Big 10 and Big 12 underperform Big East in NCAA tournament

For all of the notice given to the Big East's Big-Time failures in the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament, one can argue that the Big 12 and the Big 10 under-performed even the Big East.

The seedings tell us the committee's expectations of victory: a 9-16 seed should not win a game (except for half of the eight teams who played in the "First Four" games); #5-8 seeds should win one; #3-4 seeds should win two; #2's should win 3; and the #1's should have won at least four. (Of the latter, given the seedings of the #1 seeds, Duke and Pittsburgh should have won four games; Kansas—five; and Ohio State—six.)

With their seedings, here is the difference between expectations and performance in this year's tournament for every conference with more than one team in the tournament:

Expected vs. Actual Wins-Losses; Expected vs. Actual %

Big East: 17-11 vs. 13-10; 61% vs. 57%

Big 10: 11-6 vs. 7-7; 65% vs. 50%

Big 12: 9-5 vs. 5-5; 64% vs. 50%

SEC: 6-5 vs. 7-5; 55% vs. 58%

ACC: 8-4 vs. 8-4; 67% vs. 67%

Pac-10: 4-4 vs. 5-4; 50% vs. 56%

Mtn. West: 6-3 vs. 4-3; 67% vs. 57%

Atlantic 10: 2-3 vs. 3-3; 40% vs. 50%

Colonial: 1-3 vs. 6-3; 25% vs. 67%

Conf. USA: 0-2 vs. 0-2; 0% vs. 0%

Other: 3-21* vs. 9-21; 13% vs. 30%

* of teams in conferences with only one bid, only Butler and two of the 16 seeds (in the play-in game) were expected to win a game

The Big under-performers were the Big conferences:

Expected vs. Actual Wins-Losses; Expected vs. Actual %

“Power 6”: 55-35 vs. 45-35; 61% vs. 56%

All Others: 12-32 vs. 22-32; 27% vs. 41%