ESPN again trying to tear down the Big East

[TheHall]

Calling the Big East a loser in realignment is ridiculous. Here's what we have accomplished during the process:

1.) Created a conference of our own in complete control of our own destiny - we did not join someone else's league.
2.) Kept the Big East name.
3.) Kept Madison Square Garden
4.) Went from making $1.5 million from Big East TV contract (would have been $2.5 with Cuse and Pitt) to $4 million.
5.) Contract with Fox will put our games in 90 million homes nationally.
6.) We added three very good basketball schools (they do not replace Cuse and Pitt but when you factor in the dead weight left behind its not to shabby at all).
7.) We have a league with similar schools that are somewhat geographically contained on the east coast and mid-west.

Now, the old Big East was the best conference probably in the history of the college game. But our individual schools are going to get more, money, more exposure, and more control of their destiny. So while we are no longer in the best conference out there, did we actually lose anything in this?

I would add this to your list:

8.) The BE is STILL a buyer...2 more spots to fill to get to 12 (more Fox Buck$). And those picks will be made from a position of strength which indeed is not the definition of a realignment loser.

[Michael in Raleigh]

All right, if the question is, "Who's better on the court and who's worse on the court after realignment?" then there's no indisputable way of answering it because zero games have been played yet. But based on recent history and projecting into the future, I think it's pretty hard to argue that the ACC isn't better. They were a winner in terms of recent and projected on-the-court success. What's the argument against that when reigning national champion and perennial power Louisville is set to join in 2014-15, Final Four team and perennial power Syracuse is joining this year, top 20 program and fairly recent No. 1 seed Pitt joins this year, and middle-of-the-pack team Notre Dame from the greatest basketball conference of all time also joins this year?

I do think valid points have been made about the ACC's top heaviness. Duke and UNC have been great, and the rest of the league hasn't carried its weight.

For those who are arguing the ACC shouldn't take credit for Louisville or Syracuse's championships or Final Fours, that's a point well taken. But that same logic has to allow the ACC to get credit for Maryland's championship in '02 and FF appearance in '01.

As for the Big East, yes, in my opinion, it is in all likelihood worse on the court after realignment, if the portion of the Big East we're talking about is the Catholic 7. If we're talking about the three newcomers, well, they're in a WAY better league. But the C7 lost Syracuse, Louisville, UConn, Pitt, Cincinnati, and ND. Even WVU had its share of tournament success. Trimming the "fat" of Rutgers and USF doesn't make up for the loss of those other programs. It would be disingenuous to suggest that in terms of on-the-court success, the Big East is not a little worse off.

That's not to say the Big East isn't in a good place, though. This league has a clear identity now, and it's a great one. It's better off fincancially because of the FS1 deal. It's better off than it would have been had it stayed with the AAC. It's just that it's not necessarily going to be the pinnacle of basketball anymore with 7 or 8 Top 25 teams. I think that's something fans of this league are happy to live with.

[DumpsterFireA10]

This is going to be great basketball no matter what ESPN says.

[Michael in Raleigh]

Without having access to ESPN Insider, here's what I find very disingenuous about the ESPN article: It put the Big East as the #1 "loser." The Big East was not a "loser." It's not better off on the court. It's taken step back, but the schools are genuinely excited about where they are now.

An honest article, which would have disregarded the Big East's ties to Fox Sports and ESPN's own ties to certain conferences, would have listed the American as the #1 biggest loser by a mile. Just among its strongest programs, it has lost Syracuse, Georgetown, Pitt, Villanova, and Marquette. Not to mention 2010 FF team West Virginia, Notre Dame, St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence, or DePaul. It loses Louisville next year. It lost the tournament in Madison Square Garden. It gained a very good program in Memphis, a good one in Temple, and a whole bunch of projects.

For basketball, this league is in pitiful shape compared to where it once was. I won't go far as to call it a mid-major the way some on here will, but this league, much more so than the Big East, is absolutely not what it used to be. How can any honest writer not have this league as the #1 loser in realignment.

Another league I would consider having taken a more significant hit than the Big East is the Atlantic 10. Oh what could have been for the A-10. But it has lost Xavier, Butler, and Temple, not to mention UNC-Charlotte. VCU is the only somewhat sufficient replacement. George Mason and Davidson have been good for CAA and SoCon teams, but they're not in the same class as the schools that left.

[marquette]

We know that at the moment we aren't the equal of the ACC or the B1G at this time. We may be able to reach that point in the near future if recruiting keeps up and the new guys perform to their usual levels. We came out as good as possible with money, exposure, brand recognition, and strong basketball traditions. We have a shared identity and we should be able to cooperate better than ever before. I think we are in a great place, poised to be a top 5 (maybe top 3) conference this year with a bright future.

[TheHall]

All right, if the question is, "Who's better on the court and who's worse on the court after realignment?" then there's no indisputable way of answering it because zero games have been played yet. But based on recent history and projecting into the future, I think it's pretty hard to argue that the ACC isn't better...

I agree with your breakdown based on at this moment. What's always interesting about realignment though is you get new winners & losers. The assumption is Syracuse will just maintain their formula for success in the ACC, but it's not that simple. Most of the country thinks Syracuse is in/near NYC, wait until all their games get shown being played in the south. How's that going to effect their recruiting model as NY's cbb team? The same for Pitt, who historically recruits NY/NJ. AT least Pitt has a metro area with good ballers, but central NY is nobody's idea of a bball hotbed. It's a crap shoot that those teams won't start loosing out on recruits in the area to schools like SJU, SHU, Prov, or maybe even Xavier. Especially with Uconn and Cincy being in the American now. All the teams leaving have this problem of huge uncertainty in their blueprints for success, not the ones staying.

The schools staying lost a lot no doubt but they gained a lot in the form of being fully supported by FOX SPORTS 1 as the original BE benefited by being backed by ESPN. The catholic 7 also benefited from losing the bad pub the fb side of the house was bringing to the brand (fair or not).

While on the other hand, the teams coming into the BE are going to be able to get a boost not only from the new network but also from of a lot of that street cred that all those teams leaving built up over the years.....

[billyjack]

Michael--
Another way to look at today's realignment is to see how other realignments of the past played out.

These teams in the past left the Big East:
(state of their programs are in parentheses, comparing them from date leaving Big East to present):
Boston College (much worse)
Virginia Tech (worse)
Miami (Fla) (same or worse except in 2013, but they've lost their starting 5 and will struggle in 2014)
West Virginia (worse)
None of them have gotten better. So 0 improved, 1 is the same or worse, and 3 got worse.

These teams were added to the Big East thru the years (teams added after Pitt in '83):
(state of their programs are in parentheses, comparing them from date entering Big East to date leaving Big East (or currently in Big East)):
Miami (Fla) - improved.
Notre Dame - improved.
West Virginia - improved.
Rutgers - same.
Virginia Tech - improved.
Louisville - improved.
DePaul - worse.
Marquette - improved.
Cincinnati - improved.
South Florida - same.
The Big East has a history of improving teams. So 7 improved, 2 the same, 1 is worse.

Big East newbies --> 7 improved, 2 same, 1 worse.
Big East defectors --> 0 improved, 1 same, 3 worse.

Looking at past history spread out over the last 20+ years --> it means Creighton, Butler and Xavier can expect to improve (probability and past-history wise).
Looking at past history of departing Big East schools --> it means that the departing schools can expect to have a downturn.

[Michael in Raleigh]

Michael--
Another way to look at today's realignment is to see how other realignments of the past played out.

These teams in the past left the Big East:
(state of their programs are in parentheses, comparing them from date leaving Big East to present):
Boston College (much worse)
Virginia Tech (worse)
Miami (Fla) (same or worse except in 2013, but they've lost their starting 5 and will struggle in 2014)
West Virginia (worse)
None of them have gotten better. So 0 improved, 1 is the same or worse, and 3 got worse.

...

Big East newbies --> 7 improved, 2 same, 1 worse.
Big East defectors --> 0 improved, 1 same, 3 worse.

Looking at past history spread out over the last 20+ years --> it means Creighton, Butler and Xavier can expect to improve (probability and past-history wise).
Looking at past history of departing Big East schools --> it means that the departing schools can expect to have a downturn.

Is one year of the Big 12 a large enough sample size for West Virginia to be declared as worse? The others you listed have been gone for nine full seasons. Granted, I do agree that they probably will be worse off with zero conference mates on the east coast, or anywhere in their region, for that matter, but in fairness, I think we should see how it plays out.

What about Virginia Tech? I don't remember them ever doing anything as a member of the Big East. In fact, there have been tons of old-school ACC fans pining away for the supposed good ol' days when the league had only 7 or 8 members. They decried the VT addition because VT was, at the time, no good at basketball. As for what the Big East did for VT, they were only a member of the Big East for non-football sports for four seasons (2000-01, '01-'02, '02-'03, and '03-'04), and I don't see how the Big East had an impact on the quality of VT hoops, for better or worse. In the ACC, they've at least made the NCAA's a few times and otherwise been the most recognizable bubble team in America. I think VT has been better as the result of ACC membership, not worse. And I often point out to those old school fans who complain about the VT addition supposedly hurting basketball, VT has done its share of the bargain. It got better in hoops. It's that the old guard schools, except for Duke and UNC, got worse.

BC has been worse off, no question about it.

Miami has been a little worse, as you said, but on the whole, there's not a tremendous difference. As a Big East member, there was one year where Miami had a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament, plus a few other appearances with early exits. Otherwise, Miami was towards the bottom of the league. As an ACC member, Miami hasn't been great, except for last year, but it hasn't been awful, either.

You do make a good point about the lack of exposure in NYC and surrounding areas contributing BC's dropoff in recruiting. Taking it another level, you seem to be predicting a similar dropoff for Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville. That sounds like good reasons for the ACC to hold some tournaments at Barclays (MSG just is not going to happen.) Syracuse, I'm sure, will do its part to maintain its east coast, and especially NYC, presence with neutral site games in the New York area. I'm sure they'll also try to keep a non-conference series with St. John's and with Georgetown.

Besides, Syracuse and Louisville, in particular, are not all of a sudden going to lose the ability to bring in east coast recruits just because they're playing Duke and UNC instead of Seton Hall and Providence. They're two of the 10 best programs in college basketball, all-time and in the past 10 years. BC never was at their level.

[billyjack]

Quick point-- Miami (Fla) basically had no hoops program in 1992... they restarted basketball in the late 80s... then were thrown in the deep end with us... the same as if Florida International had joined... it took around 5 or so years, but under Leonard Hamilton they won made an NCAA, and a few years after that the won the regular season title and made a Sweet 16...

Virginia Tech in the Big East stayed the same (bad) or improved a little once Seth Greenberg arrived.

West Virginia-- I just don't see their path to improvement... they'll have to recruit kids to play in Morgantown who also want to travel 800+ miles to every road game. Pre-Big East they hadn't made a Sweet 16 since 1963...! Think of that...!

[TheHall]

Quick point-- Miami (Fla) basically had no hoops program in 1992... they restarted basketball in the late 80s... then were thrown in the deep end with us... the same as if Florida International had joined... it took around 5 or so years, but under Leonard Hamilton they won made an NCAA, and a few years after that the won the regular season title and made a Sweet 16...

The best stretch in program history & they produced solid pros too: James Jones & Johnny Salmons, Tim James wasn't bad either.