Hey guys, I was just wondering if you guys would be in support of doing a challenge series with AAC? Our basketball league is getting stronger everyday and now that we have WSU. It opens new doors

nope

Games against UCONN and Cincy are always fun, and now that Wichita is there that would be a good game. But I wouldn't be in favor of a challenge. Still too much dead wood in the conference and even teams that were strong in their old conferences, like Memphis and Temple, now seem to be withering on the vine. It's just too much risk and way too little reward for a challenge. But UCONN games against any of us would be welcome at any time.

UConn and Cincinnati - yes. Everyone else? No way.

There's just nothing to gain or add on the Big East's side of things. If we win, it is to be expected. If we lose, we lose perception to the American, and lose to basketball programs that we, frankly, shouldn't. The AAC should schedule something with the A-10. If they do, and win many of those games, then they separate themselves from the A-10 and establish themselves as the 7th best conference, IMO.

The Big East should try and get another scheduling alliance with the PAC-12 to go with our Gavitt Games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpax0MA-a1s

ah, the memories

(04-09-2017 06:54 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpax0MA-a1s

ah, the memories

Lol at ESPN's attempt years ago at creating the perception that the Big East died, and that the tournament would never be again held at Madison Square Garden. Their loss. The Big East is still averaging nearly 20k per Big East Tournament game at the Garden. If they thought the league would not be as successful, or as relevant, or as nationally known, they were very, very wrong.

I'm sorry but to act like the New Big East is like the Old Big East is just wrong. The Old Big East was the best basketball conference quite possibly EVER- when it was a 15/16 team conference. 7 Final 4 teams in 7 teams with 2 champions in there(and really 3 in 8 given UConn won the following year). Tourney record 11 teams 1 year. That Big East did die.

And this Big East has not been as successful or as relevant, or as nationally known, as that Big East was. I know that riles some folks up- but that's reality. Realistically nothing will compare to what the Big East those 7 years did. I mean, the ACC of the last few years doesn't compare to that even- as much as they would want to make it seem.

(04-10-2017 11:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry but to act like the New Big East is like the Old Big East is just wrong. The Old Big East was the best basketball conference quite possibly EVER- when it was a 15/16 team conference. 7 Final 4 teams in 7 teams with 2 champions in there(and really 3 in 8 given UConn won the following year). Tourney record 11 teams 1 year. That Big East did die.

And this Big East has not been as successful or as relevant, or as nationally known, as that Big East was. I know that riles some folks up- but that's reality. Realistically nothing will compare to what the Big East those 7 years did. I mean, the ACC of the last few years doesn't compare to that even- as much as they would want to make it seem.

I never said the current incarnation of the Big East was the same as the old one, nor did I ever compare the results of today against those from 2005-2013.

ESPN, with this video from 2013 as example, attempted to spread the narrative that the Big East, which was to become part of Fox, was no more and would cease to exist. Just because ESPN didn't own the content anymore, doesn't mean the the strong brand and reputation of the conference would fail to continue.

That version of the Big East was and is no more. The problem is that folks want to act like the Big East never changed at all. 2013 was the end of a great era- one of the best conferences ever. The current Big East is a great brand and has a good reputation. But it's not the same at all whatsoever.

And you yourself said that "If they thought the league would not be as successful, or as relevant, or as nationally known, they were very, very wrong. " If that's not comparing the results of today vs those from 2005-13, then what the hell is it? This version is not as successful or relevant or nationally known as it was before.

(04-10-2017 11:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry but to act like the New Big East is like the Old Big East is just wrong. The Old Big East was the best basketball conference quite possibly EVER- when it was a 15/16 team conference. 7 Final 4 teams in 7 teams with 2 champions in there(and really 3 in 8 given UConn won the following year). Tourney record 11 teams 1 year. That Big East did die.

And this Big East has not been as successful or as relevant, or as nationally known, as that Big East was. I know that riles some folks up- but that's reality. Realistically nothing will compare to what the Big East those 7 years did. I mean, the ACC of the last few years doesn't compare to that even- as much as they would want to make it seem.

Right Stever, and it also riles some folks up, like yourself and a couple other notorious AAC fanboys, that you've been unable to write the obituary yet. No one claims the current BE is as strong as the older one. It clearly was the best college basketball league of all time and had left the ACC in the dust. Nobody is making that claim today. Still, for some reason, you like to portray all BE fans as being stuck in 2011, even though you know that's not the case. What we do claim today, is that we've earned our spot and acknowledgement to be part of what is now considered the P6 in basketball. You talk about the past BE receiving 11 bids to the dance. Well that represented 69% of the league, this years 7 bids represented 70%. It may be years before we see any conference match that number again. Just because the league isn't as top heavy as it once was doesn't mean it's not good.

It is a little old how however, that when someone takes pride in the leagues performance, you and others try to beat them down by saying the league isn't as powerful as it once was. It may not be as powerful, but the 7 bids, sold out MSG BET games, and the eye popping OOC record against the other P6 teams, say the league is still pretty darn good, and way ahead of most others. Wouldn't you agree?

(04-10-2017 05:56 PM)hoops22 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry but to act like the New Big East is like the Old Big East is just wrong. The Old Big East was the best basketball conference quite possibly EVER- when it was a 15/16 team conference. 7 Final 4 teams in 7 teams with 2 champions in there(and really 3 in 8 given UConn won the following year). Tourney record 11 teams 1 year. That Big East did die.

And this Big East has not been as successful or as relevant, or as nationally known, as that Big East was. I know that riles some folks up- but that's reality. Realistically nothing will compare to what the Big East those 7 years did. I mean, the ACC of the last few years doesn't compare to that even- as much as they would want to make it seem.

Right Stever, and it also riles some folks up, like yourself and a couple other notorious AAC fanboys, that you've been unable to write the obituary yet. No one claims the current BE is as strong as the older one. It clearly was the best college basketball league of all time and had left the ACC in the dust. Nobody is making that claim today. Still, for some reason, you like to portray all BE fans as being stuck in 2011, even though you know that's not the case. What we do claim today, is that we've earned our spot and acknowledgement to be part of what is now considered the P6 in basketball. You talk about the past BE receiving 11 bids to the dance. Well that represented 69% of the league, this years 7 bids represented 70%. It may be years before we see any conference match that number again. Just because the league isn't as top heavy as it once was doesn't mean it's not good.

It is a little old how however, that when someone takes pride in the leagues performance, you and others try to beat them down by saying the league isn't as powerful as it once was. It may not be as powerful, but the 7 bids, sold out MSG BET games, and the eye popping OOC record against the other P6 teams, say the league is still pretty darn good, and way ahead of most others. Wouldn't you agree?

The thing is and you know it, there are some that have said that the new big east hasn't had any drop off at all whatsoever. And that's a joke.

The New Big East is a good conference, a very good conference. But what 2013 was- it was the end of an era. Some folks want to act like this is just a continuation of the old Big East, and that's a joke. The 2013 Big East is dead. I think you talk to folks that were in the league before the split would say just that.

As far as stuff like the OOC record vs the other P6 teams. So overrated. I mean take Butler. Their win over Cincy this year was better than ANY OOC win for them outside of the game vs Arizona. Bigger than Vandy, Utah, or Indiana. Labels are so idiotic it's not funny.

It's one thing to take pride in the leagues performance. But when folks say stuff like "If they thought the league would not be as successful, or as relevant, or as nationally known, they were very, very wrong. " that's just wrong. NOTHING would compare to that.

(04-10-2017 06:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 05:56 PM)hoops22 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry but to act like the New Big East is like the Old Big East is just wrong. The Old Big East was the best basketball conference quite possibly EVER- when it was a 15/16 team conference. 7 Final 4 teams in 7 teams with 2 champions in there(and really 3 in 8 given UConn won the following year). Tourney record 11 teams 1 year. That Big East did die.

And this Big East has not been as successful or as relevant, or as nationally known, as that Big East was. I know that riles some folks up- but that's reality. Realistically nothing will compare to what the Big East those 7 years did. I mean, the ACC of the last few years doesn't compare to that even- as much as they would want to make it seem.

Right Stever, and it also riles some folks up, like yourself and a couple other notorious AAC fanboys, that you've been unable to write the obituary yet. No one claims the current BE is as strong as the older one. It clearly was the best college basketball league of all time and had left the ACC in the dust. Nobody is making that claim today. Still, for some reason, you like to portray all BE fans as being stuck in 2011, even though you know that's not the case. What we do claim today, is that we've earned our spot and acknowledgement to be part of what is now considered the P6 in basketball. You talk about the past BE receiving 11 bids to the dance. Well that represented 69% of the league, this years 7 bids represented 70%. It may be years before we see any conference match that number again. Just because the league isn't as top heavy as it once was doesn't mean it's not good.

It is a little old how however, that when someone takes pride in the leagues performance, you and others try to beat them down by saying the league isn't as powerful as it once was. It may not be as powerful, but the 7 bids, sold out MSG BET games, and the eye popping OOC record against the other P6 teams, say the league is still pretty darn good, and way ahead of most others. Wouldn't you agree?

The thing is and you know it, there are some that have said that the new big east hasn't had any drop off at all whatsoever. And that's a joke.

The New Big East is a good conference, a very good conference. But what 2013 was- it was the end of an era. Some folks want to act like this is just a continuation of the old Big East, and that's a joke. The 2013 Big East is dead. I think you talk to folks that were in the league before the split would say just that.

As far as stuff like the OOC record vs the other P6 teams. So overrated. I mean take Butler. Their win over Cincy this year was better than ANY OOC win for them outside of the game vs Arizona. Bigger than Vandy, Utah, or Indiana. Labels are so idiotic it's not funny.

It's one thing to take pride in the leagues performance. But when folks say stuff like "If they thought the league would not be as successful, or as relevant, or as nationally known, they were very, very wrong. " that's just wrong. NOTHING would compare to that.

2013 was the end of an era. Syracuse has struggled in the ACC, as has Pittsburgh. UConn, while they won the 2014 National Championship, really struggled in the American last year, and appears it will do so again next year. Seton Hall and Providence have used the reorganization of the conference to elevate their basketball programs. Butler, Creighton and Xavier have become three of the top programs in the conference. And, most importantly, Villanova won a national championship last year.

I realize you don't place a high value on OOC records vs. the P5, but the reality is that it is important - for both ranking and perception purposes. You like to argue that it shouldn't be that important because Big East teams won a lot of games by a few points, and that the American lost a lot of games by a few points, and that it could have been radically different - but guess what? That's not what happened. The games were decided by the way they were, which was clearly in the Big East's favor.

Now, having said that, if Watson and Sumner don't get injured, it is likely that Providence and Marquette don't get into the tournament, and the Big East gets just 5 teams in. Once again, what happened happened - and it was beneficial to the Big East.

To concede, the Big East today is not as strong as the Big East of 2005-2013. However, you are looking at different programs and a completely different number of teams. Both conferences get over half of its team in the tournament, and both conferences provide teams with deep threats in the tournament. The heart and purpose of the Big East remains the same: elite college basketball that is at the top around the country.

You're right I don't place a lot of value on OOC records vs P5. It's utterly meaningless. Like I said, for Butler, their win over Cincy was their 2nd best win of the OOC season. Labels in basketball are meaningless. I mean according to some Big East Fans, Xavier's win over Missouri meant more to the Big East than Butler's win over Cincy. And that's ignorant.

Guys, i was just trying to bring back the great moments that all our teams had in the old big east not start an argument lol.

Even if realignment did not occur, the old Big East probably wasn't going to be as good going forward with Hall of fame coaches Jim Calhoun (already retired), Jim Boeheim and Rich Pitino nearing retirement.

(04-11-2017 08:40 AM)kmdhoya Wrote:  Even if realignment did not occur, the old Big East probably wasn't going to be as good going forward with Hall of fame coaches Jim Calhoun (already retired), Jim Boeheim and Rich Pitino nearing retirement.

I don't know about that. I mean, Providence and Seton Hall had hired their coaches prior to the realignment. So I think they would have improved some. Buzz at Marquette would have likely stayed(though I think Marquette fans say expect the unexpected from him). And Nova would have still had the same group- and probably would have been more diversely battle tested in the conference play so maybe made more hay in the NCAA tourney. The big questions would have been St John's, UConn, and Georgetown. And you still would have had the solid programs like WVU and Cincy around.

(04-11-2017 08:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 08:40 AM)kmdhoya Wrote:  Even if realignment did not occur, the old Big East probably wasn't going to be as good going forward with Hall of fame coaches Jim Calhoun (already retired), Jim Boeheim and Rich Pitino nearing retirement.

I don't know about that. I mean, Providence and Seton Hall had hired their coaches prior to the realignment. So I think they would have improved some. Buzz at Marquette would have likely stayed(though I think Marquette fans say expect the unexpected from him). And Nova would have still had the same group- and probably would have been more diversely battle tested in the conference play so maybe made more hay in the NCAA tourney. The big questions would have been St John's, UConn, and Georgetown. And you still would have had the solid programs like WVU and Cincy around.

I would absolutely argue that Buzz would not have stayed. Outside of his shtick about saying the Power 5 would break away in basketball as well, after going to VT, Marquette got a new President and a new AD that were not as... tolerant, I would say, with his personality. Buzz is a phenomenal basketball coach, but he pushed the envelope with his basketball program on/off the court. Also, consistently "interviewing" with other programs in the offseason turned a lot of people off (I immediately think of him interviewing with Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech, SMU, Oklahoma, and there are a few others I can't recall).

So looking this year- would have had 8 teams make the tourney.
Nova 1 seed
Louisville 2 seed
WVU 4 seed
Notre Dame 5 seed
Cincy 6 seed
Seton Hall 9 seed
Marquette 10 seed
Providence 11 seed

ND has kind of blossomed since joining the ACC.

I think the key would have been these next few years with guys like Pitino and Boeheim nearing retirement.

(04-11-2017 08:40 AM)kmdhoya Wrote:  Even if realignment did not occur, the old Big East probably wasn't going to be as good going forward with Hall of fame coaches Jim Calhoun (already retired), Jim Boeheim and Rich Pitino nearing retirement.

Part of the success of the old Big East was having the core Northeast teams using the regionality of the conference to attract top recruits even in down years. You had Syracuse, UConn, Villanova, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, St. Johns, Providence, Rutgers, Seton Hall and (I'd argue) Notre Dame all with very strong presences in the Northeast. Even with a coaching staff turnover, or a year where a program struggled, you could go to recruits and say, "Look at all the top programs you can play against in huge arenas on ESPN!"

Toss in the strong "outside core" of Louisville, West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Marquette, who all weren't Northeastern focused, but still incredibly strong basketball programs, and you had the best basketball conference in the country.

Now, unfortunately, you have Syracuse/Pittsburgh/Notre Dame/Louisville in the ACC, hoping to plant a flag in the Northeast (unsuccessfully according to Boeheim). You have West Virginia traveling to Texas and Oklahoma for conference road games. UConn is going to Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and, now, Kansas, for road games. The C7 maintained the East Coast presence with the reorganized Big East - but there is no doubt that it isn't the same.

It's a shame that football tore apart the old conference, as it was truly a special collection of basketball programs and an exciting competitive environment night-in and night-out.

So do you think Georgetown/JT3 would have imploded without the conference realignment? or would with the old league Georgetown gets in the tourney in 14 for sure and then maybe even 16 and things are different with them?