http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-...basketball
Need to be an Insider to read the entire article, but the first part can be seen by even non-Insiders:
You can make a case that the Big Ten has been more prestigious than successful in college basketball over the past 15 years. It is well known, for example, that the league hasn't won a national title since Michigan State's championship in 1999-2000.
Ultimately the author gives the edge to the ACC but thinks the addition of Maryland and Rutgers (mainly for recruiting, not on the court results in the latter case) allows the BiG to continue its bb rivalry with the ACC and if they start to win championships, they may get on equal footing.
Cheers,
Neil
No, and it is not closes. Just as Florida State winning the football national championship doesn't make the ACC the equal of the SEC, the Big Ten having a few good years after many down years does not make it the ACC's equal in men's basketball.
At its apex, the Big East was better than both of them.
Like with the SEC rise of the last decade, the Big Ten's rise wasnt due to expansion but improvement in long time programs.
I think the Big Ten had been nugging itself the top, but relignment helps the ACC more. The Big Ten rarely won a national title, but was always extremely deep at top and after years of not beating the ACC in the Big Ten/ACC Tournament was on a run.
The additions though of Louiville/Pitt/Syracuse/Notre Dame (-Maryland) beat Maryland/Rutgers/Nebraska though and I think this keeps the ACC a bit stronger.
The Big East definitely had more depth than the other two. However, when you combine Louisville and Syracuse with UNC and Duke......it's over. You're talking about 4 of the top 9/10 programs of all time in the same conference.
(08-02-2014 06:37 PM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]Like with the SEC rise of the last decade, the Big Ten's rise wasnt due to expansion but improvement in long time programs.
I think the Big Ten had been nugging itself the top, but relignment helps the ACC more. The Big Ten rarely won a national title, but was always extremely deep at top and after years of not beating the ACC in the Big Ten/ACC Tournament was on a run.
The additions though of Louiville/Pitt/Syracuse/Notre Dame (-Maryland) beat Maryland/Rutgers/Nebraska though and I think this keeps the ACC a bit stronger.
I think the BiG was nudging up closer to the ACC, but both were behind the Big East. And now that the ACC has basically taken 4 of the top 5 or 6 bb programs in the Big East from 2009-2013 your comment about realignment helping the ACC more is spot on.
For me though, it's all about coaching. And right now the SEC basically has only two Top 25 bb coaches whereas the BiG and the ACC have multiple entries in that category.
Cheers,
Neil
This.
(08-02-2014 06:44 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote: [ -> ]The Big East definitely had more depth than the other two. However, when you combine Louisville and Syracuse with UNC and Duke......it's over. You're talking about 4 of the top 9/10 programs of all time in the same conference.
I agree with that too. I was just saying that over the past three decades or so, for the most part the Big East was top to bottom more often than not (not every year) the best men's basketball conference in America, IMO. To be honest, I don't even think it's debatable.
That said, I also agree that with the most recent conference shift, the paradigm has now completely shifted in the ACC's favor and that is likely a permanent change. The Big Ten can establish itself as a rock solid No. 2 but that is it's ceiling, IMO.
(08-02-2014 06:37 PM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]The additions though of Louiville/Pitt/Syracuse/Notre Dame (-Maryland) beat Maryland/Rutgers/Nebraska though and I think this keeps the ACC a bit stronger.
That's an understatement. Syracuse and Louisville spend their days in the top 25 while Pitt and ND are making regular appearances. In trade, the ACC loses Maryland, at best a middling school for a long time. The B1G gets Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska; said middling school and the latter two rarely showing signs of knowing what a basketball is. That's a pretty big "bit".
I have no issues with B1G hoops. They have a long tradition of good teams, great coaches. They are probably the clear #2 conference in hoops but let's not get carried away.
The irony is that the ACC will be making changes in the not too distant future and the marquee programs will all change coaches. Things can change.
I think the Big East was somewhat overrated. Don't get me wrong, it was good, but when you account for size (at 16 when the other major conferences were between 10-12), I don't think it really stood out as far and away the best conference over the past decade. It was some years, but not all and cases could be made for several conferences.
Edit: ACC is top basketball conference now. Big Ten is likely #2, but improvement at Nebraska (which has been getting better) and Penn State (which has no reason to be as bad as it has been) should help it some. Likely not enough to catch the ACC, but to close the gap at least.
Penn State is bad because it is in the middle of nowhere...the urban kids don't want to play in the sticks in front of JoeBots. PSU's ceiling as an occasional NCAA team...maybe a run to the Sweet 16 in a dream season.
(08-03-2014 12:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Penn State is bad because it is in the middle of nowhere...the urban kids don't want to play in the sticks in front of JoeBots. PSU's ceiling as an occasional NCAA team...maybe a run to the Sweet 16 in a dream season.
...Middle of nowhere, plays all of its games in a midwest conference that carries little cache with east coast recruits (a predicament that WVU now faces), and is a program that is treated as a second class citizen by its own athletic department. PSU hoops has major issues that it has to overcome on its own campus. It is a program that should be better, but they would need to go out and spend major money to lure a coach with major recruiting pull on the east coast, which they haven't shown any interest in doing. They need a pipeline into Philly or the beltway, which they've never been remotely able establish and there are a glut of much more high profile, successful programs, even those with membership in lesser conferences, surrounding them.
As far as the strategy to add Rutgers and Maryland for Eastern recruits, I can't foresee how Rutgers is going to allow anyone to make major inroads into the east for basketball recruiting. Rutgers is a perennial doormat playing in large high school gym; the only Big East team that didn't make the NCAA tournament over the past decade of the Big East's existence, it is simply another PSU in basketball. The only program in the B10 that really seems to carry any real cache in the east is Michigan. For as good and storied as MSU, Wiscy, OSU, and Indiana are, you seldom hear east coast kids talking about wanting to play for them and I don't know how that changes significantly in the future with the ACC, Big East, American, and A10 entrenched with higher profile programs along the East Coast, particularly considering 2/3rds of the eastern presence in the B10 are afterthoughts.
Maryland is another story as an established basketball program, and it will be interesting to see if there is a long term impact on its program, but I think they will be ok. I still don't expect them to provide most B10 programs any real new inroads into the beltway though. Along the East Coast, Pittsburgh is perceived to be way out in the mid-west, so West Lafayette or Cedar Rapids might as well be in Boise.
(08-03-2014 11:14 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the Big East was somewhat overrated. Don't get me wrong, it was good, but when you account for size (at 16 when the other major conferences were between 10-12), I don't think it really stood out as far and away the best conference over the past decade. It was some years, but not all and cases could be made for several conferences.
Edit: ACC is top basketball conference now. Big Ten is likely #2, but improvement at Nebraska (which has been getting better) and Penn State (which has no reason to be as bad as it has been) should help it some. Likely not enough to catch the ACC, but to close the gap at least.
Sure in one individual year a conference may have an edge over the BE of it's last 5 years in existence. But for that 5 year period, no single conference comes close and that is what we are talking about.
From 2008-09 through 2012-13 Big East teams won 2 NCs, had 7 FF teams, had 7 (of the 20) #1 seeds in the NCAAs, 16 teams seeded #2-4, top RPI conference in two of those years and 2nd in RPI in another one, had 9 different teams seeded between #1-4 in NCAAs, 5 different teams make the FF, the best collection of coaches top to bottom, etc.
Only thing that the BiG comes close to matching above is that they had 6 different teams seeded between #1-4 for a .545 percentage (6/11) while the BE had .562 percentage of teams (9/16).
Even taking into consideration the larger size of the Big East, there is no denying it was clearly the best basketball conference when looking at it's last 5 years of existence - three years after adding Louisville, Marquette and Cincinnati to the core that was already there.
The ACC hasn't reached those lofty levels yet, but it should by 2016-17 year and onward.
The BiG adding Maryland, Rutgers, and Nebraska I see more akin to the ACC adding Miami, VT, and BC back in 2004. The ACC took a step backwards as a result of that and I think the BiG likely will as well, although Maryland is better than any of the three the ACC added, the ACC didn't have any bb teams as bad as Northwestern and PSU.
Cheers,
Neil
Since When has the B1G ever been a Basketball Conference?
It is impossible for The Big Ten to be better than The ACC without Indiana returning to its glory days. IU has slipped seriously under Crean. His top recruiter, Kenny Johnson got out while he could and jumped to Louisville. Unless Crean starts winning like Knight did, The Big Ten's basketball prowess will never match The ACCs.
CJ
(08-03-2014 06:44 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]It is impossible for The Big Ten to be better than The ACC without Indiana returning to its glory days. IU has slipped seriously under Crean. His top recruiter, Kenny Johnson got out while he could and jumped to Louisville. Unless Crean starts winning like Knight did, The Big Ten's basketball prowess will never match The ACCs.
CJ
I would add Purdue to being at least a solid B1G showing to boost up their conference...right now both IU & Purdue are down...
Purdue had some monster teams back in the 80s and 90s.
(08-03-2014 01:51 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2014 11:14 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the Big East was somewhat overrated. Don't get me wrong, it was good, but when you account for size (at 16 when the other major conferences were between 10-12), I don't think it really stood out as far and away the best conference over the past decade. It was some years, but not all and cases could be made for several conferences.
Edit: ACC is top basketball conference now. Big Ten is likely #2, but improvement at Nebraska (which has been getting better) and Penn State (which has no reason to be as bad as it has been) should help it some. Likely not enough to catch the ACC, but to close the gap at least.
Sure in one individual year a conference may have an edge over the BE of it's last 5 years in existence. But for that 5 year period, no single conference comes close and that is what we are talking about.
From 2008-09 through 2012-13 Big East teams won 2 NCs, had 7 FF teams, had 7 (of the 20) #1 seeds in the NCAAs, 16 teams seeded #2-4, top RPI conference in two of those years and 2nd in RPI in another one, had 9 different teams seeded between #1-4 in NCAAs, 5 different teams make the FF, the best collection of coaches top to bottom, etc.
Only thing that the BiG comes close to matching above is that they had 6 different teams seeded between #1-4 for a .545 percentage (6/11) while the BE had .562 percentage of teams (9/16).
Even taking into consideration the larger size of the Big East, there is no denying it was clearly the best basketball conference when looking at it's last 5 years of existence - three years after adding Louisville, Marquette and Cincinnati to the core that was already there.
The ACC hasn't reached those lofty levels yet, but it should by 2016-17 year and onward.
The BiG adding Maryland, Rutgers, and Nebraska I see more akin to the ACC adding Miami, VT, and BC back in 2004. The ACC took a step backwards as a result of that and I think the BiG likely will as well, although Maryland is better than any of the three the ACC added, the ACC didn't have any bb teams as bad as Northwestern and PSU.
Cheers,
Neil
When the BIG EAST was on, there wasn't a close second.
I think people may be overstating Maryland's strength. Look at the transfers that have happened since they announced the move to the Big. There were some major talent that just didn't want to play in the BIG. Will they be able to recruit like they have in the past? Time will tell; but, I have the feeling that Maryland will not be able to keep the local talent from going to other schools that are on the East coast. They have always been in competition with Georgetown along with Duke, UNC, UVa, Pitt, Cuse for the local talent and B-more talent. Just don't see the selling point of you get to play against Mich, Wisky, IU, MSU, etc when the selling point was you get to stay home, your family gets to see you play and you play against UNC, Duke, Wake, Gtown, Cuse, U of L, etc. Maryland is going to have a very hard time with getting and keeping blue chip talent.
Obvioulsy, this benefits VaTech. I think Buzz will jump to the DC/B-more area. UVa will also benefit from it as well. Cuse already have connections there.
(08-04-2014 08:57 AM)Indytarheel Wrote: [ -> ]I think people may be overstating Maryland's strength. Look at the transfers that have happened since they announced the move to the Big. There were some major talent that just didn't want to play in the BIG. Will they be able to recruit like they have in the past? Time will tell; but, I have the feeling that Maryland will not be able to keep the local talent from going to other schools that are on the East coast. They have always been in competition with Georgetown along with Duke, UNC, UVa, Pitt, Cuse for the local talent and B-more talent. Just don't see the selling point of you get to play against Mich, Wisky, IU, MSU, etc when the selling point was you get to stay home, your family gets to see you play and you play against UNC, Duke, Wake, Gtown, Cuse, U of L, etc. Maryland is going to have a very hard time with getting and keeping blue chip talent.
Obvioulsy, this benefits VaTech. I think Buzz will jump to the DC/B-more area. UVa will also benefit from it as well. Cuse already have connections there.
I agree with this. Syracuse has been taking Maylands lunch for many years now.