Respect For And Strength Of The Big East...

[billyjack]

What Stever should be comparing is the credits AAC will be getting vs MVC.

AAC this year - 5 units
MVC this year - 5 units.

so I guess he's right. more is not necessarily better.

He's wrong, but Stever's been consistent with his point of emphasis. To him, 4 teams with better seeding was always better than 6 teams with lots of 7-10 seeds. I have to admire the tenacity... lol

Don't forget the A10 with 5 units. They're not just gonna fade away and make AAC look major league.

Ok, with his love of fewer bids, higher seeds:

He's laying groundwork for saying the American is great by using the Big Ten as a cover. See? In his head, he's thinking the B1G got only 4 bids but had good seeds.... American only had one fewer bid than B1G... American equals B1G equals great.

It's idiotic. It implies that we wouldve been better off with fewer than 6 bids. Even though Xavier in 17 advanced as an 11-seed etc.

If it was reversed he'd be saying "more bids even with worse seeds is great, cuz anything can happen in March Madness... i mean, look at Loyola!".

I honestly have no problem with the American. I honestly don't dislike any of their teams. The bottom 4 or 5 suck big elephant balls, but that doesnt affect me or any of us at all. The only reason i may have an ounce of negativity toward the American is cuz this f-ckin pest doesnt shut the f-ck up about them.

We could discuss any topic, and there's a 90% chance he'll bring up the American. Wr could be discussing Angela Merkel's calves, and he'd somehow tie it into the Tulsa Golden Hurricane's chances of making the tourney. It's like Billy Crystal bringing up Mickey Mantle in any interview.

Holy crap, just go the f-ck away.

[stever20]

Loyola is a great story. BUT top 6 seeds make the elite 8 so much- 233 top 6 seeds to 39 sub 6 seeds- that it just shows how much the odds are skewed for the top 6 seeds.....

even sweet 16- it's 422 top 6 seeds to only 122 sub 6 seeds. So a difference of about 3.5 to 1.

11 seeds are great, if you don't have to go to Dayton. But there's maybe 1 of those each year.

I think the Big East would have been better off if Seton Hall had beaten Butler in the BET, and Seton Hall now instead of a 8 seed is a 6 seed. Even if that costs Butler their bid. Seton Hall as a 6 could have done some serious damage. But being an 8, they had an extreme uphill battle. I think the A10 showed it some even themselves this year. A10 with URI as a 6 seed(very possible with A10 win) and no Davidson much better off in having a real shot than A10 with URI as a 7 seed(seeing Duke) and Davidson as a 12 seed(seeing Kentucky).

Extra teams may be lottery tickets, but those lottery tickets are like powerball tickets. Call me risk adverse, but I'd rather have a stronger team like Seton Hall with a higher seed than getting an extra team in, but hampering the stronger teams chance of making a run.

[Savannah Jay]

Loyola is a great story. BUT top 6 seeds make the elite 8 so much- 233 top 6 seeds to 39 sub 6 seeds- that it just shows how much the odds are skewed for the top 6 seeds.....

even sweet 16- it's 422 top 6 seeds to only 122 sub 6 seeds. So a difference of about 3.5 to 1.

11 seeds are great, if you don't have to go to Dayton. But there's maybe 1 of those each year.

I think the Big East would have been better off if Seton Hall had beaten Butler in the BET, and Seton Hall now instead of a 8 seed is a 6 seed. Even if that costs Butler their bid. Seton Hall as a 6 could have done some serious damage. But being an 8, they had an extreme uphill battle. I think the A10 showed it some even themselves this year. A10 with URI as a 6 seed(very possible with A10 win) and no Davidson much better off in having a real shot than A10 with URI as a 7 seed(seeing Duke) and Davidson as a 12 seed(seeing Kentucky).

Extra teams may be lottery tickets, but those lottery tickets are like powerball tickets. Call me risk adverse, but I'd rather have a stronger team like Seton Hall with a higher seed than getting an extra team in, but hampering the stronger teams chance of making a run.

I think you are common sense averse...what would have happened if we only got three teams in the tournament? Let's just say they were all top 6 seeds. And just for discussion purposes, those seeds were a 2, 4, and 6. Those seem like good seeds poised for a nice run, no? But, as we know, getting only three teams in with good seeds isn't even a guarantee of one sweet sixteen team, is it?

[kayako]

And just for discussion purposes, those seeds were a 2, 4, and 6.

[stever20]

Loyola is a great story. BUT top 6 seeds make the elite 8 so much- 233 top 6 seeds to 39 sub 6 seeds- that it just shows how much the odds are skewed for the top 6 seeds.....

even sweet 16- it's 422 top 6 seeds to only 122 sub 6 seeds. So a difference of about 3.5 to 1.

11 seeds are great, if you don't have to go to Dayton. But there's maybe 1 of those each year.

I think the Big East would have been better off if Seton Hall had beaten Butler in the BET, and Seton Hall now instead of a 8 seed is a 6 seed. Even if that costs Butler their bid. Seton Hall as a 6 could have done some serious damage. But being an 8, they had an extreme uphill battle. I think the A10 showed it some even themselves this year. A10 with URI as a 6 seed(very possible with A10 win) and no Davidson much better off in having a real shot than A10 with URI as a 7 seed(seeing Duke) and Davidson as a 12 seed(seeing Kentucky).

Extra teams may be lottery tickets, but those lottery tickets are like powerball tickets. Call me risk adverse, but I'd rather have a stronger team like Seton Hall with a higher seed than getting an extra team in, but hampering the stronger teams chance of making a run.

I think you are common sense averse...what would have happened if we only got three teams in the tournament? Let's just say they were all top 6 seeds. And just for discussion purposes, those seeds were a 2, 4, and 6. Those seem like good seeds poised for a nice run, no? But, as we know, getting only three teams in with good seeds isn't even a guarantee of one sweet sixteen team, is it?

no doubt the AAC didn't get good results out of their draw. But they were on the other hand real close to having a draw with Houston in the west region without top 3 seeds and 4 seed Gonzaga getting beat by Florida St- and Cincy in the South where 1,3,4,5,6 were all out early, and 5 seed Kentucky getting beat by Kansas St. They were close to having a chance to have a Houston/Cincy national semifinal game.

[jfan]

Savannah, come on, there is no way a league with a 2, 4, and 6 seed wouldn't get a least one team in the S16! If that happened, Stever would have to argue that the league in question was trending downward!!

[GumbyDamnit!]

BUT top 6 seeds make the elite 8 so much- 233 top 6 seeds to 39 sub 6 seeds- that it just shows how much the odds are skewed for the top 6 seeds.....

I think the Big East would have been better off if Seton Hall had beaten Butler in the BET, and Seton Hall now instead of a 8 seed is a 6 seed. Even if that costs Butler their bid. Seton Hall as a 6 could have done some serious damage. But being an 8, they had an extreme uphill battle. I think the A10 showed it some even themselves this year. A10 with URI as a 6 seed(very possible with A10 win) and no Davidson much better off in having a real shot than A10 with URI as a 7 seed(seeing Duke) and Davidson as a 12 seed(seeing Kentucky).

Extra teams may be lottery tickets, but those lottery tickets are like powerball tickets. Call me risk adverse, but I'd rather have a stronger team like Seton Hall with a higher seed than getting an extra team in, but hampering the stronger teams chance of making a run.

I get it. You like to say nonsensical things to stir the pot. Whatever. But your posts lack basic intelligence at worst, or you simply don’t think things through fully at best. So first things first... better teams are seeded higher. Better teams also are usually the ones that make runs. But the seed itself does not make teams better. Which St just wasn’t a 4 seed so they lost to a pedestrian Marshall team. Them being a 2 seed or a 8/9 seed (where they should have been) doesn’t change that. Them being a 4 seed also doesn’t magically make them better. Also, is there really a big difference between SHU playing a #3 seed MIch in the 2nd R, or someone like #5 WVU instead of playing KU? Per KenPom MU is actually better than KU, and WVU might have been a terrible matchup for them and led to a blowout. The seeding has no bearing on matchups.

Secondly, better for the BE for SHU to be a 6 and Butler to be left home? Did I read that right? So let’s play your game... SHU would have had to make a run to the E8 to match the # of tourney credits that SHU and Butler earned this year. You’re a man of #s. Is it more common for a 2 & 3 seed to make an E8 or a 6 seed? So your #s seem to come back to haunt you when they reach the S16.

Here’s the thing Stever. Good teams are usually high seeds because they are good. And good teams/seeds usually win games because they are (surprise, surprise) good. The seed doesn’t make them good; they would be just as good as a 10 seed. Secondly they call it March Madness for a reason. The goal for any program is to get there first. But when there anything can happen (See Loyola, UConn in ‘14, Butler FF runs, Geo Mason, VCU, etc). If you are a good fundamental team that has the ability to beat any team in a 1 game series (like all the BE teams have been), then get there and give it a go. Some years you get teams like Nova and X lose early as high seeds and sometimes you get X as an 11 make a run. Like a golf scramble the key is to get as many looks at the cup that you can and hope someone makes a putt. No difference with the tourney. Get as many in and hope for the best without knowing who may make the run. And for all your B10 seed love remember that they were a miracle shot from having 0 teams in the E8.

[stever20]

A team that was top 20 RPI and Ken Pom should have been a 8 or 9 seed. GTFO with that. That's just dumb as hell and you know it.... I know you hate the AAC, but there's nothing about Wichita that said they should have been an 8 or 9 seed. Nothing.

And yes, there is a HUGE difference between Seton Hall playing Kansas IN Wichita vs playing Michigan in Wichita or West Virginia in San Diego.

Also, Butler probably still gets in the tourney- and may have had to go to Dayton. That could have turned out even better for the Big East quite frankly- Seton Hall has a realistic chance to advance to the sweet 16 and maybe beyond, and Butler maybe gets an extra unit in there as well. It would have been better for the league for Seton Hall to be a 6 and Butler in Dayton I think for sure over what actually happened.

[Bill Marsh]

BUT top 6 seeds make the elite 8 so much- 233 top 6 seeds to 39 sub 6 seeds- that it just shows how much the odds are skewed for the top 6 seeds.....

I think the Big East would have been better off if Seton Hall had beaten Butler in the BET, and Seton Hall now instead of a 8 seed is a 6 seed. Even if that costs Butler their bid. Seton Hall as a 6 could have done some serious damage. But being an 8, they had an extreme uphill battle. I think the A10 showed it some even themselves this year. A10 with URI as a 6 seed(very possible with A10 win) and no Davidson much better off in having a real shot than A10 with URI as a 7 seed(seeing Duke) and Davidson as a 12 seed(seeing Kentucky).

Extra teams may be lottery tickets, but those lottery tickets are like powerball tickets. Call me risk adverse, but I'd rather have a stronger team like Seton Hall with a higher seed than getting an extra team in, but hampering the stronger teams chance of making a run.

I get it. You like to say nonsensical things to stir the pot. Whatever. But your posts lack basic intelligence at worst, or you simply don’t think things through fully at best. So first things first... better teams are seeded higher. Better teams also are usually the ones that make runs. But the seed itself does not make teams better. Which St just wasn’t a 4 seed so they lost to a pedestrian Marshall team. Them being a 2 seed or a 8/9 seed (where they should have been) doesn’t change that. Them being a 4 seed also doesn’t magically make them better. Also, is there really a big difference between SHU playing a #3 seed MIch in the 2nd R, or someone like #5 WVU instead of playing KU? Per KenPom MU is actually better than KU, and WVU might have been a terrible matchup for them and led to a blowout. The seeding has no bearing on matchups.

Secondly, better for the BE for SHU to be a 6 and Butler to be left home? Did I read that right? So let’s play your game... SHU would have had to make a run to the E8 to match the # of tourney credits that SHU and Butler earned this year. You’re a man of #s. Is it more common for a 2 & 3 seed to make an E8 or a 6 seed? So your #s seem to come back to haunt you when they reach the S16.

Here’s the thing Stever. Good teams are usually high seeds because they are good. And good teams/seeds usually win games because they are (surprise, surprise) good. The seed doesn’t make them good; they would be just as good as a 10 seed. Secondly they call it March Madness for a reason. The goal for any program is to get there first. But when there anything can happen (See Loyola, UConn in ‘14, Butler FF runs, Geo Mason, VCU, etc). If you are a good fundamental team that has the ability to beat any team in a 1 game series (like all the BE teams have been), then get there and give it a go. Some years you get teams like Nova and X lose early as high seeds and sometimes you get X as an 11 make a run. Like a golf scramble the key is to get as many looks at the cup that you can and hope someone makes a putt. No difference with the tourney. Get as many in and hope for the best without knowing who may make the run. And for all your B10 seed love remember that they were a miracle shot from having 0 teams in the E8.

Enlightenment.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Stever's on a roll this week. Mack leaving Xavier has him really fired up. Villanova getting to another Final Four must have really rattled some cages. The (not-so) subtle comments like, "although for whatever reason no AAC coaches been poached yet in basketball", "Big East programs are at a big disadvantage, "Wright (leaving) would be the one that would be the ultimate kick in the gnads for Big East fans I think", "Yeah, 2nd Big East coach to leave for the Big Ten and ACC in 2 years. Think these situations are where we see the football money playing a huge role- Big East just can't compete with those schools salary wise" are just humorous to read and analyze.

Taking a step back, I just laugh at posters who repeatedly proclaim themselves to be Big East fans (yet clearly argue otherwise). These fans have repeatedly proclaimed that the Big East is doomed because it is not on ESPN, because it does not have higher TV ratings, because it cannot recruit well, because it does not have football money, because it cannot win national championships, because it cannot have more than one team win a national championship, etc., etc., etc. Additionally, and with specific regards to the AAC, they repeatedly argue that they are, in fact, not mid-major, that they have experienced bad luck, that they are better than their records indicate, that they are a fan of mid-majors (yet argues against the A-10), question why their basketball coaches do not get poached by the P5, and that one conference's no experience head coaching hire (Hardaway) is better than other similar hires (Ewing and Mullin). *Look up the argument made against Mullin/Ewing (lack of experience, only hired because of his name), then look at the support for Hardaway (lack of experience won't hurt, still a brand name, etc.).

What you get, in summary, is pure hypocrisy, inconsistency and flawed reasoning based on a multitude of facts. Very enjoyable reading.