Big (L)east Supremacy

RE Big (L)east Supremacy.



I poked into Pitt's schedule to see how a team with more losses could be ranked ahead of a team with fewer losses. And there was the explanation. The Big East in basketball practices what the SEC practices in football.



Iirc, they had 14 straight home games to open the season. They not only never left the state or their time zone - they never left home. And, they played mostly cupcakes during that stretch. Fattened up their record so to speak. I did not check the other Big East schools, but suspect that as in the SEC, they all did the same thing. Then they argue that they should not have to play on the road or anyone good in non-conference because their conference is so great. Then they beat up on each other like other conferences, but their losses in conference do not count because they are all so great. They don't even have to play each other twice - home and away - like other conferences. Then they argue that their body of work should justify an inflated seed in the tourney and that 11 teams should get in. Kind of increases the odds that one will get lucky and keep the myth of Big East supremacy alive. With all of those tilts in their favor, you have to wonder why they win the NC so rarely. Perhaps they are all just a little over-rated.

Eh, I can't get behind you on this one. Big East basketball may be some of the slowest-paced, low-scoring, over-physical, mind-numbingly boring basketball to watch, but I'm not going to try and argue that it's not a good (if not the best) basketball conference. (I will be shocked if TCU picks up a single conference win their first year.)



Wasn't it like two years ago that the Big East had at least one team remaining in each 4 brackets during the Elite 8?

Big East has solid depth, which means you can lose on the road at any time. Depth is what makes a conference solid. St. Johns got hot, georgetown is goo, so is Louisvlle, Can name other really good teams. They have more solid and good teams than the MWC this year. Same can be said about Big 10. Look at a good Wisconsin team, that lost no games at home. Means they beat tOSU and Purdue, two good teams. MWC goes 5 deep at best. Big East goes like 10 deep, 12 deep. Just as Utah will find out when they join the PAC-12, winning on the road is tougher in a league with depth. It just is. Hard to get up and plat great in every game, and more chances to have an average or off day and lose. The MWC is efinitely getting better and better at the top in both football and hoops. But the bottom still lags behind a lot.

I get my fill of big least here where I live and I don't know how many of you watch there conference games regularly. I do because often that's about all I get. They are ugly, full of muggary and I wonder at times if the officials even have whistles. The calls seem very arbitrary and one can only hope they treat both teams equally. Not only are they over rated but because of their mythical Big East bias and weak schedules, they get excellent seeds in the tournament. If we started as a 2 or 3 every year ya think we would have a few more NCAA tourney wins!?!? They don't worry me at all, especially since our ref's have grown fond of closing their eyes to so many calls. We should be used to that and ready for a deep tourney run.



Go Cougs! :love:



L Hatton

Louisville, KY

Lawboy wrote:
Big East has solid depth, which means you can lose on the road at any time. Depth is what makes a conference solid. St. Johns got hot, georgetown is goo, so is Louisvlle, Can name other really good teams. They have more solid and good teams than the MWC this year. Same can be said about Big 10. Look at a good Wisconsin team, that lost no games at home. Means they beat tOSU and Purdue, two good teams. MWC goes 5 deep at best. Big East goes like 10 deep, 12 deep. Just as Utah will find out when they join the PAC-12, winning on the road is tougher in a league with depth. It just is. Hard to get up and plat great in every game, and more chances to have an average or off day and lose. The MWC is efinitely getting better and better at the top in both football and hoops. But the bottom still lags behind a lot.

So are you saying it will be easier or harder for Utah in the PAC 12?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Harder. Especially on the road. All sports across the board. The PAC12 has better depth, and even the crappy teams are solid at home. We never lose to bad MWC teams at their place, unless we stink ourselves. The PAC-12 top has not been as good as the MWC recently, that is certain. But the weakness of the MWC is not the top, it is the bottom, and that is a big reason why BYU left, too. More chances for losses in a league with depth, and more chances for wins in a league that lacks depth.

Lawboy wrote:
Big East has solid depth, which means you can lose on the road at any time. Depth is what makes a conference solid. St. Johns got hot, georgetown is goo, so is Louisvlle, Can name other really good teams. They have more solid and good teams than the MWC this year. Same can be said about Big 10. Look at a good Wisconsin team, that lost no games at home. Means they beat tOSU and Purdue, two good teams. MWC goes 5 deep at best. Big East goes like 10 deep, 12 deep. Just as Utah will find out when they join the PAC-12, winning on the road is tougher in a league with depth. It just is. Hard to get up and plat great in every game, and more chances to have an average or off day and lose. The MWC is efinitely getting better and better at the top in both football and hoops. But the bottom still lags behind a lot.

Ya the big east is twice as deep as the mwc - they have twice as many teams!



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Y 4 Ever wrote:

Big East has solid depth, which means you can lose on the road at any time. Depth is what makes a conference solid. St. Johns got hot, georgetown is goo, so is Louisvlle, Can name other really good teams. They have more solid and good teams than the MWC this year. Same can be said about Big 10. Look at a good Wisconsin team, that lost no games at home. Means they beat tOSU and Purdue, two good teams. MWC goes 5 deep at best. Big East goes like 10 deep, 12 deep. Just as Utah will find out when they join the PAC-12, winning on the road is tougher in a league with depth. It just is. Hard to get up and plat great in every game, and more chances to have an average or off day and lose. The MWC is efinitely getting better and better at the top in both football and hoops. But the bottom still lags behind a lot.

Ya the big east is twice as deep as the mwc - they have twice as many teams!



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Is the bottom half as bad as our bottom half?

Dcr36 wrote:
Eh, I can't get behind you on this one. Big East basketball may be some of the slowest-paced, low-scoring, over-physical, mind-numbingly boring basketball to watch, but I'm not going to try and argue that it's not a good (if not the best) basketball conference. (I will be shocked if TCU picks up a single conference win their first year.)



Wasn't it like two years ago that the Big East had at least one team remaining in each 4 brackets during the Elite 8?

I am not saying the Big East is not a great conference. I just don't think they deserve 11 teams at the dance and they do not deserve as high of seeding as they get on average.



Someone posted on CBS that the NC road runs through Duke and North Carolina most years - neither of which are Big East. I don't know how true that is - but how many games did TCU win in the MWC this year.



I am not at all suggesting that the MWC is on a par with the Big East - or that any other conference is on a par for that matter. I also think the SEC is the best football conference. Just a bit over-rated none-the-less.



If the Big East is so great - the 11 Big East teams should be so prepared and hardened come the dance time, that all 11 of them make it to the sweet 16.



4-6 Big East teams ought to be plenty for the Big Dance. And if they are so great - they shouldn't need high seeds to succeed.

From Wikipedia



At 11 national titles, UCLA holds the record for the most NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championships; John Wooden coached UCLA to 10 of its 11 titles. The University of Kentucky is second, with 7 national titles, while Indiana University and University of North Carolina are tied for third with 5 national titles, and current champion Duke University ranks fifth, with 4 national titles.



Now - how many of those bad boys are from the Big East - ZERO by my count.



The entire confrence has won it only about 8 or 9 times based on who is in the Big East now, over the past 60 years. That would be about 15% of the time. But they think they deserve 20% of the dance tickets and high seeds to boot.



If they were cut back to 6 teams at the Dance with Seeding according to record - maybe parity would happen. Maybe their recruiting advantage would diminish. Parity. what a concept. Everyone wants parity except those who have the field tilted in their favor.

I'm with you bib. I have felt real frustration with the great abomination of the false elite. The same thing went on with Big East football. It's BCS AQ status has been protected from the MWC by over-rated gifts from the pollsters, and then they have not played any one but themselves, and this is supposed to be impressive because they are all so great.



Of course, I could no longer care less about the disgusting MWC, but you know what I mean.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I dunno how relevant citing UNC's, Duke's and UCLA's championships really is; especially in the case of UCLA, those were mostly confined to a particular coach in a particular era. Big East dominance is a somewhat-recent beast.



I agree that perhaps 11 is a bit excessive, but based on my totally-non-scientific gut-check test, I still think the BE deserves a good number of bids. I'm looking at the conference standings and asking myself, "At which point would I feel comfortable with BYU meeting up with any of these teams in the tourney?" (Not the same thing as "Can BYU beat these teams?" I think BYU is CAPABLE of winning against the upper-echelon BE teams, but I'd certainly worry about some teams more than others.) And honestly, you got to get down to about Marquette before my gut feeling is, "Oh, yeah, no sweat, BYU would beat them any day." That's 8 bids. Take that for what you will.

Also, Big East teams may play a LOT of marshmellows, but they generally compete in pretty decent early-season tournaments as well. I know UConn did pretty well in a high profile tournament, and I believe I watched Pitt beat Texas at Madison Square Garden early in the year as well.

I'll take my chances against the Big East for the same reason I liked our chances against SDSU: We're good in the 1/2 court and we can make shots. We're also a good defensive team. We may not be the most athletic team, but we know what we do well.



The Big East is more than content to have games in the 40s and 50s. In games like that, each and every possession is important. We still have a low turnover ratio and an efficient offense. They play close tight games that come down to making plays at the end.



I like those chances with winners like Jax or Jimmer needing to make a big shot late.

urroner wrote:

Lawboy wrote:
Big East has solid depth, which means you can lose on the road at any time. Depth is what makes a conference solid. St. Johns got hot, georgetown is goo, so is Louisvlle, Can name other really good teams. They have more solid and good teams than the MWC this year. Same can be said about Big 10. Look at a good Wisconsin team, that lost no games at home. Means they beat tOSU and Purdue, two good teams. MWC goes 5 deep at best. Big East goes like 10 deep, 12 deep. Just as Utah will find out when they join the PAC-12, winning on the road is tougher in a league with depth. It just is. Hard to get up and plat great in every game, and more chances to have an average or off day and lose. The MWC is efinitely getting better and better at the top in both football and hoops. But the bottom still lags behind a lot.

Ya the big east is twice as deep as the mwc - they have twice as many teams!



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Depaul, rutgers, seton hall, usf, providence...ya, they have some real dogs. And adding that ball powerhouse tcu!!



Is the bottom half as bad as our bottom half?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Dcr36 wrote:
Also, Big East teams may play a LOT of marshmellows, but they generally compete in pretty decent early-season tournaments as well. I know UConn did pretty well in a high profile tournament, and I believe I watched Pitt beat Texas at Madison Square Garden early in the year as well.

Tell me when you see them beat them at Texas. The list I saw showed it as a home game for Pitt, but it may have been at the Garden - just down the road and in the same time zone.

Lawboy wrote:
Harder. Especially on the road. All sports across the board. The PAC12 has better depth, and even the crappy teams are solid at home. We never lose to bad MWC teams at their place, unless we stink ourselves. The PAC-12 top has not been as good as the MWC recently, that is certain. But the weakness of the MWC is not the top, it is the bottom, and that is a big reason why BYU left, too. More chances for losses in a league with depth, and more chances for wins in a league that lacks depth.

I'm not sure PAC ten bottom dwellers are any better this year than mwc dwellers. Taking the bottom four in each conference the PAC dwellers have 48 wins total, 21 in conference. Mwc dwellers have 47 wins, 15 in conference. Seems like the PAC dwellers racked up more wins against conference foes than the mwc dwellers. Maybe that is simply due to a weaker top half of the pac than mwc, therefore easier to get wins in conference, or possibly just tougher competition outside the PAC than in. I'd say both dwellers about the same, but mwc top is much, much tougher.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougarbib2 wrote:
From Wikipedia



At 11 national titles, UCLA holds the record for the most NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championships; John Wooden coached UCLA to 10 of its 11 titles. The University of Kentucky is second, with 7 national titles, while Indiana University and University of North Carolina are tied for third with 5 national titles, and current champion Duke University ranks fifth, with 4 national titles.



Now - how many of those bad boys are from the Big East - ZERO by my count.



The entire confrence has won it only about 8 or 9 times based on who is in the Big East now, over the past 60 years. That would be about 15% of the time. But they think they deserve 20% of the dance tickets and high seeds to boot.



If they were cut back to 6 teams at the Dance with Seeding according to record - maybe parity would happen. Maybe their recruiting advantage would diminish. Parity. what a concept. Everyone wants parity except those who have the field tilted in their favor.

Good thing we're not going by past history, or BYU probably wouldn't get a basketball seed at all.



Poor history doesn't mean there aren't 11 good BE teams THIS year. Besides, if they are as over-rated as you say, that should just mean we get to the finals all that easier.

I have a question that is related to all of this. People give teams credit for playing in a perceived "tough" conference like the Big East and degrade teams for playing in a perceived "weaker" conference like the MWC. It's happened a lot recently with the BYU being on the national stage. My question is shouldn't Strength of Schedule have more weight than what conference you play in?



For Example: BYU vs Pitt



BYU's SOS is #10 and Pitt is #24



Shouldn't conference affiliation be thrown out the window by the SOS rating? If the Big East is so much better than the MWC than shouldn't Pitt and BYU be swapped in the SOS? Shouldn't the team that has 2 loses in the #10 ranked schedule be ahead of the team that has 4 loses in the #24 ranked schedule?



This is an honest question(s), I'm not trying to prove a point.

CannonCougar85 wrote:
I have a question that is related to all of this. People give teams credit for playing in a perceived "tough" conference like the Big East and degrade teams for playing in a perceived "weaker" conference like the MWC. It's happened a lot recently with the BYU being on the national stage. My question is shouldn't Strength of Schedule have more weight than what conference you play in?



For Example: BYU vs Pitt



BYU's SOS is #10 and Pitt is #24



Shouldn't conference affiliation be thrown out the window by the SOS rating? If the Big East is so much better than the MWC than shouldn't Pitt and BYU be swapped in the SOS? Shouldn't the team that has 2 loses in the #10 ranked schedule be ahead of the team that has 4 loses in the #24 ranked schedule?



This is an honest question(s), I'm not trying to prove a point.

MY guess is that this explains why Lunardi is the first of the major prognosticators to put BYU as 1 seed. IN the mock bracket gatehring a few weeks ago, ScottyG, local radio personality participated. In an interview on radio, he said there was NO discussion of conference affiliation but only on that individual team's body of work over the season. Conference affiliation has to still be embedded in the "unwritten order of things" even in Lunardi's tourney seeding, but My sense is that the tourney committee has far more parity than the BCS BS, by comparison.



But also, folks need to realize that SOS and RPI are still "man-made", contrived formulas. And this is why Bilas is suggesting that they are inadequate and inaccurate (or whatever terms he used).--enter the BCS mathameticians. Expect some different rating system next year that weights conference affiliation--particularly if BY-WHO gets an "undeserved" 1 seed.