The MAC's got 5...

[OU-OhYeah!]

dishdaball said:

Look at the title.....current year.......yes....accurrate observation.....yes

Uh, no. The title says (or infers) nothing about year. In fact, re-read the original post which says "each year the MAC has 5 strong teams." That's more than the current year. Not only is your assumption wrong, I stand by my contention that the observation, accurate or accurrate, is not.

[Xplaya]

idahoboy said:

xplaya said:

Well, according to the RKPI (Rich Kerns simulation of the RPI, which has turned out to be very accurate the past 3 years) The conferences stack up as such (with your "Tier's" added):

The RPI has a regional bias, which helps the ACC and decimates the WAC.

If you did the same with Pablo, well, then I might listen, but the RPI is the biggest piece of fudge-covered crap the NCAA serves up each year for dessert.


That being said. I think that the ACC is still very borderline Tier 2 this year.

Conference Ranking
Using Pablo Averages
for Week of Sep 24
Order Conference Average Rank
1 Pac-10 21
2 Big 12 35
3 Big Ten 35
4 West Coast 62
5 Southeastern 74
6 Mountain West 76
7 Big West 91
8 Atlantic Coast 109
9 Missouri Valley 123
10 Western Athletic 124
11 Big East 133
12 Conference USA 144
13 Mid-American 157
14 Horizon League 159
15 Big Sky 161
Does that work for you Idaho Boy? (congrats on your child, by the way)

[IdahoBoy]

xplaya said:

Does that work for you Idaho Boy? (congrats on your child, by the way)

Wow, that surprises me.... a lot actually.

Now we need p-dub here... I know that the differences in ranking between 100-level teams is very close. I'm thinking that the tiers, using Pablo would be like this, then:


Conference Ranking
for Week of Sep 24

TIER ONE xxxxxx
1 Pac-10 21
2 Big 12 35
3 Big Ten 35

TIER TWO xxxxxx
4 West Coast 62
5 Southeastern 74
6 Mountain West 76

TIER THREE xxxxxx
7 Big West 91
8 Atlantic Coast 109
9 Missouri Valley 123
10 Western Athletic 124
11 Big East 133 (borderline)

TIER FOUR xxxxx
12 Conference USA 144 (borderline)
13 Mid-American 157
14 Horizon League 159
15 Big Sky 161

The MWC is really surprising to me... I'll have to research that some more in my copious free time. I think the ACC must be benefitting from improvements from its typical basement dwellars? Teams like La Tech for the WAC really kill them in these kinds of rankings.

The Mid-American doesn't really surprise me at that position.


I think it would be very interesting to run these conferences using Pablo again and some kind of minimalistic bell curve, throwing out the top and bottom teams from the rankings.



Oh, and thanks. I'm very proud of my daughter and wife. They've been absolutely amazing!

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

idahoboy said:

xplaya said:

Does that work for you Idaho Boy? (congrats on your child, by the way)

Wow, that surprises me.... a lot actually.

Now we need p-dub here... I know that the differences in ranking between 100-level teams is very close.

Then perhaps look to the rating average instead of ranking? Rating average is a better approach, anyway.

I actually have my spreadsheets with me today. If I get to it, I can do my head-to-head comparisons, but keep in mind they generally reflect average rating.

Here's the top half, with my own lines of demarkation

Tier 1
Pac-10 8567.5
Big 12 8114.1
Big Ten 8054.1

Tier 2
West Coast 7530
Southeastern 7376.8
Mountain West 7336.1
Big West 7195.6


Tier 3
Atlantic Coast 6882.9
Western Athletic 6756.1
Missouri Valley 6756
Big East 6617
Conference USA 6470
(CUSA is actually borderline, and could easily be bumped down a level)

Tier 4
Big Sky 6343.9
Mid-American 6332.5
Horizon League 6306.1
Atlantic 10 6199.5
Colonial Athletic Association 6189.5


The cutoffs are pretty clearcut, so I would not think there would be any changes if I did the head-to-head.

I don't think it is right to throw teams out of the comparison. The head-to-head approach handles that naturally, but as I noted, there usually aren't big differences between that and average rating.

[cruncher]

Since you're in a number crunching mood, how about using Pablo and taking the average of 2005, 2006 and 2007?

The again, when aren't you in a number crunching mood?

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Can't do it right now, because my computer is too busy crunching numbers...

(working on non-DI Pablo rankings again)

[caliente21]

you need to wait for the year to get deeper to be using both pablo and rkpi...those numbers, for individual teams and thus conferences, will change a ton in the next month. Last year the Mac dropped to 14, basically b/c of whimpy scheduling outside of Ohio and maybe Western. Before that they were 10 or 11 for 4 years, ahead of the ACC and some of the others mentioned. You need to put the MAC, MVC, ACC, etc in the same conversation.

If you look at the top 5 from each conference there are lots of simliarities...as well as the bottom 5 for that matter(ie: poor rpi)

Ohio has been in the top 25 RPI wise for 4 years in a row. But Miami, Bowling Green and Western are totally legit teams on the national scene. I would say that the bottom 4 in the MAC are worse than the bottom 4 in the ACC, that is the difference in the end.

[Xplaya]

caliente21 said:

you need to wait for the year to get deeper to be using both pablo and rkpi...those numbers, for individual teams and thus conferences, will change a ton in the next month. Last year the Mac dropped to 14, basically b/c of whimpy scheduling outside of Ohio and maybe Western. Before that they were 10 or 11 for 4 years, ahead of the ACC and some of the others mentioned. You need to put the MAC, MVC, ACC, etc in the same conversation.

If you look at the top 5 from each conference there are lots of simliarities...as well as the bottom 5 for that matter(ie: poor rpi)

Ohio has been in the top 25 RPI wise for 4 years in a row. But Miami, Bowling Green and Western are totally legit teams on the national scene. I would say that the bottom 4 in the MAC are worse than the bottom 4 in the ACC, that is the difference in the end.

For the record, here are the Pablo rankings for the past 5 seasons, of the leagues you mentioned (RPI used for 2003, no Pablo available):
07 06 05 04 03
ACC 8 11 9 4 5
MAC 13 14 8 9 12
MVC 9 10 12 10 18
WAC 10 8 6 6 9
B West 7 7 12 8 6

sooooooo here are the numbers. Not sure where you got your info but the ACC has been clearly ahead of the MAC the past 4 years, even in the down year of 2006. It has also ranked higher than all these leagues on avg except maybe the Big West. Give it some credit. Solid, competitive league with 1 or 2 national caliber teams each year, albeit not consistent enough to challenge the big 3, but it has had it's share of successes (03: Elite 8 GT, 04: sweet 16 GT, 05: 2 teams in 2nd rd Maryland & Duke, 06: 2nd rd, Duke). We'll see what happens this year.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

caliente21 said:

you need to wait for the year to get deeper to be using both pablo and rkpi...those numbers, for individual teams and thus conferences, will change a ton in the next month.

On the contrary, I expect not. Relative conference strength is mostly dictated by non-conference matches. Now that we are into the conference season, not much will end up changing. This is even less so in RKPI, with its heavy dependence on W/L record.

Remember, once you are into conference play, every win constitutes a conference loss. Yes, individual teams can move, but that comes at the expense of another team. Now, it means teams in the same conference.

[mervynpumpkinhead]

xplaya said:

Not sure where you got your info but the ACC has been clearly ahead of the MAC the past 4 years, even in the down year of 2006.

Congratulations...?

[OU-OhYeah!]

caliente21 said:

Last year the Mac dropped to 14, basically b/c of whimpy scheduling outside of Ohio and maybe Western.

Ohio has been in the top 25 RPI wise for 4 years in a row. But Miami, Bowling Green and Western are totally legit teams on the national scene. I would say that the bottom 4 in the MAC are worse than the bottom 4 in the ACC, that is the difference in the end.

Yes, and the scheduling by the bottom half of the conference is what kills us year after year. Two years ago, Eastern Michigan was probably as good as half the teams in the NCAA. Last year, about the same could be said for Bowling Green. Neither got an invite.

Geoff Carlston has been lobbying MAC teams to schedule better pre-conference opponents and, because we have a "free week" following the conference tournament, to schedule tough there as well.

Ohio's been Louisville the last two years for Thanksgiving (played Notre Dame and Louisville last year) and to Cincinnati the year before that. No doubt the players would rather be home with their families for the short holiday break, but these matches have been good for maintaining tournament readiness.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

rlholbrook said:

caliente21 said:

Last year the Mac dropped to 14, basically b/c of whimpy scheduling outside of Ohio and maybe Western.

Ohio has been in the top 25 RPI wise for 4 years in a row. But Miami, Bowling Green and Western are totally legit teams on the national scene. I would say that the bottom 4 in the MAC are worse than the bottom 4 in the ACC, that is the difference in the end.

Yes, and the scheduling by the bottom half of the conference is what kills us year after year. Two years ago, Eastern Michigan was probably as good as half the teams in the NCAA. Last year, about the same could be said for Bowling Green. Neither got an invite.

Geoff Carlston has been lobbying MAC teams to schedule better pre-conference opponents and, because we have a "free week" following the conference tournament, to schedule tough there as well.

The NCAA committee has made it blatently clear that they expect teams from weaker conferences (i.e. Tier 3) who want to make it to the tourney to schedule tough. Losses against good teams are preferable to gaudy records against weak teams. They have had little sympathy for complaints that it is not possible to schedule such teams for financial or other reasons (presumably because they see teams that do, such as Ohio, Northern Iowa, or Missouri St).

Geoff is exactly right.

[doc]

pablo said:

Given what you have here, I think you could readily flip-flop the MAC and MVC depending on the year. When UNI was at their top, the Valley would be stronger, but now with the Ohioans stronger, the MAC could make an argument.

I don't think the MAC has the depth at the top (UNI, Creighton, Wichita St, and Missouri St make a good set of top teams), but Ohio is clearly a step ahead of any of the Valley leaders.

I agree that on different years the MAC could flip flop with the Valley. However, one team does not make a conference when talking about a conferences strength. UNI is not as good as in the past but the other teams are much better. Top 5 teams in Valley are very respectable.