Big East......Prediction

[bleedXblue]

I've been wanting to post something about the Big East for the last three weeks. I watch a lot of college basketball and have watched a lot of the Big East this year because ESPN broadcasts them constantly. I want to make sure that this post doesen't come across as me thinking the league isn't any good, because it is. What bothers me is the constant barrage by the east coast media about how good the conference is. 11 teams being projected in the tourney ? Really ? Marquette ? More than any other year in the last 5, I think the league is void of a really strong team. I think they have 7-8 teams that are good, but can be beaten by ANYONE in the tourney. They have NOT ONE player projected in the top 20 players of 2011 NBA draft. They are fawning over St Johns who has losses to St. Bonaventure and Fordham. Thats right, ignore the bad losses and only look at the good wins. In the last 5 years, the Big East has underperformed more than any other top conference in the NCAA tourney and hasn't produced a champion in over 5 years. They talk about the league and how tough and physical the style of play is. I call it ugly basketball. I predict they'll under perform again in the tourney this year and the media will brush it off and make the excuse that they beat each other up so much over the course of the season that they don't have any gas left in the tank at the end of the year. Shouldn't playing in a tough, physical conference prepare you for March ? Anyway, I had to get this off my chest. I could be eating my words in a few weeks, but seriously doubt it.

[Michigan Muskie]

Shouldn't playing in a tough, physical conference prepare you for March ? Anyway, I had to get this off my chest. I could be eating my words in a few weeks, but seriously doubt it.

After watching the St. John's / Pitt game this weekend, I told Michigan Muskie, Jr. that I would not be surprised if not one single Big East team was represented in the Sweet 16.

[DC Muskie]

This year's basketball landscape is basically pretty mediocre.

BE has a lot of mediocre teams. So in a way it makes sense.

If Marquette gets in, I will have to laugh. If only I actually filled out brackets.

[Muskie91]

I happened to be driving during YTGs coaches show tonight so I caught about 15 minutes of their banter. Mick tried to say South Florida or Rutgers would win or finish is the top 3 of any other league. USF or Rutgers, really. Must be the toughest league in history and Syracuse would win the A-10. LOL

[X-band '01]

Yeah, Seton Hall could also be a Top 3 team in the A-10. They do have a win over UMass this year.

Oh wait, never mind...

[QueensbridgeMF]

Well Cuse might win the A10, who knows. People on this board whine about how much our conference sucks on one hand and then whine how much the BE sucks on the other. Well, which is it? They are two teams larger and far superior. I laugh at those who scoff at St Johns resume, yes they had some early season losses, didn't we? Do we have any wins that come close to Duke UConn ND Pitt GTown WVA, hell we couldn't take down FLA at home. Sour grapes from y'all if you ask me.

[xudash]

Anyone watch 'cuse v. Nova tonight?

What a joke.

[RoseyMuskie]

I've always felt the Big East is good, but not great.

Teams load up on wins in the pre-season, oftentimes on a lot of cupcakes. Once conference play begins, a loss to another Big East team doesn't hurt in rankings/perception because the loss was to a "quality" Big East program. Combine the fact that many teams are ranked before the season even starts and a lot of team don't lose outside conference play often, conference play doesn't really hurt then.

Another thing that bugs me is that when a Big East game is sloppy, it's described as "tough" and "physical." In another leagues, it's called exactly what it is, sloppy.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Big East is still a solid conference, however, it is so overrated in my opinion.

[Benxman]

Yeah, BleedMuskieBlue, I agree. I too, watch a lot of BBall, and think the BE is over rated. That is not to say they are no good. They are. But not as good as the eastern media thinks.

The reason they are perennially over rated, is the schools of the BE occupy the largest media centers in the eastern half of the USA. Think about it. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Wash. D.C., Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, and represent the eastern states of Connecticut and West Virginia. If I missed someone, it's on purpose so you can beat up on me. ;) The point here is that the North East is the most heavily populated area of the USA and that is where the BE is located. Naturally, they are going to get the most exposure.

I've decided to just live with it, since I can't change it. I think XU benefits from being in the A10 for the same reasons, on a smaller scale. The schools in the A10 are, for the most part, the smaller or less known schools compared to the BE schools. That's OK too. X has been working it's way up the food chain over the last 30 years, but it is tough getting recognition when you are not the largest, best known school in your own city. I know, we have surpassed UC as a program, but they, being a much, much larger school, have a lot more alumni in the area, and therefore, garner the greater press coverage. That's how it goes.
What we can do is continue to support our program and help XU to continue its slow but steady rise up the food chain. One of these years, we will make it to the final 4. Then several years later, maybe another one. The first one is always the hardest, but the road doesn't automatically get easier. Remember how many years it was between our first Sweet 16 and the next one? Now they occur pretty regularly. I think the key will be keeping our successful coach. That means we need to encourage and remunerate C. Mack.
And of course, keep filling Cintas.

GO MUSKIES!

:logo:

[xubrew]

last year west virginia was the only team that went as far as their seed indicated they would. everyone else dropped out early except louisville, who was a #9, and whose seed indicated they'd lose the first game anyway.

what's interesting about this year's big east is that 11 teams are in contention for the ncaas, but if all make it they may not have any teams in the nit. that would be something.

i do think pitt is for real. a one point loss at saint john's isn't too bad. i think georgetown pulled their weight ooc as well. they did win at old dominion, blew out utah state, win at memphis, and beat mizzou in kansas city in front of a very pro missouri crowd. they made a pretty good case for themselves before conference play even began.

pitt also beat texas, which is something. some of the better teams did get some notable wins out of conference, but having said that i still don't think it's as strong as it's hyped up to be.

[bleedXblue]

Well Cuse might win the A10, who knows. People on this board whine about how much our conference sucks on one hand and then whine how much the BE sucks on the other. Well, which is it? They are two teams larger and far superior. I laugh at those who scoff at St Johns resume, yes they had some early season losses, didn't we? Do we have any wins that come close to Duke UConn ND Pitt GTown WVA, hell we couldn't take down FLA at home. Sour grapes from y'all if you ask me.

Dude, no one said the Big East sucks ? The consensus is that it's hyped up way more than it should be ? St. Johns has 9 losses. 2 losses to bottom feeders of the A-10. No one is taking away from them what teams they've beaten....only questioning why the media seems to be looking past the bad losses ?

[outsideobserver11]

The big east not having an NCAA champion in the last 5 years is a pretty dumb argument. I know I'm new to the board here so I don't want to start a big stir here. But I think the top part of the big east is somewhat as advertised with Pitt and Georgetown. The team I can't understand is Notre Dame because i feel they are not a very good team. It seems like every year they play well in conference because Brey is very good at scouting and preparing for a team, but then pee down their legs in the tournament when it's someone they haven't seen before. St Johns is a tough team to figure out because yea those losses came early when Lavin maybe didn't have them playing the way he wanted, but they also can't be ignored at the same time. However, there is no arguing if they are a tourney team or not.

[SkyWalker]

Anyone watch 'cuse v. Nova tonight?

What a joke.

I agree. That was awful.

[xavierj]

If I am on the selection committee this is what I would do with the Big East since teams can't separate from the pack and the home team wins about 90% of the time. If you are no better than 2 games over .500 in conference (10-8) I would go directly to your non-conference RPI. If it is piss poor with over 50% of the games against 200+ RPI teams then you are not getting a bid. UC, Marquette, Nova and even Louisville played at least half of their non-conference games against teams with RPI's higher than 160.

How do we know if anyone in the Big East is any good if all they did was play a bunch of scrubs in the non-conference and then decent Big East teams are only able to win on average about 55% to 60% of their league games? That has to put the committee in a tough spot when judging those teams.

[Kahns Krazy]

MOR loves the Big East. He feels their reputation as the best conference in the world is well deserved, and feels that the Big East is often slighted by ESPN.

[Showrunner]

My favorite Big East stat (I may have missed 1 or 2 but I think this is correct....27 TOTAL OOC ROAD GAMES. 27!!! That's it. 16 Teams and they only play 27 TRUE OOC ROAD Games all season.

As a conference they went 12-15. (Pitt, ND, UConn, and Syracuse did not play a single OOC Road Game). Only 3 of those wins were against teams in the top 100 (Texas, ODU, Memphis). On the flip side the 15 road losses were to RPI juggernauts......Princeton, St. Joes, UCF, Fla. Int., Kent St. Indiana St. Fordham, etc.

[_LH]

If I am on the selection committee this is what I would do with the Big East since teams can't separate from the pack and the home team wins about 90% of the time. If you are no better than 2 games over .500 in conference (10-8) I would go directly to your non-conference RPI. If it is piss poor with over 50% of the games against 200+ RPI teams then you are not getting a bid. UC, Marquette, Nova and even Louisville played at least half of their non-conference games against teams with RPI's higher than 160.

How do we know if anyone in the Big East is any good if all they did was play a bunch of scrubs in the non-conference and then decent Big East teams are only able to win on average about 55% to 60% of their league games? That has to put the committee in a tough spot when judging those teams.

And they have been doing this for decades.

[xuscfan]

I watched the Nova game last night with the 'Cuse alumni here in SC where it appears half of Syracuse has relocated. Some of them watch X with me. The game was terribly played with out of control play you wouldn't see in inner city schools. These guys apologized not only for Cuse, but for the Big East. "Typical Big East basketball", they said.

My prediction is they will get 8 bids although pundits, mostly on ESPN, are predicting 10-11. That would be a crime. To deprive some mid majors a second bid to get these guys 10 or 11 is just plain wrong. I would be livid if Richmond or Duquesne were denied a third bid for the A10. My hope is that the selection committee has finally learned that a competitive league does not translate to a good league. Big East's numerous "early outs" in recent NCAAs should be noted.

[Masterofreality]

i do think pitt is for real. pitt also beat texas, which is something.

Oh, And just who was it that knocked that powerhouse out of the NCAA's last year? One guess.


MOR loves the Big East. He feels their reputation as the best conference in the world is well deserved, and feels that the Big East is often slighted by ESPN.

I slobber all over myself every time the league is mentioned. Anyone have a drool bucket handy?

[xavierj]

l


i do think pitt is for real. a one point loss at saint john's isn't too bad. i think georgetown pulled their weight ooc as well. they did win at old dominion, blew out utah state, win at memphis, and beat mizzou in kansas city in front of a very pro missouri crowd. they made a pretty good case for themselves before conference play even began.

pitt also beat texas, which is something. some of the better teams did get some notable wins out of conference, but having said that i still don't think it's as strong as it's hyped up to be.

Pitt also lost to Tennessee at home this year as did Nova. They lose all credibility in my book. They also beat Texas when Texas was trying to find themselves. The Texas of February is much different than the Texas of November and early December, much like Xavier. If Pitt ends up a 1 seed I want to be in their bracket.

Question - if someone said you had to pick one you thought you could beat, Duke, Kansas, Ohio St. or Pitt, who ya got?

[rhyno2110]

Why isn't anyone talking about Marshon Brooks for Big East player of the year? He scored like 52 tonight and is 2nd in the NCAA in scoring. Oh yeah, he plays for Providence. Fuggetaboutit.

[Cincypunk.org]

UConn

11th place in the BE (9-9)
16th in the country
Losers of 4 of their last 5

Makes perfect sense...

[xavierj]

UConn

11th place in the BE (9-9)
16th in the country
Losers of 4 of their last 5

Makes perfect sense...

Yeah I want to be in the bracket with the Big East teams. Really who do you want to play? Texas? Kansas? Kansas State? Duke? UNC? Ohio St.? Purdue? Wisconsin? or anyone from the Big East?

[Espe]

Georgetown is playing some great basketball right now. It wouldn't surprise me if they don't win another game this year.

[xubrew]

[/B]

Pitt also lost to Tennessee at home this year as did Nova. They lose all credibility in my book. They also beat Texas when Texas was trying to find themselves. The Texas of February is much different than the Texas of November and early December, much like Xavier. If Pitt ends up a 1 seed I want to be in their bracket.

Question - if someone said you had to pick one you thought you could beat, Duke, Kansas, Ohio St. or Pitt, who ya got?

sorry, just now seeing this.

out of those four, duke. hands down.

duke's four toughest games were against teams that are outside the top ten, and they lost three of them. saint john's clobbered them, florida state is a tournament team, but nowhere close to being a protected seed, and virginia tech probably won't even make. yeah, they beat north carolina at home, but i don't think most people believe north carolina to be a top ten team either. they did beat kansas state and michigan state, but those teams aren't as good as people thought they were at the time.

if your four toughest games were to teams outside the top ten (two of which are WAAAY outside the top ten), and you lost three of them, that isn't a slip up. that's a trend. chances are you're not a top ten team yourself. i don't believe duke is.

yeah, pitt lost at home to tennessee, but at least they also have some monster wins. it's not like xavier hasn't stubbed their toes this season. we did lose to charlotte.

when it comes to big wins, duke doesn't have any. clemson is a bubble team at best, and duke struggled against them at home. i know that's just onegame, but it isn't uncommon to see duke struggle agaisnt so-so teams. the best thing about duke's tournament profile is that their name is on it.

[xubrew]

Oh, And just who was it that knocked that powerhouse out of the NCAA's last year? One guess.

i guess you have a different way of evaluating teams. i don't think that losing to xavier a season ago disqualifies a team from being for real.

i believe the big east is the best conference this year, but some of the praise it's getting is ridiculous. i was watching louisville vs west virginia, and the commentators were making the case that the reason the big east struggles in the ncaas is because the regular season is such a grind.

this is mindnumbingly stupid. the reason the big east doesn't do better is because it's so good. that's basically what they're saying.

MAYBE in football they'd have a point, but not in basketball. that's so assinine that i'm not going to bother listing all the reasons as to why.

that's not even the dumbest quote i've heard. when saint john's was playing and losing to ucla, the announcers felt it was necessary to point out why saint john's would struggle. this is what they said, and i'm not making this up...

"they had to come all the way across the country. it was a very long drive, and you also have to factor in the time change. it's three hours earlier for them."

so, these commentators are not only too stupid to realize that saint john's FLEW to LA, they also seem to think that the sun sets in the east. brilliant.

[xavierj]

sorry, just now seeing this.

out of those four, duke. hands down.

duke's four toughest games were against teams that are outside the top ten, and they lost three of them. saint john's clobbered them, florida state is a tournament team, but nowhere close to being a protected seed, and virginia tech probably won't even make. yeah, they beat north carolina at home, but i don't think most people believe north carolina to be a top ten team either. they did beat kansas state and michigan state, but those teams aren't as good as people thought they were at the time.

if your four toughest games were to teams outside the top ten (two of which are WAAAY outside the top ten), and you lost three of them, that isn't a slip up. that's a trend. chances are you're not a top ten team yourself. i don't believe duke is.

yeah, pitt lost at home to tennessee, but at least they also have some monster wins. it's not like xavier hasn't stubbed their toes this season. we did lose to charlotte.

when it comes to big wins, duke doesn't have any. clemson is a bubble team at best, and duke struggled against them at home. i know that's just onegame, but it isn't uncommon to see duke struggle agaisnt so-so teams. the best thing about duke's tournament profile is that their name is on it.

Outside of the conference what are those monster wins that trump Duke? I don't know if the conference wins were monster or not, how could you? Duke is 27-3 and most of the time they just destroy teams. They are also very experienced and big. No thanks I will take Pitt. They have wonderful records every year but rarely play to their seed. Duke spends a lot of time in final 4's as does Kansas.

[waggy]

They are also very experienced and big.

I don't think they are all that big. The main reason they won it all last year was their senior center - probably about 6-11 - gave them just enough of a presence in the paint. They really don't have as much this year.

[xubrew]

pitt, notre dame, georgetown (2), west virginia, uconn (2) all managed wins against ranked teams outside their conference and away from home. not included in that is georgetown's win at old dominion, west virginia's home win against purdue, and west virginia's neutral floor win against minnesota before nolan was injured. with nolan, minnesota was clearly a top 20 team, and that's probably underrating them.

yes, i find that impressive if pitt can beat all those teams, and they have.

the acc collectively has three wins against the top 25 out of conference. nc state over george mason, north carolina over kentucky (who everyone seems to beat at home), and boston college over texas a&m. that's it. i think it's safe to assume that pitt is playing and beating better teams than duke is.

duke hasn't beaten anybody away from home. not one team. look at who they've lost to. you point out that pitt lost to tennessee. at least tennessee is solidly in the field. virginia tech isn't, and although florida state is they're probably not as good.

and duke doesn't just kill people. there have been a lot of games where they've pulled away late, but didn't really bury teams that aren't anywhere close to the top 25. they struggled against marquette, michigan state, clemson, virginia, butler, and miami. the game was still in question very late in all those cases.

i personally don't expect duke to go very far. if they run in to george mason or old dominion or xavier or any number of teams in the second round, i wouldn't be surprised to see them go home early.

[xsteve1]

How is Marquette a lock after losing to Seton Hall? 18-13 and 9-9 in league play. Villanova, Marquette and Georgetown have been awful these last few weeks. It must be nice to play in a league where you just have to win half your league games to make the tourney. How hard is that to do when you get about 5 gimme games in Seton Hall, S. Fla., DePaul, Providence and Rutgers (UC got to play DePaul twice).

[xubrew]

after that loss i don't think marquette would be a lock. they still have a good chance, but it's not a sure chance. one of their strong points was that they hadn't lost to any weak teams. that's not the case anymore.

i still think that duke isn't all that much better than we are. they'll probably be seeded a lot better, but that's not the same thing as actually being a lot better. if we were to face them in the second round, i'd really like our chances.

[xavierj]

pitt, notre dame, georgetown (2), west virginia, uconn (2) all managed wins against ranked teams outside their conference and away from home. not included in that is georgetown's win at old dominion, west virginia's home win against purdue, and west virginia's neutral floor win against minnesota before nolan was injured. with nolan, minnesota was clearly a top 20 team, and that's probably underrating them.

yes, i find that impressive if pitt can beat all those teams, and they have.

the acc collectively has three wins against the top 25 out of conference. nc state over george mason, north carolina over kentucky (who everyone seems to beat at home), and boston college over texas a&m. that's it. i think it's safe to assume that pitt is playing and beating better teams than duke is.

duke hasn't beaten anybody away from home. not one team. look at who they've lost to. you point out that pitt lost to tennessee. at least tennessee is solidly in the field. virginia tech isn't, and although florida state is they're probably not as good.

and duke doesn't just kill people. there have been a lot of games where they've pulled away late, but didn't really bury teams that aren't anywhere close to the top 25. they struggled against marquette, michigan state, clemson, virginia, butler, and miami. the game was still in question very late in all those cases.

i personally don't expect duke to go very far. if they run in to george mason or old dominion or xavier or any number of teams in the second round, i wouldn't be surprised to see them go home early.

It has nothing to do with who teams beat it just has to do with history, the eye ball test and talent. Duke has more players who will be drafted in the 1st round of the 2011 NBA draft than the entire Big East conference. No one in the Big East really impresses me. There is a reason why they have 1 projected 1st round NBA pick. ACC, SEC and even the PAC 10 have multiple 1st round NBA draft picks. The Big East as you will find out is a media suckers pick. Make money and bet against them. I hope Xavier has multiple Big East teams in their bracket.

[xu05usmc]

It has nothing to do with who teams beat it just has to do with history, the eye ball test and talent. Duke has more players who will be drafted in the 1st round of the 2011 NBA draft than the entire Big East conference. No one in the Big East really impresses me. There is a reason why they have 1 projected 1st round NBA pick. ACC, SEC and even the PAC 10 have multiple 1st round NBA draft picks. The Big East as you will find out is a media suckers pick. Make money and bet against them. I hope Xavier has multiple Big East teams in their bracket.

1 Projected first rounder? NBADraft.net has Kemba Walker and Marshon Brooks both as projected first round this year and Kris Joseph as a first rounder next year. HoopsHype.com has those three projected as first rounders for this year as well too. But I guess if we base team and conference success on NBA Draft picks George Mason never made the Final Four in 2006 and Kentucky won the National Championship last year.

[xavierj]

1 Projected first rounder? NBADraft.net has Kemba Walker and Marshon Brooks both as projected first round this year and Kris Joseph as a first rounder next year. HoopsHype.com has those three projected as first rounders for this year as well too. But I guess if we base team and conference success on NBA Draft picks George Mason never made the Final Four in 2006 and Kentucky won the National Championship last year.

Marshon Brooks was just updated to the 1st round, he was previously a 2nd round projection and that is probably where he will end up. The Big 12 has 6 projected to go in the first round.

These are the teams that have won the last 11 national championships. Duke (2x), Florida (2x), Kansas, Maryland, Michigan St. North Carolina (2x), UCONN, Syracuse. They all have 1 thing in common, NBA players. Duke and UNC have won 4 of the last 8 national championships so I would prefer to not have to play those teams early on. Xavier matches up much better with Pitt then they do Kansas, Ohio St. Duke and even North Carolina in my opinion. But what do I know? We will all find out in a couple of weeks.

[xuwin]

1 Projected first rounder? NBADraft.net has Kemba Walker and Marshon Brooks both as projected first round this year and Kris Joseph as a first rounder next year. HoopsHype.com has those three projected as first rounders for this year as well too. But I guess if we base team and conference success on NBA Draft picks George Mason never made the Final Four in 2006 and Kentucky won the National Championship last year.

For a 16 team league that is heralded as the best conference in the USA every year two 1st round NBA draft picks is pretty weak. Especially since they get more than their share of 5 star recruits every year. Their reputation doesn't reflect their output of talent every year.

[xubrew]

It has nothing to do with who teams beat it just has to do with history, the eye ball test and talent. Duke has more players who will be drafted in the 1st round of the 2011 NBA draft than the entire Big East conference. No one in the Big East really impresses me. There is a reason why they have 1 projected 1st round NBA pick. ACC, SEC and even the PAC 10 have multiple 1st round NBA draft picks. The Big East as you will find out is a media suckers pick. Make money and bet against them. I hope Xavier has multiple Big East teams in their bracket.

well, after eyeballing duke as a team all year, they don't impress me as much as pitt, or ohio stat, nor do they scare me. the way the nba scouts evaluate individual players is different than evaluating the overall strength of a team. nba scouts don't even care how good a team is, so that right there is an indication that they aren't the best resource when it comes to judging which teams are stronger.

[Backyard Champ]

well, after eyeballing duke as a team all year, they don't impress me as much as pitt, or ohio stat, nor do they scare me. the way the nba scouts evaluate individual players is different than evaluating the overall strength of a team. nba scouts don't even care how good a team is, so that right there is an indication that they aren't the best resource when it comes to judging which teams are stronger.

True, but his point was that the teams who have won the national championship the last 10 years or so, have had 1 thing in common, NBA players. With the Big East having so few projected NBA drafted players, it would be going against recent history to have one of them win it all.

[GoMuskies]

Butler was one shot away from a national title last year with one NBA player. And he's an awful NBA player.

[xuwin]

Butler was one shot away from a national title last year with one NBA player. And he's an awful NBA player.

They also had Howard and Mack who were very good players. Few teams had three players of that caliber.

[GoMuskies]

Of course they had very good players (so do Big East teams). I thought we were talking about NBA players.

[xsteve1]

If Mick Cronin can be in the discussion for Big East COY that says something about the coaches in that league. I think Dixon is excellent and the best coach in that league by far. Calhoun is a crook and should be put out to pasture. Pitino is dirty, and Boeheim is on his last legs.

[xavierj]

[/B]

Pitt also lost to Tennessee at home this year as did Nova. They lose all credibility in my book. They also beat Texas when Texas was trying to find themselves. The Texas of February is much different than the Texas of November and early December, much like Xavier. If Pitt ends up a 1 seed I want to be in their bracket.

Question - if someone said you had to pick one you thought you could beat, Duke, Kansas, Ohio St. or Pitt, who ya got?

Thought I would bring this thread back up. Look who lost and who is left. So who would you want to play? Kansas, Ohio St. and Duke are title contenders while Pitt is sitting at home again as a pretender. Butler had to love the draw they received. They will ride it all the way to the Elite 8.

[xubrew]

my answer is still duke. a two point win against a 9-9 big ten team in their own back yard isn't exactly blowing through the first two rounds. besides, just looking at the tournament is a pretty small sample size, but even if you only look at that duke really didn't play all that much better than pitt did. they barely beat a so-so team, and pitt barely lost to a so-so team. during the season, pitt was much better.

but in reality i think all would have beaten xavier rather handily. not necessarily a blowout, but they really wouldn't have had to sweat out a win. pitt looked much better against marquette than we did.

[xavierj]

my answer is still duke. a two point win against a 9-9 big ten team in their own back yard isn't exactly blowing through the first two rounds. besides, just looking at the tournament is a pretty small sample size, but even if you only look at that duke really didn't play all that much better than pitt did. they barely beat a so-so team, and pitt barely lost to a so-so team. during the season, pitt was much better.

but in reality i think all would have beaten xavier rather handily. not necessarily a blowout, but they really wouldn't have had to sweat out a win. pitt looked much better against marquette than we did.

That same 9-9 Big 10 team that beat Tennessee by 30 who happened to beat Pitt at Pitt.

Duke has 3 NBA players, goes to final 4's and wins championships on the national level. Pitt has no NBA players, wins a lot of regular season games and flames out rather early in national tournaments on a regular basis. I would bet 99% of college coaches would rather have to play Pitt than Duke in an NCAA tournament. I am sure Brad Stevens was tickled pink to get Pitt rather than Duke. It's just a better matchup.

[Michigan Muskie]

After watching the St. John's / Pitt game this weekend, I told Michigan Muskie, Jr. that I would not be surprised if not one single Big East team was represented in the Sweet 16.

Not too far off. The only two that did advance had to beat other Big East teams to get there. What a poor showing - makes it all the harder to stomach Xavier's loss. At least Marquette is one of the two surviving B.E. teams...!

[Masterofreality]

In the last 5 years, the Big East has underperformed more than any other top conference in the NCAA tourney and hasn't produced a champion in over 5 years. They talk about the league and how tough and physical the style of play is. I call it ugly basketball. I predict they'll under perform again in the tourney this year and the media will brush it off and make the excuse that they beat each other up so much over the course of the season that they don't have any gas left in the tank at the end of the year. Shouldn't playing in a tough, physical conference prepare you for March ? Anyway, I had to get this off my chest. I could be eating my words in a few weeks, but seriously doubt it.

The man is clairvoyant.

[THRILLHOUSE]

just did a google search on Big East underachieves and found some results dating back to 2009 that could just as easily be applied to this year. Big East choking in the tournament has been happening for a while now, but sadly people just let ESPN dupe them into believing the Big East is vastly superior to everyone else.

[xavierj]

See Lance McAllister twitter feed. He is tweeting Big East excuses left and right. Funny how he has not mentioned the conference non-conference road record of 12-27 this year.

[xubrew]

That same 9-9 Big 10 team that beat Tennessee by 30 who happened to beat Pitt at Pitt.

Duke has 3 NBA players, goes to final 4's and wins championships on the national level. Pitt has no NBA players, wins a lot of regular season games and flames out rather early in national tournaments on a regular basis. I would bet 99% of college coaches would rather have to play Pitt than Duke in an NCAA tournament. I am sure Brad Stevens was tickled pink to get Pitt rather than Duke. It's just a better matchup.

in most years i'd rather play pitt than duke as well, but not this year. i just don't get what scares people about duke. AT ALL. this whole thread is about undue praise toward the big east. i agree with that. i just feel that duke has done even less to earn all their undue praise than most big east teams.

i never felt duke was incapable of beating michigan, much less in front of a partial crowd. they won by two points after michigan missed a shot that would have sent it into overtime. that's hardly an "i told you so" moment for duke. if anything, it's indicative that they are not one of the five, or even ten, best teams in the country. duke has beaten a lot of teams like michigan. it has oftentimes been a struggle. it was again. i don't see how this elevates or even validates their status. talk about getting a good draw (which #1 seeds should, but i felt there were other teams that were both better and did more to earn it than duke). i wonder if there is any other circumstance where duke would have had an easier time, and even with that they still barely made it out.

you can isolate incidents all you want like tennessee beat pitt at pitt, and then lost to michigan. that's crap, because in doing that i can make a case that saint bonaventure is better than duke. they won at saint john's, and saint john's clobbered duke. georgia tech won handily at virginia tech, who also beat duke. that's a weak argument, but that's not the one i'm making. it's so weak that it's not even worth pointing to. i'd rather play duke than ohio state, kansas, or even pitt. i'd also rather play duke than san diego state, florida, uconn, or even a team like kentucky. over the course of the entire season, duke didn't look the part. they're still good. i just don't think they're #1 seed good, and maybe not even #2 seed good. but, yes, they can beat hamption and michigan (barely) in their own back yard. i never felt they were incapable of doing that.

[XUglow]

There was a dumb joke when I was a kid about a guy showing off his $100,000 dog. One guy asked him how he could afford a $100,000 dog, and he said, "Easy. I traded two $50,000 cats for him.

To me, that is the Big East. They beat a couple of $50,000 cats to become a $100,000 dog. Someone else beats the $100,000 dog, and they are a $100,000 dog as well, and losing to a $100,000 dog makes you a $50,000 cat. At the end of conference play, they have $100,000 and $50,000 teams while everyone else just doesn't rate.

[UnCaged]

There was a dumb joke when I was a kid about a guy showing off his $100,000 dog. One guy asked him how he could afford a $100,000 dog, and he said, "Easy. I traded two $50,000 cats for him.

To me, that is the Big East. They beat a couple of $50,000 cats to become a $100,000 dog. Someone else beats the $100,000 dog, and they are a $100,000 dog as well, and losing to a $100,000 dog makes you a $50,000 cat. At the end of conference play, they have $100,000 and $50,000 teams while everyone else just doesn't rate.

Mr. Glow, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this message board is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(kidding, but I have no clue what you're talking about)

[XUglow]

Mr. Glow, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this message board is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(kidding, but I have no clue what you're talking about)

Through hype and soft schedules, a lot of BE teams come into the conference season highly ranked. St. John's loses to a couple of bottom feeders in the A-10 early in the season. When they start Big East play, they beat #9 Georgetown. Do people ask if Georgetown is overrated? No, they assume that St. John's must be good to beat the #9 ranked team in the nation.

[UnCaged]

Through hype and soft schedules, a lot of BE teams come into the conference season highly ranked. St. John's loses to a couple of bottom feeders in the A-10 early in the season. When they start Big East play, they beat #9 Georgetown. Do people ask if Georgetown is overrated? No, they assume that St. John's must be good to beat the #9 ranked team in the nation.

While your story was probably more entertaining, this explanation lays it out to me a lot better. And of course I agree. The BE has made sports reporters and talking heads the worst violators of group think we see in college sports. There is of course a reason that the Johnnie's lost to Fordham and St. Bonnie (I think), it's because they're a mediocre team that can and will get beat by teams that play a solid if unspectacular game. Of course I wish it wasn't like that, but it's the world we live in. Instead of populating the boards at espn or another major media outlet, I choose to spend my time here. With the salt of the Earth, the Mans Mans. There may be some drinking of kool-aid from time to time, but on the whole, we've got a nice balance on this board. May it long be my little place on the web.

X in 2012!

[Kahns Krazy]

Mr. Glow, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this message board is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(kidding, but I have no clue what you're talking about)

I got it just fine. I even laughed quietly to myself and tried to rep Glow. I think it's a great summary of what the Big East does. I have no idea what's behind your unnecessary rant. Would it help if someone explained that the cats weren't really worth $50,000?

The RPI adjusts for home/road games in the 25% that is your own schedule only. It would be very interesting to see how much the big east would get deflated if they used the adjustment all the way through.

The BE has played the RPI game so well for so long. They play it much better than they play March basketball.

[xubrew]

Through hype and soft schedules, a lot of BE teams come into the conference season highly ranked. St. John's loses to a couple of bottom feeders in the A-10 early in the season. When they start Big East play, they beat #9 Georgetown. Do people ask if Georgetown is overrated? No, they assume that St. John's must be good to beat the #9 ranked team in the nation.

not all of the big east teams play soft schedules.

georgetown played at old dominion, they played coastal carolina (prior to all the suspensions) and wofford on a neutral floor in charleston. those are the kinds of games big east teams are often criticized for not playing. georgetown played three top teams from non-major conferences away from home. they also played missouri in front of a pro missouri crowd in kansas city, at temple, at memphis and at home against utah state. that's not soft scheduling. in fact that is brutal scheduling.

notre dame played kentucky, georgia, wisconsin and cal on netral floors, and gonzaga at home. they played some cupcakes too, but you can't say that they didn't play ANYBODY.

west virginia played vandy, marshall and minnesota (prior to nolan's injury) on neutral floors, played at duquesne, at miami, and then played cleveland state and purdue at home. i wouldn't call any of those cupcakes, and some of those teams are pretty strong.

pitt played maryland, texas and duquesne on neutral floors, and had another game against tennessee.
even syracuse played michigan and michigan state, and won both.

saint john's played duke, at saint mary's and at ucla. most of the rest of their schedule was weak, but they did play a few good teams.

uconn played wichita state, kentucky, and michgan state on neutral floors (winning all) and then won at texas. that's four solid wins away from home.

nova played ucla, tennessee, temple and maryland.

marquette played duke and gonzaga on neutral floors, at milwaukee, at vanderbilt and wisconsin at home.

i wouldn't call that not playing anyone. they only get eleven out of conference games (not counting exempt games, of course). all of those teams played several tough games. some teams like louisville just didn't play any road games, but even they played butler, kentucky and unlv (albiet all at home). still, all of those are at least part of home and homes.

some of the big east teams don't play anyone, but most of them do. in fact most of them play several tough games, and they collectively won most of them. i'd say that many big east teams play a much tougher ooc schedule than what the average team plays.

[Masterofreality]

some of the big east teams don't play anyone, but most of them do. in fact most of them play several tough games, and they collectively won most of them. i'd say that many big east teams play a much tougher ooc schedule than what the average team plays.

How many of those games are set up games for TV? I would say almost all of them because B-Espn needs early season programming, but the vast majority of those games are either at home or on neutral courts. I also think that there is deep research done to give the Big Greased teams the best chance to look good. Amazing how the Borecats game at Cintas last year was buried on ESPNU, while the game at SucKS this year was on the Deuce. Missouri only had one senior on the team and he was a role player so playing them on a neutral court early in the year was a calculated risk, but a good one. I do give G-Town credit for playing at ODU, but the Temple game was a return from the year before that they had to play.

I don't see Xavier getting TV setup games. We have to get the schedule together ourselves and hopefully Espn decides to put them on. Sometimes yeah like Florida (who happens to be in another Espn covered conference) and sometimes no (like Wake Forest last year.)

[xubrew]

How many of those games are set up games for TV? I would say almost all of them because B-Espn needs early season programming, but the vast majority of those games are either at home or on neutral courts. I also think that there is deep research done to give the Big Greased teams the best chance to look good. Amazing how the Borecats game at Cintas last year was buried on ESPNU, while the game at SucKS this year was on the Deuce. Missouri only had one senior on the team and he was a role player so playing them on a neutral court early in the year was a calculated risk, but a good one. I do give G-Town credit for playing at ODU, but the Temple game was a return from the year before that they had to play.

I don't see Xavier getting TV setup games. We have to get the schedule together ourselves and hopefully Espn decides to put them on. Sometimes yeah like Florida (who happens to be in another Espn covered conference) and sometimes no (like Wake Forest last year.)


mor, saying that they play good teams that are set up for tv is DRASTICALLY different than saying that they play nothing but cupcakes. who cares what the reasoning is for playing them?? they played them and they won a lot of them. that's all that matters.

in most cases i listed the locations of the games. a fair percentage were on neutral floors or on the road. they won a large percentage of those games. that's why the committee took so many of them.

i'm not disputing the fact that espn gives the big east a ton of undue praise. i am saying that to say that the big east collectively plays nothing but cupcakes is a false statement. all of the big east teams play their share of cupcakes. no question. however, that's not ALL that they play. some teams played out of conference schedules that were very difficult. the selection committee, not espn, but the actual selection committee that mike bobinski is a member of, selected as many as they did because they felt they earned the spots. they had a legitimate reason for feeling that way. in looking at those schedules, you can't say that it was due to favoritism.

[XUglow]

not all of the big east teams play soft schedules.

georgetown played at old dominion, they played coastal carolina (prior to all the suspensions) and wofford on a neutral floor in charleston. those are the kinds of games big east teams are often criticized for not playing. georgetown played three top teams from non-major conferences away from home. they also played missouri in front of a pro missouri crowd in kansas city, at temple, at memphis and at home against utah state. that's not soft scheduling. in fact that is brutal scheduling.

notre dame played kentucky, georgia, wisconsin and cal on netral floors, and gonzaga at home. they played some cupcakes too, but you can't say that they didn't play ANYBODY.

west virginia played vandy, marshall and minnesota (prior to nolan's injury) on neutral floors, played at duquesne, at miami, and then played cleveland state and purdue at home. i wouldn't call any of those cupcakes, and some of those teams are pretty strong.

pitt played maryland, texas and duquesne on neutral floors, and had another game against tennessee.
even syracuse played michigan and michigan state, and won both.

saint john's played duke, at saint mary's and at ucla. most of the rest of their schedule was weak, but they did play a few good teams.

uconn played wichita state, kentucky, and michgan state on neutral floors (winning all) and then won at texas. that's four solid wins away from home.

nova played ucla, tennessee, temple and maryland.

marquette played duke and gonzaga on neutral floors, at milwaukee, at vanderbilt and wisconsin at home.

i wouldn't call that not playing anyone. they only get eleven out of conference games (not counting exempt games, of course). all of those teams played several tough games. some teams like louisville just didn't play any road games, but even they played butler, kentucky and unlv (albiet all at home). still, all of those are at least part of home and homes.

some of the big east teams don't play anyone, but most of them do. in fact most of them play several tough games, and they collectively won most of them. i'd say that many big east teams play a much tougher ooc schedule than what the average team plays.

I never said that the Big East didn't play anyone. I said that they (in general terms) played easy OOC schedules. They avoid competitive OOC road games like they the plague. Combine that with hype, and you get ranked teams that did not deserve to be there. Once that dye is cast, it is almost impossible to get fair rankings for other teams.

What exactly are you defending? The Big East bombed this year. They were either exceptionally unlucky or overrated. It is a very good basketball conference, but they have not earned the hype or all of the tournament teams they are getting.

[xubrew]

i'm not really defending anything other than that i wouldn't call the majority of the ooc schedules soft. i think some of the schedules were brutal, and they collectively won a lot of those games.

in terms of the committee, i don't think any of the selections were due to soft scheduling and hype. espn's coverage of it is due to hype, but they played and beat a lot of good teams. i'd say way more than average.

i'm not disagreeing with you specifically. i think there is a general notion that the big east doesn't play anyone out of conference and that is the main reason they aren't as good as what they appear. they did play and beat quite a few tough teams out of conference. i don't see how anyone can disagree with that.

they also tanked in the tournament....again. i don't see how anyone can disagree with that either. i'm certainly not trying to.

[Masterofreality]

the selection committee, not espn, but the actual selection committee that mike bobinski is a member of, selected as many as they did because they felt they earned the spots. they had a legitimate reason for feeling that way. in looking at those schedules, you can't say that it was due to favoritism.

Sounds like you're drinking the B-Eson Kool Aid brew. You and I are not disagreeing about much in actuality, though. The schedules, in general though, are not so tough when you consider the amount of true road games and when they're played.

I will diasgree with the embodened part above, however. They didn't pick 11 because they necessarily "earned" the spots, they picked 11 because A) They had an expanded 68 teams so they had to pick somebody else and B) The garbage in the Big East (St. Johns, late season 'Nova, charlatan Syracuse and late season G-town) was better than the garbage that was Colorado or Virginia Tech.

I said before that I don't really disagree with the selection of the 11. Just don't cram down my throat all year about how awesome the league is, that it is must watch TV, or continually "product place" that league on other college basketball broadcasts by gratuitously flashing their standings as a non-sequiter in the middle of an A-14 game.