Hyperbole, Integrity and History? (ACC/BigEast)

[Anrhydeddu]

From Tranghese's latest rant

"At the end of the day, President Shalala is going to have to look at the issues we've talked about, have to look at financial obligations, have to look at integrity issues," Tranghese said. "And then she's going to have to factor in the irreparable harm that's going to be caused to members of my league.

Integrity????? Causing irreparable harm?? From a former Clinton Administration Cabinet Member??

"Aside from that, and this will sound self-serving, this will be the most disastrous blow to intercollegiate athletics in my lifetime. It's wrong."

Most disastrous blow??? A bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

Tranghese implored Miami and the other two schools to appreciate the history of a conference that began in 1979,

Is that like appreciating the history of rock when you only go as far back as disco?

To me, it is the history and tradition of each of the schools. What conferences they have played in or what the names of the conferences have been is irrelevant, imo.

[Blade6119]

President Shalala...i cant stop laughing about that name...ahhh...

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Integrity????? Causing irreparable harm?? From a former Clinton Administration Cabinet Member??

Ah, politics again.

[Blade6119]

Anyone else think SMU got it a little worse than the big east MIGHT get it?...just a statement...

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu

To me, it is the history and tradition of each of the schools. What conferences they have played in or what the names of the conferences have been is irrelevant, imo.

Well I totally disagree with you, and I think that anyone who has a 'favorite' conference would as well. Like Jim Calhoun says about winning the Big East Tournament, 'There is something to be said for being the toughest in your own neighborhood.'

[panerd]

When the possible loss of these three teams was announced, ESPN shit their pants. Meanwhile the other 99% of the country, who don't think college sports revolve around New York state, lives went on.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Blade6119
President Shalala...i cant stop laughing about that name...ahhh...

We should call her President Sha-na-na

[Radii]

What's amusing about all that is that the ACC is the conference with 50 years of tradition and history and this will tarnish it big time in the eyes of many loyal ACC followers.

And panerd, New York state seems to be the smallest concern I can think of in the whole mess. You have one of the top football programs in the nation looking at jumping ship, you have the defending national champion in college basketball jumping ship, and jumping to a conference that has the previous two defending national champions, and a conference that has put a team in the final four in virtually every year since 1988.

I would think just simply those two factors would make this a major, major landscape change both college football and college basketball. It could drastically impact whatever happens in football after the BCS contract ends, and it will drastically change the layout of college basketball.

In addition, the Big East supposedly has a plan to "refill" itself if it loses Miami/Syracuse/BC that will potentially have major effects on Conference-USA, and some wilder speculation has the Big 10 and the Big 12 shaking up a little bit in part of the fallout(though that strikes me as extremely unlikely, but it's out there).

Also, I know it's been discussed here, but the ACC went against Virginia's wishes to try to offer to Boston College instead of Virginia Tech. The biggest reason for that seems to be to tap into the Boston television market for the ACC. New York's market has very rarely come up.

And, as I've said in pretty much every post i've made on the subject, the ACC is the conference with the tradition. The big east is a baby, a strong one, but a baby nonetheless. This is going to ruin that for the ACC. The Big 12 is a football conference that happens to have Kansas and (occasionally) Oklahoma playing at top levels in basketball. The ACC will become a football conference that happens to have duke, UNC and Syracuse playing basketball :P

[scooper]

Good point, Radii. The ACC was the one major conference that was clearly a basketball conference. With the possible expansion, they are moving away from that. This is a clear indication of what sport really pays the bills.

[Blade6119]

umm...radii...maybe its just me but i think the big 12 and the acc are quite equal in terms of basketball...right now i think the big 12 is better...

Kansas is a perinneal power house.

Oklahoma has done a great job over the past few years, where i would say they are a one of the elite teams for now.

Texas has done great with T.J. Ford at point, but even though he left, you can only look at recent success and they have it.

Missouri is a strong team. They went undefeated at home last year if im not mistaken. They return all 5 starters, and bring in Jason Conley(the leading scorer in the nation 2 years ago while a frosh at VMI). I have heared many things about this team being pre-season top 5, and i cant say i disagree.

Of course you have weak teams like baylor and kansas state(every conference has these teams), but then you have underdogs like colorado who was one of the last bubble teams out after pulling a lot of upsets. If im not mistaken only 2 years ago Iowa State was a top team as well.

Its a football conference, but i think it also is maybe the best basketball conference. Just a statement

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Blade6119
umm...radii...maybe its just me but i think the big 12 and the acc are quite equal in terms of basketball...right now i think the big 12 is better...

Didn't Syracuse pretty much eradicate the myth of the Big 12 as a power basketball conference?

[The Afoci]

No, they proved the point that a few young guys with talent can beat the almight "senior".

[Radii]

Originally posted by Blade6119
umm...radii...maybe its just me but i think the big 12 and the acc are quite equal in terms of basketball...right now i think the big 12 is better...

Well, first of all you have to realize I'm a big time ACC snob. I'm not above admitting that. But also keep in mind that the ACC has been "down" for the past 3-4 years in almost everyone's eyes, yet they still have 2 of the last 3 national titles, they put a team in the final four virtually every year, and they get 4-6 teams in the NCAA Tournament every year despite having only a 9 team conference.


By any measurement I'd question the big 12 being better. In any historical measure that goes back more than say, 4 years, there's no way in hell the Big 12 is better. In the past 3-4 years, Maryland and Duke have been on par with Kansas and Oklahoma during the regular season, and Maryland and Duke have the national titles, Kansas and Oklahoma don't.

Ok, I take back my statement that "by any measurement" ... last year, the big 12 was the best conference in the country and the ACC had its worst year in a very, very, very long time.

The Big 12 is a very good basketball conference. Rick Barns is a solid coach, so is Kelvin Sampson and Bill Self and Quin Snyder. But the ACC is a better basketball conference year in and year out.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by Blade6119
umm...radii...maybe its just me but i think the big 12 and the acc are quite equal in terms of basketball...right now i think the big 12 is better...

Kansas is a perinneal power house.

Oklahoma has done a great job over the past few years, where i would say they are a one of the elite teams for now.

Texas has done great with T.J. Ford at point, but even though he left, you can only look at recent success and they have it.

Missouri is a strong team. They went undefeated at home last year if im not mistaken. They return all 5 starters, and bring in Jason Conley(the leading scorer in the nation 2 years ago while a frosh at VMI). I have heared many things about this team being pre-season top 5, and i cant say i disagree.

Of course you have weak teams like baylor and kansas state(every conference has these teams), but then you have underdogs like colorado who was one of the last bubble teams out after pulling a lot of upsets. If im not mistaken only 2 years ago Iowa State was a top team as well.

Its a football conference, but i think it also is maybe the best basketball conference. Just a statement

I remember a certain East Coast team going through the Big 12 like a hot knife through warm butter in the NCAA's this past year.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Well I totally disagree with you, and I think that anyone who has a 'favorite' conference would as well. Like Jim Calhoun says about winning the Big East Tournament, 'There is something to be said for being the toughest in your own neighborhood.'

Yeah, I'm sure SU is all devasted and depressed for not having won the Big East tournament this year.

[Radii]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Yeah, I'm sure SU is all devasted and depressed for not having won the Big East tournament this year.

This seems to be on a conference by conference basis. I have no idea what the Big 12 is like, or the SEC. I know, for example, you have people like Lute Olson blowing off the conference tournaments in some conferences. Hearing him say that the Pac 10 tournament didn't matter so they were more concerned about resting up for the big dance was one of the most baffling statements I'd ever heard.

The ACC, and the Big East as far as I understand, place a huge emphasis on the conference tournament. I guess its just part of the tradition or the way that the coaches have always dealt with it, but there is a very, very signifigant prestiege within the conference that comes with winning the ACC tournament. I believe the Big East is the same way.

[Marmel]

In the Big East, the regular season does not mean much, but the Conference Tournament Champion is the team usually recognized as the Conference Champ when it is all said and done.

Obviously, this year, Syracuse is not devastated about not winning at the Garden, but I can assure you that UConn still has a bad taste in their mouth, and Pitt is extremely satisfied with what happened.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by Marmel
In the Big East, the regular season does not mean much, but the Conference Tournament Champion is the team usually recognized as the Conference Champ when it is all said and done.

Obviously, this year, Syracuse is not devastated about not winning at the Garden, but I can assure you that UConn still has a bad taste in their mouth, and Pitt is extremely satisfied with what happened.

I'm sure Pitt can take some consolation that it won a few games at the beginning of March. Do you really think Pitt is best team in the Big East because it won the tournament??? I really don't think so.

I do have a bias in that I do not believe in conference tournaments (basketball or football) because as Marm said, it renders the regular season nearly meaningless. To me, that is the true test - to have identical schedules (or close to it) and see, against the same level of competition, who comes out the best. Tournaments, just like a college football playoffs, comes down to luck of the draw and who you face in the brackets. This is why I am adamantly against automatic bids - it can be seen as a reward for mediocracy. But as a showcase and for exciting games as well as ratings/money, it certainly has a place. But that should be all it is, imo.

[Celeval]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I'm sure Pitt can take some consolation that it won a few games at the beginning of March. Do you really think Pitt is best team in the Big East because it won the tournament??? I really don't think so.

I'm sure Syracuse can take some consolation that it won a few games at the end of March. Do you really think Syracuse is best team in the NCAA because it won the tournament??? I really don't think so.

When it comes down to it - again, conference by conference - many conferences anoint their champion by the tournament, not by the regular season. Maybe it means more for smaller conferences - if you win the Big East regular season, or the ACC regular season, everyone knows you're good and you're going to the dance. But when it comes down to nuts and bolts, the list of Big East champions:

1998 - Connecticut
1999 - Connecticut
2000 - St. Johns
2001 - Boston College
2002 - Connecticut
2003 - Pittsburgh

This is who is remembered, this is who the champion is, this is the tournament winner. In ten years, will it be remembered that St. John's didn't have the best record that year? Maybe by Syracuse fans (they were the #1 seed) or by St. Johns fans (they were the #3 seed), but St. Johns is the one with the title.

Does it render the regular season meaningless? That's the point of the regular season. The conference schedule is not to determine the conference champion in this case, it's to determine the seeding of the conference playoff. The NFL regular season isn't to determine the NFL champion, it's to (get into and) determine the playoff seedings.

Edit: incomplete thought

[Samdari]

Actually, Celeval, I think most people will remember Syracuse as this year's Big East champion, and forget Pitt even had a team.

In terms of naming champions, officially, if a conference has a tournament, the winner is the champion. You see, conference champions get automatic bids, and conferences can determine their own method of choosing a champion, regular season, or tournament.

[Marmel]

Ahnry, I do believe Pitt was the best team in the Big East conference this season, from start to finish.

Syracuse started out finding themselves and really peaked at tourney time, but Pitt tied for the best regular season record and won the conference tourney. They are the Big East Champs this year. End of story.

[MrBug708]

Ah yes, East Coast teams clamoring about how they are in the elite Basketball conferences

[Marmel]

And West Coast fans thankful they have had Arizona for the last 20 years.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by Samdari
Actually, Celeval, I think most people will remember Syracuse as this year's Big East champion, and forget Pitt even had a team.

In terms of naming champions, officially, if a conference has a tournament, the winner is the champion. You see, conference champions get automatic bids, and conferences can determine their own method of choosing a champion, regular season, or tournament.

I agree with this. I think folks are overstating the long term value of conference champions. Kansas and Texas will be remembered as Final Four teams this season, not who won the Big 12 tournament (whoever the hell it was because it really is meaningless). SU will be remembered as the champion and Pitt will be in some second-tier conference which no one will care about except when it comes getting an automatic berth. Maybe locally folks care about this more but only for bragging rights (like the UNC-Duke rivalry). The rest of the country or from a national perspective, I don't anyone really cares. The NCAA Tournament is what means everything and how you get there are just intermediate steps.

[Kodos]

Go Big Ten!