[CTcard]

For bragging rights at this point in the tournament, I'd give the nod to MAAC, with the PAC-12 on their heels.

Counting teams in the tourney is subject to selection committee/ranking bias.  Wins by seeded teams doesn't seem terribly informative. (Really, how much credit should be given to Bullyor for beating Texas Southern by a big score?)  That means that saying the PAC-12 is 9-1 isn't terribly meaningful until you dig down a bit.

But counting upsets, and by how many seeded positions, does give credit where it is due.

MAAC +15:  12 Quinnipiac vs 5 Marquette; 12 Quinnipiac vs 4 Miami
PAC-12  +12:  10 Oregon vs 7 Temple;  9 California vs 8 LSU;  10 Oregon vs 2 Duke
BIG 10  0:  5 Ohio St vs 4 Kentucky;  9 Purdue vs 8 Green Bay
<other conferences in the tourney but not upset>: 0
Horizon  -1:  9 Purdue vs 8 Green Bay
SEC -2:  9 California vs 8 LSU;  5 Ohio St vs 4 Kentucky
AAC -3:  10 Oregon vs 7 Temple
ACC -8:  12 Quinnipiac vs 4 Miami

I guess it depends what you are trying to count.

I think it's a stretch to give the MAAC significant bragging rights because Quinnipiac won two games - doesn't say a lot about how good Rider is. It does provide Quinnipiac itself with giganto bragging rights.

The Pac 12 getting five teams in the final 16 does say a lot about the quality depth in the conference, particularly with respect to the next best conference having three teams. In this case wins by seeded teams is informative that their seeding was appropriate.

Your method might count which conferences are most over and under-rated, but it's a single elimination tournament - there's a fair amount of randomness.

I do like the magnitude of upset scoring for tournament pool scoring. My favorite group always adds upset bonus points that scaled with the difference in seed numbers.

[CTcard]

For bragging rights at this point in the tournament, I'd give the nod to MAAC, with the PAC-12 on their heels.

Counting teams in the tourney is subject to selection committee/ranking bias.  Wins by seeded teams doesn't seem terribly informative. (Really, how much credit should be given to Bullyor for beating Texas Southern by a big score?)  That means that saying the PAC-12 is 9-1 isn't terribly meaningful until you dig down a bit.

But counting upsets, and by how many seeded positions, does give credit where it is due.

MAAC +15:  12 Quinnipiac vs 5 Marquette; 12 Quinnipiac vs 4 Miami
PAC-12  +12:  10 Oregon vs 7 Temple;  9 California vs 8 LSU;  10 Oregon vs 2 Duke
BIG 10  0:  5 Ohio St vs 4 Kentucky;  9 Purdue vs 8 Green Bay
<other conferences in the tourney but not upset>: 0
Horizon  -1:  9 Purdue vs 8 Green Bay
SEC -2:  9 California vs 8 LSU;  5 Ohio St vs 4 Kentucky
AAC -3:  10 Oregon vs 7 Temple
ACC -8:  12 Quinnipiac vs 4 Miami

I guess it depends what you are trying to count.

I think it's a stretch to give the MAAC significant bragging rights because Quinnipiac won two games - doesn't say a lot about how good Rider is. It does provide Quinnipiac itself with giganto bragging rights.

The Pac 12 getting five teams in the final 16 does say a lot about the quality depth in the conference, particularly with respect to the next best conference having three teams. In this case wins by seeded teams is informative that their seeding was appropriate.

Your method might count which conferences are most over and under-rated, but it's a single elimination tournament - there's a fair amount of randomness.

I do like the magnitude of upset scoring for tournament pool scoring. My favorite group always adds upset bonus points that scaled with the difference in seed numbers.