How to judge the strength of conferences?

[albionmoonlight]

Maybe it's because I am tired of watching people get angry over the war, so I want to watch them get angry over college sports.

But I am recalling a barstool discussion that a few friends and I had a few weeks ago that might get people here talking. It does not seem like a contentious question, but college sports has a way of bringing out the ire in a way that few other meaningless topics do.

My question, simply, is, regardless of sport, how should you rate the strength of a conference. Do you look at how the top team of a conference fares against the other top teams? Do you look at how many teams qualify for "major" post season appearances (BCS berths, final four appearances, etc.). Do you look at what conference produces the best players? Do you look at the top to bottom depth of a conference? Do you look at how the teams play against other conferences in the post season? In the regular season? Do you look at who wins the national championship?

Personally, I like to look at the middle of a conference--how does the 6th best team in a conference match up against the 6th best team from other conferences. I am more into depth than one or two teams shining above the rest.

Any thoughts?

[cthomer5000]

I think looking at that conference's record outside of its own conference is the only way to go. Just look at the NBA this year, the West has absolutely been crushing the east. You can make the argument that there are 3 or 4 western teams who will miss the playoffs that are much better than eastern playoff teams.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I think looking at that conference's record outside of its own conference is the only way to go. Just look at the NBA this year, the West has absolutely been crushing the east. You can make the argument that there are 3 or 4 western teams who will miss the playoffs that are much better than eastern playoff teams.

That is not a good analogy however, due to schedule differences. In the NBA, the teams from the West all play the same teams from the East, so you can accurately compare their records.

However in college basketball, some teams play very tough non-conference schedules, while some schedule nothing but powderpuffs. So I'm just not sure if that will give you anything that is statistically meaningful.

[Fritz]

I am a depth person.

[Radii]

I think you have to look at both, you have to look at how the top teams compare nationally with the top teams in the country(final fours or BCS births or whatever), and you have to look at how the middle of the pack stands up against the middle of other conferences(total NCAA bids, total bowl births, or, since that is becoming so diluted, the entire conference performance in bowls).

An example is that the ACC in basketball for the past few years has been considered to be "down" ... This year it is obviously so in every measurable aspect, but in previous years, the ACC has certainly not been 'down' in terms of Final Four births or championships, but, the number of teams getting into the tournament has decreased. In the 80s and early 90s the ACC was practically guarenteed 5 teams in and could fight for a 6th(remember this is a conference w/ 9 teams, not 12+), but in the past few years it has been getting 3 in for sure and fighting for a 4th.

The top of the ACC over the past 10 years is still better than the top of any other conference in the country, whether it be Maryland/Duke/UNC over the period, but the overall strength of the conference top to bottom is "down" b/c there haven't been as many teams making the tournament as there used to be.