# Something I'm really tired of hearing



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

"I'M SO TIRED OF THE ACC/BIG EAST MEDIA BIAS"

You know what my answer to that is? Start winning some basketball games consistently. 

Know how many teams have won a national championship from the Big XII? ONE. Kansas. And they've only won once in the last 50 years. Please, I live in Big XII country and people talk constantly about "no respect". Lets try this, you get too much respect already. The state of North Carolina alone has had 3 different schools win NC's in the last 25 years.

How about the Big10 in the last 25 years (the ESPN era). Good, you've won 3 titles since 1980, that's not bad. Maybe the Big10 has a case for being disrespected a bit.

The Pac-10? 2 NC's, both sort of flukey runs - but still at least winning every once in a while.

The SEC has actually won 3, Kentucky twice and once with Arkansas.

But the Big East? 5 titles, and the last two in a row. It's 7 if you add the 2 that UofL won (they join the league next year).

The ACC? 7 titles, by four different teams (NCSU, Duke, UNC, Maryland).

It's not media bias to cover the teams that more likely than not will win it all. It's not media bias that Texas and Oklahoma and USC are on TV every freaking weekend during football season. The Big East and the ACC have won 12 of the last 25 national championships, and thus they get the lion's share of the media coverage.

Instead of whining on message boards all the time about the coverage, I suggest donating some money to your school or pressuring them to schedule better, or whatever you can do to actually get your team to WIN something. Trust me, ESPN will show up if you start actually closing the deal.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

The Big East will always be good because of the physical play the player are conditioned for. So when you're used to being roughed up, and doing some roughing yourself, you are more prepared for the NCAA Tournament. It's as simple as that with the BE. As for the ACC, there's no denying the massive amount of talent that just pools in North Carolina, Duke, Maryland, etc...although the ACC is becoming a little league of 3-guard lineups.

With that said, is there an east coast bias? Absolutely. And there always will be because the sports media is ancored on the EC, and is unwilling to watch enough WC ball to see they can compete. Although the Pac-10 is slowly moving back to the top. Arizona is always good, Washington has been good for a while (and will stay good with their new recruits), Stanford is solid, UCLA is building back to the top with another super recruiting class, and Oregon played below expectations, but their freshman should be good next year as shophs. 

Also the WC simply has fewer major conferences to compete, that's why you have guys like Craig Smith from L.A. leading BC; there aren't enough schools to field the players. As a result the media completely ignores the WC.

As for Big-12 and Big-10 country...the Illini are great this year but will collapse without Williams, Kansas is always good but can never win anything, Indiana is long past its glory days, Texas is the most overrated team I've seen this year (and 3 assists doesn't impress me from Gibson), Oklahoma is the second most overrated team I've seen this year, and Ok St. is solid as always (Sutton deserves to win one, but I don't think he will).

IMO it's the central conferences that are overrated by the EC bias, while the WC is underrated and the BE, ACC, SEC are mostly where they should be (although the SEC wasn't great this year IMO)...

If I'm ranking the conferences I have: ACC, Pac-10, BE, SEC, etc.
Washington and Arizona can top any BE team easily, the BE's strength is the number of quality teams, not how high quality they are (andCLA should have beaten BC early in the season when BC was hot and UCLA was not). 

Anyone who disputes the ACC being at top though is delusional. NC can beat anyone with Marvin playing like he is, Duke is Duke, and NC St. is hot right now, although Wake and GT were eliminated, they're excellent teams. As for next year, the ACC will still be at top, even without Paul, Jack, Ewing, etc., because for every guy leaving, there's a great recruit coming in.


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

You heard it here first folks, the matchups in this year's ACC/B10 tourney were terrible for the Big10. Now for the sweet 16 we're at neutral courts and we'll see what the outcome for Wisconsin and MSU is.

Big 10 will have 2 wins over NC State and Duke....

Mark my words


P.S. Do a Pac10/Big10 tourney and we'll beat the **** out of the west coast.

Just because Indiana and Michigan are down right now doesn't mean the Big10 is down..


----------



## DHarris34Phan (Oct 28, 2004)

*Dude, I'm not whining about an East Coast bias, but when your team (UWM) is in the NCAA tourney for the 2nd time in school history and gets to the sweet 16 with victories over Alabama and Boston College, you would be expecting College Gamenight to give something on them, and hopefully a good, indepth preview their matchup with Illinois, when they were doing it with every other matchup.

Instead, College Gamenight completley skipped over the analysis matchup, briefly mentioning that the arena will be a "sea of orange" on Thursday...great analysis. But ESPN finds it worthy to talk about Vermont's "cinderella story" being ended by Michigan State for 15 minutes, but talking about Bucknell vs. Wisconsin for maybe 2 minutes.
*


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

One more thing I've been meaning to mention..

How is it that Vermont, who lost to Michigan State, gets more airtime being talked about? Wouldnt you wanna talk about the team that advanced.. Silly!!

How is it that on ESPNews last night, Bo Ryan the Wisconsin Coach, got asked "How does it feel having 3 Big Ten Schools in the Sweet 16?" gets cut off right as that question gets asked, then Bucknell the team that lost to Wisconsin gets more time to show their post game conference? I'm sure damn well if this is Coach K or Roy Williams they wouldnt turn them off would they? Didnt think so!

Just a little part of the B10 bashing.. Dont be surprised if the B10 schools try and make a bigger statement this week.


----------



## DHarris34Phan (Oct 28, 2004)

Brian34Cook said:


> One more thing I've been meaning to mention..
> 
> How is it that Vermont, who lost to Michigan State, gets more airtime being talked about? Wouldnt you wanna talk about the team that advanced.. Silly!!


*Exactly. Last night's college gamenight was honestly a disgrace.*


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

It's no secret that the Big 10, Conference USA, SEC and Big XII get less exposure than the Big East and (especially) the ACC. The PAC 10 gets about as much play as the Mountain West, which is a travesty.

That said, to the victors go the spoils. vadimivich's points are indeed valid.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Maybe if the Pac-10 didn't sellout to FoxSportsWest in a short sighted cash driven move, perhaps they would get more national exposure.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Brian34Cook said:


> Just a little part of the B10 bashing.. Dont be surprised if the B10 schools try and make a bigger statement this week.


Personally I think you guys are just being a bit too sensitive. I think some Big Ten fans are waiting for ESPN to annoint this as the second best conference in America, or, but the fact of the matter is you have not been up to par (not top 4 anyway) in any regular season or post season since 2001, with the excpetion of this postseason. Your not going to get much respect, for one good weekend of play, 

And apelman of course the Big 10 is down. That is not an insult in itself. Just a few years ago, the Big Ten in 1999 and 2000 was riding higher then any conference in America


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Maybe if the Pac-10 didn't sellout to FoxSportsWest in a short sighted cash driven move, perhaps they would get more national exposure.


Perhaps more than a couple 15-second recaps on Sportscenter and Gamenight would be a good place to start.


----------



## Middy (Jul 16, 2002)

vadimivich said:


> You know what my answer to that is? Start winning some basketball games consistently.


Guess which coast is home to the team with the best winning percetage in the last 20 years if you want to talk about consistency. There are plenty of quality teams that get little respect when compared with more eastward squads.

it's not all about championships either, as the bulk of your post was based on.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Arizona is not the top school in the last 20 years, whatever there winning %. They are a powerhouse program though.

The top 25 programs in the last 20 years - in an objective formula based on tournament seedings and performance in the tournament (or near objective, one can argue that the seeds are subjective, but I think over time they even out). I think the rankings I developed earlier in the year are very fair and accurate measure.

*Last 20 years *
1. Duke
2. Kansas
3. North Carolina
4. Kentucky
5. Arizona
6. Syracuse
7. Indiana
8. Oklahoma
9. Connecticut
10. UCLA
11. Michigan St
12. Illinois
13. Maryland
14. Arkansas
15. Michigan
16. Purdue
17. Cincinnati
18. Louisville
19. Georgetown
20. Temple
21. Georgia Tech
22. Oklahoma St
23. Texas
24. St. John's
25. Stanford

By conference
ACC - 4
Big 12 - 4
SEC - 2
Pac-10 - 3
Big East - 4 (6 starting next year)
Big Ten -5 (of the top 16)
CUSA - 2
A-10 - 1


{b] Last 10 years [/b]

1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Arizona
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Maryland
7. Michigan St
8. North Carolina
9. Stanford
10. Cincinnati
11. Syracuse
12. UCLA
13. Utah
14. Texas
15. Oklahoma
16. Oklahoma St
17. Indiana
18. Illinois
19. Wake Forest
20. Florida
21. Purdue
22. Wisconsin
23. Temple
24. Arkansas
25. Miss St.


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

[sarcasm]As an ACC fan this guys are right the big 10 does deserve some more coverage. After their great show in the Big 10/ACC challenge I dont see why reporters werent running them down in the halls to get an interview[end/sarcasm]

Win something than maybe some one will pay attention to you. Until then sit down


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

That's the point.. Just because the ACC owned the Big Ten doesnt mean it's all the way down. Sure it is but because of one little silly "Challenge" that's all people remember.. In no way am I sayin the Big Ten is great but there's some solid teams..


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

Im The One said:


> [sarcasm]As an ACC fan this guys are right the big 10 does deserve some more coverage. After their great show in the Big 10/ACC challenge I dont see why reporters werent running them down in the halls to get an interview[end/sarcasm]
> 
> Win something than maybe some one will pay attention to you. Until then sit down



Another guarantee.......we will win that challenge next year.

The matchups this year were terrible and Iowa wasn't even in the challenge, our conferences 4th best team! That's like taking G Tech outta the challenge.

11 on 11 the Big10 will top the ACC


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Im The One said:


> Win something than maybe some one will pay attention to you. Until then sit down


 :clap: 

Isn't it a little early to be calling things, apleman?


----------



## max powers (Aug 3, 2004)

> The matchups this year were terrible and Iowa wasn't even in the challenge



They might not have been in the challenege but they did lose to UNC by 20+.


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

max powers said:


> They might not have been in the challenege but they did lose to UNC by 20+.


So that means every team in the ACC is as good as UNC? Please dude, that's like saying Wake did play the Illini and lose by what...30 plus?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

apelman2 said:


> So that means every team in the ACC is as good as UNC? Please dude, that's like saying Wake did play the Illini and lose by what...30 plus?


illinois at home won the game by 18. not quite 30.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

And you do know they were up by nearly 35 and put in their bench to make the score look closer?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Brian34Cook said:


> And you do know they were up by nearly 35 and put in their bench to make the score look closer?


he said 30+. the final score was only 18. 18 is less than 30.

and it's not like wake didn't put in their bench too. the largest the lead was was 32 when it was 83-51. after that point wake outscored illinois 22-8. but it's not like wake's starters were scoring. downey scored 9, joyce scored 7, gray 2, danelius 2, and visser 2. scoring for illinois were augustine, carter, and pruitt, but williams and brown were both in the game and missed shots during that time period. not of that even matters, illinois won the game(by 18 not 30+) and illinois is still alive in the tourney. but i don't think you can try to argue the final score with me.


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

Well if you want to get all technical and be funny, the final score of Iowa and UNC was 106 to 92.

.....You do the math.....it ain't 20+


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

apelman2 said:


> Well if you want to get all technical and be funny, the final score of Iowa and UNC was 106 to 92.
> 
> .....You do the math.....it ain't 20+


and when did i say anything about 20+? all i did was tell the real final score of the illinois/wake game.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Even Big Ten basketball fans would have to admit that Big Ten basketball is boring. Thankfully, Weber, Amaker and Matta are in the league to get away from this defensive only style of basketball. 

As for Wisconsin-Milwaukee, they have a chance to beat Illinois. I don't care if the game is in Chicago. That team is going to be fired up.


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

apelman2 said:


> *Another guarantee.......we will win that challenge next year.*
> 
> The matchups this year were terrible and Iowa wasn't even in the challenge, our conferences 4th best team! That's like taking G Tech outta the challenge.
> 
> 11 on 11 the Big10 will top the ACC


LMAO I wont even bother responding to that.


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> and when did i say anything about 20+? all i did was tell the real final score of the illinois/wake game.



But you decided to correct the Illinois vs. Wake game and didn't correct the UNC game?

Please...


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

HKF said:


> Even Big Ten basketball fans would have to admit that Big Ten basketball is boring. Thankfully, Weber, Amaker and Matta are in the league to get away from this defensive only style of basketball.
> 
> As for Wisconsin-Milwaukee, they have a chance to beat Illinois. I don't care if the game is in Chicago. That team is going to be fired up.



Amaker.....hmmm......Wow, last time I checked that team blows ***. I like Amaker and everything but the guy obviously needs to hire a new trainer or something. What's so great about his style of basketball when he can't even win games? Even so with all those injuries they should be at least somewhat competitive, for Christ's sake they're Michigan, they're just.....not good.


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

Im The One said:


> LMAO I wont even bother responding to that.



LMAO, the ACC went 1 and 2 last night and if it weren't for an idiot ref yer gay *** Tar Heels would've went down.

MSU handled Duke in the 2nd half and we handled NC State in the second half, in the words of you....LMAO.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

apelman2 said:


> But you decided to correct the Illinois vs. Wake game and didn't correct the UNC game?
> 
> Please...


yeah pretty much. i didn't know the score of the iowa/unc game but i knew the difference in the wake/illinois game was less than 20. and 14 is a lot closer to 20 than 18 is to 30.


----------



## apelman2 (Jan 16, 2004)

apelman2 said:


> You heard it here first folks, the matchups in this year's ACC/B10 tourney were terrible for the Big10. Now for the sweet 16 we're at neutral courts and we'll see what the outcome for Wisconsin and MSU is.
> 
> Big 10 will have 2 wins over NC State and Duke....
> 
> ...




Mmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!! Does that one feel good. I just love being right and with Illinois' win tonight it just keeps gettin' better baby!


----------



## Phil_Dirt (Mar 27, 2005)

Is the media biased towards the BE & the ACC? Sure, but who cares as most of the are 'jump-on-the-bandwagon' frontrunners anyway. 

I have no 'favorite team' in the ACC, BE, B10, B12, or WC groups -- my team is from a smaller conference. I just happen to enjoy watching college basketball. I want to watch to evenly matched teams play, not some 20 point blowout. That said.....

Which is the best is as much a subjective opinion as any other best ranking. Often it depends on what era you are trying to rank. By what criteria are you measuring the "best" conference? The made for TV Challenge? Post season play? National championships? Stats can be deceiving. How would the 20 year ranking look if, say, Magic Johnson (and any number of other NBA stars) had stayed in college?


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Phil_Dirt said:


> . How would the 20 year ranking look if, say, Magic Johnson (and any number of other NBA stars) had stayed in college?


Magic Johnson played in 1979?????


----------



## Phil_Dirt (Mar 27, 2005)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Magic Johnson played in 1979?????


So I wasn't particularly careful with my timeline. Then, too, I also referred to, but did not name other NBA players who left early. Would the point make any more sense to you if I had refered to Carmelo Anthony instead of Magic Johnson? Do you think that Syracuse may have still been playing in the NCAA's with Carmelo? 

The initial thread is regarding East Coast media bias for East Coast basketball. Does it exist? Is conferrence strength a reality or a reflection of such bias? The point was, and remains, that the 20 year rankings previously posted reflect only one facet of an evaluation of college conference strength. Great individual players come and go, great team players come and go. And some teams get on a run at the right time. Only in fantasy basketball can one have the '02-03 Orange of Syracuse play the '04-05 Orange of Illinois. 

Stat freaks can argue that game, I don't care. It isn't part of any reality. What is reality is NC vs. Wisconsin & MSU vs. Kentucky. Those should be good games regardless of any media bias. If Wisconsin & MSU win does that automagically make the Big 10 a better conference than the ACC & SEC?


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

I love people who accuse stat freaks don't enjoy "reality", don't actually enjoy the game on the court. Its such an ignorant statement - asses.

So since you don't like arguing who is the better conference, that means you watch the game on the court more then I do. More ignorance on your part.


Be it accross any sport, I always like how non-statheads always imply that statheads are ignorant, and that they instead enjoy watching games. It is the most ironic statement of ignorance.


----------



## Phil_Dirt (Mar 27, 2005)

JuniorNoboa said:


> I love people who accuse stat freaks don't enjoy "reality", don't actually enjoy the game on the court. Its such an ignorant statement - asses.
> 
> So since you don't like arguing who is the better conference, that means you watch the game on the court more then I do. More ignorance on your part.
> 
> ...


I made no comments about you. I did not call you any names. I made no comment about how much you enjoy the game. You made unfounded assumptions about my knowledge/use of stats. Then, you call me an ignorant ***. By what rationale do you sink to such childish behavior?

Try responding to the post instead of your being locked in your own myopic world. The only comment about stat freaks was that they could argue which team from two different time periods would win a game. Great fantasy, but not part of reality. Trying to compare the stats from two different eras is not reality--period. IF YOU want to indulge in such mental masturbation, go ahead. I have better things to do with my time.

So, you want to argue about which conference is better? What conference do you propose is better? BE, ACC, SEC? Pick one. Then get all your stats together to prove it. After you are all done, you will have a bunch of stats and nothing else. Games are won & lost on the court, not by compiled stats. If stats were all that mattered, there would be different teams in the Final Four. 

In case you missed it, that is irony. You may want to learn to use words in the correct context. You may also want to learn spelling and grammar.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

You called me a freak and suggested that I don't deal in reality. You got called on it.

Other then that you did not insult me directly; however, it was strongly implied by the tone of your comments. You can deny it - but that would be fairly foolish after your last post, which serve as proof as to why your comments in the first post were insulting.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

apelman2 said:


> Another guarantee.......we will win that challenge next year.
> 
> The matchups this year were terrible and Iowa wasn't even in the challenge, our conferences 4th best team! That's like taking G Tech outta the challenge.
> 
> 11 on 11 the Big10 will top the ACC



JARRETT JACK'S GOING PRO!!!!!!!!


Wow, this draft is absolutely ripping apart the ACC. Hodge, Paul, Jack, May, McCants, and Felton. Those are just the top tier guys. Looks like I'm going to be right with this prediction too. The ACC aside from Duke looks to be extremely down next year.

Big Ten 7 - ACC 4


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Even if the Big Ten did win, they've lost every other year, so would one year winning, change years of ACC domination? Doubtful.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Heck apel we dont even know the matchups yet and your already predicting on next year? :laugh:

Illinois could play N.C. State and we'd probably lose that game..


----------

