Quote :

"Most. Overrated. Conference. Ever."

like i was saying.... they got TCU coming in next season.. maybe they should just go ahead and add 8 more teams: Xavier, George Mason, Butler, George Washington, Old Dominon, NYU, Abraham Lincoln, and Temple again. that way they can keep more teams in the tournament longer

3/21/2011 11:38:31 AM

in a couple of years, the Big East conference tournament is going to take two weeks to finish.

3/21/2011 12:21:00 PM

nah, they'll probably have to institute a selection committee to get the top 32 big east teams, and then have a big east specific NIT for everyone else.

3/21/2011 12:35:08 PM

i was thinking the big east should just host a tournament, and have their own selection committee invite a fortunate few from other conferences to compete against them. all games will be held at msg

3/21/2011 12:38:07 PM

I'm on the big east sucks train now, they've destroyed my bracket two years in a row and really I kind of thought they sucked already after last yr so I have no idea why I gave them two final fours again and thinking about it, I'm not sure what type of legacy any of these guys have in the ncaa tournament outside of calhoun, boeheim had that one run with carmello anthony but he's still kind of equivalent to gary williams, pitino had that final four but he's got a lot of work to do to get that program to the level he had at kentucky

3/21/2011 3:05:55 PM

I am not even sure what is being argued here.

It's obvious the Big East doesn't have any high caliber teams, other than maybe Pitt and UCONN. Of course this being the thread that it is, Pitt is going to get a LOT of shit for their loss to Butler, but Butler is a very good team, and they are very well coached. The Butler/Pitt game was basically a mirror of the Duke/Michigan game, in the fact that they were both really hard fought games and either team could have easily won.

Like I said before, if you're arguing that the Big East didn't deserve 11 teams, you're.... kind of delusional. None of the teams from the Big East were even bubble teams. It's not like the selection committee sits around and says, "All right boys, who do you all think are the best 34 teams out there?" - and then they all rank the 34 best teams. That is a small part, but they absolutely have to take into account regular season records and conference tournament play. To deny Villanova and Georgetown would be absolutely ludicrous and unprecedented. So yes, to reiterate, I am absolutely saying that the at large bids are not (and should not) be given to the teams that happen to be the best, or perceived as the best at tournament time.

Obviously we have a lot of ACC lovers here, but to try and infer that the ACC is better than the Big East by using Sweet 16 teams as a measuring stick..... that's kind of grasping at straws. That's a very small sample size, and one bad game can put you out. A better measure would probably be conference head-to-head play, but I don't think that would be a very large sample size either. Hypothetically, if we took a bag and put all 16 Big East teams inside and randomly picked 12 of them, and then squared off those random 12 against the ACC schools, I do not like the ACC's chances at coming out ahead.

I really think Duke is in a league of their own, and would beat any Big East team. I think UNC and FSU are fairly evenly matched, and are probably on the same level as Pitt and UCONN. I think Clemson and MAYBE Virginia Tech and/or BC are probably on par with the other 9 Big East schools that made the tournament. And then the bottom 5 Big East teams, as well as the bottom 5 ACC teams - well they aren't very good.

In summation.... I dunno. I just don't think you can honestly say to yourself that the Big East didn't deserve 11 teams, and I also don't think you can argue that the ACC is better than the Big East (this year). I definitely agree, the Big East is way over-hyped, and definitely over-seeded in some cases.

3/21/2011 3:16:49 PM

I like what I heard someone say the other night. The Big East has managed to snatch up a lot of really great coaches and that alone is what makes these teams seem better than they really are. Also. the hype is always there and so when they all beat up on each other its assumed its because all of them are good and not because all of them are mediocre (which is how the ACC was perceived this year).

3/21/2011 3:23:27 PM

I think what's being argued is that the big east in general seems like a reg season conference lately, that's what barkley was saying when he said they have great coaches but not the talent to go very far in the ncaas, the ncaas are just some games but they are what really matters obviously

3/21/2011 3:46:31 PM

you're telling me this is an NCAA tournament team?

01/17/11 	at Connecticut * TV 	Storrs, Conn. 		L, 61-59
01/22/11 	at Syracuse * TV 	Syracuse, N.Y. 		W, 83-72
01/26/11 	at Providence * TV 	Providence, R.I. 	L, 83-68
01/29/11 	vs. Georgetown * TV 	Philadelphia, Pa. 	L, 69-66
02/02/11 	vs. Marquette * TV 	Villanova, Pa. 		W, 75-70
02/05/11 	vs. West Virginia * TV 	Philadelphia, Pa. 	W, 66-50
02/09/11 	at Rutgers * TV 	Piscataway, N.J. 	L, 77-76
02/12/11 	vs. Pittsburgh * TV 	Villanova, Pa. 		L, 57-54
02/15/11 	at Seton Hall * TV 	Newark, N.J. 		W, 60-57
02/19/11 	at DePaul * TV 		Chicago, Ill. 		W, 77-75
02/21/11 	vs. Syracuse * TV 	Philadelphia, Pa. 	L, 69-64
02/26/11 	vs. St. John's * TV 	Philadelphia, Pa. 	L, 81-68
02/28/11 	at Notre Dame * TV 	Notre Dame, Ind. 	L, 93-72
03/05/11 	at Pittsburgh * TV 	Pittsburgh, Pa. 	L, 60-50
03/08/11 	vs. USF  		New York, N.Y. 		L, 70-69

3/21/2011 3:51:56 PM

for once i agree with walkman...

3/21/2011 3:53:01 PM

If that was the only thing I was looking at, I would say no.

However, you neglected to post the other half of their schedule, the one where they were 16-1, including 6-1 against NCAA teams. Yes, they were 5-10 the second half of the season, but all but three of those losses were to non-NCAA tourney teams.

Don't be a douche and post partials stats to try and prove a point.

3/21/2011 4:24:02 PM

Quote :

"None of the teams from the Big East were even bubble teams."

Marquette was, but by and large I don't have a problem with any of the Big East teams making the big dance

Quote :

"to try and infer that the ACC is better than the Big East by using Sweet 16 teams as a measuring stick..... that's kind of grasping at straws."

yeah it is but at the same time, what you do in the tournament is what really matters...and if UConn makes the Final Four and no ACC teams do, that would be an argument that the Big East is better than the ACC...but again, the NCAA tournament is what matters...what you do in the tournament...not just how many teams make a 68 team field and lose on the first weekend

3/21/2011 4:50:25 PM

good job nova...way to beat such NCAA bound teams like Bucknell, Boston University, and Temple!

clearly that overshadows finishing the season on a 5-10 run with 5 straight losses.

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2011 4:55:26 PM

Quote :

"I think UNC and FSU are fairly evenly matched, and are probably on the same level as Pitt and UCONN."

And yet UCONN is a 3 and FSU is a 10.

3/21/2011 5:07:59 PM

Quote :

"Don't be a douche and post partials stats to try and prove a point."

In years past the committee itself has said performance down the stretch matters. I guess they're douches too.

3/21/2011 5:59:56 PM

UConn didn't lose a single game OOC. They played Wichita State, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Tennessee and Harvard among others. Kemba just got tired late in the Big East season. Let's not be silly here.

AND YES, I WAS WRONG. THE BIG EAST WAS OBVIOUSLY OVERRATED. UConn isn't, though.

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ^^ to that post]

3/21/2011 6:00:08 PM

Quote :

"In years past the committee itself has said performance down the stretch matters. I guess they're douches too."

It absolutely does matter. But there are a LOT of things the committee takes into account. I don't know what the formula is, but like I said, I don't think any of the Big East teams were even close to the bubble. Here's the last Bracketology prior to the Selection Show: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology. They don't have any of the Big East teams on the bubble. Now obviously each member of the committee has their own criteria that they are going to go by, but ESPN is a fairly reliable source, so that's why I say there were none close to the bubble.

So to me, it appears your complaint should be with the selection process. It reminds me of the NFL Playoffs a couple years ago. The Pats were 11-5 and on a 4 game winning streak but did not make the playoffs, but the Arizona Cardinals made it at 9-7. To me that's fucked up. I can see your point that Villanova is not deserving of the NCAA's, but right now, with the selection criteria that they are currently using, they were basically a shoe-in.

And lastly, I think for many of the at-large bids, you could vomit out some stats that make them look very unappealing. For example, the following team was:

2-7 against tournament teams, with one of those wins coming against Wofford
Winless against ranked opponents
5/12 in their conference
Lost to NCSU (this should clearly be an automatic disqualifier)

vs

9-8 against tourney teams
3 wins against ranked opponents (including @ the #3 team at that time)
10/16 in their conference
Beat Maryland

Obviously, this is Clemson and Villanova, and just by looking at these stats, (to me at least) I wouldn't invite Clemson to the NIT, much less the NCAA. But this just illustrates how the committee looks at a lot of shit when they decide who to let in.

3/21/2011 7:05:43 PM

Exclusive pic of FeebleMinded:

3/21/2011 7:20:48 PM

lol - throwing out a stat for a big east team that measures record against tourney teams is a joke. it's inflated by the big east being overrated and getting 11 of 16 teams in

and are you trying to say UMD is good...should they have gotten into the tourney? or are you just throwing out the random ACC team that made neither the NCAA nor the NIT as some circular logic shit?

edit: you have to be about the only person in the country actively defending villanova's bid

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2011 10:53:05 PM

You are actually saying that, given the choice between Clemson and Villanova, you would pick Clemson?

3/21/2011 11:10:26 PM

So now you question the validity of the regular season ranking system... the Coaches Poll and the Associated Press Poll? Granted, these guys are sports writers and coaches that... well you know, have invested a career in college basketball and probably (I know this is a huge stretch) know just a teentsy bit more about the subject than you do. We'll just ask goalielax what he thinks the rankings should be and disregard the collective opinion of the experts.

Jesus Fucking Christ can you grasp at any more straws?

3/21/2011 11:27:44 PM

Quote :

"given the choice between Clemson and Villanova, you would pick Clemson?"

Yes, absolutely. And that's because at the start of the NCAA tournament, Clemson was a better basketball team than Villanova. It is, after all, a basketball tournament.

3/21/2011 11:38:13 PM

clearly polls are always right

3/21/2011 11:55:07 PM

Is it really that hard for you to grasp that there are other factors besides how good a team is at the start of the NCAA's that go into the selection process? Maybe not in your world, with your (lack of) logic, but sadly, it's true. They use RPI, quality wins, bad losses, conference record, what conference you play in, how you started, how you finished, among other things. You see that - it's a big list, and only one of those things is "how a team finishes". In your world, that is the only factor. Maybe you should just design a field of 68, and invite the 68 teams who finished the season best to your tournament. We'll call it the "I am a Fucking Dumbass Who Knows Nothing About Sports Invitational". It's sure to be a hit.

I bet you think if NCSU would have reeled of 5 straight wins, and then made it to the conference tournament finals and lost by a point to Duke, that ... well we'll just forgive their shittiness for the entire first part of the season and let them in.

Holy fuck I can't figure out if you people are trolling, or you are really that dense and stupid.

3/22/2011 12:17:48 AM

never before has one man so ferociously defended 9 losers

please, tell us again how wins over shitty minors in november are awesome

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 12:26 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2011 12:25:13 AM

^^ I'm talking about which team is the better basketball team. What in the fucking fuck are you talking about?

Why would I think that about NCSU? NCSU was not a good basketball team at any point this season.

3/22/2011 12:43:36 AM

The Big East needs to lose their automatic bid to the tournament. Or at least be limited to their top four teams.

3/22/2011 1:45:02 AM

What do you think about it seth?

3/22/2011 2:19:43 AM

Of course the Big East is the best basketball conference. What other conference has as many teams in the Sweet 16 as the city of Richmond?

3/22/2011 11:19:08 AM

Big 10, SEC

3/22/2011 11:22:10 AM

totally worth the big east being horribly overrated to keep seth greenberg's shit team out of the tournament.

also i don't know if people are serious in this thread saying things like the big east is as bad at basketball as the acc is at football, but that's absurd.

the big east is overrated, not fucking terrible.

3/22/2011 11:30:25 AM

Quote :

"^^ I'm talking about which team is the better basketball team. What in the fucking fuck are you talking about?"

That's just it. You can't just say "I think Clemson was a better basketball team than Nova." For one, what exactly does "better" mean? It could mean, who do you think would win in a head to head match-up. In the case of Nova versus Clemson.... I really don't know. I always like to default to the "If they played a thousand times who would win the most," and to be honest, I couldn't say between those two teams.

That's the great thing about the selection committee though. They have a fairly rigid set of criteria that defines who the "best basketball teams" in the country are. There is a little wiggle room, but by and large, out of the 34 at-large bids, there are only a small handful that they don't agree on (obviously VCU and UAB probably fell into this category). But, according to their criteria, Nova was indeed one of the better basketball teams in the nation this year, despite their late season troubles. And I would be willing to bet a LOT of money that, given only one spot left in the NCAA tournament, and the choice between giving that spot to Clemson and Nova, every single committee member would give the spot to Nova, because according to their selection criteria, Nova was clearly the superior team.

Quote :

" Why would I think that about NCSU? NCSU was not a good basketball team at any point this season."

I was giving a hypothetical situation.

3/22/2011 11:36:35 AM

Multiple double digit losses by top seeds against double digit seeds proves the system didn't work wrt the Big East. They were vastly overrated.

Obviously the selection committee got it wrong. Hopefully they won't make the same mistakes next year.

I defy you to show me the 'fairly rigid set of criteria' that the selection committee uses. Hell, that dumbass AD at OSU couldn't even explain it after the brackets were set.

Big East sucks. Give it a rest.

3/22/2011 12:20:50 PM

Quote :

"totally worth the big east being horribly overrated to keep seth greenberg's shit team out of the tournament."

eh, seth greenberg is an asshat, but i thought they deserved it this year. makes the conference look better too

3/22/2011 12:21:42 PM

Yeah, I laughed when they got left out again b/c I work with a lot of VT grads so their misery makes me happy. But they got screwed.

But it was still funny.

3/22/2011 12:23:17 PM

i personally hate seth greenberg b/c he made a point to say how good of a coach herb sendek is/was, and people took it seriously. of course you think that seth greenberg, you're an even worse coach than sendek.

3/22/2011 12:35:35 PM

I've become much less vindictive in old age

I feel kind of bad for Greenberg, he seems like a nice enough guy

3/22/2011 12:37:14 PM

you know, i have too in a lot of areas, most notably wanting to fight about UNC.

but not herb sendek. i hate that guy as much as ever.

3/22/2011 12:39:09 PM

his demeanor on the sidelines is really irritating (although in fairness a lot of coaches are that way). EVERY call that doesn't go his way results in some sort of facial contortion that would make jim carrey blush

3/22/2011 12:40:25 PM

I don't care for him either, but I attribute that more towards me being Anti-Semite.

3/22/2011 1:42:27 PM

Quote :

"They have a fairly rigid set of criteria"

which is why Gene Smith said this year

Quote :

"Keep in mind there’s 10 people in the room and everyone in the room has different a emphasis on different criteria. So when we go to vote, everyone selects the criteria they think is important to them and they ultimately vote."

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]]

3/22/2011 1:46:57 PM

Quote :

"They have a fairly rigid set of criteria that defines who the "best basketball teams" in the country are."

That is 100% false. 100%. There is absolutely not a rigid set of criteria. After that absurd statement I am no longer bothering to read your posts.

3/23/2011 3:02:34 PM

Yeah, I think FeebleMinded realized he was full of shit after he typed that.

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 3:19 PM. Reason : Much like the Big East. Bah dum ching!]

3/23/2011 3:18:51 PM

an anonymous source showed me the selection criteria once...they were, in fact, quite rigid



[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM. Reason : the criteria that is, not my anonymous source]

3/23/2011 3:21:58 PM

No, I have figured it's ridiculous to argue with ACC biased douchebags.

Maybe rigid wasn't the perfect term to use. But like all good lawyers who know when they have no true grounds to argue on, you guys start grasping at straws and picking apart my words.

Let me rephrase. Obviously, each member has his own personal selection criteria. That's why there are 10 members, and not just 1. That being said, most of these selection criteria are going to be pretty similar - perhaps not rigid, but it's not like Guy A has 34 at-large teams, and guy B has 34 at-large teams, and only 7 of them match. No, I am sure that probably 90ish% of their lists look exactly alike, and the other 10ish% are what they debate. These "last few in" are stuck in the 11 or 12 slots - so that's why you see teams like VCU, Clemson, UAB, etc in these spots - these were the last few teams that were selected for the tournament.

Now if you look at Villanova, they are a #9 seed. So that puts at least 8 or so at-large teams lower in the pecking order than they are. I would highly doubt that any of the selection committee had Villanova not making the NCAA's, however odds are, several had Clemson not making it (that's why you saw Clemson in the play-in game).

You guys have no logical argument. Villanova had a tougher schedule, a higher RPI, better wins, a better conference..... every fucking stat points towards them having a better season, and them being a better team, except the one that you small group of bitches is clinging to - ie, oooh ooooh ooooh Nova didn't finish well.

You can continue to argue like the bunch of biased ACC bitches that you are, but stats don't lie - Nova was a better team and deserved to make the tourney over Clemson (and others). The selection committee obviously agrees, so maybe you can take your argument to them, since your collective basketball analytical skills seem to be so much higher than theirs.

Jesus Christ it's idiots like you who cause me to be pro-abortion.

3/23/2011 5:46:21 PM

The funny thing about your post is you are clearly biased in favor of the Big East, and clearly hate the ACC.

3/23/2011 6:04:30 PM

Quote :

"The funny thing about your post is you are clearly biased in favor of the Big East, and clearly hate the ACC."

It might seem that way, but I am really not. There are three teams that I follow fairly religiously - NCSU, WVU, and Indiana. So I keep up fairly well with the ACC, Big East, and Big 10, and really have no preference among the three.

3/23/2011 6:16:21 PM

I don't know what's going on here, but Clemson has a higher Pomeroy rating than Nova.

3/23/2011 7:13:36 PM

Quote :

"No, I am sure that probably 90ish% of their lists look exactly alike, and the other 10ish% are what they debate. "

That is not even close to the way the committee meetings are conducted. Not. Even. Close.

I know I said I wasn't reading your absurd posts anymore but I couldn't resist seeing what bullshit you came up with after being so thoroughly called out.

3/23/2011 9:08:17 PM

Quote :

")The selection committee obviously agrees"

The same collection committee that thought UAB deserved a bid

I'm not arguing that Villanova shouldn't have gotten a bid

I will say I think the selection committee overrated the Big East as a whole, and the fact that only two of their teams remain supports that

3/23/2011 9:14:38 PM