Good article- ACC vs Big East

[TerryTate]

Are you guys sure that the ACC is overrated Now?

There is the possibility of three #1 seeds from the ACC later today. Especially if UF beats Kentucky today.

 

[MikeO]

Are you guys sure that the ACC is overrated Now?

There is the possibility of three #1 seeds from the ACC later today. Especially if UF beats Kentucky today.

1) They won't get 3 #1 seeds. Two for sure, but not 3. Duke and UNC will be #1's

2) It all comes down to who wins and loses in the tourney. Nobody wins a trophy for being a #1 seed.

 

[nyjunc]

Wake should have been a #1 seed over UW but they are still the favorites to win their bracket.

 

[Ferretsquig]

3 out of the top five teams, and another GT, that could easily make its way to the final four. I wouldnt be suprised if NC State made a run to the sweet 16 either. Not to mention the quality of play from the non-NCAA tourney teams; Clemson, Miami, FSU, Va Tech, Maryland... All pulled some serious upsets.

 

[PA_FinsFan]

Are you guys sure that the ACC is overrated Now?

There is the possibility of three #1 seeds from the ACC later today. Especially if UF beats Kentucky today.

Every year the ACC gets the most #1 and #2 seeds but all you need to do is look at the last two champs. Cuse and Uconn the Big East is Better!

 

[FinsNYanksFan13]

Since 2000 the ACC has had 6 teams in the Final 4 and 2 National Champs while the big east has had 3 teams in the Final 4 and 2 champs. Edge - ACC!

 

[nyjunc]

Every year the ACC gets the most #1 and #2 seeds but all you need to do is look at the last two champs. Cuse and Uconn the Big East is Better!

that doesn't tell us who the best conference is it just tells us who the best team is(or in SU's case who the hottest team was). When duke and MD won in '01 & '02 the ACC was NOT the best, the Big 12 was. The ACC was down for about 5 years or so and just elevated back to our normal position of #1 in the '03-'04 season and it continued this year.

Here is a little # for everyone to chew on. Since 1990 the BE has had 4 Final Four teams(SU in '96 & '03 and UConn in '99 & '04) and 2 titles while in that same span the ACC has had 16 and 5 titles('90 duke and Ga tech, '91 UNcCand duke, '92 duke, '93 UNC, '94 duke, '95 UNC, '97 UNC, '98 UNC, '99 duke, '00 UNC, '01 duke and MD, '02 MD, '04 duke).

Also, since 1988 there have only been TWO years w/o at least 1 ACC team while since 1988 there have only been 5 years w/ BE teams. 15 in 17 years the ACC has had at least 1 team in the FF while just 5 of those 17 yrs the BE has had at least 1 team in the FF.

 

[MikeO]

Since 2000 the ACC has had 6 teams in the Final 4 and 2 National Champs while the big east has had 3 teams in the Final 4 and 2 champs. Edge - ACC!

Edge- EVEN

The only thing that matters is winning it all. Going to the Final Four and losing means squat.

 

[MikeO]

that doesn't tell us who the best conference is it just tells us who the best team is(or in SU's case who the hottest team was). When duke and MD won in '01 & '02 the ACC was NOT the best, the Big 12 was. The ACC was down for about 5 years or so and just elevated back to our normal position of #1 in the '03-'04 season and it continued this year.

Here is a little # for everyone to chew on. Since 1990 the BE has had 4 Final Four teams(SU in '96 & '03 and UConn in '99 & '04) and 2 titles while in that same span the ACC has had 16 and 5 titles('90 duke and Ga tech, '91 UNcCand duke, '92 duke, '93 UNC, '94 duke, '95 UNC, '97 UNC, '98 UNC, '99 duke, '00 UNC, '01 duke and MD, '02 MD, '04 duke).

Also, since 1988 there have only been TWO years w/o at least 1 ACC team while since 1988 there have only been 5 years w/ BE teams. 15 in 17 years the ACC has had at least 1 team in the FF while just 5 of those 17 yrs the BE has had at least 1 team in the FF.

Nobody is saying the ACC isn't great. It has been the BEST basketball conference the past 15+ years. There is NO debate over that.

The debate is over THIS year. 2004-2005. The ACC is top heavy and after the Top 4 teams in my opinion (UNC, DUKE, GT, WF) the drop off is HUGE.The ACC is a 4 team conference this year in my opinion. In the Big East you have about 8 teams that are all very good which makes it the best conference. The ACC has 4 teams with a shot to win it all (the 4 above). I believe the Big East only has 2 (UCONN and SU). But taking EVERYTHING into account, the best conference top to bottom, with the highest quality of play, and the best teams is the Big East. The best team, might be in the ACC but the best conference with the most best teams.......is the Big East.

And if the ACC sends 3 teams to the Final Four then this debate is over and I will admit defeate. BUT, having TWO #1 seeds and ONE #2 seed.......if the ACC doesn't send at least TWO teams to the Final Four, then I think my point is proven.

(p.s....I have an ACC school winning it all in my brackets, nobody can say Im biased now)

 

[nyjunc]

Edge- EVEN

The only thing that matters is winning it all. Going to the Final Four and losing means squat.

That is incorrect, the mroe teams that advance in the Tourney and the mroe FF teams indicates the better conference. Just b/c a Championship team comes from a particluar conference does not mean that conference is the best. Was the Big West the best when UNLV won in '90? was the Metro conf the best when louisville won in '80 and '86? Probably the last Champion to come out of the toughest league that year was Arkansas in '94. The Pac 10 wasn't the best in '95 or '97(UCLA, Arizona), the SEC may have been the best in '96(UK), the SEC was not the best in '98(UK), the BE was not the best in '99, '03 or '04), the Big 10 may have been the best in '00(MSU), the ACC was not the best in '01 or '02(duke, MD).

 

[MikeO]

and you are WRONG about SU in 2003. They were hot correct, but they were the best team. They beat two #1 seeds and a #2 seed on their way to the championship.

They took out almost the entire Big 12 as well. Beting Texas (#1 seed), Oklahoma (#1 seed), Kansas (#2 seed), and Oklahoma St (lower seed forget which number). And in 2003 the Big 12 was CLEARLY BY FAR AND AWAY THE BEST CONFERENCE.

Was SU hot.....yes. But they were very very good as well that year. They didn't win because they got hot. They won because they were very very good.

 

[nyjunc]

The debate is over THIS year. 2004-2005. The ACC is top heavy and after the Top 4 teams in my opinion (UNC, DUKE, GT, WF) the drop off is HUGE.

It is top heavy but it also has a muddled middle due to the teams knocking each other off. Ther aren't any grat teams in the BE this year and there are a ton of awful teams .

The ACC is a 4 team conference this year in my opinion. In the Big East you have about 8 teams that are all very good which makes it the best conference.

Why is the ACC a 4 team league and the BE has 8 very good teams? ND and Goergetown were not very good and ND lost to HOLY CROSS last night in the NIT. The reason so many teams had a chance at the Tourney was b/c of the bottom feeders SJU, SH, Prov and Rut. The ACC had 1 awful team(FSU) and the BE had 4.

I am not saying the BE is not a good conference but I just don't think they are as good as the ACC overall. It's alot closer than I thought it would be(or should have been if Tech, State and MD would have played to their capabilities all year) but the ACC still comes out on top heading into the Tourney w/ the BE in 2nd.

 

[nyjunc]

and you are WRONG about SU in 2003. They were hot correct, but they were the best team. They beat two #1 seeds and a #2 seed on their way to the championship.

They took out almost the entire Big 12 as well. Beting Texas (#1 seed), Oklahoma (#1 seed), Kansas (#2 seed), and Oklahoma St (lower seed forget which number). And in 2003 the Big 12 was CLEARLY BY FAR AND AWAY THE BEST CONFERENCE.

Was SU hot.....yes. But they were very very good as well that year. They didn't win because they got hot. They won because they were very very good.

They were a 3 seed that year, they got hot. They were not the best team in the Country that year. If kansas doesn't miss 20 FTs they don't win the title, they won that title b/c of poor FT shooting by kansas. They were a very good team, not a great team and not the best team in the Country.

And in 2003 the Big 12 was CLEARLY BY FAR AND AWAY THE BEST CONFERENCE.

I agree w/ that, it was the best for a couple of years.

Was SU hot.....yes. But they were very very good as well that year. They didn't win because they got hot. They won because they were very very good.

I didn't say they weren't very good, obviously they were a good team but a good team that got hot. I don't think they were the best but they were very good.

 

[MikeO]

SU had a 20 pt lead in the first half vs Kansas. With about 3 min before the half. They called the dogs off in the 2nd half and just played the clock. It almost came back to bite them, but don't give me this they only won because Kansas missed 20 free throws. SU had control of that game from start to finish/

 

[nyjunc]

SU had a 20 pt lead in the first half vs Kansas. With about 3 min before the half. They called the dogs off in the 2nd half and just played the clock. It almost came back to bite them, but don't give me this they only won because Kansas missed 20 free throws. SU had control of that game from start to finish/

called the dogs off? In a Nat'l Title game? Come on, you can't possibly believe that. No leads are safe in college basketball, KU chipped away and lost a very close game. All they needed to do was make a decent FT % and they win going away but they were brutal.