(01-26-2026 01:23 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I saw the PAC line by Lunardi as well. I mean, going off the past 30 years:

Boise State (6), Colorado State (6), Fresno State (2), Oregon State (2), Texas State (1) and Washington State (3) have made a combined 20 NCAAT. That's less than one team per year, on-average. The league will absolutely be led by Gonzaga, San Diego State and (to a lesser extent) Utah State, IMO. Gonzaga and SDSU should make (or compete for) the NCAAT every year, and Utah State should in most years. Maybe one of those previously mentioned ones will also get in (but not every year, based on historical numbers). In a given year, if the PAC gets four teams, that is huge.

Now, compared to the Big East - a down year is when we only get four teams in (and that has to be when we don't win in non-con and then cannibalize each other in conference play; not to mention a year where any program is having a historic bad season - cough, cough, Marquette).

The new Pac is a multi-bid league, sure. But is it on-par or able to steal bids from the Big East? I don't think there is overlap with either of those statements, IMO. Basketball-wise, I hope the PAC can get a St. Mary's or a Memphis. I think that absolutely helps their league. But with only nine teams and six of those programs historically being non-NCAAT competitive? Yeah, very little room for error.

Thanks for adding some historical context. Teams like Boise and CSU have been good recently, which I think is leading to some recency bias. The stat Lunardi mentioned about them tying us in terms of bids since 2020 is skewed a bit from the 23-24 season as well, when the MWC was tracking for 6 bids but got 7 (I believe all of the teams joining received a bid that year except Fresno) and we were tracking for 5 but got 3 due to bid thieves.

(01-26-2026 01:28 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  Yes, Bill, it is a very interesting topic. Frankly I hope that the PAC schools are successful.

The big change in college basketball is that the SEC and the Big XII schools have become interested in basketball. The core of these leagues were historically laser focused on football. The only teams who cared about hoops were Kentucky in the SEC and Kansas in the Big XII. Maybe it’s the money that can mow be made in basketball the has changed everything, but in the last 5 years alone SEC football powers Florida, Alabama, and Auburn have all gone to the Final 4 and Tennessee & Arkansas have both gone to multiple Elite 8’s. Adding Houston has brought another basketball-first school into the Big XII, but Baylor, Texas Tech, and K Statehave all gotten as far as the Elite 8 just in the last few years. So, clearly there’s a lot more competition for tournament spots among schools who take the sport a lot more seriously.

My concern for the Big East is for the Catholic schools + Butler who bonded to form this new version of the league. The addition of UConn and the success of Villanova has masked the fact that the rest of the league hasn’t been as successful as we might have hoped. UConn might be just a temporary interloper and Villanova isn’t the same without Jay Wright.

I don’t think that most casual fans pay much attention to how many teams make the tournament. Of the 68 teams getting in, 52 are gone and forgotten after the first weekend. People tend to remember championships, Final Fours, and maybe Elite 8’s but not much more than that.

The Big East made such a big splash in its first decade of existence back in the 1980s because of Georgetown’s 3 championship games but also because 5 other Big East teams made it to the Final Four in that decade and 3 of them were in championship games where they won or lost by 1 point.

Villanova and UConn have maintained the championship pedigree over the past decade, but no one else had made it to a Final Four and only Creighton & Xavier have made it to an isolated Elite 8 in the refurbished Big East. Take away UConn, which could happen at any time, and what do we have left?

I think for the SEC it was all about money and dominance. JRSEC has mentioned over on the realignment board the goal is to be the top conference in both football and basketball, the main drivers of revenue.

For the Big XII I think it is a bit more nuanced. I actually think a big part of their success was multiple schools just absolutely nailing coaching hires. Iowa State started with Hoiberg before he went to the Bulls and has kept the ball rolling. Baylor made a great hire in Scott Drew. Texas Tech struck gold with Beard, and when he got in hot water was able to reach into their backyard and steal McCasland from UNT. They obviously already had Kansas. When it was a 10 team league, having that as your top 4 sets the whole league up for success. Rising tides and such.

Then, the SEC raided them for Texas and Oklahoma, forcing them to backfill with teams from The American and BYU. UH was an obvious expansion choice for them, and it just happened to be right when Sampson had turned UH back into a national power. Cincy was also one of the best programs in the AAC, and BYU had been competitive for years despite playing in a mid major league. Hell, even UCF had made themselves a bubble team most years before joining. My point in all this being that they prioritized football in expansion, but all of the schools they brought in had basketball chops as well.

The final expansion with the 4C basically fell into their lap, which netted them another national powerhouse in Arizona. I don't think Yormark's foresight should be discounted here, but for all of his talk about wanting to bring in more basketball talent, he hasn't really ever expanded just for that reason. His expansion candidates have been obvious for other reasons, the basketball has just been a really nice added bonus.

One other thing I would note, Bob Huggins spoke about the arenas being packed every night around the league when he coached at West Virginia. He said it was like nothing else he had experienced coaching, and that is coming from a guy who coached in the Big East when it was the strongest basketball league. I do think to an extent they were unfairly labeled a football conference for awhile and have always had ravenous fan bases. People think the league was weak because Kansas was so dominant for so long, but I think it was always a bit underrated. Kansas was just that good for that long when Self was younger and in better health.

Thanks for the added perspective, Whatever Your Name Is.

I’ll just add that Yormark did very much want UConn strictly for basketball reasons. Even cane out here and visited. He just couldn’t sell the idea to the other members.

update for today-
UConn 3
St John's 25
Villanova 31

Seton Hall 72 4th team out
Butler 77 9th team out
Creighton 78 10th team out

Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I’ll always go for the better chance for teams to advance deeper into the tournament, so I’ll go with the two 4-seeds. What good does it do to get more teams in if they’re all gone by the first weekend?

I’d love to see St. John’s and Villanova keep improving so that they’re tough as nails by the time they get to the tournament. Of course I’d love to see 1 or 2 other teams join them too.

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

Yes, B1G on the outside looking in for championships in the past quarter century. And the SEC went 2013-2024 without a championship until Florida broke through last year. Over a decade. During that decade +, the Big East had 5 natties!

(01-27-2026 10:43 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  I’ll always go for the better chance for teams to advance deeper into the tournament, so I’ll go with the two 4-seeds. What good does it do to get more teams in if they’re all gone by the first weekend?

I’d love to see St. John’s and Villanova keep improving so that they’re tough as nails by the time they get to the tournament. Of course I’d love to see 1 or 2 other teams join them too.

I tend to agree with all you've posted here, my good man.

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

A fair assessment, GW11. Well put.

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

I think maybe Bill was suggesting that there might be a trade off. In the first scenario, our top 3 teams win out - except head-to-head - and thereby secure high seeds for themselves, but all other BE teams are
Shut out of the tournament due to these issues to the top 3.

In the other scenarios, the top 3 lose some game(s) to conference, thereby dropping to lower seeds but opening the door for other conference mare(s) to get into the tournament. With all remaining games being in conference, it’s either one or the other.

(01-27-2026 01:13 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

I think maybe Bill was suggesting that there might be a trade off. In the first scenario, our top 3 teams win out - except head-to-head - and thereby secure high seeds for themselves, but all other BE teams are
Shut out of the tournament due to these issues to the top 3.

In the other scenarios, the top 3 lose some game(s) to conference, thereby dropping to lower seeds but opening the door for other conference mare(s) to get into the tournament. With all remaining games being in conference, it’s either one or the other.

On this theme, Bill, I would prefer to see this hypothetical:

Saint John's makes the Final Four, UConn/Nova makes the Elite Eight and Villanova/UConn makes the Sweet 16, with no other Big East members participating in the tourney ...

... as opposed to this hypothetical:

Saint John's makes the Elite Eight, UConn/Nova makes the Sweet 16 and UConn/Nova and two other BE members each lose in the first round.

Relatedly, I feel it would be "better" for the Big East to have Saint John's in the Final Four this tourney rather than either Nova or UConn. Or any member other than Nova and UConn, for that matter.

(01-27-2026 03:41 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 01:13 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

I think maybe Bill was suggesting that there might be a trade off. In the first scenario, our top 3 teams win out - except head-to-head - and thereby secure high seeds for themselves, but all other BE teams are
Shut out of the tournament due to these issues to the top 3.

In the other scenarios, the top 3 lose some game(s) to conference, thereby dropping to lower seeds but opening the door for other conference mare(s) to get into the tournament. With all remaining games being in conference, it’s either one or the other.

On this theme, Bill, I would prefer to see this hypothetical:

Saint John's makes the Final Four, UConn/Nova makes the Elite Eight and Villanova/UConn makes the Sweet 16, with no other Big East members participating in the tourney ...

... as opposed to this hypothetical:

Saint John's makes the Elite Eight, UConn/Nova makes the Sweet 16 and UConn/Nova and two other BE members each lose in the first round.

Relatedly, I feel it would be "better" for the Big East to have Saint John's in the Final Four this tourney rather than either Nova or UConn. Or any member other than Nova and UConn, for that matter.

I hear you, Bill. It sure would be nice to have someone other than UConn & Villanova in the limelight - especially given that UConn could and would leave at any time.

(01-27-2026 06:15 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 03:41 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 01:13 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

I think maybe Bill was suggesting that there might be a trade off. In the first scenario, our top 3 teams win out - except head-to-head - and thereby secure high seeds for themselves, but all other BE teams are
Shut out of the tournament due to these issues to the top 3.

In the other scenarios, the top 3 lose some game(s) to conference, thereby dropping to lower seeds but opening the door for other conference mare(s) to get into the tournament. With all remaining games being in conference, it’s either one or the other.

On this theme, Bill, I would prefer to see this hypothetical:

Saint John's makes the Final Four, UConn/Nova makes the Elite Eight and Villanova/UConn makes the Sweet 16, with no other Big East members participating in the tourney ...

... as opposed to this hypothetical:

Saint John's makes the Elite Eight, UConn/Nova makes the Sweet 16 and UConn/Nova and two other BE members each lose in the first round.

Relatedly, I feel it would be "better" for the Big East to have Saint John's in the Final Four this tourney rather than either Nova or UConn. Or any member other than Nova and UConn, for that matter.

I hear you, Bill. It sure would be nice to have someone other than UConn & Villanova in the limelight - especially given that UConn could and would leave at any time.

Absolutely no question about it, BM. Would be helpful to the perception of the league.

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

Great points here. I'm with you, I would take a 3 bid league if every team is playing into the 2nd weekend and at least one makes it to the Final Four.

I also do wish the league was still getting 6-7 bids each year. I remember looking back at the league when UConn was in The American and being envious of what could have been had the league not split. I'm not saying it wasn't the right move to split --it was-- but I believe 2018 or 2019 was one of the years The American got 4 bids, and it was always a multibid league despite UConn struggling. I just always thought with 9 football playing members + the Catholic 7 we could have still been a 10-11 bid league some years with 16 teams, and I don't think the league ever would have gotten less than 8. Plus, with more regional opponents UConn probably wouldn't have struggled as badly as it did and may have increased that number of bids some years. I do realize Xavier, Butler and Creighton don't join in this scenario so maybe the numbers work out a bit differently, but you get the point.

(01-28-2026 12:56 PM)Nameless Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

Great points here. I'm with you, I would take a 3 bid league if every team is playing into the 2nd weekend and at least one makes it to the Final Four.

I also do wish the league was still getting 6-7 bids each year. I remember looking back at the league when UConn was in The American and being envious of what could have been had the league not split. I'm not saying it wasn't the right move to split --it was-- but I believe 2018 or 2019 was one of the years The American got 4 bids, and it was always a multibid league despite UConn struggling. I just always thought with 9 football playing members + the Catholic 7 we could have still been a 10-11 bid league some years with 16 teams, and I don't think the league ever would have gotten less than 8. Plus, with more regional opponents UConn probably wouldn't have struggled as badly as it did and may have increased that number of bids some years. I do realize Xavier, Butler and Creighton don't join in this scenario so maybe the numbers work out a bit differently, but you get the point.

I think another interesting thought would be:

1) was the Big East "lucky" in non-con those stretches (where we were cleaning up in non-con) and there wasn't really much cannibalization in conference play that led to the 6 or 7 bids in a given year?
2) or is the Big East now experience some unluckiness with how some teams have fared in non-con and there not really being a separation for that 3rd or 4th spot in the league?

I think the truth is in the middle and the expectation should be getting 5 or 6 teams in annually, while still accounting for the off-year for a program having a really bad season (I.e. this year's Marquette). The league continues to hire some really phenomenal coaches and the fan support and resources continue to be there for much of the league (we know the ones that will always be a step behind and need to compete more with less).

I think for all college basketball teams is the reality that all coaches are still evolving and learning to use the portal effectively and efficiently. It is the easiest thing in the world to throw hands up and just say we will get a new team next year. Any coach will say that is not sustainable (and it isn't). However, there are literally hundreds of players available in a given cycle - and one or two may make the difference from winning 20-plus games and making the tournament and missing the tournament and having a losing season.

Player evaluation is the most prized resource a staff can have today (followed by player development). And when you miss on an entire class of players (either through HS or the portal) look out - you could be out of the job.

I think the league is healthy and in strong shape moving forward (especially with a locked-in near-term TV deal). Villanova will only get better with Willard; Pitino will continue to have St. John's nationally relevant. Marquette will be back next year (young kids look strong). DePaul continues to get better with Holtmann. And let's see what Providence and Georgetown do with English and Cooley, respectively. UConn will be the class with Hurley until he chooses to depart (possibly for the NBA).

(01-28-2026 01:56 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-28-2026 12:56 PM)Nameless Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 12:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2026 10:05 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Hypothetically, what is better for the Big East (and assuming UConn wins the league tourney in NYC and is a No. 1 seed):

* Only two at-large teams (Nova and St. John's) but both with 4 or higher seeds

* Three at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and one other) with one No. 4 seed and two rather low seeds (both 8 or below).

* Four at-large teams (Nova, St. John's and two others) with none with a seed higher than a 6.

Tough call for various reasons.

I have never really viewed it as an either/or scenario. At the end of the day, we want the most teams playing into the second weekend and beyond annually. Whether that is one, two, etc., the number of teams and their seeds is not strictly the basis for that. Now, the higher the seed, the more likely that team goes further, but that is no guarantee whatsoever.

I really loved our stretch where we were getting 5, 6 or 7 teams in, even if only one was getting far (Nova). It would have been perfect to get two the F4 in a given year. Our best year, IMO, was 2018:

Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds. Creighton (#8), Providence (#10), Butler (#10) and Seton Hall (#8) were our other seeds. Now, with the "other" seeds, it was very unlikely any of those teams were getting more than a single win, at best. But I'd rather have the quantity of lower seeds, while have two top-2 seeds, to maximize the likelihood of having two, maybe three, playing deep into the second weekend (Elite Eight or better). That was our best year getting two seeds into the Final Four, IMO.

It remains a crap shoot. Look at the Big Ten - still looking at the evasive NCAAT Championship since 2000 (Michigan State).

Great points here. I'm with you, I would take a 3 bid league if every team is playing into the 2nd weekend and at least one makes it to the Final Four.

I also do wish the league was still getting 6-7 bids each year. I remember looking back at the league when UConn was in The American and being envious of what could have been had the league not split. I'm not saying it wasn't the right move to split --it was-- but I believe 2018 or 2019 was one of the years The American got 4 bids, and it was always a multibid league despite UConn struggling. I just always thought with 9 football playing members + the Catholic 7 we could have still been a 10-11 bid league some years with 16 teams, and I don't think the league ever would have gotten less than 8. Plus, with more regional opponents UConn probably wouldn't have struggled as badly as it did and may have increased that number of bids some years. I do realize Xavier, Butler and Creighton don't join in this scenario so maybe the numbers work out a bit differently, but you get the point.

I think another interesting thought would be:

1) was the Big East "lucky" in non-con those stretches (where we were cleaning up in non-con) and there wasn't really much cannibalization in conference play that led to the 6 or 7 bids in a given year?
2) or is the Big East now experience some unluckiness with how some teams have fared in non-con and there not really being a separation for that 3rd or 4th spot in the league?

I think the truth is in the middle and the expectation should be getting 5 or 6 teams in annually, while still accounting for the off-year for a program having a really bad season (I.e. this year's Marquette). The league continues to hire some really phenomenal coaches and the fan support and resources continue to be there for much of the league (we know the ones that will always be a step behind and need to compete more with less).

I think for all college basketball teams is the reality that all coaches are still evolving and learning to use the portal effectively and efficiently. It is the easiest thing in the world to throw hands up and just say we will get a new team next year. Any coach will say that is not sustainable (and it isn't). However, there are literally hundreds of players available in a given cycle - and one or two may make the difference from winning 20-plus games and making the tournament and missing the tournament and having a losing season.

Player evaluation is the most prized resource a staff can have today (followed by player development). And when you miss on an entire class of players (either through HS or the portal) look out - you could be out of the job.

I think the league is healthy and in strong shape moving forward (especially with a locked-in near-term TV deal). Villanova will only get better with Willard; Pitino will continue to have St. John's nationally relevant. Marquette will be back next year (young kids look strong). DePaul continues to get better with Holtmann. And let's see what Providence and Georgetown do with English and Cooley, respectively. UConn will be the class with Hurley until he chooses to depart (possibly for the NBA).

That is an interesting take, honestly I'm not sure how much luck had to do with the league's success. There probably was some luck that factored in to the league's success OOC (crazy 2018 was almost a decade ago, time flies.) I do think some of our lack of success currently is because of NIL/the portal, other leagues have just gotten stronger because they can openly buy players. Whereas 8-10 years ago I think the league could sell itself as the best basketball conference; it was before the split and still had some years (I think 2018 was one) where it was the #1 or 2 rated conference overall based on the NCAA's main seeding metric (obviously no NET so RPI back then.)

Your point about coaching rings true as well. I think the top of the league in my eyes going forward will be Nova, UConn, St Johns and Marquette most years specifically because of their coaches. But I think part of the issue in terms of lack of bids is losing these coaches as well. If teams don't make the right hire, they may struggle. Nova with Neptune is an obvious example, but I think Providence with English and Georgetown with every hire they've made since JT3 are good examples as well. Xavier was a tournament caliber team every year under Miller, they've struggled in year 1 with Pitino (though I think he will eventually figure it out.) Will Creighton suffer a similar fate once McDermott retires? I'm hoping having a successful coach from HPU that has a chance to learn from him for a couple years before taking over mitigates the chance that happens, but you never know.

Regardless, if those top 4 are tournament caliber 90% of the time, we only need 2 teams to step up each year to get back to being a 6 bid league. I don't think that is unlikely, every team in this league cares about basketball and wants to be successful. Just need to nail coaching hires and roster construction each year, which admittedly can be tricky.

after last night Lunardi in his daily update:
UConn 4
St John's 20
Villanova in but not shown

Seton Hall 2nd team out
Butler 10th team out
Creighton 12th team out

I think Creighton has a mighty tough hill to climb IMO. Hall's loss to DePaul hurt, and two of their last three games are against UConn and St. John's. If they are one of the last teams projected in come conference tournament time, that will be even harder with bid thieves.

Idk, we may only get three teams in this year, unless there is a conference tournament bid thief (and with UConn, no way that happens IMO).

To be honest, I think UConn is very vulnerable.