In my opinion, there aren't many very good teams in this league. Maybe Syracuse and Villanova. The next 6 or 7 teams are mediocre, or just above that at best. The last 5 or 6 are horrible.

Are we conjured into thinking the Big East is the elite basketball conference in the nation because of ESPN? Does the media over portray this conference?

Take the Big Ten or Big 12 for example, these conferences continue to beat up on each other, making their records look substandard.

When you look at the Big East as a whole, it's actually comparible to the Atlantic 10. There are at least 7 or 8 Big East teams who would not finish in the top half of the Atlantic 10.

HAHAHA! I love guys like you with the Big East Derangement Syndrome. The reason most people agree that the Big East is the best conference is because they are really deep. When you consider that you already have 4 teams already with 20 wins and three more will who have them in another game or two, that makes for a pretty deep league. Do you honestly think UCONN or ND would be in 9th or 10th place in any other conference?

I will admit that Depaul and Providence are pretty bad.

Because it's the best league in college basketball. Tell me what league is better and then I can debate that with you.

The Big East has some good OOC victories and near victories.

For examples:

Cinci is 6-8 in the conference, but they have defeated Vandy and Maryland on a neutral floor, lost in OT to Gonzaga on a neutral floor, and lost in OT to Xavier on the road.

Georgetown has lost 6 conference games, but they have beaten duke at home and Butler on a neutral floor. The Hoyas also defeated Temple, which might not seem like a big deal until you know that Temple has defeated Virginia Tech and Villanova.

Big East is a great conference, but just for the sake or argument/adding fuel to the fire:

Big 10 Wins (5)
Indiana (tied for 9th in Big 10) beat Pitt (3rd in Big East) on a neutral court.
Michigan (7th in Big 10) beat UConn (8th in Big East) in Ann Arbor.
Northwestern (8th in Big 10) beat Notre Dame (tied for 9th) on a neutral court.
Purdue (1st in Big 10) beat West Virginia (4th in Big East) in West Lafayette.
Wisconsin (4th in Big 10) beat Marquette (tied for 6th in Big East) in Madison.

Big East Wins (2)
Marquette (tied for 6th in Big East) beat Michigan (7th in Big 10) on a neutral court.
West Virginia (4th in Big East) beat Ohio State (tied for 2nd in Big 10) in Morgantown.

Little Danny wrote: HAHAHA! I love guys like you with the Big East Derangement Syndrome. The reason most people agree that the Big East is the best conference is because they are really deep. When you consider that you already have 4 teams already with 20 wins and three more will who have them in another game or two, that makes for a pretty deep league. Do you honestly think UCONN or ND would be in 9th or 10th place in any other conference?

I will admit that Depaul and Providence are pretty bad.

The Big East has 16 teams, so it should be "deep".

Notre Dame is 10th in the Big East. If they were in the ACC, I'd guess they'd be no better than 8th or 9th. So yes, they'd have less teams ahead of them in the ACC, but they'd also have fewer teams BEHIND them in the ACC. The Big East's perceived dominance is no more than simple math.

In the latest bracketology, Lunardi has seven teams in for both the ACC and Big East. Even if the ACC only got six in and the Big East got 8, they'd still have the same percentage of teams in the tournament (6/12 and 8/16 both are 50%).

Now, I think the better teams in the Big East are clearly better than the best teams in the ACC so I think the Big East is better. But I don't think it is dominate like the ESPN guys who ignore the simple mathematical advantage the Big East has going for it.

As mentioned, when you have 16 teams compared to 10,11, 12 or whatever...you SHOULD have the best conference and it will be deeper then other conferences. I mean, you play the odds.
That being said, its not a "great" conference. There is no great team in big east, nor in college basketball this year. Quite a few VERY good teams. But there is NO UNC as last year...a team you could easily look at and pick to win it all. Quite a bit of parity in college basketball this year. Top teams in Big East, Big Ten, Big12 along with UK in SEC are all very comparible IMO.

centralbucksfan wrote: There is no great team in big east, nor in college basketball this year. Quite a few VERY good teams. But there is NO UNC as last year...a team you could easily look at and pick to win it all

I'm sorry, but there is a team out there that is 27-1, 5-0 against top 25 teams, and own a road win over the #6 team in the country. Even UNC last year had 3 losses by now. Not to mention, this team was pre season picked to be last year's UNC (a team that has been #1 all but 2 weeks) so they have definitely not disappointed. Lets give KU a little bit of credit here..

Often times people don't call teams great until the year is over. Believe me, if any of the top 5 teams win out from here and cut down the nets, they will be considered "great" in the future.

I don't know, I just have a "what else can we do?" feeling with this team.

I mean they were pre season #1, picked by many to win it all, and they have done nothing but deliver, sans one road loss to a ranked team.

I agree that the word "great" should probably not be used for a regular season team, but what's the next step below great? because that's what KU is.

Perception is reality. I recall most of the teams who have recently won titles were questioned at some point during the season.

In Florida's 2nd year of their back to back, they were pre-season favorites, #1 for a majority of the season and the odds on favorite heading into the NCAA Tourney. With that said, they dropped a few games in the SEC and people weren't sure if they were the favorites. Fast forward 3 weeks and six NCAA Tourney wins later and some call them the best team of the decade. North Carolina last season started 0-2 in the ACC and weren't even ACC Champions. Again, fast forward from the NCAA Tourney and some say they are the benchmark for a "great" team.

On the other hand, we've seen a lot of teams called "great" this time of year who didn't win the championship, and they are forgotten. Illinois in 2005, despite losing to Ohio State in the regular season finale, was 33-1 going into the Tourney. Louisville last season, rolled through the Big East like nobody's business, won 15 games against teams in the RPI top 100. If they were doing that this year, I bet people would be calling them a "favorite."

You get my point though. Whoever wins the national title this year, unless it's someone who comes out of nowhere with like 7-8 losses, they will be called great. If KU finishes with 35+ wins (they could possibly play 40 games) and cuts down the nets, they will fit this mold.

The Big East is huge. That means it probably will have more good teams than other conferences, but it also has some pretty bad bottom feeders. If you look at just the top, it looks pretty good. If you look at the whole lineup, I don't think it is that much better than the B10, B12, or ACC. The SEC/Pac-10 are both behind these four.

Gotta love this time of year when conferences are compared, resumes questioned and overdone analysis. It's a lot of fun but it's all rendered worthless when the tournament gets started. Georgetown with Ewing was considered great by all accounts and 'Nova comes in and shoots something like 76% and beats them in the finals. Still considered great but a little less shine after that, there are lots of those examples which is why March Madness is un-paralleled.

RiverRat13 wrote:

Little Danny wrote: HAHAHA! I love guys like you with the Big East Derangement Syndrome. The reason most people agree that the Big East is the best conference is because they are really deep. When you consider that you already have 4 teams already with 20 wins and three more will who have them in another game or two, that makes for a pretty deep league. Do you honestly think UCONN or ND would be in 9th or 10th place in any other conference?

I will admit that Depaul and Providence are pretty bad.

The Big East has 16 teams, so it should be "deep".

Notre Dame is 10th in the Big East. If they were in the ACC, I'd guess they'd be no better than 8th or 9th. So yes, they'd have less teams ahead of them in the ACC, but they'd also have fewer teams BEHIND them in the ACC. The Big East's perceived dominance is no more than simple math.

In the latest bracketology, Lunardi has seven teams in for both the ACC and Big East. Even if the ACC only got six in and the Big East got 8, they'd still have the same percentage of teams in the tournament (6/12 and 8/16 both are 50%).

Now, I think the better teams in the Big East are clearly better than the best teams in the ACC so I think the Big East is better. But I don't think it is dominate like the ESPN guys who ignore the simple mathematical advantage the Big East has going for it.

I agree with this.

UNC passed the "looks" test last year. Seriously, they were a fairly easy pick to win it all. And they proved it by waltzing through the NCAA, winning every game by double digits. I don't see any team doing that this year.
SportsAndLady...if I had to pick someone right now...it would be Kansas. But I still don't believe they are as good as UNC last year, and I feel they are very beatable as are many teams. UNC last year, had so many weapons, they could play any style of game, you knew Tyler would get his nite in and nite out, etc, etc. Its not about the number of losses. That means nothing when comparing one year to the next depending on the schedule/competition you play. I realize were Kansas was ranked coming in, and I realize they only have 1 loss, as does UK.
Maybe I should not have used the word "great". Your right, that shouldn't be thrown out there till seasons end. And to be honest, that word is used way to often. Maybe dominant would be better. Kansas certainly has a stellar record..but they have also struggled when they have played some of the better teams on their schedule. There OCC schedule was quite frankly, not very good at all. The one quality game, vs Tenn..they lost. The Big12 has come down a bit with Texas coming down to earth. I often tend to believe, when ONE team dominates a conference, as Kansas is, that conference isn't quite as good as some think. ie: OSU/Big Ten in football.
Yes, Kansas is very good...but I don't think they are near as good as last year UNC. Not when you match them up man for man. Just my two cents.
I just happen to believe its a WIDE OPEN race this year. Seeing any of the top 4 seeds get upset prior to the final 4 will not surprise me at all.

I personally think Kentucky is very good. Not as good as UNC last year, but just as talented from a personnel standpoint. They could possibly have 4 first round draft picks starting for them in this year's draft.

They have arguably the best PG in the country and the best postplayer in the country. Not to mention a top 10 post player in Patterson.

I understand that they are young, and that can be scary in a single elimination tournament, but if you look just at talent and the "eye test" Kentucky is scary good.

The same will go for Kentucky as it will for Kansas. If they go 37-3 or 38-2 and win a national title, people will be calling them great, and they will become greater with time as many of their players excel in the NBA. This is how it almost always works. Both Kansas and Kentucky this year have the chance to become one of the benchmark setting teams for the upcoming decade. We could be talking about either one in 2018 like we talked about the 2001 Duke, 2005 UNC or 2007 Florida teams.

centralbucksfan wrote: UNC passed the "looks" test last year. Seriously, they were a fairly easy pick to win it all. And they proved it by waltzing through the NCAA, winning every game by double digits. I don't see any team doing that this year.
SportsAndLady...if I had to pick someone right now...it would be Kansas. But I still don't believe they are as good as UNC last year, and I feel they are very beatable as are many teams. UNC last year, had so many weapons, they could play any style of game, you knew Tyler would get his nite in and nite out, etc, etc. Its not about the number of losses. That means nothing when comparing one year to the next depending on the schedule/competition you play. I realize were Kansas was ranked coming in, and I realize they only have 1 loss, as does UK.
Maybe I should not have used the word "great". Your right, that shouldn't be thrown out there till seasons end. And to be honest, that word is used way to often. Maybe dominant would be better. Kansas certainly has a stellar record..but they have also struggled when they have played some of the better teams on their schedule. There OCC schedule was quite frankly, not very good at all. The one quality game, vs Tenn..they lost. The Big12 has come down a bit with Texas coming down to earth. I often tend to believe, when ONE team dominates a conference, as Kansas is, that conference isn't quite as good as some think. ie: OSU/Big Ten in football.
Yes, Kansas is very good...but I don't think they are near as good as last year UNC. Not when you match them up man for man. Just my two cents.
I just happen to believe its a WIDE OPEN race this year. Seeing any of the top 4 seeds get upset prior to the final 4 will not surprise me at all.

I agree with most of this. And I also have to add in that I am in no way comparing the two teams (UNC 09, KU '10) in terms of whose better...but rather, how they were perceived to the nation before and during the season. Whether or not KU wins it all this year or not, I still say UNC 09 will be the better team.

And yes, KU's OOC schedule isn't great by any means. However, they do have some decent teams on there. We all know they played @ Tennessee (and lost), but they also played @ Temple (who had just beaten Villanova at home a few weeks before that), home against Cal (who is leading the PAC 10 race...i know i know, it's the PAC 10, but still a quality opponent), Memphis (obviously not the same Memphis teams as before, but still #2 in the C-USA, and have had some close losses to good opponents), and Cornell (23-4, #1 in the Ivy League). Also, kinda sucks for KU's OOC rankings, but they did have games against Michigan at home and UCLA on the road...two teams that in most other years are better than their record this year.

Also, I believe the Big 12 is the second best conference behind the Big East. They have 4 teams in the top 25, and have 7 virtual locks for the tournament. Lots of other conferences have about that same number, bot those teams have some work to do down the stretch. Teams such as K-State, A&M, and Baylor have all surprised many and risen up the rankings, and have basically covered up for Texas and Oklahoma's fall down the rankings this year.

KU passes the eye test. What do they start? 5'11", 6'6', 6'9",6'9", and 6'11".

That is eye opening.

Bobby Knight has a raging hard-on for the Big East and I know that he is revered by many on here for his knowledge.

This seems to be the usual reaction by some on here when a conference (in college football or basketball) is touted as the best by many experts and analysts. SEC football, Big East basketball......"it's not as great as they say" or "It's mostly hype." If the Big 10 was getting pumped up to be the best or a great conference in a given year I don't think many on here would have a big problem with it.

Knight said that there are about 6 teams in the Big East that could realistically win the whole thing and there isn't another conference that he can say that about. Sure, the Big East has a ton of teams but I think that some the middle of the pack teams in the conference could compete for the ACC, Big 10 and maybe even Big 12 conference title.

Lemme add that I do agree that it is somewhat wide open this year. No unbeatable teams but Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse and lately Purdue look to me like near-locks for the Final 4. That being said, I wouldn't be at all shocked if Villanova or Georgetown cut down the nets and I think that WVU, Pitt and 'Nova are Final 4 caliber as well. It's not the greatest league ever but I do think that it's a great league in comparison to others this year.

I don't know why, but I'm not that impressed with Purdue. I'd love to see them make a run, but I'd be scared if they ran into Georgetown, Villanova, Pitt or WVU.

Prescott wrote: KU passes the eye test. What do they start? 5'11", 6'6', 6'9",6'9", and 6'11".

That is eye opening.

Eye meaning SUPERIOR TALENT/studs at every position, especially in post and at PG.

thedynasty1998 wrote: I don't know why, but I'm not that impressed with Purdue. I'd love to see them make a run, but I'd be scared if they ran into Georgetown, Villanova, Pitt or WVU.

I am actually pretty high on Purdue. And GT along with Pitt don't overly impress me. Good teams, but don't see them as final four, especially Pitt. I loved last years Pitt team, who was much better then this years.
Vill definately could...great, experienced guards. And I have liked WVU all season long.

I have never gotten Pitt. I don't see the talent. I have no idea how they beat Syracuse. WVU gave them a game. They lost to Indiana and they are getting waxed by ND without Harangody as we speak.

GT can be scary good. They showed it against duke and again in the 3nd half last night at Louisville.

Prescott wrote: I have never gotten Pitt. I don't see the talent. I have no idea how they beat Syracuse. WVU gave them a game. They lost to Indiana and they are getting waxed by ND without Harangody as we speak.

GT can be scary good. They showed it against duke and again in the 3nd half last night at Louisville.

And GT can be scarey bad as well. As evident in Losses to Rutgers, South Fla and Old Dominion.