The Big East In The NCAA And It Reputation?

[Tugg Speedman]

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?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

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.

[Warrior of Law]

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.

[DienerTime34]

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.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

That said, two teams in the final 4 would help.

[We R Final Four]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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!

[Coleman]

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 Lens]

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.

[Coleman]

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.

[Babybluejeans]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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 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.

[frozena pizza]

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.

[THRILLHO]

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.

[frozena pizza]

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.

[CountryRoads]

Single elimination = crapshoot

[mu03eng]

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

[SaveOD238]

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.   

[Groin_pull]

What about the Big 10 and its reputation? They keep sh*tting the bed so far in this tourney.

[T-Bone]

[ChicosBailBonds]

Damn straight!

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[willie warrior]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.