| Is the Big East the "Big Least?"? |
|
As a UConn fan, I want to know what people think if the Big East still deserves to be the "Big Least." It really shouldn't be with WVU and Louisville, of course, and with Rutgers and UConn emerging as great Northeast teams. So, are we the Big Least? |
|
Yes, you are. The good news, though, is that you shouldn't stay that way forever. Your Huskies are up-and-comers, at least (I'm not so sure about Rutgers). But as long as you have the BCS bid, the Big East should be able to start attracting better players. |
|
I have also hear it called "Big Easy" . Rising talent it has, but stiff top rated talent it does not. Compared to the SEC ACC Big Ten, they do have some noticable weaker competition. It is not by much, but total national titles for each program is very few. Yay, I'm not the only one calling the Big East the "Big Least." they are improving, but have a ways to go, especially Syracuse right now. but Pitt is looking good too, so i say no, the Pac 10 is WAY weaker overall. It may change in the future, but the nickname is pretty true right now. Outside of WVU, there is no real national power in the Big East. Louisville is a good solid team that may easily go 10-2 but will probably stumble against WVU and Miami. Rutgers looked good in their opener but they played UNC (hardly a football powerhouse). UConn is improving also, but I don't think they are ready to break into the big-time either just yet. The Big East from top to bottom is by far the worst BCS conference. I do not see Rutgers or UConn emerging as "great" teams: Rutgers has the potential to be good, and UConn has the potential to be average. |
| Topic Related |
|
|
