I'm sure their is a way to measure this via some website or something. In leiu of that, the two lists below sure look like the New Big East is actually a better basketball conference than the old Big East.
Thoughts?
The New Big East is ...
Catholic 7 plus
Xavier #6, 11-0
Butler #9, 9-1
Creighton, no votes 8-4
The Old Big East Was ....
Catholic 7 plus
Louisville, #16, 9-1
Cincy, #22, 10-3
Uconn, Other getting votes, 8-3
Pittsburgh, other getting votes, 9-1
West Virginia, no votes, 10-1
Notre Dame no votes, 8-3
Syracuse no votes, 9-3
Rutgers, no votes 4-7
South Florida, no votes, 3-10
Overall, definitely not. National championships speak for themselves.
Comparing this year alone, I would say so
Quote from: JD on December 23, 2015, 07:46:29 PM
Overall, definitely not. National championships speak for themselves.
Comparing this year alone, I would say so
I meant this year. The New Big East is 2+ years old, you cannot compare it to a league that had 30+ years of success.
Restated, for all the belly aching about the old Big East disbanding, and count me in this group, has anyone noticed that the New Big East is, right now, a better conference?
The Big East remade itself ... and it's better!
From a metric perspective, yes. There's less dead weight at the bottom and a ton of quality from 1-8.
From a sex-appeal perspective, not even close. We know how good Providence, Xavier, and Butler are, but no neutral fan will hear those names and think of them as remotely as good as Syracuse, UConn, and Louisville.
Probably doesn't help that ESPN keeps reminding people this is the New Big East, rather than just accepting that it's the Big East. No one calls it the New Big 10 after adding Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska. No one calls it the New SEC after adding Missouri and Texas A&M. No one calls it the New ACC after raping and pillaging our old conference for anyone remotely worth having.
No.
Would you take all the old teams back if it was guaranteed that the conference would stay together for five years? I would in a heartbeat.
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on December 23, 2015, 08:07:46 PM
Would you take all the old teams back if it was guaranteed that the conference would stay together for five years? I would in a heartbeat.
I actually wouldn't, because there'd be no guarantee of what would happen after that. Maybe we spiral into the Horizon. I love our new conference. I realize it will never be what the 2005-2013 Big East was, but those last three years just sucked. Getting blindsided by Syracuse and Pitt, then losing WVU, that was terrible. We had the brief hope that we might absorb the Big 12, then moments later it seemed like we might be left in the cold.
Going back to what was would mean inevitably going through all that all over again, with no guarantee we'd come out in as good a position we currently are. I really hope in the coming years, we'll get programs challenging for titles, and hope we'll be one of them, but if we don't, I'd rather be in a great basketball conference where we know what to expect year to year than to wake up scanning headlines to see who was coming, going, or backstabbing us.
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on December 23, 2015, 08:07:46 PM
Would you take all the old teams back if it was guaranteed that the conference would stay together for five years? I would in a heartbeat.
Trade three teams for nine, yes.
What Old Big East team would you trade Xavier or Butler for, 1 for 1?
Louisville and Syracuse have very old coaches that will be gone in a year or two (sooner in the case of Syracuse). See Madison ... after the legend leaves, they "go away" for a few years. See IU, it can be really difficult to come back from the Legend (IU has been OK post Knight, X and Butler have been better).
West Virginia? Another old legend that will be gone and they will also "go away?"
ND, Pitt, Cincy, Uconn? What is their future versus X and Butler? Is it better?
Rutgers and South Florida suck.
X and Butler both have young coaches and have their programs going north. So again, who would you trade X and Butler for?
Louisville and Syracuse can hire butler and Xavier's coaches. Don't get me wrong I like our new conference but I would go back in a heartbeat. Five years is an eternity. It worked out well the first time (stability vs higher profile).
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on December 23, 2015, 08:39:12 PM
Louisville and Syracuse can hire butler and Xavier's coaches. Don't get me wrong I like our new conference but I would go back in a heartbeat. Five years is an eternity. It worked out well the first time (stability vs higher profile).
Syracuse is going to hire their assistant Hopkins like Madison is going to hire Gard.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 23, 2015, 08:42:03 PM
Syracuse is going to hire their assistant Hopkins like Madison is going to hire Gard.
That is their choice. They don't have to hire a career assistant.
I absolutely prefer this incarnation of the Big East. I believe within a couple of years we will have 10 above average programs. The double round robin format is what gives this conference a lot of traction going forward. it makes for real rivalries. The key for all our teams is that Basketball is the centerpiece and every program has something positive going for it.
For example,I went to a Creighton game the other night and the place was sold out for a cupcake and their fan base was wildly enthusiastic about the Big East, and they are coming off the same type of year we had. They feel they have a good recruiting pipeline and they support their coach. Everyone feels good about it. Even look at DePaul, the new arena will do wonders for that program.
I think MU is in a great place with this and when we get our program back to full health we can schedule plenty of big name opponents in the non conference part of the season.
As much as I have to admit I miss several of the old schools, can hardly complain about the new additions. Creighton came in with a bang and will be back up soon, Butler lost Stevens, but hardly missed a beat. and Xavier has been outstanding. That said, they still do not carry the prestige of the old schools...yet.
There is still much work to be done to get even close to the respect of the "Old " BE
Georgetown and Marquette need to regain their historical prominence. Providence is doing fine, but Hall and St. John's need to continue to improve. (DePaul is a lost cause at the moment.)
Regular season results are fine, but ya gotta make some noise in the tournament. (See Nova) We need to get one or two teams into the Final Four. Better yet a National Championship.
What the BE has going for it now is its focus on basketball. I firmly believe this will be recognized as a major strength in the near future as the stock of the BE schools continues to rise. I am very optimistic in 5 years the BE will be close to its old level of respect.
Would Xavier and Butler get a #6 and 9 ranking if still in A 10? Doubtful but new Big East must carry some weight. However, would Providence be #10 if in the old BE? Is Providence better than Louisville, Cincy, UConn or even WVU? I don't think so. But it's nice how it's worked out so far this year. What matters is March and new BE needs a Final Four participant.
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on December 23, 2015, 08:07:46 PM
Would you take all the old teams back if it was guaranteed that the conference would stay together for five years? I would in a heartbeat.
I take UConn & Cincy with a five year guarantee. We be back to where we are now, if they left. I would also go to a 22 game league schedule to keep the balanced schedule. Add one of two and go to 20 game schedule.
Guys, when you say you want the old version of the conference back you have to take all the football and realignment crap that comes with it. While an argument could may that the old version is nominally better than the new version from a basketball product....it's not worth all the crap we'd have to put up with to have it. Plus the media considered us a periphrial team in the old Big East...we weren't a traditional team so we weren't get any more attention than we are in the new Big East.
My opinion, if you would want the Old Big East back you don't have a firm grasp of how go we have it now. It's about as no brainer as this stuff gets.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 24, 2015, 09:35:19 AM
Guys, when you say you want the old version of the conference back you have to take all the football and realignment crap that comes with it. While an argument could may that the old version is nominally better than the new version from a basketball product....it's not worth all the crap we'd have to put up with to have it. Plus the media considered us a periphrial team in the old Big East...we weren't a traditional team so we weren't get any more attention than we are in the new Big East.
My opinion, if you would want the Old Big East back you don't have a firm grasp of how go we have it now. It's about as no brainer as this stuff gets.
I think the New Big East gets all of this. All indications are Uconn would love to get back in right now, Cincy might do the same. The American Conference is not working out for them all that well.
The New Big East has a policy that football teams need not ask, the answer is always no.
So, who are the losers with the breakup of the old Big East ... the schools in the American Conference, Cincy, Uconn and South Florida. Close second is West Virginia in the Big 12 (stories say it is not working out that well for them).
Winners are the Catholic 7 that started the New Big East and the schools in the ACC ('ville, ND, Pitt , 'cuse) and the biggest winner of all is Rutgers making it into the Big 10.
Simple answer: No.
It's too early to tell if we'll be better even this season, and way way way WAY too early to tell about long-term.
The previous incarnation of the Big East was the best conference ever. I mean, in 2011, eleven freakin' teams made the dance, two teams that were tied for 9th (MU and UConn) reached the S16 and one of those (unfortunately, not us) won the national title. Going back further, in 1985, 3 of the 4 Final Four teams were from the Big East -- and BC lost by 2 pts in the Regional Semis to the Memphis team that went to the FF. And there were plenty of great teams between those two bookend seasons.
It's fine to think the Big East, so far, has turned out better than many of us hoped. But it's silly -- and based on no facts whatsoever -- to proclaim it better than the previous Big East.
As for Cuse and Ville having to change coaches soon ... didn't Butler lose its great coach to the NBA just two years ago? Did that kill the program? Didn't Xavier lose its coach six years ago? Did that kill the program? For that matter, didn't Marquette hand the reins to an unproven schlub named Buzz? Coaching changes happen, and predicting the next coaching changes will cripple programs like Cuse and Ville is also silliness.
Quote from: MU82 on December 24, 2015, 10:39:17 AM
The previous incarnation of the Big East was the best conference ever. I mean, in 2011, eleven freakin' teams made the dance, two teams that were tied for 9th (MU and UConn) reached the S16 and one of those (unfortunately, not us) won the national title.
To add to this point... though only 7 made the tourney in 2009, the strength of the league was unbelievable. 3 number one seeds, and five teams with top 3 seeds. Half of the Elite Eight and Final Four were from the Big East.
And to think, if Dominic hadn't broken his foot...
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 23, 2015, 07:58:28 PM
No one calls it the New Big 10 after adding Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska. No one calls it the New SEC after adding Missouri and Texas A&M. No one calls it the New ACC after raping and pillaging our old conference for anyone remotely worth having.
That might be because the Big 10, SEC and ACC added teams to pre-existing conferences, whereas the C7 left the Big East to form a new conference, then negotiated to take the Big East name.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 23, 2015, 07:58:28 PM
No one calls it the New Big 10 after adding Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska. No one calls it the New SEC after adding Missouri and Texas A&M. No one calls it the New ACC after raping and pillaging our old conference for anyone remotely worth having.
Did the Big Ten lose half of its programs? did the SEC? Did the ACC? Did any of those programs lose anybody nearly as consequential as Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, ND, etc? (The ACC did lose Maryland, a great basketball school, and more than made up for that with the schools it gained.)
Those conferences were added to, bolstered. The Big East was completely altered. One might even say "new."
It simply will take time for the newness to wear off. Hell, every year, a few announcers call us the Warriors! Change isn't always easy to digest.
The current incarnation of the Big East is better for its current member schools. What you have now are ten like-minded institutions, with a clear drive and focus towards basketball, in ten of the top media markets in the Midwest and East Coast, all working together for the same goals, the same objectives. No longer are the basketball schools being held hostage by the demands of the football schools, and having their best interests being placed in the backseat due to football.
Having said that, nothing can compare to the elite grouping of basketball teams in the old Big East - Syracuse, Connecticut, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Villanova, West Virginia, Marquette, Notre Dame, St. Johns. It's a shame that the greed of football destroyed that - as it appears that Boston College, Miami, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville and West Virginia all have failed to replicate their football success in their new conferences, even dropping off since their departures.
In a weird alternate reality, one where John Marinatto actually accepts ESPN's $1 billion TV deal and makes the football/non-football hybrid continuing to work and be successful, you could have (conceivably) had this version of the Big East alive and kicking today:
Full Members
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia
Memphis - Addition
Temple - Addition
Full Members except in Football
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
St. Johns
Seton Hall
Villanova
Football-Only Members
Navy - Addition
Army - Addition
If the conference had gone this route, they would have had their $1 billion TV deal with ESPN, a football conference championship game (which you could have held at MetLife Stadium), and they could have continued the football/non-football hybrid that would have appealed to all of the schools. Memphis and Temple would have brought very solid basketball programs, in addition to rising football programs. Navy and Army would bring national followings to the football side of things, as well a very competitive program in Navy. No need to go west and try and poach Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, Houston, etc., and most definitely no need to try and bring in schools that had potential like UCF, ECU, Tulane, and Tulsa (seriously, what was the thought process in inviting those schools???).
Nevertheless, I love our situation today in the current Big East. Fun to think about what could have happened, however.
Double post.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 24, 2015, 09:35:19 AM
My opinion, if you would want the Old Big East back you don't have a firm grasp of how go we have it now. It's about as no brainer as this stuff gets.
I firmly understand the reality of today's sports. I think we are in the best situation we could possibly have and am content with it - but I would trade it for another 5 years with those programs. I am not saying that this is even remotely possible - it just points out that while we are in an awesome situation we have had a higher profile situation and one that was better (while it lasted).
No. However, remembering all of the uncertainty and dread of just a few years ago, the current iteration is the best Marquette and the rest could ask for. Like minded institutions, basketball at the highest level... The one thing I am grateful to Larry for is the work he put in on this.
So, using Pomeroy as it has a history and it has been a fairly stable methodology over time for comparison sake...as of right now, the Big East is ranked fourth for this season.
Since the 2001-02 season until the present, the Big East average conference standing is 3.4th best
Before MU et al joined, it was 3.5
After MU, et al joined until the exodus, the average standing was 3.1
The New Big East has averaged fourth best over the last three years
So, the Big East has dropped about one place since the mass exodus. MU, Georgetown and DePaul to blame.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 23, 2015, 08:54:32 PM
I absolutely prefer this incarnation of the Big East. I believe within a couple of years we will have 10 above average programs. The double round robin format is what gives this conference a lot of traction going forward. it makes for real rivalries.
I can't go that far - the packed BC for UConn et Al was unreal - but we rode the unbelievable luck of being in the League as long as we could, and then when it looked like all would crash we pulled out an incredible Plan B.
Not even close.
Quote from: GoldenWarrior11 on December 24, 2015, 12:25:54 PM
In a weird alternate reality, one where John Marinatto actually accepts ESPN's $1 billion TV deal and makes the football/non-football hybrid continuing to work and be successful, you could have (conceivably) had this version of the Big East alive and kicking today:
Full Members
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia
Memphis - Addition
Temple - Addition
Full Members except in Football
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
St. Johns
Seton Hall
Villanova
Football-Only Members
Navy - Addition
Army - Addition
If the conference had gone this route, they would have had their $1 billion TV deal with ESPN, a football conference championship game (which you could have held at MetLife Stadium), and they could have continued the football/non-football hybrid that would have appealed to all of the schools. Memphis and Temple would have brought very solid basketball programs, in addition to rising football programs. Navy and Army would bring national followings to the football side of things, as well a very competitive program in Navy. No need to go west and try and poach Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, Houston, etc., and most definitely no need to try and bring in schools that had potential like UCF, ECU, Tulane, and Tulsa (seriously, what was the thought process in inviting those schools???).
Nevertheless, I love our situation today in the current Big East. Fun to think about what could have happened, however.
In no alternative universe would this have worked. Pitt and Syracuse would have still jumped to the ACC and the entire thing would have crashed.
Further, that billion dollar deal would have given most of that money to the football schools. Basketball only is better with the FS1 deal.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 23, 2015, 08:54:32 PM
I absolutely prefer this incarnation of the Big East. I believe within a couple of years we will have 10 above average programs. The double round robin format is what gives this conference a lot of traction going forward. it makes for real rivalries. The key for all our teams is that Basketball is the centerpiece and every program has something positive going for it.
For example,I went to a Creighton game the other night and the place was sold out for a cupcake and their fan base was wildly enthusiastic about the Big East, and they are coming off the same type of year we had. They feel they have a good recruiting pipeline and they support their coach. Everyone feels good about it. Even look at DePaul, the new arena will do wonders for that program.
I think MU is in a great place with this and when we get our program back to full health we can schedule plenty of big name opponents in the non conference part of the season.
No way. I don't care about Creighton selling out a cupcake. I miss ND, Ville , UCONN, Cuse. Those games had electric atmospheres. The new league was our best option, but give me the old league any day.
Quote from: 79Warrior on December 25, 2015, 07:58:05 AM
No way. I don't care about Creighton selling out a cupcake. I miss ND, Ville , UCONN, Cuse. Those games had electric atmospheres. The new league was our best option, but give me the old league any day.
Other than ND, they were electric because they were consistently top 5 teams, with MU also being a ranked team. Today other than 'Ville most of them are "not receiving votes" teams with 'cuse probably not even a tourney team. How electric would be 'cuse v MU if they played next week at the BC, two non-tourney teams facing off?
You're living in the past. Today they are not that good.
Wanna know why? For the same reason Butler and X are both top 10 teams.
Cuse, Pitt, uconn and the group got WORSE because they left the Big East. X and Butler are national powers because they are in the Big East.
Quote from: tower912 on December 24, 2015, 02:00:43 PM
The one thing I am grateful to Larry for is the work he put in on this.
The man excelled at creating lesser value...
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 25, 2015, 09:08:25 AM
Other than ND, they were electric because they were consistently top 5 teams, with MU also being a ranked team. Today other than 'Ville most of them are "not receiving votes" teams with 'cuse probably not even a tourney team. How electric would be 'cuse v MU if they played next week at the BC, two non-tourney teams facing off?
You're living in the past. Today they are not that good.
Wanna know why? For the same reason Butler and X are both top 10 teams.
Cuse, Pitt, uconn and the group got WORSE because they left the Big East. X and Butler are national powers because they are in the Big East.
Living in the past? I think the same can be said for many Marquette fans.
Quote from: MU82 on December 24, 2015, 10:56:10 AM
Did the Big Ten lose half of its programs? did the SEC? Did the ACC? Did any of those programs lose anybody nearly as consequential as Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, ND, etc? (The ACC did lose Maryland, a great basketball school, and more than made up for that with the schools it gained.)
Those conferences were added to, bolstered. The Big East was completely altered. One might even say "new."
It simply will take time for the newness to wear off. Hell, every year, a few announcers call us the Warriors! Change isn't always easy to digest.
The Big East is probably closer to what the original conference was than any of the others out there. I realize it's different than the 16-team conference we saw for the bulk of the 2000s, but I'd argue this incarnation of the Big East would be less "New" than what this conference became when we joined in the first place.
I get people's arguments, but I have a hard time when we are the only conference labeled "New" yet no one points out that 44% of the ACC membership is new in the past decade and the Big 10 and Big 12 have changed so thoroughly that it appears they can no longer count.
At least the Pac-12 had the good sense to adjust their name to suit the new makeup of their conference.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 25, 2015, 09:08:25 AM
Cuse, Pitt, uconn and the group got WORSE because they left the Big East. X and Butler are national powers because they are in the Big East.
Well, Butler did go to consecutive national title games when the Big East wasn't even a twinkle in their eyes.
Xavier was an NCAA tourney regular long before it joined the Big East and went to the Elite Eight in 2004 and 2009. From 2008-12, X went E8-S16-S16-First Rd-S16 -- pretty impressive, and the Big East had nothing to do with it.
Hell, Butler had its worst season in eons in 2013-14, its first in the Big East. I don't think the Big East was to "blame." It just was part of the cycle.
Bulter and X wanted to come to the Big East for the money and the prestige ... and the Big East wanted them because they already were big-time, established programs.
Quote from: MU82 on December 25, 2015, 03:28:55 PM
Well, Butler did go to consecutive national title games when the Big East wasn't even a twinkle in their eyes.
Xavier was an NCAA tourney regular long before it joined the Big East and went to the Elite Eight in 2004 and 2009. From 2008-12, X went E8-S16-S16-First Rd-S16 -- pretty impressive, and the Big East had nothing to do with it.
Hell, Butler had its worst season in eons in 2013-14, its first in the Big East. I don't think the Big East was to "blame." It just was part of the cycle.
Bulter and X wanted to come to the Big East for the money and the prestige ... and the Big East wanted them because they already were big-time, established programs.
Butler and X have moved to the next level in the Big East. They are both top 10 and Andy Katz has X penciled in as a Final 4 team.
That said, what are you arguing? that we'd be better off in a conference with a bunch of teams not getting votes a day potentially headed to the NIT called Pitt, Syracuse WVU and Rutgers over a conference with 2 top 10 teams and a legitimate FF candidate?
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 25, 2015, 03:57:35 PM
Butler and X have moved to the next level in the Big East. They are both top 10 and Andy Katz has X penciled in as a Final 4 team.
That said, what are you arguing? that we'd be better off in a conference with a bunch of teams not getting votes a day potentially headed to the NIT called Pitt, Syracuse WVU and Rutgers over a conference with 2 top 10 teams and a legitimate FF candidate?
I'm arguing that entrance into the Big East did not suddenly transform downtrodden schmoes Butler and Xavier into instant wonderfulness. Butler and Xavier were pretty darn good before the Big East beckoned. Again, Butler didn't need the Big East to go to back-to-back national title games.
I maintain that the previous incarnation of the Big East was better than this one. We have 10 teams now, most of which are solid. A few years ago, we had 11 IN THE NCAA TOURNEY!
Now, if you are arguing that the Big East is better with today's Butler, today's Xavier and today's Creighton than it would have been with today's UConn, today's Louisville, today's Pitt, today's West Virginia, today's Cincinnati, today's Syracuse and today's Notre Dame ...
1. Maybe, but it's impossible to prove.
2. Wouldn't UConn, et al, be benefiting from the positive "Big East Effect" that you are attaching to Butler and Xavier?
3. Your opinion is duly noted, as is mine.
Having said all of that, I do believe the Big East is a good conference for Butler, Xavier and Creighton, and I am glad the Big East has them as members.
I don't think the current Big East is better than what the league was in its heyday. Pittsburgh, UConn, Syracuse, and Louisville were title contenders every year. Villanova, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Cincy, and Marquette were all good bets to make the tournament. Now granted, at the time Providence, Rutgers, South Florida, and DePaul were all consistently bad, so you had more chaff at the bottom of the league, but there's no doubt in terms of sheer power, the old league was better.
Xavier and Butler are having good seasons, they aren't close to being national powers just yet. The only school that's played at all like a national power since the formation of this league is Villanova, and they've folded the tents come the first weekend in March. To get to the point where this league is better, we need teams that can consistently compete for titles. We don't have that yet. We don't have one, much less the 2-3 it would take to be on par percentage wise with the old league.
It's definitely a better fit, though, and I'd much rather be here. Do some people forget the agony of watching our best programs leave like thieves in the night, not knowing if we'd even have a conference to start the next season when rumors that not only would all the football programs split, but schools like Georgetown and Villanova were interested in basketball-only deals in the ACC? When the only nearby conferences that looked viable were the MVC and Horizon, and Dayton fans were trolling us?
Granted, I never thought we'd fall off the map, but that uncertainty was not fun, and this league has been the best possible thing for all of us. If we can get some teams to start making deep runs in March and put up a couple legitimate perennial powers, the way Pittsburgh used to do (not a glory program, but always was in the top-10...though hopefully with better March results), this league could be better than the old Big East. If we regularly get 6 bids, and occasionally get 7-8 while putting multiple teams into the second weekend and getting some teams to the Final Four (maybe not every year, but every other) then yes, it can be better than the old league.
Oh, one last thing it will need to be better...national championships. UConn, Louisville, and Syracuse all won national titles in that last decade of the Big East. If we want to be better than the old league, we need to win at least 1-2 titles per decade. Doesn't matter who, but someone has to cut down the nets at the Final Four for this league to ever truly match those heights.
Quote from: MU82 on December 25, 2015, 05:54:00 PM
I'm arguing that entrance into the Big East did not suddenly transform downtrodden schmoes Butler and Xavier into instant wonderfulness. Butler and Xavier were pretty darn good before the Big East beckoned. Again, Butler didn't need the Big East to go to back-to-back national title games.
I maintain that the previous incarnation of the Big East was better than this one. We have 10 teams now, most of which are solid. A few years ago, we had 11 IN THE NCAA TOURNEY!
Now, if you are arguing that the Big East is better with today's Butler, today's Xavier and today's Creighton than it would have been with today's UConn, today's Louisville, today's Pitt, today's West Virginia, today's Cincinnati, today's Syracuse and today's Notre Dame ...
1. Maybe, but it's impossible to prove.
2. Wouldn't UConn, et al, be benefiting from the positive "Big East Effect" that you are attaching to Butler and Xavier?
3. Your opinion is duly noted, as is mine.
Having said all of that, I do believe the Big East is a good conference for Butler, Xavier and Creighton, and I am glad the Big East has them as members.
Yes I'm only talking about this season. The current 10 team New Big East is a better basketball conference
this year than the collective play of the old Big East 16 teams combined.
The New Big East only has 2 completed seasons. Way to earlier to compare it to the old Big East. Stop me if you heard this before, we have to wait at least 5 years!
And, as I posted above, UConn and Cincy would love to get into the New Big East right now. The American conference is hurting them. But we are not taking them unless they dump football (which they will not).
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 26, 2015, 09:07:38 AM
Yes I'm only talking about this season. The current 10 team New Big East is a better basketball conference this year than the collective play of the old Big East 16 teams combined.
The New Big East only has 2 completed seasons. Way to earlier to compare it to the old Big East. Stop me if you heard this before, we have to wait at least 5 years!
And, as I posted above, UConn and Cincy would love to get into the New Big East right now. The American conference is hurting them. But we are not taking them unless they dump football (which they will not).
Okey dokey. We're mostly in agreement ... especially about all of this being impossible to prove and about it being too early to judge anything!
Quote from: MU82 on December 26, 2015, 09:29:09 AM
Okey dokey. We're mostly in agreement ... especially about all of this being impossible to prove and about it being too early to judge anything!
Yes but in year 3 (at for now) the New Big East is an improvement over the play of all the old teams. So, for now, we can stop with all the reminiscing of what could have been the old Big East stayed together,. For now, it is better!