PDA

View Full Version : Okay, so I'll say it, was the Big East a little overrated too?



bjornolf
04-05-2009, 07:34 AM
I mean, they were "annointed" before the tourney as the best conference. They were practically guaranteed to win it all. They had five of the elite eight and everyone said they'd have three of the final four. They had the "hottest team" in the tourney in Louisville. They had the "toughest team" in the tourney in Pitt. They had the best team money could buy in UConn.

Yet when the chips were down and the pressure mounted, they only got two in the final four, and that's partially because in one of the brackets, it was an all Big East game.

And now that it really matters, they turn soft and don't have a single pony in the show.

So yeah, the Big East was the best conference in the regular season and in the first few rounds of the tourney, but where are they now that it really counts? Could the Big East have been SLIGHTLY overrated? Maybe they're the best top-to-bottom conference, but apparently their cream doesn't rise to the top, eh?

Troublemaker
04-05-2009, 07:46 AM
Overrated according to what standard?

Two teams in the Final Four.
Four teams in the Elite Eight.
Five teams in the Sweet 16.

Not many conferences in history have accomplished that in a single year. It looks to me like the Big East deserved all the praise that they got.

You don't need to have the very best team to have the best conference. Look, if 3 years ago, you had been told that Hansbrough would stay for his senior season, and Lawson and Ellington would stay for their junior seasons, you would say, "Wow, college basketball is in trouble in 2009. UNC will rule." Well, that's playing out right now. But it has no bearing on the quality of the Big East.

Buckeye Devil
04-05-2009, 08:04 AM
I am no Big East fan but I think that most conferences would be happy to have had 4 in the Elite 8 and 2 of the Final 4. It is true that it had one spot guaranteed in the Final 4 by virtue of an all Big East regional final. But the fact that there were 2 Big East teams in that regional final was impressive. True, there are no Big East teams in the NC game, but in a single elimination situation, anything can happen. Duke was the best team in 1999 although they didn't cut down the nets.

Buckeye Devil
04-05-2009, 08:07 AM
UNC-Oklahoma
MSU-Louisville
Pitt-Villanova
UConn-Mizzou

That's 4 Big East teams.

rthomas
04-05-2009, 08:37 AM
The ACC and the Big Ten each have one half of the teams in the final game.

The Big Ten had one half of the teams in the NIT final and, in fact, won the NIT.

So I guess the Big Ten is THE BEST conference this year. lol.

Scorp4me
04-05-2009, 08:46 AM
You're going to judge a conference's strength based on the last three weekends of the year in a one and done tournament. They got 7 teams into the tournament and THAT should be what a conferences strength is based ond. One and done formats are great for the fans, but terrible for objective alalysis.

Just to point out, the same could be said of the ACC!

weezie
04-05-2009, 08:54 AM
No matter. None of it makes any difference anyway. Unless the mouthfoaming sportswriters start handing out "Bestest Conference of All" awards, it's just for talking head chatter.

CameronBornAndBred
04-05-2009, 09:28 AM
Considering that the Big East and the ACC were the only two conferences truly vying for the title of "best conference" all season, and that the ACC folded pretty quickly in the tournament, I'd say they earned the bragging rights this year. It isn't completely unexpected though, given their size. I'd love to see an "ACC-Big East" challenge, but I don't know how they would do it since they have a proportionally larger number of teams.

bjornolf
04-05-2009, 09:57 AM
I wasn't saying that the Big East wasn't the best conference this year. In fact, I believe I had that in my original post. All I was saying was that everyone was down on the ACC for losing so many of their teams in the first couple rounds, which I admit is bad, and everyone annointed the Big East and was arguing about whether Louisville or Pitt or UConn were going to win it all. And here we have a championship with no Big East team. I just found that odd is all. After all that praise, is the media going to turn on them now and say they underachieved? Afterall, only two of the big bad Big East teams (Pitt, Louisville, UConn, Nova) lived up to their seed (UConn and Nova), and only one (Nova) exceeded their seed. And we come down to the Big 10 and the ACC. Look, as I said, top to bottom, the Big East was the best this year. I just don't think they lived up to all the hype I've had to endure over the last couple weeks, that's all.

In fact, MSU is pretty impressive in my book. They beat a Pac-10 team in the second round, a Big 12 team in the sweet 16, and TWO Big East number 1 seeds. If they beat UNC in the final, they'll have pulled the cycle. ;) Too bad they didn't have an SEC team in the first round. That would have been awesome.

CameronBornAndBred
04-05-2009, 11:40 AM
I wasn't saying that the Big East wasn't the best conference this year. In fact, I believe I had that in my original post. All I was saying was that everyone was down on the ACC for losing so many of their teams in the first couple rounds, which I admit is bad, and everyone annointed the Big East and was arguing about whether Louisville or Pitt or UConn were going to win it all.
Ok, well the ACC still has one team in it, and the Big East doesn't, but I would not call the Big East overrated. Given preseason expectations, I'd say the Big 10 definitely was, and to an extent so was the ACC, after the eventual (and expected by some) fading of Clemson and (expected by nobody) fading of Wake. Luckily FSU and Md. stepped up better than expected by the end of the year. The Big East was pretty solid throughout, including through most of the tourney.
I'm hoping we see more solid ACC teams stay in for the whole season next year.

Icarus09
04-05-2009, 11:43 AM
The Big East does seem to have performed better as a conference this year. I'm enjoying their absence from the title game, however, because it is the silver lining in the championship situation. Carolina is in the championship game again, giving them a chance to win a second title in a span that we haven't made the final four. Furthermore, while MSU is better than they were, they still got smoked early in the season. So, I'm having trouble finding something to enjoy recently. The Big East's disappearance after all the hype is going to do that for me. And for the record, I would have rather seen UCONN or Louisville in the title game. MSU is good, but I think the other two would have had a better shot against UNC.

Olympic Fan
04-05-2009, 12:42 PM
Overrated by what standard?

Well, when Dick Vitale calls it the strongest conference in 30 years or Rick Pitino says its the strongest conference ever, well, those are pretty high expections.

The Big East did have a great tournament run and certainly earned the right to brag about being the nation's best conference THIS YEAR.

But when you start making historical comparisons, don't you think the greatest conference ever would have a team in the title game? Or would have finished better than the third-ranked conference overall in the regular season (evidence that the bottom of the league was VERY weak)?

By the absurd standards of hype gushed this season by the talking heads, then yes, the Big East was overrated. It was the best conference in America this season, but that's about it.

PS By the same standards, we can call this year's UNC team overrated, even if they win the national title. After all, quite a few talking heads predicted that the Tar Heels would go undefeated (Raleigh radio idiot Bomoni Jones ranted that "not only will Carolina go unbeaten, they'll go unchallenged" ... he made his wronghead pronoucement on the Friday before UNC's Sunday afternoon ACC opener with Boston College).

So do three subsiquent losses (and a number of close calls) make UNC overrated?

SupaDave
04-05-2009, 02:01 PM
Ok, well the ACC still has one team in it, and the Big East doesn't, but I would not call the Big East overrated. Given preseason expectations, I'd say the Big 10 definitely was, and to an extent so was the ACC, after the eventual (and expected by some) fading of Clemson and (expected by nobody) fading of Wake. Luckily FSU and Md. stepped up better than expected by the end of the year. The Big East was pretty solid throughout, including through most of the tourney.
I'm hoping we see more solid ACC teams stay in for the whole season next year.

All of you need to just keep listening to CBB...

dukestheheat
04-05-2009, 07:02 PM
bjorn,

No, I don't think so. When it gets to Final Eight and Final Four, somebody's gotta lose, so no, I don't think the BEast was over-rated. I do think that the ACC, losing so quickly as it did, was overdone.

dth.

Newton_14
04-05-2009, 08:33 PM
I am a life long ACC fan that takes a tremendous amount of pride in our conference. That said, I have to admit the Big East dominated this year and were not overrated. They deserved the accolades they got. Their teams went deep into the tourney, and of their 1 seeds, one got taken out by another Big East team, and the other two got taken out by an incredibly hot MSU team. I think we all knew that the lone 1 seed from the ACC was stronger than all of their 1 seeds and that too is playing out in front of us. But all in all, the Big East was the best conference this year and to me, not overrated.