March 27, 201115 yr If we are talking about this season then perhaps its true that the Big East lacks NBA talent, however, I think over the long haul they stack up pretty favorably to the other power conferences. Looking at the last 10 NBA drafts, the lottery picks by conference as they are currently is as follows. ACC - 21 Big East - 20 Pac 10 - 18 Big 12 - 15 SEC - 12 Big 10 - 9 Just talking about a lack of NBA talent over the last two seasons...
March 27, 201115 yr First of all they don't rank the teams, they set the point spread. So they are more qualified at setting the line...that makes sense as any gambling is against NCAA rules. However, there are generally only three outcomes...win, lose or push... Thanks again for all the lessons. Its pretty simple. They are the actual risk takers. If they thought UConn should have been -2.5 against Arizona they didn't think Arizona was the better team. That means the 9th place team from the BE was in their eyes better than the Pac 10 winner. Obviously they factor in what they think the general public will bet, but they wouldn't move a game 3 points off of their team rankings on a neutral court. If you don't think they have a ranking of teams you're fooling yourself. Edited March 27, 201115 yr by SSC
March 27, 201115 yr 16% of teams in tournament. 25% of Final 4. That better??? Nope. You still can't compare those numbers to the other conferences. The only thing that works is 9/16 Big East teams (although its already been pointed out, the Big East has changed significantly since 2003, and you're the only one talking about "since 2003" anyway) and comparing that to 6/12 ACC teams, etc. Still comes out favorably for the Big East, but not nearly by the margin that 9 vs 6 makes it look. The ACC has 50% of their teams, and the Big East has 50% +1. When you consider that the Big East was cherry picked to make a basketball super power, then its not that impressive. The best argument you've had is OOC wins vs. tourney teams. The Big East is definitely good, but it looks like they were much better early in the season than late. This can probably be connected to the lack of young stars in the league. The Big East was good early because they have veteran teams. But as the year goes on the other teams (UK, UNC, etc) get significantly better while the Big East teams don't.
March 27, 201115 yr When you consider that the Big East was cherry picked to make a basketball super power, then its not that impressive. Wait. Adding DePaul, USF, UC, UL and Marquette to replace BC, FSU and Miami is cherry picking to make a basketball superpower? On what planet??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Maybe you missed it, but the Big East has been a basketball super power since before you were born... :thumb:
March 27, 201115 yr Wait. Adding DePaul, USF, UC, UL and Marquette to replace BC, FSU and Miami is cherry picking to make a basketball superpower? On what planet??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Maybe you missed it, but the Big East has been a basketball super power since before you were born... :thumb: It was certainly an upgrade (RPI numbers...) DePaul - 234 USF - 155 UC - 36 UL - 17 Marquette - 64 BC - 58 FSU - 55 Miami - 73
March 27, 201115 yr It was certainly an upgrade (RPI numbers...) DePaul - 234 USF - 155 UC - 36 UL - 17 Marquette - 64 BC - 58 FSU - 55 Miami - 73 The Big East was expanded to save their football.....they added other "markets" to expand their footprint.
March 27, 201115 yr The Big East was expanded to save their football.....they added other "markets" to expand their footprint. Then they did a REALLY bad job.
March 27, 201115 yr Thanks again for all the lessons. Its pretty simple. They are the actual risk takers. If they thought UConn should have been -2.5 against Arizona they didn't think Arizona was the better team. That means the 9th place team from the BE was in their eyes better than the Pac 10 winner. Obviously they factor in what they think the general public will bet, but they wouldn't move a game 3 points off of their team rankings on a neutral court. If you don't think they have a ranking of teams you're fooling yourself. Well if all you are going to talk about really is point spreads, then let us know how the Big East has done in this tournament against the spread?? You'll find their record isn't very good there either...
March 27, 201115 yr Well if all you are going to talk about really is point spreads, then let us know how the Big East has done in this tournament against the spread?? You'll find their record isn't very good there either... Not sure how relevant this is. It's not like the college coaches or players are competiting against the spread. At least they shouldn't be.
March 28, 201115 yr Not sure how relevant this is. It's not like the college coaches or players are competiting against the spread. At least they shouldn't be. You'll have to ask SSC-he/she made the claim that the line setters rank the teams and know more than the committee as far as ranking the teams...
March 28, 201115 yr You'll have to ask SSC-he/she made the claim that the line setters rank the teams and know more than the committee as far as ranking the teams... And I'll forever stand by that. They are far better at ranking teams than a committee. If you're a UK fan like me you better hope the 9th place team from the BE doesn't beat UK because the BE bashers will get killed next Saturday if UK loses.
March 28, 201115 yr Because most of the coaches in the Big East recruit players that are there for the long haul that will grow and nurture to become well capable of the next level; it's not all about the one and done. Do you really believe that the BE coaches don't recruit the same players as everyone else, "one & done's" included???
March 28, 201115 yr Keep hearing these comments about the SEC and others being "top heavy", but other than the Big East this year, name a conference year in and year out who isn't? Where would the ACC be without Duke & Carolina for example?
April 3, 201115 yr I'll go slow...it's all about how you are seeded. UConn was a #3 seed-meaning the committee at worst thought they were the 12th best team in the country. So by your account the 9th best team in the Big East was ranked by the committee as the 12th best team in the country. They have to this point then overacheived by 1 game in the NCAA tournament by making the Elite 8. ALL of the other Big East teams besides Marquette underacheived based on their seedings. Butler was an 8 seed. The committee thought at worst they were the 32nd best team in the country. The Bulldogs have overacheived by two rounds in the tournament so far. So now that they're one of the last two left can you slow the math down for me again?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.