Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

Most of us believe that we needed to get to the F4 in order to remove some of the "perception heat" from the conference.

Well, thanks to Villanova, I believe we can all agree that we've accomplished that in spades. The narrative is already beginning to change: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/left-for-dead--big-east-still-alive-and-thriving-thanks-to-villanova-s-surprising-run-025233938-ncaab.html.

Imagine if Villanova wins Monday evening, which I believe they have an excellent chance of doing.

This Titanic will not be hitting an iceberg.

This is why I laughed at folks last year who said that the tourney wouldn't make or break the league. Because as we've clearly seen, it has made the league. Like it or not, the sport has gotten to be a lot more March(and April) focused. It's just reality.

The nation will finally understand what we knew three years ago... the Big East never died. People these days don't need to believe everything ESPN tells them.

stever20 wrote:This is why I laughed at folks last year who said that the tourney wouldn't make or break the league. Because as we've clearly seen, it has made the league. Like it or not, the sport has gotten to be a lot more March(and April) focused. It's just reality.

It doesn't make or break the league. It make or breaks the perception of the league to people not paying attention to the big east. Everyone here knew the big east was alive

stever20 wrote:This is why I laughed at folks last year who said that the tourney wouldn't make or break the league. Because as we've clearly seen, it has made the league. Like it or not, the sport has gotten to be a lot more March(and April) focused. It's just reality.

Priority #1 was always getting teams to the tournament and with high seeding so that tournament success could be set in motion. We did that all 3 years (especially the last 2). There was no reason to think that two underachieving tournaments meant anything aside from bad luck. It's a very small sample size.

You're right that tournament results are most important, but we all knew this would come eventually as long as we have successful regular seasons like the last couple.

adoraz wrote:

stever20 wrote:This is why I laughed at folks last year who said that the tourney wouldn't make or break the league. Because as we've clearly seen, it has made the league. Like it or not, the sport has gotten to be a lot more March(and April) focused. It's just reality.

Priority #1 was always getting teams to the tournament and with high seeding so that tournament success could be set in motion. We did that all 3 years (especially the last 2). There was no reason to think that two underachieving tournaments meant anything aside from bad luck. It's a very small sample size.

You're right that tournament results are most important, but we all knew this would come eventually as long as we have successful regular seasons like the last couple.

Right, but at some point, those performances had to come.

To act like the league could have continued on not performing in the tourney is frankly ignorant. The Big East absolutely needed this run.

adoraz wrote:

stever20 wrote:This is why I laughed at folks last year who said that the tourney wouldn't make or break the league. Because as we've clearly seen, it has made the league. Like it or not, the sport has gotten to be a lot more March(and April) focused. It's just reality.

Priority #1 was always getting teams to the tournament and with high seeding so that tournament success could be set in motion. We did that all 3 years (especially the last 2). There was no reason to think that two underachieving tournaments meant anything aside from bad luck. It's a very small sample size.

You're right that tournament results are most important, but we all knew this would come eventually as long as we have successful regular seasons like the last couple.

And I think it's very important to fully grasp your point about achieving high seading. This can never only be about number of bids. It has to be about the appropriate combination of number of bids and the seeds those bids attract.

The 10 teams we have now are pulling this all together. Any form of dilution from here isn't going to make things better.

The tourney is not the make or break the league.

The regular season is also very important. Because if we didnt have sucha good regular season we would be like the colonial when vcu or george mason made their runs.

The tourney is helping to make the league, but losing in the dance doesnt break the league, and the tourney alone is not going to make the league.



I will take xavier's run this yr over Notre Dame's. Cxavier's run this yr was huge for credibility of the league. More important than say an elite 8.

The tourney has so much visibility and such a national appeal and it's what turns programs into household brands. But to say that regular season isn't important is to forget that seeding and amount of bids are decided prior to march. With bad seeding you likely aren't going anywhere and without the bids you diminish the chances of getting a team to the Final4

To me the tourney is what casual fans remember FAR FAR FAR more than the regular season. Folks will be talking Nova's year 50 years from now. They won't be talking Xavier's year 2 years from now. And that's only because of the tournament.

Hardcore fans sure- they might remember the regular season more. But there are far more casual fans than there are hard core fans.

You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that is reality.