For 34 years (1980 until 2013), the ACC and old Big East were reputed to be the best conferences for elite college basketball. Thought it would be nice to compare some facts about the NCAA Tournament achievements of these conferences during the 34 year span.

As background, the membership count of the two conferences was overwhelmingly different. With the exception of the first 3 years, the Big East had more basketball playing members. Overall, the BE was 8% larger in the 1980s; 25% larger in the 1990s; 39% larger in the 2000s; and 33% larger in the early 2010s (Vis-a-Vis the ACC). The data presented below does not fully normalize for the size of the conference (much of the data is raw counts).

The data is divided into 4 increments:
1980 - 1989
1990 - 1999
2000 - 2009
2010 - 2013
All 34 years

1980s
Tournament champions: ACC 2 (UNC 82 & NCSt 83); BE 2 (GTown 84 & Nova 85
Final Four teams: ACC 8 (UVA 81 & 84; UNC 81 & 82; NCSt 83; Duke 86, 88 & 89); BE 8 (GTown 82, 84 & 85; Nova 85; StJ 85; Syr 87; Prov 87; SH 89)
#1 Seeds: ACC 7 (UVA 81, 82 & 83; UNC 82, 84 & 87; Duke 86); BE 9 (Syr 80; GTown 82, 84, 85, 87 & 89; StJ 83, 85 & 86)
Depth of play: 49 out of 80 ACC teams made the tournament (61%); 44 of 86 BE teams (51%)
The conferences had polar opposite styles, but the results were similar. Possibly, the depth of the play in the ACC was at uniquely historic levels.

1990s
Champions: ACC 3 (Duke 91 & 92; UNC 93); BE 1 (UConn 99)
Final Fours: ACC 11 (Duke 90,91,92,94&99; GTech 90; UNC 91,93,95,97&98); BE 2 (Syr 96; UConn 99)
#1 Seeds: ACC 9 (UNC 91,93,94,97&98; Duke 92,94&98; WFU 95); BE 3 (UConn 90,96&99)
Depth: 52 of 88 (59%) teams in ACC; 49 of 110 (45%) teams in BE made the tournament.
Duke and UNC elevated their programs to a different level...the ACC had the basketball chops. The addition FSU didn’t much impact the depth of the ACC, but the additions of Miami/Rutgers/WVU/ND had an adverse impact on BE basketball.

2000s
Champions: ACC 4 (Duke 01; UMD 02; UNC 05&09); BE 2 (Syr 03; UConn 04)
Final Fours: ACC 9 (UNC 00,05,08&09; Duke 01&04; UMD 01&02; GTech 04); BE 4 (Syr 03; GTown 07; UConn 09; Nova 09)
#1 Seeds: ACC 11 (Duke 00,01,02,04,05&06; UMD 02; UNC 05,07,08&09); BE 5 (UConn 06&09; Nova 06; Louisville 09; Pitt 09)
Depth: 50 of 104 (48%) teams in ACC; 62 of 145 (43%) teams in BE made the tournament.
Can’t keep up with the blue bloods...in terms elite programs, the ACC leads the way. But the whole structure of power basketball conference depth changed in 2005/2006 when the BE lost Miami/VT/BC, and added Cincy/DePaul/Louisville/Marquette/USF.

2010-2013
Champions: ACC 1 (Duke 10); BE 2 (UConn 11, Louisville 13)
FF: ACC 1 (Duke 10); BE 4 (UConn 11, Louisville 12&13; Syr 13)
#1 Seeds: ACC 3 (Duke 10&11; UNC 12); BE 4 (Syr 10&12; Pitt 11; Louisville 13)
Depth: 19 of 48 (40%) teams in ACC; 34 of 64 (53%) teams in BE made the tournament.
The depth of the BE was clearly superior during the last 8 years of their existence.

Over the entire 34 year overlap, ACC basketball had more champions (10-7), Final Fours (29-18), #1 Seeds (30-21) and better depth (53%-47%). But the ACC was clearly transitioning away from a basketball-first conference. On the other hand, the BE started out as a basketball conference...then emphasized football for 15 years...a finally became the undisputed basketball Beast during its final 8 years.

(05-26-2020 05:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  For three decades (1980s, 1990s and 2000s), the ACC and Big East were reputed to be the best conferences for elite college basketball. Thought it would be nice to compare some facts about the NCAA Tournament achievements of these conferences during the 30 year span from 1980-2009.

As background, the membership count of the two conferences was overwhelmingly different. With the exception of the first 3 years, the Big East had more basketball playing members. Overall, the BE was 8% larger in the 1980s; 25% larger in the 1990s and 39% larger in the 2000s. The data presented below does not normalize for the size of the conference (the data is raw counts).

The data is divided into 3 decades:
1980 - 1989
1990 - 1999
2000 - 2009

1980s
Tournament champions: ACC 2 (UNC 82 & NCSt 83); BE 2 (GTown 84 & Nova 85
Final Four teams: ACC 8 (UVA 81 & 84; UNC 81 & 82; NCSt 83; Duke 86, 88 & 89); BE 8 (GTown 82, 84 & 85; Nova 85; StJ 85; Syr 87; Prov 87; SH 89)
#1 Seeds: ACC 7 (UVA 81, 82 & 83; UNC 82, 84 & 87; Duke 86); BE 9 (Syr 80; GTown 82, 84, 85, 87 & 89; StJ 83, 85 & 86)
The conferences had polar opposite styles, but the results were nearly identical.

1990s
Champions: ACC 3 (Duke 91 & 92; UNC 93); BE 1 (UConn 99)
Final Fours: ACC 11 (Duke 90,91,92,94&99; GTech 90; UNC 91,93,95,97&98); BE 2 (Syr 96; UConn 99)
#1 Seeds: ACC 9 (UNC 91,93,94,97&98; Duke 92,94&98; WFU 95); BE 3 (UConn 90,96&99)
Duke and UNC elevated their programs to a different level...the ACC had the basketball chops.

2000s
Champions: ACC 4 (Duke 01; UMD 02; UNC 05&09); BE 2 (Syr 03; UConn 04)
Final Fours: ACC 9 (UNC 00,05,08&09; Duke 01&04; UMD 01&02; GTech 04); BE 4 (Syr 03; GTown 07; UConn 09; Nova 09)
#1 Seeds: ACC 11 (Duke 00,01,02,04,05&06; UMD 02; UNC 05,07,08&09); BE 5 (UConn 06&09; Nova 06; Louisville 09; Pitt 09)
Can’t keep up with the blue bloods...in terms elite programs, the ACC leads the way.

The 90s sucked for the Big East. Undisputed fact with that. But from '99 on when UConn won its first natty, it exploded again.

From 1999 to its last real year in 2013, the Big East won 5 titles from 3 different schools, and 11 Final Fours from 6 different programs. It had 10 #1 seeds from 5 different programs and 102 total bids. With apologies to Louisville, this obviously is not counting 2014 which was the year UConn's won the championship in the renamed American that didn't have SU and Pitt.

The ACC during that time won 5 titles from 3 different schools and had 11 Final Fours from 4 different programs. It had 15 #1 seeds from 3 different programs and 72 total bids.

The issue isn't just blue bloods. No one can take away the historical preeminence of Duke and Carolina. There is also an issue of depth. The ACC was top heavy. The ACC is a great league, but I'm no more inclined to have its reputation depend on just UNC and Duke any more than I want the football side to rely just on Clemson and FSU. Hopefully Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame are adding (or will be adding) some depth, because a deep, balanced conference like the Big East was in the later 2000s and early 2010s is a lot more fun for everyone, and I think that is where the ACC has been heading with the emergence of UVA and FSU. And apologies about Pitt in advance for blowing up its own program. Hopefully Pitt is about to reemerge, and recruiting suggests it may be, but shooting itself in the foot is a historical pattern for the Panthers in all sports.

There is no comparison. ACC basket was and still is superior.

This leaves out the last four years of the old Big East (2010-2013) where it had 5 final fours to the ACC’s 1, 2 titles to ACC’s 1, and 4 to 3 with number one seeds.

(05-26-2020 06:42 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The issue isn't just blue bloods. No one can take away the historical preeminence of Duke and Carolina. There is also an issue of depth. The ACC was top heavy. The ACC is a great league, but I'm no more inclined to have its reputation depend on just UNC and Duke any more than I want the football side to rely just on Clemson and FSU. Hopefully Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame are adding (or will be adding) some depth, because a deep, balanced conference like the Big East was in the later 2000s and early 2010s is a lot more fun for everyone, and I think that is where the ACC has been heading with the emergence of UVA and FSU. And apologies about Pitt in advance for blowing up its own program. Hopefully Pitt is about to reemerge, and recruiting suggests it may be, but shooting itself in the foot is a historical pattern for the Panthers in all sports.

The ACC has always had depth in basketball...NCSt, UMD and (more recently) UVA have won national championships. Georgia Tech has been to a couple of Final Fours. WFU has had outstanding (#1 seed) teams. In the 1980s, 49 teams made the tournament...that is 61% (49/80) of ACC teams making the tournament during the decade. For comparison, in the 1980s 44 BE teams made the tournament...a 51% (44/86) clip. Similar to SEC football, ACC basketball depth has never suffered from the presence of blue bloods. Depth in basketball programs is the reason why the ACC/BIG challenge was so one-sided for the first 10-15 years.

Agree that Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt are adding even more depth in basketball. Even though all ACC expansions are football first decisions, the strong basketball tradition of the recent BE adds created some concern amongst the football powers. It was a little awkward that Coach K was the most visible ACC cheerleader for the Syracuse and Pitt expansions. Would have been better if Jimbo or Beamer or Dabo or Miami AD would have been the public voice promoting the additions.

(05-26-2020 08:58 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 06:42 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The issue isn't just blue bloods. No one can take away the historical preeminence of Duke and Carolina. There is also an issue of depth. The ACC was top heavy. The ACC is a great league, but I'm no more inclined to have its reputation depend on just UNC and Duke any more than I want the football side to rely just on Clemson and FSU. Hopefully Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame are adding (or will be adding) some depth, because a deep, balanced conference like the Big East was in the later 2000s and early 2010s is a lot more fun for everyone, and I think that is where the ACC has been heading with the emergence of UVA and FSU. And apologies about Pitt in advance for blowing up its own program. Hopefully Pitt is about to reemerge, and recruiting suggests it may be, but shooting itself in the foot is a historical pattern for the Panthers in all sports.

The ACC has always had depth in basketball...NCSt, UMD and (more recently) UVA have won national championships. Georgia Tech has been to a couple of Final Fours. WFU has had outstanding (#1 seed) teams. In the 1980s, 49 teams made the tournament...that is 61% (49/80) of ACC teams making the tournament during the decade. For comparison, in the 1980s 44 BE teams made the tournament...a 51% (44/86) clip. Similar to SEC football, ACC basketball depth has never suffered from the presence of blue bloods. Depth in basketball programs is the reason why the ACC/BIG challenge was so one-sided for the first 10-15 years.

Agree that Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt are adding even more depth in basketball. Even though all ACC expansions are football first decisions, the strong basketball tradition of the recent BE adds created some concern amongst the football powers. It was a little awkward that Coach K was the most visible ACC cheerleader for the Syracuse and Pitt expansions. Would have been better if Jimbo or Beamer or Dabo or Miami AD would have been the public voice promoting the additions.

The ACC only received three bids to the NCAA tournament in 1999 and 2000, four bids in 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013, and five bids in 2005 and 2012. To me, that is a sustained depth problem over that period. In 12 seasons over that 15 year period, the ACC regular season and tournament was won by either Duke or Carolina. That's a parity issue. For comparison, the Big East Tournament had 8 different winners, and four different repeat winners over that period. UConn won 4 and Louisville won 3, no one else won more than 2 (Pitt and Syracuse).

(05-26-2020 09:15 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 08:58 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 06:42 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The issue isn't just blue bloods. No one can take away the historical preeminence of Duke and Carolina. There is also an issue of depth. The ACC was top heavy. The ACC is a great league, but I'm no more inclined to have its reputation depend on just UNC and Duke any more than I want the football side to rely just on Clemson and FSU. Hopefully Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame are adding (or will be adding) some depth, because a deep, balanced conference like the Big East was in the later 2000s and early 2010s is a lot more fun for everyone, and I think that is where the ACC has been heading with the emergence of UVA and FSU. And apologies about Pitt in advance for blowing up its own program. Hopefully Pitt is about to reemerge, and recruiting suggests it may be, but shooting itself in the foot is a historical pattern for the Panthers in all sports.

The ACC has always had depth in basketball...NCSt, UMD and (more recently) UVA have won national championships. Georgia Tech has been to a couple of Final Fours. WFU has had outstanding (#1 seed) teams. In the 1980s, 49 teams made the tournament...that is 61% (49/80) of ACC teams making the tournament during the decade. For comparison, in the 1980s 44 BE teams made the tournament...a 51% (44/86) clip. Similar to SEC football, ACC basketball depth has never suffered from the presence of blue bloods. Depth in basketball programs is the reason why the ACC/BIG challenge was so one-sided for the first 10-15 years.

Agree that Louisville, Syracuse and Pitt are adding even more depth in basketball. Even though all ACC expansions are football first decisions, the strong basketball tradition of the recent BE adds created some concern amongst the football powers. It was a little awkward that Coach K was the most visible ACC cheerleader for the Syracuse and Pitt expansions. Would have been better if Jimbo or Beamer or Dabo or Miami AD would have been the public voice promoting the additions.

The ACC only received three bids to the NCAA tournament in 1999 and 2000, four bids in 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013, and five bids in 2005 and 2012. To me, that is a sustained depth problem over that period. In 12 seasons over that 15 year period, the ACC regular season and tournament was won by either Duke or Carolina. That's a parity issue. For comparison, the Big East Tournament had 8 different winners, and four different repeat winners over that period. UConn won 4 and Louisville won 3, no one else won more than 2 (Pitt and Syracuse).

Thanks for the guidance. I updated the OP for the full 34 years, as well as a review of conference basketball depth.

Let's not overlook a couple facts concerning depth: the bottom of the Big East was atrocious and allowed the rest of the conference a bunch of easy late season wins; this helped prop-up the great and decent teams.

If you look at the conferences' winning percentages over the last eight seasons, the ACC's was better year in, year out.

(05-27-2020 04:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Let's not overlook a couple facts concerning depth: the bottom of the Big East was atrocious and allowed the rest of the conference a bunch of easy late season wins; this helped prop-up the great and decent teams.

If you look at the conferences' winning percentages over the last eight seasons, the ACC's was better year in, year out.

Well, if you look at the Sagarin conference rankings over the last eight seasons (2006-2013), the ACC had a better rating than the Big East twice. By RPI, three times.

When you are only getting four and five teams in, and two of them are always high seeds like Duke and UNC, of course the winning % is better.

And the Big East went through a phase where it would have unbalanced schedules for tv purposes, so teams with preseason expectations often had more difficult conference schedules. So it is untrue teams were just racking up wins over weaker teams.

(05-27-2020 09:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 04:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Let's not overlook a couple facts concerning depth: the bottom of the Big East was atrocious and allowed the rest of the conference a bunch of easy late season wins; this helped prop-up the great and decent teams.

If you look at the conferences' winning percentages over the last eight seasons, the ACC's was better year in, year out.

Well, if you look at the Sagarin conference rankings over the last eight seasons (2006-2013), the ACC had a better rating than the Big East twice. By RPI, three times.

When you are only getting four and five teams in, and two of them are always high seeds like Duke and UNC, of course the winning % is better.

And the Big East went through a phase where it would have unbalanced schedules for tv purposes, so teams with preseason expectations often had more difficult conference schedules. So it is untrue teams were just racking up wins over weaker teams.

The NCAA selection is not always based on numbers, therefore I don’t think it is a perfect barometer to gauge how great a conference is top to bottom. Take the often mentioned 11-bid year. Two BE teams made it past the first weekend, the same as the ACC. The teams were Marquette, UConn, UNC and FSU. UNC absolutely shredded Marquette, but UConn went on that magical run to win it all after winning at MSG.

The middling teams sure were racking up more wins against dregs and that season is a prime example of getting those teams in the dance. Without So. FLA, DePaul, Providence, and Rutgers, those marginal conference records don’t get them in, save UConn. Take those teams out of the equation, and it would be interesting to see the conference. Could have been hands down the best, or it could have looked more like the ACC. We’ll never know. What I do know is a conference can’t claim to be the deepest when the bottom is so embarrassingly atrocious.

Also, the tide was turning right as the Big East crumbled, Virginia was reawakening.

(05-28-2020 03:54 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 09:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 04:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Let's not overlook a couple facts concerning depth: the bottom of the Big East was atrocious and allowed the rest of the conference a bunch of easy late season wins; this helped prop-up the great and decent teams.

If you look at the conferences' winning percentages over the last eight seasons, the ACC's was better year in, year out.

Well, if you look at the Sagarin conference rankings over the last eight seasons (2006-2013), the ACC had a better rating than the Big East twice. By RPI, three times.

When you are only getting four and five teams in, and two of them are always high seeds like Duke and UNC, of course the winning % is better.

And the Big East went through a phase where it would have unbalanced schedules for tv purposes, so teams with preseason expectations often had more difficult conference schedules. So it is untrue teams were just racking up wins over weaker teams.

The NCAA selection is not always based on numbers, therefore I don’t think it is a perfect barometer to gauge how great a conference is top to bottom. Take the often mentioned 11-bid year. Two BE teams made it past the first weekend, the same as the ACC. The teams were Marquette, UConn, UNC and FSU. UNC absolutely shredded Marquette, but UConn went on that magical run to win it all after winning at MSG.

The middling teams sure were racking up more wins against dregs and that season is a prime example of getting those teams in the dance. Without So. FLA, DePaul, Providence, and Rutgers, those marginal conference records don’t get them in, save UConn. Take those teams out of the equation, and it would be interesting to see the conference. Could have been hands down the best, or it could have looked more like the ACC. We’ll never know. What I do know is a conference can’t claim to be the deepest when the bottom is so embarrassingly atrocious.

Also, the tide was turning right as the Big East crumbled, Virginia was reawakening.

I have seen you use this example before. But is there any real difference between the bottom dwellers of the BE then and the ACC then? IMO, not enough to make your argument.

BIG EAST


Con/Overall
Rutgers 5 – 13 15 -17
Providence 4 –14 15–17
South Florida 3–15 10–23
DePaul 1–17 7–24


ACC

Virginia 7–9 16–15
NC State 5–11 15–16
Georgia Tech 5–11 13-18
Wake Forest 1–15 8–24

(05-28-2020 08:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 03:54 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 09:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 04:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Let's not overlook a couple facts concerning depth: the bottom of the Big East was atrocious and allowed the rest of the conference a bunch of easy late season wins; this helped prop-up the great and decent teams.

If you look at the conferences' winning percentages over the last eight seasons, the ACC's was better year in, year out.

Well, if you look at the Sagarin conference rankings over the last eight seasons (2006-2013), the ACC had a better rating than the Big East twice. By RPI, three times.

When you are only getting four and five teams in, and two of them are always high seeds like Duke and UNC, of course the winning % is better.

And the Big East went through a phase where it would have unbalanced schedules for tv purposes, so teams with preseason expectations often had more difficult conference schedules. So it is untrue teams were just racking up wins over weaker teams.

The NCAA selection is not always based on numbers, therefore I don’t think it is a perfect barometer to gauge how great a conference is top to bottom. Take the often mentioned 11-bid year. Two BE teams made it past the first weekend, the same as the ACC. The teams were Marquette, UConn, UNC and FSU. UNC absolutely shredded Marquette, but UConn went on that magical run to win it all after winning at MSG.

The middling teams sure were racking up more wins against dregs and that season is a prime example of getting those teams in the dance. Without So. FLA, DePaul, Providence, and Rutgers, those marginal conference records don’t get them in, save UConn. Take those teams out of the equation, and it would be interesting to see the conference. Could have been hands down the best, or it could have looked more like the ACC. We’ll never know. What I do know is a conference can’t claim to be the deepest when the bottom is so embarrassingly atrocious.

Also, the tide was turning right as the Big East crumbled, Virginia was reawakening.

I have seen you use this example before. But is there any real difference between the bottom dwellers of the BE then and the ACC then? IMO, not at all. The BE slugs have an extra loss or 2 in conference because BE teams played an 18 game conference record as opposed to the ACC only playing 16 conference games..

BIG EAST


Con/Overall
Rutgers 5 – 13 15 -17
Providence 4 –14 15–17
South Florida 3–15 10–23
DePaul 1–17 7–24


ACC

Virginia 7–9 16–15
NC State 5–11 15–16
Georgia Tech 5–11 13-18
Wake Forest 1–15 8–24

I still shake my head in bewilderment that here in 2020 my alma mater Cincinnati is considered inferior to DePaul, Providence and Rutgers.

Great analysis. With respect to the Big East, it's worth thinking about it in four periods.

The initial period was 1979-1991. This was the classic Big East, before football, and was the subject of the 30 for 30 episode "Requiem for the Big East." It featured legendary coaches Thompson, Carnesseca, Massemino, Carlesimo, and Boeheim, with a cameo at Providence by Rick Pitino, and the first few years of Jim Calhoun at UConn. Players included Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin and Pearl Washington. During the 1979-91 period, six of nine members made Final Four appearances and two won National Championships.

In 1991, Miami joined for basketball and the football league began in earnest. During this second phase, the league lost its classic feel, and the conference did not enjoy the same broad level of success. Carnesecca retired and Massemino left after the 91-92 season, and Carlesimo after 93-94. From 1991-2005 only two of fourteen members made Final Four appearances, Syracuse and UConn, with each also winning a National Championship (two in the case of UConn).

The third phase is the period between the first ACC raid and the second, 2005-2013. With the additional of Louisville and Marquette, the conference entered a second golden age. In eight seasons, six of sixteen members made the Final Four, with two winning National Championships. The conference averaged eight NCAA bids per year, including eleven in 2011.

Finally, since 2013, the Big East has returned to being a basketball only league. It has enjoyed decent success, with Villanova winning two National Championships, and is still a power league, but not at the level of its classic period or second golden age.

(05-28-2020 08:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 03:54 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 09:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 04:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Let's not overlook a couple facts concerning depth: the bottom of the Big East was atrocious and allowed the rest of the conference a bunch of easy late season wins; this helped prop-up the great and decent teams.

If you look at the conferences' winning percentages over the last eight seasons, the ACC's was better year in, year out.

Well, if you look at the Sagarin conference rankings over the last eight seasons (2006-2013), the ACC had a better rating than the Big East twice. By RPI, three times.

When you are only getting four and five teams in, and two of them are always high seeds like Duke and UNC, of course the winning % is better.

And the Big East went through a phase where it would have unbalanced schedules for tv purposes, so teams with preseason expectations often had more difficult conference schedules. So it is untrue teams were just racking up wins over weaker teams.

The NCAA selection is not always based on numbers, therefore I don’t think it is a perfect barometer to gauge how great a conference is top to bottom. Take the often mentioned 11-bid year. Two BE teams made it past the first weekend, the same as the ACC. The teams were Marquette, UConn, UNC and FSU. UNC absolutely shredded Marquette, but UConn went on that magical run to win it all after winning at MSG.

The middling teams sure were racking up more wins against dregs and that season is a prime example of getting those teams in the dance. Without So. FLA, DePaul, Providence, and Rutgers, those marginal conference records don’t get them in, save UConn. Take those teams out of the equation, and it would be interesting to see the conference. Could have been hands down the best, or it could have looked more like the ACC. We’ll never know. What I do know is a conference can’t claim to be the deepest when the bottom is so embarrassingly atrocious.

Also, the tide was turning right as the Big East crumbled, Virginia was reawakening.

I have seen you use this example before. But is there any real difference between the bottom dwellers of the BE then and the ACC then? IMO, not enough to make your argument.

BIG EAST


Con/Overall
Rutgers 5 – 13 15 -17
Providence 4 –14 15–17
South Florida 3–15 10–23
DePaul 1–17 7–24


ACC

Virginia 7–9 16–15
NC State 5–11 15–16
Georgia Tech 5–11 13-18
Wake Forest 1–15 8–24

It’s a strong argument. Also take into consideration the two extra games being played in the Big East.

So. FLA and Rutgers* are far inferior to any ACC program, ever. DePaul — once an elite program — stunk up the Big East the whole time they were a member.

*That said, the echoes of Quincy Douby’s MSG bombs are still being heard.

(05-28-2020 10:24 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 08:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 03:54 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 09:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 04:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Let's not overlook a couple facts concerning depth: the bottom of the Big East was atrocious and allowed the rest of the conference a bunch of easy late season wins; this helped prop-up the great and decent teams.

If you look at the conferences' winning percentages over the last eight seasons, the ACC's was better year in, year out.

Well, if you look at the Sagarin conference rankings over the last eight seasons (2006-2013), the ACC had a better rating than the Big East twice. By RPI, three times.

When you are only getting four and five teams in, and two of them are always high seeds like Duke and UNC, of course the winning % is better.

And the Big East went through a phase where it would have unbalanced schedules for tv purposes, so teams with preseason expectations often had more difficult conference schedules. So it is untrue teams were just racking up wins over weaker teams.

The NCAA selection is not always based on numbers, therefore I don’t think it is a perfect barometer to gauge how great a conference is top to bottom. Take the often mentioned 11-bid year. Two BE teams made it past the first weekend, the same as the ACC. The teams were Marquette, UConn, UNC and FSU. UNC absolutely shredded Marquette, but UConn went on that magical run to win it all after winning at MSG.

The middling teams sure were racking up more wins against dregs and that season is a prime example of getting those teams in the dance. Without So. FLA, DePaul, Providence, and Rutgers, those marginal conference records don’t get them in, save UConn. Take those teams out of the equation, and it would be interesting to see the conference. Could have been hands down the best, or it could have looked more like the ACC. We’ll never know. What I do know is a conference can’t claim to be the deepest when the bottom is so embarrassingly atrocious.

Also, the tide was turning right as the Big East crumbled, Virginia was reawakening.

I have seen you use this example before. But is there any real difference between the bottom dwellers of the BE then and the ACC then? IMO, not enough to make your argument.

BIG EAST


Con/Overall
Rutgers 5 – 13 15 -17
Providence 4 –14 15–17
South Florida 3–15 10–23
DePaul 1–17 7–24


ACC

Virginia 7–9 16–15
NC State 5–11 15–16
Georgia Tech 5–11 13-18
Wake Forest 1–15 8–24

It’s a strong argument. Also take into consideration the two extra games being played in the Big East.

So. FLA and Rutgers* are far inferior to any ACC program, ever. DePaul — once an elite program — stunk up the Big East the whole time they were a member.

*That said, the echoes of Quincy Douby’s MSG bombs are still being heard.

The two leagues have a similar number of bottom feeders. The BE was no worse at the bottom than the ACC. It doesnt matter if you think USF and Rutgers are worst than any ACC program, ever. They make up 2 out of the 4 BE dregs that you mentioned. It just so happens that the ACC also had 4 dregs that year. Every league has their cellar dwellers. I will admit that USF and particularly, Rutgers and Depaul, were reaaly bad. Its unfair to point out another leagues dregs and ignore your own leagues dregs.

(05-28-2020 12:17 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The two leagues have a similar number of bottom feeders. The BE was no worse at the bottom than the ACC. It doesnt matter if you think USF and Rutgers are worst than any ACC program, ever. They make up 2 out of the 4 BE dregs that you mentioned. It just so happens that the ACC also had 4 dregs that year. Every league has their cellar dwellers. I will admit that USF and particularly, Rutgers and Depaul, were reaaly bad. Its unfair to point out another leagues dregs and ignore your own leagues dregs.

Except the "dregs" of the ACC have actually succeeded in the sport and did so during the time period (2004-2012) we are talking about.

ACC

Wake made three tournaments with four winning seasons. After the last bid they fired Gaudio for some stupid reason and didn't make a Dance for years.

GaTech also made three tournaments with four winning seasons.

NC State made four tournaments and had seven winning seasons.

Virginia only made two tournaments, but had five winning seasons and the next season they exploded with 30 wins and haven't looked back.

Clemson had seven winning seasons and four tournaments.

Big East

Rutgers had one winning season and no tournaments.

DePaul had one winning season and no tournaments.

So. Flahridah actually had two winning seasons and a nice tourney run that was ended by Ohio.

Providence–a historically strong program–had three winning seasons and no tournament appearances.

Seton Hall had five winning seasons and one tournament.

St. John's–also historically strong–had four winning seasons and one tournament appearance.

(05-28-2020 12:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:17 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The two leagues have a similar number of bottom feeders. The BE was no worse at the bottom than the ACC. It doesnt matter if you think USF and Rutgers are worst than any ACC program, ever. They make up 2 out of the 4 BE dregs that you mentioned. It just so happens that the ACC also had 4 dregs that year. Every league has their cellar dwellers. I will admit that USF and particularly, Rutgers and Depaul, were reaaly bad. Its unfair to point out another leagues dregs and ignore your own leagues dregs.

Except the "dregs" of the ACC have actually succeeded in the sport and did so during the time period (2004-2012) we are talking about.

ACC

Wake made three tournaments with four winning seasons. After the last bid they fired Gaudio for some stupid reason and didn't make a Dance for years.

GaTech also made three tournaments with four winning seasons.

NC State made four tournaments and had seven winning seasons.

Virginia only made two tournaments, but had five winning seasons and the next season they exploded with 30 wins and haven't looked back.

Clemson had seven winning seasons and four tournaments.

Big East

Rutgers had one winning season and no tournaments.

DePaul had one winning season and no tournaments.

So. Flahridah actually had two winning seasons and a nice tourney run that was ended by Ohio.

Providence–a historically strong program–had three winning seasons and no tournament appearances.

Seton Hall had five winning seasons and one tournament.

St. John's–also historically strong–had four winning seasons and one tournament appearance.

Oh, so now you want to move the goal posts? Sorry, but Im going to concentrate on that particular season 2010-2011. Thats the season that you have referenced so many times before as your example of BE teams beating up on so many of the "embarrassingly atrocious " teams at the bottom. It turns out that ACC teams were beating up on the same amount of bad teams that season. Im done!

(05-28-2020 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 08:38 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I have seen you use this example before. But is there any real difference between the bottom dwellers of the BE then and the ACC then? IMO, not at all. The BE slugs have an extra loss or 2 in conference because BE teams played an 18 game conference record as opposed to the ACC only playing 16 conference games..

BIG EAST


Con/Overall
Rutgers 5 – 13 15 -17
Providence 4 –14 15–17
South Florida 3–15 10–23
DePaul 1–17 7–24


ACC

Virginia 7–9 16–15
NC State 5–11 15–16
Georgia Tech 5–11 13-18
Wake Forest 1–15 8–24

I still shake my head in bewilderment that here in 2020 my alma mater Cincinnati is considered inferior to DePaul, Providence and Rutgers.

How do you come to that conclusion? That they are in better conferences? The Big East doesn't have FBS football, so unless you want Cincy football to go independent, that's a no go. And the AAC makes more money per school anyway.

Rutgers is currently trying to spend their way into football relevancy. It remains to be seen how successful they will be. Yeah, the B1G is better than the AAC, but I'd still rather watch Cincy football and basketball play over Rutgers football and basketball.

Historically, participation in the NCAA Tournament has been mainly about bragging rights and reputation. In the future, it appears that the major college athletic programs may need to better monetize the post-season tournament. It’s nice to see that the traditions in both the ACC and BE encouraged a high-level of b-ball play.

Note - I’m not suggesting that the health or future of the ACC will be driven by basketball. Football pays the bills...especially the home mortgage. But basketball can pay the car loan.

Current ranking of ACC basketball reputation based on Tournament selection this century:
1) Duke 20 out of 20 years
2) UNC 17
3a) Syracuse 15
3b) Louisville 15
5) Pitt 13 (although the near term performance is not good)
6) ND 12
7) NCSt 10
8) UVA 9 (can’t undo the Leitao fiasco and Gillen mediocrity)
9) WFU 8 (near term performance is also problematic)
10a) BC 7 (third program with performance issues in near term)
10b) FSU 7
10c) Miami 7
13a) Clemson 5
13b) Georgia Tech 5
15) VT 4

Looking at the data for each university, it’s easy to see how the 2005 switches by BC, Miami and VT changed both the ACC and BE.

(05-28-2020 01:46 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  13b) Georgia Tech 5

How to trash your men's basketball program in one contract: The Dave Braine and Paul Hewitt Story, an ESPN 8 for 8 on The Ocho.