@elpoyo
Au contraire, any B12 fan should feel great about exposing over rated poseurs that don't win conference titles in mid major conferences, win no rings and fatten their W&L statements on cupcakes. I know I sure do. Try it. You'll like it. :-)
For two seasons in a row KU played one of the toughest non conference schedules in the last decade, not just last season, according to many quantitative based ranking systems, not just according to Vinnie the Putz writing opining for some east coast talking head viagra peddling sports content.
The Big 12 came by its high ranking last season very honestly (and QA substantiated) and inspite of the apparently typical asymmetric press coverage that has appeared to have been the long term tendency of national broadcast, digital and print sports media.
And it seems quantitatively naive and street sappy to infer from one apparently asymmetrically seeded and apparently asymmetrically officiated March Madness with apparently asymmetrically distributed talent that the Big 12 was in fact an overhyped poseur. Who you gonna believe? A sizable pre-conference schedule against good competition that included referee bias of all kinds both for and against the Big 12 teams, or the results of an apparently asymmetrically seeded and apparently asymmetrically officiated single March Madness?
Only a sucker would believe the results of March Madness were more indicative of the quality of the Big 12 than the Big 12 pre conference W&L statement last season. I mean c'mon!!!!!!
This does not take a statistician capable of grinding stats on quantum phenomena of sub atomic particles being accelerated at CERN. Capice?
Any bookie running a virtual betting window could figure this one out.
Heck, any MBA grad from Harvard hustling fast fiber on the New York Stock Exchange could see what's going on here without even thinking about it.
Nothing illegal, or conspiratorial, either--let's dispense with that nonsense right now!
But why should we feel great about viewing perhaps soon-to-be Stacka Smart through a more objective lens than ESPNCBSFOX-Big Gaming feed us sometimes coverage at least possibly for bet-balancing expedience of Big Gaming? Is that really so far-fetched a notion? Is it completely beyond technological feasibility and gambling expedience?
But again, why should we okay about being skeptical about Smart and about doubting the Big 12 was overrated as you suggest.
Because it appears absurd to talk about how overrated the B12 conference is most of the time. It appears rarely overrated, even sometimes when it seems to be, because the media apparently can make more money traditionally under covering and underrating it and over covering and overrating EST conferences. Surely you would never dispute that tendency, once you start thinking about spatial distribution of viewer and betting demographics.
I am hardly an expert on this stuff (I don't even bet in office pools anymore), but about the only time it would make business sense for the media-gaming complex to systematically overreport and overrate the B12, or KU, specifically, would be to try to amp up betting on B12 teams that seem so generally under rated and under-reported over the long haul. It would appear that well targeted coverage and situational hyping of the CST could well amp up interest in the CST when needed; i.e., it appears technologically feasible and cost effective to some degree to stimulate betting on CST teams to off set the much greater number of bettors inclined for regional affinity to bet on the EST teams than the CST teams, right?
BUT THERE APPEARS A LONG TERM TENDENCY OF ASYMMETRY IN COVERAGE AND RANKING OF EST CONFERENCES AND TEAMS, THAT DATES TO THE ERA OF EST ONLY CONFERENCES, AND NOW EXTENDS INTO THE ERA OF CONFERENCES WITH SUBSTANTIAL FOOT PRINTS IN THE EST AND THE CST.
Note: the B12 lacks a substantial foot print in the EST. WVU was clearly intended to be the first of an eastern division of the B12 that was still born for whatever reason. But I digress.
A conference like the B12 will, I guess, rarely get remotely symmetric coverage, anymore than it will get symmetric seeding in the Madness. Eyeballs and clicks and gambling dollars channel coverage and seeding into asymmetry.
Again, hypothetically speaking, the only time I can imagine that it would be logical for media to over cover and over rank CST conferences would be in a situation where 5-10 draft choice stacks were strategically placed in ACC (Duke-9), SEC (UK-10), and even the Pac Ten (UA-4), so that it was apparent a CST conference, at least its top 3 teams in a conference like the B12, was outclassed not top to bottom, but only at the top, from the get go vis a vis the strategically placed stacks. For the sake of bet balancing, you might want to over-hype and over cover the CST teams, and conferences in order to diminish the adverse effect on betting created by the stacking of EST and PST time zones and NCAA regions.
Under this hypothetical scenario, it might be especially beneficial to do if the stacking process had side stepped the B1G, also, because the top coaches/programs in the B1G were perhaps non compliants with the stacking process (i.e., adidas UM and an apparent recalcitrant dissident about stacking in Izzo at Nike MSU), so the B1g had no stack.
Gee, might any of the above hypothesis rendered fit the data last season?
Maybe?
Possibly?
Who can say, eh?
Note: I am absolutely hypothesizing the complete absence of any conspiracy or illegality. This hypothesis assumes activities are entirely shaped by spatial distribution of eyeballs and clicks, plus by legitimate, law abiding organizations--some for profit and some not for profit--pursuing apparently legal market and business strategies to ensure solvency and pursue minimum yield, and if possible profit maximization in a significantly oligopolized market.
Rock Chalk!!!!!
Addedum 1: alas, I wonder what became of @elpoyo's post I was responding to?