Is the Big East as good as some were making it out to be before? No.

Is the Big East as bad as some are making it out to be after a bad 4-day stretch in the NCAA tourney? Nope.

It's somewhere in between. I'll say this as well.....the Big East usually does pretty well come NCAA tourney time. So they had a down year in the tourney this time. It happens.

killer_ewok wrote: Is the Big East as good as some were making it out to be before? No.

Is the Big East as bad as some are making it out to be after a bad 4-day stretch in the NCAA tourney? Nope.

It's somewhere in between. I'll say this as well.....the Big East usually does pretty well come NCAA tourney time. So they had a down year in the tourney this time. It happens.

I'll agree with this. But lets hear this same comment when the samething happens to other conferences as well.

That'll happen.

centralbucksfan wrote:

killer_ewok wrote: Is the Big East as good as some were making it out to be before? No.

Is the Big East as bad as some are making it out to be after a bad 4-day stretch in the NCAA tourney? Nope.

It's somewhere in between. I'll say this as well.....the Big East usually does pretty well come NCAA tourney time. So they had a down year in the tourney this time. It happens.

I'll agree with this. But lets hear this same comment when the same thing happens to other conferences as well.

Sure thing. I think I'm usually pretty fair when it comes to that stuff.

Cleveland Buck wrote: For the purposes of this discussion it is over. Even if Syracuse or West Virginia win the national championship, you can still have the best team without having the best league.

Both Syracuse and West Virginia can make the Final Four, if that happenes you're telling me that the Big East wouldn't be seen as the best conference in the tournament? Again, this is far from over!

They might be perceived to be the best, but that doesn't mean they would be. When your league has 16 teams and 8 of them in the tournament, the success of 2 teams isn't going to salvage your performance when the rest of them sucked.

rock_knutne wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: For the purposes of this discussion it is over. Even if Syracuse or West Virginia win the national championship, you can still have the best team without having the best league.

Both Syracuse and West Virginia can make the Final Four, if that happenes you're telling me that the Big East wouldn't be seen as the best conference in the tournament? Again, this is far from over!

It would certainly help. BUT, when you had the number of teams, along with the HIGH seeds that suffered upsets to lower seeds...no matter how you want to look at it...it doesn't bode well.
As Killer said, and I agree with....as good as advertised? No way. As bad as it looks now? No. Somewhere in between.
I have said this throughout the year...the top teams in Big East, Big Ten, Big12 are all very comparable IMO. Many thought there was this big seperation. I personally never believed there was.

Cleveland Buck wrote: They might be perceived to be the best, but that doesn't mean they would be. When your league has 16 teams and 8 of them in the tournament, the success of 2 teams isn't going to salvage your performance when the rest of them sucked.

LOL, OK what ever you say pal.:rolleyes:

centralbucksfan wrote: It would certainly help. BUT, when you had the number of teams, along with the HIGH seeds that suffered upsets to lower seeds...no matter how you want to look at it...it doesn't bode well.
As Killer said, and I agree with....as good as advertised? No way. As bad as it looks now? No. Somewhere in between.
I have said this throughout the year...the top teams in Big East, Big Ten, Big12 are all very comparable IMO. Many thought there was this big seperation. I personally never believed there was.

I would just like to know what the criteria is or which part of the conference we're talking about? Yeah, the top teams are very comparable but I'm talking about the entire conference.

I can guarantee you that if the Big 10 had two teams make the Final Four, all you would here on here is how the Big 10 is the best. Yet that criteria or mind set wouldn't hold true for the Big East or any other conference for that matter.

rock_knutne wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote: It would certainly help. BUT, when you had the number of teams, along with the HIGH seeds that suffered upsets to lower seeds...no matter how you want to look at it...it doesn't bode well.
As Killer said, and I agree with....as good as advertised? No way. As bad as it looks now? No. Somewhere in between.
I have said this throughout the year...the top teams in Big East, Big Ten, Big12 are all very comparable IMO. Many thought there was this big seperation. I personally never believed there was.

I would just like to know what the criteria is or which part of the conference we're talking about? Yeah, the top teams are very comparable but I'm talking about the entire conference.

I can guarantee you that if the Big 10 had two teams make the Final Four, all you would here on here is how the Big 10 is the best. Yet that criteria or mind set wouldn't hold true for the Big East or any other conference for that matter.

I personally feel, as a whole, the Big East was the best conference. I would say most would agree. It just hasn't turned out to be as great as many were proclaiming it to be.
BUT, it SHOULD BE the best in most years...when you have 16 freaking teams...the odds SHOULD be with you!
Sorry, but when you have 16 teams in your conference, a major conference, I personally don't feel its that big of an achievement to proclaim your favorite conference is the best.

centralbucksfan wrote:

rock_knutne wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote: It would certainly help. BUT, when you had the number of teams, along with the HIGH seeds that suffered upsets to lower seeds...no matter how you want to look at it...it doesn't bode well.
As Killer said, and I agree with....as good as advertised? No way. As bad as it looks now? No. Somewhere in between.
I have said this throughout the year...the top teams in Big East, Big Ten, Big12 are all very comparable IMO. Many thought there was this big seperation. I personally never believed there was.

I would just like to know what the criteria is or which part of the conference we're talking about? Yeah, the top teams are very comparable but I'm talking about the entire conference.

I can guarantee you that if the Big 10 had two teams make the Final Four, all you would here on here is how the Big 10 is the best. Yet that criteria or mind set wouldn't hold true for the Big East or any other conference for that matter.

I personally feel, as a whole, the Big East was the best conference. I would say most would agree. It just hasn't turned out to be as great as many were proclaiming it to be.
BUT, it SHOULD BE the best in most years...when you have 16 freaking teams...the odds SHOULD be with you!
Sorry, but when you have 16 teams in your conference, a major conference, I personally don't feel its that big of an achievement to proclaim your favorite conference is the best.

I agree with most of what you're saying but you still don't see my point. If ANY conference get's multiple teams to the Final Four, wouldn't that conference be seen as the best in the torunament?

rock_knutne wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote:

rock_knutne wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote: It would certainly help. BUT, when you had the number of teams, along with the HIGH seeds that suffered upsets to lower seeds...no matter how you want to look at it...it doesn't bode well.
As Killer said, and I agree with....as good as advertised? No way. As bad as it looks now? No. Somewhere in between.
I have said this throughout the year...the top teams in Big East, Big Ten, Big12 are all very comparable IMO. Many thought there was this big seperation. I personally never believed there was.

I would just like to know what the criteria is or which part of the conference we're talking about? Yeah, the top teams are very comparable but I'm talking about the entire conference.

I can guarantee you that if the Big 10 had two teams make the Final Four, all you would here on here is how the Big 10 is the best. Yet that criteria or mind set wouldn't hold true for the Big East or any other conference for that matter.

I personally feel, as a whole, the Big East was the best conference. I would say most would agree. It just hasn't turned out to be as great as many were proclaiming it to be.
BUT, it SHOULD BE the best in most years...when you have 16 freaking teams...the odds SHOULD be with you!
Sorry, but when you have 16 teams in your conference, a major conference, I personally don't feel its that big of an achievement to proclaim your favorite conference is the best.

I agree with most of what you're saying but you still don't see my point. If ANY conference get's multiple teams to the Final Four, wouldn't that conference be seen as the best in the torunament?

Honestly, I think people will chime in as so. Personally, I don't buy into that stuff. Two teams making the final four doesn't equate to how an entire conference would be considered the best IMO. There is more to it then that IMO.

rock_knutne wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote:

rock_knutne wrote:

centralbucksfan wrote: It would certainly help. BUT, when you had the number of teams, along with the HIGH seeds that suffered upsets to lower seeds...no matter how you want to look at it...it doesn't bode well.
As Killer said, and I agree with....as good as advertised? No way. As bad as it looks now? No. Somewhere in between.
I have said this throughout the year...the top teams in Big East, Big Ten, Big12 are all very comparable IMO. Many thought there was this big seperation. I personally never believed there was.

I would just like to know what the criteria is or which part of the conference we're talking about? Yeah, the top teams are very comparable but I'm talking about the entire conference.

I can guarantee you that if the Big 10 had two teams make the Final Four, all you would here on here is how the Big 10 is the best. Yet that criteria or mind set wouldn't hold true for the Big East or any other conference for that matter.

I personally feel, as a whole, the Big East was the best conference. I would say most would agree. It just hasn't turned out to be as great as many were proclaiming it to be.
BUT, it SHOULD BE the best in most years...when you have 16 freaking teams...the odds SHOULD be with you!
Sorry, but when you have 16 teams in your conference, a major conference, I personally don't feel its that big of an achievement to proclaim your favorite conference is the best.

I agree with most of what you're saying but you still don't see my point. If ANY conference get's multiple teams to the Final Four, wouldn't that conference be seen as the best in the torunament?

Selection committee did a nice job trying to back up their decision of putting 8 Big East teams in, while only putting 5 Big Ten teams. They put the top 2 Big Ten teams in the same Region to try and keep egg off their face by risking 2 Big Ten teams in the Final 4. Granted now MSU will be suiting up their ball boys, but it was a good strategy to keep them looking right.

Hate to point out the "obvious" to you Captain, but there were only two other B10 teams with a winning record (Illinois and Northwestern both at 20-14). Best case scenerio the B10 had seven but who would you have taken out and what is your criteria??

The Big East on the other hand had 13 teams with winning records. Sure the postseason did not work out for many of them, but I think having eight teams in the tournment was pretty fair given the body of work of those eight teams. Now, some of them may have been over seeded, but that is an entirely differnt discussion.

captain_obvious wrote:Selection committee did a nice job trying to back up their decision of putting 8 Big East teams in, while only putting 5 Big Ten teams. They put the top 2 Big Ten teams in the same Region to try and keep egg off their face by risking 2 Big Ten teams in the Final 4. Granted now MSU will be suiting up their ball boys, but it was a good strategy to keep them looking right.

Yeah, they purposely did that.:rolleyes:

I don't see how a conference can be held on a pedastal as the "the best" by having 2 teams in the final 4, first, you know cazy shit happens in the tourney and secondly the top two teams of a conference is certainly not a reflection of an entire confererence. Is the Ivy League now the shit because Cornell is kicking ass? Uhhh no.

The Big 12 and the Big East each got one more team in than they should have. The argument was made earlier that the Big East got so many because they have eared their rep. by performing well over the last couple of seasons. I argue that the Big 10 should have gotten the same respect as they have proven to be a tough out in the tourney for years. I don't really think either argument is that good. But it's safe to say there should have been two different teams in the tourney that weren't from the Big 12 or the Big East.

ytownfootball wrote: I don't see how a conference can be held on a pedastal as the "the best" by having 2 teams in the final 4, first, you know cazy shit happens in the tourney and secondly the top two teams of a conference is certainly not a reflection of an entire confererence. Is the Ivy League now the shit because Cornell is kicking ass? Uhhh no.

The Big 12 and the Big East each got one more team in than they should have. The argument was made earlier that the Big East got so many because they have eared their rep. by performing well over the last couple of seasons. I argue that the Big 10 should have gotten the same respect as they have proven to be a tough out in the tourney for years. I don't really think either argument is that good. But it's safe to say there should have been two different teams in the tourney that weren't from the Big 12 or the Big East.

Ummmm, you guys can't have it both ways. Last year all I heard was how great the Big 10 was because of MSU's run to the finals.......LOL, that's just ONE team (while the Big East had two)!

I fail to see how that makes it a logically sound argument. It of course does not for either, and and a few is not the basis of "you guys", and all you "heard" is not representative of "all that was said" more like all you "chose to remember".

Maybe not you ytown but that was the general consensus last year and trust me that's not selective memory by any stretch.

rock_knutne wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: I don't see how a conference can be held on a pedastal as the "the best" by having 2 teams in the final 4, first, you know cazy shit happens in the tourney and secondly the top two teams of a conference is certainly not a reflection of an entire confererence. Is the Ivy League now the shit because Cornell is kicking ass? Uhhh no.

The Big 12 and the Big East each got one more team in than they should have. The argument was made earlier that the Big East got so many because they have eared their rep. by performing well over the last couple of seasons. I argue that the Big 10 should have gotten the same respect as they have proven to be a tough out in the tourney for years. I don't really think either argument is that good. But it's safe to say there should have been two different teams in the tourney that weren't from the Big 12 or the Big East.

Ummmm, you guys can't have it both ways. Last year all I heard was how great the Big 10 was because of MSU's run to the finals.......LOL, that's just ONE team (while the Big East had two)!

Stop with the exaggerations. Fact is, the Big Ten was considered one of the best conferences before the NCAA even began. I think what they did during the season, which led to what, 6/7 teams getting into the NCAA was enough to justify that as well. Not much different then what the Big East did this year with 8 teams, thus why they were the best conference overall this year.

There's a certain logic that needs to be used when comparing conferences. It seems like a percentile of people (which sadly includes professional commentators) look at "THEY HAD EIGHT TEAMS IN!!!!" as the defining factor in who was the best conference. 8/16 is barely better than the Big 10's 5/11 and worse than the Big XII's 7/12.

Granted, I agree that the Big East is the best conference as far as regular season play goes, but I disagree that they're on a pedestal above other conferences. I'd put their top teams against ANY other conference's elites probably...but let's be honest, this tournament (and past games) have shown that, as a whole, the Big East is just another strong conference.

Pitt overachieved during the regular season, but lost in the second round to a perennial power from the second-tier conference from the Big East's region.

Villanova was elite most of the year, collapsed down the stretch, still inexplicably got a #2, needed five extra minutes to scrape by their #15 and then lost to the #10.

Georgetown apparently couldn't get up to face #14 Ohio U. Guess that explains why they had the talent to get a #3, but still had double-digit losses entering the Big Dance.

Louisville was a trendy pick to upset Duke. Then they lost to the higher-seeded rep from the weakest power conference in the first round.

Marquette lost to the lower-seeded rep from said weakest power conference in the first round.

Notre Dame had a late run without their stud. Then they made a strong run in the conference tournament with him being the nation's top sixth man. Then they got dumped by Old Dominion in the first round. An unhappy ending to that fairy tale story of the ugly duckling that turned into a beautiful swan thanks to the final couple weeks of the regular season and the conference tournament.

I agree that Syracuse and West Virginia are great teams that could both make the Final Four. But does that wipe out the fact that 6/8 teams went out in the first two rounds? When that includes three teams who were seeded to still be alive in GT, Pitt and 'Nova?

The Big East should be knocked a bit. The reason it should be knocked is because it is in unfamiliar territory. You know in past years the Big Ten or ACC have many early exits they get hammered. It's time we see how the Big East handles a little criticism.

You are what you do. The Big East was clearly overrated.

centralbucksfan wrote: Stop with the exaggerations. Fact is, the Big Ten was considered one of the best conferences before the NCAA even began. I think what they did during the season, which led to what, 6/7 teams getting into the NCAA was enough to justify that as well. Not much different then what the Big East did this year with 8 teams, thus why they were the best conference overall this year.

Exageration or a short memory on your part? LMAO, "FACT"?.......the Big 10 was the best conference overall last year?........by who's standards?.......this board?

well,well,well--rock_knutne in the middle of yet another confrontation--can you see a pattern here?? btw,it'll be interesting to see how you're going to edit this and spin it to make yourself look right--again :rolleyes: