Big East vs. ACC

[pfister1]

Which league do you think would be tougher to win the Big East with its current lineup or the ACC as we expect it to be with addition of Pitt and SU?

I look at the lineup of teams currently in the Big East and I still think its a more formidable lineup than what we will see in the ACC - may change my answer when I see who the last two teams in are.

 

[Guinness]

I agree with you. Right now the BE is still better. If UConn moves than I think the ACC becomes better.

 

[dash-30-dash]

the big east, no question.

 

[netman99]

Which league do you think would be tougher to win the Big East with its current lineup or the ACC as we expect it to be with addition of Pitt and SU?

I look at the lineup of teams currently in the Big East and I still think its a more formidable lineup than what we will see in the ACC - may change my answer when I see who the last two teams in are.

Big East now, and the chatter on Big 12 boards is that Kansas, KState, and Missouri are talking about moving to the Big East, in which case Big East basketball may even be better without Pitt and SU. I am just hoping that SU and Pitt don't take the same path Boston College did. When they 1st moved over they competed for the title in basketball and football because of their existing rosters. After 4 years , both BC basketball and football teams fell to the bottom teir of the ACC. Recruiting has suffered severly for BC. Eastern kids generally want to play in the Big East cities, and the ones that want to play in the ACC go south to the warm weather. Let's see in 4 years where we are in hoops and football.

 

[SU2NASA]

In 3 years it will be the ACC no question. Te basketball-onlies are beginning their downward spiral to the New Atlantic 10 and I hope G'towbn enjoys irrelevance.

On the plus side, they'll be able to enjoy more games in their on-campus barn.

 

[Knicks411]

I guess it kind of depends on who is trying to win the conference.

For an average team, I think the ACC will be tougher. Duke and UNC are consistently better than the top BE teams, imho. The rest of the conference behidn them (throwing out Pitt and SU for the time being) are much softer, but to win the league, you need to beat Duke and UNC.

 

[senorpalmer]

These things shift over time, but if we look strictly at the landscapes of each league since both expanded, the 16 team Big East is an all round tougher league. While the 16 team Big East had only one national champ in six years (last year's UCon), it had a lot of high seeds and final 4 participants in the tournament in that span, while the ACC had dick after Duke/UNC. Personally I think it's harder to come out on top of say, five top 10 teams than two top 5 teams (and Duke and UNC haven't always been top 5 in recent years).

 

[Nate44]

Easily the big east. If the ACC stays at 14 we will be competing for the ACC North championship against Maryland and Pitt most years and VT will be up there most years as well. That is a huge drop off from Conn, Louisville, and NOVA.

 

[realorange]

And so it continues-------
http://espn.go.com/college-football...st-big-12-talking-possible-merger-report-says

 

[Garbs]

Big East now, and the chatter on Big 12 boards is that Kansas, KState, and Missouri are talking about moving to the Big East, in which case Big East basketball may even be better without Pitt and SU. I am just hoping that SU and Pitt don't take the same path Boston College did. When they 1st moved over they competed for the title in basketball and football because of their existing rosters. After 4 years , both BC basketball and football teams fell to the bottom teir of the ACC. Recruiting has suffered severly for BC. Eastern kids generally want to play in the Big East cities, and the ones that want to play in the ACC go south to the warm weather. Let's see in 4 years where we are in hoops and football.

recruiting is all about coaching so as long as we have JB we are fine

as far as BC they were never that good at bball or fball to begin with