ESPN: Big East at a crossroads in Year 2

[billyjack]

While we're here, I think it's fair to say that the ACC disappointed in the tournament last year too. Six teams in the tournament, only four made it to the round of 32, and only two made it to the sweet 16. No Elite Eight or Final Four teams.

Actually, the ACC only had 1 team in the Sweet 16, Virginia.

This astounding fact still holds:
Since 2004, no team has made the Elite-8 coming out of the ACC, except for Duke and UNC.
When you think of the press the ACC gets, that's amazing.

[R to the OB]

While we're here, I think it's fair to say that the ACC disappointed in the tournament last year too. Six teams in the tournament, only four made it to the round of 32, and only two made it to the sweet 16. No Elite Eight or Final Four teams.

Actually, the ACC only had 1 team in the Sweet 16, Virginia.

This astounding fact still holds:
Since 2004, no team has made the Elite-8 coming out of the ACC, except for Duke and UNC.
When you think of the press the ACC gets, that's amazing.

Oops. You're right.
If I remember correctly, from 1997 to 2003 and 2005 to 2011, only Duke and UNC won the ACC Tournament. Talk about competition.

[stever20]

While we're here, I think it's fair to say that the ACC disappointed in the tournament last year too. Six teams in the tournament, only four made it to the round of 32, and only two made it to the sweet 16. No Elite Eight or Final Four teams.

Actually, the ACC only had 1 team in the Sweet 16, Virginia.

This astounding fact still holds:
Since 2004, no team has made the Elite-8 coming out of the ACC, except for Duke and UNC.
When you think of the press the ACC gets, that's amazing.

Oops. You're right.
If I remember correctly, from 1997 to 2003 and 2005 to 2011, only Duke and UNC won the ACC Tournament. Talk about competition.

true- although in 2001 and 2002- Maryland made the final 4 and won it the 2nd year.

The point is very valid though how poorly the ACC did last year. Hopefully that continues

[robinreed]

I have read this article twice. I can find nothing therein which is inaccurate, incorrect, slanderous or contrary to fact. We had a decent but not exceptional first year. We are working to improve our league. Our TV numbers were disappointing. There are good reasons for these things but they are what they are. As a XU grad and fan I am very glad to be a member of the Big East but let us not be so foolish as to suggest we are what we want to be currently. Some here suggest the article is a hack job. I would suggest it is a reasonable evaluation of our first year containing some obvious truths concerning what we must do in future.

I find it difficult to believe anyone could find this article offensive. ESPN has it's faults as does CBS, NBC and FOX but we did well in our contract financially and now we must improve our viewership numbers. That and getting teams into the top 25 at the end of the season should be our goals.

Perhaps the ESPN writers could write only warm and fuzzy articles about how wonderful we and all the other conferences are and stress that we are equal before the eyes of God but I doubt it would sell or that anyone would read it. As the great sage Charlie Brown oft said "Good Grief".

[stever20]

I have read this article twice. I can find nothing therein which is inaccurate, incorrect, slanderous or contrary to fact. We had a decent but not exceptional first year. We are working to improve our league. Our TV numbers were disappointing. There are good reasons for these things but they are what they are. As a XU grad and fan I am very glad to be a member of the Big East but let us not be so foolish as to suggest we are what we want to be currently. Some here suggest the article is a hack job. I would suggest it is a reasonable evaluation of our first year containing some obvious truths concerning what we must do in future.

I find it difficult to believe anyone could find this article offensive. ESPN has it's faults as does CBS, NBC and FOX but we did well in our contract financially and now we must improve our viewership numbers. That and getting teams into the top 25 at the end of the season should be our goals.

Perhaps the ESPN writers could write only warm and fuzzy articles about how wonderful we and all the other conferences are and stress that we are equal before the eyes of God but I doubt it would sell or that anyone would read it. As Charlie Brown oft said "Good Grief".

+1000

[MUPanther]

As a Creighton fan, I wouldn't call that a dig. I've read a lot worse (looking at you Greenberg and Goodman). However, the article as a whole is certainly another ESPN hack job aimed at dismissing the Big East.

Exactly, if the mid-western schools mean it's not the Big East then the 7 new ACC schools should mean it's not the ACC anymore. Does Notre Dame, Louisville and Pitt scream ACC?

It's still weird have Florida State & Miami in the ACC.

Dana O'Neil is a joke! There was no point to her piece. She said, in order for the Big East to be relevant, the original teams must win. So, if Xavier & Marquette go to the Final Four that's not good enough? I thought Val did well at her speech at media day. I'm glad she spoke about FS1 and the upgrades each school is doing.

[MUPanther]

At least Jeff put some meat on the bone.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... -media-day

[NJRedman]

I have read this article twice. I can find nothing therein which is inaccurate, incorrect, slanderous or contrary to fact. We had a decent but not exceptional first year. We are working to improve our league. Our TV numbers were disappointing. There are good reasons for these things but they are what they are. As a XU grad and fan I am very glad to be a member of the Big East but let us not be so foolish as to suggest we are what we want to be currently. Some here suggest the article is a hack job. I would suggest it is a reasonable evaluation of our first year containing some obvious truths concerning what we must do in future.

I find it difficult to believe anyone could find this article offensive. ESPN has it's faults as does CBS, NBC and FOX but we did well in our contract financially and now we must improve our viewership numbers. That and getting teams into the top 25 at the end of the season should be our goals.

Perhaps the ESPN writers could write only warm and fuzzy articles about how wonderful we and all the other conferences are and stress that we are equal before the eyes of God but I doubt it would sell or that anyone would read it. As Charlie Brown oft said "Good Grief".

No, it's more about the narrative that they have been trying to write about our league, that we aren't the "real" Big East. Do they mention how the 7 newer members of the ACC (all from the Big East) now make the ACc the "new" ACC? They mention Marquette and DePaul, but they've been in the Big East as long as Miami, VT and BC have been in the ACC.

"I don't know why people have to call us the new Big East or the relaunched Big East,'' Providence coach Ed Cooley said. "We're the Big East.''

Except it's not. Butler, Xavier, Creighton, DePaul and Marquette aren't going to win any Big East word association quizzes.

How is this anything but a shot at the league? We are the Big East, who is she to tell 5 founding members we aren't the true Big East since we've been here for over 30 years!

Also they changed it from Dana to Jeff Borzello as the author of this story.

[Xudash]

I have read this article twice. I can find nothing therein which is inaccurate, incorrect, slanderous or contrary to fact. We had a decent but not exceptional first year. We are working to improve our league. Our TV numbers were disappointing. There are good reasons for these things but they are what they are. As a XU grad and fan I am very glad to be a member of the Big East but let us not be so foolish as to suggest we are what we want to be currently. Some here suggest the article is a hack job. I would suggest it is a reasonable evaluation of our first year containing some obvious truths concerning what we must do in future.

I find it difficult to believe anyone could find this article offensive. ESPN has it's faults as does CBS, NBC and FOX but we did well in our contract financially and now we must improve our viewership numbers. That and getting teams into the top 25 at the end of the season should be our goals.

Perhaps the ESPN writers could write only warm and fuzzy articles about how wonderful we and all the other conferences are and stress that we are equal before the eyes of God but I doubt it would sell or that anyone would read it. As Charlie Brown oft said "Good Grief".

No, it's more about the narrative that they have been trying to write about our league, that we aren't the "real" Big East. Do they mention how the 7 newer members of the ACC (all from the Big East) now make the ACc the "new" ACC? They mention Marquette and DePaul, but they've been in the Big East as long as Miami, VT and BC have been in the ACC.

"I don't know why people have to call us the new Big East or the relaunched Big East,'' Providence coach Ed Cooley said. "We're the Big East.''

Except it's not. Butler, Xavier, Creighton, DePaul and Marquette aren't going to win any Big East word association quizzes.

How is this anything but a shot at the league? We are the Big East, who is she to tell 5 founding members we aren't the true Big East since we've been here for over 30 years!

Also they changed it from Dana to Jeff Borzello as the author of this story.

I agree with you.

A key and hopefully not so abstract thought here: doesn't every league that exists, regardless of how new or traditional they might be, have to perform well in order to remain relevant, respected, radar-worthy - whatever?

Otherwise, did you read the comments section below the article. Some poor VCU clueless idiot that goes by GQ believes the A10 is better than the Big East. There isn't a program in that conference that wouldn't give an appendage to receive an invitation from our conference.

[NJRedman]

I have read this article twice. I can find nothing therein which is inaccurate, incorrect, slanderous or contrary to fact. We had a decent but not exceptional first year. We are working to improve our league. Our TV numbers were disappointing. There are good reasons for these things but they are what they are. As a XU grad and fan I am very glad to be a member of the Big East but let us not be so foolish as to suggest we are what we want to be currently. Some here suggest the article is a hack job. I would suggest it is a reasonable evaluation of our first year containing some obvious truths concerning what we must do in future.

I find it difficult to believe anyone could find this article offensive. ESPN has it's faults as does CBS, NBC and FOX but we did well in our contract financially and now we must improve our viewership numbers. That and getting teams into the top 25 at the end of the season should be our goals.

Perhaps the ESPN writers could write only warm and fuzzy articles about how wonderful we and all the other conferences are and stress that we are equal before the eyes of God but I doubt it would sell or that anyone would read it. As Charlie Brown oft said "Good Grief".

No, it's more about the narrative that they have been trying to write about our league, that we aren't the "real" Big East. Do they mention how the 7 newer members of the ACC (all from the Big East) now make the ACc the "new" ACC? They mention Marquette and DePaul, but they've been in the Big East as long as Miami, VT and BC have been in the ACC.

"I don't know why people have to call us the new Big East or the relaunched Big East,'' Providence coach Ed Cooley said. "We're the Big East.''

Except it's not. Butler, Xavier, Creighton, DePaul and Marquette aren't going to win any Big East word association quizzes.

How is this anything but a shot at the league? We are the Big East, who is she to tell 5 founding members we aren't the true Big East since we've been here for over 30 years!

Also they changed it from Dana to Jeff Borzello as the author of this story.

I agree with you.

A key and hopefully not so abstract thought here: doesn't every league that exists, regardless of how new or traditional they might be, have to perform well in order to remain relevant, respected, radar-worthy - whatever?

Otherwise, did you read the comments section below the article. Some poor VCU clueless idiot that goes by GQ believes the A10 is better than the Big East. There isn't a program in that conference that wouldn't give an appendage to receive an invitation from our conference.

Even if the play was garbage in the Big East and the A-10 was on the court better they would still jump for the sheer fact that the conference makes 10 times as much money per year through their TV deal alone.