Checking in on the RPI, ACC, and Pac 10

A quick peak at what is going on in the ACC and partiuclarly a nice piece on the conference and the RPI.

The Atlantic Coast Conference currently has EIGHT TEAMS (66% of the conference) ranked amongst the nation’s Top 38 in the RPI. Interestingly, the league’s two hottest teams are currently the ACC’s two lowest rated programs of the top 38 – VPI and Boston College!

Although some like Jeff Goodman at Fox laud the Pac-10 as “the nation’s best conference”, it is quantifiable data such as this that discounts such proclamations. You gotta love Goodman’s ‘deep’ analysis and discount of reality in his comment:

It’s no surprise that the ACC is ranked as the top conference in the country by the RPI because of its balance and scheduling (the ACC-Big Ten Challenge helps). However, next up are the Missouri Valley and the Pac-10 — ahead of the SEC, Big Ten, Big East and Big 12.

Translation:

“It is no surprise that the ACC is ranked as the top conference in the country by the RPI because they have a lot more good teams, a lot less bad teams, and have proven themselves more by playing tough out of conference schedules…but, I want to say the Pac-10 is the best so I am going to ignore all the data that says otherwise.”

What Goodman and others don’t seem to understand is the overall strength of the ACC in both the middle and even the bottom of the conference. Our own Jeff didn’t need the season to get underway to explain the conference’s composition as he made the following comments in early November.

We all know that the middle of the ACC is always the strongest of any conference in America. Every team projected to finish #5-#8 in the ACC is included in mulitple NCAA Tournament projections. Of a potential eight games that could have been scheduled against these teams, the Wolfpack plays seven.

As usual, the real differentiation lies in the middle and at the bottom of the conferences where most lazy analysts and journalists don’t want to spend time considering.

To more completely prove this point, realize that

* the ACC has DOUBLE the amount of programs ranked in the Top 38 that the Pac-10 has produced.

* After boasting the two top ranked teams in the RPI in UCLA and Arizona; the Pac-10 gives Oregon and Washington State at (#22) and (#23).

* Despite the fact the ACC has more opportunities to be bad with our 12 teams compared to the Pac-10’s ten teams – 20% of the Pac-10 are ranked significantly below the worst ACC program (Miami at #159).

* How would the top of the ACC look if everyone got four games against the likes of Oregon State (#178) and Arizona State (#247)

* Just HOW BAD is Arizona State? There is only ONE other program from a ‘BCS’ conference ranked worse than the Sun Devils (Colorado at #249).

* In fact, the NEXT worst rated program from a power conference is the Big East’s Rutgers, who is SIXTY spots ahead of the Sun Devils. There are only 320 teams out there!

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

06-07 Basketball General Media

34 Responses to Checking in on the RPI, ACC, and Pac 10

  1. Jeff 01/16/2007 at 3:49 PM #

    ^ Damn, you are good!

    For the record — I think the best way to determine the strength of a conference is by dropping an indentical hypothetical team into each conference and projecting that team’s record.

    I think that if you took a team and dropped them into both the Pac 10 and the ACC that the team would end up with a better record in the Pac 10 than in the ACC. Therefore the ACC is tougher.

    I think that the depth and breadth of the statistical rankings help bear out this point.

  2. Dan 01/16/2007 at 4:22 PM #

    ^ Jeff, I see where you are going there and its a good idea. However, its a little too subjective for me to trust the selection committee with that.

    I’d like to see some sort of objective standard put out there for NCAA births where a set number of teams from certain conferences get invited. I wouldnt even mind if they used “an RPI like” system to rank the overall conferences as give out bids based on that. The best conference gets the most bids and so forth. Do I have a perfect system of objective criteria to decide it? No. But I think it would work better than the current system. There is no way the ACC doesnt have 4 of the best 33 teams in the country

    Who knows the best way really. The fact that 65 teams are allowed to compete for the National Championship really clouds the issue to a point where there is no right answer. I mean, ideally, the 32nd best team has no right to the championship. And one person’s idea of who the 32nd best team is just as irrelevant as another’s. And I know that is not what the tourney is about anymore, that is a playoff of national championship worthy teams. Its a season unto itself now. A spectacle. And its the best case against a football playoff.

  3. redfred2 01/16/2007 at 5:03 PM #

    Bo, like I said in an earlier thread about Coach K, but I think they might already have our old coach’s “Sleep” number out west too.

  4. VaWolf82 01/16/2007 at 5:13 PM #

    I’d like to see some sort of objective standard put out there for NCAA berths where a set number of teams from certain conferences get invited.

    Despite annual claims to the contrary, there are definitely glass ceilings in place to limit the number of teams from conferences…..both from the better mid-major conferences and from the power conferences. You only have to look at some of the “top” teams that are left out each year to see this in action. Especially when teams with absolutely nothing worthy of note on their resume get an at-large bid.

  5. Dan 01/17/2007 at 2:56 PM #

    All I know is that last year the MVC got 4 teams in while the ACC got three. And that was in a year that the ACC was ranked 3rd and the MVC was 6th by an RPI ranking that favors the mid-majors. Hell, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th ranked conferences all got more teams in than the ACC. The Big East received more than double the invitations the ACC received. That is the sort of subjective nonsense that has to be worked out in an objective manner.

    These committee members get in that room with too much flawed data and they wind up thinking themselves into a position where 1+1=3. Meaning they spend so much time cyphering the data that they end up at a point where the MVC is better than the ACC. I’m tired of teams having to prove themselves on a conference table instead of proving themselves on the court. We have too many old men deciding the outcome of college athletics based on opinion. Its not as bad as football because at least the basketball idiot voting sends more teams than have the right to be there, but its still a joke.

  6. bTHEredterror 01/18/2007 at 12:25 AM #

    ^Don’t forget BC, the ACC got 4 last year. And despite how tough the conference seemed last year, I only believe Maryland got screwed.

    To Jeff’s point, if State were dropped into the PAC-10, I could see us finishing 7th. They could beat any team in the conference except UCLA or Arizona.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. StateFans Nation » Blog Archive » Wednesday Bytes: Too Much Too Pass Up - 01/17/2007

    […] As a super follow up to this entry regarding the strength of the ACC, Dave Sez does some number crunching and adds some comments that are perfectly complimentary to our entry. […]

  2. StateFans Nation » Blog Archive » Follow-Up on ACC vs PAC-10 - 03/07/2007

    […] Earlier in the month, we opened the can of worms by highlighting a Jeff Goodman article and running this entry. […]

  3. StateFans Nation » Blog Archive » Watching Tyler Hanswalk Fart is Special - 03/07/2007

    […] First is a quick quote in this piece from Jeff Goodman at Fox Sports. I truly can’t believe that I am supporting something that this guy has written…but, for once I think he is sharing something of value instead of telling us all that the Pac-10 is better than the ACC and that Sidney Lowe was a bad hire. Coaches around the ACC won’t say it publicly, but they are tired of the aggressive Tar Heels star getting his way in the paint and bullying through defenders. […]

Leave a Reply