(10-24-2017 10:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but I'm of the belief that I'd rather have fewer teams with much better seeds. Because teams with better seeds you know actually have a chance to do well in the tournament. There is a huge difference for instance with Creighton from being a 6 seed and being a 3 or 4 seed.

6 seeds advance just to the sweet 16 42 times out of 132 times- 31.8%
4 seeds advance just to the sweet 16 63 times out of 132 times- 47.7%

you say every break hasn't gone the Big East way. What break in terms of getting teams in the tournament hasn't gone the Big East way? Last year if the injuries don't happen, Providence and Marquette don't get in the tournament. Getting 2 teams in who lose 1st rounds isn't worth teams getting in with much worse seeds. Creighton was stuck playing a real good Rhode Island team who they promptly lost to. Which is better? Creighton being instead of a 6 seed a 3 seed and Providence not making the PIG or what happened? I say Creighton being a 3 seed every single time.

I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

That's just your opinion. I certainly don't think of it that way. The NCAA Tournament is a great event from a fan perspective, but it's NOT a great determinant of the best team. There's just too much randomness in one-and-done games for basketball. I look at NCAA Tournament bids as a much better indicator of the depth of a conference. To the extent that it isn't random, the very top teams that get to the Final Four are generally the ones with very top players procured through recruiting, so that really has nothing to do with round robin scheduling. And even if you do just want to be close-minded and "just look at the results", VILLANOVA WON IN 2016!!!

So, it's not a black-and-white scenario. The old 16-team Big East was a better on-the-court conference (whether you're talking about the regular season or the tournament), but it was always a disjointed league in terms of the mentalities of the different types of schools that was constantly one step away from implosion... and it ultimately *did* implode. So, does short-term better on-the-court performance compensate for lack of institutional fits that ultimately won't work in the long-term?

I just don't even understand what you're advocating for here. I've long been on the record as an advocate of the Big East expanding and don't think adherence to a round robin ought to prevent that (so I guess I halfway agree with you on that front). However, when you have a 10-team league, why *wouldn't* you have a round-robin schedule? That's a big-time positive for the 3 months of the actual conference season as opposed to the 3 weeks of the NCAA Tournament that is so random that attempting to game the seeding in that system is a fool's errand. You're so absolutist that there's a way to improve seeding via scheduling even though there's nothing absolute about it at all. Besides, with the Big Ten and ACC going to 20 conference games, what we think we know about NCAA Tournament seeding is going to change, anyway (so scheduling for the purpose of seeding isn't going to work).

I do think your last point is big. It's going to be fascinating to see if we start to see 14 and 15 loss teams getting in with like 17-15 records.

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

The 2 worst winning percentages in the NCAA tourney btw from the P6- Big 12 and Big East. What do they have in common?
B12/BE- 51-48 .515
other 4- 153-90 .630

I think 1 real understated benefit with having more than 10 teams is you see more styles in conference play. I mean the old big east was great in terms of different styles. And it would help you in preperation for the tourney.

(10-23-2017 01:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Round robin is nice but I think a conference like the Big East could benefit from having two more members and divisional play for its Midwestern and East Coast contingents.

No one is going back to divisional play in basketball. Only the OVC still do it, everyone has abandoned it because it doesn't work in basketball and no one is going back to it.

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

The 2 worst winning percentages in the NCAA tourney btw from the P6- Big 12 and Big East. What do they have in common?
B12/BE- 51-48 .515
other 4- 153-90 .630

I think 1 real understated benefit with having more than 10 teams is you see more styles in conference play. I mean the old big east was great in terms of different styles. And it would help you in preperation for the tourney.

Why is this just about the Big East and now on page 3 you mention the other ten team conference the Big XII? I also don't understand what you are proposing? Are you saying they need to expand right away? Are you saying they need to have a schedule where you play some teams 3 times and some only once? What is your actual argument or is it just a hate post?

(10-24-2017 10:50 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

The 2 worst winning percentages in the NCAA tourney btw from the P6- Big 12 and Big East. What do they have in common?
B12/BE- 51-48 .515
other 4- 153-90 .630

I think 1 real understated benefit with having more than 10 teams is you see more styles in conference play. I mean the old big east was great in terms of different styles. And it would help you in preperation for the tourney.

Why is this just about the Big East and now on page 3 you mention the other ten team conference the Big XII? I also don't understand what you are proposing? Are you saying they need to expand right away? Are you saying they need to have a schedule where you play some teams 3 times and some only once? What is your actual argument or is it just a hate post?

I think the Big East needs to expand. I think yeah it was good at first to build up the new league, but now that point is over(this is already year 5), and now the league needs to really look for the future.

(10-24-2017 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:50 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

The 2 worst winning percentages in the NCAA tourney btw from the P6- Big 12 and Big East. What do they have in common?
B12/BE- 51-48 .515
other 4- 153-90 .630

I think 1 real understated benefit with having more than 10 teams is you see more styles in conference play. I mean the old big east was great in terms of different styles. And it would help you in preperation for the tourney.

Why is this just about the Big East and now on page 3 you mention the other ten team conference the Big XII? I also don't understand what you are proposing? Are you saying they need to expand right away? Are you saying they need to have a schedule where you play some teams 3 times and some only once? What is your actual argument or is it just a hate post?

I think the Big East needs to expand. I think yeah it was good at first to build up the new league, but now that point is over(this is already year 5), and now the league needs to really look for the future.

Well then say that and say who you think they should add. Once again it's the 3rd page and you finally bring up what your solution is and thats only because I had to directly ask you. It seems to me this is more of a hate post than an actual realignment post. You seem to really want to talk about how wrong BE fans are which you mentioned more than the BE expanding in this thread.

Stever, I respect you as a poster and you definitely are knowledgable about college basketball, especially with your use of numbers. However, I am not the only one with the belief that you like to rattle the cage, so to speak, with BE fans.

When the league first reorganized, you proclaimed the league was destined to fail because it could not recruit against the larger conferences. That has been proven wrong. You said that the league was unlikely to compete for national championships considering its new membership. That has been proven wrong. Now you say the league has been lucky because of the round-robin membership, and the results on the court prove that, too, is wrong.

I'm all for spirited debate among fans, both here and there, but you cannot help but question why you are picking obscure topics to critique the Big East and its membership about. It's ok to not like the Big East (there are many of those out there), but just be up front about it.

Stever, I'd also add that name-calling and bad-mouthing posters from the other site on the Big East forum here is low. It may be inactive, but it is still poor form.

(10-24-2017 12:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Stever, I respect you as a poster and you definitely are knowledgable about college basketball, especially with your use of numbers. However, I am not the only one with the belief that you like to rattle the cage, so to speak, with BE fans.

When the league first reorganized, you proclaimed the league was destined to fail because it could not recruit against the larger conferences. That has been proven wrong. You said that the league was unlikely to compete for national championships considering its new membership. That has been proven wrong. Now you say the league has been lucky because of the round-robin membership, and the results on the court prove that, too, is wrong.

I'm all for spirited debate among fans, both here and there, but you cannot help but question why you are picking obscure topics to critique the Big East and its membership about. It's ok to not like the Big East (there are many of those out there), but just be up front about it.

the league is recruiting well against the other conferences?
2018 class-using 247 composite ratings-
BE 0 5 stars, 6 4 stars
ACC 5 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B12 1 5 star, 11 4 stars
B10 1 5 star, 22 4 stars
P12 1 5 star, 14 4 stars
SEC 3 5 star, 11 4 stars
so Big East has half the number of the fewest P5 conference in terms of recruits.

2017 class-
BE- 0 5 stars, 12 4 stars
ACC- 6 5 stars, 19 4 stars
B12- 3 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B10- 1 5 star, 17 4 stars
P12- 5 5 stars, 19 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 21 4 stars
so in 2 years-
BE- 0 5 stars, 18 4 stars
ACC- 11 5 stars, 32 4 stars
B12- 4 5 stars, 24 4 stars
B10- 2 5 stars, 39 4 stars
P12- 6 5 stars, 33 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 32 4 stars

So Big East has had ZERO 5 star guys, and 10 fewer 4/5 star guys than any other conference. Before the defenders come out and say number of teams. BE has 1.8 players per school. B12 2.8 players per school. ACC 2.9 B10 2.9 P12 3.3, SEC 2.9. Which isn't the same as the others? The league has had 4 5 star guys from the 2014-18 class. combined. You look at 4 and 5 star guys combined-
2014- 20 guys
2015- 13 guys
2016- 14 guys
2017- 12 guys
2018- 6 guys so far

So what has exactly been proven on recruiting? Going to the other board- everyone's patent answer is, well it's better than the AAC. What the hell does the AAC have to do with it?

The league absolutely in terms of getting teams in the tourney has been lucky. Providence in '14 does not make it if they don't win the BET. Marquette and Providence do not make it last year were it not for the injuries.

(10-24-2017 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 12:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Stever, I respect you as a poster and you definitely are knowledgable about college basketball, especially with your use of numbers. However, I am not the only one with the belief that you like to rattle the cage, so to speak, with BE fans.

When the league first reorganized, you proclaimed the league was destined to fail because it could not recruit against the larger conferences. That has been proven wrong. You said that the league was unlikely to compete for national championships considering its new membership. That has been proven wrong. Now you say the league has been lucky because of the round-robin membership, and the results on the court prove that, too, is wrong.

I'm all for spirited debate among fans, both here and there, but you cannot help but question why you are picking obscure topics to critique the Big East and its membership about. It's ok to not like the Big East (there are many of those out there), but just be up front about it.

the league is recruiting well against the other conferences?
2018 class-using 247 composite ratings-
BE 0 5 stars, 6 4 stars
ACC 5 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B12 1 5 star, 11 4 stars
B10 1 5 star, 22 4 stars
P12 1 5 star, 14 4 stars
SEC 3 5 star, 11 4 stars
so Big East has half the number of the fewest P5 conference in terms of recruits.

2017 class-
BE- 0 5 stars, 12 4 stars
ACC- 6 5 stars, 19 4 stars
B12- 3 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B10- 1 5 star, 17 4 stars
P12- 5 5 stars, 19 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 21 4 stars
so in 2 years-
BE- 0 5 stars, 18 4 stars
ACC- 11 5 stars, 32 4 stars
B12- 4 5 stars, 24 4 stars
B10- 2 5 stars, 39 4 stars
P12- 6 5 stars, 33 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 32 4 stars

So Big East has had ZERO 5 star guys, and 10 fewer 4/5 star guys than any other conference. Before the defenders come out and say number of teams. BE has 1.8 players per school. B12 2.8 players per school. ACC 2.9 B10 2.9 P12 3.3, SEC 2.9. Which isn't the same as the others? The league has had 4 5 star guys from the 2014-18 class. combined. You look at 4 and 5 star guys combined-
2014- 20 guys
2015- 13 guys
2016- 14 guys
2017- 12 guys
2018- 6 guys so far

So what has exactly been proven on recruiting? Going to the other board- everyone's patent answer is, well it's better than the AAC. What the hell does the AAC have to do with it?

The league absolutely in terms of getting teams in the tourney has been lucky. Providence in '14 does not make it if they don't win the BET. Marquette and Providence do not make it last year were it not for the injuries.

So how does expanding with A-10 teams fix this? Once again, this seems more of a hate thread than a constructive conversation. Does getting SLU in the BE lead to more 5 star recruits for the conference? Does it lead to more top 4 seeds for the conference? I don't see it doing that at all so whats the point here besides hating on the conference? This looks to me like nothing more than an excuse to disparage a conference you don't like.

(10-24-2017 01:22 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 12:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Stever, I respect you as a poster and you definitely are knowledgable about college basketball, especially with your use of numbers. However, I am not the only one with the belief that you like to rattle the cage, so to speak, with BE fans.

When the league first reorganized, you proclaimed the league was destined to fail because it could not recruit against the larger conferences. That has been proven wrong. You said that the league was unlikely to compete for national championships considering its new membership. That has been proven wrong. Now you say the league has been lucky because of the round-robin membership, and the results on the court prove that, too, is wrong.

I'm all for spirited debate among fans, both here and there, but you cannot help but question why you are picking obscure topics to critique the Big East and its membership about. It's ok to not like the Big East (there are many of those out there), but just be up front about it.

the league is recruiting well against the other conferences?
2018 class-using 247 composite ratings-
BE 0 5 stars, 6 4 stars
ACC 5 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B12 1 5 star, 11 4 stars
B10 1 5 star, 22 4 stars
P12 1 5 star, 14 4 stars
SEC 3 5 star, 11 4 stars
so Big East has half the number of the fewest P5 conference in terms of recruits.

2017 class-
BE- 0 5 stars, 12 4 stars
ACC- 6 5 stars, 19 4 stars
B12- 3 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B10- 1 5 star, 17 4 stars
P12- 5 5 stars, 19 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 21 4 stars
so in 2 years-
BE- 0 5 stars, 18 4 stars
ACC- 11 5 stars, 32 4 stars
B12- 4 5 stars, 24 4 stars
B10- 2 5 stars, 39 4 stars
P12- 6 5 stars, 33 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 32 4 stars

So Big East has had ZERO 5 star guys, and 10 fewer 4/5 star guys than any other conference. Before the defenders come out and say number of teams. BE has 1.8 players per school. B12 2.8 players per school. ACC 2.9 B10 2.9 P12 3.3, SEC 2.9. Which isn't the same as the others? The league has had 4 5 star guys from the 2014-18 class. combined. You look at 4 and 5 star guys combined-
2014- 20 guys
2015- 13 guys
2016- 14 guys
2017- 12 guys
2018- 6 guys so far

So what has exactly been proven on recruiting? Going to the other board- everyone's patent answer is, well it's better than the AAC. What the hell does the AAC have to do with it?

The league absolutely in terms of getting teams in the tourney has been lucky. Providence in '14 does not make it if they don't win the BET. Marquette and Providence do not make it last year were it not for the injuries.

So how does expanding with A-10 teams fix this? Once again, this seems more of a hate thread than a constructive conversation. Does getting SLU in the BE lead to more 5 star recruits for the conference? Does it lead to more top 4 seeds for the conference? I don't see it doing that at all so whats the point here besides hating on the conference? This looks to me like nothing more than an excuse to disparage a conference you don't like.

It absolutely can lead to more top 4 seeds for the conference. Because instead of having like we've seen in 1st 4 years only 10 teams finishing with at least 12 conference wins(and only 11 with at least 11 conference wins)- it'd be more like what the Pac 12 has had(with in the last 4 years 12 with at least 12 and 14 with at least 11). That's pretty close to 1 extra team with 11 wins in conference play- and that gives the team a great shot at a much stronger seed.

Just look at the numbers-
Big East 12 win teams- average seed- 4.7 (2 4 1 6)
Big East 11 win teams- average seed- 6.0 (both 6)
Big East 10 win teams- average seed- 9.6 (1 6, 4 9, 1 10, 2 11, 1 12)

yeah, that's a HUGE difference. And would note 2 things with the 10 win teams. 1st thing is 1 10 win team didn't make the tourney. Also, 2 of the 10 win teams had to play in the PIG).

There are several reasons the Big East do not match up recruiting numbers-wise with the other power conferences. Firstly, it's the team-numbers issue. Leagues that have 12, 14 or 15 members will absolutely have a greater opportunity to get a higher number of recruits. It's simple math. Secondly, there is not a single Big East team that relies on one-and-done players, so there isn't the dependency on re-stacking an entire roster in a single offseason. There isn't a Kentucky, a Duke, etc., that acquires so many 5* start players in the one-and-done era in the Big East. All of the teams look at recruiting players that stay several seasons, so of course the numbers will fluctuate.

KenPom views the Big East as the number two overall conference this year, BTW. So, by some miracle, luck or happenstance - whatever you wish to call it - the Big East must be doing something right...

(10-24-2017 01:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  There are several reasons the Big East do not match up recruiting numbers-wise with the other power conferences. Firstly, it's the team-numbers issue. Leagues that have 12, 14 or 15 members will absolutely have a greater opportunity to get a higher number of recruits. It's simple math. Secondly, there is not a single Big East team that relies on one-and-done players, so there isn't the dependency on re-stacking an entire roster in a single offseason. There isn't a Kentucky, a Duke, etc., that acquires so many 5* start players in the one-and-done era in the Big East. All of the teams look at recruiting players that stay several seasons, so of course the numbers will fluctuate.

KenPom views the Big East as the number two overall conference this year, BTW. So, by some miracle, luck or happenstance - whatever you wish to call it - the Big East must be doing something right...

it's the preseason. Also, while the Big East is listed as #2, they have 1 top 24 team. Also, Ken Pom has Georgetown as the #79 team in the country right now. DePaul as the #119 team in the country. You and I both know, neither one of those are close to being true.

As far as the recruiting. Excuses. 4 star players are not 1 and dones, and the Big East is lagging behind there. 6 fewer 4 star players than the Big 12(same number of teams) in the last 2 years, and 14 fewer than the ACC and SEC. The Big East has 6 4 star guys this year so far. 6. And the number has trended down, not up.

Also- look
2014- 20/33 guys 4/5 stars 60.6%
2015- 13/35 guys 4/5 stars 37.1%
2016- 14/28 guys 4/5 stars 50.0%
2017- 12/35 guys 4/5 stars 34.3%
2018- 6/17 guys 4/5 stars 35.3%

The league has been signing between 28-35 guys each class. But the percentage of 4/5 stars has gone down considerably in the time. So your arguement that they're signing guys and not restocking roster is out the door. They are signing guys, just not signing 4/5 star guys.

(10-24-2017 01:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:22 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 12:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Stever, I respect you as a poster and you definitely are knowledgable about college basketball, especially with your use of numbers. However, I am not the only one with the belief that you like to rattle the cage, so to speak, with BE fans.

When the league first reorganized, you proclaimed the league was destined to fail because it could not recruit against the larger conferences. That has been proven wrong. You said that the league was unlikely to compete for national championships considering its new membership. That has been proven wrong. Now you say the league has been lucky because of the round-robin membership, and the results on the court prove that, too, is wrong.

I'm all for spirited debate among fans, both here and there, but you cannot help but question why you are picking obscure topics to critique the Big East and its membership about. It's ok to not like the Big East (there are many of those out there), but just be up front about it.

the league is recruiting well against the other conferences?
2018 class-using 247 composite ratings-
BE 0 5 stars, 6 4 stars
ACC 5 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B12 1 5 star, 11 4 stars
B10 1 5 star, 22 4 stars
P12 1 5 star, 14 4 stars
SEC 3 5 star, 11 4 stars
so Big East has half the number of the fewest P5 conference in terms of recruits.

2017 class-
BE- 0 5 stars, 12 4 stars
ACC- 6 5 stars, 19 4 stars
B12- 3 5 stars, 13 4 stars
B10- 1 5 star, 17 4 stars
P12- 5 5 stars, 19 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 21 4 stars
so in 2 years-
BE- 0 5 stars, 18 4 stars
ACC- 11 5 stars, 32 4 stars
B12- 4 5 stars, 24 4 stars
B10- 2 5 stars, 39 4 stars
P12- 6 5 stars, 33 4 stars
SEC- 9 5 stars, 32 4 stars

So Big East has had ZERO 5 star guys, and 10 fewer 4/5 star guys than any other conference. Before the defenders come out and say number of teams. BE has 1.8 players per school. B12 2.8 players per school. ACC 2.9 B10 2.9 P12 3.3, SEC 2.9. Which isn't the same as the others? The league has had 4 5 star guys from the 2014-18 class. combined. You look at 4 and 5 star guys combined-
2014- 20 guys
2015- 13 guys
2016- 14 guys
2017- 12 guys
2018- 6 guys so far

So what has exactly been proven on recruiting? Going to the other board- everyone's patent answer is, well it's better than the AAC. What the hell does the AAC have to do with it?

The league absolutely in terms of getting teams in the tourney has been lucky. Providence in '14 does not make it if they don't win the BET. Marquette and Providence do not make it last year were it not for the injuries.

So how does expanding with A-10 teams fix this? Once again, this seems more of a hate thread than a constructive conversation. Does getting SLU in the BE lead to more 5 star recruits for the conference? Does it lead to more top 4 seeds for the conference? I don't see it doing that at all so whats the point here besides hating on the conference? This looks to me like nothing more than an excuse to disparage a conference you don't like.

It absolutely can lead to more top 4 seeds for the conference. Because instead of having like we've seen in 1st 4 years only 10 teams finishing with at least 12 conference wins(and only 11 with at least 11 conference wins)- it'd be more like what the Pac 12 has had(with in the last 4 years 12 with at least 12 and 14 with at least 11). That's pretty close to 1 extra team with 11 wins in conference play- and that gives the team a great shot at a much stronger seed.

Just look at the numbers-
Big East 12 win teams- average seed- 4.7 (2 4 1 6)
Big East 11 win teams- average seed- 6.0 (both 6)
Big East 10 win teams- average seed- 9.6 (1 6, 4 9, 1 10, 2 11, 1 12)

yeah, that's a HUGE difference. And would note 2 things with the 10 win teams. 1st thing is 1 10 win team didn't make the tourney. Also, 2 of the 10 win teams had to play in the PIG).

Thats an opinion how things COULD go. Can't a more aggressive OOC scheduling philosophy also increase those seeds? Or a less aggressive approach could lead to more wins and more bids and try and game the system like the MWC tried to do? I don't think adding a single team (Which would still have a round robin conference schedule) would improve the conferences seeding as much as you are making it out to be. If they don't go to 20 games while adding a team or two some border teams wont get to play the top teams as much. That could also hurt seeding.

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

That's a really poor measure of who is "power". Using that logic, if the Atlantic 10 put 1 team in the tournament and they went 6-0 and won it, that would make the A10 a "power" because they'd be national champs, have a final 4, an elite 8, and a sweet 16, and a 1.000 winning percentage. But that's just one team, not the A10.

Hint: Strength of a conference is all its teams, not just the handful that make the tournament.

Here are the Big East's season RPI ratings for the past four seasons (a far more valid measure of conference strength):

2017: 3
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 4

So the Big East has been ranked within the top 5 every single year of its existence, beating out at least one "P5" conference every year.

That makes the Big East squarely within the Power domain, which anyone from the actual P5 would acknowledge.

Haters on this board are the only ones who doubt that the Big East is a Power hoops league.

(10-24-2017 08:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

That's a really poor measure of who is "power". Using that logic, if the Atlantic 10 put 1 team in the tournament and they went 6-0 and won it, that would make the A10 a "power" because they'd be national champs, have a final 4, an elite 8, and a sweet 16, and a 1.000 winning percentage. But that's just one team, not the A10.

Hint: Strength of a conference is all its teams, not just the handful that make the tournament.

Here are the Big East's season RPI ratings for the past four seasons (a far more valid measure of conference strength):

2017: 3
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 4

So the Big East has been ranked within the top 5 every single year of its existence, beating out at least one "P5" conference every year.

That makes the Big East squarely within the Power domain, which anyone from the actual P5 would acknowledge.

Haters on this board are the only ones who doubt that the Big East is a Power hoops league.

Yeah this guy clearly has an axe to grind.

(10-24-2017 08:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

That's a really poor measure of who is "power". Using that logic, if the Atlantic 10 put 1 team in the tournament and they went 6-0 and won it, that would make the A10 a "power" because they'd be national champs, have a final 4, an elite 8, and a sweet 16, and a 1.000 winning percentage. But that's just one team, not the A10.

Hint: Strength of a conference is all its teams, not just the handful that make the tournament.

Here are the Big East's season RPI ratings for the past four seasons (a far more valid measure of conference strength):

2017: 3
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 4

So the Big East has been ranked within the top 5 every single year of its existence, beating out at least one "P5" conference every year.

That makes the Big East squarely within the Power domain, which anyone from the actual P5 would acknowledge.

Haters on this board are the only ones who doubt that the Big East is a Power hoops league.

like it or not though- you are measured in large part what you do in March. Regular season success is great, but March does matter. Big East fans for some reason want to way over reach saying how crucial depth is. Depth is great, but it's meaningless. How good your 9th and 10th place team is doesn't mean anything. It's how good your top teams are. To act like you don't have to perform in the tourney is ignorant.

(10-24-2017 09:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 08:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

That's a really poor measure of who is "power". Using that logic, if the Atlantic 10 put 1 team in the tournament and they went 6-0 and won it, that would make the A10 a "power" because they'd be national champs, have a final 4, an elite 8, and a sweet 16, and a 1.000 winning percentage. But that's just one team, not the A10.

Hint: Strength of a conference is all its teams, not just the handful that make the tournament.

Here are the Big East's season RPI ratings for the past four seasons (a far more valid measure of conference strength):

2017: 3
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 4

So the Big East has been ranked within the top 5 every single year of its existence, beating out at least one "P5" conference every year.

That makes the Big East squarely within the Power domain, which anyone from the actual P5 would acknowledge.

Haters on this board are the only ones who doubt that the Big East is a Power hoops league.

like it or not though- you are measured in large part what you do in March. Regular season success is great, but March does matter. Big East fans for some reason want to way over reach saying how crucial depth is. Depth is great, but it's meaningless. How good your 9th and 10th place team is doesn't mean anything. It's how good your top teams are. To act like you don't have to perform in the tourney is ignorant.

Problem with this narrative is ... the Big East is in fact acknowledged by the consensus of the college hoops community, including the P5 conferences, to be a "power" basketball league. So no matter what your beliefs about how well the Big East has performed in the tournament, and how important tourney performance is relative to the regular season, in the case of the Big East, the way it has all sorted out is that the Big East is generally regarded as a Power hoops league.

So you might want to recalibrate your personal criteria as to what makes a power hoops league, as it doesn't comport with the general feeling.

(10-24-2017 09:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 08:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-24-2017 09:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry- but I believe it's better to get fewer better seeded teams than having more worse seeded teams. The tournament is where conferences are measured. not how many you get in, but rather what you do in the tournament. The biggest knock on the Big East right now is that they are only 22-21 in the tourney the 1st 4 years. With only 5 sweet 16 teams. Those are the results that speak to a lot of people. BE fans want to trade regular season fun and parity for post season success. Yes, Nova was great in 2016.

Nobody is "knocking" on the Big East right now, except for jealous haters. In the stands and on the court, the Big East has been a smashing success, it's been everything its supporters hoped it would be when the split occurred in 2013, heck it's overachieved in every area in my book.

And the national consensus has been the same, and for good reason - all the stats show that start to finish, the Big East has performed on the court like a Power conference, not a Mid-Major. Not a "tweener" or a fake "P6" like the AAC falsely claims in football, but a real honest to God Power.

Look, every Big East fan knows that the Big East is never going to be the current ACC. The ACC got to be the ACC by taking three of our premier programs. If we took Louisville, Syracuse, and Pitt back from the ACC, and got WVU back from the Big 12 and UConn from the AAC, then we'd be what we were in 2011, but those days are gone forever and nobody in the Big East is fooling ourselves.

I'm a Big East fan of 38 years, and I'd be perfectly happy if the conference continues to perform as it has the past four seasons - save for Georgetown reviving itself and contributing to that success.

22-21 with only 5 sweet 16 teams is not a power conference. It's got 10 fewer NCAA wins and 3 fewer sweet 16's than the SEC for gosh sakes.

That's a really poor measure of who is "power". Using that logic, if the Atlantic 10 put 1 team in the tournament and they went 6-0 and won it, that would make the A10 a "power" because they'd be national champs, have a final 4, an elite 8, and a sweet 16, and a 1.000 winning percentage. But that's just one team, not the A10.

Hint: Strength of a conference is all its teams, not just the handful that make the tournament.

Here are the Big East's season RPI ratings for the past four seasons (a far more valid measure of conference strength):

2017: 3
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 4

So the Big East has been ranked within the top 5 every single year of its existence, beating out at least one "P5" conference every year.

That makes the Big East squarely within the Power domain, which anyone from the actual P5 would acknowledge.

Haters on this board are the only ones who doubt that the Big East is a Power hoops league.

like it or not though- you are measured in large part what you do in March. Regular season success is great, but March does matter. Big East fans for some reason want to way over reach saying how crucial depth is. Depth is great, but it's meaningless. How good your 9th and 10th place team is doesn't mean anything. It's how good your top teams are. To act like you don't have to perform in the tourney is ignorant.

Like it or not thought everyone from pundits to AD's to coaches to casual fans recognize the Big East as a power conference in basketball. Depth is great, it helps you get more teams into the tournament. Would the BE be better in your eyes if they were like the SEC and UK with Villanova rolling everyone and making a FF every 3 years? No, you'd say they have no depth and only Villanova is good and like it or not having one good team is not how a conference is measured.

Lets go back though to one thing. You mentioned Big East fans again. It seems to me this is deeper than how much better the conference could be by adding 2 more teams. You have a clear hatred for the Big East and its fans, especially it's fans. I think thats the real issue here.

Except you see the SEC has had more than just Kentucky. And it has been pretty much Nova and everyone else in the Big East....

Kentucky last 4 years 59-13 in SEC play
Villanova last 4 years 63-9 in BE play

Florida made F4 in 2014, Tennessee S16 in 2014
Texas A&M made S16 in 2016
Florida made E8 in 2017, S Carolina F4 in 2017
So 2 other final 4's, an elite 8, and 2 S16.

now look at BE outside of Nova....
Xavier made S16 in 2015
Butler made S16 in 2017, Xavier E8
So 1 other elite 8 and 2 other S16's.

So which conference is 1 top team and then everyone else?

Big East has by far the worst arrangement in terms of a conference challenge that has one. Gavitt games are skewed so far towards B10's favor it's not funny. I mean, Michigan St hasn't even participated once yet. So I don't know that I would say AD's exactly recognize the Big East as a power conference. Definitely not on the same level as the P5.