One thing I've noticed is that people seem to have a very exaggerated view of what the Big East has been historically. We remember the glory years of the 80s and the post-expansion period from '06-'13, but for most of the 90s through the mid-00s, it was a very mediocre league by P6 standards. When we won our first title in '99, the league ranked 5th. When we won our second title in '04, the league ranked 4th. This year it's 5th.
I understand fans wanting to see better teams on the schedule, but the correlation between conference strength and program strength isn't what you think. More often than not, the most dominant programs play in so-so conferences - and they achieve that dominance not in spite of the mediocre conference, but because of it.
Look at which programs have had the longest periods of sustained excellence in the last 10-15 years - all of them were the undisputed alphas of their league. Kansas won the Big 12 a million years in a row - now the Big 12 is a gauntlet and KU's not as dominant. Villanova won the NBE every year - then UConn showed up. Houston got things rolling under Sampson in the AAC. When Cal was at his peak with Kentucky, the SEC was pretty pedestrian. And then there's obviously Gonzaga.
The Big East had a perfectly normal season for a power conference this year. Yes it was down, but it's only provoked such fatalistic reactions because the other leagues are twice as big.