I hope ESPN is happy with what they did to hoops

[upstater]

That's an absurd comparison. Nothing schools that have never done anything but get in once in a blue moon (and in Bucknell's case, spring an upset). Very few tournament wins lifetime for those schools. Not a reasonable comparison to schools like Xavier, Butler and Nova with solid histories or even Dayton and SLU. Here are the all-time tournament appearances and records.

I am not suggesting the New Big East will be anything like the old Big East. Losing UConn, Syracuse, Louisville, WVU and Pitt is massive. You cannot replace that. But the new Big East teams have been above average programs over long periods of time. It will be good.

I wrote that it was absurd! I didn't say it was a comparison. Yes, I know it's absurd. So is your logic.

The point is, just because these teams are making the NCAA this year from the Horizon League, and the Big East, and the Big Ten, and the Missouri Valley, wherever the heck they are coming from, doesn't mean that they can do it again once aggregated in the new BE. They will all start playing each other, and losing to one another, and that will knock out the easy bids. Creighton isn't going to feast on Missouri State or Northern Iowa twice a year any more.

 

[tzznandrew]

Upstater is right here.

There are a disproportionate number of bad teams in the A10 and Missouri Valley. Exempting DePaul, which was 2-16 in the Big East and didn't schedule good teams, you look at the bottom of the conference, and Seton Hall, South Florida, and the like generally beat all of their non-BCS opponents. When you look at the bottom of the A-10, their losing to all sorts of terrible teams.

KenPom Ratings of the .500 and below teams in A-10, MVC, BE:
A-10
Dusquesne - 243
Fordham - 251
Rhode Island - 192
George Washington - 110
St. Bonaventure - 118
MVC
Southern Illinois - 182
Missouri State - 210
Drake - 123
Bradley - 175
Big East
DePaul - 164
Seton Hall - 114
South Florida - 144
Rutgers - 104

You rank those schools: Rutgers, GW, Seton Hall, St. Bonny, Drake, DePaul, Bradley, Southern Ill., URI, Missouri State, Dusquesne, Fordham.

DePaul is better than 6 of those schools. All of which suggests winning against the bottom of the BE is harder than winning against the bottom of the other leagues. Also, when you look at the top, there are more top teams, and so they'll have fewer games against LaSalle, and more games against GTown. Someone's got to lose...

 

[HuskyHawk]

I wrote that it was absurd! I didn't say it was a comparison. Yes, I know it's absurd. So is your logic.

The point is, just because these teams are making the NCAA this year from the Horizon League, and the Big East, and the Big Ten, and the Missouri Valley, wherever the heck they are coming from, doesn't mean that they can do it again once aggregated in the new BE. They will all start playing each other, and losing to one another, and that will knock out the easy bids. Creighton isn't going to feast on Missouri State or Northern Iowa twice a year any more.

So you are saying that the competition in the new Big East will be much heavier, due to all the quality opponents...and that's why it is a lousy league nobody will want to watch and it won't get many bids. Got it.

You are making my argument for me. There are no crappy teams in it. Therefore SOS and RPI will be high, and the top 3-5 teams (maybe more) will make the tournament. Unlike the SEC which this year has Florida, Missouri and bunch of crap. Or the Pac, which never has more than 3 or 4 decent teams. It won't be overly top heavy, but that's a good thing.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Upstater is right here.

There are a disproportionate number of bad teams in the A10 and Missouri Valley. Exempting DePaul, which was 2-16 in the Big East and didn't schedule good teams, you look at the bottom of the conference, and Seton Hall, South Florida, and the like generally beat all of their non-BCS opponents. When you look at the bottom of the A-10, their losing to all sorts of terrible teams.

KenPom Ratings of the .500 and below teams in A-10, MVC, BE:
A-10
Dusquesne - 243
Fordham - 251
Rhode Island - 192
George Washington - 110
St. Bonaventure - 118
MVC
Southern Illinois - 182
Missouri State - 210
Drake - 123
Bradley - 175
Big East
DePaul - 164
Seton Hall - 114
South Florida - 144
Rutgers - 104

You rank those schools: Rutgers, GW, Seton Hall, St. Bonny, Drake, DePaul, Bradley, Southern Ill., URI, Missouri State, Dusquesne, Fordham.

DePaul is better than 6 of those schools. All of which suggests winning against the bottom of the BE is harder than winning against the bottom of the other leagues. Also, when you look at the top, there are more top teams, and so they'll have fewer games against LaSalle, and more games against GTown. Someone's got to lose...

Of course! But the bottom team in the new Big East will still be DePaul! The records for schools like Creighton will go down...but the SOS will go up. They won't need 25-26 wins to get in.

We will just have to see how it plays out. I don't think those teams are weak programs that only win due to weak schedules. They are consistently at the top of their leagues. I think that playing each other will make them better, as it has in the current Big East.

 

[upstater]

So you are saying that the competition in the new Big East will be much heavier, due to all the quality opponents...and that's why it is a lousy league nobody will want to watch and it won't get many bids. Got it.

You are making my argument for me. There are no crappy teams in it. Therefore SOS and RPI will be high, and the top 3-5 teams (maybe more) will make the tournament. Unlike the SEC which this year has Florida, Missouri and bunch of crap. Or the Pac, which never has more than 3 or 4 decent teams. It won't be overly top heavy, but that's a good thing.

Wow, unreal. I can't believe you can't understand the posts. Some of the teams are coming from weak conferences where they feasted on very weak competition. I doubt you've even seen these teams on TV--they are never on. When is the last time you watched Missouri State? No more wins against M.S.U. None.

So all the bids they got this year are irrelevant!

 

[upstater]

Of course! But the bottom team in the new Big East will still be DePaul! The records for schools like Creighton will go down...but the SOS will go up. They won't need 25-26 wins to get in.

We will just have to see how it plays out. I don't think those teams are weak programs that only win due to weak schedules. They are consistently at the top of their leagues. I think that playing each other will make them better, as it has in the current Big East.

Other than Butler, these MV and Horizon teams flame out of the NCAA. Creighton has been to the NCAAs 13 times since 1975, and never once advanced to the Sweet 16!

Creighton and Dayton are like Masturbatin' rather than Matin'!

 

[tzznandrew]

Of course! But the bottom team in the new Big East will still be DePaul! The records for schools like Creighton will go down...but the SOS will go up. They won't need 25-26 wins to get in.

We will just have to see how it plays out. I don't think those teams are weak programs that only win due to weak schedules. They are consistently at the top of their leagues. I think that playing each other will make them better, as it has in the current Big East.

The problem is that while their SOS will go up, many of their RPIs will go down, as they will lose a lot more games. I highly doubt you'll see St. Louis only have 6 losses. Once they move towards 10 or so, they're going to be closer to the bubble than to the tournament.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You're comparing teams from several different conferences (many of which are pretty weak). These teams won't be going to the NCAA every year. Weak schedules contribute to their current position.

It's illogical. An 8-8 St. Louis team or an 8-8 Creighton team isn't going to get a bid.

Maybe, maybe not. They will be on the bubble in what will be the #3 RPI conference most years. I can't figure out what you are arguing in this thread.

My original point was that there were several very good basketball leagues prior to realignment that fans cared about and had good rivalries. There will be bits and pieces of that after realignment.

 

[Husky25]

The C-7 = Mid-major; A-12 = Mid-major; The Horizon League = Mid-major; OVC = Mid-Major; The A-10 = Mid-Major; MVC = Mid-major. Regardless of how it's spun, putting them together in any way shape or form just makes a larger mid-major conference, of which the bottom remains the C-7 (a.k.a. Nelson's crown jewel).

 

[upstater]

Maybe, maybe not. They will be on the bubble in what will be the #3 RPI conference most years. I can't figure out what you are arguing in this thread.

My original point was that there were several very good basketball leagues prior to realignment that fans cared about and had good rivalries. There will be bits and pieces of that after realignment.

My response was to HuskyHawk, not you.

 

[tzznandrew]

The C-7 = Mid-major; A-12 = Mid-major; The Horizon League = Mid-major; OVC = Mid-Major; The A-10 = Mid-Major; MVC = Mid-major. Regardless of how it's spun, putting them together in any way shape or form just makes a larger mid-major conference, of which the bottom remains the C-7 (a.k.a. Nelson's crown jewel).

If you're suggesting that the C-7 is worse than those conferences, you're crazy.

The Mountain West, A-12 (at least next year with Louisville included), and C-7 will all be pretty darn good basketball conferences, probably better than the SEC and Pac-12 most years.

 

[upstater]

If you're suggesting that the C-7 is worse than those conferences, you're crazy.

The Mountain West, A-12 (at least next year with Louisville included), and C-7 will all be pretty darn good basketball conferences, probably better than the SEC and Pac-12 most years.

MW does nothing for me. Those teams tend to flame out fast in the tourney. Remember the year we played a ranked Utah State?

 

[Husky25]

If you're suggesting that the C-7 is worse than those conferences, you're crazy.

The Mountain West, A-12 (at least next year with Louisville included), and C-7 will all be pretty darn good basketball conferences, probably better than the SEC and Pac-12 most years.

I'm suggesting that the dredges of the old Big East (PC, SJU, Depaul, and SHU) is just that and should not think of themselves as pulling a coup by leaving the football faction behind. These teams had a hard time making the Big East Tourney, let alone the Big Dance. Its like a parasite that detaches itself from its host before realizing right quick it better find a new one before it dies.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The problem is that while their SOS will go up, many of their RPIs will go down, as they will lose a lot more games. I highly doubt you'll see St. Louis only have 6 losses. Once they move towards 10 or so, they're going to be closer to the bubble than to the tournament.

Just like Villanova this year. Yes. That is what I expect. 2-3 locks a year and another 2-3 bubble teams, with 4-6 total bids. Which would make them a pretty solid conference. Behind the ACC and B1G by miles...but after them? Are they really behind the Pac and Big XII by much if any?

It's going to be interesting with the newly strengthened ACC. How many bids will they get? Will WF, NCST and GT awaken from their slumber or be pounded by our ex conference foes?

 

[tzznandrew]

MW does nothing for me. Those teams tend to flame out fast in the tourney. Remember the year we played a ranked Utah State?

San Diego State nearly beat us in 2011, and BYU went to the S16
In 2012, New Mexico nearly beat Louisville, who went on to the Final Four.

True that other teams from the league flamed out, but they've been much better recently.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If you're suggesting that the C-7 is worse than those conferences, you're crazy.

The Mountain West, A-12 (at least next year with Louisville included), and C-7 will all be pretty darn good basketball conferences, probably better than the SEC and Pac-12 most years.

Yes. This is all I am saying, although I think once the C7 adds all five teams, they are pretty well ahead of the A12 minus Louisville and MWC.

 

[upstater]

San Diego State nearly beat us in 2011, and BYU went to the S16
In 2012, New Mexico nearly beat Louisville, who went on to the Final Four.

True that other teams from the league flamed out, but they've been much better recently.

That was SDSt.'s best team since I've been alive. BYU is definitely the outlier.

I am not such a big believer in New mexico. I think they are rather ploddy, and should be taken out quickly in the NCAA's. That's one of the teams UConn should have beaten this year. They are like a Cincy in my eyes.

 

[upstater]

Just like Villanova this year. Yes. That is what I expect. 2-3 locks a year and another 2-3 bubble teams, with 4-6 total bids. Which would make them a pretty solid conference. Behind the ACC and B1G by miles...but after them? Are they really behind the Pac and Big XII by much if any?

It's going to be interesting with the newly strengthened ACC. How many bids will they get? Will WF, NCST and GT awaken from their slumber or be pounded by our ex conference foes?

We'll have to place a big bet on this but I see them at 3 bids max for 10 teams and never ever more than 4 for 12.

I see them as getting 3 for 10 and 4 for 12.

 

[tzznandrew]

We'll have to place a big bet on this but I see them at 3 bids max for 10 teams and never ever more than 4 for 12.

I see them as getting 3 for 10 and 4 for 12.

I think they're between 3-6 most years, usually on the lower end.

 

[huskymedic]

I'm suggesting that the dredges of the old Big East (PC, SJU, Depaul, and SHU) is just that and should not think of themselves as pulling a coup by leaving the football faction behind. These teams had a hard time making the Big East Tourney, let alone the Big Dance. Its like a parasite that detaches itself from its host before realizing right quick it better find a new one before it dies.

ChiTribHamilton Mar 13, 5:03pm via TweetDeck
Seton Hall coach Kevin Willard on new Big East: "It's going to be a basketball league – not a football league trying to play basketball."

 

[upstater]

I think they're between 3-6 most years, usually on the lower end.

That's above the level of the ACC. I don't see how they could outperform the ACC. And really, the SEC and Pac-12 are not going to be giving up bids to this conference either. They won't allow it.

 

[upstater]

ChiTribHamilton Mar 13, 5:03pm via TweetDeck
Seton Hall coach Kevin Willard on new Big East: "It's going to be a basketball league – not a football league trying to play basketball."

If the football teams were "trying" to play basketball, WTF were you doing?

 

[tzznandrew]

That's above the level of the ACC. I don't see how they could outperform the ACC. And really, the SEC and Pac-12 are not going to be giving up bids to this conference either. They won't allow it.

The ACC is about to have an infusion of talent. The ACC hasn't been very good recently outside of Duke and UNC. Once you add Syracuse, Louisville, and Notre Dame (I'm less bullish on Pitt), I think you'll see them getting more schools in consistently.

There was a time that the ACC was the basketball conference, but Maryland, Wake, NCState all dropped off a cliff. NCState is getting back, but Maryland is leaving, and I have my doubts about Wake.

Also, about the other leagues not allowing it. MWC has been getting more bids than the Pac and SEC for a while. They just haven't been good, and in college basketball, that still matters. There have been years recently where the ACC only got 3 bids. MWC and A10 have had more than that some years.

 

[Durks07]

If the football teams were "trying" to play basketball, WTF were you doing?

Being happy to cash paychecks for existing...thats really about it.

 

[upstater]

The ACC is about to have an infusion of talent. The ACC hasn't been very good recently outside of Duke and UNC. Once you add Syracuse, Louisville, and Notre Dame (I'm less bullish on Pitt), I think you'll see them getting more schools in consistently.

There was a time that the ACC was the basketball conference, but Maryland, Wake, NCState all dropped off a cliff. NCState is getting back, but Maryland is leaving, and I have my doubts about Wake.

Also, about the other leagues not allowing it. MWC has been getting more bids than the Pac and SEC for a while. They just haven't been good, and in college basketball, that still matters. There have been years recently where the ACC only got 3 bids. MWC and A10 have had more than that some years.

All I'm saying that the ACC went multiple years with 3 or 4 or 5 out of 12. The more bids they get now are going to come at the expense of the A12 and Catholics.

 

[Husky25]

ChiTribHamilton Mar 13, 5:03pm via TweetDeck
Seton Hall coach Kevin Willard on new Big East: "It's going to be a basketball league – not a football league trying to play basketball."

Is that what he was trying to do? Play basketball? Because the only similarity between SHU now and the Eddie Griffin days is that the court is 94' x 50', the lane is 15' long, and the hoops are 10' off the court. They can't even get into MSG in March without a ticket for admission. You know what's missing from that tweet? The phrase 'competitive with other teams.' Another question...What does every basketball only confernece have in common? They are Mid Majors at best. Except for GTown, the football teams in the old Big East WERE the Big East in basketball.

 

[tzznandrew]

All I'm saying that the ACC went multiple years with 3 or 4 or 5 out of 12. The more bids they get now are going to come at the expense of the A12 and Catholics.

I think the C7 are going to get 3 or 4 or 5 most years. I think, like the MWC in it's best years, the C7 will likely place their top 3 in the tournament every year, and a number of years it will be top 4-5. I think it is folly to suggest that because St. Louis is good in the A10 for a year or two, or Creighton, that it will transfer directly to a better conference (as you've said as well). But I do think some of those programs are good, and will ultimately still perform well enough out of conference to mitigate their losses.

 

[freescooter]

Just like Villanova this year. Yes. That is what I expect. 2-3 locks a year and another 2-3 bubble teams, with 4-6 total bids. Which would make them a pretty solid conference. Behind the ACC and B1G by miles...but after them? Are they really behind the Pac and Big XII by much if any?

It's going to be interesting with the newly strengthened ACC. How many bids will they get? Will WF, NCST and GT awaken from their slumber or be pounded by our ex conference foes?

There are really multiple ways of looking at the "strength" of leagues. One way is the number of bids, and that generally measures depth of quality teams, thoough one could argue it does so in a somewhat gross manner. So a league with 4 bids is stronger than one with 3 and weaker than 1 with 6. Assuming membership is relatively close, that gives some idea of how good a conference is overall. But looking at how the various teams actually perform in the post season is another way to value conference strength. Does a league regularly send teams deep into the tourney? Or produce Final Four teams, and national Championship game participants. So if you look at 2004 for example, the Big East, SEC, ACC and CUSA all got 6 bids. So looking at bids, you have 4 equal leagues. But if you dig a bit deeper, you find that the CUSA entrants wsere all gone by the Sweet 16. In fact only 1 of 6 got that far, while the ACC had 2 Final four teams, while the Big East and the SEC each had 1. UConn from the Big East beat Georgia Tech of the ACC in the Championship game. What does that say about the relative strengths of the ACC, BE and SEC? Probably one could make a case that overall, at least in 2004 the ACC was the better league, but the Big East had the best team. If you look at the results by round: 32-ACC: 6 BE:5, S16-ACC:3 BE:3, E8-ACC:3, BE:1, FF-ACC:2 BE:1 CG-ACC:1 BE:1, Title:BE. You could probably make an argument on either side. The Big East had the best team, but the ACC had more teams make deeper runs. Both had dreck at the bottom though neither had the level of dreck they have today. I think we'll see something similar between the Catholic Big East and the A12. They'll get a similar number of bids, you'd have to guess in a typical year, UConn, Cincy, Temple and Memphis would be likely as would Georgetown, Marquette, Butler and maybe Villanova. the issue will be whether either one produces teams that are capable of going deep, challenging for a national championship. I have my doubts that the C-7 will do that. I have some doubts about the A-12 too, just not as many.

 

[SubbaBub]

The new ACC will be a 8-9 bid league instead of a 3-4 bid league they had become. The A12 will be a 3-4 bid league as will the C-7. Only difference is that the A12 will have the same 3-4 every year and the C-7 will have Gtown and a rotating parade of crumbums.

St Johns will be the big winner out of all this as they will be able to keep 1 or 2 NYC guys closer to home without all the former BE powers around. Might be enough to make the NCAA semi-regularly. SH and PC are still screwed.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Big 12 tournament game looked like a funeral. The stands for any ACC game not involving Duke or UNC are going to be pretty empty. Even the second night of the BET, with scrub schools playing, there is more juice than you will see in any Big 12 tournament game not involving Kansas.

ESPN still has the Pac 12 final, which is broadcast at a very mid-majorish 11 pm EDT. How did they convince the Big West to move their final? ESPN is basically saying that half the content of a league they just paid a fortune for is worthless.

Fox got the prize of college basketball for a song when it signed the Big East. ESPN really screwed the pooch on this one, and say what you will about football driving the bus, ESPN depends on CBB for a lot of programming between late November and mid-March. How many ACC games can they broadcast next year? No one cares about SEC basketball outside of Kentucky, Florida, Vanderbilt, Tennessee and Missouri. Mid season rivalry games draw 5k at a lot of SEC schools.

On the flip side, I suspect that with all the content ESPN has lost, the top America 12 matchups will get prime time broadcasts, because ESPN has almost nothing else to show.

I think ESPN has helped to "kill" hoops in a more profound/different way - not via CR but rather through over-saturation of the product. I think most fans - even in "basketball-crazed" areas - are tiring of it via elongated seasons that now have pre-season tourneys (yawners for the most part) and more and more and more and more games on tv. By the time folks get to March, it is kind of white noise and unless your team makes a deep run into the tourney or your bracket pool is winnable people are paying less attention to hoops at that time of year as well. Football (with its fewer game schedules) is replacing other sports that have many more games per season (i.e. basketball, baseball, and hockey) as the sport to watch (and I think there are societal reasons for this as well). Things might cycle back to basketball being more popular than it is now but I think that will be a long time coming.