By what standard can we say a conference is strong? By what standard should a conference be declared a fraud?
Some different ways to look at it:
Some different ways to look at it:
- Regular season record against other power conferences: The SEC was 59-19 in the regular season. Is this enough evidence on its own, regardless of post-season results?
- Regular season metrics: The SEC has 14 teams in the KenPom Top 50. These metrics grade teams' strength beyond wins and losses.
- Win-loss record in the NCAA tournament: Seems obvious enough. A top-heavy conference's record will look much different than a deep conference.
- Number of teams in the Sweet Sixteen, Elite 8, Final 4: This could favor top-heavy conferences. Should the number of conference teams invited be taken into account?
- Performance against the spread: A total of the point differential between the spread and the results.
- Performance of favorites and underdogs: If the favorites lose, this could point to a fraud. If the underdogs win, this could point to strength. The SEC is the favorite in 8 of its 14 first-round games. If the SEC goes 8-6 (as expected), does that tell us anything?
- Performance against seed expectations: Similar to above, but based on seedings rather than spread. For instance, 1-seed Auburn beating a 16-seed doesn't prove conference strength. And 10-seed Vandy losing to a 7-seed doesn't show the SEC is a fraud.
