Big East - Better than 2009? I say yes.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I really think people lack a fundamental understanding of how good the Big East is this year.  I think it's been the toughest top to bottom this year since the inception of the 16 team league in 2005-2006.  2008-2009 was hyped as the best ever, but I think it was easier to achieve a good record that year than this year, and MUCH easier last year than this year.  Using Pomeroy's efficiency ratings as a year over year comparison, it's pretty shocking what a gauntlet the conference season was in 2010-2011.  Take a look at the ratings grouped by tiers since 2006 (tier total listed first, cumulative total listed in parentheses):

2005-2006

1-10: 2
11-25: 3 (5)
26-50: 4 (9)
51-100: 5 (14)
100+: 2 (16)

2006-2007

1-10: 1
11-25: 4 (5)
26-50: 5 (10)
51-100: 2 (12)
100+: 4 (16)

2007-2008

1-10: 2
11-25: 4 (6)
26-50: 3 (9)
51-100: 3 (12)
100+: 4 (16)

2008-2009

1-10: 4
11-25: 3 (7)
26-50: 2 (9)
51-100: 3 (12)
100+: 4 (16)

2009-2010

1-10: 2
11-25: 2 (4)
26-50: 4 (8)
51-100: 6 (14)
100+: 2 (16)

2010-2011

1-10: 1
11-25: 6 (7)
26-50: 4 (11)
51-100: 3 (14)
100+: 2 (16)

If I had to rank the conference degree of difficulty by year, I'd say:

#1 This year (most top 50 teams - all of which are actually top 35; tied for most top 25 teams)
#2 2009 (tied for most top 25 teams)
#3 2008
#4 2007
#5 2006
#6 2010


It's very easy to look at 11-7 last year vs. 9-9 this year and cry "REGRESSION!" while failing to look at who MU actually played.  There were six top 35 teams last year.  There are 11 this year (12 depending on how you want to count Seton Hall with Hazell).  Last year's mirror teams were #21 Villanova, #88 Providence, and #172 DePaul.  This year's mirror teams were #15 Notre Dame, #27 UConn, and #56 (or better, again depending on how you want to look at it) Seton Hall.  The three straight road OT games MU prevailed in to save the season last year were against #75 Cincinnati, #67 St. John's, and #72 Seton Hall.  Those teams are rated 17, 31 and 56 this year, so narrow victories turned into defeats and talk of a "leadership void" combined with a "lack of b-ball IQ."  Finally, MU was ranked #33 last year, and #34 this year.  But there's no comparison between the schedules.  Shouting "REGRESSION" based purely on conference record is lazy and a bit disingenuous.  This team is NOT a pushover.  The Big East is just a beast - the best it's ever been.  Win on Tuesday and give WVU all it can handle on Wednesday and I like our chances to not only make the tournament but do a bit of damage as well.  The season ain't over folks!  Have a little faith!

[Silkk the Shaka]

Adding to this, MU's conference wins & losses by tier (tier record listed first, cumulative record in parentheses):

2010-2011

1-10: 0-1
11-25: 3-4 (3-5)
26-50: 1-3 (4-8)
51-100: 3-1 (7-9)
100+: 2-0 (9-9)

12 top 50 games (14 if you want to count SH), 6 51+ games (4 if you want to count SH)
MU was 4-8 (or 5-9) in top 50, 5-1 (or 4-0) in 50+

2009-2010

1-10: 0-2
11-25: 1-2 (1-4)
26-50: 1-2 (2-6)
51-100: 7-0 (9-6)
100+: 2-1 (11-7)

8 top 50 games, 8 51+ games
MU was 2-6 and 9-1 respectively

2008-2009

1-10: 1-3
11-25: 1-2 (2-5)
26-50: 3-0 (5-5)
51-100: 3-0 (8-5)
100+: 4-1 (12-6)

10 top 50 games, 8 51+ games
MU was 5-5 and 7-1 respectively

2007-2008

1-10: 0-3
11-25: 1-2 (1-5)
26-50: 2-2 (3-7)
51-100: 3-0 (6-7)
100+: 5-0 (11-7)

8 top 50 games, 8 51+ games
MU was 3-7 and 8-0 respectively

2006-2007

1-10: 0-1
11-25: 4-2 (4-3)
26-50: 2-2 (6-5)
51-100: 2-1 (8-6)
100+: 2-0 (10-6)

11 top 50 games, 5 51+ games
MU was 6-5 and 4-1 respectively

2005-2006

1-10: 1-1
11-25: 2-2 (3-3)
26-50: 2-2 (5-5)
51-100: 4-1 (9-6)
100+: 1-0 (10-6)

10 top 50 games, 6 51+ games
MU was 5-5 and 5-1 respectively


Prior to this year, MU was 21-28 against top 50 teams and 33-4 against 51+ teams.  We have played 14 of the former and 4 of the latter in 2010-2011, by far the most of the first and the least of the second.  Our Pomeroy rankings, beginning with 2006 are 28, 38, 11, 19, 33, and now 34 this year.  Have we "regressed?" Or have we just played a brutal conference schedule?  Seems like it's the latter upon closer look.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Prior to this season, MU was a collective 11-20 (35.5%) against top 25 Pomeroy teams in regular season conference play.  This year, we are 3-5 (37.5%).  Regression or schedule?

[Marqus Howard]

I would agree with this for the most part, except I think that it's important to note that there were 4 top ten teams in 08-09, compared to only 1 this year.

Since the big east is (probably) better from top to bottom this year (but also more condensed in rankings), Marquette can win any game, but also lose any game. In 08-09 there was a greater chance of us beating teams ranked 5-16, but also a greater chance of us losing to teams ranked 1-4 (not sure where we were ranked to finish the year).

[Silkk the Shaka]

Here is the breakdown vs. the other power conferences (tier total listed first, % of conference and cumulative % in parentheses):

Big East

1-10: 1 (6%)
11-25: 6 (38%, 44%)
26-50: 4 (25%, 69%)
51-100: 3 (19%, 88%)
100+: 2 (13%, 100%)

Big Ten

1-10: 3 (27%)
11-25: 1 (9%, 36%)
26-50: 2 (18%, 55%)
51-100: 5 (45%, 100%)
100+: 0

Big 12

1-10: 2 (17%)
11-25: 2 (17%, 33%)
26-50: 2 (17%, 50%)
51-100: 4 (33%, 83%)
100+: 2 (17%, 100%)

ACC

1-10: 1 (8%)
11-25: 1 (8%, 17%)
26-50: 4 (22%, 50%)
51-100: 5 (42%, 92%)
100+: 1 (8%, 100%)

Pac 10

1-10: 0 (0%)
11-25: 1 (10%, 10%)
26-50: 4 (40%, 50%)
51-100: 3 (30%, 80%)
100+: 2 (20%, 100%)

SEC

1-10: 1 (8%)
11-25: 1 (8%, 17%)
26-50: 2 (17%, 22%)
51-100: 4 (33%, 67%)
100+: 4 (33%, 100%)


The Big East has by far the highest % of top 25 and top 50 teams, and I didn't even include Seton Hall in that top 50 calculation.  Doing that widens the gap even further.

Looking even closer, the % of top 35 teams is staggering

Big East: 11 (69%)
Big 10: 4 (36%)
Big 12: 4 (33%)
ACC: 4 (33%)
Pac 10: 2 (20%)
SEC: 3 (25%)


You're playing a tournament-caliber team 2 out of every 3 games in the Big East this year.  The next highest conference is 1 out of every 3.  9-9 in this year's Big East is not evidence of regression!  It's evidence of a brutal league.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Depends what your criteria is.

2009...Three #1 seeds, Two #3 seeds, MU probably would have been a 3 or a 4 seed if DJ didn't go down.  WVU a 6.  All 7 teams in the top half of the bracket.  Four teams with 30 or more wins

Expert after expert said that was the greatest year for any conference in history.

Let's not confuse quantity with quality.  


Now, is this year's conference top to bottom more balanced, more teams that are competitive?  Yes...no disagreement there.  I guess it all comes down to what you want to use as your criteria.

If the 2009 Big East went up against the 2011 Big East...would ANY of the top 8 2011 teams beat any of the top 8 2009 teams?  I'd say no.  Heck, I believe the most of top 12 teams this year would lose to the top 12 teams that year.  The only difference being the bottom 4 now.  

[Silkk the Shaka]

MU's out of conference schedule was also the toughest it's been since the Big East began.

2010-2011

#3 Duke (Neutral)
#7 Wisconsin (Home)
#28 Vanderbilt (Away)
#35 Gonzaga (Neutral)
#93 Bucknell (Home)
#136 UWM (Away)

2009-2010

#9 Wisconsin (Away)
#14 Xavier (Neutral)
#24 Florida St. (Neutral)
#63 Michigan (Neutral)
#68 NC St. (Home)
#127 UWM (Home)

2008-2009

#29 Wisconsin (Home)
#31 Tennessee (Semi-Away)
#78 Dayton (Neutral)
#79 NC St. (Away)
#81 Northern Iowa (Neutral)
#155 UWM (Home)

2007-2008

#5 Wisconsin (Away)
#8 Duke (Neutral)
#57 OK St. (Neutral)
#91 IUPUI (Home)

2006-2007

#8 Wisconsin (Home)
#11 Duke (Neutral)
#70 Texas Tech (Neutral)
#145 Oakland (Home)
#145 Valparaiso (Away)

2005-2006

#15 South Carolina (Neutral)
#48 Wisconsin (Away)
#77 Winthrop (Home)
#104 Nebraska (Away)
#115 Oral Roberts (Neutral)
#145 Eastern Washington (Neutral)
#146 San Francisco (Home)


If I had to rank the out of conference schedules, this is where I'd put them:

#1 This year
#2 2008 & 2010 (tied)
#4 2007
#5 2009
#6 2006


So we've played the toughest in conference and out of conference schedule probably in Marquette's history this year (at least since we've been affiliated with a conference).  Just some food for thought for all the ledge jumpers.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Depends what your criteria is.

2009...Three #1 seeds, Two #3 seeds, MU probably would have been a 3 or a 4 seed if DJ didn't go down.  WVU a 6.  All 7 teams in the top half of the bracket.  Four teams with 30 or more wins

Expert after expert said that was the greatest year for any conference in history.

Let's not confuse quantity with quality.  


Now, is this year's conference top to bottom more balanced, more teams that are competitive?  Yes...no disagreement there.  I guess it all comes down to what you want to use as your criteria.

If the 2009 Big East went up against the 2011 Big East...would ANY of the top 8 2011 teams beat any of the top 8 2009 teams?  I'd say no.  Heck, I believe the most of top 12 teams this year would lose to the top 12 teams that year.  The only difference being the bottom 4 now.  

Would you agree that top 35 teams are considered tournament caliber?  I get that by using the # of at-large bids available (it used to be 33, then it was 34, now it's 36 I believe?).

This year MU faced a total of 16 in the regular season (4 out of conference, 12 in, 9 away/neutral)
Last year we faced a total of 9 (3 out of conference, 6 in, 6 away/neutral)
In '09 we faced 11 (2 out, 9 in, 5 away/neutral)
In '08 it was 10 (2 out, 8 in, 6 away/neutral)
In '07 it was 10 (2 out, 8 in, 5 away/neutral)
In '06 it was 9 (2 out, 7 in, 5 away/neutral)

So we went from playing 10 such games a year with 5 or 6 being away/neutral to 16 such games with 9 being away or neutral.  I'd say that's a much tougher schedule than we're accustomed to seeing - yet some want to look at our record on its surface and use it to say Buzz is taking the team in the wrong direction.  I just don't buy it.

[brewcity77]

Great stuff, JM. I'd agree that this has been our most brutal schedule, and I think our record reflects that. When you look at the number of teams we faced in conference play that will be in the tournament, not to mention that there's a chance as many as 6 of our 13 non-conference foes could be in, that's simply crazy. Nice thread.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Would you agree that top 35 teams are considered tournament caliber?  I get that by using the # of at-large bids available (it used to be 33, then it was 34, now it's 36 I believe?).

This year MU faced a total of 16 in the regular season (4 out of conference, 12 in, 9 away/neutral)
Last year we faced a total of 9 (3 out of conference, 6 in, 6 away/neutral)
In '09 we faced 11 (2 out, 9 in, 5 away/neutral)
In '08 it was 10 (2 out, 8 in, 6 away/neutral)
In '07 it was 10 (2 out, 8 in, 5 away/neutral)
In '06 it was 9 (2 out, 7 in, 5 away/neutral)

So we went from playing 10 such games a year with 5 or 6 being away/neutral to 16 such games with 9 being away or neutral.  I'd say that's a much tougher schedule than we're accustomed to seeing - yet some want to look at our record on its surface and use it to say Buzz is taking the team in the wrong direction.  I just don't buy it.

I don't disagree with you on the schedule strength...where I may have a nit is comparing the 2009 to 2011 Big East.  I see a lot of good teams in 2011, but maybe one great team.  In 2009, there were 5 GREAT teams...National Title contending type teams.  There were also a lot of good teams in 2009 as well.  I have a hard time seeing any of the 2009 teams upper half losing to any of the upper half of 2011.  Now, from a top to bottom analysis, this year is deeper.  I guess it just comes down to depth vs top quality, all depends on how you judge the conference.  2009, at the top, was the most ridiculous I've ever seen.

[Marquette84]

I don't disagree with you on the schedule strength...where I may have a nit is comparing the 2009 to 2011 Big East.  I see a lot of good teams in 2011, but maybe one great team.  In 2009, there were 5 GREAT teams...National Title contending type teams.  There were also a lot of good teams in 2009 as well.  I have a hard time seeing any of the 2009 teams upper half losing to any of the upper half of 2011.  Now, from a top to bottom analysis, this year is deeper.  I guess it just comes down to depth vs top quality, all depends on how you judge the conference.  2009, at the top, was the most ridiculous I've ever seen.

According to Pomeroy, the improvement in the conference has come exclusively from the 9th through 15th place teams, and most significantly 13th and 14th.

The top 8 teams all had stronger ratings in 2009 compared to 2011.  For example, the toughest team in 2011, Uconn, had a rating of .9749.  This year Pitt has a rating of .9636.   Place by place the trend continues, right down to the 8th toughest team in 2009 Georgetown .9079 compared to 2011 UConn .9054.

There were some significant differences at the bottom.  For example, the 13th place team in 2009 was St. Johns rated .6261.  This year, it's Rutgers, rated .7438.  Similarly, the 14th best team was USF in 2009, .5722.  This year its Povidence rated .7100.

Surprisingly, DePaul is rated worse this year (.3964) compared to 2009 (.4061).

[Silkk the Shaka]

I guess what I'm trying to say is look at the overall schedule we played that year and this year.  If this year's team (#33 Pomeroy) played that year and it went according to efficiency odds, it would have ended up like this:

#14 'Nova - L
#85 Cincy - W
@ #141 Rutgers - W
#9 WVU - L
@ #80 Providence - W
#198 DePaul - W
@#38 ND - L
#27 Georgetown - W
@#198 DePaul - W
@#135 South Florida - W
@ #14 'Nova - L
#116 St. John's - W
#73 Seton Hall - W
@ #27 Georgetown - L
#3 UConn - L
@ #4 Louisville - L
@ #5 Pitt - L
#15 Syracuse - L

That would put us at an identical 9-9 in the Big East, seeded 9th in the BET and a date with #198 DePaul in the first round, #80 Providence in the 2nd round (that year's 8 seed, compared with this year's 8 seed #27 Georgetown), and #4 Louisville in the semifinals.  That's one more conference tourney win we would have gotten, and you can add back the Dayton loss pre-conference, which is the only thing that would change in that portion of the schedule.  That would have left us at 23-11 on Selection Sunday with no bad losses and a Big East record of 11-10, which is much better than this year's resume.  This year's schedule was tougher top to bottom, plain and simple.