The Athletic: Comparing Generations of Big East BBall ($)

[Bill Marsh]

The point is that the BE was an average high-major conference. It had great years and it had bad years, but it was not this monolithic entity the media treats it as.

Just speaking for myself, I know what your point was. The problem is that I have no idea what “average high-major conference” means, how you came to that conclusion, what criteria you used, and how other conferences measure up against those same criteria.

I also have no idea what “monolithic entity” means, nor did I read anyone claiming that. The fact that the media treated it as a conference with great tradition and made a big deal of the break up doesn’t mean “monolithic entity” to me. When the Big East broke up, they were just completing a decade (2003-12) in which the conference had claimed 3 NC’s and Louisville was on its way to a 4th. High major conference like the Big Ten and the PAC 12 hadn’t produced a single NC in that period and the Big XII only one. The ACC and the SEC each had 3. For better or for worse, it’s those headlines that the media pays attention to, not the Ken Pom ratings. They’re happy to hype anything that will attract eyeballs - like the BE special on ESPN. Frankly the media would have been derelict in their duty if they had not covered the breakup during March Madness and if they had not made not of its historic significance within the college basketball world.

One of the things that has to be factored in is the football expansion period, which brought in some mediocre - at best - basketball programs. That didn’t change the caliber of the basktball programs who had always defined the conference, nor did it change the ability of the conference to compete for national championships or F4’s.

[stever20]

The point is that the BE was an average high-major conference. It had great years and it had bad years, but it was not this monolithic entity the media treats it as.

Just speaking for myself, I know what your point was. The problem is that I have no idea what “average high-major conference” means, how you came to that conclusion, what criteria you used, and how other conferences measure up against those same criteria.

I also have no idea what “monolithic entity” means, nor did I read anyone claiming that. The fact that the media treated it as a conference with great tradition and made a big deal of the break up doesn’t mean “monolithic entity”to me. When the Big East broke up, they were just completing a decade (2003-12) in which the conference had claimed 3 NC’s and Louisville was on its way to a 4th. High major conference like the Big Ten and the PAC 12 hadn’t produced a single NC in that period and the Big XII only one. The ACC and the SEC each had 3. For better or for worse, it’s those headlines that the media pays attention to, not the Ken Pom ratings. They’re happy to hype anything that will attract eyeballs - like the BE special on ESPN.

One of the things that has to be factored in is the football expansion period, which brought in some mediocre - at best - basketball programs. That didn’t change the caliber of the basktball programs who had always defined the conference, nor did it change the ability of the conference to compete for national championships or F4’s.

The article broke it up into 4 periods....
original league- thru '91
1st football period- '92-'05
2nd football period- '06-'13
current period- '14-'18

the 1st football period the league did drop. The numbers in the article really reflected that.

tourney bids/#1 seeds/top 4 seeds
orig 55.8/5.8/34.1
1st 39.3/1.2/16.2
2nd 51.2/7.1/24.4
curr 56.0/6.0/20.0

it's pretty easy to see which period doesn't fit. And it's easy to see why the 2nd period was viewed as being so special. That version had even in it's 2 worst years- 2007- Georgetown makes final 4 and 2008 3 sweet 16 and 1 elite 8 team. Where it was so different was it really performed so well in the tourney. I really think that's the only thing holding the new version back.

[GumbyDamnit!]

BillM, wise sage. Good post.