USA Predicts . . .

[stever20]

One thing Bill- if you are seeded 12 and in a PIG, you have an extra round to get to that sweet 16.

My point is I'll take the odds on having years where we get 2,3,7,10 seeds 100% of the time over years where we are 3,10,10, 12 and in PIG. It's asinine to say anything other than that. Yes exceptions can happen. But they are just that, exceptions. You are making it sound Bill like the seeds are random and don't matter. While folks want to make March out to be like that, the reality is it's not. The seeds really do matter. I mean just as an example- 40 6 seeds have been to the sweet 16 in the last 30 years. Only 20 7 seeds have been. You have to go out and win, but I'll take a better seed over a weaker seed all of the time(except as our Creighton fans know- when it's between a 8/9 seed and a 10 seed).

Also, I would note that one of Butlers 2 years, they were a #5 seed. That is hardly a bad seed. Only VCU of the 3 you mentioned was lower than a 9 seed. Lower than a 9 seed has made the elite 8 11 times, and final 4 3 times. Sweet 16 in the 10-12 range(because we will never be 13-16 seed)- 59 times. Sweet 16 in the 5-7 range though- 99 times.

[Irishdawg]

I agree with most of what you say, except that I believe we will miss Brown. The only bench player who can possibly stretch the floor will be Etherington. And he only averaged 2.0 ppg last year with IU. It is hard to pencil Etherington in for even high single figure scoring. Brown hit 30 three pointers, and was a threat every time he touched the ball. Without Brown, we HAVE to have Austin contribute at least as much as Brown did last year at 6.8 pg.

Etherington hasn't shown in three years that he can make it through a season reasonably healthy, and as you know he is already injured. I for one believe we will miss Brown immensely.

I think we will miss Fromm's leadership more than most think. When he lost his starting job, he kept his head in the game and provided stability off the bench. He also could stretch the floor, particularly for a big man. I'm not sure who will fill his slot.

I totally agree with Aldridge being a good citizen and great teammate.

Brown had an offensive efficiency rating of 88.3 (an "average" offensive player is 100), which other than Aldridge was the worst on the team among the regulars. Neither he nor Fromm were serious threats on the offensive end of the floor, and while they might have hit 3's during the season, neither did so at an impressive enough clip (Brown 26%, Fromm 24.6%) to where I would consider trying to take that shot away from them. I wish Brown well at New Mexico because it seemed like he said all the right things, but he was playing out of position last season and he also made a lot of boneheaded decisions both offensively and defensively that hurt the team during games. I agree that Fromm's leadership will be missed, but I think a guy like Barlow can take on that role.

I actually think that Kelan Martin will get minutes ahead of Etherington (especially with his injury), and I don't think Austin will be looked to do much beyond what he did well at IU, which was play defense and do the little things as well as he can. Martin's outside shot is inconsistent, but IMO, he's far more of a threat to score than anyone else that may come off the bench. Jackson Davis is skilled, but needs to add some strength in order to utilize that at this level of basketball, but he's smart and makes winning plays even if he's not scoring. Tyler Wideman has completely revamped his body from the end of his HS Jr. season until now. His offensive game needs some work, but this kid is big and athletic and should be a good presence on the defensive end of the floor once he learns Butler's rotations and hedging.

I think Butler's a year away from challenging for an NCAA bid, but that's just my opinion. Looking forward to this season either way.

[HoosierPal]

I agree with most of what you say, except that I believe we will miss Brown. The only bench player who can possibly stretch the floor will be Etherington. And he only averaged 2.0 ppg last year with IU. It is hard to pencil Etherington in for even high single figure scoring. Brown hit 30 three pointers, and was a threat every time he touched the ball. Without Brown, we HAVE to have Austin contribute at least as much as Brown did last year at 6.8 pg.

Etherington hasn't shown in three years that he can make it through a season reasonably healthy, and as you know he is already injured. I for one believe we will miss Brown immensely.

I think we will miss Fromm's leadership more than most think. When he lost his starting job, he kept his head in the game and provided stability off the bench. He also could stretch the floor, particularly for a big man. I'm not sure who will fill his slot.

I totally agree with Aldridge being a good citizen and great teammate.

Brown had an offensive efficiency rating of 88.3 (an "average" offensive player is 100), which other than Aldridge was the worst on the team among the regulars. Neither he nor Fromm were serious threats on the offensive end of the floor, and while they might have hit 3's during the season, neither did so at an impressive enough clip (Brown 26%, Fromm 24.6%) to where I would consider trying to take that shot away from them. I wish Brown well at New Mexico because it seemed like he said all the right things, but he was playing out of position last season and he also made a lot of boneheaded decisions both offensively and defensively that hurt the team during games. I agree that Fromm's leadership will be missed, but I think a guy like Barlow can take on that role.

I actually think that Kelan Martin will get minutes ahead of Etherington (especially with his injury), and I don't think Austin will be looked to do much beyond what he did well at IU, which was play defense and do the little things as well as he can. Martin's outside shot is inconsistent, but IMO, he's far more of a threat to score than anyone else that may come off the bench. Jackson Davis is skilled, but needs to add some strength in order to utilize that at this level of basketball, but he's smart and makes winning plays even if he's not scoring. Tyler Wideman has completely revamped his body from the end of his HS Jr. season until now. His offensive game needs some work, but this kid is big and athletic and should be a good presence on the defensive end of the floor once he learns Butler's rotations and hedging.

I think Butler's a year away from challenging for an NCAA bid, but that's just my opinion. Looking forward to this season either way.

Good talking Bulldog hoops with you. I remember Brown darn near beating Villanova by himself, and he had stellar games against OK State, Xavier and I think Princeton. The kid has talent, and I think that with one year under his wings, he would have been a huge + for us this year.

I hope someone can come off the bench with a major contribution. Freshmen, well they are freshmen. If we are relying on them to do more than a minor supporting roll, it likely will be a long year. We were all very positive on last year's freshman class, only two made any contributions in my book, and now only one remains. Hope we see a different outcome this year.

[Bill Marsh]

One thing Bill- if you are seeded 12 and in a PIG, you have an extra round to get to that sweet 16.

My point is I'll take the odds on having years where we get 2,3,7,10 seeds 100% of the time over years where we are 3,10,10, 12 and in PIG. It's asinine to say anything other than that. Yes exceptions can happen. But they are just that, exceptions. You are making it sound Bill like the seeds are random and don't matter. While folks want to make March out to be like that, the reality is it's not. The seeds really do matter. I mean just as an example- 40 6 seeds have been to the sweet 16 in the last 30 years. Only 20 7 seeds have been. You have to go out and win, but I'll take a better seed over a weaker seed all of the time(except as our Creighton fans know- when it's between a 8/9 seed and a 10 seed).

Also, I would note that one of Butlers 2 years, they were a #5 seed. That is hardly a bad seed. Only VCU of the 3 you mentioned was lower than a 9 seed. Lower than a 9 seed has made the elite 8 11 times, and final 4 3 times. Sweet 16 in the 10-12 range(because we will never be 13-16 seed)- 59 times. Sweet 16 in the 5-7 range though- 99 times.

Steve, what I'm saying is that seeds are not an end in themselves. They're a means to an end. When all is said and done, it's. The results that will matter. I'm simply saying what you've been saying all along. Teams have to win games. If they don't win enough games during the season to get a high seed, then they have to win them in the tournament.

Where USA Today ranks teams on a list means absolutely nothing. If they pick BE teams to be 10 or 12 seeds, that doesn't mean that they will in fact actually become that. It does mean that someone thinks they're a pretty competitive team. Now they have to go out and live up to that. And even exceed it if they can.

As you've said before, they have to win games. It would appear that they have the talent to do so.

[GoldenWarrior11]

The reason I brought up whether or not 4 teams each year was "successful" or not was because I am curious as to whether the Big East would panic after just two years and consider expansion.

For the record, I am not in favor of adding teams for AT LEAST several seasons - so that schools can develop their round-robin rivalries and continue to build the conference - but I am not Fox, Val Ackerman or the Presidents.

[stever20]

I think my thought as well Bill- if we had a year like the USA Today is projecting- 3,10,10, and 12 in PIG- that means our conference wasn't relevant in the regular season at all. March could rectify that, but with those seeds, clearly behind the 8 ball- 3 seed would get a 6 seed in the 2nd round, and 10's would have the 7/2 combo which isn't easy at all either. So I stand by what I said before, if the final seeds are like 2,3,7,10- that's a successful season, while 3,10,10, and 12 in PIG isn't.

I think it's a very real possibility if Big East has a year like what USA Today is projecting- that we see expansion. I think especially if the A10 and AAC both have years similar to last year. The longer we're having years where there is a discussion of which of those 3 conferences had the best year, the worse it is for us.

[notkirkcameron]

I think 4 is the least amount of teams we get in yearly. So I think that's the over under line. Anything less than that would be failure, anything more than that success. I think going forward we'll be getting 5 in pretty regularly and 6 on occasion.

with the double round robin schedule- getting 5 or 6 is a very difficult thing. Last year was pretty much best case scenario for final league standings- with 5 seed being 10-8 and 6 seed being 9-9. To get 5-6 in, we have to dominate in the OOC schedule. The 5th or 6 seed going 10-8 or 9-9 can't have more than 2 OOC losses and feel comfortable. The #7 Big 12 team got in even with a 8-10 conference record because they were 12-1 OOC.

The issue isn't "double round robin scheduling." Big East teams had 9 home games and 9 away games in the "Super Big East" era before the split too. Yea, OK, you maybe didn't have to play Villanova twice, but you also didn't necessarily get to play DePaul twice either.

The reason for getting fewer teams in the tournament isn't "double-round robin." It's "Having 10 teams." And that's not a bad thing.

I've opined at length in this forum as to why expansion isn't a great idea, so I won't address it here.

In the alternative, while it's an admittedly imperfect science, we also need to remember that while "the Big East" had record-shattering numbers of teams in the NCAAs before the split, how many of those berths were Catholic 7 schools, who comprise the majority of our conference?

"Super Big East Era" NCAA berths, and C7 NCAA berths
2013: 8, 3 C7 (Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova)
2012: 9, 2 C7 (Georgetown, Marquette)
2011: 11, 4 C7 (Georgetown, Marquette, St. John's, Villanova)
2010: 8, 3 C7 (Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova)
2009: 7, 2 C7 (Marquette, Villanova)
2008: 8, 3 C7 (Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova)
2007: 6, 3 C7 (Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova)
2006: 8, 4 C7 (Georgetown, Marquette, Seton Hall, Villanova)

Key points
1.) In 2014, only two of the Catholic 7 made the NCAA Tournament (Providence and Villanova). Not much of a departure from form.

2.) From 2006-2013, more than 3 of the Catholic 7 only made it to the NCAAs twice in eight seasons (2006).

3.) Of the 24 NCAA Tournament berths won by Catholic 7 teams in the Super Big East era, three schools, Georgetown, Marquette, and Villanova, were responsible for 22 of them. The remaining 4 Catholic 7 members combined for two, and only one in the 7 years since 2007.

Moral of the story
If the bulk of the conference's membership is consistently not going to the NCAA Tournament every year, then yea, when MU and Georgetown have a down year like last year, you're not going to get the berths. It is just that simple.

The only thing that is going to increase the number of bids without expansion is for the other teams in the league to be more competitive in non-conference, and in the league. That means St. John's delivering on their potential. That means DePaul not being an annual dumpster fire. That means MU and GTown reloading. Etc., etc.

The ACC had double round robin through the 2003-04 season...but they also only had 9 teams. Tell you what, they look pretty similar to the present-day Big East in terms of the number of teams they got into the tournament. This is the new reality.

ACC NCAA Teams (1995-2004)
2004: 5
2003: 4
2002: 4
2001: 6
2000: 3
1999: 3
1998: 5
1997: 6
1996: 6
1995: 4

3 in a bad year
4-5 in an average year
6 in a good year

[stever20]

the issue is a lot having double round robin. I mean, look this year at the AAC. They have 11 teams, and they have it set where teams 5-11 all miss 2 of the top teams. So, your 5th seed team instead of having 8 games against those top teams has only 6. 2 fewer tougher games, meaning 2 fewer losses most likely. The # of losses matter. In the old Big East, the 9 seed wouldn't have to play all the top teams 2x. they'd be playing teams 1-8 at the most 11 times. They were guaranteed playing teams 10-16 at least 1x. So assuming they got 7 wins amongst the bottom teams, if they went 3-8 against the top teams, they were 10-8 in conference play. Add to that 11 OOC wins, and they were 21-10 and tourney bound. When you don't have the double round robin, you can gerrymander the schedule.

I would say a big part of the problem isn't just the # of teams, but the seeding of teams. I mean, last year PC was a 11 seed(and misses the tourney if they don't win the conference).

Also, I would say the ACC isn't a vaild comparison because they only had 9 teams. Why does that matter? Because instead of 18 conference games, they had 16 conference games. Fewer losses. The number of losses matters. In a double round robin like the Big East, last year was actually a fluke. Normally the #5 seed won't have only 8 losses.

Look at last years standings amongst all conferences- and look at some of the 10 team round robin conferences. Keep in mind, there's 9 10 team round robin conferences. While the quality of conferences are different- it's still a double round robin situation.
WCC- #5 at 8-10, #6 at 7-11
SBC- #5/6 both at 9-9
SWAC- #6 at 9-9
Patriot #6 at 7-11
MVC- #4 thru #6 all at 9-9
B12- #6 at 9-9
AAC- #6 at 8-10

The only #6 team that was above .500 was in the Atlantic Sun, where Lipscomb finished 10-8.
The only #5 team that had more than 10 wins was in the AAC, where Memphis finished 12-6.

A team that is 10-8- 5th place- for them to feel really safe, needs to have gone 11-2 OOC.
A team that is 9-9- 6th place- for them to feel really safe, needs to have gone 12-1 OOC.

So the double round robin makes it where for those 5th/6th place teams, they better have done exceptional in OOC play, or they will miss the tourney. And as we saw last year, it even makes 3/4 a dicey proposition if there's a ton of separation from 1-2 to everyone else.

What the double round-robin does is makes teams in that 5/6 range have to have done very well in OOC play. It makes the OOC play MUCH more critical than it was when we didn't have the double round robin.

[Barley]

I expect last year and this year to be the bottom of the cycle and then we'll see an uptick. Last season if PC doesn't win in MSG, it's only 3 bids. And if there wasn't a play-in game, it would have been 2. Don't set too high of expectation this year, but as Marquette and Georgetown get their new recruits in, we'll see a rebound in conference stature.

[billyjack]

Just a side comment, but if Georgetown had beaten DePaul in the BET, then we would've had 5 NCAA bids. So in the same way the BE "got lucky" that PC ran the table, the BE was also equally "unlucky" that DePaul had their improbable win vs the Hoyas. 4 bids was the default number.

That is all. Carry on.