“ACC vs Big East” College Basketball’s Best Conference
December 7th, 2008 byThe ACC has been the elite conference in college basketball for numerous years. The ACC holds two teams ranked in the top 5 in all-time NCAA wins. The Duke Blue Devils and the North Carolina Tarheels are amongst the most winning programs in NCAA history and they still hold strong a top the ACC today. These two programs along with the supporting cast of teams like Maryland, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and others have made this the greatest conference in college basketball for many years. Today the ACC Empire still stands, but there is a new empire being built on the horizon.
Offer Available From Bankroll Sports Only For New Customers Depositing By Credit Card
Click Here For An Exclusive 100% Signup Bonus (Up to $500) @ BetUS!
The Big East has become perhaps the most difficult conference in all of college basketball. In today’s rankings, the Big East is proud to represent 7 teams in the Top 25 rankings according to the Associated Press Polls. They can easily make their case for having the best conference top to bottom in the nation. Also, the Big East has 4 teams ranked in the top 11 teams in America. #2 Connecticut, #3 Pittsburgh, #7 Notre Dame, and # 11 Louisville make up the front runners for the Big East and believe me nobody wants to have these teams on their schedule. The talent and success level in the Big East has been steadily rising every year and now is at a point to be considered America’s best college basketball conference. However, the ACC is not ready to hand over the crown.
#1 North Carolina leads the ACC and their dominance has caught attention early in the season. The Tarheels are clearly the early favorite for winning the National Championship. North Carolina handled one of the better Big East teams in Notre Dame defeating the Fighting Irish by 15 points in a one sided affair. The ACC sports 4 teams in the Top 25 lead by #1 North Carolina and #4 Duke. Meaning the Big East and ACC represent the top 4 teams in college basketball today. The ACC has the history of National Titles and legendary success on their side, but do they hold the advantage for the future?
The best conference debate is clearly a two horse race between the ACC and the Big East. Together the two conferences nearly account for half of the Top 25 teams in America. While some may be hesitant to claim the Big East has overtaken the ACC, the Big East has the slight lead going 4-3 heads up with the ACC so far early in the season. Last season, North Carolina went further in the NCAA Tournament than any other school from the two conferences. However, the Big East had three teams to make the sweet sixteen compared to just one for the ACC. The year before in 2007 again only one ACC team made the sweet sixteen (North Carolina) while two Big East teams made the sweet sixteen with Georgetown going to the final four. Last year, the Big East put twice as many schools in the NCAA Tournament compared to the ACC with 8 teams making the dance.
History shows that the ACC has 10 National Championships to their resume. While many do not consider the Big East with the legacy equal to that of the ACC, the Big East also holds 10 National Championships to their resume. Surprising? That’s right both conferences have the exact same numbers of National Titles. However, since 1990 the ACC has won 6 Championships compared to only two from the Big East. Perhaps this may answer why so many people are quick to rank the ACC ahead of the Big East. The Dukes and North Carolinas over the years have been the most consistent powerhouses in college basketball and that is why the ACC could still hold the slight edge.
The Big East is emerging more and more every season. The conference has nearly reached the point of no return. They are so close to winning a couple National Championships and declaring their status as the best in college basketball. Only time will tell if they will be able to elevate their conference status and one of their elite teams score a Championship. For now, the season goes on with both conferences raising the bar for talent level and success.
The ACC remains a top the polls with the very talented North Carolina Tarheels while their #4 Duke Blue Devils suffered their first loss and will drop in the rankings. The Big East eagerly awaits the Tarheels to slip up, and allow their two teams to become #1 and #2 in the NCAA. The season has just begun, but the excitement is building for March madness already. Will a school from the ACC or the Big East be able to make a deep run in the postseason? Will the ACC be able to achieve more success in the NCAA Tournament this season or will the Big East keep striving? No matter how you rate either conference’s history or status, you must pay attention to the war between the ACC and the Big East to be considered the best in college basketball.
Loading ...
December 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Not sure if your math is correct, 99,03, and 04 were Big East Championships. Louisville has 2, Nova, Georgetown, Marquette ,Cincy X2
December 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I checked to see and you were right about there being 3 Big East Champs since 1990 compared to two. My apologies however the number 10 total stands correct with Cincinnati with 2, Louisville with 2, Connecticut with 2, Georgetown, Syracuse, Marquette, and Villanova. The point was saying they have 10 championships on their resume and not that they won them while playing as a Big East team. Sorry for the confusion as I made a error.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
If tourney supremacy were only measured by win/loss records and accomplishments, the ACC would definitely be the best conference of the 24-year 64-team tourney era. Their .669 winning rate is solidly ahead of the Big East’s .620 win percentage. And they own the most Final Four appearances (22 to the Big Ten’s 16) and championships (six to the SEC’s five).
Win-loss standings and bracket advancement aren’t the only ways to evaluate tourney performance, however. In fact, they can be misleading metrics for determining relative conference strength. The problem is that they don’t take into consideration seeding. If one conference is stocked with higher seeds, you’d expect its winning percentage to be better than its rivals. Consider the ACC: the average seed of its tourney entrants is 4.33. That’s more than one-and-a-half seed positions better than the SEC’s 5.85 average seed. No wonder the ACC has a better record. In fact, you could argue that the SEC’s win-loss performance is more impressive than the ACC’s. After all, it has a better winning rate despite lower seeding than the Big Ten (5.20), Big 12 (5.66) and Pac-10 (5.59).
So how do you remove the bias of seeding from tourney performance analysis? You do it with PASE, or “Performance Against Seed Expectations.” PASE compares the total number of wins a conference attains to the number its seeding dictates that it should achieve. PASE is calculated by tallying the positive or negative differences between actual and expected wins at each seed position. The total of these differences is divided by the number of appearances to arrive at an average number of games the conference either over- or underperforms per tourney. For instance, the average top seed wins 3.42 games while the average two seed nets 2.41 wins per dance. If a team appeared in the tourney once as both a top seed and a two seed, its expected win total would be 5.83 games. If it actually won eight games, the conference would’ve “overperformed” by 2.17 games—for a PASE of +1.085—more than one game per tourney above expectations
If we apply PASE analysis to Big Six performance, it doesn’t change which conference comes out on top, but it certainly tightens the race. Here are the PASE values of the Big Six since 1985:
1. ACC: +.160
2. Big East: +.148
3. SEC: +.102
4. Big Ten: -.045
5. Big 12: -.098
6. Pac-10: -.176
The ACC, Big East and SEC all perform above seed expectations. The Big Ten, SEC and Pac-10 all fail to meet the win totals their seed positions indicate they should achieve. The PASE race has actually tightened because the ACC, Big East and SEC have stumbled over the last decade.
That got me to thinking. How would the PASE values of each of the Big Six conferences look if the 24-year modern tourney era were divided into four six-year periods? Would trends emerge that changed our impression of the performance of the ACC, Big East, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-10? Well, I finished the analysis this evening. Here are the PASE values of each Big Six conference for 1985-1990, 1991-1996, 1997-2002, and 2003 to 2008
ACC: +.363 | +.371 | -.015 | -.130
Big East: +.234 | +.113 | +.100 | +.140
SEC: +.238 | +.529 | -.230 | +.006
Big Ten: -.263 | -.222 | +.221 | +.090
Big 12: -.158 | -.264 | -.094 | +.103
Pac-10: +.589 | -.373 | +.174 | -.093
One look at the bumpy rides of all these numbers is illustration enough that the Big Six conferences haven’t exactly been consistent in their performance for the entire 24 years of the modern tourney era. Consider this: the ACC has owned the best PASE in one six-year period and the worst PASE in another. So has the SEC—in consecutives periods! Meanwhile, the Big East and Big Ten have been slightly more consistent, both winning the PASE race in one six-year period. (In fact, the Big East is the only conference to overachieve in every period.) The Big 12 has operated under the radar, never the best nor worst performer against seed expectations, while the Pac-10 basically bumbled through the first 12 years of the dance.