I think my posts were misunderstood. I'm not saying that I'm unhappy in the ACC. I'm thrilled to be in the ACC! I know the BE's story as well as anyone and I am very familiar with its issues. Also, I see what happened to everyone else who did not get an invite to the ACC and I feel fortunate that it worked out as well as it did for us.

I was just making the point that the competition in the ACC is not stronger than it was in the Big East. It is stronger in football but not in men's basketball. In men's basketball quality, the league's are extremely similar.

Pitt's struggles are of its own making and it has nothing to do with our conference affiliation. Had the Big East not fallen apart, we would stink in that league too if we competed with this roster. Teams without point guards, shooting guards, centers or benches don't typically do well in major college basketball conferences.

The problem for Pitt is that Stallings was left a long term rebuild and his hiring was extremely unpopular among the locals. I mean have you ever heard of an introductory press conference where one of the reporters in attendance demands that the athletic director "come clean" with how he rigged the process to hire such a "wildly unqualified coach?"

I've never seen that before so I don't know what to make of it?

The athletic director who hired Stallings has already skipped town for Oregon State, leaving the embattled coach further unprotected.

I think next year Pitt is going to hit rock bottom and be among the worst teams in the ACC. The year after that they will be young and they will stink again. I think Stallings will most likely be fired after that third year because the new athletic director will have no allegiance to him at all. Then, I think they will stink for a few more years while Stallings's successor gets his system in place.

In other words, I think Pitt is going to stink for the foreseeable future, but I don't think it has anything to do with the level of competition as much as it does the relative quality of the program.

The good news is we have one of the better atmospheres in the ACC and we have proven that we can compete at the highest levels of the sport. However, you have to get the right guy or you could be headed for BC territory.

(02-20-2017 02:05 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The good news is we have one of the better atmospheres in the ACC and we have proven that we can compete at the highest levels of the sport.

No offense, but I wasn't that impressed by the atmosphere when VT played at Pitt last week. I'm willing to concede that it was a mid-week game near the tail end of a disappointing season, but I've always found Pitt's atmosphere to be somewhat lacking.

Actually, this ties into aesthetics. I think the atmosphere suffers on TV because of the crowd in the standard camera shots - placing the suites so low with only a few rows of seats behind the benches and scorer's table always gives the impression of a less lively crowd.

I think the Petersen Events Center is a very nice facility, but it's an odd setup for TV that doesn't quite capture the crowd in its best light. And this isn't a knock on Pitt, because VT has a similar issue. The students in Cassell are all on one end, high off the ground due to the design of the arena bowl.

As much as their fans annoy me, I think UVA's setup at JPJ with the student section in the camera shot is effective at translating an exciting atmosphere on TV.

Speaking of arena aesthetics, Cassell Coliseum is going to get new seats. No more wooden seats - it's an end of an era!

http://www.hokiesports.com/wrestling/rec...17aaa.html

The article states that the lower half of the arena bowl will get the new seats starting next season, with the upper half coming later.

(02-20-2017 01:28 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 11:39 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  How did this thread morph into a discussion of the merits of the old BE versus the ACC?

The old BE had some great basketball but the conference was impossibly weak in every other respect. It's a tribute to Dave Gavitt that it ever worked at all. Fans of former BE teams now in the ACC can be nostalgic if they wish but they should be extremely happy to be in the ACC. Who wants to be in U.Conn's shoes or those of West Virginia or Rutgers for that matter? If the ACC isn't your dream conference, you need to start dreaming harder.

Though I am nostalgic when it comes to The Big East, I agree with much of this. And in Lenville's defense I don't believe he was belittling The ACC.

Louisville fans know firsthand how lucky we were to dodge The Big 12 bullet then to be selected ahead of a UConn program that

1. Fits The ACC academic profile better.
2. That is actually located on the Atlantic Coast.

We know how lucky we were to have Florida State, Syracuse and Clemson stick up for us against Connecticut.

Yes The ACC is the dream conference for most Louisville fans. After a half dozen years and hundreds of discussions I honestly thought that was a given.

With all that being said when former Big East programs reminisce about their old conference, old ACC fans should not take as some slight. Its no different from old ACC fans reminiscing about the ACC when it was a true southern conference. Lets all not be so hyper sensitive.

I wasn't belittling the ACC at all. I was responding to X & Dr conversation over Pittsburgh downfall. That's how it "morphed". In post 14 Dr invited others opinion & I believe it was X who stated the comparison argument as it relates to Pittsburgh.

Am I the only one of who has seen the difference in style of play between the leagues? The BE had a reputation for being physical while the ACC plays a style more consistent with the rest of the country, the ACC style is more of how basketball is supposed to be played while the BE played a more street ball style. Dixon built Pittsburgh for the street ball style of the BE.

(Belittling? I said that I liked the ACC style better, the competition is similar & that while the BE had 2 awful teams at the bottom that the ACC doesn't.)

(02-21-2017 09:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 01:28 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 11:39 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  How did this thread morph into a discussion of the merits of the old BE versus the ACC?

The old BE had some great basketball but the conference was impossibly weak in every other respect. It's a tribute to Dave Gavitt that it ever worked at all. Fans of former BE teams now in the ACC can be nostalgic if they wish but they should be extremely happy to be in the ACC. Who wants to be in U.Conn's shoes or those of West Virginia or Rutgers for that matter? If the ACC isn't your dream conference, you need to start dreaming harder.

Though I am nostalgic when it comes to The Big East, I agree with much of this. And in Lenville's defense I don't believe he was belittling The ACC.

Louisville fans know firsthand how lucky we were to dodge The Big 12 bullet then to be selected ahead of a UConn program that

1. Fits The ACC academic profile better.
2. That is actually located on the Atlantic Coast.

We know how lucky we were to have Florida State, Syracuse and Clemson stick up for us against Connecticut.

Yes The ACC is the dream conference for most Louisville fans. After a half dozen years and hundreds of discussions I honestly thought that was a given.

With all that being said when former Big East programs reminisce about their old conference, old ACC fans should not take as some slight. Its no different from old ACC fans reminiscing about the ACC when it was a true southern conference. Lets all not be so hyper sensitive.

I wasn't belittling the ACC at all. I was responding to X & Dr conversation over Pittsburgh downfall. That's how it "morphed". In post 14 Dr invited others opinion & I believe it was X who stated the comparison argument as it relates to Pittsburgh.

Am I the only one of who has seen the difference in style of play between the leagues? The BE had a reputation for being physical while the ACC plays a style more consistent with the rest of the country, the ACC style is more of how basketball is supposed to be played while the BE played a more street ball style. Dixon built Pittsburgh for the street ball style of the BE.

(Belittling? I said that I liked the ACC style better, the competition is similar & that while the BE had 2 awful teams at the bottom that the ACC doesn't.)

I agree with your assessment. The Big East had a more rugged style. We used to call it "no blood no foul". The ACC was / is a more finesse league.

What's really strange is The ACC used to be more like The Old Big East but like every other league when coaches change so does the style of play from program to program.

This quote from an NCAA article from 2014 is interesting.

"Louisville is no Kentucky. The powerful Cardinals program isn't a new-age basketball factory that collects AAU players who can only dunk and then tweet about it.

Pitino is old school. His teams will remind ACC fans of the way it used to be.

Want to compare Louisville's program in terms we can understand? How about Dean Smith's old Carolina teams? Think of the way Norm Sloan built his teams. Think back to Terry Holland and Lefty Driesell.

Louisville is built along classic lines, from the rim out, not the other way around."

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/...ar-old-acc

Now to direct the thread back to its original premeise. Aesthetically all the crap on the floor makes the game hard to watch. So I'm more of a traditionalist myself. More in the Hickory Husker, less is more vein.

Personally I like the amenities for fans like those of Louisville's "The Taj Mahal of College Basketball" myself. I'll take a Bourbon Lounge over some stencil on the floor anyday.
CJ

(02-21-2017 11:37 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 01:28 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 11:39 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  How did this thread morph into a discussion of the merits of the old BE versus the ACC?

The old BE had some great basketball but the conference was impossibly weak in every other respect. It's a tribute to Dave Gavitt that it ever worked at all. Fans of former BE teams now in the ACC can be nostalgic if they wish but they should be extremely happy to be in the ACC. Who wants to be in U.Conn's shoes or those of West Virginia or Rutgers for that matter? If the ACC isn't your dream conference, you need to start dreaming harder.

Though I am nostalgic when it comes to The Big East, I agree with much of this. And in Lenville's defense I don't believe he was belittling The ACC.

Louisville fans know firsthand how lucky we were to dodge The Big 12 bullet then to be selected ahead of a UConn program that

1. Fits The ACC academic profile better.
2. That is actually located on the Atlantic Coast.

We know how lucky we were to have Florida State, Syracuse and Clemson stick up for us against Connecticut.

Yes The ACC is the dream conference for most Louisville fans. After a half dozen years and hundreds of discussions I honestly thought that was a given.

With all that being said when former Big East programs reminisce about their old conference, old ACC fans should not take as some slight. Its no different from old ACC fans reminiscing about the ACC when it was a true southern conference. Lets all not be so hyper sensitive.

I wasn't belittling the ACC at all. I was responding to X & Dr conversation over Pittsburgh downfall. That's how it "morphed". In post 14 Dr invited others opinion & I believe it was X who stated the comparison argument as it relates to Pittsburgh.

Am I the only one of who has seen the difference in style of play between the leagues? The BE had a reputation for being physical while the ACC plays a style more consistent with the rest of the country, the ACC style is more of how basketball is supposed to be played while the BE played a more street ball style. Dixon built Pittsburgh for the street ball style of the BE.

(Belittling? I said that I liked the ACC style better, the competition is similar & that while the BE had 2 awful teams at the bottom that the ACC doesn't.)

I agree with your assessment. The Big East had a more rugged style. We used to call it "no blood no foul". The ACC was / is a more finesse league.

What's really strange is The ACC used to be more like The Old Big East but like every other league when coaches change so does the style of play from program to program.

This quote from an NCAA article from 2014 is interesting.

"Louisville is no Kentucky. The powerful Cardinals program isn't a new-age basketball factory that collects AAU players who can only dunk and then tweet about it.

Pitino is old school. His teams will remind ACC fans of the way it used to be.

Want to compare Louisville's program in terms we can understand? How about Dean Smith's old Carolina teams? Think of the way Norm Sloan built his teams. Think back to Terry Holland and Lefty Driesell.

Louisville is built along classic lines, from the rim out, not the other way around."

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/...ar-old-acc

If you are saying the ACC used to play a more rugged, less finesse style, I can't remember when that was. For a long time, the ACC was criticized as being soft, and that was viewed as a reason they didn't do so well in the NCAAT when refs allowed a lot more physical play.

Once ACC teams started winning more in the tourney, that narrative wasn't heard as much. But I don't think there has been that big a difference in the style of play over the years. Just my take on it. It's not the kind of thing you can quantify.

Honestly Ken
That's what I always thought. After reading the attached piece it makes the claim of the opposite. Since I am not well versed in ACC history I can't argue either way.
CJ

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

Tonight's game was a PERFECT example of what I have been talking about. We played great in the first half, built up a big lead and then promptly collapsed down the stretch - for like the 10th time this season.

Dumbest team in America.