SalukiProf
03-20-2006, 02:47 PM
At-Large Analysis: BCS conferences versus ‘Others’
The 26 at-large teams from BCS conferences collectively went 27-18 in the first two rounds. Their seedings predicted that they should have gone 31-17. This does not look too bad until you compare them against the other 8 at-large teams, which went 7-5, when their seeds predicted that they should have gone 2-7.
There were nine games in the first two rounds involving matchups between BCS at-large teams and ‘other’ at-large teams. In these, the ‘others’ went 5-4, despite seedings suggesting that they should have gone 2-7.
The evidence that at-large teams from non-BCS conferences were under-seeded is, thus, airtight, and one could argue from this evidence that they were under-represented as well.
Multi-Bid Conference Breakdown
The table shows the Conference, the expected record of that Conference based on the seeding of its teams, and the actual record of the conference. It progresses from the most over-performing to most under-performing conference.
Conference|Expected Record|Actual Record
CAA|0-2|2-1
MVC|1-3|4-2
Big East|9-6|9-4
Pac 10|5-3|5-2
CUSA|2-1|2-1
A10|1-2|1-2
MWC|0-2|0-2
ACC|6-1|6-2
SEC|8-3|7-4
Big 12|5-1|3-3
Big 10|8-3|3-6
WAC|1-2|0-2
Sweet Sixteen Teams by Conference
The table shows the conference, the number of expected Sweet Sixteen Teams based on seeding, and the actual number of Sweet Sixteen Teams. It progresses from the most over-performing to most under-performing conference.
Conference|Expected Teams|Actual Teams
MVC|0|2 (+2)
CAA|0|1 (+1)
Big East|2|4 (+2)
Pac 10|1|2 (+1)
CUSA|1|1
WCC|1|1
ACC|3|2 (-1)
SEC|3|2 (-1)
Big 12|2|1 (-1)
Big 10|3|0 (-3)
Naturally, all of this points to what we already know – that Digger, Picker, and Nancy Boy could not have been more wrong. It also establishes a clear, non-emotional case that Cincinatti, Creighton, Hofstra, and Missouri State all got ****ed.
GO CAA!
:valley:
The 26 at-large teams from BCS conferences collectively went 27-18 in the first two rounds. Their seedings predicted that they should have gone 31-17. This does not look too bad until you compare them against the other 8 at-large teams, which went 7-5, when their seeds predicted that they should have gone 2-7.
There were nine games in the first two rounds involving matchups between BCS at-large teams and ‘other’ at-large teams. In these, the ‘others’ went 5-4, despite seedings suggesting that they should have gone 2-7.
The evidence that at-large teams from non-BCS conferences were under-seeded is, thus, airtight, and one could argue from this evidence that they were under-represented as well.
Multi-Bid Conference Breakdown
The table shows the Conference, the expected record of that Conference based on the seeding of its teams, and the actual record of the conference. It progresses from the most over-performing to most under-performing conference.
Conference|Expected Record|Actual Record
CAA|0-2|2-1
MVC|1-3|4-2
Big East|9-6|9-4
Pac 10|5-3|5-2
CUSA|2-1|2-1
A10|1-2|1-2
MWC|0-2|0-2
ACC|6-1|6-2
SEC|8-3|7-4
Big 12|5-1|3-3
Big 10|8-3|3-6
WAC|1-2|0-2
Sweet Sixteen Teams by Conference
The table shows the conference, the number of expected Sweet Sixteen Teams based on seeding, and the actual number of Sweet Sixteen Teams. It progresses from the most over-performing to most under-performing conference.
Conference|Expected Teams|Actual Teams
MVC|0|2 (+2)
CAA|0|1 (+1)
Big East|2|4 (+2)
Pac 10|1|2 (+1)
CUSA|1|1
WCC|1|1
ACC|3|2 (-1)
SEC|3|2 (-1)
Big 12|2|1 (-1)
Big 10|3|0 (-3)
Naturally, all of this points to what we already know – that Digger, Picker, and Nancy Boy could not have been more wrong. It also establishes a clear, non-emotional case that Cincinatti, Creighton, Hofstra, and Missouri State all got ****ed.
GO CAA!
:valley: