Big East 2025-2026 predictions as of 12-15 | Page 2 | The Boneyard
.-.

Big East 2025-2026 predictions as of 12-15

nelsonmuntz said:
Deflect from what? You are trying to hijack the thread to trash the Big East. That means you want to be back in the American, because those are the two choices. If you want to start a thread demanding that UConn return to the American, go to the Realignment Board and start a thread. No one is stopping you.
Expand ...
You mentioned something else that didn't have anything to do with the Big East this season. What does the American have to do with the Big East this season?

I didn't write those 2 articles above. They both talk about the Big East this season which I thought was germane to your topic. You should take your anger out on Joe Arruda and Dave Borges though. Their e-mail addresses are in the articles.

And for the record I haven't been one to trash the Big East this season. You jumped all over me for 1 article from Matt Norlander I posted that had some good stuff about UConn and also conference rankings with some stuff about the Big East. Outside of these articles, which I didn't write, I don't think I've posted on the Big East being weak this season. But you do you. You're good at that.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Do you think you are the smartest person on the Internet? That is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know if you think this.

You could post about conference realignment several hours a day, every day for the next year and not come up with a single original thought about the conference situation. The conference situation is not ideal. We get it. We get it. We get it. We get it. People on this board who are much smarter than you have discussed this topic ad nauseum on this board. Until there is some change somewhere, there is nothing new to say about the topic.

Yet you want to just dump on the conference situation, which no one in the world can do anything about, in every thread. It is getting old. If you get us into the Big 10 as a full member, and I am sure the Boneyard will do a big fat collection for you. But unless you have a realistic plan to do that, give the conference situation a rest or take it over the Realignment Board. We don't need to read the same tired regurgitation trolling in every thread.
Expand ...
Serious question. You don't see a difference between mentioning or discussing realignment and pointing out that the Big East may be as weak this year as it's ever been? Does every statement that the Big East is significantly down this year have to be interpreted as a hidden discussion of realignment?
 
Tenspro2002 said:
Despite the rest of the conference underperforming OOC, I have a hard time seeing us run through BE play with only 2 losses. The 2024 team was historically good and lost 2 games.

We're going to get everyone's best shot, from disappointing St. John's through moribund Creighton.

I thought 15-5 or 16-4 before the season and I still think we'll be in that ballpark, only that that record will be less impressive for the committee.
Expand ...

I get what you are saying. A few things:

1) UConn is really, really good this year.
2) The bottom of the league (Marquette, Depaul, Georgetown, Creighton and even Providence) is pretty bad. Something would have to go really wrong to lose to one of these teams. Providence is more talented than the other 4 and could get lucky, but these teams are a big step down.
3) There are only really three middling teams (Butler, Villanova, Xavier), and they would have to play an A+++ game against UConn's C game to beat UConn.
4) The next two best teams, St. Johns and Seton Hall, are both flawed. Could they both pick UConn off at home? Sure, but it isn't like the last few years where there were 2 or 3 other teams about as good as UConn in the league.

This year's Big East kind of reminds me of 2024, except the middle of 2024's Big East had a bunch of teams that were decent. The league was better that year overall, but it only had 2 teams that could play at a really high level. This year the league is down and there are maybe 1.5 teams that can play at a really high level.
 
businesslawyer said:
Serious question. You don't see a difference between mentioning or discussing realignment and pointing out that the Big East may be as weak this year as it's ever been? Does every statement that the Big East is significantly down this year have to be interpreted as a hidden discussion of realignment?
Expand ...

Look at that poster's history. He has 29 posts so far and over half of them are trashing the conference. He is a troll posting from another school, but if you want to defend him, you get to own every post he makes.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Look at that poster's history. He has 29 posts so far and over half of them are trashing the conference. He is a troll posting from another school, but if you want to defend him, you get to own every post he makes.
Expand ...
Just not at all true haha. I am die hard Husky fan who goes to about 2/3 of the games each year. I think we need to schedule like the women’s team does or like Gonzaga does (including OOC after big east play starts) to mitigate how bad our conference is. You are clearly very angry and take anything negative about the big east personally for some reason. Starting to think you’re Val Ackerman 😊 I’m done here but have a lovely day.
 
Last edited:
nelsonmuntz said:
Look at that poster's history. He has 29 posts so far and over half of them are trashing the conference. He is a troll posting from another school, but if you want to defend him, you get to own every post he makes.
Expand ...
I merely asked you a question. If you think I attacked or defended anyone, please provide a quote.

I'm now not referring to either of you, but just because an idiot asks a question does not make the question idiotic.
 
.-.
rashadray11 said:
Just not at all true haha. I am die hard Husky fan who goes to about 2/3 of the games each year. I think we need to schedule like the women’s team does or like Gonzaga does (including OOC after big east play starts) to mitigate how bad our conference is. You are clearly very angry and take anything negative about the big east personally for some reason. Starting to think you’re Val Ackerman 😊 I’m done here but have a lovely day.
Expand ...

So you are saying it is impossible to win it all out of the Big East? Interesting theory.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
So you are saying it is impossible to win it all out of the Big East? Interesting theory.
Expand ...
no he's saying the BE is starting to look more like a midmajor than the P4 (doesnt mean i'd prefer the AAC) so we should start beefing up our OOC slate (which we are doing) because we cannot pick up any more marquee wins in conference play (again, i dont want to join the AAC), but we can still get a 1 seed (thanks to our marquee OOC wins) and win the title (which gonzaga has never done but they have earned 1 seeds).
 
Last edited:
nelsonmuntz said:
I get what you are saying. A few things:

1) UConn is really, really good this year.
2) The bottom of the league (Marquette, Depaul, Georgetown, Creighton and even Providence) is pretty bad. Something would have to go really wrong to lose to one of these teams. Providence is more talented than the other 4 and could get lucky, but these teams are a big step down.
3) There are only really three middling teams (Butler, Villanova, Xavier), and they would have to play an A+++ game against UConn's C game to beat UConn.
4) The next two best teams, St. Johns and Seton Hall, are both flawed. Could they both pick UConn off at home? Sure, but it isn't like the last few years where there were 2 or 3 other teams about as good as UConn in the league.

This year's Big East kind of reminds me of 2024, except the middle of 2024's Big East had a bunch of teams that were decent. The league was better that year overall, but it only had 2 teams that could play at a really high level. This year the league is down and there are maybe 1.5 teams that can play at a really high level.
Expand ...

The way it's been at the Prudential Center you may consider it a minor miracle if UConn wins.
 
.-.
I don't buy the idea that something "would have to go really wrong" for UConn to lose at Creighton. McDermott's a great coach. His team will improve. He knows UConn inside and out. It'll be a super bowl game for them and that cornfed crowd will be lit on five cent beers. That whole post reads to me like the games are played on paper.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
I don't buy the idea that something "would have to go really wrong" for UConn to lose at Creighton. McDermott's a great coach. His team will improve. He knows UConn inside and out. It'll be a super bowl game for them and that cornfed crowd will be lit on five cent beers. That whole post reads to me like the games are played on paper.
Expand ...

Have you watched Creighton play? The stats support what you see with your eyes if you are paying attention. That team is not trying, and that is a hard problem to coach out of.

There are going to be a lot more roster fails when coaching staffs are assembling rotisserie teams every offseason.
 
bendm said:
no he's saying the BE is starting to look more like a midmajor than the P4 (doesnt mean i'd prefer the AAC) so we should start beefing up our OOC slate (which we are doing) because we cannot pick up any more marquee wins in conference play (again, i dont want to join the AAC), but we can still get a 1 seed (thanks to our marquee OOC wins) and win the title (which gonzaga has never done but they have earned 1 seeds).
Expand ...

There is a whole big board on this site where you can post all the conference realignment stuff you want. Why do you feel the compulsion to pollute every thread on this board with it?
 
auror said:
Another Big East article
Expand ...

The top five isn't actually all that disastrous. Since the new league's inaugural season in 2013-14, it's typically had between four and six top 50 teams. Having only two or three in the top 25 wasn't all that unusual either.

But usually there were at least a couple others right on the cusp of the top 50-60 with the remaining schools sprinkled between 60-100 (save for DePaul, or in recent years Georgetown). On the chart you posted, nearly half the league is sub 100 in at least one of the two main metrics. And that doesn't include Xavier, which is 89th and 76th.

Providence, Creighton, and Marquette were all supposed to be top 50 or at least knocking on the door. Georgetown was supposed to be firmly in the top 75 range, if not better. They all had rosters that were paid like it, anyway (which is why I'm holding off on drawing any sweeping conclusions about the future of the league). Xavier's about where it should be, and Hall has obviously blown away any sort of realistic expectations. (Can you imagine how bad things would be if they were as bad as they were supposed to be?)

My guess is that Villanova, Seton Hall, and Butler are going to end up being the biggest victims of the aforementioned schools underachieving. I think they'll trend down the NET rankings while the others trend up, and as a result the perception of the league's depth will improve but the perception of the league's middle class will not. And that means fewer tournament bids. I could see the league ending up with as many as 9-10 top 100 teams but only two safely in the top 50. We've already seen this start to take shape with the PC-Butler game a few days ago.

UConn and St. John's should be largely unaffected, as they are much better than everyone else. Basically, the middle class that was supposed to challenge them ended up merging with the lower class and creating a scenario where UConn and St. John's will both be top 4 seeds and everyone else is just hoping to get in. (On the bright side, I'm sure The Crown will be more than happy to scoop up as many Big East teams as possible!)
 
champs99and04 said:
The top five isn't actually all that disastrous. Since the new league's inaugural season in 2013-14, it's typically had between four and six top 50 teams. Having only two or three in the top 25 wasn't all that unusual either.

But usually there were at least a couple others right on the cusp of the top 50-60 with the remaining schools sprinkled between 60-100 (save for DePaul, or in recent years Georgetown). On the chart you posted, nearly half the league is sub 100 in at least one of the two main metrics. And that doesn't include Xavier, which is 89th and 76th.

Providence, Creighton, and Marquette were all supposed to be top 50 or at least knocking on the door. Georgetown was supposed to be firmly in the top 75 range, if not better. They all had rosters that were paid like it, anyway (which is why I'm holding off on drawing any sweeping conclusions about the future of the league). Xavier's about where it should be, and Hall has obviously blown away any sort of realistic expectations. (Can you imagine how bad things would be if they were as bad as they were supposed to be?)

My guess is that Villanova, Seton Hall, and Butler are going to end up being the biggest victims of the aforementioned schools underachieving. I think they'll trend down the NET rankings while the others trend up, and as a result the perception of the league's depth will improve but the perception of the league's middle class will not. And that means fewer tournament bids. I could see the league ending up with as many as 9-10 top 100 teams but only two safely in the top 50. We've already seen this start to take shape with the PC-Butler game a few days ago.

UConn and St. John's should be largely unaffected, as they are much better than everyone else. Basically, the middle class that was supposed to challenge them ended up merging with the lower class and creating a scenario where UConn and St. John's will both be top 4 seeds and everyone else is just hoping to get in. (On the bright side, I'm sure The Crown will be more than happy to scoop up as many Big East teams as possible!)
Expand ...

The 30-70 ranked NET teams that are more likely to drop are those that are losing. Villanova, Seton Hall, Butler and Xavier should be picking up wins. The middle of the Big 12 has gotten there by pounding bad opponents, but as those opponents play their bad opponents, and those same teams start to lose league games, the Big 12 middle will start to slide. The SEC is not nearly as dominant as it was last year, so .500 records in conference are going to knock out a bunch of teams that look like bubble teams right now.

The 30 to 70 ranked teams are generally pretty tightly grouped in terms of actual rating, which means that small improvements in things like winning percentage will have a big impact. No matter what others in this thread say, the Big East is not the A10, it is just a little behind the ACC, and a little more behind the other 3 leagues, none of which are really dominant this season. There is a huge gap between the Big East and the A10 or MWC.

I think the biggest risk for the Big East bubble teams is Providence. Providence is talented and looks good when they play, English has simply blown it in the non-conference games. That team is good enough to win 12 games in league play, which probably won't get it a bid, but could cause problems for the other Big East bubble teams if PC's wins are coming against them.
 
bendm said:
no he's saying the BE is starting to look more like a midmajor than the P4 (doesnt mean i'd prefer the AAC) so we should start beefing up our OOC slate (which we are doing) because we cannot pick up any more marquee wins in conference play (again, i dont want to join the AAC), but we can still get a 1 seed (thanks to our marquee OOC wins) and win the title (which gonzaga has never done but they have earned 1 seeds).
Expand ...

Prove this statement or admit you are trolling. This is obviously factually wrong, so you are going to own this.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
I get what you are saying. A few things:

1) UConn is really, really good this year.
2) The bottom of the league (Marquette, Depaul, Georgetown, Creighton and even Providence) is pretty bad. Something would have to go really wrong to lose to one of these teams. Providence is more talented than the other 4 and could get lucky, but these teams are a big step down.
3) There are only really three middling teams (Butler, Villanova, Xavier), and they would have to play an A+++ game against UConn's C game to beat UConn.
4) The next two best teams, St. Johns and Seton Hall, are both flawed. Could they both pick UConn off at home? Sure, but it isn't like the last few years where there were 2 or 3 other teams about as good as UConn in the league.

This year's Big East kind of reminds me of 2024, except the middle of 2024's Big East had a bunch of teams that were decent. The league was better that year overall, but it only had 2 teams that could play at a really high level. This year the league is down and there are maybe 1.5 teams that can play at a really high level.
Expand ...
Those middling teams are below average middling. Xavier is not a good team - might put them in group 2. The only games we can lose in my eyes this year are @StJ and @SHU. Even there, very winnable. We won't sweep the BE slate, but as good a year as any to give it a try.
 
RuffRuff said:
Those middling teams are below average middling. Xavier is not a good team - might put them in group 2. The only games we can lose in my eyes this year are @StJ and @SHU. Even there, very winnable. We won't sweep the BE slate, but as good a year as any to give it a try.
Expand ...

Xavier was a bad possession from beating a ranked Georgia team on a neutral court. Butler got bent over by the ACC refs in a 2 point loss against SMU. Villanova only lost to BYU by 5, although I think Villanova is a bit suspect. These teams are not bad.

I think the bottom of the league, Depaul, Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown, are really bad. I know the last three teams have decent payrolls, but the product on the court is bad.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Xavier was a bad possession from beating a ranked Georgia team on a neutral court. Butler got bent over by the ACC refs in a 2 point loss against SMU. Villanova only lost to BYU by 5, although I think Villanova is a bit suspect. These teams are not bad.

I think the bottom of the league, Depaul, Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown, are really bad. I know the last three teams have decent payrolls, but the product on the court is bad.
Expand ...
Sure, but look at their roster. They also lost to Santa Clara by 20 at home. Tre Carroll is their guy and he played 22 mpg for FAU last year. That is not a good roster, at all. It's rare that any of these new coach full portal rosters are any good year one, Nova included.

This feels like a year, now that everyone is getting healthy, we can run it. We won't, but as easy a slate as we've seen and we will be favored in every game. We'll likely get picked off a couple times on the road where a team has 1 dollar beer night, we are their SB and they get hot from 3. I don't expect to lose at home this year. StJ will be revenge for us this year, so those games will be our conference SB's against a very flawed roster. 18-2.

Other things to consider are that there are a number of players on our squad still trying to prove things for various reasons, so unlikely that we get "content". Mullins showcasing his game, Reed post injury, Solo after his early season slump, Silas. Not a team that is likely to go on cruise control, and with the depth can wear a lot of these teams out.
 
Last edited:
BigErnMcCracken said:
I don't buy the idea that something "would have to go really wrong" for UConn to lose at Creighton. McDermott's a great coach. His team will improve. He knows UConn inside and out. It'll be a super bowl game for them and that cornfed crowd will be lit on five cent beers. That whole post reads to me like the games are played on paper.
Expand ...
Generally agree with this, but their roster is way down. This is one of those games we can get picked off due to circumstances, but we are marketably better. With Creighton unlikely to be in the tourney, this will be their SB. Those midwest away games are where I think we'll drop one at some point.

One thing we haven't done much to prepare for the BE is play many road games. Our early season has basically been all home games other than Kansas.
 
champs99and04 said:
The top five isn't actually all that disastrous. Since the new league's inaugural season in 2013-14, it's typically had between four and six top 50 teams. Having only two or three in the top 25 wasn't all that unusual either.

But usually there were at least a couple others right on the cusp of the top 50-60 with the remaining schools sprinkled between 60-100 (save for DePaul, or in recent years Georgetown). On the chart you posted, nearly half the league is sub 100 in at least one of the two main metrics. And that doesn't include Xavier, which is 89th and 76th.

Providence, Creighton, and Marquette were all supposed to be top 50 or at least knocking on the door. Georgetown was supposed to be firmly in the top 75 range, if not better. They all had rosters that were paid like it, anyway (which is why I'm holding off on drawing any sweeping conclusions about the future of the league). Xavier's about where it should be, and Hall has obviously blown away any sort of realistic expectations. (Can you imagine how bad things would be if they were as bad as they were supposed to be?)

My guess is that Villanova, Seton Hall, and Butler are going to end up being the biggest victims of the aforementioned schools underachieving. I think they'll trend down the NET rankings while the others trend up, and as a result the perception of the league's depth will improve but the perception of the league's middle class will not. And that means fewer tournament bids. I could see the league ending up with as many as 9-10 top 100 teams but only two safely in the top 50. We've already seen this start to take shape with the PC-Butler game a few days ago.

UConn and St. John's should be largely unaffected, as they are much better than everyone else. Basically, the middle class that was supposed to challenge them ended up merging with the lower class and creating a scenario where UConn and St. John's will both be top 4 seeds and everyone else is just hoping to get in. (On the bright side, I'm sure The Crown will be more than happy to scoop up as many Big East teams as possible!)
Expand ...
In some ways, the teams that have moved up should continue to move. The analytic models are still baking in the preseason weights that underrated them, so there is more room to grow to their true ability in the metrics.

My biggest concern to the contrary of that hypothesis is something you sort of touched upon, but I'll get more specific, which is that the schools that have not been good have very good home courts and even if down this year could pick off a ton of teams at home (Fiserv, Cintas, CHI). But this could be good, if for example Creighton climbs into the NET top 75. 1 or 2 more teams like Creighton and Providence getting to top 75 could add additional Q1 wins for the Huskies if the 2-5 teams stay there as well.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
7,786
Total visitors
8,003
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,886
Messages
4,458,838
Members
10,330
Latest member
LYDKID


Top Bottom