Pitt of all the teams since 1996 has been to the final more than anyone except for UConn with 7 appearances- all since 2001. There are 5 schools since 1996 that have made more than 2 title game appearances(all have made at least 4 actually, but no 3's). Georgetown is the ONLY C7 school to have done that (UConn, Pitt, Syr, and Lou).

Also you bring up that the 2 programs have won 9 of the last 18 titles- and say it's the same as the ACC. It's worse in the ACC. Duke BY THEMSELVES has won 11 of the last 17 titles and UNC has won 4. 15/17. Compare that to the BE where 6 different football programs have won at least a title(with WV the only one to win it only once) and 2 C7 schools have done the same. In that conference- UNC and Duke have dominated. In the BE- that's not the case- but the football programs have dominated the league.

And you are way too generous when you say that 8/10 are nationally prominent or competitive. Sorry but Providence is not right now by any stretch. Were they better this year? Yeah. But they were 17-14. In the words of Bill Parcells you are what your record says you are. That's not good. St John's is not back yet.

Also- you bring up the 7 elite 8 or better appearances. Well, the fb programs in our conference have a total of 9 final 4's in that same time frame (7 since 2003)- with 3 titles.

That's the bottom line- the football schools for whatever reason as a whole passed the C7 schools on the bball court.

I conclude with some further proof just based on the NCAA tourney. In the next 6 years- the C7 schools will be getting 118 units(plus 6x the units this year- with 3 schools). The fb schools will be getting 292 units(plus 6x the units this year- with 4 schools)- taking ND out of it since they are in neither group really. We have 3 schools getting more than 1 unit this year. The football schools have 7(to include USF). If the Hoyas don't make the elite 8 this year- next year, the C7 would have 2 schools that earned 10+ units over the previous 6 years(Villanova and Marquette). The football schools would have 5.

Bottom line, we have our work cut out for us. The newbies have to come in and do well right off the bat. The old guard must pick it up. What we have been doing just won't cut it.

Pitt and Notre Dame have had awful NCAA results in the last 10 to 15 years (actually for the last 30 years!), except for the one year Pitt made an Elite-8 (2009?) and then lost to Villanova. If they were part of the C-7 group, you (stever) would be complaining about them. Pitt and ND provide the worst scenario for a conference, similar to Syracuse in the BE pre-87... excellent regular seasons, then poop the bed in the NCAAs... and no Final Fours and 1 combined Elite-8 out of the Big East ever. UConn to their credit provided us with the exact opposite... a 9th place national champion and serious balls with 3 national titles.

More fun with numbers:
Last 30 years, total Elite-8's:
Syracuse + Pitt + Notre Dame = 5 combined Elite-8s.
Providence + Seton Hall = 4 combined Elite-8s.
Pitt + Notre Dame = 1 combined Elite-8.

Or this:
Elite-8s, Since 1997:
Providence + St John's = 2.
Pitt + Notre Dame + Cincinnati + Rutgers + South Florida + Boston College + Virginia Tech + Miami (Fla) + Clemson + Virginia + Florida State + NC State = 1.

Since 1997:
Elite-8 Schools:
ACC will have 7 out of their eventual 15 schools.
The Big East will have 7 out of our 10 schools.

[Post #21 decided to count numbers after 1996]

I think it is a stretch for anybody to claim at this stage of the game that the new Big East is better than the Big East of today. The new Big East hasn't yet played even one year together, much less than the number played together by the current Big East brand. Come back in 6-7 years and let's make a comparison. At that point, the newbies will have had the additional exposure that will likely bring higher quality recruits into their programs and we'll see how the new Conference has fared in the polls and NCAA Tourney as well.

I hope the statement turns out to be true since I want my Xavier Musketeers to benefit from this partnership!

(03-17-2013 08:22 AM)muskienick Wrote:  I think it is a stretch for anybody to claim at this stage of the game that the new Big East is better than the Big East of today. The new Big East hasn't yet played even one year together, much less than the number played together by the current Big East brand. Come back in 6-7 years and let's make a comparison. At that point, the newbies will have had the additional exposure that will likely bring higher quality recruits into their programs and we'll see how the new Conference has fared in the polls and NCAA Tourney as well.

I hope the statement turns out to be true since I want my Xavier Musketeers to benefit from this partnership!

Somehow I fear in 6 or 7 years we'll still be talking about expansion and realignment! Ugh!

(03-15-2013 12:51 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 12:43 PM)jnewyouth Wrote:  Don't be confused, I'm siding with the C7 concerning ESPN's brushoff. That network is doing everything possible to ruin conferences and teams that aren't on their network.

They know we aren't coming back thats why they are acting like it's the last because it's the last THEY will air.

Exactly. If one team (Syracuse) were still to remain, this eulogy would not be happening at all. Which begs the question, if 1 team can make such a difference in thinking, how is the new Big East a spin off? Basically, the C7 kicked the football schools out and are bringing in new good basketball schools. It's still the Big East with their tournament in MSG.

(03-16-2013 11:40 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  The C7 did not leave the Big East. Syracuse, Pitt, etc. did that.

This is not a new conference any more than the expanded Big East of 1995 was a new conference or the reorganized conference of 2005 was a new conference.

Bingo.

(03-17-2013 12:32 PM)BigBCherney Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 12:51 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 12:43 PM)jnewyouth Wrote:  Don't be confused, I'm siding with the C7 concerning ESPN's brushoff. That network is doing everything possible to ruin conferences and teams that aren't on their network.

They know we aren't coming back thats why they are acting like it's the last because it's the last THEY will air.

Exactly. If one team (Syracuse) were still to remain, this eulogy would not be happening at all. Which begs the question, if 1 team can make such a difference in thinking, how is the new Big East a spin off? Basically, the C7 kicked the football schools out and are bringing in new good basketball schools. It's still the Big East with their tournament in MSG.

The thing is it's not just those schools leaving. If we made the same move but signed with ESPN they wouldn't be saying this. They would be saying ti was continuing next year right here on ESPN. Since we aren't coming back they are telling people that the "real" Big East is over and any other Big East is a bad copy.

The Big East tournament and conference (of this season) along with its constitution and bylaws are part of the Aresco controlled members of the current league. The tournament that concluded Saturday at The Garden will continue without the C-7, without the "Big East" name, and even without the Garden... and it's trophy will have the right to continue to list all past champions dating back to 79-80 if they so choose... rebranding your name, doesn't change the entity or history, just ask the PAC. Louisville will have the ability to defend this conference's championship next year (if a move to the ACC isn't fast-tracked), even if the title is called something different.

That is why this was the last tournament as we know it.

As for ESPN, anyone who's been a fan of the Big East knows first hand, that the Network's talking points of the conference turned, when the Presidents voted to reject the early television renewal back in spring of 2011 -- and that was just refusing the first offer, not signing with someone else; so I wouldn't expect any favors from ESPN for promoting the new Catholic Big East, now that they're signing with FOX.

(03-19-2013 01:28 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The Big East tournament and conference (of this season) along with its constitution and bylaws are part of the Aresco controlled members of the current league. The tournament that concluded Saturday at The Garden will continue without the C-7, without the "Big East" name, and even without the Garden... and it's trophy will have the right to continue to list all past champions dating back to 79-80 if they so choose... rebranding your name, doesn't change the entity or history, just ask the PAC. Louisville will have the ability to defend this conference's championship next year (if a move to the ACC isn't fast-tracked), even if the title is called something different.

That is why this was the last tournament as we know it.

As for ESPN, anyone who's been a fan of the Big East knows first hand, that the Network's talking points of the conference turned, when the Presidents voted to reject the early television renewal back in spring of 2011 -- and that was just refusing the first offer, not signing with someone else; so I wouldn't expect any favors from ESPN for promoting the new Catholic Big East, now that they're signing with FOX.

Look up the Cleveland Browns history. It isn't in Baltimore.

(03-19-2013 01:28 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The Big East tournament and conference (of this season) along with its constitution and bylaws are part of the Aresco controlled members of the current league. The tournament that concluded Saturday at The Garden will continue without the C-7, without the "Big East" name, and even without the Garden... and it's trophy will have the right to continue to list all past champions dating back to 79-80 if they so choose... rebranding your name, doesn't change the entity or history, just ask the PAC. Louisville will have the ability to defend this conference's championship next year (if a move to the ACC isn't fast-tracked), even if the title is called something different.

That is why this was the last tournament as we know it.

As for ESPN, anyone who's been a fan of the Big East knows first hand, that the Network's talking points of the conference turned, when the Presidents voted to reject the early television renewal back in spring of 2011 -- and that was just refusing the first offer, not signing with someone else; so I wouldn't expect any favors from ESPN for promoting the new Catholic Big East, now that they're signing with FOX.

This is not true at all. The Big East members created an agreement among themselves that a "split" in the conference could be accomplished if initiated by either the basketball schools as a group or by the football schools as a group.

This split was not to be considered a departure from the conference but the mutual creation of 2 equal conferences, each carrying on the traditions of the big East. There would be no exit fees and all of the assets would still be considered to be held jointly until an amicable negotiation could be conducted to divide up the joint property.

I don't see how any of that matches with what you've described.

(03-19-2013 03:17 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 01:28 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The Big East tournament and conference (of this season) along with its constitution and bylaws are part of the Aresco controlled members of the current league. The tournament that concluded Saturday at The Garden will continue without the C-7, without the "Big East" name, and even without the Garden... and it's trophy will have the right to continue to list all past champions dating back to 79-80 if they so choose... rebranding your name, doesn't change the entity or history, just ask the PAC. Louisville will have the ability to defend this conference's championship next year (if a move to the ACC isn't fast-tracked), even if the title is called something different.

That is why this was the last tournament as we know it.

As for ESPN, anyone who's been a fan of the Big East knows first hand, that the Network's talking points of the conference turned, when the Presidents voted to reject the early television renewal back in spring of 2011 -- and that was just refusing the first offer, not signing with someone else; so I wouldn't expect any favors from ESPN for promoting the new Catholic Big East, now that they're signing with FOX.

This is not true at all. The Big East members created an agreement among themselves that a "split" in the conference could be accomplished if initiated by either the basketball schools as a group or by the football schools as a group.

This split was not to be considered a departure from the conference but the mutual creation of 2 equal conferences, each carrying on the traditions of the big East. There would be no exit fees and all of the assets would still be considered to be held jointly until an amicable negotiation could be conducted to divide up the joint property.

I don't see how any of that matches with what you've described.

I don't think they teach Big East History on Tobacco Road. hahaha

(03-15-2013 10:42 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  [quote='jnewyouth' pid='9095948' dateline='1363355776']
Atleast the Times respects you. ESPN doesn't acknowledge the new (C7) Big East, claims this is the last Big East Tournament ever.

they don't acknowledge anybody they don't have a contract with

(03-20-2013 09:34 PM)EPJr Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 10:42 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  [quote='jnewyouth' pid='9095948' dateline='1363355776']
Atleast the Times respects you. ESPN doesn't acknowledge the new (C7) Big East, claims this is the last Big East Tournament ever.

they don't acknowledge anybody they don't have a contract with

Let's not fool ourselves.
UConn, Louisville, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Pitt >>> Butler, Xavier, St. Louis, Creighton, Dayton

The departing group has more NCAA titles (8) than the new members have Elite Eights (7). Think about that for a minute.


This new version is the rightful heirs to the name and tradition of the Big East. And it's going to be a great conference, probably the 3rd best in the country after the ACC and Big 10. But any suggestion that it is an upgrade over the old Big East is simply sour grapes.

Louisville - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 25 years
Cincinnati - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 50 years
Pitt - no titles in the entire tournament era, much less as a member of the Big East

St. Louis - not a new member of the Big East
Dayton - not a new member of the Big East

Being "a better Big East" does not mean more titles. It is better in terms of true rivalries, in terms of institutional fit, in terms of stability. Especially in terms of stability. That's what these presidents want. Yes, they want to compete in sports at a high level, which this conference will due, but they'd like to have the security of being able to predict who their membership will be in 5 years. They'd like to know who their colleagues are going to be in the future.

As for future championships, Final Fours, or Final 8's, what will matter will be how many are won in the future. That's how this conference will be judged, not how many were won 25 years ago or 50 years ago.

(03-21-2013 08:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Louisville - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 25 years
Cincinnati - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 50 years
Pitt - no titles in the entire tournament era, much less as a member of the Big East

St. Louis - not a new member of the Big East
Dayton - not a new member of the Big East

Being "a better Big East" does not mean more titles. It is better in terms of true rivalries, in terms of institutional fit, in terms of stability. Especially in terms of stability. That's what these presidents want. Yes, they want to compete in sports at a high level, which this conference will due, but they'd like to have the security of being able to predict who their membership will be in 5 years. They'd like to know who their colleagues are going to be in the future.

As for future championships, Final Fours, or Final 8's, what will matter will be how many are won in the future. That's how this conference will be judged, not how many were won 25 years ago or 50 years ago.

Is this new conference stable? What happens when GT finds green pastures? Eventually ACC is going to expand or be raided and everyone knows they would love to be associated with those schools and not Creighton, VCU, UD, SLU, X, Butler, etc (should any of the three mentioned get in to the NBE)

(03-21-2013 08:52 AM)Roader Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 08:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Louisville - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 25 years
Cincinnati - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 50 years
Pitt - no titles in the entire tournament era, much less as a member of the Big East

St. Louis - not a new member of the Big East
Dayton - not a new member of the Big East

Being "a better Big East" does not mean more titles. It is better in terms of true rivalries, in terms of institutional fit, in terms of stability. Especially in terms of stability. That's what these presidents want. Yes, they want to compete in sports at a high level, which this conference will due, but they'd like to have the security of being able to predict who their membership will be in 5 years. They'd like to know who their colleagues are going to be in the future.

As for future championships, Final Fours, or Final 8's, what will matter will be how many are won in the future. That's how this conference will be judged, not how many were won 25 years ago or 50 years ago.

Is this new conference stable? What happens when GT finds green pastures? Eventually ACC is going to expand or be raided and everyone knows they would love to be associated with those schools and not Creighton, VCU, UD, SLU, X, Butler, etc (should any of the three mentioned get in to the NBE)

Why would Georgetown revisit a league model that failed miserably? And I think a raided ACC will have bigger fish to fry than shoring up their basketball depth. I think the Big East is the greenest pasture for a basketball only school.

(03-21-2013 08:52 AM)Roader Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 08:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Louisville - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 25 years
Cincinnati - no titles as a member of the Big East, no titles in the past 50 years
Pitt - no titles in the entire tournament era, much less as a member of the Big East

St. Louis - not a new member of the Big East
Dayton - not a new member of the Big East

Being "a better Big East" does not mean more titles. It is better in terms of true rivalries, in terms of institutional fit, in terms of stability. Especially in terms of stability. That's what these presidents want. Yes, they want to compete in sports at a high level, which this conference will due, but they'd like to have the security of being able to predict who their membership will be in 5 years. They'd like to know who their colleagues are going to be in the future.

As for future championships, Final Fours, or Final 8's, what will matter will be how many are won in the future. That's how this conference will be judged, not how many were won 25 years ago or 50 years ago.

Is this new conference stable? What happens when GT finds green pastures? Eventually ACC is going to expand or be raided and everyone knows they would love to be associated with those schools and not Creighton, VCU, UD, SLU, X, Butler, etc (should any of the three mentioned get in to the NBE)

Why would GTown be a BBall only member with no say in the ACC when they can be the big dog in the Big East? It's not like we're not a premier league and not getting paid well.