- Dec 3, 2007
- 8,179
- 5,402
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.Originally Posted by Craftsy21
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.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.
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.
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.