Major-conference power ratings -- Big 10 drops to #3; ACC remains #1

[SelectionSunday]

Humor me as I report on my annual major-conference power ratings (circa 2000). Using stats accumulated since Jan. 1 of 2000, each year the 6 major conferences are ranked using 6 criteria:

1. Record vs. NCAA qualifiers
2. NCAA Tournament winning percentage
3. NCAA Tournament appearances
4. Final Four appearances
5. National runners-up
6. National championships

Please note that if a team switched conference affiliation (i.e. Louisville and Marquette moving to the Big East), all records, NCAA appearances, Final Four appearances, etc., transfer over to the current conference. That helped the Big East significantly, especially with Marquette and Louisville's NCAA/Final Four appearances while members of Conference USA. Nevertheless, the ACC by a clear margin has been the nation's best conference since 2000.

Power Ratings (2000-09)
1. ACC
2. Big East (last year #4)
3. Big 10 (last year #2)
4. SEC (last year #3)
5. Big 12
6. Pac 10

Here's how they stack up in each category:

Record vs. NCAA Qualifiers
1. ACC (599-862, .4099)
2. SEC (574-884, .3936)
3. Big East (709-1115, .3887)
4. Big 10 (571-898, .3886)
5. Big 12 (554-888, .3841)
6. Pac 10 (498-813, .3798)

NCAA Tournament Winning Percentage
1. ACC (92-52, .6388)
2. Big 12 (88-53, .6241)
3. Big East (107-67, .6149)
4. Big 10 (83-53, .6102)
5. Pac 10 (70-49, .5882)
6. SEC (68-53, .5619)

NCAA Tournament Appearances
1. Big East (69)
2. ACC (56)
3. SEC (55)
4. Big 12 (54)
5. Big 10 (54)
6. Pac 10 (49)

Tiebreaker for Big 12/Big 10 = best NCAA Tournament winning percentage

Final 4 Appearances
1. ACC – 9 (Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina)
2. Big 10 – 8 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin)
3. Big East – 7 (Connecticut, Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Syracuse, Villanova)
4. Big 12 – 6 (Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas)
5. SEC – 4 (Florida, LSU)
6. Pac 10 – 4 (Arizona, UCLA)

Tiebreaker for SEC/Pac 10 = most national titles

National Runners-Up
1. Big 10 – 4 (Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Ohio State)
2. Pac 10 – 2 (Arizona, UCLA)
3. ACC – 1 (Duke)
4. SEC – 1 (Florida)
5. Big 12 – 1 (Kansas)
6. Big East -- 0

Tiebreaker for ACC/SEC/Big 12 = most national titles

National Titles
1. ACC -- 4 (North Carolina-2, Duke, Maryland)
2. SEC – 2 (Florida-2)
3. Big East – 2 (Connecticut, Syracuse)
4. Big 10 – 1 (Michigan State)
5. Big 12 – 1 (Kansas)
6. Pac 10 – 0

Tiebreaker for SEC/Big East & Big 10/Big 12 = most national runners-up

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Nice work. I do have to question a couple of your criteria though.

I'm big on percentages and not on volume. The Big East will undoubtedly have more NCAA tournament appearances from here on out compared to the PAC-10 because they have 6 more members. A better way to look at it is the percentage of teams per conference that have made the tourney.

Following that line of thinking, I would have either given the PAC-10 the tiebreaker for Final 4 appearances because they did so with 2 fewer member compared to the SEC or I would have averaged out Final 4 appearances based on number of teams in the conference.

I would also weight more heavily the Winning % vs NCAA Qualifiers criteria compared to the others. In a one-and-done format like the tourney, freak things can happen. I don't want to discount too much the most important event in the sport but it's a small sample size while regular season games against NCAA Qualifiers seems a bit more of a relevant stat when comparing conferences.

I also think you're weighting too heavily the Final 4, Runner-up, and Champ criteria. It's completely subjective but I would multiple by .75 the placement in these categories. It seems somewhat redundant to count all 3. If not the .75 multiplier, I would discard the Runner-up criteria altogether.

It would be interesting to see what it would look like if these were the criteria:

1. Winning Percentage vs NCAA Qualifiers (weighted x 2)
2. NCAA Tournament winning percentage
3. NCAA Tournament appearances (divided by number of conference members)
4. Final Four appearances (divided by number of conference members)
5. National championships (divided by number of conference members)

Just a personal preference.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Thanks for the input Pewter. No argument here that this has flaws. Overall, I think it requires that teams/conferences perform in both the regular season and the postseason, but I think it's how you perform in the NCAA tourney that people remember most.

I think we're in agreement for the most part. Record vs. NCAA qualifiers and NCAA Tournament winning percentage are the two I value the most. There's no hiding in those two categories. ... those are true indicators of how a team/conference is performing against the best of the best. Not surprisingly, that's where the ACC has made the most hay.

Just going on your gut, if you had to rank these 6 conferences using only the last 10 seasons, how would you rank them?

 

[Pewterschmidt]

This is mostly based on my gut but...

1. ACC
2. Big East
3. Big 10
4. SEC
5. PAC-10
6. Big 12

Notice the only difference is that I switched the last 2 teams.

 

[sarahsparrow]

I can't see that this is relevant to much of anything. It has little bearing on what's happening tomorrow. I see a strong Big 10 basketball year...again. And I see an improved SEC but still weak. Another year of a top of the crop and then a big drop in the ACC. Big East, drops this season. Pac 10 goes up this season.