Appearantly there's a thread going on a PC board about the NBE being stronger than the 90's big east...

"One of the problems with people's memories is that they forget stuff. To refresh, from 1990-91 to 1997-98, the vaunted Big East had a grand total of one Final Four team, a surprise Syracuse squad led by John Wallace that lost to Kentucky in the national championship in 1996. They averaged about 4.5 teams per year into the tournament in a league that had 13 teams for half this time. That works out to about 40% of the league getting bids in a given year.

Since realignment, the ten team Big East has averaged 5.6 teams per season in the NCAA tournament in five years. This is obviously 56% of the league getting bids in a given year. While we also have only had one Final Four team (subject to change this season), that team won the national title.

The Big East winning percentage over the past five years is far higher than during this period, too. Don't forget that the Big East went from Villanova in 1985 to UConn in 1999 between championships.

I also could have have picked a small sample of the ACC, where they only got the bids in consecutive years, or the Big Ten, where they had several stretches of early flame-out, and the same with the Big 12 or SEC.

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. A couple of bounces or foul calls here and there could have meant having four or five Big East teams still alive. As long as the league continues what it has been doing, Final Fours and national championships will continue to come, even if there are blips along the way."


1990s big east (going 1989-90 to 1998-99 seasons- you can't just throw out the 1st year of the decade and the last just because oops, there's a title there)....
90 6 bids, 8 wins
91 7 bids, 11 wins
---------------------league goes to 10 teams
92 5 bids, 5 wins
93 3 bids 2 wins
94 6 bids, 8 wins
95 4 bids, 6 wins
--------------------- league goes to 13 teams
96 5 bids, 12 wins
97 4 bids, 5 wins
98 5 bids 6 wins
99 5 bids, 10 wins
so in 10 years had 50 bids and 73 wins. 73-49 overall for a winning percentage of .598 in the tourney. Also, in there time of using 1990-91 to 1997-98, the league had 13 teams in 3 of the 8 years.
even if you wanted to use 99-00 instead of 89-90- that year had 5 bids and 8 wins. So 49 bids and 73 wins doing it that way.

Compare the decade to the 5 years of the New Big East
14 4 bids, 2 wins
15 6 bids, 5 wins
16 5 bids, 9 wins
17 7 bids, 6 wins
18 6 bids, 5 wins so far
so a total of 28 bids and 27 wins. Double that and it's 56 bids and 54 wins. 90's Big East had 2 final 4's and 1 title (and 11 elite 8's) 14-18 Big East had 1 final 4 and 1 title(and 2 elite 8's). Oh, and the average number of teams in the 90-99 seasons was 11.

It's what you want to focus on. Some folks want to focus on regular season. That's fine. Others want to focus on the postseason. I so happen to think a pretty high percentage of fans want to focus on the postseason.

even if you just want to use the 8 years in the middle of the decade......

1st off- average of 11 teams in the conference per year. oops.
then... 39 bids in those 8 years. Or 4.88 per year. 55 wins in those 8 years. or 6.88 per year. So a pace for 49 bids and 69 wins. Compare that to the NBE with 28 bids and 27 wins. A pace for 56 bids and 54 wins.

then they said about lottery picks..... that the league has more now than before
90's big east had
91 Owens, Mutumbo
92 Mourning
93 Dehere
94 Marshalll
95 0
96 Iverson, Allen, Kittles
97 Thomas, Croshere
98 0
so 10 in the 8 years. 1.25 per year. If you expand to the entire 90's it's 12 in 10 years. 1.2 per year.

NBE
14 McDermott
15 0
16 Dunn (Ellenson was taken 18th)
17 0 (Patton was taken 16th just outside the lottery)
so 2 in the 4 years. Or 0.50 per year

so yeah, nope. Unless your measure is the regular season(which seems to be only Big East fans quite frankly)- not much favors the current Big East.

oh and top 5 picks- 90's had 7 of them (Coleman, Owens, Mutumbo, Mourning, Marshall, Iverson, and Allen) to only 1 from the '10s Big East(Dunn).

Stever, I really respect you as a poster. I think you often provide great counterpoints and valuable insight. However, I think you need to not take fans' opinions of liking the Big East too personal. You seem to respond to each and every post that paints the Big East in a bright light only to attempt to "correct" those thoughts. It's ok if you don't share others' opinions, just like it's ok if others don't share yours.

(03-21-2018 09:23 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Stever, I really respect you as a poster. I think you often provide great counterpoints and valuable insight. However, I think you need to not take fans' opinions of liking the Big East too personal. You seem to respond to each and every post that paints the Big East in a bright light only to attempt to "correct" those thoughts. It's ok if you don't share others' opinions, just like it's ok if others don't share yours.

the problem is some of the points they make trying to make their case are factually inaccurate. The # of draft lottery selections for 1 is a prime case. Or the number of teams. No matter how you slice the 90's there weren't 13 teams in the conference for half the decade. 1st 2 years there were only 9 teams. Or like Bill Marsh who says lets look at last 12 years, which means oh, go back 11 full tournaments. When going either 10 full tournaments or 12 full tournaments puts the Big East in a weaker light. Sorry but I'm going to call folks out on things like that. That'd be like me saying something about the AAC, and going back right now to 2011 in calculating(to make sure that the UConn title is in there).

I just think people act like the postseason is just a bonus game, when it's really not. To act like there's no consequences for Xavier's loss means there would be nothing positive if they had won it. Of course there is. The ONLY reason why the conference has seen their press improve from 2 years ago was that Villanova won the title. That's it. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with the regular season. I understand that folks might not like it, but it just is reality.

and the thing is, posters on the other board who opine like I do that the tourney is a problem get drowned out. Oh there's no problem. We get x bids per year, that's what matters. Folks want to have the incredible regular season and then let March just be an extra credit thing- the real work is done. Sorry but in America, the post season is what matters. I mean case in point- 10 years ago the Patriots had an undefeated regular season. But lost in the Super Bowl. Are they viewed as one of the best teams ever? Nope. You can say all you want that it's wrong- but it's just not reality.