Big East now, vs Big East then

[Masterofreality]

Per Ken Pomeroy (not premium content). This is interesting.

Despite some media attempts to discount the new configuration, the Big East now is actually better statistically.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/the_new_big_east_by_the_numbers

[vee4xu]

At the risk of turning this into yet another UC bashing thread, how is it that UC is ranked #7? When X had similar records as UC's current record while in the A-10, they would be ranked around between, say #11 and #14, while UC with a record similar to X's current record, while in the Big East would be ranked in the same range as X, #11-#14. Yet, today, UC is rated #7 with two three losses and part of a conference as bad, or possibly worse than the A-10. UC is not that good, yet they somehow get a deference from the voters that X never got when they had similar records while in the A-10.

I am really not into the UC bashing and am taking a HUGE risk noting this here where my good friend MOR is comparing to old BE with the new BE. But, this thought has bugged me all day since seeing where UC is ranked this week, and this thread seems the best place for me to toss the idea out there.

[LA Muskie]

Vee, you should know this by now. Rankings are affected far more by *when* a team loses than where and to whom they lose.

[vee4xu]

You're right LA. It just hacks me off. UC loses to SMU, then SMU gets smoked by Temple after Temple got smoked by UL, who originally lost to UC at home. None of that means anything, I just thought it sounded good. :cool:

[nuts4xu]

I think the jury will be out on which is better for many years to come.

[Classof1985]

Per Ken Pomeroy (not premium content). This is interesting.

Despite some media attempts to discount the new configuration, the Big East now is actually better statistically.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/the_new_big_east_by_the_numbers

There was always tail at the bottom of the old Big East. And Rutger and USF, 2 teams that were perennially at the tail, have moved on.

But there's also much less strength at the head of the new Big East than the old. This year, if the tournament was held today, the "new" BE would have three teams in for sure - 'Nova, Creighton, and Xavier. St. Johns looks to be on the bubble, but I think they are also likely to get in. That's four tournament teams - meaning that a team like Xavier has six conference games against for sure tournament teams. If you look at the "old" BE, there are currently six tournament locks - Nova, Louisville, UC, Pitt, UConn, and Syracuse. Add ST. John's, and that's seven. That means in the old BE, there would likely be 10-11 games against tourney teams this year.

But if you look at the history of the "old" BE, Pomeroy's argument gets even murkier. From 2005 to 2013, the "old" BE had 8 or more teams in the tournament 6 times, including as many as 11 teams. From 2010 to 2013, there were NEVER fewer than eight tournament teams.

Given the current selection criteria used by the committee, I can't see how the "new" Big East ever gets back to that, because teams with losing conference records don't get selected often. And with only 10 teams, you aren't going to have 8 teams with winning conference records.

Hopefully, Butler, Marquette, and Georgetown can can back to where they were - all are down some this year. If they can, then the Big East can be the #2 BB conference. But it will be hard to ever equal the Big East of 2010 - 2013, because there just aren't enough teams.

[GoMuskies]

And with only 10 teams, you aren't going to have 8 teams with winning conference records.


With 10 teams, the appropriate comparision # is 5 bids, or 50% of the conference.

[XUFan09]

With 10 teams, the appropriate comparision # is 5 bids, or 50% of the conference.

This actually becomes an argument for expannding to 12 teams, if teams that can be found that would at least be middle of the pack. Conferences are judged so much by the number of bids, rather than the proportion of bids. It's not fair, but it's just the way it is. If the Big East this year had 12 teams, we might be talking about five bids as probable and six bids as a stretch, rather than four bids as a near-lock and five bids as a stretch.

[GoMuskies]

This actually becomes an argument for expannding to 12 teams, if teams that can be found that would at least be middle of the pack. Conferences are judged so much by the number of bids, rather than the proportion of bids.

I don't think it's a good argument at all for expanding. Who's doing this judging you speak of? Some clowns on the Internet? I'm none too concerned with those folks. If you can find two programs that are better than the average program in the Big East (thus make the league better), that's an agrument for expansion. Or if you can find two that will add more revenue than they will take.

[XUFan09]

I don't think it's a good argument at all for expanding. Who's doing this judging you speak of? Some clowns on the Internet? I'm none too concerned with those folks. If you can find two programs that are better than the average program in the Big East (thus make the league better), that's an agrument for expansion. Or if you can find two that will add more revenue than they will take.

It's not the best argument. Really in the end, a program has to be worthy of consideration. Most of the pundits and writers are making judgments based off the number of tournament teams, and by extension, recruits are influenced by how the different conferences are presented.

[xubrew]

i don't think it's a good argument at all for expanding. Who's doing this judging you speak of? Some clowns on the internet? I'm none too concerned with those folks. If you can find two programs that are better than the average program in the big east (thus make the league better), that's an agrument for expansion. Or if you can find two that will add more revenue than they will take.

Thank You!!!

We shouldn't worry about impressing people that are too stupid to understand simple math.

[xubrew]

At the risk of turning this into yet another UC bashing thread, how is it that UC is ranked #7? When X had similar records as UC's current record while in the A-10, they would be ranked around between, say #11 and #14, while UC with a record similar to X's current record, while in the Big East would be ranked in the same range as X, #11-#14. Yet, today, UC is rated #7 with two three losses and part of a conference as bad, or possibly worse than the A-10. UC is not that good, yet they somehow get a deference from the voters that X never got when they had similar records while in the A-10.

I am really not into the UC bashing and am taking a HUGE risk noting this here where my good friend MOR is comparing to old BE with the new BE. But, this thought has bugged me all day since seeing where UC is ranked this week, and this thread seems the best place for me to toss the idea out there.

SLU has played a weaker schedule, has no wins over ranked teams (much less on the road), and is ranked 10th.

Murray State was ranked 6th a few years back.

Xavier did get into the top ten in February back in 2009.

Anyone who thinks UC is better than Kansas is either border-lined mentally ill, or full blown mentally ill. But, they're ranked ahead of Kansas simply because of how the rankings work. It's not an agenda that favors UC. It's a crappy system that favors when a team's most recent loss was.

Louisville being ranked #5th in the coaches' poll is far more outrageous than UC being ranked #7th. It's not as if UC is the only example of how absurd the ratings are. They're overrated, but they're not the only ones.

[Classof1985]

SLU has played a weaker schedule, has no wins over ranked teams (much less on the road), and is ranked 10th.

Murray State was ranked 6th a few years back.

Xavier did get into the top ten in February back in 2009.

Anyone who thinks UC is better than Kansas is either border-lined mentally ill, or full blown mentally ill. But, they're ranked ahead of Kansas simply because of how the rankings work. It's not an agenda that favors UC. It's a crappy system that favors when a team's most recent loss was.

Louisville being ranked #5th in the coaches' poll is far more outrageous than UC being ranked #7th. It's not as if UC is the only example of how absurd the ratings are. They're overrated, but they're not the only ones.

The voters in the coaches' poll are either idiots or geniuses about UL. I would tend to think they know something the rest of us don't about Lousiville, but I know that the coaches themselves are not always doing the voting. I tend to think they are over-rated, but that is based on the idea that the only two times i have seen them this year, they lost.

As far as expansion goes, I think Fox will have a lot to say about whoever joins the league. I would think fox would have to be willing to put up the same amount of money per team for 12 to make it worthwhile.

As for UC, when the teams above you get beat, you get moved up until you get knocked off yourself. I think there are fewer powerhouse teams this year. Everyone seems to have significant flaws. UC is certainly in that group. Are they the 7th best team in the country? I tend to doubt it, but no one except SMU has knocked them off in two months. That tends to move you up the ladder.

[casualfan]

Kenpom also loves Louisville for some reason...

[Juice]

Kenpom also loves Louisville for some reason...

Look at their margin of victory in their conference. That's my guess why.

[GoMuskies]

Louisville has been beating people like rented mules lately. They're going to be dangerous in March.

[casualfan]

Louisville has been beating people like rented mules lately. They're going to be dangerous in March.

I tend to agree. If Hancock stays healthy and Russ doesn't run the train off the rails they're as good a bet as any IMHO.

Harrell is the real deal.

[Snipe]

I don't like any argument for expansion. I don't want to split into divisions and lose my home games against G-Town and Nova.

I like 10 teams and the full round robin. This is an outstanding conference to be in, and our TV package is off the hook. It seems like every league game is nationally televised, and they space them out so you can watch a Big East game or two just about every day. My sons love it. We don't need anyone to try to make this "better". I think we should keep it at ten teams and it will continue to be an incredible situation.

Thumbs up for the New Big East.

[Masterofreality]

I'll tell you what the Big East Now is....

Bryce Cotton breaks Arcidiacono's ankles and nails a 3 over him...then Archi comes back down an drills a 3 back right in Cotton's grille. All in the space of 15 seconds. High level stuff.