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

[scoscox]

I posted this on the VU board a couple days ago in a similar thread.

This what happens when some of the teams at the bottom get better. Everyone wanted DePaul to get better and share the BigEast load. DePaul won 3 conference games in 2016, 2, in 2017. 4 in 2018, and 6 (with 2 games to play) in 2019. DePaul has improved and the result is the middle of the BigEast is a quagmire. Every league could use some bottom feeders to improve the records of the other league members. The BigEast really doesn't have one this year. The mighty ACC has four teams with less than 6 wins: Miami (5), Wake (4), Notre Dame (3), and Pitt (2) Those are the records of conference opponents who make the middle of the conference look better.

For everyone who wanted DePaul to improve, be careful what you ask for. It could possibly cost the BigEast some bids this year.

That's a result of the top of the ACC being better than us this year. If Nova, Marquette, Xavier, etc were all top ten teams this year, depaul would still be looking at the same record. (Pitt, ND, etc. all have KP ratings around the same as Georgetown, Depaul, etc.), but since the top of our league is a little weaker, the bottom is a little inflated record wise. Once again, just a down year, nothing indicative of a problem with the league, we want those teams to be better.

[adoraz]

The AAC has been solid. Keep in mind they’re biding their time till UConn, Memphis, and Wichita State get their 2019 classes. Hardaway is already has the #6 class and word is he’s got a couple more big fish on the line.
They also have their TV contract about to come in.
That being said, people are talking about their lowest teams and those teams are about to get paid a lot by the standards around here.
For this year, Tulane and ECU are serving their purpose. They’re absorbing losses to improve their distribution. You want teams like DePaul to LOSE. When DePaul beats teams like St John’s that hurts the conference.
The AAC has had a better year than the Big East because they have a much better win to loss distribution. They’ll get higher seeds and better opportunity. It doesn’t help this conference to get these low seeds.
It doesn’t help this conference to have such a homogenized group of teams. Perception is bad.

It's not good for this year that teams in the basement are beating bubble teams, but it isn't that black and white. Of course, the negative is that it may cost us a bid or two this year (tbd- this was a 4/5 bid league back in Dec). Seeding I don't necessarily agree with, as all teams may avoid the brutal 8/9 lines. As a Johnnies fan, obviously losing sucks and I rather beat everyone, but if we end up making it I rather be an 11 seed than an 8/9 seed. There are also some advantages like more top 75 (Q1) teams to pad our resumes, more NIT teams, etc.

That said, it's a really good thing long term. The bottom half winning is an indicator that these teams are pretty solid and may be ready to compete next year. Georgetown in particular is a great story and them returning to relevancy next year would have a major positive impact on the conference. Xavier needed to bounce back with Steele being a new coach. DePaul needed some sign of life, etc.

I'm a long term thinker, and I think this year is a really good thing for the future.

[stever20]

- X: this is probably the team that we needed to go 4-14. They just couldn't get anything going OOC. So the hole they dug themselves in to start was really deep. And the wins (or lack of wins for their opponents) hurt the conference overall. Can't blame X for that but that's probably the reality.

We really didn't have that bad of a non-conf. We lost 4 games, but none were bad losses. (Auburn, wisconsin, sdsu, uc). probably should've won sdsu and had a shot to beat auburn and wisconsin. obviously, we'd like to be better and it's not our usual standard, but we didn't have the worst non-conference performance in the league by any stretch

Actually X had 5 losses not 4(you forgot about Missouri). So the 5 losses was the most of any team in the conference OOC. So you can make a pretty fair argument that it was the worst OOC performance of any of the teams.

Also, the SDSU game was a bad loss- they're #133 so that's a Q3 loss.

[GumbyDamnit!]

The AAC has been solid. Keep in mind they’re biding their time till UConn, Memphis, and Wichita State get their 2019 classes. Hardaway is already has the #6 class and word is he’s got a couple more big fish on the line.
They also have their TV contract about to come in.
That being said, people are talking about their lowest teams and those teams are about to get paid a lot by the standards around here.
For this year, Tulane and ECU are serving their purpose. They’re absorbing losses to improve their distribution. You want teams like DePaul to LOSE. When DePaul beats teams like St John’s that hurts the conference.
The AAC has had a better year than the Big East because they have a much better win to loss distribution. They’ll get higher seeds and better opportunity. It doesn’t help this conference to get these low seeds.
It doesn’t help this conference to have such a homogenized group of teams. Perception is bad.

Perception is bad for the BE? Yeah, OK. The conference has little to prove.

To your second point about the AAC recruiting, a closer look shows some issues. The entire conference is bringing in (8) Top 150 players (247 composite) in the class of 2019 (or .67 per school). Memphis has a monster class for sure with (4) Top 150 players, including #1 player Wiseman. UConn has a pretty solid class as well with (3) Top 100 players. But WSU is the only other school with a top 150 player coming in with the #116 ranked recruit. Zero for Temple, zero for UCF, zero for Cincy and zero for Houston. What's up with that?

Houston loses two key seniors, as does Cincy and so does Temple. UCF loses 3 of their top 6. WSU loses it's two best players (by far). So Memphis and UConn are certainly restocking the shelves. But Wiseman will be gone after a year and the bottom programs are doing absolutely nothing on the trail. So there's a actually a really good chance that the AAC takes a big step back next year (with the exception of Memphis).

By contrast of the 13 Top 150 players the BE will be bringing in (1.3 per school) there are 6 different schools represented (VU, DePaul, PC, X, Butler & G'town). Talent spread among the entire conference as has been the case over the last 6 years.

[GoldenWarrior11]

The AAC has been solid. Keep in mind they’re biding their time till UConn, Memphis, and Wichita State get their 2019 classes. Hardaway is already has the #6 class and word is he’s got a couple more big fish on the line.
They also have their TV contract about to come in.
That being said, people are talking about their lowest teams and those teams are about to get paid a lot by the standards around here.
For this year, Tulane and ECU are serving their purpose. They’re absorbing losses to improve their distribution. You want teams like DePaul to LOSE. When DePaul beats teams like St John’s that hurts the conference.
The AAC has had a better year than the Big East because they have a much better win to loss distribution. They’ll get higher seeds and better opportunity. It doesn’t help this conference to get these low seeds.
It doesn’t help this conference to have such a homogenized group of teams. Perception is bad.

Perception is bad for the BE? Yeah, OK. The conference has little to prove.

To your second point about the AAC recruiting, a closer look shows some issues. The entire conference is bringing in (8) Top 150 players (247 composite) in the class of 2019 (or .67 per school). Memphis has a monster class for sure with (4) Top 150 players, including #1 player Wiseman. UConn has a pretty solid class as well with (3) Top 100 players. But WSU is the only other school with a top 150 player coming in with the #116 ranked recruit. Zero for Temple, zero for UCF, zero for Cincy and zero for Houston. What's up with that?

Houston loses two key seniors, as does Cincy and so does Temple. UCF loses 3 of their top 6. WSU loses it's two best players (by far). So Memphis and UConn are certainly restocking the shelves. But Wiseman will be gone after a year and the bottom programs are doing absolutely nothing on the trail. So there's a actually a really good chance that the AAC takes a big step back next year (with the exception of Memphis).

By contrast of the 13 Top 150 players the BE will be bringing in (1.3 per school) there are 6 different schools represented (VU, DePaul, PC, X, Butler & G'town). Talent spread among the entire conference as has been the case over the last 6 years.

I think we are in a great spot - thanks in large part to Villanova, and from tournament runs by Xavier and Butler - but to say there is little to prove only creates an artificial barrier to our potential. I would love to consistently get seven teams in the tournament. I would love to have multiple Sweet 16 appearances in a given year, maybe even dual Elite 8/Final Four representatives. Why not an all-Big East national championship? Why not 3-4 ranked teams at a given time? Why not multiple top-4 bids? There is still room to grow, which has the future exciting.

I posted on the other board, but - to me - I think the biggest challenge the AAC will have is whether or not programs like SMU, Houston, UCF and USF can maintain their success. Even with expected bids this year for UCF and Houston, those four programs have made the tournament a combined eleven times in the past 25 years. SMU went for a home run with Larry Brown, but that is by no means a way to sustain success. Will Kelvin Sampson be poached by a bigger program this Spring? Will UCF be able to keep it up after Fall and Dawkins graduate (recruiting has been very average under Dawkins). What about USF (who struggled consistently in the Big East)? Temple has the last recruiting class in the AAC (Dunphry is retiring an being replaced by Aaron McKie). UCF, USF, ECU, Tulane and Tulsa all average below 5k per game. For UCF and USF, who have had great years, that is a big red flag.

I do think the Big East will be a top-3 conference next year, with all that it has coming back. I am really rooting for all of our programs to have a deep March.

[adoraz]

Way too early for this, but next year could possibly be the best regular season of the "new" Big East.

Think about how many teams could be ranked preseason: Marquette, Villanova, Georgetown, Seton Hall, and Xavier all have a shot. I expect 3 teams in the preseason.

Again, still need to wait and see what happens in the off-season, but I don't see the conference losing a ton of talent.

[Jet915]

Way too early for this, but next year could possibly be the best regular season of the "new" Big East.

Think about how many teams could be ranked preseason: Marquette, Villanova, Georgetown, Seton Hall, and Xavier all have a shot. I expect 3 teams in the preseason.

Again, still need to wait and see what happens in the off-season, but I don't see the conference losing a ton of talent.

Might add that Creighton returns all their starters and adds Denzel Mahoney who many have said is one of the top players on our current roster.

[stever20]

i think one thing that really hurt this year was the Big East was down in conjunction with what seems to be a really outstanding freshman class.... If this year had been like some of the more recent years where the freshmen across the country were down(or even normal quite frankly)- the Big East wouldn't have been as far down as they got.

[JPSchmack]

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.

[scoscox]

Actually X had 5 losses not 4(you forgot about Missouri). So the 5 losses was the most of any team in the conference OOC. So you can make a pretty fair argument that it was the worst OOC performance of any of the teams.

Also, the SDSU game was a bad loss- they're #133 so that's a Q3 loss.

I blacked out the missouri game. god that was awful