ACC VS. BE Basketball

[fieldgeneral 10]

Ok, so apparently a partial conversation took place in the chat section of the site and noone can go back and look at the info to discuss.

 

So, here is the question.

 

ACC or BE which basketball conference proved to be the better conference this season. I'm even throwing out the fact that the NC came from that conference. I'm talking the whole body of work. RPI, SOS, Top 25 wins vs. final top 25 , OOC quality wins.

 

Please use facts to back up your claims! Stoney / UVA here is your chance!

[VivaFutbol 10]

I believe that the only schools that would "survive" the Big East from the ACC would be Duke and North Carolina. FSU, Clemson and VT were too inconsistent for me.

[Guest StoneyCalhoun]

Ok, so apparently a partial conversation took place in the chat section of the site and noone can go back and look at the info to discuss.

 

So, here is the question.

 

ACC or BE which basketball conference proved to be the better conference this season. I'm even throwing out the fact that the NC came from that conference. I'm talking the whole body of work. RPI, SOS, Top 25 wins vs. final top 25 , OOC quality wins.

 

Please use facts to back up your claims! Stoney / UVA here is your chance!

 

Lol. Try to go find those missing nuggets please.

 

UVAObserver and I, and even ask BHS03 (A BE supporter) will tell you that I, and probably anyone else agrees that the BE is better than the ACC.

 

But they aren't THAT good as many made them out to be.

 

My mission statement is the just to deconstruct the hegemonic ideology of the Big East.

 

I have done that. You ask for facts, give some of your own. I'll start when you do that. Until then, I think the public opinion sides with me, so I don't have to do the work.

 

I'll be waiting.

[fieldgeneral 10]

I believe that the only schools that would "survive" the Big East from the ACC would be Duke and North Carolina. FSU, Clemson and VT were too inconsistent for me.

 

Viva, I agree that Duke / UNC would compete in the BE , however I don't think they are a lock to finish in the top 2-3 every season in the BE as they do in the ACC.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Lol. Try to go find those missing nuggets please.

 

UVAObserver and I, and even ask BHS03 (A BE supporter) will tell you that I, and probably anyone else agrees that the BE is better than the ACC.

 

But they aren't THAT good as many made them out to be.

 

My mission statement is the just to deconstruct the hegemonic ideology of the Big East.

 

I have done that. You ask for facts, give some of your own. I'll start when you do that. Until then, I think the public opinion sides with me, so I don't have to do the work.

 

I'll be waiting.

 

I don't think that the entire public opinion sides with you, here on this site probably due to the large number of ACC lovers. If you want fact I will provide them. What criteria are we basing our discussion on? Unless you clearly lay out what it is you feel that proves that the BE isn't as good as advertised, then It's like chasing our tails. If it's just the matter of whether or not they should have gotten 11 teams in the tourney, then sure that's debatable. I can agree that maybe Nova shouldn't have made the tourney, but was there an ACC team that performed better overall that should have taken their place...probably not.

[Guest StoneyCalhoun]

You should NEVER let someone define the terms of a debate.

 

But, you can't take it back now.

 

Let's go with the most democratic system in the entire NCAA, the tournament of 68. Neutral court, everything on the line.

 

Which conference produced the most amount of Sweet 16 teams? What is the ratio of teams in vs. teams out?

 

Number of teams that were upset in each conference, in the first 2 rounds?

 

Number of upsets by a conference?

 

Winning percentage?

 

Most top 25 wins.

 

There is your criteria. Have fun.

 

*BTW, I might be inclined to think other conferences are up there with the Big East besides the ACC, and the ACC not as close! My oh my! Maybe I am not arguing from a biased standpoint! Can that happen???

[fieldgeneral 10]

You should NEVER let someone define the terms of a debate.

 

But, you can't take it back now.

 

Let's go with the most democratic system in the entire NCAA, the tournament of 68. Neutral court, everything on the line.

 

Which conference produced the most amount of Sweet 16 teams? What is the ratio of teams in vs. teams out?

 

Number of teams that were upset in each conference, in the first 2 rounds?

 

Number of upsets by a conference?

 

Winning percentage?

 

Most top 25 wins.

 

There is your criteria. Have fun.

 

*BTW, I might be inclined to think other conferences are up there with the Big East besides the ACC, and the ACC not as close! My oh my! Maybe I am not arguing from a biased standpoint! Can that happen???

 

Going on the basis of the tournament of 68, then you throw out the entire regular season which is pointless to throw away. It's called March Madness for a reason, upsets are the reason some people watch the tournament. Getting 11 teams in the tourney opens for more upsets, a definite lower winning % in the tourney, ratios will not be able to compared either due to extreme number of teams the ACC failed to put in or the large number the BE was able to get in.

 

If we use the basis of the tourney....a BE team won the NC...so I guess we can end the discussion on the basis of the tourney.

 

I agree my answer of Uconn was silly and pointless , I don't think Butler and Uconn were the two best teams in the nation, but that's the nature of a tournament. Uconn / Butler was hot....it's basketball...it happesn.

 

If you want to discuss the conferences as a whole with the full season as a whole, feel free to prove to me why the BE isn't as good as advertised.....

 

I understand that you may think that due to their performance in the NCAA tourney, I'm cool with that opinion, but it's that an opinion. The only real facts we have to go on is a full body of work. One game anyone can win or lose.

 

BTW, with your argument, let's count the number of teams from each of the two conferences in the final four / NC game?

Edited April 7, 2011 by fieldgeneral

[Guest StoneyCalhoun]

OMG.

 

You are so lazy.

 

Tomorrow I will argue for the BE, with the criteria above. You shouldn't have let me define the terms, but you can still win if you are arguing for the BE being head and shoulders above the rest.

 

Secondly, in conference games take up over half of the season, almost 2/3rds. We can't really argue with that.

 

Third, do you ever read or listen? Take ANY conference and compare the win/loss or the ratios. Shocking what you will find. The BE had the most top seeds of any conference, and they all fell. It is not a matter of more of chance when they all fail lol.

[bluefieldRocks 14]

OMG.

 

You are so lazy.

 

Tomorrow I will argue for the BE, with the criteria above. You shouldn't have let me define the terms, but you can still win if you are arguing for the BE being head and shoulders above the rest.

 

Secondly, in conference games take up over half of the season, almost 2/3rds. We can't really argue with that.

 

Third, do you ever read or listen? Take ANY conference and compare the win/loss or the ratios. Shocking what you will find. The BE had the most top seeds of any conference, and they all fell. It is not a matter of more of chance when they all fail lol.

 

Please never say OMG again.

 

You may now continue with the bickering fellas.

[VivaFutbol 10]

Viva, I agree that Duke / UNC would compete in the BE , however I don't think they are a lock to finish in the top 2-3 every season in the BE as they do in the ACC.

 

Agreed.

[Guest The Variable]

OMG.

 

You are so lazy.

 

Tomorrow I will argue for the BE, with the criteria above. You shouldn't have let me define the terms, but you can still win if you are arguing for the BE being head and shoulders above the rest.

 

Secondly, in conference games take up over half of the season, almost 2/3rds. We can't really argue with that.

 

Third, do you ever read or listen? Take ANY conference and compare the win/loss or the ratios. Shocking what you will find. The BE had the most top seeds of any conference, and they all fell. It is not a matter of more of chance when they all fail lol.

 

Except when the national champ is from what conference?

 

Your "debate" sucks and your position sounds like it was written by someone with a TBI.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Except when the national champ is from what conference?

 

Your "debate" sucks and your position sounds like it was written by someone with a TBI.

 

You're putting too much stock from which conference the NC came.

 

If this is the case, I'll gladly concede that the Big East is the greatest this season, because you're forced to admit that the ACC was unquestionably the best for the two straight years before it. By that flawed logic, the ACC has been unquestionably better than the Big East THREE times since the Big East could last stake its claim. See?

 

You might have your differences with Stoney's opinion, but his facts are intact. His reasoning's pretty solid, as well. Stoney's coming up with number after number and fact after fact, and all I see in response are "your debate sucks" (you) and "I'm too lazy to go back and read the numbers, so I'll just give my biased opinion and ride that show-pony to its gruesome death" (FG).

[Guest StoneyCalhoun]

Variable, if you want to be a bully, that is fine. Ad hominum attacks aren't going to bother me.

 

Fact of the matter is, the Big East was only marginally better, and not the superconference the media made them out to be.

 

Lastly, I would think that we both know that just because one team won the NC, it doesn't mean that conference is the best. It would be foolhardy to argue that the ACC was the best conference last year. The same could be said if Butler won. THe BE's argument has more merits than the fact that UCONN won.

 

Which you could argue that the Big East did get 11 teams in, which is based on the body of work they presented, and that is an all time high.

 

You could argue that the BE fared as well as any other conference in putting teams in the Elite 8. The Big East finished with 14 wins, more than any other conference, and had one of the best records, only behind the ACC.

 

The Big East only put 18% of the teams in the sweet sixteen. So what? The Big 12 only had 20% and the Pac 10 only had 25%. Seems like they are just under average, and IF syracuse and Cincinatti could have played someone else the figure could have been 36%, but we will never know.

 

The Big East did have upsets, UCONN, Marquette (2x), but they were prone to fail, Butler in the second round is a tough matchup, and FSU was playing well, Faried came into his own at L'Ville. And that is the nature of it. And besides all of the upsets that hit the BE, we still had a winning record overall, beat 7 ranked teams, and finished 14-10.

 

The argument could be made.

 

If my posts are not coherent, or not consise, feel free to point out where. I understand I may not be the greatest writer or debater, but I will sure answer any questions you have.

 

And please stop with the TBI, and schizophrenia, once again. It gains us nothing. Thanks.

[Guest StoneyCalhoun]

You're putting too much stock from which conference the NC came.

 

If this is the case, I'll gladly concede that the Big East is the greatest this season, because you're forced to admit that the ACC was unquestionably the best for the two straight years before it. By that flawed logic, the ACC has been unquestionably better than the Big East THREE times since the Big East could last stake its claim. See?

 

You might have your differences with Stoney's opinion, but his facts are intact. His reasoning's pretty solid, as well. Stoney's coming up with number after number and fact after fact, and all I see in response are "your debate sucks" (you) and "I'm too lazy to go back and read the numbers, so I'll just give my biased opinion and ride that show-pony to its gruesome death" (FG).

 

Thank you.

[fieldgeneral 10]

OMG.

 

You are so lazy.

 

Tomorrow I will argue for the BE, with the criteria above. You shouldn't have let me define the terms, but you can still win if you are arguing for the BE being head and shoulders above the rest.

 

Secondly, in conference games take up over half of the season, almost 2/3rds. We can't really argue with that.

 

Third, do you ever read or listen? Take ANY conference and compare the win/loss or the ratios. Shocking what you will find. The BE had the most top seeds of any conference, and they all fell. It is not a matter of more of chance when they all fail lol.

 

LOL, did you really type OMG? Do you have braces and little pink bows in your hair?

 

Ok here ya go: In response to your crap on the chat box.

 

1. Why concentrate on the top 8? Oh that's right, let's not include the National Champ...that makes lots of sense. It just shows the strength of the conference to have the #9 team win it all.

 

2. You can't fault a team for their seeding and who they play. Sure regular season has to do with it, but playing your own conf. in a tournament will happen when you get 11 in. No other conference can boast that fact of 11 teams.

 

3. Marginal or not on any win or stats is crazy to say it was only marginal, Duke marginally beat Butler last year....didn't matter. I would say Duke was a much better team, they weren't that night.

 

4. Why not include UCONN in your stats? only 9th best team from the BE right? Are we going to exclude all of the conference champs? Of course not!

 

5. .500 win / lose % first two rounds according to you, acc had 75% out of those wins how far did those teams go afterwards? Let's talk against the toughest competition. No ACC/ Big XII / SEC/ or Big Ten could not send a team to the NC...BE did, only one of those conferences other than the BE got a team in the final four.

 

6. Lowest % of Bcs conf. in sweet 16......but highest of any in final four (tied with sec) and only bcs conf rep in championship game! looks like the others need to step it up a notch!

 

7. You talk aobut BE have the best RPI...you didn't mention SOS! They avereaged 106.9 on the SOS power ratings. Of the top 24 teams in the country (using SOS rankings) half..yes 50% were from the Big East...

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/strength-of-schedule-by-team

 

The Big East Confrence had:

 

#1 SOS

#1 RPI

#1 Team in the nation

[Guest The Variable]

You're putting too much stock from which conference the NC came.

 

If this is the case, I'll gladly concede that the Big East is the greatest this season, because you're forced to admit that the ACC was unquestionably the best for the two straight years before it. By that flawed logic, the ACC has been unquestionably better than the Big East THREE times since the Big East could last stake its claim. See?

 

You might have your differences with Stoney's opinion, but his facts are intact. His reasoning's pretty solid, as well. Stoney's coming up with number after number and fact after fact, and all I see in response are "your debate sucks" (you) and "I'm too lazy to go back and read the numbers, so I'll just give my biased opinion and ride that show-pony to its gruesome death" (FG).

 

His positioning comes from the fact that he doesnt like the Big East...thats fine. He thinks the ACC is better. Thats fine too. He is hard charging at the Big East in a manner to show how much the Big East sucks, thats where he falls apart. Say what you will about the Big East, but they produced the national champion. The ACC gets to make these claims on a regular basis because of Duke and UNC who are perrenial champions. The whole fact that he is this riled up over this shows how juvenile and petty he is. If a six year old doesnt want to share his toys because they are his, he is right that he owns the toys...but it doesnt make his tantrum any less immature.

 

We read the same things when Poquoson beat Richlands. "Richlands is still better" yeah well you might think so but Poquoson still won. Sometimes you just have to give the credit to the winner of the moment and wait until it is your time to shine, which I am sure will come soon as it has in the past.

 

To the Victor go the spoils, Stoney. UCONN and the Big East get the spoils this year. They certainly cannot control what the media wants to say about them and even if they could, why would they? It helps their stature, recruiting, money, ect.

Edited April 7, 2011 by The Variable

[Deleted Account 5,203]

His positioning comes from the fact that he doesnt like the Big East...thats fine. He thinks the ACC is better. Thats fine too. He is hard charging at the Big East in a manner to show how much the Big East sucks, thats where he falls apart. Say what you will about the Big East, but they produced the national champion. The ACC gets to make these claims on a regular basis because of Duke and UNC who are perrenial champions. The whole fact that he is this riled up over this shows how juvenile and petty he is. If a six year old doesnt want to share his toys because they are his, he is right that he owns the toys...but it doesnt make his tantrum any less immature.

 

We read the same things when Poquoson beat Richlands. "Richlands is still better" yeah well you might think so but Poquoson still won. Sometimes you just have to give the credit to the winner of the moment and wait until it is your time to shine, which I am sure will come soon as it has in the past.

 

To the Victor go the spoils, Stoney. UCONN and the Big East get the spoils this year. They certainly cannot control what the media wants to say about them and even if they could, why would they? It helps their stature, recruiting, money, ect.

 

Stoney's not trying to say that the Big East sucks. He's trying to say that it is not the holy grail of conferences that ESPN shoves down our throats from November until April. Being an ACC fan, I can sympathize with him. Though the ACC has been watered down by addition, it has still produced 3 of the last 7 and 4 of the last 10 national champions. Both of those are the best marks in college basketball. It does get frustrating to see ESPN pimp the Big East, while we're the ones winning almost half the natties.

 

We in the ACC are not naive enough to claim that "because we had the national champion, we are unquestionably the best conference." It's just not that way. One team does not a conference make. That's like claiming that the Horizon League would've been the best conference had Butler won. It most certainly would not have been, and I think that point's fairly obvious.

 

The only people I've ever heard that cockamamie argument from are Big East fans.

 

Numbers convince me, Variable. I like numbers: they are objective, not subjective, and lead to accurate comparison. Stoney's thrown out a slew of them. Field has not (and I'm responding to his post next).

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I'm going to respond to this bad boy point by laborious point.

 

LOL, did you really type OMG? Do you have braces and little pink bows in your hair?

 

Ad hominems are never a good thing. If you want a surefire tactic that will make you look as badly as possible while making your opponent take the high road, continue to use ad hominems.

 

Ok here ya go: In response to your crap on the chat box.

 

1. Why concentrate on the top 8? Oh that's right, let's not include the National Champ...that makes lots of sense. It just shows the strength of the conference to have the #9 team win it all.

 

He's doing this to show conference strength outside the national champion. We are debating CONFERENCES, after all, and not just the best team. Given that there are a whopping 15 other teams in your mega-conference, I think it's not out of line. BTW, I thought you were supposed to be presenting numbers to aid your case. There are no numbers here.

 

2. You can't fault a team for their seeding and who they play. Sure regular season has to do with it, but playing your own conf. in a tournament will happen when you get 11 in. No other conference can boast that fact of 11 teams.

 

Just because 11 teams got in does not mean that their body of work is simply better than those teams who did not. You're relying on a false friend here. VT's resume was better than VCU's, but look who got in. Colorado's resume was better than UAB's, but look who got in. Plus, when you have somewhere between 15 and a bazillion teams in your conference, statistically, you are likely to have more of your teams in the tournament. Let's put this flawed premise to bed.

 

3. Marginal or not on any win or stats is crazy to say it was only marginal, Duke marginally beat Butler last year....didn't matter. I would say Duke was a much better team, they weren't that night.

 

We're not debating 2009-2010, we're debating 2010-2011, so leave Duke/Butler in the past. I also see no numbers to support your cause.

 

4. Why not include UCONN in your stats? only 9th best team from the BE right? Are we going to exclude all of the conference champs? Of course not!

 

You've already tackled this. Why repeat yourself? You know, that's a common occurrence when a person's point is weak and they want to downplay the weakness. They repeat it.

 

5. .500 win / lose % first two rounds according to you, acc had 75% out of those wins how far did those teams go afterwards? Let's talk against the toughest competition. No ACC/ Big XII / SEC/ or Big Ten could not send a team to the NC...BE did, only one of those conferences other than the BE got a team in the final four.

 

You could've actually burned him good on this statistic, but you failed. You failed doubly. First, you don't work around the fact that more ACC teams made the Sweet 16 and the same number of ACC and Big East teams made the Elite 8. Second, you try to throw this ridiculous "toughest competition" crap that you can't support. This makes the THIRD time you've tried to ramrod this point home without providing any statistical analysis. Show me the numbers, dude. I want objective evidence. Moving on.

 

6. Lowest % of Bcs conf. in sweet 16......but highest of any in final four (tied with sec) and only bcs conf rep in championship game! looks like the others need to step it up a notch!

 

WHAT?!?! You pretty much say here that the Big East is on par with the CAA and Horizon League. After all, both of them did have the same number of teams in the Final Four. You take a flawed statistic that you should demolish and then inexplicably impale yourself on it. That ranks high up there with some of the worst arguments I've ever seen.

 

7. You talk aobut BE have the best RPI...you didn't mention SOS! They avereaged 106.9 on the SOS power ratings. Of the top 24 teams in the country (using SOS rankings) half..yes 50% were from the Big East...

 

FINALLY!!! I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! DECENT STATISTICAL EVIDENCE!!! It only took the entire post to get there! However, in order to fully controvert Stoney's point, you need to show how other conferences compare to the Big East. So, the Big East had 12 of 24 teams. If the ACC has 8-9 teams in the top-24, then Stoney's point still remains: that the Big East does not nearly surpass the ACC to the level that ESPN and the Big East lovers claim.

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/strength-of-schedule-by-team

 

The Big East Confrence had:

 

#1 SOS

#1 RPI

#1 Team in the nation

 

So, they had the national champion. For an unprecedented 5th time, you play this weak argument that best team = best conference. Quit using this argument. It. Is. A. CLUNKER.

[Guest The Variable]

Stoney's not trying to say that the Big East sucks. He's trying to say that it is not the holy grail of conferences that ESPN shoves down our throats from November until April. Being an ACC fan, I can sympathize with him. Though the ACC has been watered down by addition, it has still produced 3 of the last 7 and 4 of the last 10 national champions. Both of those are the best marks in college basketball. It does get frustrating to see ESPN pimp the Big East, while we're the ones winning almost half the natties.

 

We in the ACC are not naive enough to claim that "because we had the national champion, we are unquestionably the best conference." It's just not that way. One team does not a conference make. That's like claiming that the Horizon League would've been the best conference had Butler won. It most certainly would not have been, and I think that point's fairly obvious.

 

The only people I've ever heard that cockamamie argument from are Big East fans.

 

Numbers convince me, Variable. I like numbers: they are objective, not subjective, and lead to accurate comparison. Stoney's thrown out a slew of them. Field has not (and I'm responding to his post next).

 

The numbers are not the part that bother me...its the ranting. He railed in all caps and in multiple fonts against FG like a lunatic. "YOURE A LIAR!" Im just saying "jeeze guy, get a grip". I can sympathize to an extent as well, but Duke and UNC get plenty of props from ESPN and they are your flags for the ACC in mens basketball. I do not pay too much attention to basketball since the sport somewhat bores me but I do listen to what is said and I hear good things about teams in the ACC too. I have to hear all day from the Tech fans here about "the NCAA hates Va Tech" and "The BCS cheated us this year like every year" and how ever game they lose is because of the refs. I get tired of the victimization of the ACC as a result.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

The numbers are not the part that bother me...its the ranting. He railed in all caps and in multiple fonts against FG like a lunatic. "YOURE A LIAR!" Im just saying "jeeze guy, get a grip". I can sympathize to an extent as well, but Duke and UNC get plenty of props from ESPN and they are your flags for the ACC in mens basketball. I do not pay too much attention to basketball since the sport somewhat bores me but I do listen to what is said and I hear good things about teams in the ACC too. I have to hear all day from the Tech fans here about "the NCAA hates Va Tech" and "The BCS cheated us this year like every year" and how ever game they lose is because of the refs. I get tired of the victimization of the ACC as a result.

 

That's a fair point. I think he could've been calmer and presented his argument in a more persuasive fashion.

 

I get sick of the Duke/UNC love, especially by Duke Vitale and Mike Patrunc. But you're right, they are the gold standard in our conference. I don't think that this will be the case next year, but most years, it's right on. Perhaps I'm blind to the nice things that are being said about the ACC, because I hear so often "the ACC is down/overrated". The numbers show that the ACC is down, but not THAT down. I'm not victimizing the ACC either: 3rd/4th-best conference is a good place to be.

 

About VT, the whining does get old. However, I think it is possible that the Committee does look negatively on VT due to Greenberg's rants. Does that equal "conspiracy"? I don't know.

[fieldgeneral 10]

I'm going to respond to this bad boy point by laborious point.

 

 

 

Ad hominems are never a good thing. If you want a surefire tactic that will make you look as badly as possible while making your opponent take the high road, continue to use ad hominems.

 

 

 

He's doing this to show conference strength outside the national champion. We are debating CONFERENCES, after all, and not just the best team. Given that there are a whopping 15 other teams in your mega-conference, I think it's not out of line. BTW, I thought you were supposed to be presenting numbers to aid your case. There are no numbers here.

 

 

 

Just because 11 teams got in does not mean that their body of work is simply better than those teams who did not. You're relying on a false friend here. VT's resume was better than VCU's, but look who got in. Colorado's resume was better than UAB's, but look who got in. Plus, when you have somewhere between 15 and a bazillion teams in your conference, statistically, you are likely to have more of your teams in the tournament. Let's put this flawed premise to bed.

 

 

 

We're not debating 2009-2010, we're debating 2010-2011, so leave Duke/Butler in the past. I also see no numbers to support your cause.

 

 

 

You've already tackled this. Why repeat yourself? You know, that's a common occurrence when a person's point is weak and they want to downplay the weakness. They repeat it.

 

 

 

You could've actually burned him good on this statistic, but you failed. You failed doubly. First, you don't work around the fact that more ACC teams made the Sweet 16 and the same number of ACC and Big East teams made the Elite 8. Second, you try to throw this ridiculous "toughest competition" crap that you can't support. This makes the THIRD time you've tried to ramrod this point home without providing any statistical analysis. Show me the numbers, dude. I want objective evidence. Moving on.

 

 

 

WHAT?!?! You pretty much say here that the Big East is on par with the CAA and Horizon League. After all, both of them did have the same number of teams in the Final Four. You take a flawed statistic that you should demolish and then inexplicably impale yourself on it. That ranks high up there with some of the worst arguments I've ever seen.

 

 

 

FINALLY!!! I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! DECENT STATISTICAL EVIDENCE!!! It only took the entire post to get there! However, in order to fully controvert Stoney's point, you need to show how other conferences compare to the Big East. So, the Big East had 12 of 24 teams. If the ACC has 8-9 teams in the top-24, then Stoney's point still remains: that the Big East does not nearly surpass the ACC to the level that ESPN and the Big East lovers claim.

 

 

 

So, they had the national champion. For an unprecedented 5th time, you play this weak argument that best team = best conference. Quit using this argument. It. Is. A. CLUNKER.

 

You miss most of the info entirely.....it's not all about UCONN but you can't not include them either. If you don't include them, then you don't include Duke. If you don't include Duke of the ACC...the ACC turns to mush....UNC wins every year and the rest is awful or somewhat competitive.....in the conference.

 

The point is that he can't prove that the Big East isn't as good as advertised.....his stats that he puts out are partial or not including this or that, or only concerning certain rounds of the tourney ...etc... It's crazy to try to prove a point that is opinion based. I gave stats / facts as to why they were as good as advertised. Was this a typical year in bball where one of the BCS conf schools dominate and win it all......no it's not and that day seems to be fading away due to the top athletes going to BCS schools and bouncing after one year....(Kyrie Irving Duke for example) and the smaller conference schools keeping athletes for 3-4 years and building a TEAM (Butler / VCU for example) Yes I know Heyward left early, but they didn't lose their whole crew as Kentucky did. Just imagine last year's Kentucky team in this year's tourney......undefeated maybe...who knows.

 

Anyway, The BE proved in and out of conference all year that they reigned supreme and in the end they wond the NT through UCONN. I never said that only having the Nat. champ was the sole reason. I sited quality wins vs. OOC teams, RPI rankings, SOS rankings, look at the number of top 25 teams, the number of teams just outside the top 25, etc....

 

The only leg he stands on is that they didn't perform well as a conference in the tournament.....I agree they didn't perform great as a whole, but to compare ACC's 4 to BE 11 is crazy. Had it been Duke or UNC win.....and we know those are the only to capable in the acc currently, then we would have heard that the BE sucks and the ACC reigns supreme again. LOL, it's the BE turn and seems that they have taken over the reigns of College bball, just smile and watch the games.......very entertaining. Unless it's the unc / duke game......the ACC just isn't very interesting night in and out.

[fieldgeneral 10]

That's a fair point. I think he could've been calmer and presented his argument in a more persuasive fashion.

 

I get sick of the Duke/UNC love, especially by Duke Vitale and Mike Patrunc. But you're right, they are the gold standard in our conference. I don't think that this will be the case next year, but most years, it's right on. Perhaps I'm blind to the nice things that are being said about the ACC, because I hear so often "the ACC is down/overrated". The numbers show that the ACC is down, but not THAT down. I'm not victimizing the ACC either: 3rd/4th-best conference is a good place to be.

 

About VT, the whining does get old. However, I think it is possible that the Committee does look negatively on VT due to Greenberg's rants. Does that equal "conspiracy"? I don't know.

 

I guess that was my deal with Stoney....out right calling me a liar etc.... we talked for a bit last night in the chat box and his stats were screwed up and I called him on it and asked if I should shout liar, ahole , or whatever else he was crying. Of course no response to it. My stats weren't off, I counted games vs. final top 25 his were against top 25 at time of game. I may have missed a quality game that was quality to him but not quality to me....it's a lot of subjective material. I said to lay out the terms that he was arguing and he dropped a bunch of crap that had more holes than swiss cheese due to who he wanted to include, who he didn't, what rounds were worthy of stats....which were the first two rounds.....big whoop, look past that look at the whole thing. He wanted to be right, but failed to prove anything due to his lack of facts / stats. You can't use SOME stats and exclude the rest of it.....anywho, his opinion they weren't as good...my opinion best in college bball and above the rest....so they are.

 

ESPN loves the ACC in football....usually....absolutely hates the BE....so your turn will be here soon enough.