Here are the current standings, with tied teams listed in order of current tiebreakers for the BET. RPI numbers are in ().

12-2 Pittsburgh (#8)
10-4 Notre Dame (#11)
10-5 Georgetown (#5)
9-5 Villanova (#24)
9-5 Louisville (#25)
9-5 St John's (#12)
9-6 Syracuse (#22)
8-6 West Virginia (#18)
8-6 Connecticut (#15)
8-6 Cincinnati (#39)
7-7 Marquette (#68)
5-10 Seton Hall
4-10 Rutgers
3-11 Providence
2-13 South Florida
1-13 DePaul

For the BET, Pitt and ND fell back to the back today, but the Panthers are still in good shape to win the league. St John's may be looking at a double bye, considering 3 of their last 4 are against Seton Hall, USF, and DePaul.

For the NCAA, we now appear to have 9 locks. Cincy had a big 2-0 week to improve their chances greatly. Despite the disagreement of UC fans earlier in the week, even after their win tonight, I think the Bearcats still need two more wins somewhere, whether in their last 4 or up in MSG.

I think Marquette is better than other .500 Big 6 teams such as Illinois, Boston College, & Baylor, but their RPI is poor. They need to finish 3-1 or else split the last 4 and make noise in the Garden.

That's pretty much how I see it as well, CC. WVU most likely punched their ticket yesterday. But UC and Marquette still have some work to do...

(02-20-2011 01:30 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  For the NCAA, we now appear to have 9 locks. Cincy had a big 2-0 week to improve their chances greatly. Despite the disagreement of UC fans earlier in the week, even after their win tonight, I think the Bearcats still need two more wins somewhere, whether in their last 4 or up in MSG.

I think Marquette is better than other .500 Big 6 teams such as Illinois, Boston College, & Baylor, but their RPI is poor. They need to finish 3-1 or else split the last 4 and make noise in the Garden.

Yes, Cincy is now on the "probably in" side of the bubble. But Marquette is out as of now. I don't think they can afford two more losses, probably one at most.

As for Pitt "winning the league"? Sorry, but the league is won at MSG and nowhere else.

(02-20-2011 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As for Pitt "winning the league"? Sorry, but the league is won at MSG and nowhere else.

Several of you got into that in another thread earlier, but I disagree. Winning a 18 game schedule in this league is just as impressive as winning 3 straight, and the regular season champ is every bit the equal. I say that with no bias as to UofL performance, as the Cards have won 1 of each in the league, and that was very impressively in the same seaon.

I can see your point, CC. But frankly, as strong as The BEast has been over the last few years, unless your team is simply so dominant that it's a clear favorite, I think the regular season BEast champion is more a matter of luck than anything else at the moment. So is The BEast Tournament. But IMO having good luck when all the marbles are on the line counts for more...

If the BE can’t get 11 into the tournament it would be for lack of merit rather the politic wouldn’t let so many teams from one conference. They better not screw the BE. They deserve to be in there.

(02-20-2011 12:59 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Winning a 18 game schedule in this league is just as impressive as winning 3 straight, and the regular season champ is every bit the equal.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about what they think is impressive, but your view also may reflect some lack of understanding on the part of a late-comer to the conference. In the Big East, the tournament championship has always been more prestigious than the regular season champion, and is regarded as the true Big East Champion.

That's why the trophy for the regular season says "2009-2010 men's regular season champion", whereas the tournament trophy says "2010 men's basketball champion". Period, no qualifiers.

Maybe in C-USA or other conferences UofL was once a member of, the regular season was regarded as equal or even superior, but not in the Big East ..

Their's no lack of understanding at all, despite the fact that I would have bet $100 that CUSA was going to be included in the response to my post. As you said, different opinions are allowed, but I fully dispute the inference that my opinion is incorrect. Winning 3 in 3 is no more impressive than taking this meat grinder of a league over 18. Maybe it was 10 or 15 years ago, but not now.

CC, it takes a bit of luck to win The BEast - regular season or the tournament. But IMO, it counts for more when it's win or else...

But as you say, it's merely my opinion. You have yours, and I doubt it will change...

(02-20-2011 03:52 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Their's no lack of understanding at all, despite the fact that I would have bet $100 that CUSA was going to be included in the response to my post.

Not meant to disparage C-USA (remember, USF was in some of those same conferences with you), but just to try and understand where you are coming from - a history of conferences (Metro, C-USA at least) where the tournament isn't such a big deal.

Quote:As you said, different opinions are allowed, but I fully dispute the inference that my opinion is incorrect. Winning 3 in 3 is no more impressive than taking this meat grinder of a league over 18. Maybe it was 10 or 15 years ago, but not now.

I'm not disputing your characterization of winning the regular season as just as "impressive" as winning the tournament. Not because i necessarily agree, but just because it isn't germane to the issue. Balancing a basketball on one's nose for 10 straight hours might be more impressive than both.

But your or my perceptions of impressiveness have nothing to do with whether the Big East itself regards one as more prestigious and important than the other. It does - the tournament is regarded as more important, as the bigger title, whether you or i like it or not.

(02-20-2011 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2011 03:52 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Their's no lack of understanding at all, despite the fact that I would have bet $100 that CUSA was going to be included in the response to my post.

Not meant to disparage C-USA (remember, USF was in some of those same conferences with you), but just to try and understand where you are coming from - a history of conferences (Metro, C-USA at least) where the tournament isn't such a big deal.

Quote:As you said, different opinions are allowed, but I fully dispute the inference that my opinion is incorrect. Winning 3 in 3 is no more impressive than taking this meat grinder of a league over 18. Maybe it was 10 or 15 years ago, but not now.

I'm not disputing your characterization of winning the regular season as just as "impressive" as winning the tournament. Not because i necessarily agree, but just because it isn't germane to the issue. Balancing a basketball on one's nose for 10 straight hours might be more impressive than both.

But your or my perceptions of impressiveness have nothing to do with whether the Big East itself regards one as more prestigious and important than the other. It does - the tournament is regarded as more important, as the bigger title, whether you or i like it or not.

If you came from CUSA you spent most of the time watching Cincinnati win Conference Titles

There are more HOF quality coaches in The BEast than there were in CUSA too. IMO Huggs was the only one in CUSA at that time...

bit - Pitino was in C-USA.

I stand corrected. But IMO Huggs is far superior...

(02-20-2011 07:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I stand corrected. But IMO Huggs is far superior...

Come on bit, that's the WVU homer in you coming out (as if it's ever really hidden, LOL). Pitino's record is clearly better.

(02-20-2011 08:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2011 07:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I stand corrected. But IMO Huggs is far superior...

Come on bit, that's the WVU homer in you coming out (as if it's ever really hidden, LOL). Pitino's record is clearly better.

Pitino is the better recruiter, Huggins in the better coach. Give each coach the other's recruits and Huggins wins hands down, IMO.

(02-20-2011 08:02 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-20-2011 08:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2011 07:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I stand corrected. But IMO Huggs is far superior...

Come on bit, that's the WVU homer in you coming out (as if it's ever really hidden, LOL). Pitino's record is clearly better.

Pitino is the better recruiter, Huggins in the better coach. Give each coach the other's recruits and Huggins wins hands down, IMO.

I don't know why you think Huggs is a better game-day coach, but in any event, recruiting is a big part of coaching. As John Wooden said, "you can't win without good players".

Actually, you can win with average players who aren't great. John Beilein did it with regularity in Morgantown. Not one single player on his teams at WVU are in the NBA...

(02-20-2011 10:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Actually, you can win with average players who aren't great. John Beilein did it with regularity in Morgantown. Not one single player on his teams at WVU are in the NBA...

I'm speculating, but i think Wooden was talking about winning big titles. For that, it helps to have Lew Alcindor on your side ...

I've also heard people say that a really good coach can beat you with his players - or yours...