American or Early Big East?

[Puppy Love]

There has been a lot of grumbling this year about the quality of the American Conference. I remember how badly the Big East was treated in the press in the early days of UConn success. The phrase 'Big Easy' was used and they were not describing New Orleans. I also remember hearing that UConn feasted on cupcakes. I think the big difference between then and now is that UConn is so much better compared to everyone else nationally than they were then. If you took the Huskies domination of today out of the picture, in which conference would you rather play - the Big East of 1993-1998 (when the success started) or the American today?

 

[JellyBean]

Great question and thanks for mentioning how easy the Big East was back in the early 90s. I had to look at a media guide from the site and folks forget about how from 1993-2000, UConn lost a total of 5 games!! 5 games in 7 years in the Big East conference. Pretty impressive. But to answer your question, I would rather play in the Big East of the 1993-98 era. Mainly, for me, just that local rivalry. Miami was on the only long distance team back then but having Pitt, Syracuse, Georgetown, and St Johns every season was fun and created a nice local buzz. Oh I can't forget Boston College!! Big East for me.

 

[UcMiami]

When you look around at the major conferences, for most of their history they have been dominated by one or two teams. And Uconn because it has been the most consistent team in the history of WCBB on a game by game basis for the last 20+ years makes whatever league it plays in look worse than it really is. Baylor has dominated the Big 12, Stanford dominated the Pac10, Ohio State dominated the Big10, Duke dominated the ACC and then ND, and TN and now SC have dominated the SEC. Texas I believe still owns the conference consecutive win total. But all of those teams consistently through in really bad games consistently every year, Uconn does not. Not sure what the other teams record win streaks are against unranked teams but Uconn has two 100+ win streaks, and their record against non-top 10 is probably pretty incredible as well.

Baylor lost to UCLA this year, Lousiville to FSU, MsSt to SC, TX to TN. Of the top 10 the only team with no bad losses is ND who lost twice to Louisville and once to Uconn. Those types of bad losses almost never appear on Uconn's record - Stanford 3 years ago is the last one, and previous to that ... St. John's ? Again ND comes closest to that kind of consistency but remains a distant second.

To the OP - yeah the early Big East was pretty weak, and really that period stretches well into the 2000s, ND after their NC in 2001 disappeared for years replaced by Rutgers for a few years as a national power which is not that far off the USF Uconn dynamic. I think the biggest difference between then and now is the national landscape which is much stronger than it was - more leagues while still dominated by one team have two or three or more other solid teams so a league with only two viable teams stands out as weaker than it would have in 2000 or 1995. And there are indications of a few more teams in the AAC beginning to emerge.

NB Uconn has now had 10 TEN! undefeated regular seasons - not sure if even TN has more than a couple. Think about that! We take it as the norm other teams dream about getting one season like that.

 

[Puppy Love]

To the OP - yeah the early Big East was pretty weak, and really that period stretches well into the 2000s, ND after their NC in 2001 disappeared for years replaced by Rutgers for a few years as a national power which is not that far off the USF Uconn dynamic. I think the biggest difference between then and now is the national landscape which is much stronger than it was - more leagues while still dominated by one team have two or three or more other solid teams so a league with only two viable teams stands out as weaker than it would have in 2000 or 1995. And there are indications of a few more teams in the AAC beginning to emerge.

I think it will take longer for the AAC to 'get there' in the same way the Big East did, partly because it is harder today for schools to find really good regional players that fly under the radar. The early Huskies were built on regional recruits. It just isn't as likely that SMU will find a local kid that Baylor/Texas/Texas Tech doesn't take. USF is the exception because it has a location draw that is particularly great for international players.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Big East.

The old Big East was a great men's basketball conference with a ton of basketball history and a mountain of exposure. So, it only stood to reason that it would become a dominant women's basketball conference; Great coaches, great players. The current AAC is basically the remnants of a divorce settlement. I do not give it much chance of being a great WBB conference, but as long as UConn is in it, there is a chance.

 

[HopJim]

I think it will take longer for the AAC to 'get there' in the same way the Big East did, partly because it is harder today for schools to find really good regional players that fly under the radar. The early Huskies were built on regional recruits. It just isn't as likely that SMU will find a local kid that Baylor/Texas/Texas Tech doesn't take. USF is the exception because it has a location draw that is particularly great for international players.

Interesting take on recruiting. While I have always thought that with the huge number of great women's high school programs in Texas, Florida, etc. it was likely SMU and the Florida programs would excel over time. History is proving your point.