(01-27-2020 01:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:40 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 10:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 10:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yeah, and it wasn't even close.

From 2006-2013:
Big East had 65 NCAA bids, 8 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles
ACC had 41 NCAA bids, 3 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles.

The Big East also had a ton of dead weight and benefited from guaranteed wins over said dead weight in-conference to pad their records.

Let’s just compare the top three seasons of conference winning percentage during those years, shall we?

ACC- .642, .640, and .631

Big East- .614, .614, and .612



Was the Big East great? Sure. They had some nice tournament runs. Were they clearly better, hell no. The ACC and Big East both sent over half their teams to the dance twice.

But, as Quo notes, the postseason success is what was separating the Big East from the ACC during this era (as brought up by Bill). Both were no doubt elite basketball conferences at the time, but while the ACC only had UNC (2008, 2009) and Duke (2010) represented, the Big East had Georgetown (2007), Villanova (2009), UConn (2009), West Virginia (2010), UConn (2011) and Louisville (2012, 2013) and Syracuse (2013) all make the Final Four. The Big East (2006-2013) not only had elite programs, but the parity where any number of teams could make a run at the national championship annually. The ACC really only had UNC and Duke during this period.

Postseason success is not a good benchmark for how good a conference is overall. Otherwise, the ACC is clearly the second best football conference because of Clemson’s playoff appearances.

The tournament is a crapshoot of match-ups.

I agree - but the number of different programs that had elite-level success in the tournament (in addition to the strong OOC and regular seasons) - pushed the Big East, during this time period, above the ACC.

(01-27-2020 02:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  Postseason success is not a good benchmark for how good a conference is overall. Otherwise, the ACC is clearly the second best football conference because of Clemson’s playoff appearances.

I tend to agree with this, although I do think in hoops, NCAA tournament bids is a good marker, as this goes beyond merely who wins the national title, which is always a single team.

But looking at RealTime Conference RPI for 2008 - 2012, as that covers all teams and the period leading up to ACC raids on Big East:

Year ......... ACC .... Big East

2008 ........ 1 ........ 5
2009 ........ 1 ........ 4
2010 ........ 3 ........ 2
2011 ........ 5 ........ 1
2012 ........ 6 ........ 2

To me, this looks like a pattern of the Big East surpassing the ACC as the ACC tumbled from the top.

For two seasons and then what? Syracuse hasn’t been close to dominating the ACC, Pitt has finally turned the corner after being shellacked for a few seasons, and Louisville has performed fairly well. Notre Dame is now back to Earth after a few strong showings. If it was a true trend then they would all be atop the ACC standings, no?

Um no, what happened after a trend has nothing to do with the trend as it was.

(01-27-2020 01:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 10:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 10:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Yeah, and it wasn't even close.

From 2006-2013:
Big East had 65 NCAA bids, 8 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles
ACC had 41 NCAA bids, 3 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles.

The Big East also had a ton of dead weight and benefited from guaranteed wins over said dead weight in-conference to pad their records.

Let’s just compare the top three seasons of conference winning percentage during those years, shall we?

ACC- .642, .640, and .631

Big East- .614, .614, and .612



Was the Big East great? Sure. They had some nice tournament runs. Were they clearly better, hell no. The ACC and Big East both sent over half their teams to the dance twice.

Esayem, The stat you provide is noteworthy. But the stat CapBearcat offers is significantly more telling.

Once more:

[b]From 2006-2013:
Big East had 65 NCAA bids, 8 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles
ACC had 41 NCAA bids, 3 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles.[/b]

When the BE added DePaul, Marquette, Louisville and Cincy in 2006, the league basically ended ACC supremacy and became better — and maybe even "clearly better." As I posted previously, the Big East at that point had essentially 14 programs that would rank in most folks' all-time Top 75. The ACC had seven or eight at most.

And, to be fair, there was clearly "dead-weight" in the ACC at that time, too. So your point there must be countered.

Now, when the ACC added Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville, and West Virginia left for Big 12 and UConn stayed in the AAC ... the dynamic once again shifted back to the ACC and away from the Big East.

Moving forward (and with UConn rejoining the Big East), I foresee the leagues in hoops being ranked (year in and out, as any league can be "best" any one year) as such:

1. Atlantic Coast
2A. Big Ten
2B. Big East
4. SEC
5. Big 12
6A. Pac-12
*6B. American (* if, and a big if, the AAC can land VCU). Otherwise, the AAC will likely be a true "No. 7" (which it might be regardless year in and year out).

As you likely know, I root for teams in both the Big East and ACC (for whatever that's worth).

Don’t forget they added South Florida as well. DePaul, South Florida, St. John’s, Rutgers, Seton Hall, and to a lesser extent Providence all stunk it up during that period. That’s over 33% of the conference.

Remember the 2011 tournament when the Big East got 11 teams in and proceeded to show how tough they were? I think all except UConn and Marquette (UNC would send them packing) had gone home after the first weekend. UConn caught fire when they needed to, but nobody else bothered to show up.

The ACC clearly had a better winning percentage. So no, the Big East never did surpass the ACC.

Let's put in this way, Esayem. I work in the media full time and worked in the national sports media (with Athlon Sports Communications) off and on (free-lance) from 1990 to 2009. I continue to talk to (and talked with back then) lots of folks who follow college hoops and know their stuff. I would estimate 90 percent of them ranked the Big East ahead of the ACC during the time period we are discussing. The BE was simply a monster based on many metrics and, if anything, sheer number of historically strong programs.

Now, in fairness, this is all very subjective. But that's how these people saw it back then and how I did too — and still do.

At its height, the Big East simply had far more programs with major hoops pedigrees and cache (even if, as you note, those programs were down) than did the ACC. NCState (whom I loosely follow and pull for since my sister attended) was down during that period (as I recall) but still has a strong history that is worth crediting. And I do. So this argument you offer can go both ways and I want to be consistent.

I have frequently noted since I started posting in mid-2019 on this board that I am not a fan (in the strict sense) of any one conference. I try to stay objective. I give credit where it's due and criticize in a constructive manner.

You and I are both Tar Heel fans and would enjoy a beer and discussing the program and why Brad Daughtery is likely my all-time favorite UNC player.

I respect your right to feel the Big East did not surpass the ACC during this time period. But I feel it did.

Now let's get Roy and the lads going tonight in Raleigh after the Miami win.

(01-27-2020 02:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  Postseason success is not a good benchmark for how good a conference is overall. Otherwise, the ACC is clearly the second best football conference because of Clemson’s playoff appearances.

I tend to agree with this, although I do think in hoops, NCAA tournament bids is a good marker, as this goes beyond merely who wins the national title, which is always a single team.

But looking at RealTime Conference RPI for 2008 - 2012, as that covers all teams and the period leading up to ACC raids on Big East:

Year ......... ACC .... Big East

2008 ........ 1 ........ 5
2009 ........ 1 ........ 4
2010 ........ 3 ........ 2
2011 ........ 5 ........ 1
2012 ........ 6 ........ 2

To me, this looks like a pattern of the Big East surpassing the ACC as the ACC tumbled from the top.

For two seasons and then what? Syracuse hasn’t been close to dominating the ACC, Pitt has finally turned the corner after being shellacked for a few seasons, and Louisville has performed fairly well. Notre Dame is now back to Earth after a few strong showings. If it was a true trend then they would all be atop the ACC standings, no?

The fact that those Big East teams had surpassed the ACC is shown in the first couple of seasons after the last expansion:

2013-14 Syracuse won their 1st 12 ACC games in a row, including wins over UNC and Duke, finished 2nd (behind UVa).
2014-15 Notre Dame 3rd, Louisville 4th, Syracuse 8th.

Keep in mind: the ACC only added 4 teams, and 3 of them tore it up in hoops at first (now it's down to Louisville - but that may be due to a lot of things)

(01-28-2020 08:07 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:14 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  Postseason success is not a good benchmark for how good a conference is overall. Otherwise, the ACC is clearly the second best football conference because of Clemson’s playoff appearances.

I tend to agree with this, although I do think in hoops, NCAA tournament bids is a good marker, as this goes beyond merely who wins the national title, which is always a single team.

But looking at RealTime Conference RPI for 2008 - 2012, as that covers all teams and the period leading up to ACC raids on Big East:

Year ......... ACC .... Big East

2008 ........ 1 ........ 5
2009 ........ 1 ........ 4
2010 ........ 3 ........ 2
2011 ........ 5 ........ 1
2012 ........ 6 ........ 2

To me, this looks like a pattern of the Big East surpassing the ACC as the ACC tumbled from the top.

For two seasons and then what? Syracuse hasn’t been close to dominating the ACC, Pitt has finally turned the corner after being shellacked for a few seasons, and Louisville has performed fairly well. Notre Dame is now back to Earth after a few strong showings. If it was a true trend then they would all be atop the ACC standings, no?

The fact that those Big East teams had surpassed the ACC is shown in the first couple of seasons after the last expansion:

2013-14 Syracuse won their 1st 12 ACC games in a row, including wins over UNC and Duke, finished 2nd (behind UVa).
2014-15 Notre Dame 3rd, Louisville 4th, Syracuse 8th.

Keep in mind: the ACC only added 4 teams, and 3 of them tore it up in hoops at first (now it's down to Louisville - but that may be due to a lot of things)

Good point, Gobbler. I forgot about Syracuse starting hot and then proceeding to be an also-ran in the conference. Once ACC coaches figured them out, it was o-v-a.

You failed to mention Pitt.

Two things I think we all agree on:

1. The ACC got stronger in hoops with the addition of UL, Pitt, the Cuse and Notre Dame.

2. The Big East is not as strong as it once was (no league could lose that number of heavy-hitter programs and remain as powerful) but it remains VERY strong. It's impressive how the league has reinvented itself.

(01-27-2020 04:33 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 10:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Big East also had a ton of dead weight and benefited from guaranteed wins over said dead weight in-conference to pad their records.

Let’s just compare the top three seasons of conference winning percentage during those years, shall we?

ACC- .642, .640, and .631

Big East- .614, .614, and .612



Was the Big East great? Sure. They had some nice tournament runs. Were they clearly better, hell no. The ACC and Big East both sent over half their teams to the dance twice.

Esayem, The stat you provide is noteworthy. But the stat CapBearcat offers is significantly more telling.

Once more:

[b]From 2006-2013:
Big East had 65 NCAA bids, 8 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles
ACC had 41 NCAA bids, 3 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles.[/b]

When the BE added DePaul, Marquette, Louisville and Cincy in 2006, the league basically ended ACC supremacy and became better — and maybe even "clearly better." As I posted previously, the Big East at that point had essentially 14 programs that would rank in most folks' all-time Top 75. The ACC had seven or eight at most.

And, to be fair, there was clearly "dead-weight" in the ACC at that time, too. So your point there must be countered.

Now, when the ACC added Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville, and West Virginia left for Big 12 and UConn stayed in the AAC ... the dynamic once again shifted back to the ACC and away from the Big East.

Moving forward (and with UConn rejoining the Big East), I foresee the leagues in hoops being ranked (year in and out, as any league can be "best" any one year) as such:

1. Atlantic Coast
2A. Big Ten
2B. Big East
4. SEC
5. Big 12
6A. Pac-12
*6B. American (* if, and a big if, the AAC can land VCU). Otherwise, the AAC will likely be a true "No. 7" (which it might be regardless year in and year out).

As you likely know, I root for teams in both the Big East and ACC (for whatever that's worth).

Don’t forget they added South Florida as well. DePaul, South Florida, St. John’s, Rutgers, Seton Hall, and to a lesser extent Providence all stunk it up during that period. That’s over 33% of the conference.

Remember the 2011 tournament when the Big East got 11 teams in and proceeded to show how tough they were? I think all except UConn and Marquette (UNC would send them packing) had gone home after the first weekend. UConn caught fire when they needed to, but nobody else bothered to show up.

The ACC clearly had a better winning percentage. So no, the Big East never did surpass the ACC.

Let's put in this way, Esayem. I work in the media full time and worked in the national sports media (with Athlon Sports Communications) off and on (free-lance) from 1990 to 2009. I continue to talk to (and talked with back then) lots of folks who follow college hoops and know their stuff. I would estimate 90 percent of them ranked the Big East ahead of the ACC during the time period we are discussing. The BE was simply a monster based on many metrics and, if anything, sheer number of historically strong programs.

Now, in fairness, this is all very subjective. But that's how these people saw it back then and how I did too — and still do.

At its height, the Big East simply had far more programs with major hoops pedigrees and cache (even if, as you note, those programs were down) than did the ACC. NCState (whom I loosely follow and pull for since my sister attended) was down during that period (as I recall) but still has a strong history that is worth crediting. And I do. So this argument you offer can go both ways and I want to be consistent.

I have frequently noted since I started posting in mid-2019 on this board that I am not a fan (in the strict sense) of any one conference. I try to stay objective. I give credit where it's due and criticize in a constructive manner.

You and I are both Tar Heel fans and would enjoy a beer and discussing the program and why Brad Daughtery is likely my all-time favorite UNC player.

I respect your right to feel the Big East did not surpass the ACC during this time period. But I feel it did.

Now let's get Roy and the lads going tonight in Raleigh after the Miami win.

Well, I never said that the Big East wasn’t on equal footing, but what separates the Big East is the absolute trash they kept in the bottom third of their league for almost ten years. That’s why their winning percentage was much lower.

Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 04:33 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  Let’s just compare the top three seasons of conference winning percentage during those years, shall we?

ACC- .642, .640, and .631

Big East- .614, .614, and .612



Was the Big East great? Sure. They had some nice tournament runs. Were they clearly better, hell no. The ACC and Big East both sent over half their teams to the dance twice.

Esayem, The stat you provide is noteworthy. But the stat CapBearcat offers is significantly more telling.

Once more:

[b]From 2006-2013:
Big East had 65 NCAA bids, 8 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles
ACC had 41 NCAA bids, 3 Final Four teams, and 2 national titles.[/b]

When the BE added DePaul, Marquette, Louisville and Cincy in 2006, the league basically ended ACC supremacy and became better — and maybe even "clearly better." As I posted previously, the Big East at that point had essentially 14 programs that would rank in most folks' all-time Top 75. The ACC had seven or eight at most.

And, to be fair, there was clearly "dead-weight" in the ACC at that time, too. So your point there must be countered.

Now, when the ACC added Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville, and West Virginia left for Big 12 and UConn stayed in the AAC ... the dynamic once again shifted back to the ACC and away from the Big East.

Moving forward (and with UConn rejoining the Big East), I foresee the leagues in hoops being ranked (year in and out, as any league can be "best" any one year) as such:

1. Atlantic Coast
2A. Big Ten
2B. Big East
4. SEC
5. Big 12
6A. Pac-12
*6B. American (* if, and a big if, the AAC can land VCU). Otherwise, the AAC will likely be a true "No. 7" (which it might be regardless year in and year out).

As you likely know, I root for teams in both the Big East and ACC (for whatever that's worth).

Don’t forget they added South Florida as well. DePaul, South Florida, St. John’s, Rutgers, Seton Hall, and to a lesser extent Providence all stunk it up during that period. That’s over 33% of the conference.

Remember the 2011 tournament when the Big East got 11 teams in and proceeded to show how tough they were? I think all except UConn and Marquette (UNC would send them packing) had gone home after the first weekend. UConn caught fire when they needed to, but nobody else bothered to show up.

The ACC clearly had a better winning percentage. So no, the Big East never did surpass the ACC.

Let's put in this way, Esayem. I work in the media full time and worked in the national sports media (with Athlon Sports Communications) off and on (free-lance) from 1990 to 2009. I continue to talk to (and talked with back then) lots of folks who follow college hoops and know their stuff. I would estimate 90 percent of them ranked the Big East ahead of the ACC during the time period we are discussing. The BE was simply a monster based on many metrics and, if anything, sheer number of historically strong programs.

Now, in fairness, this is all very subjective. But that's how these people saw it back then and how I did too — and still do.

At its height, the Big East simply had far more programs with major hoops pedigrees and cache (even if, as you note, those programs were down) than did the ACC. NCState (whom I loosely follow and pull for since my sister attended) was down during that period (as I recall) but still has a strong history that is worth crediting. And I do. So this argument you offer can go both ways and I want to be consistent.

I have frequently noted since I started posting in mid-2019 on this board that I am not a fan (in the strict sense) of any one conference. I try to stay objective. I give credit where it's due and criticize in a constructive manner.

You and I are both Tar Heel fans and would enjoy a beer and discussing the program and why Brad Daughtery is likely my all-time favorite UNC player.

I respect your right to feel the Big East did not surpass the ACC during this time period. But I feel it did.

Now let's get Roy and the lads going tonight in Raleigh after the Miami win.

Well, I never said that the Big East wasn’t on equal footing, but what separates the Big East is the absolute trash they kept in the bottom third of their league for almost ten years. That’s why their winning percentage was much lower.

Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

You have made many good points within this thread. But please note there are some folks (like me) who have family ties and personal connections to schools in both the Big East and the ACC and who, as such, look at this in "non-nastalgic manner."

I wish both leagues nothing but the best.

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

esayem has a pretty strong track record of defending and noting the infallibility of the ACC and swatting away potential legitimization of the AAC (or the Big East), and there's nothing anybody can say that will dissuade him/her from that firmly entrenched position.

USFFan

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

I would frame it "some of the Big East's best programs" joined the ACC.

I assume you've heard of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Marquette and UConn.

(01-28-2020 01:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

I would frame it "some of the Big East's best programs" joined the ACC.

I assume you've heard of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Marquette and UConn.

Plus Cincinnati and West Virginia.

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

And of course they joined because they knew their football would be relegated to non P5 status if they didn't. It wasn't because they thought ACC basketball was better.

USFFan

(01-28-2020 01:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

I would frame it "some of the Big East's best programs" joined the ACC.

I assume you've heard of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Marquette and UConn.

No, they sound like churches and a place up north.

(01-28-2020 01:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

I would frame it "some of the Big East's best programs" joined the ACC.

I assume you've heard of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Marquette and UConn.

Plus Cincinnati and West Virginia.

Yep. Good catch.

(01-28-2020 02:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Top to bottom, the Big East was NOT clearly surpassing the ACC, and the winning percentage doesn’t lie. If you want to argue Syracuse and Louisville etc. were outperforming Maryland and Virginia, sure. But let’s be real about this DePaul, South Florida, Rutgers etc. crew they had as well.

I get it, there is a certain Big East nostalgia that is present in the ACC and on this forum because their Crown Jewels left the mighty Big East to join the ACC.

Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

I would frame it "some of the Big East's best programs" joined the ACC.

I assume you've heard of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Marquette and UConn.

No, they sound like churches and a place up north.

I actually kind of chuckled at that. Well played.

(01-28-2020 02:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, that's what RPI is for, to capture the entire conference, top to bottom. And it looks not just at winning percentage, but also SOS and other stuff. Comprehensive assessment top to bottom, not without flaws but better than just winning percentage.

And as I posted, the trend around the time of the ACC raid on the Big East was that the Big East was passing the ACC by. That's what the context was at the time.

I get it, ACC fans take great pride in their hoops, and don't ever like to think that the ACC was not #1. But then there is reality.

The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

I would frame it "some of the Big East's best programs" joined the ACC.

I assume you've heard of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Marquette and UConn.

No, they sound like churches and a place up north.

I actually kind of chuckled at that. Well played.

I was going to say “all-sports” programs, but I had to think about Notre Dame. Syracuse was the #2 Eastern Independent behind Penn State and definitely the all-sports crown jewel of the Big East.

SU had to go for football reasons but I wish we could have made the Big East work. Big East basketball was so much fun and our home. I’m glad we have Pitt with us at least.

(01-28-2020 03:50 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  The reality of the matter is the Big East did have some better seasons according to the RPI, no argument there. It’s hard to say if it would have continued because their best teams joined the ACC. So maybe they didn’t believe the trend would continue?

I would frame it "some of the Big East's best programs" joined the ACC.

I assume you've heard of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Marquette and UConn.

No, they sound like churches and a place up north.

I actually kind of chuckled at that. Well played.

I was going to say “all-sports” programs, but I had to think about Notre Dame. Syracuse was the #2 Eastern Independent behind Penn State and definitely the all-sports crown jewel of the Big East.

Agree fully on Syracuse. But it should be (hypothetically) Rutgers. Massive state university in New Jersey and not one other Division I-A football program with which to compete.