I did break down the numbers taking out all the top seeds and found a little closer performance to seed expectations, which indicated to me that tourney champs that weren't prohibitive favorites were less likely to overachieve. It would take some doing to back out all the stats champs- - and I bet the sample size would be small. Overall, I think you're probably right.

I did break down the numbers taking out all the top seeds and found a little closer performance to seed expectations, which indicated to me that tourney champs that weren't prohibitive favorites were less likely to overachieve. It would take some doing to back out all the stats champs- - and I bet the sample size would be small. Overall, I think you're probably right.

Pete,

Just for arguments sake, what is the PASE for conference tourney winners in the last 10 years who do not have the indicators of a championship team?

I have a feeling the PASE numbers are heavily influenced by super dominant teams that people would favor anyway, such as the championship Florida teams, UCLA teams that consistently made the Final Four, etc....

The ACC is probably hurt because Duke usually wins the tourney and has underperformed...not to mention Maryland's two final four teams never won the ACC Tourney title(the championship team actually lost their first ACC Tourney game to NC State), then Maryland won the ACC Tourney title randomly two years later and bombed out in the second round as a 4 seed... ... more » « less

Pete, Just for arguments sake, what is the PASE for conference tourney winners in the last 10 years who do not have the indicators of a championship team? I have a feeling the PASE numbers are heavily influenced by super dominant teams that people would favor anyway, such as the championship Florida teams, UCLA teams that consistently made the Final Four, etc.... The ACC is probably hurt because Duke usually wins the tourney and has underperformed...not to mention Maryland's two final four teams never won the ACC Tourney title(the championship team actually lost their first ACC Tourney game to NC State), then Maryland won the ACC Tourney title randomly two years later and bombed out in the second round as a 4 seed...

MYTH OR REALITY? If you win your conference, you're likely to underachieve in the Big Dance:

As I was watching Syracuse and UConn wear each other down last night in their six- overtime epic, I wondered about a comment Jay Bilas made about conference tourney champions underperforming in the dance. I have to admit, without looking at the numbers, I thought there was validity in Bilas' claim. After all, I remember the 2005 Syracuse squad that clawed its way to the Big East championship and earned a four seed- - only to get upset by a 13 seed in round one. Or the 2006 Iowa squad that won the Big Ten tourney, grabbed a three seed- - then got surprised by a 14 seed.

But I hadn't really crunched the numbers. So that's what I did bright and early this morning. And guess what? Bilas and I were wrong. Winning your conference tournament does not jinx you for the national dance- - unless your from the ACC. I analyzed tourney winners among the Big Six conferences going back ten years (actually, the Pac 10 just goes back to 2002). I discovered that, with the exception of the ACC, the Power conference tourney champs overperformed against seed expectations. Here are the numbers:

ACC: 3 F4, 1 CH, - .165 PASE
Big East: 3 F4, 2 CH, +.259 PASE
Big 12: 4 F4, 1 CH, +.359 PASE
Big Ten: 3 F4, 1 CH, +.159 PASE
Pac- 10: 2 F4, 0 CH, +.004 PASE
SEC: 2 F4, 2 CH, +.168 PASE

These numbers show that 17 of the last 40 Final Four contenders and seven of the last 10 champions that been conference tourney champs as well. And every conference's champs except the ACC's are overachievers in the dance. The Big 12's champs are the highest overperformers and the Big East is second. So much for the theory that winning the Big East spells doom for your chances in the Big Dance.

... more » « less

MYTH OR REALITY? If you win your conference, you're likely to underachieve in the Big Dance: As I was watching Syracuse and UConn wear each other down last night in their six- overtime epic, I wondered about a comment Jay Bilas made about conference tourney champions underperforming in the dance. I have to admit, without looking at the numbers, I thought there was validity in Bilas' claim. After all, I remember the 2005 Syracuse squad that clawed its way to the Big East championship and earned a four seed- - only to get upset by a 13 seed in round one. Or the 2006 Iowa squad that won the Big Ten tourney, grabbed a three seed- - then got surprised by a 14 seed. But I hadn't really crunched the numbers. So that's what I did bright and early this morning. And guess what? Bilas and I were wrong. Winning your conference tournament does not jinx you for the national dance- - unless your from the ACC. I analyzed tourney winners among the Big Six conferences going back ten years (actually, the Pac 10 just goes back to 2002). I discovered that, with the exception of the ACC, the Power conference tourney champs overperformed against seed expectations. Here are the numbers: ACC: 3 F4, 1 CH, - .165 PASE Big East: 3 F4, 2 CH, +.259 PASE Big 12: 4 F4, 1 CH, +.359 PASE Big Ten: 3 F4, 1 CH, +.159 PASE Pac- 10: 2 F4, 0 CH, +.004 PASE SEC: 2 F4, 2 CH, +.168 PASE These numbers show that 17 of the last 40 Final Four contenders and seven of the last 10 champions that been conference tourney champs as well. And every conference's champs except the ACC's are overachievers in the dance. The Big 12's champs are the highest overperformers and the Big East is second. So much for the theory that winning the Big East spells doom for your chances in the Big Dance.