https://today.sportingnews.com
Calls it "No Contest" between two and that the ACC is clearly better than the Big East based on 5 criteria: Overall Wins as Percentage (ACC), Head-to-Head(ACC), Star Power (ACC), Polls (Big East), and Depth (ACC).
I've been arguing ACC vs. BEast for a while with some coworkers (both are ACC fans), and they tried using this article as proof.
While it is hard to argue against the wins and head to head, both Star Power and Depth are absolutely bogus.
First of all, since when does Star Power show which conference is better...please see the 2002 and 2004 USA Men's basketball teams for why this is a ridiculous qualifier.
The article judges depth by the teams at the .500 or below level of play. What it fails to look at is the actual losses associated with each team. As the article mentions, the Big East has 4 teams around .500; they are Depaul (have lost to #8 Syracuse, #19 Notre Dame, #11 UCLA, #26 Cal) Rutgers (lost to #6 UNC, #4 Pitt, #3 UConn, #10 Marquette, Syracuse), Seton Hall (lost to #24 Memphis, Syracuse, #37 WVU, #21 Villanova, Notre Dame, and UConn ), and South Florida (lost to Syracuse, #12 Louisville, Pitt, and WVU). The two ACC teams around .500 are Virginia (lost to Syracuse, #20 Minnesota, UNC, and #13 Xavier) and Georgia Tech (lost to #2 Duke).
The Big East's bottom teams have 39 combined losses among their 4 .500 teams. Of those 39, 19 (49%) have come at the hands of a team that is currently getting some sort of vote(based on the ESPN/coaches poll), and 11 (28%) are from conference play. UVA and GT have 13 combined losses; 5 (38%) have come from vote-receiving, and only 2 (15%) from conference play.
It's obvious that their reasoning is a stretch, but that doesn't particularly matter. Writers know that they will have quite an audience for an article that's written like that. ACC fans will gobble it up, even if the premise is laughable.
If all sports writers were jocking the Big East, they'd be shunning all of the fans of other conferences. There's no reason to do that, especially when your job performance is based on the number of page-views your article gets.
Its like arguing about abortion. Everyone has their stance and there is no convincing. I think the Big East is the toughest because most of ranked teams can go toe to toe with any team in the nation. And since the BE has 8 high caliber teams, that makes it the toughest.
All the conference comparisons are going to get old rather quickly, but one quibble: the head-to-head record is kind of silly, as most of the wins on each side have come from higher-ranked teams beating lower-ranked teams from the other conference. Five of the ACC wins have come against USF, St. John's, and Rutgers, and the game that probably had the most meaning - Duke over Georgetown - would've looked quite a bit different on a neutral court.
That said, the ACC certainly has a claim at being the best conference by a number of different metrics. As things stand right now, Big East looks good for Sweet 16 teams, but ACC likely has just as many Final 4 & National Champion contenders in a smaller conference.
Side note: Jonny Flynn makes the BE's top 5 star power list? No wonder we didn't win that category per SportingNews.
If you break the conferences up into thirds, I think it is obvious the ACC comes out better.
ACC is a little better at the top third (UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson > Pitt, UConn, Louisville, Georgetown, Syracuse), but you could argue either way
Big East probably a little better in the middle third (Notre Dame, Marquette, Villanova, West Virginia, Providence, Cincinnati > Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College), but you could argue either way
ACC is WAY better in the bottom third (Maryland, Virginia, NC State, Georgia Tech >>> Rutgers, South Florida, DePaul, Seton Hall and Saint John's), don't think you could argue that.
We have more tough teams, but not on a per team basis. We're basically even through the top two-thirds of the conferences and we have more teams in the top 2/3, so you can argue we're a little better where it counts.
I don't see how that middle third is debateable. You have 3 top 25 teams in the BE side and none from the ACC. FSU and Miami showed up in the others receiving votes, with WVU getting similar representation to Miami. Providence and Cincy should be able to make it interesting against VT and BC - looks like Providence lost by 5 @ BC earlier in the season.
Quote from: dsfire on January 21, 2009, 03:05:19 PM
I don't see how that middle third is debateable. You have 3 top 25 teams in the BE side and none from the ACC. FSU and Miami showed up in the others receiving votes, with WVU getting similar representation to Miami. Providence and Cincy should be able to make it interesting against VT and BC - looks like Providence lost by 5 @ BC earlier in the season.
I was thinking ND and MU better than ACC, WVU & Nova comparable to the ACC teams and Cincy and Providence a little worse. I thought we were better, but not by a ton.
Quote from: dsfire on January 21, 2009, 01:20:11 PM
Side note: Jonny Flynn makes the BE's top 5 star power list? No wonder we didn't win that category per SportingNews.
...Johnny Flynn is a top 5 PG in the country
Wake-Duke-UNC - okay, that top 3 is unbeatable. But would never put Clemson ahead of anyone in the Big East top 4, or even 5 or 6 for that matter.
I compare the two every year using http://kenpom.com/rate.php, just because it's an unbiased rating so you can't argue regionally biased voting, and it gives a rating to every team. It is also a very accurate predictor of outcomes if you watch it over the course of the year. I put No. 1 vs. No. 1, No. 2 v No. 2 etc. and see who wins out.
At this stage, it's Big East 9 and ACC 3 - with the ACC winning the top three "seeds" but in very close matchups, but then the Big East dominating from there on out:
ACC 1 Duke 4 Pittsburgh
ACC 3 UNC 5 Georgetown
ACC 6 Wake 7 Connecticut
Big East 23 Clemson 12 West Virginia
Big East 31 Miami FL 13 Louisville
Big East 53 Maryland 24 Marquette
Big East 62 FSU 28 Villanova
Big East 81 Boston C 30 Syracuse
Big East 84 Virginia Tech 43 Notre Dame
Big East 87 Virginia 78 Providence
Big East 90 NC State 85 Cincinnati
Big East 103 Georgia Tech 96 South Florida
It's just not close this year. Our top 12 are much better than the ACC, and the ACC has been a shell of its former greatness the last few years, with very few runs in the tournaments.
Sure the four teams at the bottom weigh down any "average" calculation you do, but why are we punished for having four more teams we have to get through while the ACC plays the Southern Conference or whoever?
No contest since the Big East expanded.
Quote from: Badgerhater920 on January 21, 2009, 03:35:15 PM
...Johnny Flynn is a top 5 PG in the country
Wake-Duke-UNC - okay, that top 3 is unbeatable. But would never put Clemson ahead of anyone in the Big East top 4, or even 5 or 6 for that matter.
hold up, wait a minute... top 3 is unbeatable? i could care less about the rankings, but you put the top 3 BE teams at the end of the season (still have to see who it is) against those 3 teams on a neutral court and I would still take the BE in 2 of those 3. In my opinion, only UNC at its best is unbeatable from that conference, esp against a top BE squad. Wake and Duke are both beatable, and I would argue by multiple BE teams.
I know that Duke just beat G'town, but I am talking neutral court. I do not buy for one second that Duke or Wake would beat the top 3 teams from the BE. Heck, the fact that we have no idea who the top 3 teams even are yet shows how good those top 3 will be when all is said and done
Quote from: dsfire on January 21, 2009, 01:12:49 PM
All the conference comparisons are going to get old rather quickly, but one quibble: the head-to-head record is kind of silly, as most of the wins on each side have come from higher-ranked teams beating lower-ranked teams from the other conference. Five of the ACC wins have come against USF, St. John's, and Rutgers, and the game that probably had the most meaning - Duke over Georgetown - would've looked quite a bit different on a neutral court.
That said, the ACC certainly has a claim at being the best conference by a number of different metrics. As things stand right now, Big East looks good for Sweet 16 teams, but ACC likely has just as many Final 4 & National Champion contenders in a smaller conference.
The other thing to note about the H2H matchups is that the ACC hosted 7 times while the BE hosted 3 (two of those were St. John's @ MSG). The other 5 were neutral site games in which the BE won 3 games. Under these conditions I would not give the nod to ACC over the BE. At worst it is inconclusive.
Quote from: mudimitri on January 21, 2009, 04:11:01 PM
hold up, wait a minute... top 3 is unbeatable? i could care less about the rankings, but you put the top 3 BE teams at the end of the season (still have to see who it is) against those 3 teams on a neutral court and I would still take the BE in 2 of those 3. In my opinion, only UNC at its best is unbeatable from that conference, esp against a top BE squad. Wake and Duke are both beatable, and I would argue by multiple BE teams.
I know that Duke just beat G'town, but I am talking neutral court. I do not buy for one second that Duke or Wake would beat the top 3 teams from the BE. Heck, the fact that we have no idea who the top 3 teams even are yet shows how good those top 3 will be when all is said and done
I agree with you wholeheartedly about Duke and Wake. On a neutral court, i think Big East teams 1-7 could beat Duke or Wake. I didn't mean unbeatable on the court. I meant, right now, the ACC top 3 seems to be the best in the country - should have been more clear.
I think when it comes tournament time the BE teams will do better just because I think the depth in the beast will make the teams tougher.
wake lost at home to VT. Len Elmore says about VT- "they bended a little bit, but did not break" ;D
Len Elmore then went for 20 minutes about how two VT players grew up in NYC.
There are so many easy arguments to tear down DeCourey's ACC hype, my response below on Sporting News blog is one of many that are way over his head:
Dear Mr. DeCourey:
Regarding your "No Contest" article on the Big East vs. the ACC, the only thing I agree with you on this one is that the debate isn't really much of one. Let's look at your five factors.
1. Polls – obviously even you couldn't misread the polls, dominated by the Big East.
2. Star Power – you blindly assert that the ACC has bigger star power. How about an objective measure, such as NBA players? It's close, but the Big East maintains 58 players on NBA rosters to 54 for the ACC, with the Pac 10 next closest at 41.
3. Your "Depth" is hilarious – you cleverly count how many teams are "around" .500 as your sole basis for depth. Take out the "around," and you have 2 ACC teams (16.7%) at or below .500 to 3 Big East teams (18.75%). So you are basing your whole depth argument on a 2% difference in percent of teams at or below .500 (what?), instead of the fact that the Big East will be the first conference to put 9 teams in the NCAA again, while the ACC will probably place only 4 teams (that's less than half since you like math) for the 3rd time in 4 years.
4. Wins – Get serious, no one cares if NC State starts 5-1 by playing 5 teams ranked 288th or lower of 343 Division I schools. Let's talk about wins that mean something. The great thing is once the Big East teams get in the NCAA, they also go deeper than the ACC teams. Since the Big East expanded, the Big East has had 23 tourney teams to 15 for the ACC, 9 Sweet 16 teams to only 4 for the ACC, and 4 Elite 8 teams to only 2 for the ACC. Both have had only one Final Four team due to beating each other up during the season and tournament. Sorry, no contest.
5. Head-to-head – The ACC bloated their record with 4 games scheduled against St. John's or USF – otherwise the Big East has the edge. The fair head-to-head would be if the top team in the ACC played the top team in the Big East, No. 2 played No. 2, etc. I've always done this at the end of the season, giving the win to whichever team gets further in the NCAA, then the NIT, and if neither team made any tournament then I give the win to whoever is rated higher at http://kenpom.com/rate.php. The ACC used to usually win the battle, but since the realignment, the Big East has gone 12-0 (in 2006), 6-6, 11-1 and is 9-3 this year.
With the Big East so clearly dominant on all 5 of your criteria, your only argument left is that the Big East's No. 13-16 teams aren't as good as ... who? The ACC doesn't even have 13th to 16th best teams, so your only argument left is, "yeah, the Big East's top 12 teams are much better than the ACC, but the other four teams aren't any good." WEAK.
The only problem I have with either side of this debate is claiming there is "no contest" between one conference's superiority over the other. Its always subjective and equally debatable on both sides. We should at least be able to agree that it is not like one is waaaayyyy above the other, which you could do with EVERY other conference. If you think it is so clear one conference is so much better than the othe you are wrong in many multiple subjective ways, thats the way I take from this article.
On a side note, I simply think that the depth of the BEAST and how its so hard to ever get a break in scheduling for a weekend, much less a week makes it harder on the players......but still thats debatable.
Quote from: KCMarq09 on January 21, 2009, 10:27:26 PM
On a side note, I simply think that the depth of the BEAST and how its so hard to ever get a break in scheduling for a weekend, much less a week makes it harder on the players......but still thats debatable.
You get a break when you play the bottom 5 of our conference (31% of the teams), plus Cincy and Providence are just OK. You don't think DePaul at home this weekend is a break?
It is unfair to ignore our bottom four teams when comparing conferences because they do exist and we get to play them. Frankly, I think the ACC is just a little better, mainly because the bottom third of their conference is significantly better than the bottom third of ours. As for the top two-thirds of both conferences, there isn't a clear-cut superior conference. Too close to call, except that we have more teams at that level.
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on January 21, 2009, 10:04:44 PM
There are so many easy arguments to tear down DeCourey's ACC hype, my response below on Sporting News blog is one of many that are way over his head:
Dear Mr. DeCourey:
Regarding your "No Contest" article on the Big East vs. the ACC, the only thing I agree with you on this one is that the debate isn't really much of one. Let's look at your five factors.
1. Polls – obviously even you couldn't misread the polls, dominated by the Big East.
2. Star Power – you blindly assert that the ACC has bigger star power. How about an objective measure, such as NBA players? It's close, but the Big East maintains 58 players on NBA rosters to 54 for the ACC, with the Pac 10 next closest at 41.
3. Your "Depth" is hilarious – you cleverly count how many teams are "around" .500 as your sole basis for depth. Take out the "around," and you have 2 ACC teams (16.7%) at or below .500 to 3 Big East teams (18.75%). So you are basing your whole depth argument on a 2% difference in percent of teams at or below .500 (what?), instead of the fact that the Big East will be the first conference to put 9 teams in the NCAA again, while the ACC will probably place only 4 teams (that's less than half since you like math) for the 3rd time in 4 years.
4. Wins – Get serious, no one cares if NC State starts 5-1 by playing 5 teams ranked 288th or lower of 343 Division I schools. Let's talk about wins that mean something. The great thing is once the Big East teams get in the NCAA, they also go deeper than the ACC teams. Since the Big East expanded, the Big East has had 23 tourney teams to 15 for the ACC, 9 Sweet 16 teams to only 4 for the ACC, and 4 Elite 8 teams to only 2 for the ACC. Both have had only one Final Four team due to beating each other up during the season and tournament. Sorry, no contest.
5. Head-to-head – The ACC bloated their record with 4 games scheduled against St. John's or USF – otherwise the Big East has the edge. The fair head-to-head would be if the top team in the ACC played the top team in the Big East, No. 2 played No. 2, etc. I've always done this at the end of the season, giving the win to whichever team gets further in the NCAA, then the NIT, and if neither team made any tournament then I give the win to whoever is rated higher at http://kenpom.com/rate.php. The ACC used to usually win the battle, but since the realignment, the Big East has gone 12-0 (in 2006), 6-6, 11-1 and is 9-3 this year.
With the Big East so clearly dominant on all 5 of your criteria, your only argument left is that the Big East's No. 13-16 teams aren't as good as ... who? The ACC doesn't even have 13th to 16th best teams, so your only argument left is, "yeah, the Big East's top 12 teams are much better than the ACC, but the other four teams aren't any good." WEAK.
That's a well thought out response.
Who is Mr. DeCourey?