled tough opponents and they beat them. This also means that they will probably beat each other up in conference play. The B1G is surprisingly mediocre as a league. I think they are ranked the #2 conference in KenPom and NET in a large part because their teams are running up the scores on bad opponents. The ACC and Pac 12 are just bad by every measure. They didn't schedule a lot of quality opponents, and they didn't do well in the games they scheduled. The Big East is not worse in the computer rankings because A) Big East scheduled a lot of quality opponents, and B) the Big East only has two losses to low majors (teams outside the P6 and MWC, WCC, AAC, CUSA and A10). The Big East was really hurt by losing Kalkbrenner and Whitmore, because Villanova and Creighton scheduled a lot of quality opponents and the absence of those two cost those teams several games. Villanova might have been a Top 60 team and Creighton would have been Top 30 or better if those two had played every game. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach