2019 Big East: First 10+ Team Conf Ever w All 500 Or Better

[scoscox]

I'm having some difficulty trying to understand the point you are trying to make as it seems you are comparing BE and B12 in 2018, not this year.

I was trying to compare your expectations for the 2019 Big East based on last year, to actual realistic expectations.

The Big 12 was about the same last year as this year. The Big East was worse this year than last year in that same category. But the fact that you dropped isn't just ""We did the job last year, we didn't do it this year." The reality is, you did an INSANE job LAST YEAR, and your job this year was slightly below average.

Think of baseball terms: Everyone knows what it means to hit .400, or .300, or hit 40 HR or 60 HR. But in college hoops, What does “The Big East went .407 vs Q1 OOC” mean? Is that good, bad, average? Is that like an MLB guy hitting .265 or .406; 15 HR or 60 HR? You don’t know.

In your rundown of games/missed opportunities, you mentioned 3 Q1 Losses, 9 Q2 losses, 5 Q3 losses, and 1 Q4 loss. Now, credit for not saying you should have won all of them.

But if we take the averages of the ACC, B10, B12, SEC and BE…

Q1: .351 (you went .407, had you won your three missed opportunities, you’d be .519)
Q2: .630 (you went .583, had you won your nine missed opportunities, you’d be .958)
Q3: .827 (you went .750, had you won your nine missed opportunities, you’d be 1.000)
Q4: .963 (you went .982, had you won your one missed opportunity, you’d be 1.000)

You were ONE GAME worse vs Q2 than expected
You were ONE GAME worse vs Q3 than expected
You were TWO GAMES BETTER vs Q1 than expected
You were ONE GAME BETTER vs Q4 than expected

That’s about what you should expect. It's not realistic expectations that you don't lose those games. Your OOC win percentage last year was the seventh highest EVER. It's unrealistic to expect to have won any more than FIVE of those games.



The real issue is that your Top 7 teams by NET have NINETEEN CONFERENCE LOSSES to your bottom three teams by NET
(For comparison, the Big XII bottom three won 10 conference games vs the others. And their 8th team is 47th in NET).

Which backs up what I’ve been saying since before day one of the new Big East, and why gtmo brought me up in this thread in the first place. You have no bottom, you’re all middle. And while the DRR is fun and entertaining, it’s a detriment to maximize bids with 10 programs of this high quality.

Again, this is the result of the top of the conference being weaker. we want the bottom to be as good as possible. we want the middle to be as good as possible. the top of the conference will be back in a big way next year. this whole add shitty teams to the bottom argument makes no logical sense. please stop

[JPSchmack]

Again, this is the result of the top of the conference being weaker. we want the bottom to be as good as possible. we want the middle to be as good as possible.

If your bottom "gets better," it is at the expense of the middle or top. A better bottom of the league MAKES the top/middle of the league worse because It is a zero sum game. You're going to go 90-90 in Big East play.

From a sheer volume perspective: There’s 87 teams in the top seven conferences. If 60% of each conference is “around .500 or better” in the league (8-10 or better), that’s 52 contenders… for about 40 spots (because the other 25 conferences are sending 28 teams).

No one is talking about shitty teams here. We’re talking about parity. Good parity is “It’s different teams going 3-15 to 5-13 each year." Bad parity is 3rd and 10th being exactly the same quality and everyone just beating the crap out of each other's NCAA chances.

Of course, you would not give a damn if it was the same team going 3-15 every year… as long as it’s not you. But you don’t have a school in the conference who’s been in the league 100 years and isn’t that good (Northwestern! Vanderbilt! Washington State! Oregon State! Wake Forest!) You don’t have a school in the conference who’s bad at basketball but is a traditional football power (USC! Georgia! Penn State! Georgia Tech!).

You created this league based on a perception of “What makes a conference strong? And who’s like us?” You didn’t create the conference based on “What would get the seven of us into the NCAA Tournament every year?” But the answer to those questions are two different things.

[scoscox]

So many logical fallacies it’s incredible. It’s not a zero sum game and the bottom doesn’t get better at the expense of the top. You can’t fool the system for bids. We could’ve just ended up with five bids in a down year had we upset nova. Non conference is important. The only reason this is perceived as a down year is because the top isn’t as good. It’s not perceived that way because depaul is better than usual. It’s perceived that way because nova lost to Furman, penn, and Michigan by 30 and won the big east regular season outright and the big east tournament and pretty much everyone outside of Marquette and seton hall were miserable in the non conference.

The conference is fine

[stever20]

So many logical fallacies it’s incredible. It’s not a zero sum game and the bottom doesn’t get better at the expense of the top. You can’t fool the system for bids. We could’ve just ended up with five bids in a down year had we upset nova. Non conference is important. The only reason this is perceived as a down year is because the top isn’t as good. It’s not perceived that way because depaul is better than usual. It’s perceived that way because nova lost to Furman, penn, and Michigan by 30 and won the big east regular season outright and the big east tournament and pretty much everyone outside of Marquette and seton hall were miserable in the non conference.

The conference is fine

Where do you think the 21 conference wins from DePaul, Providence, and Butler came from? St John's 5, Seton Hall 4, Xavier 3, Georgetown 2, and Creighton 1(plus 6 vs each other). Think St John's would feel a bit more safe? Think Xavier gets in? Think Georgetown and Creighton get in? This year in particular, the bottom being better cost the league. The league frankly was lucky that Nova and Marquette only won 25 conference games this year- the lowest in the 6 years- or the middle would have been squeezed even more.

Conference play is absolutely 100% a zero sum game. For each winner, there is a loser.

And it's why OOC play is so critical.

[scoscox]

And it's why OOC play is so critical.

This is all you should have said. Once again, it makes no sense to want teams in your league to be worse. this is gonna be my last post because i'm tired of arguing such an obvious point. we're gonna get 6-7 bids again next year and you'll go away again.

[stever20]

And it's why OOC play is so critical.

This is all you should have said. Once again, it makes no sense to want teams in your league to be worse. this is gonna be my last post because i'm tired of arguing such an obvious point. we're gonna get 6-7 bids again next year and you'll go away again.

ACC has a real shot at 3 #1 seeds, and they have 6 losing teams. How much did that hurt them? I'd say not much at all.....

Depth is way overrated.