So was it a success or not? I don't mean on the court (though I’m glad we won 3-1). I saw a lot of empty seats at the Wachovia Center last night…but the SEC teams were kind of a bore (BE through out some of their best in ‘Nova, G’Town , WVU and an improved Providence).

It looks like this will continue to be only a 4-game event each season…with each BE team getting to play once in the 4-year agreement. I would like to see more games, such as the ACC/Big Ten Challenge…but I guess this keeps things more equal.

With ‘Nova, Georgetown, WVU and Providence done, who plays next year…probably a balance, maybe Pitt, USF, Uconn and Cincinatti?

I like this idea a lot and I hope it continues to grow and be successful…plus it’s great for the football schools to help develop better relationships with the SEC for football scheduling.

i enjoyed the series, other than wvu/auburn they were down to the wire. but next year they need to start throwing out the big games. we need a uconn-kentucky, or syracuse/florida type matchup that would get huge ratings.

Orange Eagles Wrote:So was it a success or not? I don't mean on the court (though I’m glad we won 3-1). I saw a lot of empty seats at the Wachovia Center last night…but the SEC teams were kind of a bore (BE through out some of their best in ‘Nova, G’Town , WVU and an improved Providence).

It looks like this will continue to be only a 4-game event each season…with each BE team getting to play once in the 4-year agreement. I would like to see more games, such as the ACC/Big Ten Challenge…but I guess this keeps things more equal.

With ‘Nova, Georgetown, WVU and Providence done, who plays next year…probably a balance, maybe Pitt, USF, Uconn and Cincinatti?

I like this idea a lot and I hope it continues to grow and be successful…plus it’s great for the football schools to help develop better relationships with the SEC for football scheduling.

My gut reaction is 'No'.

Three of the four games were very entertaining and well-played, but from a national interest perspective I doubt the series garnered much discussion.

I prefer the set-up of the other Challenges.

Let's face it, the SEC has only a few strong national programs that will attract fans and interest beyond their region to 'neutral sites'. In my mind, these are currently Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee.

It was smart to have Alabama and Auburn play in Birmingham, and the Big East gave them one great team in Georgetown and one curiousity/interest laden team in West Virginia team that won the NIT last year, had nice tourney runs the two years prior and is now coached by Huggins.

But quite bluntly, LSU and South Carolina simply were not going to attract fans in Philadelphia and neither was Providence. The Big East should have gotten Syracuse, Louisville or UConn to be the other representative once they realized the SEC was sending such unattractive teams.

Just my initial thoughts.

Cheers,
Neil

The Big East is one of the strongest basketball league in the BCS much stronger than SEC and yet we don’t get to call the shot.

I can't believe VIllanova came back last night. Unbelievable win for them.

How do they decide which teams are a part of this each year, by the way?

If we are going to stay with 16 teams for the long haul, I would not mind signing a six-year contract that guarantees each Big East team and each SEC team an equal number of appearances relative to their respective conference size.

SEC ... 12x4=48 (8 games annually x 6 years = 48) ... Each team gets 4 appearances.
BEC ... 16x3=48 (8 games annually x 6 years = 48) ... Each team gets 3 appearances.

This would also work out fine if we ever expanded to 18 teams by sticking with a six-year contract but proportionally increasing the number of games. The SEC would end up with every team playing while the Big East would still rotate.

SEC ... 12x6=72 (12 games annually x 6 years = 72) ... Each team has 6 appearances.
BEC ... 18x4=72 (12 games annually x 6 years = 72) ... Each team has 4 appearances.

omnicarrier Wrote:

Orange Eagles Wrote:So was it a success or not? I don't mean on the court (though I’m glad we won 3-1). I saw a lot of empty seats at the Wachovia Center last night…but the SEC teams were kind of a bore (BE through out some of their best in ‘Nova, G’Town , WVU and an improved Providence).

It looks like this will continue to be only a 4-game event each season…with each BE team getting to play once in the 4-year agreement. I would like to see more games, such as the ACC/Big Ten Challenge…but I guess this keeps things more equal.

With ‘Nova, Georgetown, WVU and Providence done, who plays next year…probably a balance, maybe Pitt, USF, Uconn and Cincinatti?

I like this idea a lot and I hope it continues to grow and be successful…plus it’s great for the football schools to help develop better relationships with the SEC for football scheduling.

My gut reaction is 'No'.

Three of the four games were very entertaining and well-played, but from a national interest perspective I doubt the series garnered much discussion.

I prefer the set-up of the other Challenges.

Let's face it, the SEC has only a few strong national programs that will attract fans and interest beyond their region to 'neutral sites'. In my mind, these are currently Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee.

It was smart to have Alabama and Auburn play in Birmingham, and the Big East gave them one great team in Georgetown and one curiousity/interest laden team in West Virginia team that won the NIT last year, had nice tourney runs the two years prior and is now coached by Huggins.

But quite bluntly, LSU and South Carolina simply were not going to attract fans in Philadelphia and neither was Providence. The Big East should have gotten Syracuse, Louisville or UConn to be the other representative once they realized the SEC was sending such unattractive teams.

Just my initial thoughts.

Cheers,
Neil

-- I agree completely about sending PC to Philly. Even Rutgers would have been a better choice/brought more fans

Jackson