Big East Hoops Chatter Time

by Sean Keeley on Mar 10, 2009 1:47 PM EDT Comment 13 comments

As the greatest conference tournament in college basketball begins, myself, Chris from Notre Dame blog Rakes of Mallow and Mike from Louisville blog Card Chronicle figured this was the perfect time for some inter-bloggal Big East hoops talk.

Chris got the ball rolling last night with a discussion on the All-Big-East team and Mike picked up the ball and ran with it, naming a Cardinal his pick for POY (natch) and making a pick for BET champion.

Now it's my turn.

So Mike, you take issue with Luke Harangody not being on the All-Big-East-First-Team and I'll have to play the homer card and wonder why Jonny Flynn isn't there as well. I mean, if you asked me to take one of those guys off the First-Team and replace him with Flynn, it's a tall order. But can someone at least define exactly what the Big East First Team is consisting of?

Six players? Why six players? Why not five? Then again, why not seven? Or eight? It just seems kind of arbtrary.

And I guess we're just naming five guys and not the best player at each position? Cause the current All-Big-East team is going to have a helluva hard time at the guard spot. I just wish someone who lay down the ground rules. It's like the Heisman trophy. One year it's about the guy with the best stats, the next year it's about the guy who was the best leader and another year it's about the guy who had the best overall career. I demand definitions!

Leaving that alone for a second, let's talk about who's going to win the BET. First of all, it's not going to be anyone from that first day. It's cute and all, seeing DePaul and St. John's here, but honestly I don't see the point. It's not like their making a lot of money off of it (one person in the building for the DePaul - Cincy game said it's likely 1,000 people). And truthfully, I don't want to see a DePaul or a South Florida make a run to the BET finals. It cheapens the conference and the season we had. It feels like a lose-lose to me, to be honest.

I'd love to say Syracuse but I'm realistic that this just isn't the year that a lesser seed wins the whole thing. That top four is just too strong and even if you beat one of them, you've got to play another one the next night. I cannot imagine any team in this nation can beat UConn-Pitt-Louisville or Villanova-Louisville-Pitt in consecutive nights, let alone any other team in the Big East.

So among those top four, I have to give the nod to Pittsburgh. I just think they've got UConn's number and there's something about them and the Big East Tournament. They rise up, especially recently. Then again, any of the top four seeds winning it all would not surprise me.

You're up, fellas. Here's the question...if "only" 7 Big East teams make it into the tournament, is that a disappointment for the conference?

Update: Card Chroincle steps up to answer...

0 recs | Comment 13 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If only 7 BE teams get in and...

the Big Ten gets 8 in, then that’s a disappointment for the conference.

by chicagocuse on Mar 10, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

We should have at least one more than the ACC and in my opinion at least two more than the Big Ten. That won’t happen (well the ACC part will), but for the Big Ten to have more than us is ridiculous. Even equal to us is just pitiful.

by NOLACuse on Mar 10, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Numbers guy..so..sorry, but

the BE’s top 10 teams (including GTown) have better RPI + SOS that the top 8 in BT which Lunardi has in. The BE has 5 teams ahead of Illinois (2BT) which is a #5 seed (currently). I know it goes down to who you beat and when, but these numbers mean alot from what i’ve seen. Example, ‘cuse has RPI of 17, SOS of 12. Illinois has RPI of 21 and SOS of 27. Maybe this is why I’m not on the committee but it makes sense to me.

by garett1210 on Mar 10, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You and your facts have no place in tournament selection room.

by Otis Hill on Mar 10, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Very true

by garett1210 on Mar 10, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

You are agreeing with me and pointing out that the BE should have more teams than the Big Ten in the Tournament, right? Thanks for the numbers btw, that will help in an argument with my Big Ten friends.

by NOLACuse on Mar 10, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

By should I mean in a reasonable world,

not the one that will likely send 8 BT teams to the Tournament.

by NOLACuse on Mar 10, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least

someone appreciates my services of a number cruncher. I guess if your a 4 legged mascot (Bearcat and Hoya) in the BET you lose. Seton Hall looks like their in against the ’cuse since they are playing the Bulls. Look out ’Nova, Pitt, and Uconn. oh no…I need to change my pic now.

by garett1210 on Mar 10, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's absolutely a disappointment

If the Big East gets only 7 teams in, and any other conference gets half or more of their members in, it’s just absurd.

I know every writer who goes to one of those ‘insider meetings’ with the selection committee comes back saying that cofnerences don’t matter, but I just can’t be convinced by this. The Really Big East just doesn’t get enough teams in, and the only reason for it that I can figure is because no one wants to put nine or ten teams from one conference in the NCAAs.

by drothgery on Mar 10, 2009 4:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

7 is not a disappointment

Considering how strong the top of the Big East is I don’t think you can say 7 is a disappoitment. The top of the conference only gave away 8 wins and 4 of those went to the other 3. Only ND, Nova, GTown, and Providence picked up defining wins. Not to mention you don’t play a balanced schedule. So while USF, Rutger and DePaul were horrendous, some teams only got those teams 3 times total instead of 4,5, or 6 which would give them more wins.

The problem was the schools from 9-13. Beating GTown or ND should have carried weight but it doesn’t therefore diminishing resumes. In The Big 10 everyone’s the same so every win counts as “big”. In a top heavy league, you’re just not going to get that many teams in. Look at the Big 12. They are going to struggle to get 5 because those marquee wins aren’t available to them.

I think this is the toughest Big East ever just looking at the teams. Sean just said “I cannot imagine any team in this nation can beat UConn-Pitt-Louisville or Villanova-Louisville-Pitt in consecutive nights, let alone any other team in the Big East.” Think about that for a second and realize that some of these teams had their SCHEDULE look like that.

by rs27 on Mar 10, 2009 4:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think if you reverse what Sean said

you can easily claim that the top 10 BE teams would thrive in any other conference. Look at the numbers garett1210 provided above. I think they prove that we have 8 teams that should be in no matter what. And in reality we should be talking about the BT getting no more than 6 bids. If you count every Big Ten win as big, when the top Big Ten teams are ranked/have RPIs that mirror our 6,7,8 seeds, shouldn’t the argument be made that teams that beat Cuse, WVU, PC and even ND/G-Town count just as much as any wins against Big Ten teams (other than Mich St which is a cut above)? I think that argument should hold up and as such, we should have no fewer than 8 teams in the tournament.

by NOLACuse on Mar 10, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

but thats all hypothetical. We can play that game all day. If you put the Big 10 teams in the SEC they would do well or the Big 12 or the Pac 10 or maybe the BE. We don’t know the answer to that because it didn’t happen. Thats stuff thats all pie in the sky. The fact of the matter is that the Top of the league was brutal and didn’t give the bottom half any wins which they could hang their hat on.

first off, RPI is a very very very flawed measuring tool. Teams that play lots of early road games and road games against very strong opponents get rewarded even if the lose.

Secondly, you still have to WIN the games. Does any reasonable perosn think Gtown or ND should get in? Sure they played tough shcedules but they didn’t win enough games. At some point that has factor in the criteria.

The committee uses RPI to help seed teams but not to put them in. Look at the history of the “new” RPI, teams in the 20s and 30s are being left out with regularity. I’m not dissapointed with 7 teams. If they had got 7 and had no “dominant” team then yes I would be disappointed. But having 3 dominant league teams makes this a different case in my mind.

by rs27 on Mar 10, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

having more teams in the tourney

doesn’t help the conference unless those teams advance. Instead having several teams in actually hurts the conference, considering that there will be a number of losses the round. Does getting a 7th,8th,or 9th team in the tourney, only to have them lose quickly, really help the conference?

Instead, I’d rather send the 5 or 6 best teams from the conference and watch them wipe the floor with the also-rans from the ACC and B10.

by stumpycuse on Mar 10, 2009 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs