(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote: I've read the argument that the old Big East was a beast but in fact each year they had questionable/soft teams at the bottom of the conference like all conferences did.
What made the Big East a special conference was that the middle of the Big East was generally as good as if not better than the collection of teams at the top of conferences like C-USA, A-10, etc. Don't believe me? Let's look at the records and RPIs of the teams that finished 6-10 in the Big East versus the top 5 teams from C-USA and A-10 respectively.
Big East
ND 25-9 RPI: 35
Villanova 20-13 RPI: 52
UConn 20-10 RPI: 49
Cincinnati 22-11 RPI: 50
Providence 17-14 RPI: 90
C-USA
Memphis 30-4 RPI: 12
USM 23-9 RPI: 31
UTEP 18-14 RPI: 96
UCF 18-11 RPI: 102
ECU 14-12 RPI: 104
A-10
Saint Louis 27-6 RPI: 16
Butler 25-8 RPI: 22
VCU 26-8 RPI: 25
Temple 23-9 RPI: 41
La Salle 21-9 RPI: 46
The middle teams in the Big East might not have won either of those leagues (Memphis, SLU, Butler, and VCU had extremely good teams last season), but I think they would have easily competed for a spot near the top of those conferences. That is why the Big East was always talked about as a beast in basketball.
(09-23-2013 09:36 AM)sfink16 Wrote: Most of the time, the top teams of the conference feasted of those teams for easy victories similar to top teams of every conference feasting on the bottom teams. Why would Memphis feasting on the middle to bottom of their conference be any different?
That is an easy question to answer. Let's compare Louisville conference schedule last year to Memphis' conference schedule last year. I'll include both the regular season and the conference tournament since both teams won their respective leagues.
Louisville
Regular season
Providence RPI: 90
Seton Hall RPI: 138
USF RPI: 156
UConn RPI: 49
Syracuse RPI: 14
Villanova RPI: 52
Georgetown RPI: 11
Pittsburgh RPI: 43
Marquette RPI: 13
Rutgers RPI: 110
ND RPI: 35
St. John's RPI: 94
USF RPI: 156
Seton Hall RPI: 138
DePaul RPI: 204
Syracuse RPI: 14
Cincinnati RPI: 50
ND RPI: 35
Tournament
Villanova RPI: 52
ND RPI: 35
Syracuse RPI: 14
Memphis
Regular season
ECU RPI: 104
UAB RPI: 145
Rice RPI: 324
Tulane RPI: 178
Marshall RPI: 208
ECU RPI: 104
Tulsa RPI: 128
SMU RPI: 219
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
Marshall RPI: 208
Houston RPI: 197
USM RPI: 31
UCF RPI: 102
UTEP RPI: 96
UAB RPI: 145
Tournament
Tulane RPI: 178
Tulsa RPI: 128
USM RPI: 31
Here's a quick breakdown for each team.
Louisville
Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 4
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 9
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 12
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 3
Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 33.67
Memphis
Conference Regular Season
Opponents in top 25 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 50 RPI: 2
Opponents in Top 100 RPI: 3
Opponents 150+ in RPI: 7
Conference Tournament
Average RPI ranking of opponent: 112.3
Memphis had a great team last year and winning 30 games is always an impressive feat. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can really argue with a straight face that the conference schedule Memphis played last season was anywhere near as a difficult as the conference slate Louisville (or any other Big East team) played last season. Winning Big East titles was a lot harder than winning C-USA titles and I think the methodology should reflect that.
I should also point out that it wasn't Memphis' fault whatsoever that C-USA was in basketball and the Tigers still had a great team regardless of what their conference opponents looked like. I'm not trying to devalue the team they had or how good they were. I'm simply pointing out that you shouldn't (IMO) give equal weight to all conference titles without taking into consideration that some leagues are much more challenging to win versus others.