Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 177
  1. #11
    Supporting Member xsteve1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fort Thomas, KY
    Posts
    3,362
    Obviously ESPN is either basically ignoring the league or taking shots at it, I'm sure if they had the games things would be much brighter from them. Heck I don't think Vitale has even tweeted anything about McDermott all year. Having Marquette and Georgetown and even Butler as having disappointing seasons hasn't helped. X needs to get their act together as well and be a mainstay in the Top 25 for this league to start getting the respect it wants and deserves.

  2. #12
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    Only that Slash played in each band.
    Matt Sorum and Duff McKagan were in both bands as well. In fact Velvet has more classic GNR members than GNR currently has.

    Georgetown, Providence and Seton Hall were in both conferences, but it's not the same conference. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by insinuating that this is a continuation of the classic Big East. For the next five years (at least) people will look at it as a failed facsimile. Even if it were to become the #1 rated conference, people still won't think of it as a continuation of the old Big East. I think we would have been better off creating a new identity and building an entirely new tradition. That's hard to do when the first thing anyone will say is that it's not the old Big East.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  3. #13
    Junior BMoreX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    2,887
    Xavier Basketball ‏@VictoryParkway 43s

    Updated conference rankings from @kenpomeroy pic.twitter.com/gHyc6BvOCy

    Big East 3rd.

  4. #14
    Hall of Famer Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    22,867
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    Georgetown, Providence and Seton Hall were in both conferences, but it's not the same conference. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by insinuating that this is a continuation of the classic Big East. For the next five years (at least) people will look at it as a failed facsimile.
    Ken Pomeroy disagrees with your premise.

    In a previous world, “BCS conference” became synonymous with “power conference”, but now, that’s just sloppy. Despite the lack of football-playing schools, there’s really not much difference at all between the old and new Big East, at least if you evaluate the conference from top to bottom. Here’s a look at the old vs. new using this season’s ratings."

    http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/web...by_the_numbers
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

  5. #15
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    Ken Pomeroy disagrees with your premise.

    In a previous world, “BCS conference” became synonymous with “power conference”, but now, that’s just sloppy. Despite the lack of football-playing schools, there’s really not much difference at all between the old and new Big East, at least if you evaluate the conference from top to bottom. Here’s a look at the old vs. new using this season’s ratings."

    http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/web...by_the_numbers

    How does Ken Pomeroy disagree with my premise??

    My premise is not that the average offensive and defensive efficiency ratings are drastically different. My premise is that since the make up of the league is different that no one will look at this as a continuation of the old Big East. Even if the conference were the top rated conference several years in a row, people will say it's not the old Big East.

    Why was it so important that we call the league the Big East, and basically try become a continuation of what it was before?? Why not just start our own new league with a new identity?? The efficiency ratings wouldn't be any different if we called it the Big City Conference, or the Eastern Athletic Conference. The only difference is that people would likely look at the league as being a new and exciting collection of teams instead of looking at it like a bunch of teams who got together and tried to act like they were the same thing as the classic Big East.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  6. #16
    Supporting Member waggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gold Country
    Posts
    11,298
    I'd say it's a continuation... a continuation of the original premise, or possibly a return its roots. The core idea of what the conference originally intended to be is still there.

    Besides, ESPN is not going to pimp the Big East no matter what the name is.

    Honestly ESPN is just throwing shit against the wall in all things. I see stories that support both sides, and then that of a manufactured issue. I go there for scores, but I rarely read their bs.

    Caring about the name of a conference seems like a manufactured issue to me. It's whiskey under the bridge at this point anyway, and it's not going to determine if the conference is successful in the least.

  7. #17
    Hall of Famer Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    22,867
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    How does Ken Pomeroy disagree with my premise??

    My premise is not that the average offensive and defensive efficiency ratings are drastically different. My premise is that since the make up of the league is different that no one will look at this as a continuation of the old Big East. Even if the conference were the top rated conference several years in a row, people will say it's not the old Big East.

    Why was it so important that we call the league the Big East, and basically try become a continuation of what it was before?? Why not just start our own new league with a new identity?? The efficiency ratings wouldn't be any different if we called it the Big City Conference, or the Eastern Athletic Conference. The only difference is that people would likely look at the league as being a new and exciting collection of teams instead of looking at it like a bunch of teams who got together and tried to act like they were the same thing as the classic Big East.
    Because it's a recognize able name that is easy to market. The biggest "mourner" that the old Big East is gone is ESPN, because they lost their Madison Square Garden connection.

    I would argue that with original members like St. Johns, Villanova, Georgetown, Providence and Seton Hall- 5 out of the 10- continuing the name made sense. Like someone used the "Guns N Roses" example before, I would also throw in "Chicago". Names mean something and it's not as effective if the name is changed from "Chicago" to "Windy City". That's why music groups keep the name, Cleveland fought hard to keep the Browns name, and the Big East fought hard to keep the name, logo and venue- the real identity. No body I know of is thinking that the American is "new and exciting".

    ESPN is propping the AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC and taking every shot they can at the BE. I've said they would all along. This is one more example. It's probably a legitimate story to tell about the intrigue surrounding conference realignment, but the way they are promoting and naming the show is pretty transparent as to their intent.
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

  8. #18
    Sophomore Michigan Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,393
    I understand your point Brew, but the Big East is a brand that has value. Think of it like Circuit City or Hostess. Or JK's Chili in Madeira. All of these brands were retained even though the current product is nothing but a shell of its original. At least the Big East still maintains a good portion of its roots, so holding onto that brand makes even more sense than those defunct businesses.

    And I think even you would agree that such brand awareness will influence recruiting. Why attempt to re-brand what is historically recognized as a basketball power?
    It's winning time.

  9. #19
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    Because it's a recognize able name that is easy to market. The biggest "mourner" that the old Big East is gone is ESPN, because they lost their Madison Square Garden connection.

    I would argue that with original members like St. Johns, Villanova, Georgetown, Providence and Seton Hall- 5 out of the 10- continuing the name made sense. Like someone used the "Guns N Roses" example before, I would also throw in "Chicago". Names mean something and it's not as effective if the name is changed from "Chicago" to "Windy City". That's why music groups keep the name, Cleveland fought hard to keep the Browns name, and the Big East fought hard to keep the name, logo and venue- the real identity. No body I know of is thinking that the American is "new and exciting".

    ESPN is propping the AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC and taking every shot they can at the BE. I've said they would all along. This is one more example. It's probably a legitimate story to tell about the intrigue surrounding conference realignment, but the way they are promoting and naming the show is pretty transparent as to their intent.
    I think everyone who is a fan of a team that's currently in the Big East agrees with this entirely. I also think they're the only ones that do.

    I don't live in the Big East footprint, and just about everyone thinks of it as being a wannabe league, and they don't feel that way because of what they see on ESPN. When they see this lineup using the Big East name, they scoff at it. They don't look at it as being a new and exciting league with a new and exciting line up.

    So long as the teams are good, I'm not one to spend a whole lot of time caring about what others think. But, if you do care about what others think, this is what they think. Calling it the Big East makes us look like a bunch of wannabes instead of looking like a new and exciting collection of teams.

    Michigan Muskie makes an interesting point about recruiting. But, again, the reason you rebrand something that is recognized as a historical basketball power is to avoid being currently recognized as a wannabe historic basketball power. I don't know if that makes much difference to 16 year old kids, but just about everyone I know who either follows college sports or works closely with college sports who isn't associated with the Big East feels that way. Just sayin...
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  10. #20
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    34,312
    Sounds like the people you hang around with are assholes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •