Hoop Poop has been out of action all season due to other pressing matters. I've been watching the tourney closely and, as ever, I'm most interested in the big picture, such as how well the tournament organizers did in selecting the field. Bottom line: they never learn.
I performed a simple "over/under" analysis, tracking upsets relative to their seeding, then aggregating the results by conference. So a #2 seed that loses to a #5 seed gets a minus 3, while the winner gets a plus 3. Winning/losing as your seed says you should earns zero. So if your conference is around zero, plus or minus a few, you're doing pretty much as expected. Keep in mind, this doesn't tell you whether a conference is good or bad. It only indicates whether expectations were warranted.
So, how are the conferences doing this year?
Conference Total Over/Under # Over Achievers/# As Expected/
# Under Achievers
Pac 10 + 5 1 / 3 / 0
ACC + 4 1 / 1 / 2
SEC - 8 1 / 2 / 2
Big 12 - 14 0 / 2 / 3
Big 10 -15 1 / 3 / 3
Big East - 28 2 / 3 / 6
The last column indicates whether a conference's woes are due to one major upset or whether it's a pattern for the conference. The jury is in for 2011: The PAC 10 and ACC generally performed well. Interesting that the one big ACC setback has come at the hands of the PAC 10 (Arizona over Duke). Otherwise, it's Butler and VCU wreaking havoc all over the place.
On the other hand, the Big East was woefully overrated as was the Big 10, albeit to a lesser extent. Of course, this pattern is nothing new. Here are the numbers from 2010:
Conference Total Over/Under # Over Achievers/# As Expected/
# Under Achievers
Pac 10 +13 1 / 1 / 0
ACC 0 2 / 2 / 2
SEC - 6 1 / 1 / 2
Big 10 -11 1 / 2 / 2
Big 12 -15 1 / 2 / 4
Big East - 35 1 / 1 / 6
Eerily similar to 2011, no?
The Big East had eight teams in the tourney in 2010 and performed poorly. So, of course, they're rewarded with 11 teams in 2011! Everyone knows this is the premier basketball conference in the country, right? The Big 10 was less than mediocre in 2010 with five teams but, lo and behold, they get seven teams in 2011. The conventional wisdom (now there's an oxymoron) with regards to the relative strength of conferences is a fairy tale.
Solutions are numerous. Start by not inviting any team that can't win more than half its conference games. Then invite more mid-majors. And, finally, address that consistent eastern bias.
