The College Basketball Post

[shuges]

Now I know BSPN ain't exactly the most credible place these days.
But wow...

[h4]http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...-ESPN-doctored-up-face-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394[/h4]

[h4]Houston coach says ESPN 'doctored up' face-stomp footage[/h4]
By Eamonn Brennan


The saga of Aubrey Coleman was supposed to be over. Alas, it is not, as the Houston Chronicle's The Z Report captured these quotes of Houston coach Tom Penders claiming ESPN doctored the footage of Coleman stomping on Arizona forward Chase Budinger's face.

"Yeah, I saw it. I thought it was a real -- they doctored it up. They put this X-ray vision thing in to make it look like Aubrey [Coleman] was looking down, which painted a very poor picture of what actually happened. You have replays from the game where they went through the entire sequence and slow motion and everything else and Aubrey's eyes never look anything but straight ahead and up to the ceiling when the officials give him the charge signal. ESPN made it look like he was looking down. I thought it was a total distortion.

"And I think it was intentional on their part, because I've worked there, and I've seen them do these kinds of things. You can do a lot with television, they can doctor it up, they can make it look like someone's looking in another direction. It's very easy to do for them. And I called the producer up there that I know, named Norby Williamson, he's pretty high up there. I called him at least three times and left messages with him, and since he hasn't returned the phone call and it's a very newsy thing I feel it was intentionally done to harm Aubrey, to make him look like he is a real villian. In other words, he was tried and conviced without a jury, without a defense."


Yes, Penders is convinced that ESPN was out to make Coleman look like a villian, and that they intentionally doctored the footage to that aim. It's more than a little farfetched, but it isn't completely impossible, either. The vision-cone ESPN used to show Coleman's vision was a bit dramatic. It's possible to see that as a "distortion," I guess. Still, it's not as though ESPN can plainly doctor footage without anyone noticing. In short, I have no idea what to make of this.

In any case, you can hear the entire audio after the jump and re-watch the footage to see for yourself. Either Tom Penders is on to something, or that's the craziest thing a professional basketball coach has said since Bob Knight was employed.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/n...ce-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394

edit:

Light triple double last night.. 20-13-10
Nice game for Nick.

 

[shuges]

Now I know BSPN ain't exactly the most credible place these days.
But wow...

[h4]http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...-ESPN-doctored-up-face-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394[/h4]

[h4]Houston coach says ESPN 'doctored up' face-stomp footage[/h4]
By Eamonn Brennan


The saga of Aubrey Coleman was supposed to be over. Alas, it is not, as the Houston Chronicle's The Z Report captured these quotes of Houston coach Tom Penders claiming ESPN doctored the footage of Coleman stomping on Arizona forward Chase Budinger's face.

"Yeah, I saw it. I thought it was a real -- they doctored it up. They put this X-ray vision thing in to make it look like Aubrey [Coleman] was looking down, which painted a very poor picture of what actually happened. You have replays from the game where they went through the entire sequence and slow motion and everything else and Aubrey's eyes never look anything but straight ahead and up to the ceiling when the officials give him the charge signal. ESPN made it look like he was looking down. I thought it was a total distortion.

"And I think it was intentional on their part, because I've worked there, and I've seen them do these kinds of things. You can do a lot with television, they can doctor it up, they can make it look like someone's looking in another direction. It's very easy to do for them. And I called the producer up there that I know, named Norby Williamson, he's pretty high up there. I called him at least three times and left messages with him, and since he hasn't returned the phone call and it's a very newsy thing I feel it was intentionally done to harm Aubrey, to make him look like he is a real villian. In other words, he was tried and conviced without a jury, without a defense."


Yes, Penders is convinced that ESPN was out to make Coleman look like a villian, and that they intentionally doctored the footage to that aim. It's more than a little farfetched, but it isn't completely impossible, either. The vision-cone ESPN used to show Coleman's vision was a bit dramatic. It's possible to see that as a "distortion," I guess. Still, it's not as though ESPN can plainly doctor footage without anyone noticing. In short, I have no idea what to make of this.

In any case, you can hear the entire audio after the jump and re-watch the footage to see for yourself. Either Tom Penders is on to something, or that's the craziest thing a professional basketball coach has said since Bob Knight was employed.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/n...ce-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394

edit:

Light triple double last night.. 20-13-10
Nice game for Nick.

 

[shuges]

Now I know BSPN ain't exactly the most credible place these days.
But wow...

[h4]http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...-ESPN-doctored-up-face-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394[/h4]

[h4]Houston coach says ESPN 'doctored up' face-stomp footage[/h4]
By Eamonn Brennan


The saga of Aubrey Coleman was supposed to be over. Alas, it is not, as the Houston Chronicle's The Z Report captured these quotes of Houston coach Tom Penders claiming ESPN doctored the footage of Coleman stomping on Arizona forward Chase Budinger's face.

"Yeah, I saw it. I thought it was a real -- they doctored it up. They put this X-ray vision thing in to make it look like Aubrey [Coleman] was looking down, which painted a very poor picture of what actually happened. You have replays from the game where they went through the entire sequence and slow motion and everything else and Aubrey's eyes never look anything but straight ahead and up to the ceiling when the officials give him the charge signal. ESPN made it look like he was looking down. I thought it was a total distortion.

"And I think it was intentional on their part, because I've worked there, and I've seen them do these kinds of things. You can do a lot with television, they can doctor it up, they can make it look like someone's looking in another direction. It's very easy to do for them. And I called the producer up there that I know, named Norby Williamson, he's pretty high up there. I called him at least three times and left messages with him, and since he hasn't returned the phone call and it's a very newsy thing I feel it was intentionally done to harm Aubrey, to make him look like he is a real villian. In other words, he was tried and conviced without a jury, without a defense."


Yes, Penders is convinced that ESPN was out to make Coleman look like a villian, and that they intentionally doctored the footage to that aim. It's more than a little farfetched, but it isn't completely impossible, either. The vision-cone ESPN used to show Coleman's vision was a bit dramatic. It's possible to see that as a "distortion," I guess. Still, it's not as though ESPN can plainly doctor footage without anyone noticing. In short, I have no idea what to make of this.

In any case, you can hear the entire audio after the jump and re-watch the footage to see for yourself. Either Tom Penders is on to something, or that's the craziest thing a professional basketball coach has said since Bob Knight was employed.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/n...ce-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394

edit:

Light triple double last night.. 20-13-10
Nice game for Nick.

 

[shuges]

Now I know BSPN ain't exactly the most credible place these days.
But wow...

[h4]http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...-ESPN-doctored-up-face-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394[/h4]

[h4]Houston coach says ESPN 'doctored up' face-stomp footage[/h4]
By Eamonn Brennan


The saga of Aubrey Coleman was supposed to be over. Alas, it is not, as the Houston Chronicle's The Z Report captured these quotes of Houston coach Tom Penders claiming ESPN doctored the footage of Coleman stomping on Arizona forward Chase Budinger's face.

"Yeah, I saw it. I thought it was a real -- they doctored it up. They put this X-ray vision thing in to make it look like Aubrey [Coleman] was looking down, which painted a very poor picture of what actually happened. You have replays from the game where they went through the entire sequence and slow motion and everything else and Aubrey's eyes never look anything but straight ahead and up to the ceiling when the officials give him the charge signal. ESPN made it look like he was looking down. I thought it was a total distortion.

"And I think it was intentional on their part, because I've worked there, and I've seen them do these kinds of things. You can do a lot with television, they can doctor it up, they can make it look like someone's looking in another direction. It's very easy to do for them. And I called the producer up there that I know, named Norby Williamson, he's pretty high up there. I called him at least three times and left messages with him, and since he hasn't returned the phone call and it's a very newsy thing I feel it was intentionally done to harm Aubrey, to make him look like he is a real villian. In other words, he was tried and conviced without a jury, without a defense."


Yes, Penders is convinced that ESPN was out to make Coleman look like a villian, and that they intentionally doctored the footage to that aim. It's more than a little farfetched, but it isn't completely impossible, either. The vision-cone ESPN used to show Coleman's vision was a bit dramatic. It's possible to see that as a "distortion," I guess. Still, it's not as though ESPN can plainly doctor footage without anyone noticing. In short, I have no idea what to make of this.

In any case, you can hear the entire audio after the jump and re-watch the footage to see for yourself. Either Tom Penders is on to something, or that's the craziest thing a professional basketball coach has said since Bob Knight was employed.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/n...ce-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394

edit:

Light triple double last night.. 20-13-10
Nice game for Nick.

 

[shuges]

Now I know BSPN ain't exactly the most credible place these days.
But wow...

[h4]http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...-ESPN-doctored-up-face-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394[/h4]

[h4]Houston coach says ESPN 'doctored up' face-stomp footage[/h4]
By Eamonn Brennan


The saga of Aubrey Coleman was supposed to be over. Alas, it is not, as the Houston Chronicle's The Z Report captured these quotes of Houston coach Tom Penders claiming ESPN doctored the footage of Coleman stomping on Arizona forward Chase Budinger's face.

"Yeah, I saw it. I thought it was a real -- they doctored it up. They put this X-ray vision thing in to make it look like Aubrey [Coleman] was looking down, which painted a very poor picture of what actually happened. You have replays from the game where they went through the entire sequence and slow motion and everything else and Aubrey's eyes never look anything but straight ahead and up to the ceiling when the officials give him the charge signal. ESPN made it look like he was looking down. I thought it was a total distortion.

"And I think it was intentional on their part, because I've worked there, and I've seen them do these kinds of things. You can do a lot with television, they can doctor it up, they can make it look like someone's looking in another direction. It's very easy to do for them. And I called the producer up there that I know, named Norby Williamson, he's pretty high up there. I called him at least three times and left messages with him, and since he hasn't returned the phone call and it's a very newsy thing I feel it was intentionally done to harm Aubrey, to make him look like he is a real villian. In other words, he was tried and conviced without a jury, without a defense."


Yes, Penders is convinced that ESPN was out to make Coleman look like a villian, and that they intentionally doctored the footage to that aim. It's more than a little farfetched, but it isn't completely impossible, either. The vision-cone ESPN used to show Coleman's vision was a bit dramatic. It's possible to see that as a "distortion," I guess. Still, it's not as though ESPN can plainly doctor footage without anyone noticing. In short, I have no idea what to make of this.

In any case, you can hear the entire audio after the jump and re-watch the footage to see for yourself. Either Tom Penders is on to something, or that's the craziest thing a professional basketball coach has said since Bob Knight was employed.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/n...ce-stomp?urn=ncaab,137394

edit:

Light triple double last night.. 20-13-10
Nice game for Nick.

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[vdub1423.insidehoops]

yall hear about them making racial calls to the dude that stepped on budinger's face during the game.... thats crazy

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by allen3xis

I really don't buy that ACC at the top is better than the Big East at the top..

go ahead and match up the 6 teams.

I don't buy that either.. but i don't believe the big east or acc is that much tougher than nearly any other conference this year, top to bottom. Take away Iowa and Indiana and you've got 9 really solid to good teams in the big ten. The bottom five in the big east are all fairly pathetic, so you get 11 good teams there. ACC is strong except for the bottom 3 (maybe 4 if MD doesn't get it together), so they've got 9. Big XII is fairly strong in their top 9.

Only conference I don't really buy at this point is Pac-10, but the numbers say they are the 2nd best conference in the country so they must be better than I give them credit for - with only the Oregon schools and Wazzu having bad numbers.

It feels like a much more balanced year around the country this year to me.

But see, i feel as though people fail to realize that in a league such as the BIG EAST, the bottom half more often that not, is as good if notbetter than the middle tier teams of other conferences. I mean somebody has to lose and unfortunately, it will be the Rutgers and Seton Halls. I whollybelieve, however, that these "pathetic" Big East teams would perform exceptionally well, relative to their current performance levels, were they tocompete in other leagues like the Pac-10 of Big-12.

I mean just look at the preseason stats. Some of the weaker teams from the Big East put up solid performances and wins over prominent programs in otherleagues. Furthermore, consider that some of the weaklings often times "upset" supposedly elite programs within the league. That alone should convinceyou of the potential of these teams. I honestly believe that the weaklings of the Big East could easily top their counterparts from the other leagues.