Syracuse should be IN!!

Okay, I really truly don't mean that at all...just wanted to get you riled up.

The Big East Dilemna. Does playing in a 16-team conference mean more to a (mediocre) at-large team than playing in a traditional-sized conference?

This is the 3rd season of the mega-sized Big East, as the league added Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida prior to the 2005-06 season. Those schools have various degrees of success, both in and out of league play, since becoming part of the Big East. Louisville and Marquette are national powers, Cincy is in the early stages of the rebuilding process, and S. Florida has been in the bottom four of the league standings for all 3 seasons.

Adding those to premier programs like Georgetown, UConn, Pittsburgh, Villanova and Notre Dame leaves a league which is incredibly top-heavy; which, again, being 16 teams, should take place.

Over the past two seasons, the league is 18-14 in the Tourney, including an 8-6 record in the first round. In comparison, the Big Ten is 12-12, 8-4 (1-7 in the second round), the ACC is 13-11, 9-2 (3-6 in 2nd round), and the Big 12 is 10-8, 5-3.

Obviously the Big East should get more teams in, having more teams in the league, but they have a better winning % than those other leagues. Simple stats, such as that one, may indicate a strong league top to bottom. Or they may just be a 2-year snapshot and not enough of a sample size to demonstrate the league's strength.

Now, I'm not advocating taking the 9th place Big East team over the 6th place ACC team as a blanket statement. I believe a team's body of work must be considered on a yearly basis, regardless of conference affiliation, if they are a bubble team. A great example of this was on Sportscenter tonight. They put the "resumes" of South Alabama and Villanova next to each other. USA's RPI--37. Nova RPI--56. USA--Strength of Schedule--119. Nova--50. Numbers aside, USA has a number of victories against teams likely in the tournament and is 3-2 against the current RPI top 50. Nova is 4-6 against the Top 50.

Despite the losing record, does it help Nova to play twice as many games against Top 50 teams? I believe it HAS to help you. Playing in a league like the Big East really illuminates your strengths and weaknesses. I believe that type of schedule can both harm and hurt your team, especially early in the season. If a team like Nova can handle adversity within the Big East schedule and succeed late the in season, that speaks well of the team's mental toughness and ability to get better.

For example, Nova lost 4 straight games in late January, 3 on the road. Rather than throw in the towel, they rallied to win games in February against tourney-bound teams Marquette, UConn, and West Virginia. They did lose to Louisville, Syracuse and a 2-point buzzer-beater at Georgetown in that late stretch, but gaining that level of mental toughness during that schedule simply has to be beneficial....IF a team accepts that challenge and works to get better every day. And I'm not saying that S. Alabama shouldn't make it. In fact, I think they SHOULD make it this year. Further, I'm not necessarily saying Nova is a lock; they have played up and down and struggled against teams with size; however, they are tourney-tested and have a great coach in Jay Wright.

Here's another example. Let's say the Big Ten next year accepts (regional non Big East schools for the comparison) Butler, Iowa State, WMU (won their division of the MAC this year) and Drake. Butler and Drake are LEGIT, tough-minded teams who run great offensive systems. This would give the Big Ten (likely) 8 tournament teams this year. Wouldn't playing each of those teams just once (and 2 of those games taking place on the road) help, say, a middle of the road team such as Ohio State in the same way that it helped Villanova?

Or would it HURT OSU in the same way that it hurt, say, SYRACUSE this year? Playing that kind of schedule would take away a couple of lesser nonconference opponents off the OSU schedule, put a little more emphasis on conference play, and put a even bigger priority on playing well in a bigger league in order to have a better at-large resume and a better seed in what would be an even more competitive Big 16 tournament. On a year-in, year-out basis, would that hurt or help teams? Again, I simply think that must be applied to each team separately, rather than applying it across the board to every team.

Hopefully I didn't surprise or shock anyone by using logic, rather than saying something like, "THE BIG EAST IS AWESOME! 16 IS BETTER THAN 10!!" It's tough for common sense to permeate through the level of screaming and Vitale at this point in the year, I know. I really didn't give a definitive answer to the question because I don't believe there is a definitive answer. Every team can always point to a game (or games) and blame themselves for not making the tournament.

I think there are some years where the Big East, in its presently constituted form, will have deserving teams miss the tournament because of the schedule they must endure within the league (Syracuse last year). I also believe that some years, the 16-team grind may wear some teams down and possibly drag the league's overall quality down. I also believe that the teams who finish near the top of the league standings should be extremely tournament-ready, and the numbers in the first 2 years of this format prove that out.

Teams from the Big East who gain a 1st thru 4th seed in the field of 65 are 12-4 , including a perfect 8-0 on the opening weekend. In comparison, Big Ten teams are 8-5 (5-4), ACC 10-6 (9-3), and Big 12 9-5 (7-2). Those numbers would seem to indicate that really good teams playing more games against really good teams helps.

Of course, this is all a moot point when the bracket hits this weekend, which is why college basketball is a great sport at EVERY level. You are either in or out, and you either advance or die. It's pretty simple. But what has happened to your team before you land on that seeding line has a direct effect on how far your team travels.