# Who's better the Pac-10 or the Big East



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Who do you think is better? The Pac-10 or the Big East? Your note need not be based on any of the factors below.

* The case for the Pac-10 *

Pac-10 - #2 Conference RPI
Big East - #4 Conference RPI


* The case for the Big East *


The Pac-10 is not the second best conference in America. The fact that it has a higher RPI then the Big East, is simply an element of the fact that the Big East plays too many awful home cupcakes and hurts them in there RPI. That should make no difference in evaluating a conference.

Consider these facts (Out of Conference Records):

Big East vs top 50: 12-11 (.522)
Pac-10 vs top 50: 5-12 (.294)

Big East vs top 100: 30-17 (.647)
Pac-10 vs top 100: 18-16 (.522)

Big East vs top 50 (road): 5-3 (.625)
Pac-10 vs top 50 (road): 0-6 (.000)

Big East vs top 100 (road): 7-4 (.636)
Pac-10 vs top 100 (road): 3-8 (.273)

The Big East is superior.

So then the question is why does the Pac-10 have the better RPI, despite the huge advantages above?

Essentially the Pac-10 is better because it's other games are mostly against 100-200 RPI teams. While the Big East has way too many games against sub 200 and sub 300 RPI teams. So at the end of the day the Pac-10 has a better RPI because it is beating awful teams at home, and the Big East is beating really awful teams at home. If I was Pac-10 fan I would not boast about that one. 

The fact that this is the driving factor behind the Pac-10 being rated a better conference is a strong indictment against using the RPI to rate conferences.

And before you trash the Big East schedule, remember this. Out of conference games per team:

Games against top 50 teams
Big East: 1.92
Pac-10 : 1.70

Games against top 100 teams
Big East : 3.92
Pac-10 : 3.40

Road Games against top 100 teams:
Big East: 0.92
Pac-10: 1.10

So I can see your final counter point. It's the Big East's fault for playing so many crappy teams at home (not that this has any validity in measuring whether a conference is better). It is simply a factor of geography. The Northeast boasts most of the crappiest conferences in America. It provides and excellent source for cupcakes. The Pac-10 would play just as crappy teams if they had a chance - but there is simply not that many awful conferences out west, and there not going to pay a larger appearance fee to beat up on an eastern team. I


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

This is silly. Big East 7-8 teams in the tournament. Pac-10 3-4. There is your answer. Pac-10 didn't even get out of the first weekend last year, the Big East has the last two National Champions. 

Give me the Big East. Screw the RPI. I go by my eyes.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

HKF said:


> This is silly. Big East 7-8 teams in the tournament. Pac-10 3-4. There is your answer. Pac-10 didn't even get out of the first weekend last year, the Big East has the last two National Champions.
> 
> Give me the Big East. Screw the RPI. I go by my eyes.


Holy crap, HKF, how fast do you type? I posted this thing like 5 seconds before your post


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Very fast. LOL.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

The Big East is a lot better conference, like someone already said, they have maybe 7-8 NCAA Teams while the Pac-10 has 3-4, I think they have 3 teams, Washington, Arizona, UCLA


----------



## Middy (Jul 16, 2002)

The thing about the PAC-10 is that it is loaded with young, inconsistent, talent. In a few years, the PAC-10 will be a legitimate contender for top conference in the country.

It is clear that the Big East is superior, but that being said, Ill take UA and UW to go further in the tournament than BC and UConn (the top two teams in the Big East standings).


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> The thing about the PAC-10 is that it is loaded with young, inconsistent, talent. In a few years, the PAC-10 will be a legitimate contender for top conference in the country.


Your right, Pac 10 is a very young conference.....When Jordan Farmar, Afllalo, Bryce Taylor, Malik Hairston, Leon Powe, Aaron Brooks, Martell Webster, Jawan McLellan and all the other great young players get a couple years under their belt this will the PAC 10 conference of old....


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Middy said:


> The thing about the PAC-10 is that it is loaded with young, inconsistent, talent. In a few years, the PAC-10 will be a legitimate contender for top conference in the country.
> 
> It is clear that the Big East is superior, but that being said, Ill take UA and UW to go further in the tournament than BC and UConn (the top two teams in the Big East standings).


I agree with the top two teams being better in the Pac-10.

I think all three top western teams (Including Gonzaga) can make the Elite Eight.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

This years RPI is just worthless, period. Just another example of how broken it is.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

vadimivich said:


> This years RPI is just worthless, period. Just another example of how broken it is.


 :clap:


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

i love how people say the RPI is the be all end all of all arguments. And the "new" RPI is even more accurate, yet when all these west coast teams start sneaking into the top 50 people begin to bash the RPI and say the Sagarin is an even better indicator. I've already seen this argument many times on TV and its just a terrible one.


----------



## Middy (Jul 16, 2002)

actually the RPI isnt very useful. It rewards teams that beat bad opponents on the road more than quality opponents at home. The fact that a team can move up THIRTY places using last year's formula shows that it isnt quite accurate yet.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

DaBruins said:


> i love how people say the RPI is the be all end all of all arguments. And the "new" RPI is even more accurate, yet when all these west coast teams start sneaking into the top 50 people begin to bash the RPI and say the Sagarin is an even better indicator. I've already seen this argument many times on TV and its just a terrible one.


The fact that Vermont, Holy Cross, and Old Dominion were in the top 30 probably had nothing to do with the criticism either 

Last time I checked these teams were a bigger part of the controversy, and they were on the east coast


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

There shouldn't even be a question about this: Big East is way better.

Also, I think the ACC will continuously, year in and year out be the best overall conference in the country, or at very worst, 2nd best.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

Overall Big East is better, but the top teams are comparable in the Pac-10. My rankings(of possible Tourney Teams):

1. Boston College
2. Washington
3. Arizona
4. Syracuse
5. UConn
6. Pittsburgh
7. Villanova
8. UCLA
9. Notre Dame
10. Stanford


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

HKF said:


> Very fast. LOL.


He has to type fast to make so many posts!


As to your question, I can't believe some people have actually voted for the Pac-10...its not even close.


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

The Truth said:


> As to your question, I can't believe some people have actually voted for the Pac-10...its not even close.


I agree man. Although, I think Boston College will prove to be overrated come tourney time. They might not lose the first couple of games cuz they will have a 2 seed most likely. But I dont see a Final Four visit at all.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

My thoughts on BC: If they are the #2 in UNC's bracket, I will be very, very pleased.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I just hope UNC fans aren't too cocky. This could be 1992 All over again for Roy Williams, when his Kansas team was knocked off (as a one seed) against an unheralded UTEP team. Same thing happened to UNC in 1994 against Boston College. 

With McCants ailing, the Heels will prove to be very beatable come tournament time.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

jalen5 said:


> I agree man. Although, I think Boston College will prove to be overrated come tourney time. They might not lose the first couple of games cuz they will have a 2 seed most likely. But I dont see a Final Four visit at all.


I don't think "overrated" is the right term. They will certainly deserve be a #2 seed, or a #1 if they win the Big East Tournament. It won't be fair to say they did not deserve or earn that seed.

But I agree, they will certainly be the most vulnerable of the top 2 seeds.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> I don't think "overrated" is the right term. They will certainly deserve be a #2 seed, or a #1 if they win the Big East Tournament. It won't be fair to say they did not deserve or earn that seed.
> 
> But I agree, they will certainly be the most vulnerable of the top 2 seeds.


And it's because they are a true team that doesn't have much star power outside of Craig Smith. You can't win the championship, without having one or two NBA guys on your team (they can be journeyman as well).

2004 - UConn (Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor, Josh Boone, Charlie Villanueva, Hilton Armstrong)
2003 - Syracuse (Carmelo Anthony, Hakim Warrick)
2002 - Maryland (Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, Chris Wilcox, Lonny Baxter)
2001 - Duke (Jason Williams, Shane Battier, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy Jr., Chris Duhon
2000 - Michigan State (Mateen Cleaves, Morris Peterson, Jason Richardson)
1999 - Connecticut (Richard Hamilton, Jake Voskuhl)
1998 - Kentucky (Nazr Mohammad, Scot Padgett, Jamaal Magloire)
1997 - Arizona (Mike Bibby, Jason Terry, Michael Dickerson)
1996 - Kentucky (Ron Mercer, Antoine Walker, Walter McCarty, Derek Anderson, Tony Delk, Mark Pope)
1995 - UCLA (Ed O'Bannon, Toby Bailey, Charles O'Bannon)
1994 - Arkansas (Corliss Williamson)
1993 - North Carolina (Eric Montross, George Lynch)
1992 - Duke (Grant Hill, Bobby Hurley, Cherokee Parks, Christian Laettner)
1991 - Duke (ditto)
1990 - UNLV (Greg Anthony, Larry Johnson, Elmore Spencer, Stacey Augmon)

So in the last 15 years, the Nationl champions all had some NBA talent on their team, with the exception of Arkansas and UConn (in 1999). Both of those teams, were exactly that, TEAMS. Built to win, but they all could score, shoot the 3 and play in transition. 

BC off hand has 3 guys who could play in the NBA (Craig Smith, Jared Dudley and Sean Williams). However, their deliberate style doesn't seem conducive to winning in a one and done scenario, because if they shoot poorly an underdog is going to stay in it till the bitter end. Next year, Al Skinner (with a veteran team) is going to have to open it up a little more.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

HKF, with respect to that Arkansas I seem to remember that there was the expectation that many of the players would make the NBA at the time - I seemed to remember reading an article somewhere where someone expecting 6 or 7 players to make the league.

Williamson
Thurman
Darnell Robinson
Corey Beck
Lee Wilson
Clint McDaniel
Even fat Dwight Stewart

None were great players, but its odd that none ever it made it to the league.

Correction. I just checked:

Beck played 950 career minutes.
McDaniel played 71 career minutes.

That 1994 team was a good team - once UNC went down they were the clear favourite IIRC.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> HKF, with respect to that Arkansas I seem to remember that there was the expectation that many of the players would make the NBA at the time - I seemed to remember reading an article somewhere where someone expecting 6 or 7 players to make the league.
> 
> Williamson
> Thurman
> ...


Hey you called him "Fat" Stewart too? So did I. Boy could he shoot though. That man could stroke it. The only one on your list was Darnell Robinson and Scotty Thurman, but they it wasn't meant to be. Arkansas system disguised many of their flaws. Remember the 1995 Syracuse-Arkansas game, where the Cuse had them beat, before Moten's timeout? That was Arkansas' true talent showing through.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

HKF said:


> Hey you called him "Fat" Stewart too? So did I. Boy could he shoot though. That man could stroke it. The only one on your list was Darnell Robinson and Scotty Thurman, but they it wasn't meant to be. Arkansas system disguised many of their flaws. Remember the 1995 Syracuse-Arkansas game, where the Cuse had them beat, before Moten's timeout? That was Arkansas' true talent showing through.


It's interesting that two of the best "fat" players in the 1990's, came from the 40 minutes of hell system.

Oliver Miller
Dwight Stewart

And they actually did a decent job in keeping up with their team in that system.

Two extremely skilled players (well Stewart all around no, but his shooting was absolutely great). And Miller was one of the better passing big men that I remember in college.

That Syracuse game was crushing in 1995. I remember watching in my student res on a Sunday afternoon. People were wondering why I was freaking out over a college basketball game - in Waterloo, Ontario not much else then hockey fans.

That Syracuse team should have been better then a seven seed, although I guess having a dysfunctional PG like Michael Lloyd doesn't help much. I remember they were ranked in the top 10 at the beginning of that year.


----------



## jalen5 (Nov 19, 2004)

JuniorNoboa said:


> I don't think "overrated" is the right term. They will certainly deserve be a #2 seed, or a #1 if they win the Big East Tournament. It won't be fair to say they did not deserve or earn that seed.
> 
> But I agree, they will certainly be the most vulnerable of the top 2 seeds.



You're probably right. They have a very good record in a good conference so I guess they deserve it. I just am not impressed at all beyond their wins against Syracuse and UCONN, which I don't think is anything amazing to begin with. They won't be a #1 seed, prolly a #2. And, like my fellow UNC fan HeinzGuderian said, I will be very pleased to see them in the Heels bracket. 

Also, does anyone know about McCant's status??? I'm real worried about his health and him not being available.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

texan said:


> Overall Big East is better, but the top teams are comparable in the Pac-10. My rankings(of possible Tourney Teams):
> 
> 1. Boston College
> 2. Washington
> ...


fair assessment. 

And also if youre going to say that the fact the Big East has more teams means that it plays more cupcakes, then you have to compare the best teams from each conference keeping in mind that the Big East has 2 more teams than the pac 10 does and thus should usually have a higher # of better/tournament teams.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

DaBruins said:


> fair assessment.
> 
> And also if youre going to say that the fact the Big East has more teams means that it plays more cupcakes, then you have to compare the best teams from each conference *keeping in mind that the Big East has 2 more teams than the pac 10 does and thus should usually have a higher # of better/tournament teams *.


OK. So the Big East has 2 more teams. And they will get 3 or 4 more teams in the tournament. You have convinced me. 

The Big East has more cupcakes.? I'd be willing to bet that Rutgers, Providence. Seton Hall, and St. John's would be able to split with your bottom four. They just have bad records because they face good teams over and over. While a team like Wash St which lost by 65 earlier in the season, can be fairly competitve in the Pac-10 - put them in the Big East and they have 3 wins max.

So Let's compare teams:

Washington = Boston College (purely if we look at what they have done this year)
Arizona > UConn

And to make up for the fact that Big East is bigger, I will take out Syracuse out of this analysis.

Stanford <<< Villanova
Arizona St << Pitt
Oregon St << Notre Dame

And then we still have West Virginia and Georgetown which are strong bubble teams.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Obviously only the biggest Pac-10 Homer in the world, would really believe the Pac-10 is a better league than the Big East. Seriously, it's not. It's mired in fact, not hypotheticals.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

JuniorNoboa said:


> OK. So the Big East has 2 more teams. And they will get 3 or 4 more teams in the tournament. You have convinced me.
> 
> The Big East has more cupcakes.? I'd be willing to bet that Rutgers, Providence. Seton Hall, and St. John's would be able to split with your bottom four. They just have bad records because they face good teams over and over. While a team like Wash St which lost by 65 earlier in the season, can be fairly competitve in the Pac-10 - put them in the Big East and they have 3 wins max.
> 
> ...


Reading Comprehension.

Oh and by the way on a completely unrelated topic, I said they PLAY more cupcakes, not that they ARE cupcakes. If youre going to compare teams, at least bring UCLA into the conversation over teams like ASU or OSU, because UCLA <= Pitt (Pitt has played some great games but their low SOS diminshes their RPI, but they are still better than us although an argument can be made either way) and UCLA > Notre Dame. And sorry but Villanova is not >>> compared to stanford, yes they are a better team but not as much as you think (im comparing the two teams as if grunfeld wasn't hurt). I would put OSU and ASU on the same level as W. Virginia and Georgetown. And i'd also put our lower teams, Washington st, Oregon, USC over teams like Providence, Seton Hall, Rutgers and St Johns. You honestly have to be joking if you think Wazzu only gets 3 wins max in the big east. Im betting that you havent seen them play but their defense is amazing. Yeah they had 1 terrible game, so what (not to mention it was on the road against the #3 RPI team OK St). They were also 2 points away from being gonzaga in the next game and despite their great SOS (10th), they only allow like 55 points a game. You say Arizona is better than UCONN, well Wazzu beat arizona on the road by 7 in their first game and then lost by just 1 the next time they played.

But the Big East does indeed have more cupcake teams than the pac 10, but again thats only because they have more teams. Our lowest RPI team is in the 120s where as the Big East has 3 teams below the 150s


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

JuniorNoboa said:


> The Big East has more cupcakes.? I'd be willing to bet that Rutgers, Providence. Seton Hall, and St. John's would be able to split with your bottom four. They just have bad records because they face good teams over and over.
> 
> 
> > if they face the good teams over and over again moreso than the pac 10 bottom feeders, than the Big East teams should have better SOS's than Pac 10 teams right? But they dont. Looking at the top 21 teams in SOS, the pac 10 occupies a third of those spots.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

The 6 people who have voted for the Pac-10 so far need to see the nearest mental health institution. This is just a laughable thread.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

BE with 5 NCAA locks and the Pac 10 with 2 locks and both with three bubble teams. Granted, the BE has more teams, but come on...


----------



## azswami (Mar 26, 2003)

Without regard to which is the better conference;

ANY poll made with nothing but stats ALL skewing it towards ANY conclusion by a proponent of said conclusion is idiotic and worthless.

Still, I'll give the BigE the nod. There are 4 total DOG teams in the BigE which helps out the other 8. The Pac is two very good teams and no real dogs - unlike in the BigE. 

The BigE has gotten their props. Witness all the talk of potentially getting 8 teams in. (Won't happen. 4 teams will lose 1st round and 1, if not 2 are gone as soon as that happens.)

Pac-10 is very young and unknown - and inconsistent. Lot's of talent, but outside of Arizona and Washington, nobody standing out.

Again, I'll side with the top 2/3 of the Big East. The bottom 1/3 would struggle even against the Pac's bottom.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

USC and Cal aren't dog teams? They are no better than Providence or Seton Hall.


----------



## azswami (Mar 26, 2003)

There IS a difference between having 2 dogs and 4 dogs. BigE still wins the Iditerod.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Not when the middle of the league is so much better than the middle of the Pac-10. I mean let's face it, the Pac-10 is mediocre this year. Just like a year ago. Nothing wrong with admitting it. No need to mention the youth of the league, because the league is still underperforming. It stinks what happened to Leon Powe, because that was an NCAA tourney team, but as a whole the league has been down.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

TonyM said:


> BE with 5 NCAA locks and the Pac 10 with 2 locks and both with three bubble teams. Granted, the BE has more teams, but come on...


the pac 10 has 3 locks.

note: i guess this thread was started because of me saying in another thread that the pac 10 is better than the big east, but i was only referring to their rankings in the RPI. I think anyone who sees the two conference would know the big east is the better conference as a whole, though i did vote for the pac 10 to be a homer and just balance out the poll (gotta love the underdog)


----------



## VERBZ (Jun 7, 2002)

Hey, JuniorNoboa! Good to see ya again….so THIS is where you went! LOL….



azswami said:


> ANY poll made with nothing but stats ALL skewing it towards ANY conclusion by a proponent of said conclusion is idiotic and worthless.


…numbers don’t lie, though. That’s the bottom line. And there’s only so much “manipulating” one can do to statistics to aid their argument – s’not like one can CHANGE the facts. How do you set up factual numbers to “work in your favor”?

I must have missed the thread entitled _“Who’s Deeper, The ACC or The Big East?”_…..IMO, that’s the better argument.

I got a question for y’all….where’s Ike Diogu (ASU)? Did he get hurt or something?


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

VERBZ said:


> Hey, JuniorNoboa! Good to see ya again….so THIS is where you went! LOL….
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hurt? The guy has been tearing up teams all season. ASU just sucks, but Diogu still deserves Pac 10 POY honors IMO.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

VERBZ said:


> Hey, JuniorNoboa! Good to see ya again….so THIS is where you went! LOL….


Been here for a while. The college board was a little more active here then at Fanhome, and just slowly moved my basketball talk here. 


Anyway, hopefully you can keep posting here. This guy knows his stuff.


----------

