Has there ever been a more overvalued Conference(Big east '09)?

#1
lidderer

lidderer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
815
Likes
0
#1
I'll leave out cincy, depaul, stj, rutgers, seton hall, s. florida, and nova since they're not really being overly hyped.

Notable OOC losses(12): W. Ky; Minnesota; UNLV; Dayton; Tennessee(x2); Cleveland State; BC; St. mary's; Davidson; Kentucky; Ohio State

Notable OOC wins(11): Kentucky; Wisconsin(x2); Gonzaga; Wash. St.; Florida; Kansas; Ohio state; Memphis(x2); Texas

does this strike anyone as such a dominant conference, given the above and more?

And now that we're in conference play, anytime a lower team beats a seeded team(for example: west va. over georgetown) it only seems to convince people that the conference is that much deeper, rather than 'not as good as advertised'.

I'll take the ACC and PAC-10 right now.
 
#2
#2
lidderer said:
I'll leave out cincy, depaul, stj, rutgers, seton hall, s. florida, and nova since they're not really being overly hyped.

Notable OOC losses(12): W. Ky; Minnesota; UNLV; Dayton; Tennessee(x2); Cleveland State; BC; St. mary's; Davidson; Kentucky; Ohio State

Notable OOC wins(11): Kentucky; Wisconsin(x2); Gonzaga; Wash. St.; Florida; Kansas; Ohio state; Memphis(x2); Texas

does this strike anyone as such a dominant conference, given the above and more?

And now that we're in conference play, anytime a lower team beats a seeded team(for example: west va. over georgetown) it only seems to convince people that the conference is that much deeper, rather than 'not as good as advertised'.

I'll take the ACC and PAC-10 right now.
Click to expand...
The PAC 10 is beyond terrible.
 
#5
#5
hatvol96 said:
The PAC 10 is beyond terrible.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I tend to favour the new slow pacing in the pac-10, so a part of me is probably overvaluing them even, and I suppose cal's loss to osu doesn't really help the top of that conference too much as of last night. So I see your point there, or at least could see them as only 3rd best perhaps(I'll take the pac over the sec for sure though).

I'm pretty sure the stats would speak quite highly of the big east, but I just don't particularly see what all the fuss is about.

And if anyone can answer this, because maybe I'm wrong: but does a big east team's rpi simply benefit because of these overall rankings that have been assigned to the teams, or is that more a product of opponent's win% and opponents-opponents win %?
 
#6
#6
lidderer said:
I'll admit I tend to favour the new slow pacing in the pac-10, so a part of me is probably overvaluing them even, and I suppose cal's loss to osu doesn't really help the top of that conference too much as of last night. So I see your point there, or at least could see them as only 3rd best perhaps(I'll take the pac over the sec for sure though).

I'm pretty sure the stats would speak quite highly of the big east, but I just don't particularly see what all the fuss is about.

And if anyone can answer this, because maybe I'm wrong: but does a big east team's rpi simply benefit because of these overall rankings that have been assigned to the teams, or is that more a product of opponent's win% and opponents-opponents win %?
Click to expand...
The polls aren't part of the data used to compile the RPI.
 
#7
#7
There were a few years recently where the big 10 in football was a house of cards, with Michigan and Ohio State being the only teams of any quality in the whole conference. One would justify Ohio State's ranking by having to have played Michigan, and Michigan's for having to play Ohio State. Outside of that game neither team played anyone and thus had great records.
 
#8
#8
lidderer said:
I'll admit I tend to favour the new slow pacing in the pac-10, so a part of me is probably overvaluing them even, and I suppose cal's loss to osu doesn't really help the top of that conference too much as of last night. So I see your point there, or at least could see them as only 3rd best perhaps(I'll take the pac over the sec for sure though).

I'm pretty sure the stats would speak quite highly of the big east, but I just don't particularly see what all the fuss is about.

And if anyone can answer this, because maybe I'm wrong: but does a big east team's rpi simply benefit because of these overall rankings that have been assigned to the teams, or is that more a product of opponent's win% and opponents-opponents win %?
Click to expand...
The PAC 10 is every bit as bad as the SEC, if not worse.
 
#9
#9
hatvol96 said:
Their own coaches admit the PAC 10 is way down this year. That's enough for me.
Click to expand...

certainly from last year, of course, I mean look at who they lost.

It's been interesting to watch how howland's adapted to pac-10 play, then reneged on that, and now gone back again.

It also appears as though usc adopting a 'we'll have a new stud freshamn each year!' approach is not the soundest of methods--big shocker.

Has anyone seen washington play?
 
#10
#10
lidderer said:
Has anyone seen washington play?
Click to expand...
Yes, multiple times. Their being 5-1 in the league is Exhibit 1 as to the PAC 10's weakness. It was all they could do to hold off a mediocre USC team playing without its leading scorer last night in Seattle.
 
#11
#11
hatvol96 said:
The polls aren't part of the data used to compile the RPI.
Click to expand...

Ya that makes sense. You really think the pac is as bad as the sec?

What can explain why the pac-10 plays a big ten paced game nowadays? It seems like a pretty abrupt change from back when the pac was almost a run n gun conference.
 
#15
#15
hatvol96 said:
This is Tim's fourth year in the league. He's candid that this is the weakest it's been in that time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it comes close to approaching the level of awfulness that was 2006.

Although looking at OOC is really does appear as if the pac has done nothing in 09. I'm still not sold on the big east being as daunting as advertised though.
 
#16
#16
hatvol96 said:
Ben Howland, Tim Floyd, and Herb Sendek.
Click to expand...

Ya I guess a methodical coaching style can dictate a game more than a loose one. Although howland did seem to buckle his style that first year, then wisened up and voila: the conference is almost forced to follow suit(esp. when u add sendek of all coaches).

How much is nc state regretting that right about now
 
#17
#17
lidderer said:
Ya I guess a methodical coaching style can dictate a game more than a loose one. Although howland did seem to buckle his style that first year, then wisened up and voila: the conference is almost forced to follow suit(esp. when u add sendek of all coaches).

How much is nc state regretting that right about now
Click to expand...
Howland had no choice but to play that way his first couple of years. His personnel dictated it. NC State is a program that can't come to grips with the fact that the only times they've been a real national contender in the last 40 years is when they cheated under Norm Sloan and Jim Valvano.
 
#18
#18
The Big East might not live up to your standards, but I'll take it all day long over all of the conferences out there and on Tuesdays against all the conferences in history. It might not have that total behemoth or two at the top (I contend it does in Louisville, UConn and Pitt), but that joint goes about 10 deep of very good basketball teams.

The league plays D, save Notre Dame and is littered with very good college basketball players.

Frankly, I'm a Duke fan, but I don't like them to beat any of the top 3 in the Big East.
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
The Big East might not live up to your standards, but I'll take it all day long over all of the conferences out there and on Tuesdays against all the conferences in history. It might not have that total behemoth or two at the top (I contend it does in Louisville, UConn and Pitt), but that joint goes about 10 deep of very good basketball teams.

The league plays D, save Notre Dame and is littered with very good college basketball players.

Frankly, I'm a Duke fan, but I don't like them to beat any of the top 3 in the Big East.
Click to expand...
Duke certainly got a face full of Big East basketball in the NCAAs last year.
 
#20
#20
BigPapaVol said:
The Big East might not live up to your standards, but I'll take it all day long over all of the conferences out there and on Tuesdays against all the conferences in history. It might not have that total behemoth or two at the top (I contend it does in Louisville, UConn and Pitt), but that joint goes about 10 deep of very good basketball teams.

The league plays D, save Notre Dame and is littered with very good college basketball players.

Frankly, I'm a Duke fan, but I don't like them to beat any of the top 3 in the Big East.
Click to expand...

It's certainly a good conference, and I like it quite a bit, but I'm just talking about how out-of-step the perception of it is with reality.

duke did get hit hard by wake last year). But marquette lost to stanford, pitt to msu, gtown to davidson, dame to wsu, uconn to w kysu, al in the first weekend.

I'm quite high on west virginia and have been for awhile. I just don't see the conference being as deep as people suggest. I mean you got 16 teams, you're gonna have some depth just b/c of that.(throw byu and utah in the pac and suddenly: depth).
 
#21
#21
lidderer said:
It's certainly a good conference, and I like it quite a bit, but I'm just talking about how out-of-step the perception of it is with reality.

duke did get hit hard by wake last year). But marquette lost to stanford, pitt to msu, gtown to davidson, dame to wsu, uconn to w kysu, al in the first weekend.

I'm quite high on west virginia and have been for awhile. I just don't see the conference being as deep as people suggest. I mean you got 16 teams, you're gonna have some depth just b/c of that.(throw byu and utah in the pac and suddenly: depth).
Click to expand...
How would adding a bubble team and an NIT squad give the PAC 10 depth?
 
#22
#22
lidderer said:
It's certainly a good conference, and I like it quite a bit, but I'm just talking about how out-of-step the perception of it is with reality.

duke did get hit hard by wake last year). But marquette lost to stanford, pitt to msu, gtown to davidson, dame to wsu, uconn to w kysu, al in the first weekend.

I'm quite high on west virginia and have been for awhile. I just don't see the conference being as deep as people suggest. I mean you got 16 teams, you're gonna have some depth just b/c of that.(throw byu and utah in the pac and suddenly: depth).
Click to expand...
There are nine teams in the Big East who would be contenders for the SEC title.
 
#23
#23
lidderer said:
It's certainly a good conference, and I like it quite a bit, but I'm just talking about how out-of-step the perception of it is with reality.

duke did get hit hard by wake last year). But marquette lost to stanford, pitt to msu, gtown to davidson, dame to wsu, uconn to w kysu, al in the first weekend.

I'm quite high on west virginia and have been for awhile. I just don't see the conference being as deep as people suggest. I mean you got 16 teams, you're gonna have some depth just b/c of that.(throw byu and utah in the pac and suddenly: depth).
Click to expand...
The SEC has twelve and no depth, no strength at the top and an atrocious bottom. Strength in numbers is a fallacy.

Add Utah and BYU to the Pac-10 and it might be able to compete with the SEC, but I wouldn't like the odds.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top