Saturday, January 24, 2009

Let's End This Debate Already

We are tired of hearing this debate, is the ACC or the Big East a better conference? Before the year started everyone said hands down the BE. Now that the top few teams have lost a game or two in the conference everyone is jumping on the ACC ship. I don't give much credence to anything Jay Bilas or Coach K say about the debate, but both think the ACC is stronger up top. Now I really disagree with this so decided to take the subjectivity out of the argument. After all, I am a diehard Pitt fan. So, what we decided to do was look at the top three teams in each conference and at their toughest stretch of 10 games. We assigned point values for each game. A game vs. a top 10 team would earn a team 7 points. A game vs. a top 25 team would earn a team 5 points. If the team is not ranked, but has a winning record, they were awarded points as follows. For at least 3 times as many wins as losses gets 3 points. For double the amount of wins than losses gets 2 points. For a simple winning record gets 1 point. And for a .500 or losing record that matchup gets 0 points.

BIG EAST

Ranking

Record

Pts.

9

14-3

7

8

17-3

7

NR

14-4

3

20

15-4

5

19

12-5

5

NR

8-12

0

NR

14-4

3

NR

13-7

2

3

17-1

7

NR

8-12

0

39


Ranking

Record

Pts.

NR

8-12

0

NR

13-6

2

9

14-3

7

8

17-3

7

NR

9-9

0

4

17-1

7

NR

7-12

0

10

17-2

7

19

12-5

5

4

17-1

7

42

Ranking

Record

Pts.

12

12-5

5

19

12-5

5

4

17-1

7

9

14-3

7

NR

13-6

2

NR

14-4

3

20

15-4

5

3

17-1

7

12

12-5

5

20

15-4

5

51


























As we can see the lowest score is awarded to Pitt with 39. Syracuse at 51 and UCONN at 42 have extremely high schedule scores.

ACC

Ranking

Record

Pts.

1

16-1

7

NR

7-9

0

9

16-2

7

NR

14-4

3

5

17-2

7

NR

15-6

2

1

16-1

7

NR

13-6

2

NR

13-5

2

NR

16-4

3

40









Ranking

Record

Pts.

5

17-2

7

NR

15-6

2

9

16-2

7

NR

13-5

2

2

18-1

7

NR

9-9

0

NR

14-4

3

NR

15-6

2

NR

10-7

1

NR

16-4

3

34

Ranking

Record

Pts.

1

16-1

7

NR

7-9

0

NR

14-4

3

9

16-2

7

NR

16-4

3

NR

10-7

1

NR

13-6

2

NR

7-9

0

2

18-1

7

NR

14-4

3

33















Only Duke with a 40 schedule score is higher than any BE teams. The others Wake and UNC are not even close to their Big East Counterparts.

So, we have proven that a ten game stretch in the BE is something that ACC teams don't really have to face. Would UNC or WAKE have nearly as good of a record if their schedule score was a 51? I highly doubt it. The point of this all is that yes, the ACC has good teams at the top of their league, but they are no better than BIG EASTS top dawgs, and I argue are slightly worse. What is more impressive how the BE top teams perform vs. their schedules or the ACC? I believe the BE. Also to seal the deal, lets look at the losses of the top teams. UCONN lost to Georgetown a team ranked 12 in the country. Pitt lost on the road to Louisville, a team ranked 9th in the country. Syracuse lost to fourth ranked Pitt, and Cleveland St. Ouch. But that is the worst, and only loss to an unranked team that any of the top 3 teams from the Big East has had. Now the ACC, Duke lost to unranked Michigan. UNC lost to unranked BC at home (who next got spanked by Harvard at home), and to Wake at Wake, a respectable loss. Lastly, Wake lost at home to unranked VT.
So, to put it all in perspective. The Big East's top teams have outperformed those of the ACC against a much tougher league schedule. The top teams have avoided any losses to unranked teams with the exception of Syracuse's loss to Cleveland St. Each team that leads the ACC has lost to an unranked team. The thing about this all is that if you look at the teams that beat Wake and UNC, they were not good teams. But, they had one thing in common. They slowed the game down, played to their pace and defended. This is exactly what the BE teams specialize in but with far far far better talent then BC or VT. If you thought Unc and Wake struggled with these teams, don't you think they would struggle vs. a Pitt or Louisville, or UConn. This is why Clemson never is good in the ACC. They try to play uptempo and get into a track meet with UNC and Wake, which is what most teams in the Acc do. This is why most teams in the ACC get hammered and why UNC and Wake look so good when they play these teams. WAKE and UNC can out talent anyone who wants to get in a track meet. But, make these teams run a set or two, make them run the clock, and challenge them and they have fallen apart. So I argue, that yes, like everyone else says, the BE is way deeper. But, I also think these top teams are better than those of the ACC