#5 Butler +6.5 vs #1 Syracuse (ov/un 138.5) Thurs 7:05 ET

[Steve19]

1. "earning" shouldn't be in quotes.
2. why? did it hurt your fragile mind that the BE was considered the strongest conference (since....you know....it was)
3. maybe by stupid people.

I guess we disagree. The Big East got a record number of teams into the tourney, but they were far from the best conference top to bottom. Pomeroy ranked them at #3, just above the Big Ten. So it's hard to understand how the Big East "earned" a record eight births. Surely, Notre Dame and Seton Hall had no right being in the NCAA.

BN27, I think we all respect you and have no intent to disrespect you or your team. Also, I don't remember ever having a problem with Big East fans.

I do have a problem with TV talking heads talking nonstop about the Big East being hands down so much better than other conferences, when Big East teams posted some stunning results this year against other conference teams:

• Louisville losing to Charlotte and Western Carolina at home,
• Seton Hall nearly getting knocked off by St. Peters,
• Temple losing to Charlotte,
• Notre Dame losing to Loyola Marymount and Northwestern at home,
• UConn getting blown out by Providence.

Why wouldn't people resent ESPiN putting Digger Phelps on the box to shout that "others must stop asking because Notre Dame has earned its way into the NCAA tourney". Gosh, what would the former ND coach say (at least he doesn't spit when he speaks)? Digger was nearly shouting about how "Notre Dame has done enough" because they won their last four games prior to the Big East tourney. Sure, they won four games in a row, but they lost 7 of their previous ten games! Hardly NCAA material.

So, now that the Big East rewards the NCAA for a record number of berths by getting embarrassed, the talking heads want to keep making excuses. I think that is what people resent. They must just shut up and move on.

Are we all acting like SEC fans? I don't think so. I guess I always support Big Ten teams against teams from other conferences, because it's good for Ohio State.

That is not the problem I have when fans of bottom-dwelling SEC teams chant "SEC--SEC--SEC" and spit their venom about how the Buckeyes "can't beat the SEC", when they know bloody well that their team won't even get into a bowl game. Nobody here is chanting "Big Ten--Big Ten--Big Ten".

I'm sorry for you that your team didn't make it to the final four.

 

[BB73]

Too many folks, including media talking heads, make too much of the number of teams that get bids. The Big East got half of their teams into the tournament. So did the ACC.

Just because the Big East is bigger, getting 8 teams in instead of 6 doesn't make them a better conference, just a larger one.

And I can't wait until West Virginia loses, so we can go through this again.

 

[Woody1968]

This is the reason that I think a playoff would be bad for college football.

 

[Buckeye Nut]

I guess we disagree. The Big East got a record number of teams into the tourney, but they were far from the best conference top to bottom. Pomeroy ranked them at #3, just above the Big Ten. So it's hard to understand how the Big East "earned" a record eight births. Surely, Notre Dame and Seton Hall had no right being in the NCAA.

• Louisville losing to Charlotte and Western Carolina at home,
• Seton Hall nearly getting knocked off by St. Peters,
• Temple losing to Charlotte,
• Notre Dame losing to Loyola Marymount and Northwestern at home,
• UConn getting blown out by Providence.

Two things. Seton Hall didn't make the NCAA tournament and Temple isn't in the big east.
I'd say Ken Pomeroy had it about right with that ranking. Nice conference this year, nothing historically great about it this season.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Steve, Temple is in the Atlantic 10.

What conference didn't have some strange losses? This is college basketball. If you can find 5 kids that know how to run and dribble, you can beat anybody on any day. You can't say the same about football.

Nobody is chanting Big-Ten, Big-Ten....but they're bashing the conference that proved during the year to have the most good teams....and they're doing that for some reason. You tell me what that reason is other than tearing somebody else down to make you feel better about yourself.

 

[JohnnyCockfight]

Well the Big East also got 4 teams into the NIT, all of which promptly lost, 3 of them to lesser seeds (the exception being traditional powerhouse UConn).

My primary problem with conference bias towards the Big East is this: Villanova is a 2 seed, Pitt is a 3 seed, Georgetown is a 3 seed, while Butler, ranked higher by both the coaches and the AP, is demoted to a 5 seed, very close to the bottom of the Big East teams to make the tourney. Fuck that.

Another problem I have with conference bias is the fact that Big Ten conference co-champions are in a position to play one another to get to the Final Four should they both win tonight. How does that happen to a high major conference that was only given 5 teams in the tourney? They wouldn't have done it to the Big East or the ACC.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Was that bias towards the Big East....or just more stupidity by the selection committee?

 

[JohnnyCockfight]

Was that bias towards the Big East....or just more stupidity by the selection committee?

I guess in my head the two were synonymous and that conference bias contributed to their stupidity, but you may have a good point in that they are just stupid generally.

 

[BayBuck]

I'll put up $1,000....you do the same. Straight up, who wins between Georgetown and Ohio if they played again tomorrow in Pittsburgh? I'm taking Georgetown.

I'll take that bet, absolutely, as long as I get $100 if they cancel the game.

 

[TheRob8801]

I've read through this thread twice now and BN27, I still haven't seen any "Big East bashing" as you called it...

I'm all for seeing teams from the same conference my team is in succeed...which is why seeing 6 teams from the ACC in the tourney was outstanding...and seeing some of the ACC teams pull some upsets and advance was pretty great...having all of them but Duke gone at this point is no surprise...

There lies the difference...

The seeding, the hype, the success the Big East had during the season all suggested that THE TEAMS IN THE CONFERENCE should succeed in the tournament.

The simple fact is that they didn't...

Does this mean the Big East isn't a good conference? No...

Does this mean the Big East isn't a great conference? Still no...

Does the mean the teams in the Big East didn't live up to their hype? Absolutely it does...

THAT is the point. No two ways about it, you cannot deny that the Big East teams in the tourney did not live up to their hype.

If it will get you to shut the hell up, I'm sure everyone here would agree that there is no better conference in college basketball this season than the Big East.

That's not what's being talked about...it's the fact that the Big East got half of it's conference in the tourney...and all 8 of those teams had great success in the regular season and were expected to have even MORE success in the post season...but they didn't...

Had 'Cuse won this game against Butler, this statement would not have changed...

Would your reaction to all of this be any different? Think about it...

 

[Steve19]

Steve, Temple is in the Atlantic 10.

I was on a roll...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI"]YouTube - Animal House: Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor[/ame]

....but they're bashing the conference that proved during the year to have the most good teams...

Of course, they also had 16 teams, right? I think that they had four or five good teams and that the Big Ten had three or four. Given the difference in the total number of teams in each conference, I don't really see a difference.

Let's look another way. 8 of 16 Big East teams are ranked #70 or worse by Pomeroy. Only 4 of 11 Big Ten teams are. 5 Big Ten teams are ranked in Pomeroy's top 35. 6 Big East teams are ranked #35 or better.

So, who ran the tougher gauntlet? I just don't see a substantive difference.

Of course, you are right. While the Germans were bombing Pearl Harbor, I also saw some Big Ten teams put a few shockers on the table too. Wisky lost to Wisky Green Bay. Illini dropped one to Bradley. Iowa to Texas San Antonio and Dusquesne. Indiana lost to Loyolla. Penn State to North Carolina Wilmington and Tulane. But those are the sum and total of losses across a conference that is not claiming to be the best.

I guess that's the point. The media keeps claiming that the Big East is best. I just don't see it. Either looking across the conferences for the best wins or most stunning losses.

That doesn't mean that I don't feel for you because your team lost. It was the first thing I thought about when I saw the news this morning. Sorry, man.

 

[jwinslow]

Your point was that the teams that flubbed from the Big East are actually better than everybody is making them out to be? You certainly have a weird way of arguing it.

since you're channeling tibor today, I'll spell it out for you:





2 weeks ago America thought the big east was better than they do today.
2 weeks ago America thought that Georgetown was so good that ohio-Georgetown was a clear win. Odu-nd could be a problem, but not an iffy ohio team vs mighty Georgetown. Only the drunks from Athens were picking that upset.


Now you're even admitting that you think Georgetown is grossly superior to ohio, to the tune of 1000 bucks.


You thought they were better than this performance... You just are too stubborn to admit that anything has changed whatsoever...

Even though the entire conference was upset - save for wvu, who to quote your characterization of another top team, hasn't played anyone.




You've tried so hard to trivialize the criticism, trying to make it:

- the handiwork of childish idiots or retards
- nothing more than jealousy or bitterness over hype
- individual games that were outliers, even though the outlier was the 1 out of 8 who didn't spit the bit.

But those arguments simply ring hollow. Folks declared that they were not only better but a record 8-deep in tourney teams. They weren't just 8 deep, they were deep with high seeds. They clearly weren't as good as their seeding and fanfare suggested. 1-3 underachievers is a fluke, 7 of 8 is a pretty strong trend.

Yet they played the way folks expected from the PAC 10.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

I've read through this thread twice now and BN27, I still haven't seen any "Big East bashing" as you called it...

look again then. and try looking in other threads.

I'm all for seeing teams from the same conference my team is in succeed

I'm not.

The seeding, the hype, the success the Big East had during the season all suggested that THE TEAMS IN THE CONFERENCE should succeed in the tournament.

The simple fact is that they didn't...

Does this mean the Big East isn't a good conference? No...

Agreed so far...

Does this mean the Big East isn't a great conference? Still no...

still there.

Does the mean the teams in the Big East didn't live up to their hype? Absolutely it does...

even still.

THAT is the point. No two ways about it, you cannot deny that the Big East teams in the tourney did not live up to their hype.

I'm not. Maybe go back and read through the thread a third time.

If it will get you to shut the hell up

Sorry....I forgot we had the feature turned on where you had to read and reply to me. If you want me to shut the hell up, go ahead and don't come into a thread about a game that has already completed.

I'm sure everyone here would agree that there is no better conference in college basketball this season than the Big East.

That's not what's being talked about...it's the fact that the Big East got half of it's conference in the tourney...and all 8 of those teams had great success in the regular season and were expected to have even MORE success in the post season...but they didn't...

No, what's being talked about is how the Big East didn't deserve the accolades they got during the regular season.....which is bullshit. This was a surprisingly difficult conference this year. Georgetown playing like shit against Ohio doesn't change that.

Had 'Cuse won this game against Butler, this statement would not have changed...

Would your reaction to all of this be any different? Think about it...

I don't have to think about it. Of course it would be different....because I don't give a shit about conference superiority bullshit until it affects my team. I root for a team, not a conference. people who root for conferences are stupid. once the denigration turned towards my team is when I took issue.

If you don't want to read the thread for a third time, just read my two main points:
1) Conference wars are fucking stupid.
2) What happens in the tourney doesn't erase what happened during the regular season.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

since you're channeling tibor today, I'll spell it out for you:





2 weeks ago America thought the big east was better than they do today.
2 weeks ago America thought that Georgetown was so good that ohio-Georgetown was a clear win. Odu-nd could be a problem, but not an iffy ohio team vs mighty Georgetown. Only the drunks from Athens were picking that upset.


Now you're even admitting that you think Georgetown is grossly superior to ohio, to the tune of 1000 bucks.


You thought they were better than this performance... You just are too stubborn to admit that anything has changed whatsoever...

Even though the entire conference was upset - save for wvu, who to quote your characterization of another top team, hasn't played anyone.




You've tried so hard to trivialize the criticism, trying to make it:

- the handiwork of childish idiots or retards
- nothing more than jealousy or bitterness over hype
- individual games that were outliers, even though the outlier was the 1 out of 8 who didn't spit the bit.

But those arguments simply ring hollow. Folks declared that they were not only better but a record 8-deep in tourney teams. They weren't just 8 deep, they were deep with high seeds. They clearly weren't as good as their seeding and fanfare suggested. 1-3 underachievers is a fluke, 7 of 8 is a pretty strong trend.

Yet they played the way folks expected from the PAC 10.

So go ahead and make the point I've been asking you to make this whole thread. What about the Big East made those teams lose? Were they not as good as their opponents? Do they all suck? Does the patch they wear on their jersey's that says Big East itch in a weird way that makes them miss shots? You keep saying there's a trend.....but you don't tell me what the result of that trend is.

What made the teams from the Big East underperform?

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

I was on a roll...

YouTube - Animal House: Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor




Of course, they also had 16 teams, right? I think that they had four or five good teams and that the Big Ten had three or four. Given the difference in the total number of teams in each conference, I don't really see a difference.

Let's look another way. 8 of 16 Big East teams are ranked #70 or worse by Pomeroy. Only 4 of 11 Big Ten teams are. 5 Big Ten teams are ranked in Pomeroy's top 35. 6 Big East teams are ranked #35 or better.

So, who ran the tougher gauntlet? I just don't see a substantive difference.

Of course, you are right. While the Germans were bombing Pearl Harbor, I also saw some Big Ten teams put a few shockers on the table too. Wisky lost to Wisky Green Bay. Illini dropped one to Bradley. Iowa to Texas San Antonio and Dusquesne. Indiana lost to Loyolla. Penn State to North Carolina Wilmington and Tulane. But those are the sum and total of losses across a conference that is not claiming to be the best.

I guess that's the point. The media keeps claiming that the Big East is best. I just don't see it. Either looking across the conferences for the best wins or most stunning losses.

That doesn't mean that I don't feel for you because your team lost. It was the first thing I thought about when I saw the news this morning. Sorry, man.

I'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between Georgetown being the 8seed in the BET and Michigan or Iowa or whoever it was for the B10 then I'm not going to change your mind.