Respect For And Strength Of The Big East...

[Savannah Jay]

Stever, you obviously believe your own bull. So lets take the hypothetical and agree with your points. The Big East is bad. What do you do to fix it?

I don't believe the Stever lives a "solutions-based" life. He's his own little ray of pitch black.

Here's hoping there is something that brings the Stever joy, cause it's not Big East basketball.

[xu2002]

Here's hoping there is something that brings the Stever joy, cause it's not Big East basketball.

Arby’s night in his parents basement

[gtmoBlue]

Arby's night?? Am I invited?? Please!

[Bill Marsh]

And the ACC has 4 teams left, Big 12 has 4 teams left, SEC still has 2 teams left, Big Ten champion(which is Michigan) is still alive and the highest seed for the region.

Also, if this was a one off situation where a top big east seed flamed out, it would be one thing. But it's happened all 5 years.

Those leagues also got more teams in the tournament. The big 12 has been impressive, but no one else has bathed itself in glory.

But that doesn't explain how the Big East hasn't stepped up in all but 1 tournament.

You’re talking like “stepping up” is an easy thing to do, that it’s just a matter of getting the right seed. It’s hard to get to the Final 4. In this tournament format, it’s damn hard. High seeds from from every league get wiped out year in and year out from every league.

Your analysis of BE tournament performance is the classic mistake of drawing conclusions from small sample sizes. You can’t identify long term trends until you actually have long term data.

Take Pac 12 for instance. Sure they were 0 fer this year. But last year they had 3 sweet 16's and a final 4 team.

Take the PAC-12 for instance . . . ???

You can’t be serious with that comment. Last year’s Final 4 is that league’s only Final 4 in the past 10 years while BE teams have been to 4 F4’s and have won a NC in the past 10 years. But we’re supposed to emulate those guys? I’m speechless.

[marquette]

Arby's night?? Am I invited?? Please!

Don't let muscoop get a hold of this or there might be a full-scale invasion!

(for the uninitiated, go to muscoop and search "arby's", it's a strange fascination)

[gosports1]

I think my point is pretty simple...

Big East is 5-12 in 2nd round games.

If the Big East was 12-5 in those 2nd round games, don't you think the perception of the conference would be different? I mean, folks here complain all the time about how little respect the conference gets in the AP polls thru the season. March is 100% the reason for that.

Like this year- if the Big East went 3-1 in those 4 2nd round games, what would the country be saying right now? Great season- one of the best conferences. But this is what someone from NBC Sports posted:
The 2018 NCAA tournament has been brutal for the six-bid Big East. The Wildcats have shot the ball at an extremely high level for two games. The rest of the conference was a disaster. Xavier, the league’s second No. 1 seed, was upset by No. 9 seed Florida State. No. 8 seed Seton Hall and No. 10 seed Butler were both bounced in the second round as well by No. 1 seed Kansas and No. 2 seed Purdue, respectively. Creighton and Providence couldn’t even make it out of the first round after losses to No. 9 seed Kansas State and No. 7 seed Texas A&M. This was a year to forget for the Big East.
http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/ ... -sweet-16/

And yes, like billyjack said, most of why the press has changed towards the Big East is the Nova title in '16. That is by far and not even remotely close the biggest thing that's happened with the Big East in all 5 years. If that doesn't happen, the press wouldn't be anywhere near as favorable to the Big East right now. So that change is a direct result of March/April.

What did this "someone" have to say about the ACC champion and overall number 1 seed, Virginia being the 1st EVER to lose to a 16 seed? Any concerns about Miami or UNC losing to lesser seeds? Duke losing in the reg season to winless in conference play St Johns? ND and Louisville not making the tourney? Pitt going winless in league play? Any concerns about the P12 only getting 3 teams in , 2 of them being play in? ASU not even making it? How about the American? Any mention of Cincys meltdown? Media darling Wichita losing as a 4 seed losing to a 13? Any mention of Gonzaga losing to a 9 seed and again falling short of expectation?

[gosports1]

if more league members is the answer, please explain why the P12 only had 3 make it(2 barely) and the B10 with its 14 members only had 4? Shouldn't UCLA and USC have gotten higher seeds since they got wins against the lower half of the league? Shouldn't having 14 teams given Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa the wins needed to make the field?
also if more is better why did 10 team BE get 6 and 10 team B12 get 7 invites

[jfan]

if more league members is the answer, please explain why the P12 only had 3 make it(2 barely) and the B10 with its 14 members only had 4? Shouldn't UCLA and USC have gotten higher seeds since they got wins against the lower half of the league? Shouldn't having 14 teams given Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa the wins needed to make the field?
also if more is better why did 10 team BE get 6 and 10 team B12 get 7 invites

Don't use logic, it might hurt "someones" brain!

[stever20]

if more league members is the answer, please explain why the P12 only had 3 make it(2 barely) and the B10 with its 14 members only had 4? Shouldn't UCLA and USC have gotten higher seeds since they got wins against the lower half of the league? Shouldn't having 14 teams given Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa the wins needed to make the field?
also if more is better why did 10 team BE get 6 and 10 team B12 get 7 invites

I don't think more is better. I'd rather enter the tourney like the Big Ten, sure with only 4 teams, but with 2,3,3,5 seeds than Big East with sure 2 1 seeds, but then everything else in the 8-10 range. If a different team other than Nebraska was 13-5, they would have been not only in, but also still a top 5-6 seed as well. Also, the Big Ten was significantly behind the Big East in conference RPI- .5501 to .5771. Yet they had much better seedings for the tournament. And Big 12 was ahead of ACC in RPI- .5789-.57540 - but look at the seeds... ACC had 1,2,2,5,6,8,9,9,11. B12 had 1,3,5,6,9,10,10.

And look at the units this year
Big Ten this year- 11 or 12 units(depending on if Michigan wins or not)
Big East this year- 12 or 13 units(depending on if Villanova wins or not)

sure Big East got more teams in, but the units will be between 0-2 apart. Not that big of a deal at all.

[stever20]

Here's something to think about...

Big East was #2 in conference RPI right.

1 Big 12 had 4 top 6 seeds
2 Big East had 2 top 6 seeds
3 ACC had 5 top 6 seeds
4 SEC had 4 top 6 seeds
5 Pac 12 had 1 top 6 seed
6 Big Ten had 4 top 6 seeds
7 AAC had 3 top 6 seeds

So #6 Big Ten had more top 6 seeds than #1 Big 12, and #7 AAC had more top 6 seeds than #2 Big East. 4 of the 5 top conferences in getting top 6 seeds didn't have the round robin.