The Big East started the tournament with a record 8 teams. Now they're down to two and both of those are losing. With the Big Ten's success and the "premier basketball conference's" losses, I think we as a conference stand to gain a lot from this tournament.
I hope this means an extra bid or two next year and I hope that one of them goes to Michigan.
Personally, I hope that we aren't on the bubble and that we don't have to get one of the "extra" bids. Hopefully, we're playing for seeding in late February and early March, and not for our tournament lives.
Not likely, but a guy can hope, right?
ESPN has a conflict of interest when it comes to the Big East, of course they'll hype up the conference as much as possible when they televise the Big East Tourney. Overrated, yes. Bad matchups in the Tournament doom them too somewhat.
On both counts - but I am most concerned about the national hype. It is ESPN's job to do it to increase their own ratings. The Big East benefits from this exposure nationally.
Positive exposure helps recruiting and gear sales.
Tournament losses are soon forgotten, but the money and recruits keep on flowing.
Exactly, they don't talk too much about the Big Ten when the matchups are on the BTN. On somewhat of a tangent to the original post, the Worldwide Leader needs a competitor.
Good luck on that tangent.
to form the Big Ten Network. It was a money decision that yields about $6,000,000 a year per Big Ten school, but what we don't get out of the deal is the national exposure.
Interesting trade off... a bit short sighted in my humble opinion.
I still think that it's a net positive. More games can be scene, just over a smaller area. It allows for more highlight packages to be exported to ESPN. In the past, you might see 5-6 Big Ten games in a week on ESPN/CBS. Now you have the chance to see nearly 20.
Per ESPN: Big East Basketball = SEC Football
Oh, wait - you don't have to.
They'll tell you (and the rest of the world) that Big East Basketball is the best.
Why? It's self serving.
Maybe it is the best.
But it's absolutely the best for ESPN.
because thats the only clever name that works with big east. the success of 3 schools means that the conference has 3 good teams. not that the conference is the best in the country. my knock on the big 10 is the lack of depth it has. rather top heavy if u ask me. also, i agree that the big 10 has had some favorable match ups. b10 is one missed shot from msu/purdue from only having one team in the sweet 16. i think that the big 10s success in the tourny with those 3 teams is closing the gap between the conferences but the big east is just straight up top to bottom too good.
Well, another Big East power just went down - to Butler. I live in the NY area and hear this stuff all year - especially about the Big Ten having no depth, then we see this. The Big East is good but really not significantly better than the Big Ten when you analyze the results.
IMHO of course.
i agree that recently the b10 has been closing the gap and after this year they are moving faster but the big east is still better. u never disagreed by saying that b10>big east so im assuming ur agreeing with me on my main point but disagreeing with a bit of my evidence.
Not agreeing with any of your points - in fact I personally feel the Big Ten is as good or better than the Big East. I just don't see the point in making statements of "fact" that can't be verified.
top to bottom the big east vs big 10 matchups according to seeding in their respective tournys would be:
syracuse** vs fags**
pitt** vs purdue**
wvu** vs mich state**
nova** vs wisc**
marquette** vs ill*
louisville** vs minn**
nd** vs northwestern
gtown** vs michigan
usf* vs iowa
seton hall* vs indiana
cincy* vs psu
ive got big east in majority of those match ups.
Im arguing that the big east is top to bottom deeper than the big 10 and therefore a better conference. Big east put 8 teams in the tournament and 5 teams in the NIT. Big east put 13 total teams in the tournament which is more teams than the big 10 even has. Big 10 put 5 teams in the tournament and 2 teams in the NIT
Big east put more teams in the tourny(8) than the big east put into the tourny and NIT combined(7). the whole "we put more teams in the sweet 16" shouldnt even be considered an argument considering the big east has 2 teams in compared to ur 3. if the big east had only one team(or even 0) in the sweet 16 then i would agree with u that big 10 caught up and is better than the big east.
** - in tournament
* - NIT
Bigoted slurs get a -1 from me.
if i were arguing that big 12 > big 10 then yes i suppose that u can call me a bigot. i dont feel that ive warranted being called a bigot. i have no affiliation with the big east. im just throwing out facts and proving my argument. i dont see why u should -1 me for doing that. im listening to arguments that say big 10 > big east and i dont find them compelling enuf to change my argument. i said "if the big east had one(or even 0) teams in the s16 i would say the big 10 has caught up to the big east..." its not like im blindly saying that the big east > big 10 and im only saying that because ESPN has force fed me big east biased opinions. again, dont feel that ive warranted a -1 from u, but im not going to try to change ur mind. im just standing my ground on an argument. ur choice tho.
who put ohio state as "fags" in his bracket. my mistake tho, i apologize. be more specific next time please so i dont have to type out that big paragraph as to why i dont deserve a -1 wen i actually do haha
i know ur a pretty understanding dude, thanks for the heads up cuz i completely did. again: i apologize for being a dick
I mean, it's worth every slur in existence to characterize OSU, so he should get a pass, when it's describing OSU.
You do realize, I hope, the the Big Ten went 5-2 this year against the Big East, with Northwestern beating Notre Dame, Indiana beating Pitt(!!), Michigan beating UConn, Wisconsin beating Marquette, and Purdue beating West Virginia. The only wins the Big East got were West Virginia over OSU and Marquette over UM.
Thanks for pointing this out. However I don't he plans on letting any facts getting in the way of his pre-existing certainty that the Big East is the superior conference.
The Big Yeast? That sounds incredibly unpleasant.
Says the (lapsed) homebrewer.
I think it's laughable that anybody is trying to compare the Big Ten and the Big East. The Big East is clearly a superior basketball conference in every aspect. Sure, the Big Ten is obviously top-heavy, but even the top teams in the Big Ten simply can't compete with the top of the Big East. Watching Big Ten basketball is like watching old people fuck. Big East wins, hands down, and the Big Ten is at best the third or forth best basketball conference in the country.
Sorry for being honest. Negbang commence.
I don't want to see your Internet browser history.
The Big Ten went 5-2 against the Big East this year. Marquette beat us and West Virginia beat OSU. Otherwise...
Northwestern beat Notre Dame
Indiana beat Pitt (!!)
Wisconsin beat Marquette
Purdue beat West Virginia
Michigan beat UConn
I understand your aesthetic complaint, but the "can't compete" stance is, itself, laughable
How many DIFFERENT teams has each conference sent to the Final Four over the last 5 and 10 years? The answer might surprise you if you haven't been paying attention. Keep in mind that the Big East is a MUCH larger conference than the Big Ten.
Over the last five years:
Big Ten--3 (MSU, OSU, Ill.)
Big East--3 (Georgetown, UConn, Nova)
SEC--2 (LSU, Fl)
Big 12--1 (Kansas)
Over the last TEN years?:
Big Ten--5 (add Indiana and Wisky)
Big East--4 (add Syracuse)
ACC--4 (add Duke, Maryland, G. Tech)
Big 12--4 (add Ok St., Texas, Oklahoma)
Pac-10--2 (add Az.)
SEC--2 (add no one)
The Big East only expanded in 2007, so conference sizes were basically the same until this point.
And I understand the idea using the Final Four as a benchmark, however the tournament is as much a product of desirable match ups for the eventual Final Four teams as much as skill.
In the last 5 years the Big East and B10 have put the same total # of teams into the final four, however the BE has put 10 teams into the Elite 8, while the B10 only has 5. (BE has 5 different teams here, while the B10 only has the same 3). This tells me that, along with good match ups, the B10 wins games late in the tournament. And that's it. This doesn't indicate one conference is better than the other.
I don't think its fair to draw comparisons between the two without having an in season challenge... A beat X University, B lost to X University =/= A>B
Looking at both conferences, I dont think you can conclusively say "our best will beat your best" and on down the line gives indication of depth, as the parity in the BE as well as the B10 shows that any team on any night can beat a conference team (except for Iowa and Depaul.. they are both awful).
All this in mind, I think between the ACC (not so much this year) the B10 and the BE are easily the Big 3 in bball, and Id love to see a BE B10 tourney using a Home and Home.
We agree. I'm only trying to counter the "No way is the Big Ten in the same universe as the Big East" lunacy.
Access to talent?
Maybe the Big East just has better players? Not really...
Over the last 5 recruiting years (including 2010) the average number of teams for each conference in the top 10 are:
Big Ten 2.0
Big East 1.8
Big 12 1.2
Again, the largest conference, by far, is the Big East. Yet, they average less than two teams per year in the top 10. The Big Ten (with five fewer teams in the conference) averages 2.
Lets be careful with weighing the recruiting class rankings..
Most sites put a large emphasis on total numbers of recruits as well as quality of players (See 2007, Indiana @ #4 with 2 top100 and 6 total, Kentucky @ #7 with 4 top 100 and 5 total). With that in mind, I dont think you can say that either the B10 or the BE has better players.
Judging the Big East based on the results of a small sample of games this year is as hypocritical as judging the Big Ten based on its bowl performance over the last few years.
If this is directed at me, I'm not using the games this year to "judge the Big East" at all. You've missed my intent. The Big East is a strong conference, no doubt. My intent is to counter the notion (just as silly, in my opinion, as someone saying the Big East is not good) that the Big Ten cannot compete with the Big East in any way, and that it is "laughable that anybody is trying to compare the Big Ten and the Big East."
The ONLY way you can sustain an argument that the Big East is FAR AND AWAY better than the Big Ten is if you ignore:
1) Results head to head on the court
2) Success in the NCAA tournament, and
Oh, and coaching. The Big Ten has more AP coach of the Year awards among its current coaches than the Big East.
You have two 700+ game winners in the BE...
And no one in the B10 has won coach of the year since 98.
Are you saying that you wouldnt take Boeheim or Calhoun as coach for our Wolverines?
Bruce Weber won it in 2005, Tubby Smith won it in 2003, Izzo won it in 1998.
I didn't say I wouldn't take Boeheim or Calhoun as our coach. There are great coaches in the Big East, but there are great coaches n the Big Ten as well.
The Big East with its zillion teams is overrated.