If you're claiming that the power conferences are trending up based on those stats, then that's just ridiculous. Five years of Final Fours gives you twenty teams. Five percent of twenty is one. So really you're basing that uptick trend on one more power conference team making it to the Final Four over a five year span. That really doesn't mean anything.
2018 4 Star Center Mamadou Doucoure
- Thread starter ScarletLongIsland
- Start date
cyrock3 said:
"Sure if you go on the general bball board & post how we are a better program than VCU, Gonzaga, SD State & New Mexico in b-ball by virtue of conference.
That is my basic point after all. Your point is to disagree with that premise."
You argument is silly. You're the one making this argument not me.
If I say "Sure if you go to a general bball board & post how VCU, Gonzaga, SD State & New Mexico in b-ball by virtue of conference affiliation are catching up to Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Syracuse, etc." Wouldn't that sound silly but that is the argument you are trying to make. My premise is that while they have made some progress, it really has not been impactful until they reach the top regularly. You don't agree, I get it, but it does not mean you are right.
"Sure if you go on the general bball board & post how we are a better program than VCU, Gonzaga, SD State & New Mexico in b-ball by virtue of conference.
That is my basic point after all. Your point is to disagree with that premise."
You argument is silly. You're the one making this argument not me.
If I say "Sure if you go to a general bball board & post how VCU, Gonzaga, SD State & New Mexico in b-ball by virtue of conference affiliation are catching up to Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Syracuse, etc." Wouldn't that sound silly but that is the argument you are trying to make. My premise is that while they have made some progress, it really has not been impactful until they reach the top regularly. You don't agree, I get it, but it does not mean you are right.
Last edited:
Just saying I'm ridiculous is silly and BTW you have missed my argument completely. You may want to re-read my argument. Make a counter argument like Crock3 did rather than dismiss it by your superior inelegance - lol.
I reread your argument. I understood it to mean that Final Four teams have gone from 80% Power 5 teams in the last ten years to 85% in the past five. If that's what you meant, I stand by my previous post A 5% difference when you're only looking at twenty data points (the Final Four teams in the past five years) is meaningless.
Seems like JQRU91 is trying to define "Power 5 conferences" as "10-15 pedigree programs".
Mid-major programs don't need to knock of Kentucky to become more competitive with the SEC, or knock of Duke to become more competitive with the ACC. Kansas doesn't need to take a step back for the Big 12 as a whole to become less dominant over mid-majors in the recruiting landscape.
Mid-major schools are getting more players that previously may have gone to mid/low-pack P5 conference teams. Does that mean VCU is going to steal recruits from Duke or Kentucky? No... but Clemson, VTech, and South Carolina (De'Riante Jenkins)? Sure. Is Gonzaga is going to steal recruits from Kansas or Syracuse... maybe not, but Arizona/Cal/Utah (Zach Collins) or FSU/ISU/GTown (Zach Norvell)? Sure. Xavier (A10 until 2013, when it joined the new Big East) got a commitment from Paul Scruggs, who had offers from Kansas, Indiana, MSU, and Illinois.
The top mid-major programs are breathing the same recruiting air as the mid-pack major programs. Come be a star at our smaller school, and you can be the next Steph Curry.
Mid-major programs don't need to knock of Kentucky to become more competitive with the SEC, or knock of Duke to become more competitive with the ACC. Kansas doesn't need to take a step back for the Big 12 as a whole to become less dominant over mid-majors in the recruiting landscape.
Mid-major schools are getting more players that previously may have gone to mid/low-pack P5 conference teams. Does that mean VCU is going to steal recruits from Duke or Kentucky? No... but Clemson, VTech, and South Carolina (De'Riante Jenkins)? Sure. Is Gonzaga is going to steal recruits from Kansas or Syracuse... maybe not, but Arizona/Cal/Utah (Zach Collins) or FSU/ISU/GTown (Zach Norvell)? Sure. Xavier (A10 until 2013, when it joined the new Big East) got a commitment from Paul Scruggs, who had offers from Kansas, Indiana, MSU, and Illinois.
The top mid-major programs are breathing the same recruiting air as the mid-pack major programs. Come be a star at our smaller school, and you can be the next Steph Curry.
I am not saying that mid-majors are not getting better, they are. But I also think the power conf. teams are also getting better (at least at the top). What I am saying is that the teams with the best recruits (power conf) are winning the top honors which is what it is all about. The noise/progress made by the mid-majors is really very minor IMHO based on the teams that make it to the top of the tournament.
BTW - if you extend my analysis to the finals, final 4 and elite 8 over the past 10 years, you see the same trend (albeit small) towards the power conf. The point is that mid-majors are not increasing, they are staying even or slightly behind.
I think you're trying to argue a different point than cyrock was originally making.
Talking only about the "top" of the conferences isn't meaningful when talking about whether "Power 5 dominance" is eroding. Yes, the 10-15 pedigree programs are still attracting the top talent and still proving that they are pedigree programs... but the cachet of being in a "power conference" isn't the same as it was.
And even so, the pedigree programs have also seen competition rise a bit. Duke has won 2 National Championships in the past 10 years... they've also been knocked out of the tournament by Mercer, Lehigh, and VCU during that span. Kansas has won a National Championship in the past 10 years... they've also been knocked out of the tournament by Wichita State, VCU, and Northern Iowa in that span.
RUChoppin - While your right that these top teams have been getting knocked off by some of the mid-major teams, you can do the research and you will find this has been happening forever. This is not a new phenomenon. I think we just see the issue differently. I don't think the power conferences pedigree is trending down. In fact I think it is trending up. Most stud b-ball players want to play on teams that win at the highest levels and that is mostly happening with power conference teams. That's my argument.
Again, you're conflating two concepts. One is "pedigree teams" and the other is "power conferences". When you say that "most stud b-ball players want to play on teams that win at the highest levels", you're not talking about the majority of major conference teams.
Over the last 20 years, 53 of 80 (66%) possible Final Four appearances have been from just 12 major conference teams (counting UConn, as most of their appearances were back in the old BE). That's only 4 ACC schools, 3 Big Ten schools, 2 SEC schools, 1 P12 school, 1 B12 school, and UConn (formerly BE, now AAC). None of the rest of the major conference teams fit the "teams that win at the highest levels" mold you're talking about, and those are the ones who are in tougher fights for recruits these days with mid-major programs (like those I mentioned above).
I'm not conflating anything. Your trying to change the argument. You now have to go back 20 years to make your point - lol. As a matter of fact, your premise above supports my position. It means the trend is towards the power conferences as you get closer to recent tournaments.
I stand by my position and the stats back me up. Over the past 10 years the power conferences make up 80%+ of the finals, final 4 teams and elite 8 teams. That's recent history. Any further and you are just not mixing relevant history in your data JMHO.
I stand by my position and the stats back me up. Over the past 10 years the power conferences make up 80%+ of the finals, final 4 teams and elite 8 teams. That's recent history. Any further and you are just not mixing relevant history in your data JMHO.
Last edited:
cy made a comment that there's a trend. You decided to cherry pick some of your own parameters to overlay on his statement (% of teams reaching the top levels of the tournament, limited to the last 10 years only as a single data point), and then complained about manipulating stats. lol
You only want to look at a single data point to prove out that there's no trend. A trend needs to show change over time - that means you need to have a "before" state to compare to. If your "now" state is the last 10 years, then the "before" state has to necessarily be before the last 10 years.
It seems that you're trying to argue that "right now schools from P5 conferences are dominant" (which I don't think anyone is disagreeing with) in opposition to an argument that "overall P5 dominance has diminished over time". Those are two different arguments.
If anything (specifically with regard to the single data point of teams reaching the Elite Eight) tournament success in the major conferences has condensed somewhat to the top teams, at the expense of the middle teams. In the last 10 years, about 37% of teams in the current P5 made it to the EE. Over the prior 10 years, about 45% of teams in the current P5 had made it to the EE.
To really look at this, though, we'd need to take into account a lot of factors. Top 150 recruiting commitments, tournament success, head to head regular season and tournament records between major and mid-major teams, # of teams finishing the season ranked, # of players in the NBA from major vs. mid-major teams, etc. And they'd all need to be looked at over time (80s vs. 90s vs. 00s vs. 10s, or whatever) if any real trend was going to be proven out.
From the very small window I've looked through, though, my initial feeling is that power is consolidating more at the top of the major conferences, while the middle/bottom of the major conferences are seeing more competition from mid-major programs. Which would imply that a program's conference affiliation alone is not the advantage it may have been in the past.
You only want to look at a single data point to prove out that there's no trend. A trend needs to show change over time - that means you need to have a "before" state to compare to. If your "now" state is the last 10 years, then the "before" state has to necessarily be before the last 10 years.
It seems that you're trying to argue that "right now schools from P5 conferences are dominant" (which I don't think anyone is disagreeing with) in opposition to an argument that "overall P5 dominance has diminished over time". Those are two different arguments.
If anything (specifically with regard to the single data point of teams reaching the Elite Eight) tournament success in the major conferences has condensed somewhat to the top teams, at the expense of the middle teams. In the last 10 years, about 37% of teams in the current P5 made it to the EE. Over the prior 10 years, about 45% of teams in the current P5 had made it to the EE.
To really look at this, though, we'd need to take into account a lot of factors. Top 150 recruiting commitments, tournament success, head to head regular season and tournament records between major and mid-major teams, # of teams finishing the season ranked, # of players in the NBA from major vs. mid-major teams, etc. And they'd all need to be looked at over time (80s vs. 90s vs. 00s vs. 10s, or whatever) if any real trend was going to be proven out.
From the very small window I've looked through, though, my initial feeling is that power is consolidating more at the top of the major conferences, while the middle/bottom of the major conferences are seeing more competition from mid-major programs. Which would imply that a program's conference affiliation alone is not the advantage it may have been in the past.
RUChoppin - You are an interesting fellow. You make blanket statements about my intentions, thoughts and meanings. I wish I was as smart as you. Maybe in my next life I can be like you - lol.
Here is my response:
- First of all, I am not cherry picking my data. I have clearly stated why I have selected this data (you need to go back a read it). You just don't agree with my selection - fine.
- Second, I have presented more than 1 data point (actually it's 6 data points 5/10 year and finals, final 4 and elite 8)
- Again you misstate my argument (conf. superiority) which shows you still don't understand my position. Once again, I feel the power conf teams are not loosing ground but that they are gaining ground. If the mid-majors were getting measurably better, the results would show at the top of the tournament. The data shows this is not the case.
- Your data is just wrong on the 37%. Here is the data -- elite 8 10 yrs power conf. 86%; mid-majors 14% -- elite 8 5 yrs power conf. 90%; mid-majors 10%. The finals and final 4 are similar in trend. This includes Big East teams when they were considered a power conf. Here are the teams 2015 - Gonzaga; 2014 - Dayton & UCONN (in AAC); 2013 - Wichita State; 2011 - VCU & Butler; 2010 - Butler; 2008 - Davidson, Memphis & Xavier; 2007 - Memphis
- Your right in your point that we should take into consideration other data points but who has time for that - have at it as I would be interested to know myself. However, going back more that 10 years is not relevant as there were no power conferences, per say, beyond that.
- We just have to disagree on your point that mid-majors are gaining on power conf. I think with the money and striving for success, the power conferences will continue to widen the gap.
Last edited:
"I'm not cherry picking data... I have reasons why I selected just this data, and don't have time to look at any other data." Got it. [eyeroll]
Not going to keep running into this wall, and will let it be - you live in your world of small sample sizes and carefully set parameters.
And to the point of the thread.... welcome, Mr. Doucoure!
Not going to keep running into this wall, and will let it be - you live in your world of small sample sizes and carefully set parameters.
And to the point of the thread.... welcome, Mr. Doucoure!
LOL - I see you hate to loose an argument. When you can't make a relevant argument or present pertinent data to challenge you revert to name calling. Nice - lol.
Merry Christmas!
