Brad gets so much enjoyment out of constantly banging on the Big Ten, so I decided to check out the non-conference slate for all of his Big East teams to see why they are so tough. Brad's argument always is that the decent Big Ten teams start looking good only when they get to the Big Ten schedule, because the Big Ten sucks so badly.
Without further adieu:
Best Wins/Bad Losses for Big East teams in non-conference play
Cincinnati: Beat Miami (OH). Lost to Belmont, Bowling Green, Illinois State.
UConn: Won at Indiana. No bad losses (lost to Memphis and Gonzaga)
DePaul: No clue. Northwestern? LaSalle? Lost to North Carolina A & T, Illinois-Chicago
Georgetown: Won at Alabama. No bad losses (lost to Memphis)
Louisville: No clue - pick one from @UNLV, ODU, Miami (OH), New Mexico St. Lost to BYU.
Marquette: @ Wisconsin. No bad losses.
Notre Dame: Kansas St.. No bad losses (lost to GT and Baylor at home).
Pitt: @ Duke, @ Dayton. No bad losses.
Providence: Arkansas. Lost at home to South Carolina.
Rutgers: No clue - pick one from Dartmouth, Princeton, Lafayette, North Dakota State. Lost @ St. Peters, @ Nebraska, Rider.
Seton Hall: @ Virginia. Lost @ Penn St.
South Florida: @ Florida St. Lost to Cleveland St., at Buffalo
St. John's: No clue - pick one from Fairleigh Dickinson, @ Hawaii, Marist. Lost to Niagara, and Ohio
Syracuse: @ Virginia. No horrible losses (lost @ Ohio St., UMass, Rhode Island)
Villanova: No clue - pick one from @ George Mason, Penn, LSU, @ Temple, LaSalle. No horrible losses (lost to NC State).
West Virginia: No clue - pick one from New Mexico St., Winthrop, @ Auburn. No bad losses (lost to Tennessee and Oklahoma).
Out of this group, only UConn, Pitt and Marquette has proven anything coming out of their non-conference. And now Pitt has been decimated by injuries. The best non-conference win by far is @ Duke (Pitt). But the Marquette and UConn wins (@ Wisconsin and @ Indiana) are tainted because the Big Ten is horrible, so do those even count?
(Editor's note: The Big East is 3-3 against the Big Ten this year).
Brad keeps saying that the Big East is so tough - but how do we really know that until tournament time? The non-conference slate for these teams is not impressive - in fact, nobody really schedules any non-conference games of any note. And there are a lot of bad losses in there for Big East teams.
So they look tough because they're ranked and they beat up on each other, but there really isn't much of a body of work outside of the conference to compare to.
I'm sure the same can be said for the Big Ten...but that is to be expected because the Big Ten is horrible. I wouldn't be so sure that the Big East is so phenomenal.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The Big East does rule
Matt, Matt, Matt…you disappoint me in so many ways.
1) I don’t think I ever said the Big East was “awesome.” In fact, I think it’s kind of a down year for the Big East. Georgetown is worse than last year, UConn can’t get out of their own way, Louisville has battled injuries all year, and Marquette, well, can’t hit water if it fell out of a boat.
2) I don’t think the top of the Big-11 is so bad that MU winning @ Bucky isn’t a big win. You’re better than that Matt.
3) You say “how do we really know until tournament time?” What, I can’t have an opinion on which conferences are better than others before April? WTF is that?
4) I think there are more good teams in the Big East than Big-11. Yes, there are more teams (meaning more bad teams as well), but there are more better teams in the Big East. In the past 5 or 6 years Syracuse, Uconn, Marquette, West Virginia, Pitt, Villanova, Georgetown and Louisville have all made the Great 8. And another (Notre Dame) made a Sweet 16. If you want to go back farther, go ahead…..
5) ….but, what does the past have to do with this year? Nothing. Thus, I still think the Big East is better. No, not because ESPN or a poll says so. I don’t buy into either of those things…come on Matt, you’re smarter than that. WAY smarter than that.
6) Matt…considering you think the Big-11 is awesome, and (as your researched pointed out) the Big East is junk, I’m assuming you believe the Big-11 will get A) More teams in the tournament, B) Have more teams in the sweet 16, C) more teams in the Great 8, and D) more teams in the Final Four. Is that what you’re saying? If so, I’ll take a piece of that action. A 12-Pack per question? I get the crappy BE, you take the Big-11. Deal??
Chip- Are you menstruating?
I don't know if it was Yahoo Sports or Espn...i think the first...that had some mid-season bracket picks and with those picks it showed each team's best win and worse loss or bad loss. Marquette's "worse loss" was to UCONN and their "best win" along with Duke and Purdue came against Wisconsin! Three teams' best win came against Wisconsin...the same wisconsin that has no Alando Tucker, Kammron Taylor, Kirk Penny, Zach Morley, Mike Kelly or Rashard Griffith (or Boo Wade). For some reason I think people are making a big deal out of Wisconsin!? Probably one of the best if not the best "fundamentals" team in college. Maybe that's why...
I think it is stupid to compare conferences - that's not what I'm doing here. I'm just saying that you and all other Big Ten bashers like to use the Big East as an example of a strong conference, but what do we really know about that conference given their relatively piss poor non-conference schedule and performance?
And of course there will be more NCAA bids coming out of the Big East. That monstrosity has 16 teams.
I don't think you can go back to the past 5 or 6 years, because the Big East as it is presently constructed is what, 3 years old?
I never said the Big Ten is awesome - in fact I said multiple times that the Big Ten is terrible this year. So no, I will not take that bet.
Ah, hell, I'll bet you a twelver of Blatz that the Big Ten will have as many or more final four teams than the Big East will this year.
Post a Comment