Naturally, the great records and mediocre schedules come out of the secondary conferences. Drake, Butler, and St. Mary’s, I’m talking about you. Not only is your RPI inflated, you’re shooting up the polls too. “Wait a minute! Give those guys a break, they’re screwed by the BCS bullies!” Well, I think the RPI and polls actually do these schools the bigger injustice. Name the non-BCS schools that have gotten a 5th seed or better in the last decade and done something with it. That list is awfully short. These teams are good, but they don’t belong in the top 25. There’s nothing wrong with being one of the top 40.

And of course there’s the “Izzo-Chaney-Olsen Plan,” in which you schedule half a dozen elite non-conference games before conference play starts. No surprise, it’s Olsen this year with the #8 RPI and #1 schedule. UConn, yes UConn! is a bit overrated by the same method.

What the RPI fails to do is recognize quality basketball and pick out would-be sleepers (if they get to dance at all). Kansas State will obviously dance, and I expect to see them in the Elite Eight. Wisconsin’s very quietly 19-4 and a lot better than their #20 RPI. But the one I’ll be watching will be West Virginia. They’ve got a #48 RPI, a 12-seed from Joe Lunardi, and a resume full of quality play all year. Barring a disaster the rest of the way, they’re going to slip into the tournament in the #8 to #12 range and will have a great shot at the Sweet Sixteen as “underdogs.”

I’ve posted BigEastology through last night’s tilts–again, don’t look for anything special or new here. I’m interested in exploring the most over- and underrated schools across the country from this perspective.

Overrated

1. Vanderbilt. All that matters is wins, right? 15-0 looks very shiny in early January. They’re #15 in both polls and they’ll probably be higher Monday, but their quality of play translates to about #60 in the country. That won’t get it done over the next 16 conference games. I see a 3rd or 4th place finish in their division at 9-7 or 8-8, then an early exit in March for a higher than justified seed at 23-8 or 24-7.
2. Washington St. Another undefeated team? Yep. #4 in the country? Yeesh. They’re barely among the four best in the Pac-10. Wash. St. sits at #22 on my list, with UCLA far ahead and six Pac-10 teams between #23 and #45. There’s a reason all of the computer ratings systems have the Pac-10 as the top conference right now–depth. State got the 2nd worst, Washington, out of the way, but I can’t see them maintaining a conference record worthy of that #4 ranking into March. 11-7 or 12-6 is the more likely outcome, with a more appropriate seed around four or five in the Tournament.
3. Villanova. Sorry to say it, but Big Willie Style nailed it before the season. They’re playing in the 9th to 11th range among BEast teams. #16 in the country? #80 is more likely. Villanova will do very well to win 8 in conference, but 7-11 is most likely, sending Scottie and company to the NIT. Last year’s success and Scottie’s return blinded pundits from seeing the full picture here. Let’s be proud that the Wildcats are the only Big East representative on this list.
4. Dayton. Another mediocre school getting top-25 status in the polls. I see Dayton around #55 in the country, and about 5th in the A-10. Unlike the BEast however, the A-10 is weak enough for Dayton to win 10 of 16 and roll up a 22-7 record. They’re not much better than the middle of the BEast and only a bit better than Villanova, but there might be enough to get them into the NCAAs. Thems the breaks.
5. Boston College and NC State. Chalk this up to ACC love. Both schools got several votes in the ESPN/USA Today poll. Well they’re two of the three worst ACC teams so far on BigEastology. Ken Pomeroy agrees. Jeff Sagarin’s PREDICTOR agrees. Both are 10-3 today, but that +7 against .500 will have evaporated two months from now. Perhaps some of the pollsters need to find a way to fit five ACC teams into their ballots no matter what. Fortunately for the rest of the country, it’s a down year for the ACC. Duke and UNC are elite, Clemson is very good, and the rest is pretty ugly.

Underrated

1. Xavier. A couple December losses stand between Xavier and some love. Not one vote in the E/U poll? They’re obliterating people–one of the best signs of dominance looking forward is the ability to blowout your opponents. Well, Xavier just beat Kansas St., #52 in BEO, by 26, then beat Virginia, #74, by 38. Those are two of five double-digit wins against the top 100. UNC has six such wins. Kansas has two. Duke? Three. Seems to me, Xavier belongs much higher, and I have them #7.
2. West Virginia. The Mountaineers need a couple quality wins, and the only bad loss in my mind is the semi-home game against Oklahoma. Like Duke, they have three double-digit wins against the top 100. It’s time to prove they’re among the Big East’s best, and if they do, the recognition will be there.
3. Notre Dame, Duquesne, and Drake. All three are around #15-20 here but have zero votes in the polls. ND has lost twice by a combined five points–both back in November. Their first two shots in the Big East were quality home wins. I think the Irish are Big East royalty this year, and will rise to top-15. Duquesne (and Xavier) would be a good choice for early recognition in the Atlantic 10, but it’s Rhode Island with a ranking. Duquesne has dominated 10 and lost to three top-25 schools. Drake is currently the best of the MVC with only one loss against St. Mary’s, who just happens to be ranked. There are only three cupcakes on the schedule so far and they’ve beaten SIU and Wichita St. in conference play. Look for 14-4 in the MVC and a decent NCAA seed.

Conf  #  W-L  Chalk  3/13  3/20  Delta  Champ
P10   6  7-3    9     5.9   8.9   3.0     3%
SEC   5  7-2    7     7.3   9.5   2.2    14%
MWC   2  2-1    2      .8   2.4   1.7     0%
Horz  2  2-1    1     1.1   2.3   1.1     0%
CUSA  1  2-0    3     2.0   2.6    .6     2%
B12   4  5-2    8     8.0   8.5    .5    29%
WAC   2  1-2    1      .7   1.0    .3     0%
BSth  1  1-1    0      .7   1.0    .3     0%
SWAC  1  0-1    0      .0    .0    .0     0%
OVC   1  0-1    0      .0    .0    .0     0%
MAAC  1  0-1    0      .0    .0    .0     0%
NEC   1  0-1    0      .0    .0    .0     0%
SB    1  0-1    0      .0    .0    .0     0%
BSky  1  0-1    0      .1    .0   -.1     0%
MVC   2  2-1    2     2.3   2.2   -.1     0%
Ivy   1  0-1    0      .2    .0   -.2     0%
CAA   2  1-2    0     1.2   1.0   -.2     0%
ASun  1  0-1    0      .2    .0   -.2     0%
Slnd  1  0-1    0      .3    .0   -.3     0%
B10   6  6-5    8     7.5   7.2   -.3     4%
MAC   1  0-1    0      .3    .0   -.3     0%
BE    6  5-4    8     6.9   6.5   -.4     3%
AE    1  0-1    0      .4    .0   -.4     0%
BW    1  0-1    0      .4    .0   -.4     0%
Pat   1  0-1    0      .4    .0   -.4     0%
MCon  1  0-1    0      .6    .0   -.6     0%
SC    1  0-1    0      .7    .0   -.7     0%
A10   2  1-2    0     1.9   1.0   -.9     0%
WCC   1  0-1    0      .9    .0   -.9     0%
ACC   7  6-6   11    12.1   8.8  -3.2    44%

Terms:

• Conf, #, and W/L — conference, teams, and tournament record.
• Chalk — expected wins based on seeding. Final Four games are ignored (since they’d be between #1 seeds), so there’s only 60 chalk wins available.
• 3/13 — expected wins based on log5 projections before the tournament started.
• 3/20 — expected wins based on log5 projections after two rounds.
• Delta — Change in log5 projection through two rounds.
• Champ — Odds of producing the champion as of 3/20.

The successful conferences are surprising in my eyes. The Pac10 and SEC have clearly done the best — I don’t have to tell you that — and are the only conferences with three teams alive. The Pac10 has already exceeded its log5 expectations, so every win is gravy from here out. UNLV and Butler have represented the Mountain West and Horizon very well. It will be a successful tournament for Memphis if they get one more win.

The Big East suffered too many 1st round defeats and needs Pittsburgh to pick up for everybody else. Victory over UCLA drastically changes these numbers. Georgetown’s favored fairly comfortably to advance one more time before the probably UNC battle. It’s been a bit disappointing for the BEast this year, but it’s not a disaster.

The ACC stands alone as the only notable conference to severely underperform. They deserve some credit for having the bar set so high, but you can’t help but feel that they were overrated by both the committee and my numbers. Still UNC remains as the most likely to win the whole thing (if you can rationalize the rest of this paragraph).

Besides UNC’s 44% odds, the next three contenders for the title are Kansas (21%), Florida (13%), and Texas A&M (8%). Not surprisingly, they are the four teams I predicted would make the final four in my Yahoo! group picks.

I’ll be paying the most attention to Memphis-A&M, where I think A&M will prove superior in San Antonio, Oregon-UNLV, hoping for an upset, and Pitt-UCLA, where with any luck the protege will get the better of his mentor for once in this tournament. (In other words, it’s not looking too good Panther fans.)

Let’s start with the last question. A common, silly refrain in NCAA land is that teams have “breakthrough seasons” such as Notre Dame’s fine improvement over last year. They went 16-14 in 2006 and were 1-8 in the Big East at one point. So you’d think that the ‘06-’07 version of the Irish made huge strides on the way to 24-7 and 11-5. But was there a huge influx of talent and no senior departures? Luke Harangody deserves a lot of credit and Tory Jackson’s been effective since McAlarney made it onto this blog’s banner, but those two players are not nearly as good as Quinn and Francis were last year. I’d argue that the overall team talent is roughly the same after accounting for the rest of the guys maturing one year.

The RPI sucks because it focuses on achievement — namely wins — and will miss wildly on teams that lose lots of close games. In other words, have piss-poor luck. Anyone paying even marginal attention to the Irish last season remembers the ridiculous number of 1-possession and overtime losses. Notre Dame’s RPI went from #95 to #31 between seasons even though their performance quality is very nearly the same. Performance systems such as BigEastology here and, more importantly, Ken Pomeroy’s and Jeff Sagarin’s systems are much smarter at recognizing how teams perform. Pomeroy’s 2006 Irish were ranked #27, not far from their #17 rank in 2007.

Oregon is a better example. They were 15-18 last year and lost a similar number of close games. Since then, their RPI went from #147 to #21 in one year. Pomeroy ranks? #36 and #21. Like Notre Dame, the incoming talent did not outweigh departures, and I’m convinced that Pomeroy has a much more accurate impression of their quality both years.

The Snubbed:

• #20 Mississippi St. — That 18-13 record killed a perfectly good season. Thank you RPI (64). They weren’t as unlucky as the Irish and Ducks last year, but a little bit better luck was all they needed to get recognized. The team does not depend on seniors, so look for them to roll in the NIT and be a “surprise” next year.
• #25 Syracuse — Ahh yes, performance ratings like the Orange just fine. The RPI (50) must have had a lot to do with their fate.
• #28 Kansas St. — Interesting, yet another popular snub is supported by my methods (and Pomeroy, and Sagarin, etc.). I’m sure Bob Knight is giving Huggins hell at every opportunity. RPI? 56.
• #30 Missouri St. — the first obvious mid-major snub. Of note, they finished 8-3 with all three losses against NCAA tournament teams seeded #11 or better (at-large quality) — SIU, Winthrop, and Creighton. RPI? 36. Odd, that’s still decent.
• #32 West Virginia — Everything we’ve said and heard about the Big East getting snubbed is justified in my opinion, and I blame the RPI of course. For whatever reason, most Big East teams had depressed RPIs this year, so they sunk as a group. RPI? 57.

Overrated and underrated? They add up to the most likely upsets (by seeds #11 or worse):

Note: for the first round, I give home-court advantage to the big underdogs because the crowd almost always leans their way.

• #11 George Washington over #6 Vanderbilt. On a neutral court, Vandy enjoys a 5-point advantage, but give GW a home-court nudge and it should be a close one. Vegas favors Vanderbilt by 3.
• #11 Winthrop over #6 Notre Dame. The Irish better have their sights squarely on this game as Winthrop is not a pushover. ND is about 6 points better on paper.
• #12 Arkansas over #5 USC. If its neutral, USC is favored by…actually Arkansas by 2. A perfect testament to how overrated the Pac 10 is. Vegas has USC by 1.5.
• #12 ODU over #5 Butler. Butler enjoys a 4-point advantage in quality, which would be offset exactly if the crowd pulls strongly for ODU. Vegas favors Butler by 1.
• #12 Illinois over #5 VT. VT is 2-3 points better on paper and Vegas likes ‘em by 2.5. I don’t think the crowd will see Illinois as a Cinderella, but it’s already close anyway.
• #13 Davidson over #4 Maryland. Maryland’s much better — 7 or 8 points — but for a #13 to be that close is a good start. Maryland is favored by 7.
• #13 Holy Cross over #4 Southern Illinois. The difference between them is about the same as MD and Davidson, and the line is the same.
• #14 Oral Roberts over #3 Washington St. The line is only 6.5 on this one for good reason. Washington St. has struggled lately, and I like Oral’s makeup tremendously.
• #15 Texas A&M Corpus Christi over #2 Wisconsin. Here’s the upset special. Texas A&M has all the right characteristics. They’re senior-laden (5 senior starters and the bench will be 2 juniors and another senior) and have had a short bench all season. Their best players are 7′ 0″ Chris Daniels and the senior backcourt of Ervin and Washington. Ervin is a solid point guard if he doesn’t turn it over, and Washington is one of the best offensive players in the country, particularly from downtown (89/187 = 47.6%). The achilles heel has been turnovers, and Wisconsin is not an exceptional TO generator. Wisconsin is a 13-point favorite.

My gut likes Arkansas, ODU, Illinois, and Texas A&M-CC to pull it off.

#   School             W- L     Rat    SoS   (r)  NCSoS   (r) -1W

1   Florida           11- 2    27.5    1.0 (159)    1.0 (168)   2

2   North Carolina    10- 1    27.2    5.1  (42)    5.1  (49)   1

3   Arizona            9- 1    24.9    8.2   (7)    8.2  (11)   3

4   Connecticut       11- 0    23.5   -3.3 (295)   -3.3 (300)   6

5   Texas A&M         10- 2    22.8    0.3 (184)    0.3 (192)   7

6   UCLA              10- 0    22.4    7.4  (13)    7.4  (17)  15

7   Kansas            10- 2    21.4    2.5 (108)    2.5 (123)   8

8   Villanova          8- 2    21.2    4.3  (64)    4.3  (69)   4

9   Notre Dame        10- 1    20.2   -2.2 (267)   -2.2 (271)  18

10  Ohio St           10- 2    20.1    5.2  (38)    5.2  (44)   5

10  Wisconsin         13- 1    20.1    1.4 (142)    1.4 (152)  26

12  Duke              11- 1    19.5    8.8   (3)    8.8   (6)  12

13  Oregon            11- 0    19.4    0.4 (183)    0.4 (191)  11

14  Maryland          11- 2    18.5    4.7  (51)    3.7  (87)   9

15  Gonzaga            9- 4    18.4    8.5   (5)    8.5   (9)  16

15  Illinois          12- 2    18.4    4.8  (48)    4.8  (57)  10

17  Indiana            8- 3    18.1    4.7  (51)    4.7  (59)  22

17  Clemson           12- 0    18.1   -0.9 (227)   -0.9 (232)  21

19  Kentucky           9- 3    17.6   11.1   (1)   11.1   (2)  28

19  Memphis            9- 3    17.6    5.4  (31)    6.3  (26)  37

21  Georgia            7- 2    17.5   -0.4 (210)   -0.4 (220)  14

22  Virginia Tech      8- 3    17.2    4.6  (54)    4.2  (71)  28

23  Georgia Tech       8- 3    17.0    4.9  (45)    5.2  (44)  37

24  Butler            11- 1    16.9    8.0   (8)    8.8   (6)  13

24  Missouri St        9- 2    16.9    2.9  (99)    2.8 (113)  17

The rest of the Big East

29  West Virginia      8- 1    15.5   -2.9 (283)   -2.9 (289)  30

34  Georgetown         9- 3    15.3    1.4 (142)    1.4 (152)  33

38  DePaul             7- 5    14.8    7.4  (13)    7.4  (17)  55

39  Pittsburgh        11- 2    14.7    3.5  (88)    3.5  (94)  51

52  Syracuse          10- 3    12.6    2.0 (122)    2.0 (136)  54

59  Marquette         11- 2    11.1    1.4 (142)    1.4 (152)  51

74  Providence         9- 2     9.0    1.5 (141)    1.5 (148)  64

78  Louisville         7- 4     8.4    3.2  (94)    3.2 (105) 110

92  Seton Hall         6- 2     7.2    0.0 (195)    0.0 (202)  74

99  Cincinnati         9- 3     6.2    1.4 (142)    1.4 (152) 103

128 St John’s          8- 3     3.3   -2.9 (283)   -2.9 (289) 104

150 South Florida      7- 5     1.1   -3.0 (288)   -3.0 (293) 133

209 Rutgers            5- 5    -3.5    1.4 (142)    1.4 (152) 224

Top 10 Conferences (complete list)

#  Conference                 W- L     Rat    SoS  (r)  NCSoS  (r)

1  Atlantic Coast           105-32    13.9    3.3  (3)    2.6  (7)

2  Southeastern             107-30    12.8    1.9  (9)    1.9 (11)

3  Big Ten                  103-35    12.1    2.4  (6)    2.4  (8)

4  Pacific 10                88-22    11.7    2.0  (8)    2.0 (10)

5  Big East                 136-43    11.3    0.8 (17)    0.8 (18)

6  Big 12                    97-36    10.4    0.5 (22)    0.5 (24)

7  Missouri Valley           76-30    10.1    2.3  (7)    1.8 (12)

8  Mountain West             69-31     5.0    0.6 (20)    0.6 (22)

9  Conference USA            65-48     3.9   -0.1 (23)   -0.2 (25)

10 West Coast                41-56     3.6    4.3  (1)    4.3  (1)

Projected Big East Standings (view page)

#  School            pW*- pL*   pCSoS*   (r)     pW*- pL*      PS?

1  Connecticut      13.7- 2.3      9.3  (16)    26.9- 3.1   NCAA-1

2  Notre Dame       12.6- 3.4     10.0  (15)    24.6- 4.4   NCAA-3

3  Villanova        11.9- 4.1     12.7   (1)    22.7- 6.3   NCAA-2

4  West Virginia    10.2- 5.8     10.8  (11)    20.6- 7.4   NCAA-8

5  Depaul            9.8- 6.2     10.9  (10)    17.7-11.3  NCAA-10

6  Georgetown        9.6- 6.4     12.3   (3)    19.2- 9.8   NCAA-9

7  Pittsburgh        9.3- 6.7     12.0   (6)    21.9- 9.1  NCAA-10

8  Syracuse          8.3- 7.7     12.1   (5)    19.3-10.7      NIT

9  Providence        7.5- 8.5     10.2  (14)    17.7-11.3      NIT

9  Marquette         7.5- 8.5     12.0   (6)    19.5-10.5      NIT

11 Seton Hall        6.5- 9.5     10.4  (12)    14.9-13.1      NIT

12 Louisville        6.4- 9.6     12.2   (4)    15.2-13.8      NIT

13 Cincinnati        5.9-10.1     10.4  (12)    15.7-14.3      NIT

14 St John’s         4.0-12.0     11.3   (9)    13.0-16.0

15 South Florida     3.4-12.6     11.6   (8)    11.8-18.2

16 Rutgers           1.5-14.5     12.4   (2)     7.3-20.7

• If, for the sake of discussion, I give these rankings more credit than they deserve, the threshold for NCAA tournament at-large consideration is a rating of about 13.0. Seven BEast schools are solidly above that threshold, with an upper-tier of UConn, Villanova, and the Irish, and a mid-tier of WVU, the Hoyas, DePaul, and Pitt. Syracuse and Marquette have put themselves on the bubble.
• Clearly, the rest of the season will be much more important than what we’ve seen so far. These rankings and ratings are intended to give some perspective on the quality of play and competition thus far. From here, performing above .500 in conference play and doing well in the conference tournament will move these teams up and down significantly.
• Pittsburgh played great basketball in their first half-dozen games and looked like the upper-tier team that their ranking predicated. The second half-dozen was not so satisfactory. NIT-quality teams would produce that record, with medicore results against subpar schools — wins by 14, 17, and 3 over R. Morris, Duquesne, and Buffalo — and unimpressive games against big conference schools on the road. Saturday’s victory over a decent Dayton squad was a much better performance, and if those types of games continue, it will be a matter of time before Pitt rises back to the top.
• The small conference schools are sliding. Butler and Missouri St. are barely in the top 25 and Wichita St.’s recent losses have pushed them out. Only Gonzaga has held steady at #15.