Top Conferences Top-to-Bottom Using Sagarin Predictor

[TomCollins]

My method was to rank each team in each conference based on the Sagarin predictor. For example, LSU would finish 3rd in the ACC.

I then took the top 8 teams from the 6 major conferences, averaged where these teams would finish (baseline 4.5) in each of the other conferences.

Ranks came out as follows:

Big 10 (3.06)
ACC (4.69)
Pac 10 (4.77)
Big 12 (5.17)
SEC (5.66)
Big East(7.44)

[DrunkIrish05]

SEC (5.66)

so glad to see that

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
Top-to-Bottom

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I then took the top 8 teams

[/ QUOTE ]

???

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Top-to-Bottom

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I then took the top 8 teams

[/ QUOTE ]

???

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't sure if it would be fair since some conferences have 12 and others have 8. I wanted to make the scoring the same for each conference. I'll post those results of using all teams too.

[TomCollins]

New baseline of 5.91

Rankings are:

Big 10 (4.69)
Pac 10 (5.63)
ACC (6.19)
Big 12 (6.67)
Big East (7.15)
SEC (7.35)

[DrunkIrish05]

literally taking a conference from top to complete bottom is pointless in my opinion. The paper differences in the bottom teams will make distort the real differences in the conferences. I like the 8 teams approach

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
My method was to rank each team in each conference based on the Sagarin predictor. For example, LSU would finish 3rd in the ACC.

I then took the top 8 teams from the 6 major conferences, averaged where these teams would finish (baseline 4.5) in each of the other conferences.

Ranks came out as follows:

Big 10 (3.06)
ACC (4.69)
Pac 10 (4.77)
Big 12 (5.17)
SEC (5.66)
Big East(7.44)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your title says "Top Conferences Top-To-Bottom," yet you only take the "top 8 teams" from each conference? That's pretty ridiculous, and the result is the seriously flawed rankings you've posted...

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The paper differences in the bottom teams will make distort the real differences in the conferences. I like the 8 teams approach

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree.

First of all, having only bad teams is clearly better than having incredibly awful teams, because it makes it tougher for other teams to win all of the games they "should" win.

Also, the 8th place team in an 8-team league is obviously going to be worse than the 8th place team in a 12-team league. You don't get to just match them up head-to-head like that.

As an ACC person, I've always been annoyed that when the ACC and Big East both get six teams into the NCAA tournament, people think they're even. They're not. If I get 2/3 of my league in and you get less than half, I did better with respect to that category (which is not even a great measure of conference strength anyway, since it's binary and also ignores the strength of the non-tourney teams, but now I'm way off topic).

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
As an ACC person, I've always been annoyed that when the ACC and Big East both get six teams into the NCAA tournament, people think they're even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I just hear an ACC'er cry about mens basketball? ACC Mens Basketball is EASILY the most jerked off conference in all of sports. It's quite funny to hear them cry of something "unjust".

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
ACC Mens Basketball is EASILY the most jerked off conference in all of sports. It's quite funny to hear them cry of something "unjust".

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) My point is ACC-independent. I notice it because I like the ACC, but the logic applies whether or not the ACC is overrated.

(2) You put something I didn't say in quotes.