Is the Big 12 the best conference in basketball?
Filed under “questions with no universally satisfying answers”
There was this phrase I read about in the offseason, “midsummer madness,” that I have pondered both in and out of summer. The official definition is that of a “temporary lapse into folly” driven by the mad heat of summer. I came to it first by a playlist that had some songs I liked on it and initially misremembered a famous Lana Del Rey song with that as the title.
For basketball purposes, there’s a specific time period in-season that feels like midsummer madness. I’d loosely define it as…I don’t know, the first 2-3 weeks of February. The novelty of conference play has begun to wear off, but the joys of tournament season isn’t here yet. It’s dark and gray for everyone outside. As such, the takes reach a tipping point.
I’ve noticed this lately with regards to the consensus best conference in basketball: the Big 12.
There’s been a rush of takes about how the Big 12 cannot possibly be as good as it’s been. The above tweet from Terrence Oglesby (Charlotte Hornets analyst, CBB commentator) attacks the SOS for Big 12 teams in non-conference play. We’ll get into that, but that’s not the only angle I’ve seen. The Field of 68’s social admin put this out, which admittedly only drives more questions than answers because of the horrific emoji usage:
Even our man Jimmy Dykes has gotten in on the act, though it’s obviously with the context that Jimmy does commentate on SEC Network games.
Of course, any time you post something like this, you’re going to receive some ardent defenses of the offended product. Every time I’ve seen a post like these, Big 12 fans have come out in droves to defend the conference against these lines of attack. Some point to KenPom, which has this as the #1 conference in America by a solid margin. Others point to the current six Top 25 teams - the most of any conference - or that they represent nine of the NET’s Top 40 teams, as well as five of the top 13.
The problem with all of this is that both sides, at least in some fashion, are correct. Midsummer madness, indeed.
The prosecution
If you’ve got a problem with the Big 12, it very well could be around a supposed unearned reputation based on running up the score in non-conference play. To be sure, that’s not wholly wrong. Of the Big Six conferences (Bigs 12, 10, and East; SEC; ACC; Pac-12), the Big 12 had the worst strength of schedule of any of them, per Torvik. Actually, they had the worst conference-wide SOS period of any of the 32 conferences.
There’s a lot working against the Big 12, to be frank. Here’s a shortlist:
No team played more games against Quadrant 4 competition in non-conference play, as a 14-team Big 12 racked up 99 games. That’s roughly seven per team.
Quadrant 4 opposition covered 55% of the Big 12’s non-conference games. That’s pretty easily the largest split of any of the Big Six conferences, with only the Big Ten (51%) also going above 50%.
Against Quadrants 1-3, the Big 12 performed as the third-best conference in terms of overall efficiency, trailing the Big Ten and SEC. They did have the best win percentage at 62.5%, however.
Probably more important than any of this, though, is how the Big 12 performed against non-conference foes that currently rate as Quadrant 1 or 2 opponents.
You’re seeing the Big 12 not only rank out as the fourth-most efficient conference against what we’d roughly call top-100 competition, you’re seeing them post the fourth-best win percentage behind the Mountain West, SEC, and Big Ten. The consistent story here: against the best of the best, the Big 12 has largely failed to hold up their end of the deal.
If you want further proof that this conference is not what it says it is, you can go to the team resumes themselves. There are 31 teams in America right now with at least seven Quadrant 1 + 2 wins. The Big 12 has four of them. The Big East and SEC both have five, while the supposed best conference in basketball has as many high-quality resumes in it as the Mountain West.
Beyond all of that, though, there’s just the overall feeling of the running-up-the-score stuff. Look at this stuff from their Quadrant 4 performances. They are smoking these teams.
There’s no crime here; it just is what it is. It’s pounding the heck out of massively overmatched competition. That’s the sign of a good conference. It also might be the sign of a dramatically overrated one.
The defense
Well, the defense is simple: they have performed like the best conference in basketball. This is non-conference only with all games included; there’s a pretty big gap there from the Big 12 to its competition.
It’s worth noting that despite the SOS concerns, that’s already factored into every single advanced metric in existence. The Big 12 has five teams in the top 13 of the NET nationally not because of the bad strength of schedule, but in spite of it. It arguably makes it more impressive that they represent seven of the current KenPom top 25 despite these largely bad non-conference slates. It means they demolished that competition fair and square. If the other conferences wanted to take advantage, maybe they should’ve crushed their competition, too.
Plus, by Wins Above Bubble, the Big 12 still ranks #1 of all conferences in non-conference play at a collective +0.1. The only conferences in shouting range are the Big Ten and SEC, both at -0.1. At some point, credit should be given for winning and winning big, even if you don’t like the process they took to get there.
Also, we already saw similar talks like this in each of the last three seasons, two of which saw a Big 12 team win the national championship. For 2023-24 specifically I’d argue that the Big 12 came out just fine. In non-home competition, the only conference to win more games than would be expected versus their schedule was the SEC. It’s not like any conference dominates the big boys, either. The Big 12 went 10-18 against Quad 1 in non-con, but no conference had a winning record anyway.
There’s also this from Jim Root, friend of the Substack, which shows the Big 12 had the best win percentage head-to-head when playing teams from the other Big Six leagues.
Plus, who cares if the Big 12’s non-conference schedule blows? They have seven Top 25 teams in KenPom for a reason, and the worst team in the conference already owns wins over Kansas and Texas this season. The winner of the conference might be lucky enough to only finish with four league losses. That’s a hard, hard place to play, no matter what you might think. Speaking of which.
The ruling
I’m tempted to fall on either side of the line here, because there are people I like and respect on both sides of it. (I also admittedly have no interest in pissing off Big 12 fans, who are almost like Beyonce stans.) But I think it might be more important to ask a different question: why is this important? Why should I care who, or what, the best conference is? Does it matter?
I can contort stats to mean whatever we want. So can you. Here’s an example: if I wanted, I could run a report for you on Torvik’s site right now. It would be one that ranked conferences exclusively by their performance against Quadrant 1 competition, and I would rank it by Wins Above Bubble, which is generally the best way to judge a resume without getting into the Quadrant weeds. And what it would show you is this.
It would tell you that the Mountain West is better than the Big 12, that the Missouri Valley should be a Big Six conference, and that the ACC is arguably worse than a conference a casual basketball fan has no idea exists.
There’s not a word of that previous sentence that I believe is true, but technically, it is true, if I contort the meaning of that data to the narrative I want to support. Just like this, from ESPN, can be contorted to tell you that the Mountain West is possibly the fourth-best conference, top-to-bottom, in college basketball.
Or that this suspiciously cut-off image tells you the SEC is the strongest conference in America.
Is the Big 12 the best conference in basketball? I think it is and it isn’t. Unlike last year, they didn’t thoroughly prove themselves against higher-end competition on the non-conference schedule.
I’ll end with this story. Last year, the Big 12, Big Ten, and SEC ran the show against Quad 1 and 2 competition in non-conference play, ruling the field with ease. How many teams did they place in the Final Four? Zero. How many did the fourth-place MWC, sixth-place ACC, and ninth-place (!) Big East put in there? One each. Perhaps stats are for losers after all. I would know!