I miss the Big East

[albanycuse]

Basketball games. The Acc is weak and unimpressive. Its gonna be hard to get used too except for playing the obvious Duke n NC , the rest of the conference is just blah and anemic. Im not impressed.

Its def an improvement on the football side but were def taking a back seat on the bball side.

 

[SUfanNC]

I agree. I almost could watch every team in BE play with the exception of DePaul. Acc is going to be a tough adjustment as far as bball.

 

[stuckinbig11]

Basketball games. The Acc is weak and unimpressive. Its gonna be hard to get used too except for playing the obvious Duke n NC , the rest of the conference is just blah and anemic. Im not impressed.

Its def an improvement on the football side but were def taking a back seat on the bball side.

Think how bad the ACC would be this year in bball if SU and Pitt were not there. Regarding bowl games in football, it seems we are the flag-carriers also.

 

[itsbotime]

Think how bad the ACC would be this year in bball if SU and Pitt were not there. Regarding bowl games in football, it seems we are the flag-carriers also.

I think most people would say Florida State is the ACC's flagship in football.

 

[jncuse]

Its not a bad year to leave the Big East though in terms of competition. If the league had stayed intact it would be struggling this year. Who would be the elite competition? Louisville (without Behanan)? Nova who I am still a bit skeptical about as an elite team.

Certainly not UConn, Georgetown, Marquette who have all had much better years. Those programs are the level of a Clemson or a Florida St. this year. I will miss the matchups no doubt, and would rather play those teams than Clemson, but they are not really any better.

For the first year we get Duke and UNC which easily offsets the less intriguing matchups. In year 2 we get Louisville back. By year 3 or year 4, hopefully there will be some new pests in the middle of the ACC pack that will have a program rebirth and we will start to enjoy playing as fans.

And throughout this move over the next 5 years, our OOC will be more interesting than the past as I know we will play some of our old rivals fairly regularly. Just look at this year - we played St. Johns and Villanova. This could have been two modest opponents instead based on how we scheduled in the past (given that we had already played an elite tournament and were playing Indiana)

 

[AlaskaSU]

The ACC is changing before our eyes. It is now a football conference with a decidedly top heavy basketball component.
Counting Lousiville, there are only 4 top basketball teams. I would not count on Pitt surviving without their thug defense. Notre Dame has been respectable but that is mainly due to one or two players delivering more than expected. Will their luck continue?

It has been stated in this forum that the rest of the ACC will improve due to the influence of the new blood. It could well be the opposite. ACC bound top flight talent now has less reason to go to a second level team. Similarly, the Big East never helped Rutgirls or DePaul.

UCon would be a good basketball addition. Despite their lack of a frontcourt on this years team they are still recruiting at a high level and have more potential than the pitiful basketball programs that are the bulk of the ACC.

In football we are at the other end of the stick, we are the ACC second tier. Even with our improved recruiting we are not comparable to FSU, Clemson and several other ACC teams that are stocked with the highest ranked players. With the way good coaches jump ship, the road to becoming a perennial top 20 is daunting.

All this makes me even more thankful for JAB and his loyalty. It is the difference between the fate of our basketball and our football programs. Our basketball team is so rock solid that even after JAB retires it will continue as one of the Nation's best.

 

[2-3zone]

Some teams were over hyped like Boston College who many experts thought they were an NCAA tourney team and have been terrible, Notre Dame is down and now they lost Grant, Virginia picked to finish 4th I think and have been terrible

 

[Albeck43]

Some teams were over hyped like Boston College who many experts thought they were an NCAA tourney team and have been terrible, Notre Dame is down and now they lost Grant, Virginia picked to finish 4th I think and have been terrible

It is hard to get down on the ACC at this point because we haven't even entered the conference schedule. Yes, there appears to be a lot of weak teams, but I'm not convinced we're going to have a cake walk on the road in the ACC this year.

 

[Alsacs]

I will only miss the Georgetown and Villanova games from the Big East, and we will get Louisville back next year.

UConn was a legit rivalry, but one I am not crying we won't be playing anymore.

Providence/Seton Hall/St. John's/DePaul all used Syracuse to get big home crowds for them and we were their way to sellout their arenas with Cuse fans there I won't miss that.

Marquette/Cincinnati/South Florida/Rutgers are games I am not disappointed we aren't playing anymore. Pittsburgh/Notre Dame are still conference rivals.

Give me the ACC over the Big East especially since we will be playing 2 of Villanova/St.John's/Georgetown every year as non-conference games.

 

[Cowtown]

I won't miss the thug ball played by Pitt, UGoon, Marquette & Cinci. And Louisville games are more like rugby matches. I look for a return or a re-assertion of JB's "We want to get out and run" style of ball, much more commensurate with the erstwhile ACC style of play.

 

[jncuse]

I think people are too quick to count out the middle of the pack in the ACC.

We only need to look back 3 years ago when 6 of the 12 other teams made the tourney.

2010
Pitt - 3 seed
Notre Dame - 6 seed
Clemson - 7 seed
Florida St - 9 seed
Wake Forest - 9 seed
Georgia Tech - 10 seed
Virginia Tech - The Seth Whine

I think Clemson, Wake and Georgia Tech are they key to whether the ACC will be ultimately top heavy or deep. Those team were fairly consistent NCAA teams for a long time (with a few dry period). But they didn't just miss tournaments recently - they almost went down to Rutgirls level. Clemson seems to have reached a solid level again. GT and Wake are improving but are not even NIT Level yet.

In terms of the teams that missed that year - Miami, NC St, Virginia have made it since. I think NC St and Virginia are sustainable as teams making the tourney fairly regularly. NC St has the resources and make the tourney enough recently (but have underachieved). Virginia has been a tourney team fairly regularly this decade, and have a good coach who runs a solid mid level program.

I think Boston College and Virginia Tech are pretty much the Rutgers and DePaul of the ACC. I am also concerned about Miami being a consistent bum - everything just worked out last year.

 

[jncuse]

Some teams were over hyped like Boston College who many experts thought they were an NCAA tourney team and have been terrible, Notre Dame is down and now they lost Grant, Virginia picked to finish 4th I think and have been terrible

I don't think there is any doubt that the ACC mid level has been disappointing this year. But is that reflective of the way it will be? Most of the programs have had a recent period of some success.

There are certainly no Rutgers or DePaul in the ACC - teams that have been complete duds for 10 years. All the ACC teams have probably had better peaks than Seton Hall and USF over the last 10 years as well. Although BC is at the same level of suckage right now.

 

[rrlbees]

I am glad we are in the ACC for a multitude of reasons. But there is no way to argue the ACC is as deep as the BE was in basketball.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

East coast basketball will naturally switch to the ACC being a powerhouse again with the downgrade of the Big East and the elimination of UConn from power conference status. Recruits will start to favor the ACC schools over Big East schools because of the decreased exposure for the BE. Additionally, the B1G may pull some east cost recruits with Maryland joining, but it still looks to be a MidWest heavy conference.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC pick up some of the slack and start to rise up as a more powerful basketball conference. The ACC and SEC should dominate east coast basketball in the coming years.

 

[Alsacs]

JB could get a home/home series with ANY former Big East rival if he wanted to. It shows he values Villanova, St. John's and Georgetown for recruiting and has a good relationship with Jay Wright where I expect we will play them basically every year. St. John's and Georgetown will likely be rotated. Also, I was told that the 3rd game agreed to by Syracuse and Villanova as part of the home and home will be played as part of the Jimmy V Classic at MSG. So it truly is a 1-1-1 agreement as that game will be for charity in a great venue for Villanova and Syracuse

 

[jncuse]

I am glad we are in the ACC for a multitude of reasons. But there is no way to argue the ACC is as deep as the BE was in basketball.

Not really buying that.

Purely looking at this year vs prior years of the Big East sure you are correct. But if the Old Big East existed this year it would not be elite nor deep - not much different than the ACC. But lets go deeper than that.

I think we let the great matchups (ones we are inherently more interested in as BE fans), rivalries and the recent highs of the conference cloud our judgment. The recent highs of the conference is not the way it always was, and can certainly be argued as somewhat artificial.

The most important factor we overlook is that it was a 16 team conference, in an era that other leagues were between 10-12 teams. The Big East was as good as any other conference - but when you have 4 to 6 more teams in your conference (and assume the league are equal) of course the 16 league team will look more deep. Your league will get more seeds - the conference quarters will look appealing as well. You will have more better teams. We have Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame and Louisville heading to a conference with 12 other teams (all of which have been 5 seeds or above at least once the last 10 years). Why would you not expect this conference to get 8-10 seeds in future years.

How quick we forget that nearly 1/3 of the Big East leeched on the rest of the teams for mostof, if not all of the past 10 years. Rutgers, DePaul, USF, Providence and Seton Hall were pretty much irrelevant for the last 10 years. When 1/3 of your conference is irrelevant for such a long period can you really argue your conference is that deep? Some years the Big East was really deep in spite of those teams - but I also think some years some mid level Big East players got in the NCAA by beating the sisters of the poor in conference. No ACC programs have had as bad resumes the past 10 years as those five teams. Sure some are really down right now - Wake, BC, and Georgia Tech (but at least they smelled the tourney above the 10 line in recent times. They deserve the benefit of the doubt) Look at it this way - we have Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame and Pitt heading to a conference where the leech factor (based on recent history of last 10 years) is much lower than the Big East. If the Big East could regularly get 7-11 teams in recent years, with 5 full time leeches, why wouldn't the ACC get as many?

The ACC as it will be constructed (For now anyway), would have had 10 teams in the tourney just 3 years ago (and 11 if Seth Greenberg had his way), and would always have at least 8. I know the Big East reached 11 once (USF one off), but this is basically at the same level.

Also we should not forget that the dominant Big East is a post 2005 and pre 1992 phenomenon. Those periods in between the ACC was much more deeper and dominant than the Big East, with the exception of 1996. 1996 was a great year for the Big East. You can argue 2003 as well if you must!! And many years post 2005, the BE was not deeper, just bigger

 

[SU2NASA]

I don't miss the Big East one bit. In the long term, its going to be the premier conference in the country. Think about the top-4 in any conference in the country and match them up with Louisville, UNC, Duke, Syracuse. Then add Pitt, NC State, Notre Dame, and I don't know what other conference can match that year in and year out, even if the bottom sucks.

Top 4 ACC: Louisville, UNC, Duke, Syracuse
Top 4 SEC: Kentucky, Florida, ???
Top 4 Pac-12: Arizona, UCLA, Oregon, ???
Top 4 Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, ???
Top 4 Big East: Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, ???
Top 4 Big 12: Kansas, Texas, Kansas State, ???
Top 4 AAC: , nada

 

[jncuse]

Since my above certainly qualifies as TLDR, I just want to state one point.

1/3 of our former conference mates were long term leeches - Rutgers, DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, and South Florida. Will not miss them, and it is hard to argue that the conference was that deep with such long term losers. The ACC does not have any long term losers like this.

The Big East was as good as any - but much of the "dominance" and deeper feel was caused by a 16 team league vs a 10-12 team league. Once some of the mid pack of the ACC stand up again in a 16 team league, it will have the exact same feel. Further, with two blue bloods around and two of the next tier, I argue it will have an even greater feel. The rivalries will come, and that is the unfortunate thing to lose.

 

[rrlbees]

Not really buying that.

Purely looking at this year vs prior years of the Big East sure you are correct. But if the Old Big East existed this year it would not be elite nor deep - not much different than the ACC. But lets go deeper than that.

I think we let the great matchups (ones we are inherently more interested in as BE fans), rivalries and the recent highs of the conference cloud our judgment. The recent highs of the conference is not the way it always was, and can certainly be argued as somewhat artificial.

The most important factor we overlook is that it was a 16 team conference, in an era that other leagues were between 10-12 teams. The Big East was as good as any other conference - but when you have 4 to 6 more teams in your conference (and assume the league are equal) of course the 16 league team will look more deep. Your league will get more seeds - the conference quarters will look appealing as well. You will have more better teams. We have Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame and Louisville heading to a conference with 12 other teams (all of which have been 5 seeds or above at least once the last 10 years). Why would you not expect this conference to get 8-10 seeds in future years.

How quick we forget that nearly 1/3 of the Big East leeched on the rest of the teams for mostof, if not all of the past 10 years. Rutgers, DePaul, USF, Providence and Seton Hall were pretty much irrelevant for the last 10 years. When 1/3 of your conference is irrelevant for such a long period can you really argue your conference is that deep? Some years the Big East was really deep in spite of those teams - but I also think some years some mid level Big East players got in the NCAA by beating the sisters of the poor in conference. No ACC programs have had as bad resumes the past 10 years as those five teams. Sure some are really down right now - Wake, BC, and Georgia Tech (but at least they smelled the tourney above the 10 line in recent times. They deserve the benefit of the doubt) Look at it this way - we have Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame and Pitt heading to a conference where the leech factor (based on recent history of last 10 years) is much lower than the Big East. If the Big East could regularly get 7-11 teams in recent years, with 5 full time leeches, why wouldn't the ACC get as many?

The ACC as it will be constructed (For now anyway), would have had 10 teams in the tourney just 3 years ago (and 11 if Seth Greenberg had his way), and would always have at least 8. I know the Big East reached 11 once (USF one off), but this is basically at the same level.

Also we should not forget that the dominant Big East is a post 2005 and pre 1992 phenomenon. Those periods in between the ACC was much more deeper and dominant than the Big East, with the exception of 1996. 1996 was a great year for the Big East. You can argue 2003 as well if you must!! And many years post 2005, the BE was not deeper, just bigger

I still stick by my opinion that the BE has been deeper and the better conference. Yes, the BE had more teams but it doesn't mean that they automatically would get more NCAA bids. You could lop off DePaul, Rutgers, SHU, Providence etc and it would change the depth.

Especially recently there has been a big difference. 8-4 bids in favor of the BE last year. 9-5 in 2012, 11-4! in 2011. 43-26 the past 6 years. That's depth. You have to go back to 2007 to find the ACC with more bids.

The ACC was fading from the days where Wake and GT were real good.

 

[rrlbees]

Btw, one of my posts in this thread may not have been clear enough. I'm not saying the current and to be ACC which includes SU, Pitt, ND and Lville isn't better than the BE past or present. Time will tell and my money would be on the ACC. I'm saying pre-2013/14 the BE was better which included those 4 teams.

 

[Cusefan95]

I don't miss the Big East one bit. In the long term, its going to be the premier conference in the country. Think about the top-4 in any conference in the country and match them up with Louisville, UNC, Duke, Syracuse. Then add Pitt, NC State, Notre Dame, and I don't know what other conference can match that year in and year out, even if the bottom sucks.

Top 4 ACC: Louisville, UNC, Duke, Syracuse
Top 4 SEC: Kentucky, Florida, ???
Top 4 Pac-12: Arizona, UCLA, Oregon, ???
Top 4 Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, ???
Top 4 Big East: Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, ???
Top 4 Big 12: Kansas, Texas, Kansas State, ???
Top 4 AAC: , nada

The missing team for the Big 10 is Indiana, for the Big 12 I'd go with Oklahoma State. Agree that none of the conferences can compete with the top of the ACC.

 

[SU2NASA]

The missing team for the Big 10 is Indiana, for the Big 12 I'd go with Oklahoma State. Agree that none of the conferences can compete with the top of the ACC.

Good call on Indiana, forgot them. Ok State or Kansas State.

I don't think the top of any other conference can match the ACC for long term history and performance.

 

[jncuse]

I still stick by my opinion that the BE has been deeper and the better conference. Yes, the BE had more teams but it doesn't mean that they automatically would get more NCAA bids. You could lop off DePaul, Rutgers, SHU, Providence etc and it would change the depth.

Especially recently there has been a big difference. 8-4 bids in favor of the BE last year. 9-5 in 2012, 11-4! in 2011. 43-26 the past 6 years. That's depth. You have to go back to 2007 to find the ACC with more bids.

The ACC was fading from the days where Wake and GT were real good.

Just to be clear, I am not disputing the recent dominance, and you have the numbers to prove it. I was looking going forward. But we need to consider who quality teams are moving on to the other side of the equation. Its not clear cut either way - especially when I am using the recent past (last 10 years) to analyze the future, and the present for some in ACC is iffy.

With respect to the 43-26 (which I did not think was that large, but it makes sense, so thanks for the numbers). Certainly some of that is attributable to the 16 team league, but its not purely that. If we equalize 16 with 12, the gap is still significant.

But we overlooked what I think is a very simple analysis. Could we not compare the two conferences in the past 6 years, by merely comparing the two following totals:

A) The Big East (2008-2013)
B) The ACC - Maryland + Syracuse + Louisville + Pitt + Notre Dame (2008-2013)

So
A) 43
B) 26-2+5+6+5=41

So its about a draw the last 6 years in terms of overall seeds. We can make it 44 if we include the intellectually challenged like UConn.

I think the 43 seeds in the last 6 years Is about the max for the old Big East due to the five perennial losers with no positive signs except Providence.

With the ACC is 41 the max? One can argue Pitt and Notre Dame may fall a bit. But I think there are teams that are struggling right now that are better than the five former Big East leeches. Or maybe they are headed to same place as Rutgers and DePaul.

Anyway, I think its close in the recent past, if we try to equalize things. In the future?

 

[omniorange]

I don't miss the Big East one bit. In the long term, its going to be the premier conference in the country. Think about the top-4 in any conference in the country and match them up with Louisville, UNC, Duke, Syracuse. Then add Pitt, NC State, Notre Dame, and I don't know what other conference can match that year in and year out, even if the bottom sucks.

Top 4 ACC: Louisville, UNC, Duke, Syracuse
Top 4 SEC: Kentucky, Florida, ???
Top 4 Pac-12: Arizona, UCLA, Oregon, ???
Top 4 Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, ???
Top 4 Big East: Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, ???
Top 4 Big 12: Kansas, Texas, Kansas State, ???
Top 4 AAC: , nada

Agreed. I also believe that Bennett will eventually turn Virginia around and that Hamilton has made FSU a consistent winner with last year being the 1st year in the past five that the Seminoles didn't make the tourney. With the influx of some northeastern teams, Donohue may get BC back to be respectable. Add to those three Wake, Clemson, and GT and the ACC top to bottom strength will get there as well.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[jncuse]

Btw, one of my posts in this thread may not have been clear enough. I'm not saying the current and to be ACC which includes SU, Pitt, ND and Lville isn't better than the BE past or present. Time will tell and my money would be on the ACC. I'm saying pre-2013/14 the BE was better which included those 4 teams.

I don't disagree with that viewpoint. Although, as stated above I think BE has had some slippage from where it was in recent years.