(12-10-2017 11:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me most impressive for the Big East has been the performance vs the 7 multi bid conferences that will get almost every single at large spot.... going into last week 35/36 projected...
#1 ACC 28-17
#2 Big East 21-14
#3 Big 12 18-13
#4 AAC 16-16
#5 SEC 18-22
#6 Pac 12 13-19
#7 Big Ten 17-30
(oh and before folks complain about the AAC being included, know that if you take the AAC out, the Big East becomes #3 behind the Big 12).

The problem that the Big East has though IMO is that the teams in the 5-8 range aren't set up for tourney possibilities. Only 5 teams right now could finish 9-9 in conference play and feel safe about getting in the tourney- Nova, Xavier, Seton Hall, Creighton, and Butler. St John's depends on who they beat. Providence and Marquette aren't likely at all. And 8-10 you can take out Creighton and Butler as well. (and Georgetown really needs at least 10 or 11 wins to get in with their OOC schedule). This year really looks like it'll be better record wise for the conference, fewer bids, but better bids in the tourney.

So, let me get this straight: last year, your argument was that - despite the league getting 7 bids into the NCAA Tournament - the Big East was still overrated because a majority of the bids were not high and it was unlikely they would advance far into the tournament. This year, you are critiquing the Big East for only having five bids, but still acknowledge that the bids will be high.



It's reasons like this why posters get so frustrated with your logic. Not only are you literally looking for ways to critique and attack the conference - which is truly just bizarre - you are arguing two sides of the same coin in your arguments against the Big East.