ESPN bias against the Big East

[adoraz11]

Saw this on redmen
"If anyone saw college game day yesterday morning on espn you would have seen a "who did better in realignment" conversation between the Big East or the AAC. They all agreed the AAC is better and Jay Bilas said the Big East is in big trouble in the future. They are so completely biased against the Big East, it's embarrassing. No one bothered to mention the fact that we have more top 150 recruits coming in than any conference except the ACC and they have 50% more schools than we do.

Plus the AAC will lose Louisville next year and other schools may bolt at a chance for a better situation."



Shame we're the third best conference but perception wise not because we have half the teams just outside the bubble, only 10 teams, and ESPN wants us to fail. Let's hope for four bids and a deep run by Nova or Creighton to help rid some of this nonsense.

I don't want to derail this thread with conference expansion talk, as there's already a thread for that, but this is part of the reason I think we need to expand. To avoid a situation like this year when ESPN can take easy shots at us. ESPN has a lot of influence, such as five American teams being ranked while most their rpis aren't impressive or deserving of top 25.

[XUFan09]

At first I thought this would be another "chip-on-shoulder" thread, but that's actually legitimately BS what they are saying. I'm not surprised that they are saying it, but wow, way to stray from reality. The old Big East was better than the new, but the future of the AAC isn't looking nearly as good as the future of the Big East.

[adoraz11]

At first I thought this would be another "chip-on-shoulder" thread, but that's actually legitimately BS what they are saying. I'm not surprised that they are saying it, but wow, way to stray from reality. The old Big East was better than the new, but the future of the AAC isn't looking nearly as good as the future of the Big East.

Yep had we had just two more teams like vcu and slu this year we'd be in the discussion of best conference regardless of ESPNs approval. It's not fair but it's just the way things will be until Big East fully proves itself.

[Edrick]

At first I thought this would be another "chip-on-shoulder" thread, but that's actually legitimately BS what they are saying. I'm not surprised that they are saying it, but wow, way to stray from reality. The old Big East was better than the new, but the future of the AAC isn't looking nearly as good as the future of the Big East.

No it wasn't....

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog ... he_numbers

[Burrito]

The AAC had a better year this year with 5 teams ranked and 5 bids. But,

1) Louisville leaves the conference in a few months
2) Larry Brown at SMU will be 74 years old next year. How much longer will he be there?
4) Another Calhoun recruited class will graduate from Uconn. We still have to see how Kevin Ollie can do with his own recruits.

The BIg East definately needs Marquette and Georgetown to get back on track as quickly as possible

[Bluejay]

Saw this on redmen
"If anyone saw college game day yesterday morning on espn you would have seen a "who did better in realignment" conversation between the Big East or the AAC. They all agreed the AAC is better and Jay Bilas said the Big East is in big trouble in the future. They are so completely biased against the Big East, it's embarrassing. No one bothered to mention the fact that we have more top 150 recruits coming in than any conference except the ACC and they have 50% more schools than we do.

Plus the AAC will lose Louisville next year and other schools may bolt at a chance for a better situation."



Shame we're the third best conference but perception wise not because we have half the teams just outside the bubble, only 10 teams, and ESPN wants us to fail. Let's hope for four bids and a deep run by Nova or Creighton to help rid some of this nonsense.

I don't want to derail this thread with conference expansion talk, as there's already a thread for that, but this is part of the reason I think we need to expand. To avoid a situation like this year when ESPN can take easy shots at us. ESPN has a lot of influence, such as five American teams being ranked while most their rpis aren't impressive or deserving of top 25.

Expansion wouldn't change a thing. ESPN isn't talking about the Big East because the Big East has a TV contract with its rival.

[Edrick]

The AAC had a better year this year

False

CONFERENCE

1 BIG 12 = 84.41
2 BIG TEN = 83.94
3 BIG EAST = 82.27
4 PAC-12 = 82.24
5 ATLANTIC COAST = 81.43
6 SOUTHEASTERN = 79.65
7 AMERICAN ATHLETIC = 79.08

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sa ... onference/

[notkirkcameron]

Break it down. This year, the conventional wisdom has been, yea, the AAC has more teams in the Top 25, but the Big East's bottom half is better. Losing to any one of the teams in the AAC not ranked in the Top 25 would be considered a "bad loss" on a tournament resume. But a closer examination of the numbers reveals that's only half the truth.

Average RPI of the Top Half of the Big East: 33 (Villanova 4, Creighton 7, Xavier 48, Georgetown 53, Providence 54)
Average RPI of the Top Half of the American: 28 (Cincinnati 15, Louisville 21, UConn 28, Memphis 29, SMU 45)

So the Top half of the American, which supposedly is head and shoulders above the Big East's bubble teams, really isn't. an average of 4 RPI spots higher.



As for the bottom...

Average RPI of the Bottom Half of the Big East: 118 (STJ 57, Marq 85, Butler 138, Hall 148, DePaul 162)
Average RPI of the Bottom Half of the American: 197 (Houston 157, Temple 163, Rutgers 203, USF 217, UCF 223)

Yikes. A difference of nearly 70 spots in the RPI on average. Put another way, St. John's is still on the bubble. Marquette was still on the bubble last week. When was the last time anybody talked about Houston or Temple?




Next year, the disparity only gets worse. Let's assume similar RPI standings to this year, but with Louisville and Rutgers subbed out for Tulsa (94), East Carolina (218), and Tulane (222).

Average RPI of the Top Five of the Big East: 33 (See above)
Average RPI of the Top Five of the American (It's an 11-team league): 42 (Cincinnati 15, UConn 28, Memphis 29, SMU 45, Tulsa 94)

Dropping Louisville and adding Tulsa raised the Top Half of the American's average RPI FOURTEEN spots. And this calculation assumes 1.) That MU and GTown don't reload and return to the levels of success they've had over the last decade. 2.) That SMU will defy expectations and continue to not be the team that hasn't won an NCAA Tournament game since they were a member of the Southwest Conference.

Looking at the bottom? I think you know where this is going.

Average RPI of the Bottom Half of the Big East: 118 (see above)
Average RPI of the Bottom Six (It's an 11-team league) of the American: 200 (Houston 157, Temple 163, USF 217, East Carolina 218, Tulane 222, UCF 223)

The bottom half of the American isn't getting any better (it's somehow getting worse). And the top half is likely going to get worse too. It's not entirely crazy to say that half the teams in the bottom half of the American would be a buy game for any team in the bottom half of the Big East. Let the American Apparel or whatever they're calling it have this year. I'll take the future.

[Bill Marsh]

Excellent post, Kirk. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting with all those calculations.

[XUFan09]

At first I thought this would be another "chip-on-shoulder" thread, but that's actually legitimately BS what they are saying. I'm not surprised that they are saying it, but wow, way to stray from reality. The old Big East was better than the new, but the future of the AAC isn't looking nearly as good as the future of the Big East.

No it wasn't....

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog ... he_numbers

Current Big East fans love to post this, while missing the point that Ken Pomeroy is trying to make: The Big East still deserves attention. And I agree with that. He says, "This isn’t the only way to evaluate conference strength, but it does shed some light on the relative merits of the new and old configurations." You know what's another way to judge conference strength? The number and quality of tournament teams, and that's how people really judge conferences. Syracuse vs. Creighton is a wash this year (though not historically). Louisville vs. Xavier isn't even close. Neither is Pitt vs. Butler. UConn and Cincinnati are good too.

It has to be nice not playing god-awful Rutgers and South Florida, but the top of the conference took a big hit. This is a much more well-rounded conference, but the old Big East never had to worry about the possibility of only sending 20% or 30% of its conference to the tournament.