Big East and Dixon's remarks

[omniorange]

Okay, I was kind of bored this morning, so I decided to look at the Big East wins over both the past decade and also over the past 8 years (since that was when Louisville, et al began play).

Past Decade by Wins (including BET wins)

Syracuse - 130
Pittsburgh - 127
Connecticut - 119
Georgetown - 115
Notre Dame - 114
Louisville - 108
Villanova - 108

Since Louisville and Marquette were added

Louisville - 108
Syracuse - 105
Pittsburgh - 102
Georgetown - 102
Marquette - 99
Notre Dame - 95
Connecticut - 90
Villanova - 88

Cheers,
Neil

 

[albanycuse]

Solid numbers. You must drink a lot because you are always saying cheers after every post.

 

[CiceroCuse]

Georgetown has more than I would have thought. Pitt and Louisville have been as consistent as us with the exception of Pitts one down year due to injury.

 

[omniorange]

I got to thinking about the numbers above and conferences overall.

The greatest duo a conference has ever had is the ACC with UNC and Duke.

The best quartet of programs in any one conference through this year can be argued to be between the Big Ten (Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan) and the Big East (Louisville, Syracuse, Connecticut, and Georgetown). Obviously, I think that belongs to the Big East. But as of next year the ACC will take this title as well with UNC, Duke, Louisville, and SU.

But I'm not sure the best eight programs in any conference will ever be topped by the Big East group above. The ACC will have UNC, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND, but what two programs will reach Villanova and Marquette levels? Can two of NC State, FSU, UVa, and Wake reach those levels or will the Top 6 be too much for any additional programs to match the level of Marquette and Villanova?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[CorduroyG]

Georgetown has more than I would have thought. Pitt and Louisville have been as consistent as us with the exception of Pitts one down year due to injury.

georgetown had some great years in our "down years" in the mid-late 2000s, including a final 4 in '07

 

[sutomcat]

I got to thinking about the numbers above and conferences overall.

The greatest duo a conference has ever had is the ACC with UNC and Duke.

The best quartet of programs in any one conference through this year can be argued to be between the Big Ten (Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan) and the Big East (Louisville, Syracuse, Connecticut, and Georgetown). Obviously, I think that belongs to the Big East. But as of next year the ACC will take this title as well with UNC, Duke, Louisville, and SU.

But I'm not sure the best eight programs in any conference will ever be topped by the Big East group above. The ACC will have UNC, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND, but what two programs will reach Villanova and Marquette levels? Can two of NC State, FSU, UVa, and Wake reach those levels or will the Top 6 be too much for any additional programs to match the level of Marquette and Villanova?

Cheers,
Neil

Based only on what I have seen to date this season and last, I think Miami might be more likely than any of the schools you have mentioned to break into the top 8, with the possible exception of Virginia. If they can keep their young players healthy and on campus, they are going to be really good again in a year or two.

 

[RF2044]

Very interesting data. Makes me wonder what Dixon's remarks were about, then, since he clearly conceptualizes of the numbers differently than how you've presented them.

Also makes me appreciate the five year run we're on [and the relatively middling performance of the preceding five years].

 

[thebigeast44]

Here's the quote from Dixon in The Daily Orange:

“When the ACC went out to add teams, I think their mission was to get the best basketball teams they could,” Dixon said during the teleconference. “And Syracuse and us, I think we were one in the last 10 years by a pretty good margin and they were, too.”

http://dailyorange.com/2014/01/bail...underperforming-acc-early-in-conference-play/

Seems to me he was just saying that both Syracuse and Pitt were 2 of the top teams in The Big East the last 10 years - which was the case.

 

[MELOKEITH]

“When the ACC went out to add teams, I think their mission was to get the best basketball teams they could,” Dixon said during the teleconference. “And Syracuse and us, I think we were one in the last 10 years by a pretty good margin and they were two.”

I thought I read it this way (not "too") the first time I saw it over the weekend. Glad I saw thebigeast44's post above, as it makes a whole lot more sense that way.

 

[timkay99]

But I'm not sure the best eight programs in any conference will ever be topped by the Big East group above. The ACC will have UNC, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, ND, but what two programs will reach Villanova and Marquette levels? Can two of NC State, FSU, UVa, and Wake reach those levels or will the Top 6 be too much for any additional programs to match the level of Marquette and Villanova?

Cheers,
Neil

I think Miami under Larranaga has a very good chance to be a perennial Top 25-40 team. Outside of that, it comes down to Notre Dame, Virginia and Florida State in my eyes to be competitive.

Notre Dame with Jerian Grant this year would have been a completely different story in the ACC this year.

 

[omniorange]

“When the ACC went out to add teams, I think their mission was to get the best basketball teams they could,” Dixon said during the teleconference. “And Syracuse and us, I think we were one in the last 10 years by a pretty good margin and they were two.”

I thought I read it this way (not "too") the first time I saw it over the weekend. Glad I saw thebigeast44's post above, as it makes a whole lot more sense that way.

Interesting. In the Post-Standard articles, two of them, I think that was how it was presented (two versus too). One of the articles was specifically about comparing Pitt and SU (115 vs 114). I would think you wouldn't compare them against each other if it was 'too', but rather together against the rest like I did above.

So if he meant 'too' instead of 'two' we weren't the only ones who misread what he was trying to say.

Cheers,
Neil