tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773624391903304966.post6051389643823163705..comments2008-12-05T07:59:30.072-08:00Joshnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3773624391903304966.post-20715776571708638442008-12-04T18:11:00.000-08:002008-12-04T18:11:00.000-08:00Hey guys (long comment ahead),<BR/><BR/>Is the ACC that much more dominant then the B10? They might be, but maybe only in November and not so much in March (when it really counts). I analyzed the last 5 NCAA tournaments, but instead of looking at team’s actual tourney record, I wanted to see how they did based on seed expectations. <BR/><BR/>I created my own excel chart/formula that gives each tournament team a score. A team with a higher score won more games then would be expected for their seed (IE – 10th seeded Davidson had a 2.5 score &amp; Kansas had a score of 3 for winning it all), &amp; a team with a negative score lost earlier then would be expected (IE – 2nd seeded Duke &amp; Georgetown had -2 scores). <BR/><BR/>Interestingly, the dominant ACC hasn’t lived up to their potential in the NCAA tournament, as they have a five year score of -5, compared to the B10’s 0 score. That puts the ACC at the bottom of the BCS conferences &amp; the B10 in second: <BR/>SEC=4.5 B10=0 B12=-.5 BEAST=-1 P10=-2.5 ACC=-5<BR/> <BR/>Maybe the ACC comes in too hyped; maybe the B10 progresses through the year &amp; steps up in March; or maybe my scoring system is whack and these scores are pointless.<BR/><BR/>Finally, another interesting note is that Duke, the team 10-0 in the ACC/B10 challenge, has a -5 score &amp; is tied with Gonzaga for the lowest five year score. I guess if you took them out of the equation (in both the challenge &amp; the NCAA’s) the two conferences might be similar :)<BR/><BR/>(How the score is determined is a little complicated to explain in the comments section, but if you are interested I could email you the spreadsheet with my parameters/scoring system) – My email is sethhaug25@hotmail.comSethnoreply@blogger.com