Butler and Prov won on Thursday
Seton Hall Lost To Gonzaga
Questions ...
How important for the Big East's reputation that the #2 seeds Nova and Xavier get through this first weekend?
And if they do, and Butler and/or Prov can join them (big if), do you think this matters for the Big East's reputation? Or, is its reputation as an elite basketball conference already set no matter what happens between now and Sunday?
Wouldn't hurt but March is a crapshoot. Gonna be tough for Providence or Butler to beat UNC or UVA. I fully expect the other two to be in the elite 8.
Based on the number of teams receiving bids, it appears that the NCAA committee is convinced of the quality of the conference. Average fans likely need to see some proof in the Sweet Sixteen as there is still that stigma of the "new Big East". On that note, I think it would be huge if Providence or Butler, in addition to Xavier and Nova, advance. Considering the recent successes of Marquette, Creighton, and Georgetown, it demonstrates the greatest strengths of the Big East: depth and parity. Further, when your two worst teams (St. Johns & DePaul) are sleeping giants in the two biggest cities, things are looking good for the league's relative competitiveness. We live in a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world, so the Providence & Butler games are big for league reputation.
Conference reputation as it relates to the NCAA tournament is primarily the worry of people on message boards and talking heads on TV for about three weeks in March. Then it's immediately forgotten. To prove my point, even as a huge fan, can you tell me how the Big East performed in 2005, 2009, and 2012 relative to other conferences? Probably not.
Success over a long period of time is how reputation is built. You could probably grab random people off the street and they'd be able to tell you "UConn good, Kentucky good, Georgetown good," regardless of what those programs' success has been in the tournament or even the course of a few recent years.
That said, two teams in the final 4 would help.
I think it all hinges on Nova. If they get bounced early, the Charles Barkleys of the world will dismiss the BEAST even if they go 18-0 next year. They need to prove they belong on behalf of the conference--right or wrong.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 18, 2016, 09:08:23 AM
Wouldn't hurt but March is a crapshoot. Gonna be tough for Providence or Butler to beat UNC or UVA. I fully expect the other two to be in the elite 8.
Regarding the highlighted part ... for the sake of conversation ...
If two 8 seeds from the BE knock off the two 1 seeds from the ACC, what does that do to the ACC's reputation?
If this were to happen, only a MU FF run could top it!
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2016, 08:42:20 AM
Butler and Prov won on Thursday
Seton Hall Lost To Gonzaga
Questions ...
How important for the Big East's reputation that the #2 seeds Nova and Xavier get through this first weekend?
And if they do, and Butler and/or Prov can join them (big if), do you think this matters for the Big East's reputation? Or, is its reputation as an elite basketball conference already set no matter what happens between now and Sunday?
Incredibly important for both XU and Nova to hold serve and get to the Sweet 16. Beating a 15 seed and then a 7 or 10 should not be that difficult for two teams in the Top 10 in the country for most of the season. Anything short of a Sweet 16 for both teams would be a huge disappointment for the conference.
After that, things are less predictable. But I'd still like to see at least one Big East team in the Final Four.
I don't expect Providence or Butler to beat #1 seeds but that would certainly be gravy.
The NCAA is a crapshoot. Sure sometimes you roll the dice and 3 times in a row it comes up sweet but really it's a crapshoot. I mean you might have 2 of the best 4 odds at the table but again, it's a crapshoot.
I cannot stress enough, it's a crapshoot.
Quote from: The Lens on March 18, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
The NCAA is a crapshoot. Sure sometimes you roll the dice and 3 times in a row it comes up sweet but really it's a crapshoot. I mean you might have 2 of the best 4 odds at the table but again, it's a crapshoot.
I cannot stress enough, it's a crapshoot.
Yes and no. There's a reason a #16 has never beaten a #1.
It might be a crapshoot for seeds 3-14 but if you are a top 2 seed anything less than a Sweet 16 is a huge disappointment. You have extremely favorable matchups leading up to the Sweet 16.
Quote from: DienerTime34 on March 18, 2016, 09:15:23 AM
Conference reputation as it relates to the NCAA tournament is primarily the worry of people on message boards and talking heads on TV for about three weeks in March. Then it's immediately forgotten. To prove my point, even as a huge fan, can you tell me how the Big East performed in 2005, 2009, and 2012 relative to other conferences? Probably not.
Success over a long period of time is how reputation is built. You could probably grab random people off the street and they'd be able to tell you "UConn good, Kentucky good, Georgetown good," regardless of what those programs' success has been in the tournament or even the course of a few recent years.
That's a really good point. It's easy get caught on the granular level and think "having a few teams in the Sweet 16/E8 this year will really legitimize this conference to the average fan." But like you said, what we should be hoping for is SUSTAINED success by the same teams. Nova's there. Xavier's there. Butler's pretty much there. Providence is getting there. SHU is getting there. God willing Marquette and Gtown will get back there.
Those things happen and then all of the sudden we've got a conference that casual fans get excited about (seems like this year has helped advance the cause). Rivalries grow. All good things.
Quote from: DienerTime34 on March 18, 2016, 09:15:23 AM
Conference reputation as it relates to the NCAA tournament is primarily the worry of people on message boards and talking heads on TV for about three weeks in March. Then it's immediately forgotten. To prove my point, even as a huge fan, can you tell me how the Big East performed in 2005, 2009, and 2012 relative to other conferences? Probably not.
Success over a long period of time is how reputation is built. You could probably grab random people off the street and they'd be able to tell you "UConn good, Kentucky good, Georgetown good," regardless of what those programs' success has been in the tournament or even the course of a few recent years.
Disagree with this because of the unique situation that this is the "New Big East."
ESPN even did a "30 for 30" which was essentially the Big East's Obituary
REQUIEM FOR THE BIG EASThttp://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=requiemforthebigeast
So that is why I think Basketball fans are asking about the conference's reputation. It is not the BE of even 2012. That was a difference conference.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
Disagree with this because of the unique situation that this is the "New Big East."
ESPN even did a "30 for 30" which was essentially the Big East's Obituary
REQUIEM FOR THE BIG EAST
http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=requiemforthebigeast
So that is why I think Basketball fans are asking about the conference's reputation. It is not the BE of even 2012. That was a difference conference.
Which was a bit self-serving given that ESPN basically orchestrated the destruction of the conference and no longer has TV rights.
Quote from: Babybluejeans on March 18, 2016, 11:03:43 AM
That's a really good point. It's easy get caught on the granular level and think "having a few teams in the Sweet 16/E8 this year will really legitimize this conference to the average fan." But like you said, what we should be hoping for is SUSTAINED success by the same teams. Nova's there. Xavier's there. Butler's pretty much there. Providence is getting there. SHU is getting there. God willing Marquette and Gtown will get back there.
Those things happen and then all of the sudden we've got a conference that casual fans get excited about (seems like this year has helped advance the cause). Rivalries grow. All good things.
It's true that the tournament is a crapshoot and we shouldn't freak out over any given year. But I think "sustained" success requires tournament success, and in the first few years the BEAST has underperformed. While I think it's perfectly reasonable position to say that it's mostly just how the cards fell, we really need the cards to fall the right way one of these years -- otherwise the danger is that the perception will solidify that the BEAST is good but not top tier conference. As of right now that seems to be clearly not true but if that perception developed it would impact recruiting and feedback onto itself.
Tournament appearances and success is overvalued as a means of evaluating a conference. As others have said, tournament games are a crapshoot. If Providence beats North Carolina does that validate the Big East, or a reflection of the weakness of the ACC? Hardly. You really need to look at the overall strength of a conference from top to bottom over the full season.
Single elimination = crapshoot
A) Crapshoot
2) Reputation goes so far as the "news providers" content contracts. E$PN is tied in with ACC and B1G so any "data" that supports those conferences as the best will have that data pushed as news including tournament performance. Fox Sports would do the same things with the Big East or PAC12. It's all about #narrative
III) Crapshoot
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2016, 01:30:38 PM
Fox Sports would do the same things with the Big East or PAC12.
I bet they're in full out damage control over the terrible showing by the PAC12 this year. 1-5 so far, with only Utah advancing (and Oregon left to play). I don't know much about the PAC 12, but I'm all aboard the PAC12 is overrated bandwagon right now.
What about the Big 10 and its reputation? They keep sh*tting the bed so far in this tourney.
(https://i.imgflip.com/112j8t.jpg)
One game matchups do not validate anything, only amongst fans that are in silly land. For the same reason the Horizon League wasn't the second best conference in the country back to back because Butler made the title game. Or the Big West, was the best because UNLV won it all. Silly talk.
That said, I hope like hell the Big East does well, builds up those payment credits. It's great to plant those seeds in recruiting, etc, but anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows one game does not a season make.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 18, 2016, 04:06:43 PM
What about the Big 10 and its reputation? They keep sh*tting the bed so far in this tourney.
Yup. Izzos boys capped all over themselves destroying many brackets.
Quote from: frozena pizza on March 18, 2016, 12:34:53 PM
Tournament appearances and success is overvalued as a means of evaluating a conference. As others have said, tournament games are a crapshoot. If Providence beats North Carolina does that validate the Big East, or a reflection of the weakness of the ACC? Hardly. You really need to look at the overall strength of a conference from top to bottom over the full season.
I disagree, here's why.
Teams start the season already with a presumed hierarchy (ratings), in part determined by tournament success the previous year. Those initial ratings dictate "good wins" in the non-conference season for power conferences.
That creates an artificial hierarchy once the conference season begins. They then beat up on each other and certain teams (like MSU/Purdue/Maryland) that have a high rep based on preconceived ideals can lose to make it look like other teams (UW) improved a lot, when that analysis is artificial.
The NCAA's becomes an evaluation of whether these preconceived ideals are legitimate. Now, it does not mean that MSU is worse than Middle Tennessee state, but it certainly means that MSU was not as good as the preconceived ideals had them. Same goes for Purdue. When a lot of the teams (that are really highly rated, 1-4 seeds) grossly underperform (lose in first round) it is an indicator that the conference as a whole is over-rated and the achievements of teams in conference play are also over-rated as a measure of season wide improvement.
So, a game does not allow analysis of a teams overall quality or a leagues quality, but the composite performance of the leagues top teams in the first round is reflective of the top quality in the league. UW's win over MSU, means a lot less when Middle Tennessee State, in a win or go home situation is able to beat them.
Quote from: forgetful on March 18, 2016, 05:04:07 PM
I disagree, here's why.
Teams start the season already with a presumed hierarchy (ratings), in part determined by tournament success the previous year. Those initial ratings dictate "good wins" in the non-conference season for power conferences.
That creates an artificial hierarchy once the conference season begins. They then beat up on each other and certain teams (like MSU/Purdue/Maryland) that have a high rep based on preconceived ideals can lose to make it look like other teams (UW) improved a lot, when that analysis is artificial.
The NCAA's becomes an evaluation of whether these preconceived ideals are legitimate. Now, it does not mean that MSU is worse than Middle Tennessee state, but it certainly means that MSU was not as good as the preconceived ideals had them. Same goes for Purdue. When a lot of the teams (that are really highly rated, 1-4 seeds) grossly underperform (lose in first round) it is an indicator that the conference as a whole is over-rated and the achievements of teams in conference play are also over-rated as a measure of season wide improvement.
So, a game does not allow analysis of a teams overall quality or a leagues quality, but the composite performance of the leagues top teams in the first round is reflective of the top quality in the league. UW's win over MSU, means a lot less when Middle Tennessee State, in a win or go home situation is able to beat them.
Purdue simply choked that game. Up 13 with 3 minutes to go....why they didn't go big most of that game was just crazy.
Big Ten ended up ranked 5th in the country, which is a down year for them and about right.
Let's not forget that the top 4 seeds this year had more losses than any top 4 in history of the NCAA tournament. This is what it is....a crap shoot.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2016, 05:10:46 PM
Purdue simply choked that game. Up 13 with 3 minutes to go....why they didn't go big most of that game was just crazy.
Big Ten ended up ranked 5th in the country, which is a down year for them and about right.
Let's not forget that the top 4 seeds this year had more losses than any top 4 in history of the NCAA tournament. This is what it is....a crap shoot.
It is not a crap shoot. It is still a game based on skill. But I agree with you that the league ratings had the Big10 about right, but the NCAA over-rated them by putting in teams like Michigan and UW. Those teams showed in the non-conference that they were not very good. They improved their stance by taking advantage of the Big10 being over-rated by computers and the NCAA.
The tournament reflects that.
Quote from: Coleman on March 18, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
Yes and no. There's a reason a #16 has never beaten a #1.
It might be a crapshoot for seeds 3-14 but if you are a top 2 seed anything less than a Sweet 16 is a huge disappointment. You have extremely favorable matchups leading up to the Sweet 16.
Tell that to Sparty
I think what is most important for the Big East is to amass the large number of NCAA units possibles. That means Xavier and Villanova really need to make it to the second weekend. Two elite 8s would be great. Providence Butler is gravy. If they somehow win against the top seeds they have as good a chance as anyone to make it to the final 4.
We have a good reputation as a league. We are averaging half our teams each year in the tournament.
Marquette needs to do a better job of scheduling as it hurts the whole league for us to have a lousy RPI. Georgetown needs to get back on form as well.
Nova has a tough match up against Iowa. They need to step up and play the way they have all year.
Quote from: GWSwarrior on March 18, 2016, 05:22:11 PM
Tell that to Sparty
Jay Wright literally said this today, which I appreciate.
It must be March if it's time to carpet bomb threads with the crapshoot corollary.
Quote from: forgetful on March 18, 2016, 05:19:32 PM
It is not a crap shoot. It is still a game based on skill. But I agree with you that the league ratings had the Big10 about right, but the NCAA over-rated them by putting in teams like Michigan and UW. Those teams showed in the non-conference that they were not very good. They improved their stance by taking advantage of the Big10 being over-rated by computers and the NCAA.
The tournament reflects that.
Do you think Wisconsin wasn't going to get in with wins over teams like Syracuse on the road, who did get in? Temple, who also got in. Green Bay, also got in. VCU, also got in. Indiana, the Big Ten Champion. Iowa, Michigan State, Maryland, etc?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2016, 06:30:12 PM
Do you think Wisconsin wasn't going to get in with wins over teams like Syracuse on the road, who did get in? Temple, who also got in. Green Bay, also got in. VCU, also got in. Indiana, the Big Ten Champion. Iowa, Michigan State, Maryland, etc?
Syracuse is crap also. Have you watched them play?
When your best win is VCU and Temple out of conference and you lost to the likes of Western Illinois, Georgetown and UWM (two of those at home), you are not a tournament team, unless you have big wins in a good conference. The Big10 was not actually a good conference this year.
UW would have went 0-6 against Nova/Xavier/Seton Hall. They would have a losing record in the Big East.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on March 18, 2016, 06:06:34 PM
I think what is most important for the Big East is to amass the large number of NCAA units possibles. That means Xavier and Villanova really need to make it to the second weekend. Two elite 8s would be great. Providence Butler is gravy. If they somehow win against the top seeds they have as good a chance as anyone to make it to the final 4.
We have a good reputation as a league. We are averaging half our teams each year in the tournament.
Marquette needs to do a better job of scheduling as it hurts the whole league for us to have a lousy RPI. Georgetown needs to get back on form as well.
Nova has a tough match up against Iowa. They need to step up and play the way they have all year.
I think it enhances the reputation of the league once you get teams to the Sweet Sixteen. Less clutter and people are paying more attention.
Quote from: forgetful on March 18, 2016, 07:55:52 PM
Syracuse is crap also. Have you watched them play?
When your best win is VCU and Temple out of conference and you lost to the likes of Western Illinois, Georgetown and UWM (two of those at home), you are not a tournament team, unless you have big wins in a good conference. The Big10 was not actually a good conference this year.
UW would have went 0-6 against Nova/Xavier/Seton Hall. They would have a losing record in the Big East.
Well, they likely get to play Xavier next game.
I don't think they would have a losing record in the Big East. Once Nigel Hayes started figuring things out, they became a different team. They also wouldn't lose to all of those teams at home.
Don't get me wrong, they are an average UW team, but they are still worthy of a NCAA bid.
I think it is more important to the Big East than the so called power five conferences. Once the NCAA tournamnet is over the attention switches to football and that lasts until the football championship game.
NCAA tourney success matters.
Consistent tourney success year over year matters.
The reputation of the Big East is that it is a good conference. Success in the NCAA tourney year over year will make it a great conference. Add to it NCAA credits and it is all good.
It doesn't have to be the same teams year after year but if we can get a Big East team in the Final Four every year, it becomes a lot harder for anyone to knock the conference that it is a shell of its former self. Then you have a reputation that it is a great conference and those Big East bubble teams in any given year get a longer look.