GoldenWarrior11
Heisman
Posts: 5,628
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 602
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
|
RE: This year
(03-19-2018 04:13 PM)stever20 Wrote: (03-19-2018 03:40 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: (03-19-2018 02:56 PM)stever20 Wrote: (03-19-2018 02:18 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: (03-19-2018 01:31 PM)stever20 Wrote: No it wouldn't be. But then again, Nova has to do it- and do it with about as hard of a run as possible. Quite possibly West Virginia, Purdue, Duke, and Kentucky.
And you didn't answer the question. Don't you think there would be a difference in perception if the Big East was 12-5 in rd 2 of the NCAA tourney last 5 years instead of being 5-12?
I don't. Every conference has a team that gets an early exit every year (this year especially). The ACC's reputation is not brought down by Virginia's loss to UMBC. The B1G's is not impacted by Michigan State losing to Syracuse. The PAC suddenly does not get devalued because it went 0-3. March Madness is random and unexpected; it's why it is the greatest sporting event in the world. I don't think the casual fan can recite each team that makes a Sweet 16; but they certainly remember the Final Fours and National Champions.
The other factor affecting the Big East is the number of members (10). The ACC, B1G, PAC and SEC all have more teams to potentially make the tournament, and - additionally - have its top members beat up its bottom feeders for easier wins. The Big East, only have ten members, and having just one program that has been consistently down the past five years (even longer) is DePaul. If/when the Big East decides to expand, it will most likely add to the middle of the conference (not the top and certainly not to the bottom). It would, in theory, add to the number of higher bids the league could get from the top, and more total teams into the tournament.
Fans remember the flameouts just as much. What was Nova known for before they won the championship 2 years ago? That's right the Piccolo girl.
As far as the having more members so they get easier wins- well, that's not exactly the other 4 conferences fault now, is it? If Big East has a problem with that, they need to expand. I really think a major problem the Big East has is there is a segment of folks who are just so enamored with the round robin, to the point of it costing the conference. Part of the reason why the league is 5-12 in rd 2 is that several of those games are 8/9 vs 1 or 7/10 vs 2. You're going to with the round robin have a ton of teams in the 9-9 or 10-8 record world- and that's just asking to be in the 7-10 pit of misery.
The ACC last year was brutal, but they're given a pass because they have done so well in the other tournaments- oh and they did win it all last year. ACC has 4 final 4's last 4 years, SEC 4, Big Ten with 3. Big East is with Big 12, Pac 12, WCC, and AAC with 1 each.
I think the Big 12 and Big East both have a tourney perception problem. Both are viewed as good regular season conferences but then shrink when you get to the postseason. Big 12 might be erasing some of that this year.
What's the Piccolo girl? I'm unfamiliar.
I don't blame other conferences for the Big East not getting more teams deep. It is just a reality of how the landscape has changed over the past decade. I also think the round-robin still has a tremendous amount of present value, but when it comes time to negotiate the next TV deal, it should be treated as a luxury, not a necessity. It's biggest advantage was to speed-up the acclimation of Butler, Creighton and Xavier to the league, and that has been accomplished. Not right now, but definitely in a few years, the round robin will have outlived its usefulness. I still think there still some remaining time to squeeze out its inherent value.
The Big 12 has not had a national champion in over ten years. The PAC has not won one in over twenty years. The Big East, both in past and current form, have more than both combined. I don't see a perception problem there.
The Piccolo girl was the girl from Nova who was playing the fight song at the end of the NC State game in 2015 who was crying while she was playing. She actually played on the tonight show after the game....
National champions aren't the only measures of things. I just love how Big east fans just want to bring up the more titles than others acting like that's the magic elixir to everything. It's not. I mean, the AAC has more titles than the Big 12 or Pac 12 in same period, yet I don't hear you going to the wall for them.
If Butler, Creighton, and Xavier aren't acclimated now, then when in the hell will they EVER be? That's just stupid quite frankly to act like they need more time. That's we need to keep it as long as possible before we are forced to expand... The round robin is absolutely 100% killing the conference. Yeah getting 6 or 7 teams in is great, but when the average seed is like this year 6.33 compared to the ACC at 5.25- it makes a difference. 6.33 with 2 number 1 seeds is pretty darn hard to do.
There's a shot of at least one crying fan from every single losing team in the tournament nowadays. Hard to keep them all straight.
National Championships aren't the only indicators of a strength of conference, absolutely. I used the PAC and Big 12 results as indicators as such. On-court success, attendance, ratings, TV deals and program prestige all add to that. I never brought up or slammed the AAC. I'm not sure why you did. There's a reason the Big East (and other power basketball conferences) continue to get many bids annually into the tournament. If their perception was bad, like other conferences, my guess would be that they wouldn't.
With regards to your comments on the round-robin, I stated that the original intention of it has already been met. It is by no means killing the conference. Attendance is high. The competition is high. Every game in conference provides excitement and entertainment. Will there be a point where there is more value in getting away from it via expansion? Most likely. But today, it's not providing a negative value to the league.
I believe you are using one game (Xavier's loss) to justify preconceived thoughts you have had, and repeatedly articulated, with regards to the direction of the Big East. That's totally fine, but be prepared to hear the continued counter-points.
|
|