Big East vs. Power Leagues Discussion

[DumpsterFireA10]

Hi Bill,
Right, I did get that news flash about Syracuse and Louisville. I guess I'm stressing how underperforming the bottom 10 of the ACC have been for the last 10 years. If we were to look in detail at the results of those Bottom 10, what you'd find would be shocking... struggles by most of them against High Point and Old Dominion and South Alabama and Holy Cross and Bryant... I realize several of us have have had some lean years, but then we're not gifted Top-25 spots and votes like Virginia and Boston College (for example) this year, or NC State being handed a #6 ranking to start last year, or Miami of Florida rocketing up the polls even with bad ooc losses last year by virtue of beating the pig droppings inhabiting the ACC Botton Ten.

We'll find out a lot about Virginia tonight vs VCU.

I think Miami jumped a lot last year when they beat North Carolina and Duke more than anything else Their bad ooc losses- Florida Gulf Coast, Arizona, and Indiana St. Tehy also beat Michigan St out of conference. they took off when they beat UNC 68-59- and more so when they beat Duke 90-63 and UNC 2nd time 87-61. So hardly a team to really gripe about at all, even with the end of their season.

The media was also quick to point out all of Miami's losses early were due to injuries. Very quick.

[TheHall]

The ACC really did become a two team conference-- Duke and UNC.

I really am amazed at these bullet points:
Since 2004, no team coming out of the ACC has made an Elite-8 other than Duke & UNC.
From 2007 on, 5 different Big East schools have made the Elite-8.

From 1997 on, only 4 different schools coming out of the ACC have made an Elite-8... Duke, UNC, Ga Tech, Maryland.
From 1997 on, 7 different schools in today's Big East have made the Elite-8... GU, VU, BU, XU, Marquette, SJU, PC.

Also, Big East critics sometimes downplay our Elite-8's by saying we haven't won a national championship since 1985.
However, outside of Duke and UNC, only 1 other team coming out of the ACC has won a national championship (Maryland in 2000) since NC State in 1983...

News Flash: former national champs Syracuse has joined the ACC, fresh off a Final Four and back-to-back Elite 8's. Louisville is joining the ACC next year, fresh off a NC, back-to-back Final Fours, and 5 Elite 8's in the past decade. The ACC is no longer just North Carolina and Duke.

So now it's UNC, Duke, Cuse & UofL. 4 potentially elite teams most years out of what 15. I think the BE can get to 3-4 truly elite teams over the next 3-5 years out of 10-12 teams & that's without such a week bottom of the conference. BJ's main point is still correct IMO, the ACC is still the definition of haves & have nots, unlike the B1G & historically the BE.

[MUBoxer]

So now it's UNC, Duke, Cuse & UofL. 4 potentially elite teams most years out of what 15. I think the BE can get to 3-4 truly elite teams over the next 3-5 years out of 10-12 teams & that's without such a week bottom of the conference. BJ's main point is still correct IMO, the ACC is still the definition of haves & have nots, unlike the B1G & historically the BE.

While I agree that it is a conference of haves and have nots, here are the facts The ACC has had 108 tournament appearances, 44 Sweet 16s, 21 Elite 8s, 13 Final Fours, 1 runner up and 5 national championships since 2000, now you could argue that it's because the conference is 5 teams bigger but then take away Virginia's 3, Virginia Tech's 1, Clemson's 4 and Wake Forest and BC's 7 each. And they're still left with 86 bids, and only lose 1 sweet 16s from that. The fact is it's a much more complete conference now. Would you have thought WF or BC had 7 tournament bids each in this century?

We're griping about the ACC being haves and have nots but the majority of our schools are holding onto their success in the 80s and 70s as a point that they can come back whenever they want. Well it's not too different with those ACC schools (minus Miami). We're worse at levels of comparing success from the top to bottom till we prove otherwise. XU 11 bids, MU 10, BU 9, GT CU and Nova 8... next is 3 SH and SJU then 2 PC and DPU. If that alone doesn't show you that we're terribly top heavy I don't know what would.

[TheHall]

So now it's UNC, Duke, Cuse & UofL. 4 potentially elite teams most years out of what 15. I think the BE can get to 3-4 truly elite teams over the next 3-5 years out of 10-12 teams & that's without such a week bottom of the conference. BJ's main point is still correct IMO, the ACC is still the definition of haves & have nots, unlike the B1G & historically the BE.

While I agree that it is a conference of haves and have nots, here are the facts The ACC has had 108 tournament appearances, 44 Sweet 16s, 21 Elite 8s, 13 Final Fours, 1 runner up and 5 national championships since 2000, now you could argue that it's because the conference is 5 teams bigger but then take away Virginia's 3, Virginia Tech's 1, Clemson's 4 and Wake Forest and BC's 7 each. And they're still left with 86 bids, and only lose 1 sweet 16s from that. The fact is it's a much more complete conference now. Would you have thought WF or BC had 7 tournament bids each in this century?

We're griping about the ACC being haves and have nots but the majority of our schools are holding onto their success in the 80s and 70s as a point that they can come back whenever they want. Well it's not too different with those ACC schools (minus Miami). We're worse at levels of comparing success from the top to bottom till we prove otherwise. XU 11 bids, MU 10, BU 9, GT CU and Nova 8... next is 3 SH and SJU then 2 PC and DPU. If that alone doesn't show you that we're terribly top heavy I don't know what would.

Everything you mention, while true, is backwards looking. You mentioned the line about until we prove otherwise. I agree, but, reread my post and notice I'm not hedging my bet about how this will play out down the road. I'm calling it for the BE based on how things are playing out now. For example I feel much better about the future for SHU, SJU & PC in the northeast against BC, Pitt & Cuse from the ACC. A year ago I didn't feel that way. We are winning going forward.

If it was only about the past this would be like a game of collecting history & old trophies. That's nice but this really a battle about the next 30 years of making new history and grabbing new trophies (not 1, not 2, not 3, not...)

[billyjack]

So now it's UNC, Duke, Cuse & UofL. 4 potentially elite teams most years out of what 15. I think the BE can get to 3-4 truly elite teams over the next 3-5 years out of 10-12 teams & that's without such a week bottom of the conference. BJ's main point is still correct IMO, the ACC is still the definition of haves & have nots, unlike the B1G & historically the BE.

While I agree that it is a conference of haves and have nots, here are the facts The ACC has had 108 tournament appearances, 44 Sweet 16s, 21 Elite 8s, 13 Final Fours, 1 runner up and 5 national championships since 2000, now you could argue that it's because the conference is 5 teams bigger but then take away Virginia's 3, Virginia Tech's 1, Clemson's 4 and Wake Forest and BC's 7 each (???). And they're still left with 86 bids, and only lose 1 sweet 16s from that. The fact is it's a much more complete conference now. Would you have thought WF or BC had 7 tournament bids each in this century?

We're griping about the ACC being haves and have nots but the majority of our schools are holding onto their success in the 80s and 70s as a point that they can come back whenever they want. Well it's not too different with those ACC schools (minus Miami). We're worse at levels of comparing success from the top to bottom till we prove otherwise. XU 11 bids, MU 10, BU 9, GT CU and Nova 8... next is 3 SH and SJU then 2 PC and DPU. If that alone doesn't show you that we're terribly top heavy I don't know what would.

I'm not following your numbers exactly...

Since 2000 out of the ACC:
Duke, UNC: fantastic.

Since 2000, other 10 ACC schools coming out of the ACC:
Maryland: 03-S16, 02-NC, 01-FF.
Georgia Tech: 04-NF.
NC State: 05-S16, 12-S16.
Wake Forest: 04-S16.
Boston College: 06-S16.
Florida State: 11-S16.
Miami (Florida): 13-S16
Virginia: 0.
Clemson: 0.
Virginia Tech: 0.

Looking more closely:
From 2007 to present, schools coming out of ACC not named Duke or UNC:
Miami of Florida: 2013 Sweet Sixteen.
NC State: 2012 Sweet Sixteen.
Florida State: 2011 Sweet Sixteen.
None of the other 7 have made it to the Sweet Sixteen.
These 10 ACC teams --> 3 Sweet Sixteens total in the last 7 years.

Our 10 Big East teams --> 6 Elite-8's by 5 different schools in last 7 years.

[stever20]

So now it's UNC, Duke, Cuse & UofL. 4 potentially elite teams most years out of what 15. I think the BE can get to 3-4 truly elite teams over the next 3-5 years out of 10-12 teams & that's without such a week bottom of the conference. BJ's main point is still correct IMO, the ACC is still the definition of haves & have nots, unlike the B1G & historically the BE.

While I agree that it is a conference of haves and have nots, here are the facts The ACC has had 108 tournament appearances, 44 Sweet 16s, 21 Elite 8s, 13 Final Fours, 1 runner up and 5 national championships since 2000, now you could argue that it's because the conference is 5 teams bigger but then take away Virginia's 3, Virginia Tech's 1, Clemson's 4 and Wake Forest and BC's 7 each (???). And they're still left with 86 bids, and only lose 1 sweet 16s from that. The fact is it's a much more complete conference now. Would you have thought WF or BC had 7 tournament bids each in this century?

We're griping about the ACC being haves and have nots but the majority of our schools are holding onto their success in the 80s and 70s as a point that they can come back whenever they want. Well it's not too different with those ACC schools (minus Miami). We're worse at levels of comparing success from the top to bottom till we prove otherwise. XU 11 bids, MU 10, BU 9, GT CU and Nova 8... next is 3 SH and SJU then 2 PC and DPU. If that alone doesn't show you that we're terribly top heavy I don't know what would.

I'm not following your numbers exactly...

Since 2000 out of the ACC:
Duke, UNC: fantastic.

Since 2000, other 10 ACC schools coming out of the ACC:
Maryland: 03-S16, 02-NC, 01-FF.
Georgia Tech: 04-NF.
NC State: 05-S16, 12-S16.
Wake Forest: 04-S16.
Boston College: 06-S16.
Florida State: 11-S16.
Miami (Florida): 13-S16
Virginia: 0.
Clemson: 0.
Virginia Tech: 0.

Looking more closely:
From 2007 to present, schools coming out of ACC not named Duke or UNC:
Miami of Florida: 2013 Sweet Sixteen.
NC State: 2012 Sweet Sixteen.
Florida State: 2011 Sweet Sixteen.
None of the other 7 have made it to the Sweet Sixteen.
These 10 ACC teams --> 3 Sweet Sixteens total in the last 7 years.

Our 10 Big East teams --> 6 Elite-8's by 5 different schools in last 7 years.

Problem is you can't in the arguement give us all our new schools(which account for 3 of the elite 8's by 2 schools) and not give the ACC theirs. Just like we augmented ourself by the new schools, the ACC did that as well. Our core C7 and the other 10 ACC schools all had 3 sweet 16's the last 7 years.

[billyjack]

Yeah, but where their 3 Sweet Sixteens got stranded on second base, our 3 Sweet Sixteens turned into 2 Final Fours and 1 Elite-8 (what would that be? 2 "scores" for GU and VU and last year Marquette got her bikini off...?)

[stever20]

Yeah, but where their 3 Sweet Sixteens got stranded on second base, our 3 Sweet Sixteens turned into 2 Final Fours and 1 Elite-8 (what would that be? 2 "scores" for GU and VU and last year Marquette got her bikini off...?)

while that is true, that's their 3-5 teams. It's our 1-3 teams. A big difference. You're saying our conference is better than ACC 3-12. I'd hope that would be the case. Problem is, you can't ignore UNC or Duke- or the fact that Syracuse, Pitt, ND, and Louisville are stronger than our new 3.

Also, frankly depth is overrated. I don't think anyone said Big East last several years wasn't good because DePaul, USF, and Rutgers sucked.

[TheHall]

Yeah, but where their 3 Sweet Sixteens got stranded on second base, our 3 Sweet Sixteens turned into 2 Final Fours and 1 Elite-8 (what would that be? 2 "scores" for GU and VU and last year Marquette got her bikini off...?)

while that is true, that's their 3-5 teams. It's our 1-3 teams. A big difference. You're saying our conference is better than ACC 3-12. I'd hope that would be the case. Problem is, you can't ignore UNC or Duke- or the fact that Syracuse, Pitt, ND, and Louisville are stronger than our new 3.

Also, frankly depth is overrated. I don't think anyone said Big East last several years wasn't good because DePaul, USF, and Rutgers sucked.

Are you really a BE fan. How can you say ND, UofL, Pitt & SU WILL BE better that CU, BU & X. Who cares what programs were, I'm talking about going forward. Uconn became better than all of those former BE schools & Marq is right on the cuse's heels, so why put a ceiling on our schools or a basement on those other schools.

Also if depth is overrated why are you so concerned with SJU losing to Wisc. SJU isn't a favorite to win the league. If depth doesn't matter, then we all know MU, GU & CU are the closest to pure locks for the NCAAT in the BE. So all these other games shouldn't matter & we just need to see how these teams do in the NCAAT. Basically that's what the ACC has been like most of the time. The BE is better than that and has been for a long time.

[stever20]

it's tough to say that Creighton, Butler, and Xavier will be better than Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame. As good as our incoming 3 have been- they do not have the history or even current sucess that the ACC 4 have. Louisville just won the title. Syracuse just made the final 4. Pitt has an elite 8 recently. Notre Dame has sucked in the tourney, but still they get there every year. think you ask most any person in the country and they would take the ACC 4 over the BE 3. It might not be the case in 10+ years, but the ACC 4 aren't going to just drop off the face of the earth now that they're in the ACC. Trust me, I think the ACC has a lot of challenges. I think the biggest one is that there are 4 HOF coaches that will be retiring within 10 years- Syracuse, Louisville, Duke, and UNC.

Also, I don't agree at all that UConn was better than all of those ACC defectors at all.

By depth I mean looking at the bottom schools. I used DePaul, USF, and Rutgers. Folks didn't ding us for them at all, and they won't ding the ACC for the 13-15 placed teams either. Fact is with all the adds, it's a much more complete conference. Tehy will steal a bid or two some years because of that.

St John's wasn't picked to finish 10th this year- by a good # of folks- they were projected to be a tourney team. The BE needs St John's this year big time. It can't just be Marquette, Georgetown and Creighton.