Big East Games of Interest: 2015-2016

[stever20]

I wouldn't get bent out of shape over the committee. Based on the last two years they clearly view the Big East in the same light as the other power conferences. Now the AAC is a different story, and there's a legitimate argument that teams were snubbed or underseeded the last 2 years, but that's a different topic.

2 years ago, the committee didn't view the Big East as the same. Look at Xavier. And they made the PIG. And a PC team who won the BET and had 10 wins got only a 11 seed, and would have been out had they lost in the BET final. Would that have ever happened with a P5 conference? I sure as hell don't think so.

[adoraz]

I wouldn't get bent out of shape over the committee. Based on the last two years they clearly view the Big East in the same light as the other power conferences. Now the AAC is a different story, and there's a legitimate argument that teams were snubbed or underseeded the last 2 years, but that's a different topic.

2 years ago, the committee didn't view the Big East as the same. Look at Xavier. And they made the PIG. And a PC team who won the BET and had 10 wins got only a 11 seed, and would have been out had they lost in the BET final. Would that have ever happened with a P5 conference? I sure as hell don't think so.

Really? This is too easy...

1. Xavier had a 48 RPI that year, so what's your point? Seems play in caliber to me. PC had a 43 RPI so that also seems fine. Nova and Creighton were given 2 and 3 seeds which also lines up with their RPI. Seeding seems perfectly reasonable.
2. Even if your argument had merit, which it doesn't, the Big East of 2 years ago didn't have 6 teams in the tournament, match-ups between top 5 teams, #1 seeds, 4 teams in the top 20, etc etc that the Big East of the last 2 years has seen. It goes without saying that the Big East was still very much in doubt after the first year, and it then moved to a new level in years 2 and 3 to dispel most of those doubts.

[stever20]

I wouldn't get bent out of shape over the committee. Based on the last two years they clearly view the Big East in the same light as the other power conferences. Now the AAC is a different story, and there's a legitimate argument that teams were snubbed or underseeded the last 2 years, but that's a different topic.

2 years ago, the committee didn't view the Big East as the same. Look at Xavier. And they made the PIG. And a PC team who won the BET and had 10 wins got only a 11 seed, and would have been out had they lost in the BET final. Would that have ever happened with a P5 conference? I sure as hell don't think so.

Really? This is too easy...

1. Xavier had a 48 RPI that year, so what's your point? Seems play in caliber to me. PC had a 43 RPI so that also seems fine. Nova and Creighton were given 2 and 3 seeds which also lines up with their RPI. Seeding seems perfectly reasonable.
2. Even if your argument had merit, which it doesn't, the Big East of 2 years ago didn't have 6 teams in the tournament, match-ups between top 5 teams, #1 seeds, 4 teams in the top 20, etc etc that the Big East of the last 2 years has seen. It goes without saying that the Big East was still very much in doubt after the first year, and it then moved to a new level in years 2 and 3 to dispel most of those doubts.

The thing about this year, the conference is closer to the conference of 2 years ago than it is this year. 2 years ago had Nova and Creighton. This year it's Nova and Xavier. The end of the season going to have 2 teams in the top 20.

And we've not seen what the committee thinks about the Big East yet. I would hold off making any proclamations about it until we see what they do.

[adoraz]

The thing about this year, the conference is closer to the conference of 2 years ago than it is this year. 2 years ago had Nova and Creighton. This year it's Nova and Xavier. The end of the season going to have 2 teams in the top 20.

And we've not seen what the committee thinks about the Big East yet. I would hold off making any proclamations about it until we see what they do.

Remind me again about the 1 vs 5 match-up from 2 years ago? Or the 4 teams that were in the top 20 at one time? Because all I remember is Nova and Creighton dominating (but those 2 teams still weren't as good as the top 2 teams this year) and 2 bubble teams heading into the Big East tournament, both of which needed wins (and an outright championship) to make the tournament.

BTW, side note, two years ago your very own Hoyas ended up being one of the FIRST teams out which absolutely nobody, not even Big East homers, saw coming. They had a 66 RPI and would've gotten in had they beat DePaul in the Big East tournament. So please explain to me again how the committee is anti Big East?

[stever20]

The thing about this year, the conference is closer to the conference of 2 years ago than it is this year. 2 years ago had Nova and Creighton. This year it's Nova and Xavier. The end of the season going to have 2 teams in the top 20.

And we've not seen what the committee thinks about the Big East yet. I would hold off making any proclamations about it until we see what they do.

Remind me again about the 1 vs 5 match-up from 2 years ago? Or the 4 teams that were in the top 20 at one time? Because all I remember is Nova and Creighton dominating (but those 2 teams still weren't as good as the top 2 teams this year) and 2 bubble teams heading into the Big East tournament, both of which needed wins (and an outright championship) to make the tournament.

BTW, side note, two years ago your very own Hoyas ended up being one of the FIRST teams out which absolutely nobody, not even Big East homers, saw coming. They had a 66 RPI and would've gotten in had they beat DePaul in the Big East tournament. So please explain to me again how the committee is anti Big East?

At the end of the year, this year is much closer to 2 years ago than it was last year. Butler was top 20 earlier, but they are like a 10 seed now. Same with PC- they may be like a 9 seed.

As far as Georgetown, they would have needed to win in the QF vs Creighton to make the tourney.

[adoraz]

The thing about this year, the conference is closer to the conference of 2 years ago than it is this year. 2 years ago had Nova and Creighton. This year it's Nova and Xavier. The end of the season going to have 2 teams in the top 20.

And we've not seen what the committee thinks about the Big East yet. I would hold off making any proclamations about it until we see what they do.

Remind me again about the 1 vs 5 match-up from 2 years ago? Or the 4 teams that were in the top 20 at one time? Because all I remember is Nova and Creighton dominating (but those 2 teams still weren't as good as the top 2 teams this year) and 2 bubble teams heading into the Big East tournament, both of which needed wins (and an outright championship) to make the tournament.

BTW, side note, two years ago your very own Hoyas ended up being one of the FIRST teams out which absolutely nobody, not even Big East homers, saw coming. They had a 66 RPI and would've gotten in had they beat DePaul in the Big East tournament. So please explain to me again how the committee is anti Big East?

At the end of the year, this year is much closer to 2 years ago than it was last year. Butler was top 20 earlier, but they are like a 10 seed now. Same with PC- they may be like a 9 seed.

As far as Georgetown, they would have needed to win in the QF vs Creighton to make the tourney.

The reason you are so tiring to argue with isn't that you're an AAC fan, it is you are so stubborn in your point of view and never acknowledge when you may be off base.

How good the league is this year is debatable, although I think it's clear this year is much better than 2 years ago. 2 years ago we only had 2 locks heading into the MSG tournament while this year we'll have anywhere from 3-5 depending on who you ask. We could still have two 1 seeds in the big dance. The tournament teams this year are closer to last year than 2 years ago IMO.

That's besides the point. My original argument was that the selection committee hasn't shown they are anti Big East. You didn't provide any legitimate insight into why they are, so unless you do I am done here.

Even if what you're saying is true about Georgetown (how do you know??), that they needed to beat DePaul and Creighton, that STILL was well above what most people expected. You can say the committee was hard on Providence (debatable) but clearly was easy on Georgetown, and all else was equal. So again, where's the bias? Looking purely at RPI, the main metric used, the seeds line up across the board... aside from Georgetown which would've been overseeded.

[stever20]

Georgetown had an incredible OOC resume 2 years ago. 3 OOC wins vs Kansas St, VCU, and Michigan St. Pretty much going in, folks thought Georgetown beat DePaul and Creighton, they would be in the tourney pretty easily. So wouldn't say the committee was exactly easy on Georgetown....

I wouldn't say that we've seen that the committee clearly views the Big East in the same light as other power conferences. At all. PC would provide an extremely interesting test case if they lose in the BET QF.

[adoraz]

Georgetown had an incredible OOC resume 2 years ago. 3 OOC wins vs Kansas St, VCU, and Michigan St. Pretty much going in, folks thought Georgetown beat DePaul and Creighton, they would be in the tourney pretty easily. So wouldn't say the committee was exactly easy on Georgetown....

I wouldn't say that we've seen that the committee clearly views the Big East in the same light as other power conferences. At all. PC would provide an extremely interesting test case if they lose in the BET QF.

Okay, here are the facts (since you don't like using them):

Georgetown was one of the first 4 teams out.
They finished with a 66 RPI.
They lost to DePaul in the first round of the BE tournament (a bad loss).

Nobody thought they were the first 4 out. Nobody. Only the selection committee said this afterwards.

Now, you said they needed to beat Creighton to get in which doesn't line up with the facts. Prove that they needed to beat Creighton to get in.

[stever20]

Georgetown had an incredible OOC resume 2 years ago. 3 OOC wins vs Kansas St, VCU, and Michigan St. Pretty much going in, folks thought Georgetown beat DePaul and Creighton, they would be in the tourney pretty easily. So wouldn't say the committee was exactly easy on Georgetown....

I wouldn't say that we've seen that the committee clearly views the Big East in the same light as other power conferences. At all. PC would provide an extremely interesting test case if they lose in the BET QF.

Okay, here are the facts (since you don't like using them):

Georgetown was one of the first 4 teams out.
They finished with a 66 RPI.
They lost to DePaul in the first round of the BE tournament (a bad loss).

Nobody thought they were the first 4 out. Nobody. Only the selection committee said this afterwards.

Now, you said they needed to beat Creighton to get in which doesn't line up with the facts. Prove that they needed to beat Creighton to get in.

It would have been interesting. Going into the BET, the thought around totally was that a Georgetown win over Creighton gets them in. Would the committee have put them in with a win over DePaul/loss to Creighton? It's possible, but there again, I look at what we've seen as the committee more rewarding good wins than penalizing bad losses. You can't prove that Georgetown could have lost to Creighton and still gotten in.... We just don't know.

[stever20]

So Cincy beats SMU. Likely puts Cincy in the tourney. SMU loses 5 games. Cincy, UConn, Temple, Tulsa, and Houston. still winds up with a 12 RPI...

Cincy now at 41 RPI. to go along with a top 30 KP rating. While the rest of the bubble lost this weekend, the AAC is 2-0 so far- and Temple and UConn are both up early in their games. BE bubble teams 2-0 as well. I love seeing teams like Ohio St, LSU, Alabama, etc. fall flat on their face, while teams outside the P5 win their way in.