THE BIG EAST CONFERENCE

[clenz]

So,other than Louisville , who had a great season from the "old big east"?

Well...

UCONN is 29-6 and in the S16 and beat Nova.
Cinci finished 27-7 and ranked in the top 10-15 most of the season. Won the regular season title. They got bounced early so I don't know if "great" is the best word but it's better than everyone except Nova from the current BE
Louisville is 30-5 and in the S16, won 13 of the last 14 (I believe) and a trendy NC pick
Memphis finished 23-10 and in the round of 32. Not a great season but as good as anyone in the BE sans Nova.


Knowing how easily RPI can be manipulated by 2 or 3 games leaves me to believe the RPI argument at the top is moot. I will grant you the bottom 2 teams in the AAC are by far the worst. However, if you look at the top in RPI you see 20 21 22 36 55 to 5 11 41 57 64.... or an avg of 30 for the AAC and 36 for the Big East.

All I know is right now the Big East has been humiliated in the NCAA tournament while the SEC/B10/P12 have 3 teams left each, B12/AAC with 2 each and the A10/MWC/ACC with 1. I realize that teams left isn't a fantastic judge of conference strength....but...you see patterns develop.

[clenz]

How do you feed yourself? Do you forget where to put food because your attention span is ZERO?

I never said word 1 about the Big East. I don't watch any, I don't care, if I named more than 1 team from the Big East it would be pure luck. The only reason I know Villanova plays in that conference is because of this thread. You pick and answer whatever questions you wish. You are the worst kind of fan. Nothing but positive spin and when the loses come, out come the excuses.

Have fun with your overrated team. I can only hope that Villanova isn't overrated again next year, as we will get to revisit this dumpsterfire of a thread with CLENZ using a flame thrower and you a 12oz water bottle.

You and clenz make quite a pair.

So...you aren't going to admit how wrong you were? Or that I was right? Or any of that?

[grizzaholic]

You and clenz make quite a pair.

So...you aren't going to admit how wrong you were? Or that I was right? Or any of that?

And you and him went back and forth and back and forth, yet, I am the tough guy

[clenz]

So...you aren't going to admit how wrong you were? Or that I was right? Or any of that?

And you and him went back and forth and back and forth, yet, I am the tough guy

[grizzaholic]

And you and him went back and forth and back and forth, yet, I am the tough guy

[BlueHen86]

You forgot to say f**k the Big East, and more importantly f**k the RPI. Any metric that puts the Big East ahead of the ACC should be immediately discarded.

Please tell me again who plays in the bottom half of the ACC? Do we just discard those teams from the conversation? I'm sorry that RPI counts for the WHOLE league. I am now finished arguing this point which you know to be fact.

The RPI just before the tourney had both Villanova and Creighton in the top 10. Both are over rated by 5 - 10 spots, maybe even more so in Creighton's case. If the RPI is wrong about those two Big East Schools, why would any reasonable person trust it for the rest of the conference? Especially when the rest of the conference was incorrectly given credit for playing 4 games against RPI top 10 teams?

Stop relying on a bad metric and apply common sense. The old Big East and the ACC used to be neck and neck as top conferences. The Big East lost UConn, Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt and replaced them Creighton, Xavier and Butler. That is a HUGE downgrade. The ACC is clearly better than the Big East.

I know that you will respond, you can't admit when you are wrong. I will be happy to continue arguing this point which you know to be fact.

[BlueHen86]

So,other than Louisville , who had a great season from the "old big east"?

UConn

[clenz]

Please tell me again who plays in the bottom half of the ACC? Do we just discard those teams from the conversation? I'm sorry that RPI counts for the WHOLE league. I am now finished arguing this point which you know to be fact.

The RPI just before the tourney had both Villanova and Creighton in the top 10. Both are over rated by 5 - 10 spots, maybe even more so in Creighton's case. If the RPI is wrong about those two Big East Schools, why would any reasonable person trust it for the rest of the conference? Especially when the rest of the conference was incorrectly given credit for playing 4 games against RPI top 10 teams?

Stop relying on a bad metric and apply common sense. The old Big East and the ACC used to be neck and neck as top conferences. The Big East lost UConn, Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt and replaced them Creighton, Xavier and Butler. That is a HUGE downgrade. The ACC is clearly better than the Big East.

I know that you will respond, you can't admit when you are wrong. I will be happy to continue arguing this point which you know to be fact.

he won't respond....that's the thing.

Notice how I've beaten him so bad he won't even make contact anymore....It's called beaten dog syndrome

[∞∞∞]

Georgetown gets waxed by Florida State in the NIT (I won't mention FSU's conference). This after #1 St. John's got ousted by #8 Robert Morris by double-digits in the first round.

And so that's it for the Big East; all their teams are done in post-season play.

[BlueHen86]

Georgetown gets waxed by Florida State in the NIT (I won't mention FSU's conference). This after #1 St. John's got ousted by #8 Robert Morris by double-digits in the first round.

And so that's it for the Big East; all their teams are done in post-season play.

I believe the ACC was 6-4 against the Big East this year, but disregard the on court results. The RPI says the Big East is better. The RPI also ranks the Generals ahead of the Globetrotters and Custer over the Indians.

[Seahawks08]

I'm a tough guy now? Cool!

Everyone else explained it better than I could.

Your post is full of excuses as to why they didn't make it to the 16.

You are the one that stated Nova was overrated. And the only thing you can point to are 2 games at the end of the season. But only one of them affected their resume, which bumped them from a 1 seed. So again, they weren't overrated. They had a bad game, sorry it happens. If you are going to be consistent, i guess Duke, Cuse, Kansas, and WSU were all overrated, which makes no sense since their resumes say otherwise.

[Seahawks08]

The RPI just before the tourney had both Villanova and Creighton in the top 10. Both are over rated by 5 - 10 spots, maybe even more so in Creighton's case. If the RPI is wrong about those two Big East Schools, why would any reasonable person trust it for the rest of the conference? Especially when the rest of the conference was incorrectly given credit for playing 4 games against RPI top 10 teams?

Stop relying on a bad metric and apply common sense. The old Big East and the ACC used to be neck and neck as top conferences. The Big East lost UConn, Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt and replaced them Creighton, Xavier and Butler. That is a HUGE downgrade. The ACC is clearly better than the Big East.

I know that you will respond, you can't admit when you are wrong. I will be happy to continue arguing this point which you know to be fact.

That "bad" metric is used by the Selection Committee, so it's important no matter how you slice it. And if you want, throw it out for Nova's ranking. Then you need to explain why Nova's BPI was 6 and Kempom had them 6th as well. Like I said earlier, Nova was in the conversation for a 1 seed, so from a "common sense" perspective of their resume, they were placed right where they should have been.

I am not as familiar with Creighton since I did not follow them as closely as clenz. But that loss to Baylor was embarrassing for both Creighton and the Big East. At least show up for the game for christ sake.

ACC has more good teams than the BE obviously. I am arguing the entire conference, not just the good teams. It can be argued both ways. Neither of us is changing the other's mind, so let's leave it at that.

And don't listen to clenz, I will always respond.

[YoUDeeMan]

So ends Nova's quest for a 1 seed. Worry for them: they haven't beat a top 40 team since November....

Not that tragic. Now they will be well rested and hungry for that long run in the NC's.

[BlueHen86]

The RPI just before the tourney had both Villanova and Creighton in the top 10. Both are over rated by 5 - 10 spots, maybe even more so in Creighton's case. If the RPI is wrong about those two Big East Schools, why would any reasonable person trust it for the rest of the conference? Especially when the rest of the conference was incorrectly given credit for playing 4 games against RPI top 10 teams?

Stop relying on a bad metric and apply common sense. The old Big East and the ACC used to be neck and neck as top conferences. The Big East lost UConn, Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt and replaced them Creighton, Xavier and Butler. That is a HUGE downgrade. The ACC is clearly better than the Big East.

I know that you will respond, you can't admit when you are wrong. I will be happy to continue arguing this point which you know to be fact.

That "bad" metric is used by the Selection Committee, so it's important no matter how you slice it. And if you want, throw it out for Nova's ranking. Then you need to explain why Nova's BPI was 6 and Kempom had them 6th as well. Like I said earlier, Nova was in the conversation for a 1 seed, so from a "common sense" perspective of their resume, they were placed right where they should have been.

I am not as familiar with Creighton since I did not follow them as closely as clenz. But that loss to Baylor was embarrassing for both Creighton and the Big East. At least show up for the game for christ sake.

ACC has more good teams than the BE obviously. I am arguing the entire conference, not just the good teams. It can be argued both ways. Neither of us is changing the other's mind, so let's leave it at that.

And don't listen to clenz, I will always respond.

Who said it wasn't important? Try to stay on point, you're spinning so much your flying off on tangents.

[BlueHen86]

Requiem for the New Big East:

http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2014/03/r ... -east.html

[GannonFan]

Requiem for the New Big East:

http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2014/03/r ... -east.html

Hit the nail on the mark in that one.

[BlueHen86]

Some interesting TV ratings stats from this season:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/03 ... 14-season/

From the article:

Nine of the ten least-viewed games involved a Big East team.

[clenz]

Requiem for the New Big East:

http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2014/03/r ... -east.html

fucking nailed it.

Almost every thing I've said...but more eloquent

[Seahawks08]

Who said it wasn't important? Try to stay on point, you're spinning so much your flying off on tangents.

I addressed your post. Nothing in there was a tangent.

[Seahawks08]

Requiem for the New Big East:

http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2014/03/r ... -east.html

Uconn fan, 'nuff said.

[SDHornet]

Requiem for the New Big East:

http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2014/03/r ... -east.html

fucking nailed it.

Almost every thing I've said...but more eloquent

May as well been you.

[BlueHen86]

Who said it wasn't important? Try to stay on point, you're spinning so much your flying off on tangents.

I addressed your post. Nothing in there was a tangent.

Nothing in my post said anything about it being important or not. That's a deflection that you added. Either you don't understand the argument, or you are intentionally obfuscating. Either way it's lame.

[clenz]

That "bad" metric is used by the Selection Committee, so it's important no matter how you slice it. And if you want, throw it out for Nova's ranking. Then you need to explain why Nova's BPI was 6 and Kempom had them 6th as well. Like I said earlier, Nova was in the conversation for a 1 seed, so from a "common sense" perspective of their resume, they were placed right where they should have been.

I am not as familiar with Creighton since I did not follow them as closely as clenz. But that loss to Baylor was embarrassing for both Creighton and the Big East. At least show up for the game for christ sake.

ACC has more good teams than the BE obviously. I am arguing the entire conference, not just the good teams. It can be argued both ways. Neither of us is changing the other's mind, so let's leave it at that.

And don't listen to clenz, I will always respond.

Who said it wasn't important? Try to stay on point, you're spinning so much your flying off on tangents.

I think I also called BE fans here would attempt to spin everything.

Yup...I did. I have never been so right about every word I've said on any subject before. This is awesome.

tomcat won't come back...and when he does he will say nothing and not admit he was very wrong - like he said it would.

I'd like to say I'm shocked at seahawks acting this way...but I'm not.

[GannonFan]

Requiem for the New Big East:

http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2014/03/r ... -east.html

Uconn fan, 'nuff said.

What was incorrect in the article? Did the UConn fan make up the low TV ratings too?

[Seahawks08]

What was incorrect in the article? Did the UConn fan make up the low TV ratings too?

not their complete inability to compete with Syracuse in the Carrier Dome

False. He just looked at the final score and didn't see that Nova was within 4-5 points the entire time until the end.

They were a plucky 11 seed, not a true 2 seed.

No need to explain how dumb that sentence is.

As the game wore on, it became readily apparent that UConn wasn’t just a better team – they were a far superior team. If Napier doesn’t face foul trouble and an injury, it’s likely that UConn wins by 20 or more.

I don't know what game he was watching, but UCONN definitely didn't look like a superior team. They played better than Nova obviously, but not that much better.

As we look ahead to Year 2 of the conference, I pose a simple question – what’s the difference between the new Big East and the West Coast Conference, other than location?

Using kenpom, San Francisco(3rd in WCC) is below Georgetown (7th in BE). And none of the schools other than Gonzaga and BYU recruit like the BE. So yes, there is a huge difference between conferences.

And then he goes on to try to explain how the AAC is so much better than the BE. Those bottom five teams in the AAC were so bad this year, it's laughable. I guess losing Rutgers helps them a bit.