The Big Ten has essentially met expectations with the only three teams seeded in any region's top four all advancing to the Sweet 16.

 

The Big XII has not met expectations, but with the injury to Embiid, those expectations should probably have been adjusted.

 

The PAC 12 seems to have met seeding expectations as well.

 

The ACC is a disaster and the SEC has outperformed.

The best thing said all day

The Big East had at least one team make the Sweet 16 every year since 1993. That streak ended with Creighton's loss to Baylor yesterday.

The Big East had at least one team make the Sweet 16 every year since 1993. That streak ended with Creighton's loss to Baylor yesterday.

 

This is the first time since ESPN went on air that there hasn't been a team from NC in the Sweet 16.

SEC doing well in the NIT,too...... the last time I checked.

I have always found it silly to compare conferences over single elimination tournament games. Obviously Florida is good. UK played way above their heads and played the best game of their season and took down the Shockers. UT has beaten three teams. One being a team they were about even with, the other two they were the clear favorites. I go by the eye test. The SEC outside of Florida was bad, as it has been the past few seasons.

 

The only thing the tournament shows is that there are too many teams in it. And too many teams brings about more bad basketball (teams), which is what college basketball is filled with.

I have always found it silly to compare conferences over single elimination tournament games. Obviously Florida is good. UK played way above their heads and played the best game of their season and took down the Shockers. UT has beaten three teams. One being a team they were about even with, the other two they were the clear favorites. I go by the eye test. The SEC outside of Florida was bad, as it has been the past few seasons.

 

The only thing the tournament shows is that there are too many teams in it. And too many teams brings about more bad basketball (teams), which is what college basketball is filled with.

 

I few years ago, I would have agreed with youn100% about bad teams. Yes, there were still a few bad teams in the tourney this year. But it also seems that more of the 12 through 16 teams played good enough to put scares in the higher seeded teams. Costal Carolina and North Dakota St were good examples. American and Cal Poly were not. I like the current number of teams.

I few years ago, I would have agreed with youn100% about bad teams. Yes, there were still a few bad teams in the tourney this year. But it also seems that more of the 12 through 16 teams played good enough to put scares in the higher seeded teams. Costal Carolina and North Dakota St were good examples. American and Cal Poly were not. I like the current number of teams.

The mid-majors are better. I think the quality of the Power Conference schools is what is bad. Trying to decide who is better between SMU or whatever at-large team is all you need to know. At least this season you have some talented guys. Last season was really bad.

I have always found it silly to compare conferences over single elimination tournament games. Obviously Florida is good. UK finally played to their capabilities, playing their best game of their season and took down the Shockers. UT has beaten three teams. One being a team they were about even with, the other two they were the clear favorites. I go by the eye test. The SEC outside of Florida was bad, as it has been the past few seasons.

 

The only thing the tournament shows is that there are too many teams in it. And too many teams brings about more bad basketball (teams), which is what college basketball is filled with.

 

I had to fix the bolded.

Don't think you can make a clear distinction in the tourney about the better conference but I find it amusing that in 2010 and 2011 many followers of Big East Teams sure seemed to use NCAA data as the measure of their conference over others.

Don't think you can make a clear distinction in the tourney about the better conference but I find it amusing that in 2010 and 2011 many followers of Big East Teams sure seemed to use NCAA data as the measure of their conference over others.

 

:thumb: And did it while ignoring the fact they had 16 teams to the other conference's 12 (or less).

I don't believe because the Big East, SEC, Horizon, and Colonial had a representative in the Final Four, that those were the 4 best conferences in 2011. But many people indirectly make that argument.

I don't believe because the Big East, SEC, Horizon, and Colonial had a representative in the Final Four, that those were the 4 best conferences in 2011. But many people indirectly make that argument.

 

Did the same in 2010. Often in those years the records in the NCAA were posted by some to hype their conference as the best. (And they weren't SEC fans).

What is a good way of determining conference strength, the number of teams in the NCAA, the number Advancing in the NCAA, the total number in post season play, the conf RPI, the number of ranked teams?

 

For better or worse it is all subjective...as I have said before "Mass mediocrity does not eual greatness", meaning 6 or 7 evenly matched teams in a conference does not make it the best. My opinion of what makes the best is different than Getslows, which is different from Hellbirds which is different from NCF's...there is no way to subjectively prove it one way or the other in MOST seasons!