(03-08-2022 12:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - to esayem's point, even if the current top Big Ten rosters aren't NYC/DC-heavy, I'm talking about a steady stream of guys like Oladipo and Garza that probably would have gone to the ACC or old Big East previously.

Note that for my Illini, Kofi Cockburn is a superstar (likely first team All-American and possibly Big Ten Player of the Year) and listed as being from Jamaica, but he grew up and spent his first 3 years of high school in NYC. (He then went to Oak Hill Academy in Virginia for his senior year.) It's a similar thing with Andre Curbelo - he's listed as being from Puerto Rico, but he grew up and went to high school on Long Island. That's just my own team where two of our core "international" players actually grew up in the NYC area. It definitely helps that Illinois and other Big Ten schools are now playing games at Rutgers and Maryland in a way that opens up recruiting opportunities (where these Midwestern state schools are no longer "in the middle of nowhere") that are now much more winnable compared to competing against the ACC and old Big East 10 years ago.

I really think it’s a stretch saying that. Especially for basketball. I mean Duke would always play road games vs Temple and St. John’s for recruiting purposes. That’s more of a sure thing than MAYBE having a conference road game at Rutgers and/or Maryland any given season. Maybe Garza likes farm chicks? Maybe Cockburn wanted to be near Chicago? OR maybe they liked the coach and their role on the team?

I’ve never bought into the “adding team in State A means it will open up recruiting.” The only way that works is possibly elevating a team to a better conference for their own recruiting benefit. For example, Rutgers should be getting better NJ football recruits now that they’re in the Big Ten. It ain’t doing a damn thing for Minnesota.

Well, sure, it's always a mix of coach + program + location + lots of other factors that go into an individual player's school decision. You can't always peg it to one thing.

That being said, adding Rutgers and Maryland did bring a familiarity to the rest of the Big Ten schools in those markets - it got those programs in the conference on the radar of recruits. It's not merely the visits to campus, but (arguably even more important) that every single Big Ten conference basketball game has been shown on TV in the NYC and DC markets via Rutgers and Maryland getting BTN onto basic cable carriage for the past decade, whereas you'd only see Big Ten games in those markets if it was a nationally televised ESPN or CBS game previously. I think that's an even bigger deal than a visit to a campus close to home and it's a large advantage that the Big Ten had to itself for several years. The ACC was still under its syndicated regional Raycom package for most conference basketball games up until 3 years ago (and the ACC Network was launched with cord cutting already in full swing). Up until 2019, the NYC and DC markets were able to see Nebraska vs. Iowa games (just as an example) when they had no guaranteed way to watch even, say, Duke vs. NC State unless it was an ESPN game. We shouldn't discount how massive of a TV exposure advantage that the Big Ten has had (and still has) and that's in large part due to their East Coast expansion.

(03-08-2022 12:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 12:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - to esayem's point, even if the current top Big Ten rosters aren't NYC/DC-heavy, I'm talking about a steady stream of guys like Oladipo and Garza that probably would have gone to the ACC or old Big East previously.

Note that for my Illini, Kofi Cockburn is a superstar (likely first team All-American and possibly Big Ten Player of the Year) and listed as being from Jamaica, but he grew up and spent his first 3 years of high school in NYC. (He then went to Oak Hill Academy in Virginia for his senior year.) It's a similar thing with Andre Curbelo - he's listed as being from Puerto Rico, but he grew up and went to high school on Long Island. That's just my own team where two of our core "international" players actually grew up in the NYC area. It definitely helps that Illinois and other Big Ten schools are now playing games at Rutgers and Maryland in a way that opens up recruiting opportunities (where these Midwestern state schools are no longer "in the middle of nowhere") that are now much more winnable compared to competing against the ACC and old Big East 10 years ago.

I really think it’s a stretch saying that. Especially for basketball. I mean Duke would always play road games vs Temple and St. John’s for recruiting purposes. That’s more of a sure thing than MAYBE having a conference road game at Rutgers and/or Maryland any given season. Maybe Garza likes farm chicks? Maybe Cockburn wanted to be near Chicago? OR maybe they liked the coach and their role on the team?

I’ve never bought into the “adding team in State A means it will open up recruiting.” The only way that works is possibly elevating a team to a better conference for their own recruiting benefit. For example, Rutgers should be getting better NJ football recruits now that they’re in the Big Ten. It ain’t doing a damn thing for Minnesota.

Well, sure, it's always a mix of coach + program + location + lots of other factors that go into an individual player's school decision. You can't always peg it to one thing.

That being said, adding Rutgers and Maryland did bring a familiarity to the rest of the Big Ten schools in those markets - it got those programs in the conference on the radar of recruits. It's not merely the visits to campus, but (arguably even more important) that every single Big Ten conference basketball game has been shown on TV in the NYC and DC markets via Rutgers and Maryland getting BTN onto basic cable carriage for the past decade, whereas you'd only see Big Ten games in those markets if it was a nationally televised ESPN or CBS game previously. I think that's an even bigger deal than a visit to a campus close to home and it's a large advantage that the Big Ten had to itself for several years. The ACC was still under its syndicated regional Raycom package for most conference basketball games up until 3 years ago (and the ACC Network was launched with cord cutting already in full swing). Up until 2019, the NYC and DC markets were able to see Nebraska vs. Iowa games (just as an example) when they had no guaranteed way to watch even, say, Duke vs. NC State unless it was an ESPN game. We shouldn't discount how massive of a TV exposure advantage that the Big Ten has had (and still has) and that's in large part due to their East Coast expansion.

Meh. The BTN didn't get carried by NYC cable systems because the B1G brought in Rutgers. The B1G has such an expansive alumni network in NYC that the BTN would have been carried on NYC cable systems even without Rutgers. It just meant that the B1G got that per subscriber boost from having a team in the footprint. But that B1G coverage still would have been there regardless.

(03-08-2022 01:11 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 12:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 12:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Right - to esayem's point, even if the current top Big Ten rosters aren't NYC/DC-heavy, I'm talking about a steady stream of guys like Oladipo and Garza that probably would have gone to the ACC or old Big East previously.

Note that for my Illini, Kofi Cockburn is a superstar (likely first team All-American and possibly Big Ten Player of the Year) and listed as being from Jamaica, but he grew up and spent his first 3 years of high school in NYC. (He then went to Oak Hill Academy in Virginia for his senior year.) It's a similar thing with Andre Curbelo - he's listed as being from Puerto Rico, but he grew up and went to high school on Long Island. That's just my own team where two of our core "international" players actually grew up in the NYC area. It definitely helps that Illinois and other Big Ten schools are now playing games at Rutgers and Maryland in a way that opens up recruiting opportunities (where these Midwestern state schools are no longer "in the middle of nowhere") that are now much more winnable compared to competing against the ACC and old Big East 10 years ago.

I really think it’s a stretch saying that. Especially for basketball. I mean Duke would always play road games vs Temple and St. John’s for recruiting purposes. That’s more of a sure thing than MAYBE having a conference road game at Rutgers and/or Maryland any given season. Maybe Garza likes farm chicks? Maybe Cockburn wanted to be near Chicago? OR maybe they liked the coach and their role on the team?

I’ve never bought into the “adding team in State A means it will open up recruiting.” The only way that works is possibly elevating a team to a better conference for their own recruiting benefit. For example, Rutgers should be getting better NJ football recruits now that they’re in the Big Ten. It ain’t doing a damn thing for Minnesota.

Well, sure, it's always a mix of coach + program + location + lots of other factors that go into an individual player's school decision. You can't always peg it to one thing.

That being said, adding Rutgers and Maryland did bring a familiarity to the rest of the Big Ten schools in those markets - it got those programs in the conference on the radar of recruits. It's not merely the visits to campus, but (arguably even more important) that every single Big Ten conference basketball game has been shown on TV in the NYC and DC markets via Rutgers and Maryland getting BTN onto basic cable carriage for the past decade, whereas you'd only see Big Ten games in those markets if it was a nationally televised ESPN or CBS game previously. I think that's an even bigger deal than a visit to a campus close to home and it's a large advantage that the Big Ten had to itself for several years. The ACC was still under its syndicated regional Raycom package for most conference basketball games up until 3 years ago (and the ACC Network was launched with cord cutting already in full swing). Up until 2019, the NYC and DC markets were able to see Nebraska vs. Iowa games (just as an example) when they had no guaranteed way to watch even, say, Duke vs. NC State unless it was an ESPN game. We shouldn't discount how massive of a TV exposure advantage that the Big Ten has had (and still has) and that's in large part due to their East Coast expansion.

Meh. The BTN didn't get carried by NYC cable systems because the B1G brought in Rutgers. The B1G has such an expansive alumni network in NYC that the BTN would have been carried on NYC cable systems even without Rutgers. It just meant that the B1G got that per subscriber boost from having a team in the footprint. But that B1G coverage still would have been there regardless.

No - BTN wouldn't have been picked up on basic cable in the NYC market without Rutgers. It wasn't just the per subscriber fee increase at issue there. (BTN might have been carried on an a la carte sports pack in the NYC market, but that's NOT basic cable.) Believe me - there are few people that studied BTN carriage more closely than me circa 2010-2012.

Do teenage recruits watch cable? I still think it’s a GIANT reach to say that it’s a paramount factor in recruiting. You do well in the Big Dance and I’m sure that has more to do with recruiting than if your game is carried on cable Tuesday night.

Alluding to what the other guy said, being on TV in those metro areas was more for the alumni.

On right now...

#13 Seed BC

vs

#12 Seed Pittsburgh


Not even I'm watching this. Pure entertainment indeed.

(03-08-2022 02:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  Do teenage recruits watch cable? I still think it’s a GIANT reach to say that it’s a paramount factor in recruiting. You do well in the Big Dance and I’m sure that has more to do with recruiting than if your game is carried on cable Tuesday night.

Alluding to what the other guy said, being on TV in those metro areas was more for the alumni.

As I've stated, it's all of these things put together: visits to the market, TV coverage, exposure, etc.

It's not that any single thing is a panacea for recruiting, but the whole point is that the footprint of the Big Ten has changed from a Midwestern league to one that also covers the East Coast within the past 10 years and that changes the psychological image of the league along with that physical fact. The Big Ten is present daily in the NYC and DC markets that didn't exist before. If even the MVC has data stating that it could get more Dallas students to attend MVC schools with the exposure of adding UT-Arlington, it's orders of magnitude higher for flagship schools like Rutgers and Maryland.

Can you not acknowledge the increase in East Coast recruits in the Big Ten? It's happened during the same period that Rutgers and Maryland have been in the league. I think it would be presumptuous to just say that it's pure unrelated correlation when one of the Big Ten's primary objectives with its expansion was to specifically expand into areas with better recruiting demographics (both for athletes and regular students).

>The Big 12 is by and large the best college basketball conference now (and likely to remain with the expansion).

Ken Pomeroy's ranks are Big 12 15.42 and Big 10 15.2. It's far from being a runaway. If the Big 12 was that good, why did one team dominate the conference for over a decade? Not even Duke or North Carolina (heck both combined!) could dominate the ACC like that. Not even Kentucky could dominate the SEC like that. Until Baylor showed up recently the Big 12 was Kansas and the Nine Dwarfs.

It took a long time but in men's basketball it looks like UConn is a better program than Louisville now and the ACC should have taken them... unless they care more about that other sport.

(03-08-2022 04:21 PM)schmolik Wrote:  >The Big 12 is by and large the best college basketball conference now (and likely to remain with the expansion).

Ken Pomeroy's ranks are Big 12 15.42 and Big 10 15.2. It's far from being a runaway. If the Big 12 was that good, why did one team dominate the conference for over a decade?

It wasn't that good (it was pretty good), it's that good now.

(03-08-2022 02:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 02:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  Do teenage recruits watch cable? I still think it’s a GIANT reach to say that it’s a paramount factor in recruiting. You do well in the Big Dance and I’m sure that has more to do with recruiting than if your game is carried on cable Tuesday night.

Alluding to what the other guy said, being on TV in those metro areas was more for the alumni.

As I've stated, it's all of these things put together: visits to the market, TV coverage, exposure, etc.

It's not that any single thing is a panacea for recruiting, but the whole point is that the footprint of the Big Ten has changed from a Midwestern league to one that also covers the East Coast within the past 10 years and that changes the psychological image of the league along with that physical fact. The Big Ten is present daily in the NYC and DC markets that didn't exist before. If even the MVC has data stating that it could get more Dallas students to attend MVC schools with the exposure of adding UT-Arlington, it's orders of magnitude higher for flagship schools like Rutgers and Maryland.

Can you not acknowledge the increase in East Coast recruits in the Big Ten? It's happened during the same period that Rutgers and Maryland have been in the league. I think it would be presumptuous to just say that it's pure unrelated correlation when one of the Big Ten's primary objectives with its expansion was to specifically expand into areas with better recruiting demographics (both for athletes and regular students).

Maybe? Significantly? Not if I'm looking at the list of Big Ten season POYs and tournament MVPs. That said, I would have to go back decades to get an accurate comparison. There's been a handful of studs this past decade, and I'd guess there's always been guys from the northeast and tidewater.

They've had a tournament in each location, and have obviously moved on from that. Might be nice once a decade, but playing in MSG a week early reeked of desperation and I'm pretty sure all the coaches hated it.

Ohio State and others heavily recruit Florida in football, and there aren't any Big Ten teams there. I just don't think it's that big a deal for recruiting. Kids will go where they like the fit, PLUS the midwest has always produced enough local talent for Big Ten teams. Back in the day, states like North Carolina and South Carolina didn't produce much homegrown bball talent so they relied on northeastern pipelines. Like Statefan said, the talent has increased down south so it's not as big of a deal anymore. Another reason this whole thread is idiotic and troll boy material.

(03-08-2022 04:21 PM)schmolik Wrote:  >The Big 12 is by and large the best college basketball conference now (and likely to remain with the expansion).

Ken Pomeroy's ranks are Big 12 15.42 and Big 10 15.2. It's far from being a runaway. If the Big 12 was that good, why did one team dominate the conference for over a decade? Not even Duke or North Carolina (heck both combined!) could dominate the ACC like that. Not even Kentucky could dominate the SEC like that. Until Baylor showed up recently the Big 12 was Kansas and the Nine Dwarfs.

It took a long time but in men's basketball it looks like UConn is a better program than Louisville now and the ACC should have taken them... unless they care more about that other sport.

I admit, I was team UConn. But Louisville is an excellent program and they'll be roaring back.

They need a charismatic guy like Bruce Pearl, or check out Pat Kelsey from Charleston. That dude would thrive there and he's from Cincinnati. I've seen couple of their games this year and he's one of those guys that relishes the bright lights. He'll eventually outgrow Charleston.

(03-08-2022 02:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  ...I still think it’s a GIANT reach to say that it’s a paramount factor in recruiting. You do well in the Big Dance and I’m sure that has more to do with recruiting than if your game is carried on cable Tuesday night.

With regard to the Big Ten, is there any evidence that their recruiting has improved since 2014, when they added Rutgers and Maryland?

The Big 10 has been ranked #2 in the 2021 & 2022 Massey Composite basketball rankings.
The Big Ten was ranked #3 in the final 2020 & 2021 Massey Composite football rankings.

In comparison:

In 2012 and 2013 (before Rutgers and Maryland joined the Big Ten):

The Big Ten was ranked #1 in the final Massey Composite basketball rankings.
The Big Ten was ranked #4 in the final Massey Composite football rankings.

.

The Big Ten's average football rankings were slightly higher in 2021 & 2022, but their basketball rankings were slightly lower.

.

Combined football and basketball rankings:

The Big Ten's average 2020-22 FB/MBB ranking is 2.5.
The Big Ten's average 2011-13 FB/MBB ranking was also 2.5.

.

SUMMARY: The Big Ten's combined/average FB and MBB conference Massey Composite rankings haven't improved significantly since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference.

.

Thus, if there has been any improvement in Big Ten recruiting since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference, it has only been associated with a slight improvement in the conference's football rankings, and it hasn't resulted in an improvement in basketball rankings.

This suggests that the main benefits of the Big Ten's NJ/MD expansion may have been increases in viewership and revenue, and that the Big Ten universities, themselves, may have been the primary beneficiaries.

It would be interesting to know how much Big Ten football and basketball viewership has increased since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference, and how much of that increase has been attributable to the NJ/MD expansion.

.

(03-08-2022 05:00 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 02:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  ...I still think it’s a GIANT reach to say that it’s a paramount factor in recruiting. You do well in the Big Dance and I’m sure that has more to do with recruiting than if your game is carried on cable Tuesday night.

With regard to the Big Ten, is there any evidence that their recruiting has improved since 2014, when they added Rutgers and Maryland?

The Big 10 has been ranked #2 in the 2021 & 2022 Massey Composite basketball rankings.
The Big Ten was ranked #3 in the final 2020 & 2021 Massey Composite football rankings.

In comparison:

In 2012 and 2013 (before Rutgers and Maryland joined the Big Ten):

The Big Ten was ranked #1 in the final Massey Composite basketball rankings.
The Big Ten was ranked #4 in the final Massey Composite football rankings.

.

The Big Ten's average football rankings were slightly higher in 2021 & 2022, but their basketball rankings were slightly lower.

.

Combined football and basketball rankings:

The Big Ten's average 2020-22 FB/MBB ranking is 2.5.
The Big Ten's average 2011-13 FB/MBB ranking was also 2.5.

.

SUMMARY: The Big Ten's combined/average FB and MBB conference Massey Composite rankings haven't improved significantly since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference.

.

Thus, if there has been any improvement in Big Ten recruiting since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference, it has only been associated with a slight improvement in the conference's football rankings, and it hasn't resulted in an improvement in basketball rankings.

This suggests that the main benefits of the Big Ten's NJ/MD expansion may have been increases in viewership and revenue, and that the Big Ten universities, themselves, may have been the primary beneficiaries.

It would be interesting to know how much Big Ten football and basketball viewership has increased since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference, and how much of that increase has been attributable to the NJ/MD expansion.

.

That would be an interesting argument of there were a one-to-one recruiting to rankings relationship. But we know there's not, right? So, maybe trying to find the answer the wrong way when there's actually a way to figure that out in the form of recruiting rankings?

(03-08-2022 05:00 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 02:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  ...I still think it’s a GIANT reach to say that it’s a paramount factor in recruiting. You do well in the Big Dance and I’m sure that has more to do with recruiting than if your game is carried on cable Tuesday night.

With regard to the Big Ten, is there any evidence that their recruiting has improved since 2014, when they added Rutgers and Maryland?

The Big 10 has been ranked #2 in the 2021 & 2022 Massey Composite basketball rankings.
The Big Ten was ranked #3 in the final 2020 & 2021 Massey Composite football rankings.

In comparison:

In 2012 and 2013 (before Rutgers and Maryland joined the Big Ten):

The Big Ten was ranked #1 in the final Massey Composite basketball rankings.
The Big Ten was ranked #4 in the final Massey Composite football rankings.

.

The Big Ten's average football rankings were slightly higher in 2021 & 2022, but their basketball rankings were slightly lower.

.

Combined football and basketball rankings:

The Big Ten's average 2020-22 FB/MBB ranking is 2.5.
The Big Ten's average 2011-13 FB/MBB ranking was also 2.5.

.

SUMMARY: The Big Ten's combined/average FB and MBB conference Massey Composite rankings haven't improved significantly since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference.

.

Thus, if there has been any improvement in Big Ten recruiting since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference, it has only been associated with a slight improvement in the conference's football rankings, and it hasn't resulted in an improvement in basketball rankings.

This suggests that the main benefits of the Big Ten's NJ/MD expansion may have been increases in viewership and revenue, and that the Big Ten universities, themselves, may have been the primary beneficiaries.

It would be interesting to know how much Big Ten football and basketball viewership has increased since Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference, and how much of that increase has been attributable to the NJ/MD expansion.

.

But wouldn't those average numbers from after the additions include the Rutgers and Maryland? That's got to be dragging the conference down some (at least for football I'd think).

If I'm Illinois or Northwestern I don't care about the Big Ten average in recruiting rankings after adding two schools. I care about my recruiting ranking after adding the two schools. So a better comparison starting point might be the average ranking of the other schools without those two (we'd only care about the change for them here).

I guess the other factor here is that if you've got more money out of the deal (which they did) then you've got that money to contribute to recruiting efforts. More waterslides in the locker room, more analysts, more scouting, more uniform options, etc. So even if the recruiting went up, it could be an indirect contribution, maybe not a result of the actual physical location of the new schools.

(03-08-2022 07:40 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  Particularly in the Northeast, where the NBE has all of a sudden given kids from the DMV to New England another option to the OBE teams that left.

When the ACC raided the OBE, it was thought that the schools known for their FB or MBB would take that success with them.

However, that oddly hasn't happened in either sport.

One factor that doesn't get discussed enough is the reimagined NBE, which has siphoned off talent in strongholds like New York, when it was believed (by Swofford) that he'd be killing off his competition (particularly in what he believed at the time was the ACC's signature sport).

The Old Big East was (at one time) the unquestioned best conference in college basketball. It's hard to fault Swofford for thinking he'd gobble up that status. Nevertheless, the ACC is currently the 6th best conference. The Big 12 is by and large the best college basketball conference now (and likely to remain with the expansion).

Can the ACC reverse this decade long trend - especially now that Duke and UNC no longer have their great coaches? I kinda think the ACC will hover around that 5-6 area, and the NBE will be a factor in keeping them there (given the overlap in the footprint).

Did the ACC grow too big? I believe the ACC (and similarly CUSA from the G5) has suffered by growing the roster too much. That said, you can't discount the existence of the NBE conference that slid into the void created when the OBE teams defected.

Kenpom ratings since 2014:

LOL! That is this week‘s edition of, “The ACC is doomed! Doomed I tell ye!”

Not too much. I agree that the ACC has been usually bad, but I don’t know how much that has to do with stench coming from BC, Cuse and Pitt.
I agree that the ACC made a terrible mistake taking those 3 schools and of course, making that horrific deal with ESPN for a nearly 3 decade long media contract.

Note that for my Illini, Kofi Cockburn is a superstar (likely first team All-American and possibly Big Ten Player of the Year) and listed as being from Jamaica, but he grew up and spent his first 3 years of high school in NYC. (He then went to Oak Hill Academy in Virginia for his senior year.) It's a similar thing with Andre Curbelo - he's listed as being from Puerto Rico, but he grew up and went to high school on Long Island. That's just my own team where two of our core "international" players actually grew up in the NYC area. It definitely helps that Illinois and other Big Ten schools are now playing games at Rutgers and Maryland in a way that opens up recruiting opportunities (where these Midwestern state schools are no longer "in the middle of nowhere") that are now much more winnable compared to competing against the ACC and old Big East 10 years ago.
[/quote]

Cockburn as a 1st team all American? With NIL coming in having a name like that will make you some money on apparel. I can picture kids wearing his jersey. He could at least be a pitch man for athletic supporter powder:
“Feeling burning down there, buy my new powder”

The lack of success in the NE portion of the ACC footprint can't be ignored. Especially when they are being outperformed in the footprint by a bunch of NE leftovers.

Swofford was Putin and this was his Ukraine.

Those teams survived and now they are canceling out the ACC additions.

What Swofford intended to be a basketball "Super Conference" is now 1 spot up from the AAC. ACC football is similarly plummeting now that Clemson is coming back to Earth.

These teams are running without any oxygen.






The #6 ACC should be more concerned about the #7 rated AAC; rather than the New Big East.

BC and Pittsburgh don't have any juice. They are nowhere close to what they had when they were in the #1 rated Old Big East Conference.
They just aren't.
The Big 12 Conference (present and future) is the #1 conference now, and they have taken those Big Mondays slots.

(03-08-2022 06:33 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  The lack of success in the NE portion of the ACC footprint can't be ignored. Especially when they are being outperformed in the footprint by a bunch of NE leftovers.

Swofford was Putin and this was his Ukraine.

Those teams survived and now they are canceling out the ACC additions.

What Swofford intended to be a basketball "Super Conference" is now 1 spot up from the AAC. ACC football is similarly plummeting now that Clemson is coming back to Earth.

These teams are running without any oxygen.






The #6 ACC should be more concerned about the #7 rated AAC; rather than the New Big East.

BC and Pittsburgh don't have any juice. They are nowhere close to what they had when they were in the #1 rated Old Big East Conference.
They just aren't.
The Big 12 Conference (present and future) is the #1 conference now, and they have taken those Big Mondays slots.

The Big 12 is arguably the number 1 league this year but I'm not sold on it being the prohibitive best league going forward. UCF will not be able to compete in basketball in this league. They struggle in the AAC that was in their geographic backyard (the south). Losing Texas and Oklahoma will be a blow to the league as those two have the potential to get to a Final Four twice a decade each. Cincy hasn't gotten out of the first weekend in forever, and BYU is a perennial bubble team. Houston is on a heater, but if Sampson leaves or they get NCAA violations (he has a habit of this), they don't have the fanbase to sustain the fall. The other thing I think people keep forgetting is that recruiting across the board will fall as Texas and Oklahoma aren't on the schedule anymore.

(03-08-2022 08:24 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 06:33 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  The lack of success in the NE portion of the ACC footprint can't be ignored. Especially when they are being outperformed in the footprint by a bunch of NE leftovers.

Swofford was Putin and this was his Ukraine.

Those teams survived and now they are canceling out the ACC additions.

What Swofford intended to be a basketball "Super Conference" is now 1 spot up from the AAC. ACC football is similarly plummeting now that Clemson is coming back to Earth.

These teams are running without any oxygen.

The #6 ACC should be more concerned about the #7 rated AAC; rather than the New Big East.

BC and Pittsburgh don't have any juice. They are nowhere close to what they had when they were in the #1 rated Old Big East Conference.
They just aren't.
The Big 12 Conference (present and future) is the #1 conference now, and they have taken those Big Mondays slots.

The Big 12 is arguably the number 1 league this year but I'm not sold on it being the prohibitive best league going forward. UCF will not be able to compete in basketball in this league. They struggle in the AAC that was in their geographic backyard (the south). Losing Texas and Oklahoma will be a blow to the league as those two have the potential to get to a Final Four twice a decade each. Cincy hasn't gotten out of the first weekend in forever, and BYU is a perennial bubble team. Houston is on a heater, but if Sampson leaves or they get NCAA violations (he has a habit of this), they don't have the fanbase to sustain the fall. The other thing I think people keep forgetting is that recruiting across the board will fall as Texas and Oklahoma aren't on the schedule anymore.

KANSAS AND BAYLOR ARE PROJECTED #1 SEEDS!!!

You're a comedian. If you would have said Kansas (a Blue Blood), I could see that. Those recruits want to play on Big Mondays. Texas and OU haven't been remotely pulling the weight for the Big 12. lol
Nevertheless, all of the new additions are good at basketball. Many, including Fran Fraschilla, have said the Big 12 upgraded with the 4. Even UCF (who beat Michigan and Miami) and has been Top 100 NET all year.

- The Expanded Big 12 makes up 1/3 of the Top 12 teams in the NET.
- Last year's Final Four field was 1/2 composed of the Expanded Big 12 (Houston and Baylor).
- The Defending Champion, Baylor, is a Big 12 school.
- All of the Texas schools (Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and Houston) will be in the field.
- Oklahoma State is a storied program that will be back there soon.
- Iowa State hired the perfect coach for the Cyclones, T. J. Otzelberger.
- Cincinnati hired the right coach in Wes Miller and beat Illinois this year.
- Mark Adams was an inspired hire at Texas Tech.
- Bob Huggins, WVU
- Jamie Dixon, TCU
- etc, etc, etc

The Big 12 is a cut above the other conferences and it has the brand power to stay that way.

Give it up, boy. Nobody cares what you think and it’s obviously another spin agenda. Maybe the old school ACC teams are just better than the noobs and the ACC was the tougher conference all along.

Kansas would take the first ticket offered out of your “best basketball conference”. Microcosm Boy, that’s your new nickname.