Is the New Big East Acutally Better Than The Old Big East?

[Tugg Speedman]

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

[JD]

Overall, definitely not.  National championships speak for themselves.

Comparing this year alone, I would say so

[Tugg Speedman]

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!

[brewcity77]

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.

[wadesworld]

No.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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).

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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.

[Herman Cain]

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. 

[RubyWiscy]

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.

[geps]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[MUfan12]

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...

[The Equalizer]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[GoldenWarrior11]

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. 

[GoldenWarrior11]

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.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Double post.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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).