George Mason? Villanova? Kentucky?

[nyjunc]

differnt years different stories,,big east last couple years has made very early exits for most of its 7 or 8 teams,,,

big ten in years before that...

in last few yeras acc has 5 , maybe 6 in and they last pretty far,,not this year though,,

each year different

The BE has been decent in recent years come Tourney time while the ACC has struggled. The ACC hasn't nhad a team in the FF since the '05 Heels and missing the last 2 years was the first time since 1980 that 2 FFs in a rwo did not include at least 1 ACC team compare that w/ only '03 & '04 having back to back BE teams since 1984 & 1985. The ACC has been hurt since the recent expansion, it hasn't been the best conf since 2005. I hope it gets back up to it's normal #1 spot soon but looking around the conference I'm not confident.

[SouthernJet]

The BE has been decent in recent years come Tourney time while the ACC has struggled. The ACC hasn't nhad a team in the FF since the '05 Heels and missing the last 2 years was the first time since 1980 that 2 FFs in a rwo did not include at least 1 ACC team compare that w/ only '03 & '04 having back to back BE teams since 1984 & 1985. The ACC has been hurt since the recent expansion, it hasn't been the best conf since 2005. I hope it gets back up to it's normal #1 spot soon but looking around the conference I'm not confident.

I dont use Final 4s as indicator overall,,my post was referring to getting to sweet 16 mainly,,

BE has struggled in tAHt regard in last few years, while the few teams ACC had did pretty well to swwet 16..

[nyjunc]

I dont use Final 4s as indicator overall,,my post was referring to getting to sweet 16 mainly,,

BE has struggled in tAHt regard in last few years, while the few teams ACC had did pretty well to swwet 16..

Sweet 16s, Elite 8s, Final Fours are all good measures of Conferences and the ACC has not done well in the last 3 years sending teams that deep. The BE has struggled a little(considering how many teams they get in) but they have done a better job than the ACC. The BE has been better the last 3 years but the BE is not nearly as good as the media and BE fans would like us to believe.

[CrazyCarl40]

Sweet 16s, Elite 8s, Final Fours are all good measures of Conferences and the ACC has not done well in the last 3 years sending teams that deep. The BE has struggled a little(considering how many teams they get in) but they have done a better job than the ACC. The BE has been better the last 3 years but the BE is not nearly as good as the media and BE fans would like us to believe.

The Big East is the best conference. You have to look at the conferences as a whole entity and using the NCAA tourney as a measuring stick is kind of short-sighted. Team for the team the Big East matches up well against any of the other power conferences.

[nyjunc]

The Big East is the best conference. You have to look at the conferences as a whole entity and using the NCAA tourney as a measuring stick is kind of short-sighted. Team for the team the Big East matches up well against any of the other power conferences.

The BE gopt beat up in the non-conf sched and has been a disappointment in the NCAA's. They have alot of bad teams which the upper half beats up on to fatten their records, that doesn't make the BE the best. They probably have more good teams than any conf but they should b/c they have so many more teams than anyone else.

By the way, Syracuse lost for the SECOND time to a mediocre UMass team at home. You were crowing about them easily winning the NIT and they didn't even make the NIT Final Four even though they played all their games at home.

[CrazyCarl40]

The BE gopt beat up in the non-conf sched and has been a disappointment in the NCAA's. They have alot of bad teams which the upper half beats up on to fatten their records, that doesn't make the BE the best. They probably have more good teams than any conf but they should b/c they have so many more teams than anyone else.

By the way, Syracuse lost for the SECOND time to a mediocre UMass team at home. You were crowing about them easily winning the NIT and they didn't even make the NIT Final Four even though they played all their games at home.

Way to twist my words. I said Syracuse was running rough-shot over the NIT, which they were until they blew it last night (up by at least 15 at one point). How has the big east been a disappointment in the NCAA Tourney? Villanova, a low seed, made the sweet 16. Louisville is on to the sweet 16 after blowing out both their opponents. West Virginia upset Duke to be in the Sweet 16. Marquette lsot to Stanford (which was playing to their seed) on a last second shot. Notre Dame lost to WSU because of a stifling defense and poor shooting, but still played to their seed. Pitt lost to a good Michigan State team. UConn and Georgetown both were upset, but UConn also lost their best player and point guard not ten minutes into the game and Georgetown ran into the best player in the tourney playing out of his mind.

I'm sure a few of the teams are disappointed, but in reality, the Big East as a whole has represented very well, better than the other conferences for sure.

[nyjunc]

Way to twist my words. I said Syracuse was running rough-shot over the NIT, which they were until they blew it last night (up by at least 15 at one point). How has the big east been a disappointment in the NCAA Tourney? Villanova, a low seed, made the sweet 16. Louisville is on to the sweet 16 after blowing out both their opponents. West Virginia upset Duke to be in the Sweet 16. Marquette lsot to Stanford (which was playing to their seed) on a last second shot. Notre Dame lost to WSU because of a stifling defense and poor shooting, but still played to their seed. Pitt lost to a good Michigan State team. UConn and Georgetown both were upset, but UConn also lost their best player and point guard not ten minutes into the game and Georgetown ran into the best player in the tourney playing out of his mind.

I'm sure a few of the teams are disappointed, but in reality, the Big East as a whole has represented very well, better than the other conferences for sure.

When you have 3 teams reach the Sweet 16 out of a possible 7 that's a disappointment.

How did the BE represent better than a conf like the Pac 10 who had 6 teams in the Tourney and now have 3 teams left? 3 of 6 is better than 3 of 8. The BE has been a disappointment and there's a chance they won't have any elite 8 teams.

[CrazyCarl40]

When you have 3 teams reach the Sweet 16 out of a possible 7 that's a disappointment.

How did the BE represent better than a conf like the Pac 10 who had 6 teams in the Tourney and now have 3 teams left? 3 of 6 is better than 3 of 8. The BE has been a disappointment and there's a chance they won't have any elite 8 teams.

There is no arguing with you. You are using the NCAA Tourney as the end all be all for your argument. There was a regular season and the Big East proved itself time and again to be the best conference. At the end of the year there will only be one champion. And I suppose if Davidson wins the whole thing the the Southern Conference is the best by your logic.

[nyjunc]

There is no arguing with you. You are using the NCAA Tourney as the end all be all for your argument. There was a regular season and the Big East proved itself time and again to be the best conference. At the end of the year there will only be one champion. And I suppose if Davidson wins the whole thing the the Southern Conference is the best by your logic.

It's not about the Champion but when you combine the non-conf scheds in the pre-conf schedule and the Tourney results it gives you an indicator of who the best conf was. If a certain conf sends more teams to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 they tend to be the best, the BE had so many teams so only 3 is a disappointment.

When did the BE prove itself time and again to tbe the best conference in the regular season? I'd love to hear this.

[SouthernJet]

The Big East is the best conference. You have to look at the conferences as a whole entity and using the NCAA tourney as a measuring stick is kind of short-sighted. Team for the team the Big East matches up well against any of the other power conferences.

The BE gopt beat up in the non-conf sched and has been a disappointment in the NCAA's. They have alot of bad teams which the upper half beats up on to fatten their records, that doesn't make the BE the best. They probably have more good teams than any conf but they should b/c they have so many more teams than anyone else.

By the way, Syracuse lost for the SECOND time to a mediocre UMass team at home. You were crowing about them easily winning the NIT and they didn't even make the NIT Final Four even though they played all their games at home.

Ouch!!!!

[afosomf]

It's not about the Champion but when you combine the non-conf scheds in the pre-conf schedule and the Tourney results it gives you an indicator of who the best conf was. If a certain conf sends more teams to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 they tend to be the best, the BE had so many teams so only 3 is a disappointment.

When did the BE prove itself time and again to tbe the best conference in the regular season? I'd love to hear this.

this is not the year to be crowing about ACC, very down year

Big East has done quite well this year, no denying that and I'm an ACC fan

[BleedinGreenNC]

Franks and Beans bitches!!

[nj meadowlands]

LET'S GO NOVA!

[CrazyCarl40]

It's not about the Champion but when you combine the non-conf scheds in the pre-conf schedule and the Tourney results it gives you an indicator of who the best conf was. If a certain conf sends more teams to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 they tend to be the best, the BE had so many teams so only 3 is a disappointment.

When did the BE prove itself time and again to tbe the best conference in the regular season? I'd love to hear this.

What would not have been a disappointment? Half? More than Half? Why are you disappointed in it if you are not even a Big East fan?

[CrazyCarl40]

Also, you keep on saying that the Big East is not the best conference, nyjunc, but have you positioned someone better?

[CrazyCarl40]

Ouch!!!!

Reading comprehension is taught early, SJ, but I suppose you must have forgotten it by now. Read the entire thread and then show me where I said Cuse was going win the entire NIT. Dare you.

[SouthernJet]

Reading comprehension is taught early, SJ, but I suppose you must have forgotten it by now. Read the entire thread and then show me where I said Cuse was going win the entire NIT. Dare you.

calm down Pittsburgh Pete

[nyjunc]

this is not the year to be crowing about ACC, very down year

Big East has done quite well this year, no denying that and I'm an ACC fan

I am not saying the ACC was the best, the ACC has been down since exapnsion 2 years ago.

What would not have been a disappointment? Half? More than Half? Why are you disappointed in it if you are not even a Big East fan?

Bare minimum the BE needed 4 teams in the Sweet 16 but they couldn't do that.

Also, you keep on saying that the Big East is not the best conference, nyjunc, but have you positioned someone better?

I rate the Pac 10 and Big 12 ahead of the BE. The BE got beat up in the non-conf scheds(those who actually played some decent teams), they padded their records against the bad bottom half of the BE. The Pac 10 didn't have that luxury, the pac 10 had 1 bad team in while the BE has at least 5-6 bad teams. The Big 12 had 2-3 bad teams, it makes life alot harder when you do not have those easy wins. It helps the BE get so many in b/c they get to beat up on the bottom half.

[nyjunc]

Reading comprehension is taught early, SJ, but I suppose you must have forgotten it by now. Read the entire thread and then show me where I said Cuse was going win the entire NIT. Dare you.

You didn't specifically say SU was goin to win the NIT but you said "Throw in the fact that Cuse is running rough-shot in the NIT", that says to me you thought SU would continue to beat teams on their way to the NIT title. I think it's silly to compare NIT results but you did it and now SU is gone before the NIT Final Four.

[nj meadowlands]

LET'S GO NOVA!!!!!

[CrazyCarl40]

I rate the Pac 10 and Big 12 ahead of the BE. The BE got beat up in the non-conf scheds(those who actually played some decent teams), they padded their records against the bad bottom half of the BE. The Pac 10 didn't have that luxury, the pac 10 had 1 bad team in while the BE has at least 5-6 bad teams. The Big 12 had 2-3 bad teams, it makes life alot harder when you do not have those easy wins. It helps the BE get so many in b/c they get to beat up on the bottom half.

If the Pac-10 had one "bad team" shouldn't the other 9 make it to the tourney? Trust me, the Big East didn't beat up on the bottom half. Syracuse's loss to South Florida is probably one of the key reasons they did not make the tourney.

I will tell you one thing: the Big East didn't have any teams not win a single conference game (like the Pac-10 did). I might give you the Big 12 over the Big East, but there really wasn't many games between the two. Although I do remember ND beating K-State, but that's just one game.

[CrazyCarl40]

You didn't specifically say SU was goin to win the NIT but you said "Throw in the fact that Cuse is running rough-shot in the NIT", that says to me you thought SU would continue to beat teams on their way to the NIT title. I think it's silly to compare NIT results but you did it and now SU is gone before the NIT Final Four.

I only used Syracuse to show that even the teams that didn't make the big dance, were still playing well in other tournaments. You were the one who falsely assumed I thought they were going to win the entire thing. I think it's silly to look at the NCAA Tournament and judge a conference based solely on that.

[nyjunc]

If the Pac-10 had one "bad team" shouldn't the other 9 make it to the tourney? Trust me, the Big East didn't beat up on the bottom half. Syracuse's loss to South Florida is probably one of the key reasons they did not make the tourney.

I will tell you one thing: the Big East didn't have any teams not win a single conference game (like the Pac-10 did). I might give you the Big 12 over the Big East, but there really wasn't many games between the two. Although I do remember ND beating K-State, but that's just one game.

Syracuse wound up beating GU at home, that was their only win against a ranked team. Of their 9 BE wins they beat SJU, USF, RU, prov, depaul, SH. That's 6 of the 9 games(the other win was over 'Nova when they were in their big losing streak). It makes life alot easier when you only have to win 4 games agaisnt decent competition to be over .500 in your league.

If there was a 2nd bad team then Oregon State might have gotten a win like SJu, prov, Depaul, USF and RU.

I only used Syracuse to show that even the teams that didn't make the big dance, were still playing well in other tournaments. You were the one who falsely assumed I thought they were going to win the entire thing. I think it's silly to look at the NCAA Tournament and judge a conference based solely on that.

You were crowing about SU winning NIT games at home as some sort of additional proof of the BE's superiority, now SU loses at home to a mid major and the you throw those results away.

[CrazyCarl40]

Syracuse wound up beating GU at home, that was their only win against a ranked team. Of their 9 BE wins they beat SJU, USF, RU, prov, depaul, SH. That's 6 of the 9 games(the other win was over 'Nova when they were in their big losing streak). It makes life alot easier when you only have to win 4 games agaisnt decent competition to be over .500 in your league.

If there was a 2nd bad team then Oregon State might have gotten a win like SJu, prov, Depaul, USF and RU.

You were crowing about SU winning NIT games at home as some sort of additional proof of the BE's superiority, now SU loses at home to a mid major and the you throw those results away.

I'd take those 5 teams you named over Oregon State in a game anytime.

You keep using the word crowing like it's going out of style, get a thesaurus. I never did any of the like about Syracuse. I said they were playing well in the NIT. That's it. Nothing else. Yes it was in support of my Big East claim, but once they lost I never tossed it out. Although you didn't want to use the NIT to support your position you had no problem using it to try and downplay mine.

I don't know why better teams didn't want to play the Big East in their NC schedule. I know lots of Big East schools play in pre-season tourneys and stuff and usually do well. Although early season play is not necessarily indicative of how good a team is. You cannot put extra weight on the non-conference schedule and completely dismiss the conference schedule. You show me a team that could play teams like Georgetown, Notre Dame, UConn, Marquette, Pitt, Nova, Cuse etc twice a season and get by relatively unscathed and I'll call you a liar. There isn't one. Especially when having to play in their gyms.

Bottom line when you look at the entire season and the entire conference there are stronger teams top to bottom in the Big East than any other conference.

[nyjunc]

I'd take those 5 teams you named over Oregon State in a game anytime.

You keep using the word crowing like it's going out of style, get a thesaurus. I never did any of the like about Syracuse. I said they were playing well in the NIT. That's it. Nothing else. Yes it was in support of my Big East claim, but once they lost I never tossed it out. Although you didn't want to use the NIT to support your position you had no problem using it to try and downplay mine.

I don't know why better teams didn't want to play the Big East in their NC schedule. I know lots of Big East schools play in pre-season tourneys and stuff and usually do well. Although early season play is not necessarily indicative of how good a team is. You cannot put extra weight on the non-conference schedule and completely dismiss the conference schedule. You show me a team that could play teams like Georgetown, Notre Dame, UConn, Marquette, Pitt, Nova, Cuse etc twice a season and get by relatively unscathed and I'll call you a liar. There isn't one. Especially when having to play in their gyms.

Bottom line when you look at the entire season and the entire conference there are stronger teams top to bottom in the Big East than any other conference.

So your big argument is now that the 5-6 bad teams in the BE are better than the one bad team in the pac 10?

You don't know why better teams didn't want to play the BE teams? It's the BE teams that are scheduling these weak scheds, you think it's b/c teams are afraid to play them???? Come on.

Why would someone place more emphasis on the conf sched than the non conf when clearly alot of BE teams are fattening their records against the bottom half of the BE.

-GU played 1 tough non-conf game and got blown out by Memphis

-UL was banged up but they lost to BYU, Purdue and Dayton.

-ND lost to the 4th worst team in the ACC(Ga tech) and to Baylor. They had 1 quality non-conf win over K State.

-UConn lost to Gonzaga & Memphis while their best non-conf win was over the 4th worst team in the ACC at home.

-WVU lost to Oklahoma and UT(although the UT game was close) and their best non-conf win was over Winthrop.

-Marquette lost to duke and beat Wisconsin. The ONLY BE team to do well in the non-conf against big time teams.

-Pitt beat duke but got humiliated by Dayton by 25.

-Villanova lost to the worst team in the ACC(NC State).

There are only 4-5 quality non-conf wins for the entire conference. That's not good then miraculously these teams start to roll when they play BE teams. Why is that?

How are there stronger teams top to bottom in the BE than the Pac 10 and Big 12 when they are at least 5-6 bad teams in the BE? You want to say 1 through 8 then maybe I can agree but top to bottom it's not close.

[CrazyCarl40]

So your big argument is now that the 5-6 bad teams in the BE are better than the one bad team in the pac 10?

You don't know why better teams didn't want to play the BE teams? It's the BE teams that are scheduling these weak scheds, you think it's b/c teams are afraid to play them???? Come on.

Why would someone place more emphasis on the conf sched than the non conf when clearly alot of BE teams are fattening their records against the bottom half of the BE.

-GU played 1 tough non-conf game and got blown out by Memphis

-UL was banged up but they lost to BYU, Purdue and Dayton.

-ND lost to the 4th worst team in the ACC(Ga tech) and to Baylor. They had 1 quality non-conf win over K State.

-UConn lost to Gonzaga & Memphis while their best non-conf win was over the 4th worst team in the ACC at home.

-WVU lost to Oklahoma and UT(although the UT game was close) and their best non-conf win was over Winthrop.

-Marquette lost to duke and beat Wisconsin. The ONLY BE team to do well in the non-conf against big time teams.

-Pitt beat duke but got humiliated by Dayton by 25.

-Villanova lost to the worst team in the ACC(NC State).

There are only 4-5 quality non-conf wins for the entire conference. That's not good then miraculously these teams start to roll when they play BE teams. Why is that?

How are there stronger teams top to bottom in the BE than the Pac 10 and Big 12 when they are at least 5-6 bad teams in the BE? You want to say 1 through 8 then maybe I can agree but top to bottom it's not close.

Again, the non-conference schedule is not the end-all be all. Teams in the beginning of the season are just beginning to gel. Most of the time it is how you finish, not how you start. I guarantee if ND plays Baylor or Tech later in the season they beat them both. You continuously want to tout the non-conference schedule, but every team (except for the elite) has a bad loss here or there, especially early in the season.

And of course the Big East is going the have a few more "bad" teams, because they are the biggest conference in the nation. 1-9 in the Big East is better than any 1-9 in any other conference. Period. After that it's all a wash.

[nyjunc]

Again, the non-conference schedule is not the end-all be all. Teams in the beginning of the season are just beginning to gel. Most of the time it is how you finish, not how you start. I guarantee if ND plays Baylor or Tech later in the season they beat them both. You continuously want to tout the non-conference schedule, but every team (except for the elite) has a bad loss here or there, especially early in the season.

And of course the Big East is going the have a few more "bad" teams, because they are the biggest conference in the nation. 1-9 in the Big East is better than any 1-9 in any other conference. Period. After that it's all a wash.

So we should throw out the non-conf and just concentrate on ND beating up the bottom half of the BE? That shows us more? You can say ND would beat baylor or Ga tech but I could say I Clemson plays 'Nova again they'd beat them. Clemson is better than 'Nova but 'Nova beat them in that particular game. 1-9 the BE is now best? so Su gets thrown into the mix, the same SU that lost to 3 A10 teams at HOME and none of those A10 teams made the NCAAs. You can argue the top half all you want but when you have so many easy wins it negates the difficulties of the top half b/c you know you always have wins in your back pocket which is something most conferences do not have- at least in the #s the BE has.

[SouthernJet]

if u take 1 to 8 , BE may be good this year,,

but top to bottom , no way,,thats the problem, u have 8 team, 10 team, 16 team conferences,,hard to decide whi is best,,thats why RPI is only mathmatical way to look at WHOLE conference,,and in that respect,,BE is 4th /5th in most RPI by conference ratings...remember, the yare counting all teams in conf RPI, so in tah trespect u get burned by many bottom feeders..

http://www.kenpom.com/confrank.php

If u took top 8 teams in BE and top 8 in ACC and made a 16 team conference you would see totally different results ..

IMHO the 16 team conference helps the BE gets teams in tourney..top feed off bottom,,more bottom feeders..

but top teams in all conferences are excellent,,several teams in BE had a good year..

[CrazyCarl40]

So we should throw out the non-conf and just concentrate on ND beating up the bottom half of the BE? That shows us more? You can say ND would beat baylor or Ga tech but I could say I Clemson plays 'Nova again they'd beat them. Clemson is better than 'Nova but 'Nova beat them in that particular game. 1-9 the BE is now best? so Su gets thrown into the mix, the same SU that lost to 3 A10 teams at HOME and none of those A10 teams made the NCAAs. You can argue the top half all you want but when you have so many easy wins it negates the difficulties of the top half b/c you know you always have wins in your back pocket which is something most conferences do not have- at least in the #s the BE has.

I agree. Clemson probably beats Nova more times out of ten than vice versa. ND didn't just beat up on the bottom half. They beat Nova, Marquette, UConn, Pitt, took Louisville to the wire, etc. I am not saying ignore the Non conference schedule, I am just saying that it holds less weight because it happened earlier in the season. SU is tossed in there because as the 9th best team in the Big East they probably be top half of most major conferences out there. I don't even like to argue SU because injuries played a big part in their season.

SJ- the RPI is a joke, and everyone knows it. Do they even look at RPI when they look at teams for the Tourney?

[SouthernJet]

I agree. Clemson probably beats Nova more times out of ten than vice versa. ND didn't just beat up on the bottom half. They beat Nova, Marquette, UConn, Pitt, took Louisville to the wire, etc. I am not saying ignore the Non conference schedule, I am just saying that it holds less weight because it happened earlier in the season. SU is tossed in there because as the 9th best team in the Big East they probably be top half of most major conferences out there. I don't even like to argue SU because injuries played a big part in their season.

SJ- the RPI is a joke, and everyone knows it. Do they even look at RPI when they look at teams for the Tourney?

Its the only thing we have to look at it,,it does take into account ALL teams in league,,

rpi tuf for 1 t o1 comparison,,but looking at a league its pretty good,,it shows the weaknesses of a huge league overall,,the acc suffered with expansion also..

[Jetsfan80]

SJ- the RPI is a joke, and everyone knows it. Do they even look at RPI when they look at teams for the Tourney?

Sigh. It's not the RPI that's a joke. It's the people who say its a joke that's a joke. The RPI is simply a TOOL for observers to use when judging teams, its not the be all and end all. The beauty of the RPI is that the subjective aspects (human polls, expert opinions, exposure, etc.) get left out of the picture, leaving only raw numbers (which generally tell the truth more often than not). It's a purely mathematical snapshot at each team's performance. It was never meant to be the only criteria for who gets into the dance and who gets left out.

[CrazyCarl40]

Sigh. It's not the RPI that's a joke. It's the people who say its a joke that's a joke. The RPI is simply a TOOL for observers to use when judging teams, its not the be all and end all. The beauty of the RPI is that the subjective aspects (human polls, expert opinions, exposure, etc.) get left out of the picture, leaving only raw numbers (which generally tell the truth more often than not). It's a purely mathematical snapshot at each team's performance. It was never meant to be the only criteria for who gets into the dance and who gets left out.

So I am a joke because I don't like the reliance to judge teams on the RPI?

I agree that it is better than the BCS, which is what I think you were referencing, but the numbers they use are a little screwy to me. Especially your opponent's opponent's winning percentage. Basically, I feel you should look at the team look at who they played and who they beat, where they beat, where they lost, was it an early season loss was it a late season trend, and then decide did they do enough to make the field of 65. Not should we put this team in because this number says their opponent's opponent didn't do well enough.

[BleedinGreenNC]

What happened to Villanova?

[BleedinGreenNC]

The Big East is the best conference. You have to look at the conferences as a whole entity and using the NCAA tourney as a measuring stick is kind of short-sighted. Team for the team the Big East matches up well against any of the other power conferences.

?

[nyjunc]

Life is back to normal w/ an ACC team in the FF and a no BE teams in the FF.