Interesting Article on Big East

[NYCRedmen]

http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/07/31/conference-catch-up-big-east/

 

[bamafan]

Excellent, excellent post. I too could give a crappola how other conference teams do. To me, it's only about St. Johns. Look at the mediocre PAC 10 during UCLA's reign. The conference was weak but the Bruins stayed strong. As long as we can get our share of elite players, the rest will take care of itself. That's why I believe that our non conference schedule should have a few less cup cakes and more national programs on the sched. The big time recruits want to play against the Big Time programs which unfortunately, in their perception, the Big East schedule may not provide.

UCLA is a bad example to use...they are the Yankees of college basketball. That's why they will always be strong.

"Were" the Yankees of college basketball is more like it. It's been a long time since they've dominated.

Been a long time since Yanks have dominated, what with one WS win in last dozen years. And I am a Yankee fan but they have not been dominant for a while. Now Bama is dominant.

 

[bamafan]

Excellent, excellent post. I too could give a crappola how other conference teams do. To me, it's only about St. Johns. Look at the mediocre PAC 10 during UCLA's reign. The conference was weak but the Bruins stayed strong. As long as we can get our share of elite players, the rest will take care of itself. That's why I believe that our non conference schedule should have a few less cup cakes and more national programs on the sched. The big time recruits want to play against the Big Time programs which unfortunately, in their perception, the Big East schedule may not provide.

UCLA is a bad example to use...they are the Yankees of college basketball. That's why they will always be strong.

UCLA is a strong program, but IMO Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas are all much, much higher on the ladder. We are not talking about the 60's anymore. Comparing UCLA's last 30 years to any of the above teams makes that very clear. They missed the NCAAs eight times, were knocked out in the first round five times, and knocked out in the second round six times in that span. They also draw next to no fans (worse than us many years). You could even argue Louisville, Syracuse, and Uconn over UCLA in that span as well. Essentially, you could say that UCLA would be the 5th best program in the ACC over the last 30 years (if they were in the ACC). You can't argue anyone over the Yankees.

So than use Kentucky as an example. SEC not considered much of a hoop conference while Kentucky has been dominant.

 

[austour]

Excellent, excellent post. I too could give a crappola how other conference teams do. To me, it's only about St. Johns. Look at the mediocre PAC 10 during UCLA's reign. The conference was weak but the Bruins stayed strong. As long as we can get our share of elite players, the rest will take care of itself. That's why I believe that our non conference schedule should have a few less cup cakes and more national programs on the sched. The big time recruits want to play against the Big Time programs which unfortunately, in their perception, the Big East schedule may not provide.

UCLA is a bad example to use...they are the Yankees of college basketball. That's why they will always be strong.

UCLA is a strong program, but IMO Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas are all much, much higher on the ladder. We are not talking about the 60's anymore. Comparing UCLA's last 30 years to any of the above teams makes that very clear. They missed the NCAAs eight times, were knocked out in the first round five times, and knocked out in the second round six times in that span. They also draw next to no fans (worse than us many years). You could even argue Louisville, Syracuse, and Uconn over UCLA in that span as well. Essentially, you could say that UCLA would be the 5th best program in the ACC over the last 30 years (if they were in the ACC). You can't argue anyone over the Yankees.

So than use Kentucky as an example. SEC not considered much of a hoop conference while Kentucky has been dominant.

They almost dominated the first round of the NIT last year.

 

[bamafan]

yeah who would accept an off year with a NC the year before and the incredibly talented team they have this year. Maybe I should have used SJU as an example of a dominant team what with our big win in first round of that NIT.

 

[austour]

yeah who would accept an off year with a NC the year before and the incredibly talented team they have this year. Maybe I should have used SJU as an example of a dominant team what with our big win in first round of that NIT.

Is it not possible that neither program is dominant? Kind of like how neither you nor your friend RF dominate the MENSA rankings?

But seriously, plenty of teams have won national championships without a period of dominance. Calipari is certainly dominating the recruiting arena, and he personally is dominating the tourney 7 of the past 8 years but I think you need more than a 3 out of 4 year sample/success rate (really 2.5 out of 4 since the 10/11 team didn't dominate the regular season) to declare dominance. Remember just 5 seasons ago the coach at UK was Billy Gillespie, and they were not dominating nor were they in the last couple years of Tubby's reign.