(07-12-2018 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'll stay with what guys were writing at the end of the 2014 season- written by guys that Big East Fans quote literally to slam the AAC. The Big East was not perceived as being a true power conference at that point. If they had kept on that track, they would not be viewed as a power conference today. It's that simple.

If they kept on track as a league ranked 4th/5th with 4/10 bids annually, they’d absolutely be considered a power conference.

(07-12-2018 11:59 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'll stay with what guys were writing at the end of the 2014 season- written by guys that Big East Fans quote literally to slam the AAC. The Big East was not perceived as being a true power conference at that point. If they had kept on that track, they would not be viewed as a power conference today. It's that simple.

If they kept on track as a league ranked 4th/5th with 4/10 bids annually, they’d absolutely be considered a power conference.

I think it would hinge on how the other conferences did. If the A10 had kept on getting 6 bids and the AAC had kept up- those 3 would have formed as Gassaway said in the article- kind of a middle niche.

(07-12-2018 11:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  sorry but a conference that only sent 4 teams to the tourney, got 2 tourney wins, and was #5 in the regular season ratings is no lock to be a power conference.

RPI, KenPom, Sagarin - they all looked at the entire season and all say the Big East was a Power conference that year and all better than an AAC that included Louisville.

Sorry about that.

(07-12-2018 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  sorry but a conference that only sent 4 teams to the tourney, got 2 tourney wins, and was #5 in the regular season ratings is no lock to be a power conference.

RPI, KenPom, Sagarin - they all looked at the entire season and all say the Big East was a Power conference that year and all better than an AAC that included Louisville.

Sorry about that.

You can act like season ratings mean everything, but they don't. I mean remember there was a period where the MWC was 6/7/4 in Ken Pom(and higher in RPI)- but I don't think anyone thought of them as being a power conference.

(07-12-2018 11:59 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'll stay with what guys were writing at the end of the 2014 season- written by guys that Big East Fans quote literally to slam the AAC. The Big East was not perceived as being a true power conference at that point. If they had kept on that track, they would not be viewed as a power conference today. It's that simple.

If they kept on track as a league ranked 4th/5th with 4/10 bids annually, they’d absolutely be considered a power conference.

In hoops how many Power conferences are there again? 5 or 6 right. So I guess as long as a conference stayed at 5th or higher, they would be considered power.

AAC on the other hand has averaged 3 bids per year and has had a max of 4 teams. Not quite part of the P6.

I just love how folks think what I'm saying is so awful. 2014 WAS a bad season for the Big East. It was the start of the New Big East. So to say the league got off to a slow start is nothing outrageous by any stretch of the imagination. The league themselves said they wanted better results, and to their credit, they went out and got it.

(07-12-2018 12:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just love how folks think what I'm saying is so awful. 2014 WAS a bad season for the Big East. It was the start of the New Big East. So to say the league got off to a slow start is nothing outrageous by any stretch of the imagination. The league themselves said they wanted better results, and to their credit, they went out and got it.

If you're that convinced, why are you spending time arguing and responding to everyone?

(07-12-2018 12:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  sorry but a conference that only sent 4 teams to the tourney, got 2 tourney wins, and was #5 in the regular season ratings is no lock to be a power conference.

RPI, KenPom, Sagarin - they all looked at the entire season and all say the Big East was a Power conference that year and all better than an AAC that included Louisville.

Sorry about that.

You can act like season ratings mean everything, but they don't. I mean remember there was a period where the MWC was 6/7/4 in Ken Pom(and higher in RPI)- but I don't think anyone thought of them as being a power conference.

In college football? Nobody pays attention to RPI and KenPom ratings in football, just hoops.

But FWIW, there was talk in the late 00s about the MWC being worthy of inclusion in the AQ club, that's when the AQ conferences established standards for getting in. Of course the next thing that happened was the MWC fell apart.

But none of that has anything to do with hoops, and in 2014, all the recognized metrics said the Big East was indeed a Power league. Sorry, that's just the way it was.

(07-12-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 11:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  sorry but a conference that only sent 4 teams to the tourney, got 2 tourney wins, and was #5 in the regular season ratings is no lock to be a power conference.

RPI, KenPom, Sagarin - they all looked at the entire season and all say the Big East was a Power conference that year and all better than an AAC that included Louisville.

Sorry about that.

You can act like season ratings mean everything, but they don't. I mean remember there was a period where the MWC was 6/7/4 in Ken Pom(and higher in RPI)- but I don't think anyone thought of them as being a power conference.

In college football? Nobody pays attention to RPI and KenPom ratings in football, just hoops.

But FWIW, there was talk in the late 00s about the MWC being worthy of inclusion in the AQ club, that's when the AQ conferences established standards for getting in. Of course the next thing that happened was the MWC fell apart.

But none of that has anything to do with hoops, and in 2014, all the recognized metrics said the Big East was indeed a Power league. Sorry, that's just the way it was.

No in college basketball.

i had never before met a member of the Flat Earth Society.

(07-11-2018 11:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 10:58 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I don't think starting off as a top 5 conference constitutes a "real slow start". Now if they started 8th or 9th than you can say it's a "real slow start". It was better than many folks thought they would start.

when you combine the regular season with what they did in the tourney (going 2-4 with Creighton getting bum rushed) it's a slow start. League barely got 4 teams in the tourney even. Had Xavier lose in PIG game. And the league was made to look worse given A10 got 6 tourney teams in and AAC won the title. Like it or not- conference ratings aren't the only measure of how strong a conference is. Number of teams making tourney and how far those teams advance is to a lot of folks just as important, if not more important. Like I said, look at the pieces that were written going into that 2nd season.

But they didn't. The A-10 got 6 teams in but still was ranked below the Big East because conferences are rated on the whole conference. They were rated as a top 5 conference despite having less teams make the tourny than the A-10. Also it seems UConn had what happened what people thought would happen to the BE. Without that power conference UConn has fallen back and won that title with Big East players.

(07-12-2018 11:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'll stay with what guys were writing at the end of the 2014 season- written by guys that Big East Fans quote literally to slam the AAC. The Big East was not perceived as being a true power conference at that point. If they had kept on that track, they would not be viewed as a power conference today. It's that simple.

So if they kept finishing as the 5th best conference every year they wouldn't be considered a power conference? By who?

(07-12-2018 12:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just love how folks think what I'm saying is so awful. 2014 WAS a bad season for the Big East. It was the start of the New Big East. So to say the league got off to a slow start is nothing outrageous by any stretch of the imagination. The league themselves said they wanted better results, and to their credit, they went out and got it.

How is finishing as the 5th best conference a bad season? The AAC never finished that high even with Louisville.

Consider this: Here are the top 10 conferences in 2013-14 in average Sagarin Rating for men's basketball, which does include postseason performance.

Big Ten: 83.90
Big 12: 82.88
Pac-12: 81.61
ACC: 81.47
SEC: 80.78
Big East: 80.75
AAC: 80.32
A-10: 79.05
WCC: 77.04
MWC: 76.15

Yes, the Big East finished #6, although they were essentially tied with the SEC. So if the Big East wasn't a basketball power conference that season, neither was the SEC. Note that the Big East performed only marginally better than the AAC, but that speaks more to the atypical success of the AAC that season (thanks mostly to Louisville and UConn's performances) than to a supposed drop of the Big East from power conference levels.

Consider further: Since the 1999-2000 season, when Sagarin Rating for basketball first came out, there have been just 10 instances of the basketball power conferences (P6 = ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10/12, SEC) averaging below 80 in Sagarin Rating.

ACC: 2011-12 (79.93)
Big 12: none
Big East: 2000-01 (79.84)
Big Ten: none
Pac-10/12: 2003-04 (78.51), 2009-10 (78.39), 2011-12 (78.25), 2016-17 (79.89), 2017-18 (79.29)
SEC: 2008-09 (79.34), 2010-11 (79.53), 2012-13 (78.62)

In the same time period, there have been only 4 instances of any other conference averaging above 80 in Sagarin Rating.

AAC: 2013-14 (80.32)
CUSA: 1999-00 (80.37)
MVC: 2006-07 (80.09)
MWC: 2012-13 (80.40)

So the Big East, even through its extensive membership changes, has consistently maintained an 80+ average SR since the 2001-02 season. That includes the (only relatively weak) 2013-14 campaign, where it still cleared 80. There should be no question that the Big East is and has long been a power conference in basketball.

I have no problem saying that at all. But to act like Quo does and say that the Big East started off strong and kept on is a joke.

Ken Pom actual ratings
2014- 12.26
2015- 14.24
2016- 13.94
2017- 14.54
2018- 15.33

Sagarin average ratings
2014- 80.75
2015- 82.99
2016- 81.90
2017- 82.89
2018- 84.08

Here's the problem with your analysis. It just proves how poor the 2014 season was. Only 10 instances of basketball power conferences sounds great- but you have to remember that's 6*19 or 114 seasons. The Big East 2014 season was the 19th worst season of those 114.

I think you have to ask what the goal was for the Big East? Was it to just be mentioned as a power conference, or was it to be included as one of the top 2-3 conferences. By all the statements made by Big East personel after the 2014 season, their goal was to be included as one of the best conferences(not just being a simple power conference). They were not happy with the 2014 season by any stretch.

(07-13-2018 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I have no problem saying that at all. But to act like Quo does and say that the Big East started off strong and kept on is a joke.

Ken Pom actual ratings
2014- 12.26
2015- 14.24
2016- 13.94
2017- 14.54
2018- 15.33

Sagarin average ratings
2014- 80.75
2015- 82.99
2016- 81.90
2017- 82.89
2018- 84.08

Here's the problem with your analysis. It just proves how poor the 2014 season was. Only 10 instances of basketball power conferences sounds great- but you have to remember that's 6*19 or 114 seasons. The Big East 2014 season was the 19th worst season of those 114.

I think you have to ask what the goal was for the Big East? Was it to just be mentioned as a power conference, or was it to be included as one of the top 2-3 conferences. By all the statements made by Big East personel after the 2014 season, their goal was to be included as one of the best conferences(not just being a simple power conference). They were not happy with the 2014 season by any stretch.

Bwahaha never mind you all are using a 10 year window for a conference that has existed for 5 and football terms in basketball.

Is the big east a power conference? Right now yeah, but they have litterally existed for one recruiting class. This shouldn't even be a discussion till you have more than one class to judge it on. Traditionally the schools in the big east have performed at a top level, it should surprise no one if they continue to do so.

(07-13-2018 09:44 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I have no problem saying that at all. But to act like Quo does and say that the Big East started off strong and kept on is a joke.

Ken Pom actual ratings
2014- 12.26
2015- 14.24
2016- 13.94
2017- 14.54
2018- 15.33

Sagarin average ratings
2014- 80.75
2015- 82.99
2016- 81.90
2017- 82.89
2018- 84.08

Here's the problem with your analysis. It just proves how poor the 2014 season was. Only 10 instances of basketball power conferences sounds great- but you have to remember that's 6*19 or 114 seasons. The Big East 2014 season was the 19th worst season of those 114.

I think you have to ask what the goal was for the Big East? Was it to just be mentioned as a power conference, or was it to be included as one of the top 2-3 conferences. By all the statements made by Big East personel after the 2014 season, their goal was to be included as one of the best conferences(not just being a simple power conference). They were not happy with the 2014 season by any stretch.

Bwahaha never mind you all are using a 10 year window for a conference that has existed for 5 and football terms in basketball.

Is the big east a power conference? Right now yeah, but they have litterally existed for one recruiting class. This shouldn't even be a discussion till you have more than one class to judge it on. Traditionally the schools in the big east have performed at a top level, it should surprise no one if they continue to do so.

now here i totally disagree given that it's basketball. guys don't stay all 4 years even in great situations. Look at Nova's 2 title teams. Only 3 guys who even played in the 1st title game played in the 2nd title game.

There is absolutely no doubt the Big East is a power conference. None. You can debate where they are on the power conference measuring scale- but they're definitely on there.

This is just such a weird argument. Power status isn't determined by a year-to-year ranking metric. It is given based on prestige. The SEC and PAC 12 are always going to be power conferences just like the Big East will as long as they have Georgetown, Villanova, and the other catholic schools. The fact that they had a really bad year and still got 4 teams in kind of proves that.

(07-13-2018 10:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is just such a weird argument. Power status isn't determined by a year-to-year ranking metric. It is given based on prestige. The SEC and PAC 12 are always going to be power conferences just like the Big East will as long as they have Georgetown, Villanova, and the other catholic schools. The fact that they had a really bad year and still got 4 teams in kind of proves that.

I've long made the argument (and have several times on this board) that there are no such things as "Power Conferences" as it relates to college basketball. There are only power teams. UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Gonzaga and a few others have more hoops prestige than half of the schools in a "Power Conference".

(07-13-2018 10:03 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is just such a weird argument. Power status isn't determined by a year-to-year ranking metric. It is given based on prestige. The SEC and PAC 12 are always going to be power conferences just like the Big East will as long as they have Georgetown, Villanova, and the other catholic schools. The fact that they had a really bad year and still got 4 teams in kind of proves that.

I've long made the argument (and have several times on this board) that there are no such things as "Power Conferences" as it relates to college basketball. There are only power teams. UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Gonzaga and a few others have more hoops prestige than half of the schools in a "Power Conference".

You could certainly make that argument. South Carolina for example is in a "power conference" but missed the tournament in 2016 in favor of Tulsa despite having more top 50 wins, a better record, and a win against them head to head. Having Power Conference status didn't really convey any benefit and doesn't to tons of schools.