ADVERTISEMENT

Georgetown and McClung Take Down St. John's

longtimerhsfan

VaPreps All Region
Dec 12, 2006
5,393
1,475
113
Being from another part of the state, I had never followed Mac McClung's career, but I was there in Richmond last year when he almost single-handedly destroyed R E Lee. So I watch a Georgetown game when I can and a few minutes ago they wrapped up an 89-78 win over St. John's in the Garden.

Mac hit some NBA-range threes and saved his big dunk of the day until the final few seconds when the Hoyas needed it most. He is really fun to watch and Gate City must be very proud.
 
25 points, 5 rebounds & 5 assists in Madison Square Garden for McClung today
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMAlum
mcclung is the real deal on the offensive side of the ball, his D is another thing though lol, plays it like he is still in GC
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19GHS87
Mac played outstanding today. He keeps this play up and its gonna be hard for Ewing to even give him a breather in the 2nd half.

And a side note.....My guess would be that Mac either posterized 3fteeeer.....or he posterized one of his offspring. A little salve will go a long ways with that butthurt.
 
Mac played outstanding today. He keeps this play up and its gonna be hard for Ewing to even give him a breather in the 2nd half.

And a side note.....My guess would be that Mac either posterized 3fteeeer.....or he posterized one of his offspring. A little salve will go a long ways with that butthurt.
Every comment that he's had in his whole 4 days of being on Preps, on the 1A and 2A board has been negative. Smh.
 
mcclung is the real deal on the offensive side of the ball, his D is another thing though lol, plays it like he is still in GC

That's not accurate. His defense, and especially his on the ball defense has greatly improved. It's evident by how little dunks he has at the Div 1 level because he can't stand outside the 3 point line on defense and wait for a miss and get a break away dunk like he did in High School. He has done very well defensively. He's giving up 8 points per game on the defensive end. That's very good for a freshmen.

McClungs points this season......80%, 8 out of 10 points going into the St. John's game have NOT come off of an assist. What that means is that he's creating his own shot. That was a big question for him at the Div 1 level. After today's performance, he's averaging right at 14 per game as a freshmen in a very tough conference, and I will try and find the Washington Times article about his points largely not coming off of assists. That's been the thing most impressive, or at least that answered the doubts. He's answered that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMAlum
That's not accurate. His defense, and especially his on the ball defense has greatly improved. It's evident by how little dunks he has at the Div 1 level because he can't stand outside the 3 point line on defense and wait for a miss and get a break away dunk like he did in High School. He has done very well defensively. He's giving up 8 points per game on the defensive end. That's very good for a freshmen.

McClungs points this season......80%, 8 out of 10 points going into the St. John's game have NOT come off of an assist. What that means is that he's creating his own shot. That was a big question for him at the Div 1 level. After today's performance, he's averaging right at 14 per game as a freshmen in a very tough conference, and I will try and find the Washington Times article about his points largely not coming off of assists. That's been the thing most impressive, or at least that answered the doubts. He's answered that.

He started slow but over his last 10 games he’s averaging 19 ppg, 3 rebounds, 2 assists
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMAlum
I'm not impressed with Ewings coaching. I love Patrick Ewing as a player and he is truly one of the former NBA good guys. Ewing, a big intimidating guy in appearance had very few technicals in the NBA, didn't fight with other.players, and always encouraged his teammates. He was and is a good person, but his coaching hasn't impressed me. Georgetown starts three freshmen, but they seem to have very few ball screens, little to no pick and roll, just a very bland offense where not just Mac, but the other players just create one on one and hopefully they score. Occasionally, if the big man is open underneath they feed him, but even with him, very little screening and offensive motion to get him the ball. When you watch the Hoyas on offense, it often looks like 5 guys just standing around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lvehoops
I think a lot of HS offenses have went to the spread type and create. With the freshman Ewing has that may be why he runs it.

As for McClung's play he was always electric offensively and really didn't have to play much D in HS. But at anny college level that has to improve and it appears he is.

Anyway great to see a VA boy getting the love from the announcers at least in the games I have seen.
 
The last game I saw he looked to play pretty good on ball defense.

Even if he didn't, no reason to be negative. He is a freshman, doesn't fit the bill as a one and done, so he will improve. And there are plenty of great basketball players who don't play great defense
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fairlawncat
so what part of my words, his offense is the real deal is negative, his D is weak, did you see him get beat badly on that one play today and then complain to his teammates, that wont sit well in the locker room, you dont show up your mates in the game, Georgetown aint GC, he just needs to work, i think he is a great talent, and for the second part, he never dunked on me or any of my offspring,
 
I guess it's possible to know less now than you did 20-30 years ago....
 
Last edited:
sorry i have been on here since the 90's not just a few days,
Your profile says you've been a member since Wednesday. Must be one of those guys who get repeatedly removed and come back with a different screen name then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sharkfan83
if any of you people watched that game sunday and thinks he played great D then that shows your IQ, he repeatedly let his guy beat him off the dribble, on one play a st johns player took the ball to the hole and he moved completely under the basket out of bounds instead of trying to cut his path and stop the player, he didnt want to get dunked on that one,
 
if any of you people watched that game sunday and thinks he played great D then that shows your IQ, he repeatedly let his guy beat him off the dribble, on one play a st johns player took the ball to the hole and he moved completely under the basket out of bounds instead of trying to cut his path and stop the player, he didnt want to get dunked on that one,

I have never seen the young man play, except a time or 2 on tv. I'm as far from a homer as it can get.

So please since you seem to know more than anyone, direct me to the post where ANYONE said he played great D?

If you think saying one nice thing about someone constitutes being positive vs. negative then you are delusional.

But let's put that in context. Let's use you as an example. 7fteeeer came up with a clever nickname. He is also arrogant, thinks he knows way more than he actually does, and is always negative. Does that constitute a positive post about you? I certainly wouldn't think that.

But the real puzzling issue, why do you feel the need to say ANYTHING not positive about the young man? Even if you don't like the attention he is receiving, I don't know why pointing out potential flaws does much except make it look like you have some kind of issue with him.
 
To change the narrative a bit..,this win for gtown pulled them out of the basement. That’s a good thing.

Very true. Having a sizable lead then blowing it late in the 2nd half has been the theme for them lately. Maybe this will turn the tide for the Hoyas. They need to string together 3 or 4 solid wins to get them rolling.
 
I have never seen the young man play, except a time or 2 on tv. I'm as far from a homer as it can get.

So please since you seem to know more than anyone, direct me to the post where ANYONE said he played great D?

If you think saying one nice thing about someone constitutes being positive vs. negative then you are delusional.

But let's put that in context. Let's use you as an example. 7fteeeer came up with a clever nickname. He is also arrogant, thinks he knows way more than he actually does, and is always negative. Does that constitute a positive post about you? I certainly wouldn't think that.

But the real puzzling issue, why do you feel the need to say ANYTHING not positive about the young man? Even if you don't like the attention he is receiving, I don't know why pointing out potential flaws does much except make it look like you have some kind of issue with him.
telling the truth is not a negative, pointing out flaws is not negative, and like i said, his offense is spot on, he has def worked on his outside shot, going to the hole is a little tougher here in the land of the giants, 4 yrs here and he will be a beast, just needs to work on his D
 
telling the truth is not a negative, pointing out flaws is not negative, and like i said, his offense is spot on, he has def worked on his outside shot, going to the hole is a little tougher here in the land of the giants, 4 yrs here and he will be a beast, just needs to work on his D

Actually, yes flaws are a synonym of negative. Telling the truth, well actually it isn't the truth, it's your version of the truth, can be negative, depending on what you are saying is the truth.

Truth is, you can be right 100%, the truth is still saying something negative. And in my opinion, there is no need to say things negative, about anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kwhs95fan
Actually, yes flaws are a synonym of negative. Telling the truth, well actually it isn't the truth, it's your version of the truth, can be negative, depending on what you are saying is the truth.

Truth is, you can be right 100%, the truth is still saying something negative. And in my opinion, there is no need to say things negative, about anyone.

There are two main thoughts on what is "truth". Objective truth and subjective truth.

OBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that a statement is “objectively true” means that it is true for all cultures, all times, all circumstances, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true. Examples:

“People need water and air to live.”
“Water freezes once it is chilled to a certain temperature.”

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person making the judgment, even though it may not be true for others. Example:

“It is freezing cold in here!” (Others might be sweating!)
“Brady is the G.O.A.T!” (I know, I know...)

Telling 7fteeer that his "version of the truth" is a negative comment, is actually a negative comment by you. That contradicts your comment that there is no need to say negative things about anyone. I took a lot of philosophy courses and it is snowing outside.
 
Like I said, it is snowing and I'm bored so here are more musings on "truth".

I would like to say that truth exists outside of us, for all to see. Unfortunately, we can be stubborn, and so the actual pinning down of what is truth is more complicated.

Society plays host to two types of truths; subjective truth and objective truth. Subjective truth is given to us through our individual experiences in relation to those around us: in short, it’s the truths we have been raised with.

Objective truth is discovered by a search which is critical of our experiences until sufficient evidence has been gathered. The subjective truth is not always in opposition to the objective truth, but it does depend on the subject valuing their worldview more than that of others.

Our preference as a society is, I believe, revealed through our use of language. If we say: “Look, the sun is going down” we are speaking from our subjective viewpoint. It is true from our individual standpoint, but it is not a truth in the objective sense. The truth, in an objective sense, is that we live on a planet which spins on its axis and it orbits the Sun. So in fact what we should say is “Look, the earth is spinning away from the Sun and will soon obstruct our view of it.” This may seem a pedantic point to make; however, if our language does not reflect the objective truth, it must mean that truth stands firmly in the subjective camp. Based on our use of language in the majority of situations, an alien may then well judge us to be very ignorant, and that our truth is self-serving.

It could be said that subjective truth isn’t truth at all, more belief; but because as a society our values give more strength to the individual and to personal experience, we must bow to the power of the individual belief as truth, as we seem to do through our everyday use of language.

So, I believe 7fteeer's "truth" is just as valid as anyone elses. We are free to disagree.
 
After all the blood, sweat, and tears you put into that Marshall.....hes still a troll.

And I'm assuming I must have missed the boat.....but where in the world did Pizzzzza get off to? Can anyone answer that? I miss not having him around the board for his commentary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMAlum
There are two main thoughts on what is "truth". Objective truth and subjective truth.

OBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that a statement is “objectively true” means that it is true for all cultures, all times, all circumstances, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true. Examples:

“People need water and air to live.”
“Water freezes once it is chilled to a certain temperature.”

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person making the judgment, even though it may not be true for others. Example:

“It is freezing cold in here!” (Others might be sweating!)
“Brady is the G.O.A.T!” (I know, I know...)

Telling 7fteeer that his "version of the truth" is a negative comment, is actually a negative comment by you. That contradicts your comment that there is no need to say negative things about anyone. I took a lot of philosophy courses and it is snowing outside.

No, it's not. Unless his version of truth is that playing bad defense is a good thing, then it is most certainly a negative comment.

But just the premise of the argument seems flawed. To ask how a post can be negative because something positive is said, when negatives are too is contradictory.

But let's use another basketball player as an example. James Harden is a fantastic scorer of the basketball. He also turns the ball over a lot, shoots way too much, gets way too much and that inflates his stats, and can't win the big games.

So do you look at that as a positive statement or negative? I look at it as both.

But to say that someone's subjective truth cant be negative is giving a false narrative in my opinion. Even if the "truth" is 100% correct. If my statement was something like, Grover Cleveland was a terrible president (not saying that is true, just used one that shouldn't rattle any feathers), but that can be 100% correct, I am still saying something negative about the former president
 
There are two main thoughts on what is "truth". Objective truth and subjective truth.

OBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that a statement is “objectively true” means that it is true for all cultures, all times, all circumstances, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true. Examples:

“People need water and air to live.”
“Water freezes once it is chilled to a certain temperature.”

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person making the judgment, even though it may not be true for others. Example:

“It is freezing cold in here!” (Others might be sweating!)
“Brady is the G.O.A.T!” (I know, I know...)

Telling 7fteeer that his "version of the truth" is a negative comment, is actually a negative comment by you. That contradicts your comment that there is no need to say negative things about anyone. I took a lot of philosophy courses and it is snowing outside.
One thing is for sure you can get educated on this site.
 
Actually, yes flaws are a synonym of negative. Telling the truth, well actually it isn't the truth, it's your version of the truth, can be negative, depending on what you are saying is the truth.

Truth is, you can be right 100%, the truth is still saying something negative. And in my opinion, there is no need to say things negative, about anyone.
there is a reason UVA didn't recruit him, it wasn't his offense,
 
there is a reason UVA didn't recruit him, it wasn't his offense,

Don't know the young man, who recruited him, etc. Not saying he is great. Haven't heard that come out of my mouth. I just don't see the point in saying negative things about anyone, especially ones that doesn't have an effect on you. He is entertaining the people that watch him and is doing something he loves.

With so much negativity in the world, I just think we should always try and look at the positives
 
7fter it does make you seem like a hater since the original post was giving props to Mac. What I thought was amazing was the announcers mentioned that Mac reminded them of a more athletic Andrew Rowsey. It was amazing because on National TV at MSG two kids from small towns in Virginia got some positive recognition.
 
With all this transfer business going on these days, he could play at three or four more schools before all is said and done. Whatever happened to choosing a college, going there for four years, whether or not you are an athlete, getting your degree and going on with your life?
 
As for objectivity and opinions, no, a person doesn't have an accurate opinion or valid one when they say Ervin is 6'2. He's nowhere, nowhere, nowhere close to 6'2 in any form regardless of who's doing the measurement. If he stated, "he's really more like 6'4" and like most recruits, they list them an inch taller. Ok, that's reasonable. But the kid is FAR beyond 6'2, and to say he's 6'2 speaks to hyperbole or the emotional intent of the poster which is one of negativity for GC when coupled with the continuous knocks on McClung and Ervin.

As for McClung and UVA not recruiting him. UVA is a legit top 10 programs. With only 3 slots available due to a host of returning players, it means UVA likely wouldn't have offered. But that means nothing. The popularity contest is over. It's not about who got what offer. It's about how well he's doing now. In arguably the second best and for sure, a top 5 conference in college basketball, he's scoring 14 per game and has a very reasonable chance to make the Big East All Conference 2nd team or at least honorable mention if he gets that scoring average up to 16 per game by seasons end. He's trending up by the way. That may happen. Also, if playing in the Big East and if.....again....if he finishes with a 16 point scoring average, he has a real chance to make the freshmen All American Honorable Mention team. I didn't with first team Freshmen All American, but honorable mention All American Freshmen team? Yes, a very real possibility.
 
He would get zero minutes at UVA this year, and probably wouldn't play until an upperclassmen in that program. And he doesn't fit that system. And saying a top five team with one loss needs any one freshman is nuts anyway.

Tech, on the other hand, could have been a good place for him. He wouldn't play as much this year, but he would receive better coaching and would be playing the best of the best. Playing at St. John's is nothing like playing at NC State, or even in Winston Salem against a down Wake team. The Big East is very, very down
 
He would get zero minutes at UVA this year, and probably wouldn't play until an upperclassmen in that program. And he doesn't fit that system. And saying a top five team with one loss needs any one freshman is nuts anyway.

Tech, on the other hand, could have been a good place for him. He wouldn't play as much this year, but he would receive better coaching and would be playing the best of the best. Playing at St. John's is nothing like playing at NC State, or even in Winston Salem against a down Wake team. The Big East is very, very down
The Big East is so down and yet the worst the best team in the conference has done the last 2 out of 3 years is get to the final 4 and win the whole thing.
 
Marshall and BigWinners, I respect the heck out of you guys and your posting, but I have to disagree with both of you on this one.

The ACC is the best conference, so your statement applies to ANY and ALL conferences, and not just the Big East. By the way, I'm an ACC fan, but the "P5" in football isn't remotely applicable to "P5" in basketball. Conferences like the Big East and AAC are always top 6, and the Big East is still an elite conference that like I wrote, is arguably the second best conference in basketball. I think it's the 5th best this year, but look back since 2010, the Big East in basketball has a strong argument as the second best conference in the country and for sure, is top 5. Now, when talking about Duke, UNC, and UVA, no question that's a different beast, but that applies to to 99% of other programs in America when comparing them to those 3 outside of course of Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Gonzaga, and that's about it.

The Big East is down THIS year, but isn't not way down because the depth of that conference even in 2018 is pretty good. Villanova is still a sweet 16 team and Marquette is legit. Even in 2018-19 which is a down year, no team in the conference has a losing record. Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, Butler, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Creighton, Providence, Xavier, Depaul. Guys, that's a dam* good basketball conference. Agree though, down this year, but it certainly hasn't been down by any stretch recently or in recent history. Heck, Xavier, a recent number one seed and Marquette, Nova, Georgetown, all with a history of at least one "Nati" and every team in the conference has been to the final four and played for at least one national title other than Creighton, and St. Johns. Providence has been to the final four but not played for a title. But that's deep history there, even in recent history, Butler, Xavier, Nova, Marquette, and even Creighton. The conference has been actually elite and I will write it, it's actually been elite level. This year, it's down, but don't count it out. Marquette is good enough to get the final four. They are legit. I think St. Johns is definitely tougher than playing at Wake and I think playing at Marquette would be tougher than NC. State. Keep in mind, we are having to make comparisons about the toughness of the Big East by using the ACC. When using the ACC as a comparison, that argument will work on any other conference in the country.

I wrote this earlier this year and I will stick with it. I think McClung will be a college All-American in Basketball by the team he's a senior at Georgetown. Why? He's so incredibly gifted with the ball in one on one situations and has the ability to drive by the defender or shoot over team with his elevation and it's clearly showing at Georgetown. It's very clear to see that other players are having some difficulty guarding him. I don't think there's any question the ACC is the best conference year in and year out, and that includes this year, but I'm telling ya, the Big East is a top 3-4 conference year in and year out and sometimes, the second best conference and even this year with it being down, look at the depth or "bad team" in their conference. There really aren't many if any. It's always deep and the worst team in that conference still has an overall winning record. Even this year, it's a top 5 conference. The Big East has 10 teams, and even right now with the RPI (which is very much respected by the NCAA tournament committee and taken very serious in selection) the conference has 5 teams (50% of the conference) ranked in the top 50 and 7 of the 10 teams (70% of the entire conference) is ranked in the top 60 in the RPI. That's very, very, very good. 80% of the conference (8 out of 10 teams) are ranked in the RPI top 100. Only Providence and Depaul are ranked outside of the top 100 and both are ranked in the top 150 and have winning records. Guys, the Big East is dang good, and for sure it's down this year, but that speaks to its strength of how good it is even on a down year. There really isn't a "bad team" in the conference and look at the NBA players from the Big East and look at conference recruiting rankings. The Big East is right there. It's an elite conference and I think over the past 10 years, it's been the second best conference overall in the country. Close to them has been the AAC and Big 10. Both of those could be argued in my opinion as the second best. Top to bottom, I think it's the Big East.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aw19752
Marshall and BigWinners, I respect the heck out of you guys and your posting, but I have to disagree with both of you on this one.

The ACC is the best conference, so your statement applies to ANY and ALL conferences, and not just the Big East. By the way, I'm an ACC fan, but the "P5" in football isn't remotely applicable to "P5" in basketball. Conferences like the Big East and AAC are always top 6, and the Big East is still an elite conference that like I wrote, is arguably the second best conference in basketball. I think it's the 5th best this year, but look back since 2010, the Big East in basketball has a strong argument as the second best conference in the country and for sure, is top 5. Now, when talking about Duke, UNC, and UVA, no question that's a different beast, but that applies to to 99% of other programs in America when comparing them to those 3 outside of course of Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Gonzaga, and that's about it.

The Big East is down THIS year, but isn't not way down because the depth of that conference even in 2018 is pretty good. Villanova is still a sweet 16 team and Marquette is legit. Even in 2018-19 which is a down year, no team in the conference has a losing record. Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, Butler, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Creighton, Providence, Xavier, Depaul. Guys, that's a dam* good basketball conference. Agree though, down this year, but it certainly hasn't been down by any stretch recently or in recent history. Heck, Xavier, a recent number one seed and Marquette, Nova, Georgetown, all with a history of at least one "Nati" and every team in the conference has been to the final four and played for at least one national title other than Creighton, and St. Johns. Providence has been to the final four but not played for a title. But that's deep history there, even in recent history, Butler, Xavier, Nova, Marquette, and even Creighton. The conference has been actually elite and I will write it, it's actually been elite level. This year, it's down, but don't count it out. Marquette is good enough to get the final four. They are legit. I think St. Johns is definitely tougher than playing at Wake and I think playing at Marquette would be tougher than NC. State. Keep in mind, we are having to make comparisons about the toughness of the Big East by using the ACC. When using the ACC as a comparison, that argument will work on any other conference in the country.

I wrote this earlier this year and I will stick with it. I think McClung will be a college All-American in Basketball by the team he's a senior at Georgetown. Why? He's so incredibly gifted with the ball in one on one situations and has the ability to drive by the defender or shoot over team with his elevation and it's clearly showing at Georgetown. It's very clear to see that other players are having some difficulty guarding him. I don't think there's any question the ACC is the best conference year in and year out, and that includes this year, but I'm telling ya, the Big East is a top 3-4 conference year in and year out and sometimes, the second best conference and even this year with it being down, look at the depth or "bad team" in their conference. There really aren't many if any. It's always deep and the worst team in that conference still has an overall winning record. Even this year, it's a top 5 conference. The Big East has 10 teams, and even right now with the RPI (which is very much respected by the NCAA tournament committee and taken very serious in selection) the conference has 5 teams (50% of the conference) ranked in the top 50 and 7 of the 10 teams (70% of the entire conference) is ranked in the top 60 in the RPI. That's very, very, very good. 80% of the conference (8 out of 10 teams) are ranked in the RPI top 100. Only Providence and Depaul are ranked outside of the top 100 and both are ranked in the top 150 and have winning records. Guys, the Big East is dang good, and for sure it's down this year, but that speaks to its strength of how good it is even on a down year. There really isn't a "bad team" in the conference and look at the NBA players from the Big East and look at conference recruiting rankings. The Big East is right there. It's an elite conference and I think over the past 10 years, it's been the second best conference overall in the country. Close to them has been the AAC and Big 10. Both of those could be argued in my opinion as the second best. Top to bottom, I think it's the Big East.
I'm glad I found this site,it has smarter people than ESPN does.
 
Marshall and BigWinners, I respect the heck out of you guys and your posting, but I have to disagree with both of you on this one.

The ACC is the best conference, so your statement applies to ANY and ALL conferences, and not just the Big East. By the way, I'm an ACC fan, but the "P5" in football isn't remotely applicable to "P5" in basketball. Conferences like the Big East and AAC are always top 6, and the Big East is still an elite conference that like I wrote, is arguably the second best conference in basketball. I think it's the 5th best this year, but look back since 2010, the Big East in basketball has a strong argument as the second best conference in the country and for sure, is top 5. Now, when talking about Duke, UNC, and UVA, no question that's a different beast, but that applies to to 99% of other programs in America when comparing them to those 3 outside of course of Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Gonzaga, and that's about it.

The Big East is down THIS year, but isn't not way down because the depth of that conference even in 2018 is pretty good. Villanova is still a sweet 16 team and Marquette is legit. Even in 2018-19 which is a down year, no team in the conference has a losing record. Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, Butler, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Creighton, Providence, Xavier, Depaul. Guys, that's a dam* good basketball conference. Agree though, down this year, but it certainly hasn't been down by any stretch recently or in recent history. Heck, Xavier, a recent number one seed and Marquette, Nova, Georgetown, all with a history of at least one "Nati" and every team in the conference has been to the final four and played for at least one national title other than Creighton, and St. Johns. Providence has been to the final four but not played for a title. But that's deep history there, even in recent history, Butler, Xavier, Nova, Marquette, and even Creighton. The conference has been actually elite and I will write it, it's actually been elite level. This year, it's down, but don't count it out. Marquette is good enough to get the final four. They are legit. I think St. Johns is definitely tougher than playing at Wake and I think playing at Marquette would be tougher than NC. State. Keep in mind, we are having to make comparisons about the toughness of the Big East by using the ACC. When using the ACC as a comparison, that argument will work on any other conference in the country.

I wrote this earlier this year and I will stick with it. I think McClung will be a college All-American in Basketball by the team he's a senior at Georgetown. Why? He's so incredibly gifted with the ball in one on one situations and has the ability to drive by the defender or shoot over team with his elevation and it's clearly showing at Georgetown. It's very clear to see that other players are having some difficulty guarding him. I don't think there's any question the ACC is the best conference year in and year out, and that includes this year, but I'm telling ya, the Big East is a top 3-4 conference year in and year out and sometimes, the second best conference and even this year with it being down, look at the depth or "bad team" in their conference. There really aren't many if any. It's always deep and the worst team in that conference still has an overall winning record. Even this year, it's a top 5 conference. The Big East has 10 teams, and even right now with the RPI (which is very much respected by the NCAA tournament committee and taken very serious in selection) the conference has 5 teams (50% of the conference) ranked in the top 50 and 7 of the 10 teams (70% of the entire conference) is ranked in the top 60 in the RPI. That's very, very, very good. 80% of the conference (8 out of 10 teams) are ranked in the RPI top 100. Only Providence and Depaul are ranked outside of the top 100 and both are ranked in the top 150 and have winning records. Guys, the Big East is dang good, and for sure it's down this year, but that speaks to its strength of how good it is even on a down year. There really isn't a "bad team" in the conference and look at the NBA players from the Big East and look at conference recruiting rankings. The Big East is right there. It's an elite conference and I think over the past 10 years, it's been the second best conference overall in the country. Close to them has been the AAC and Big 10. Both of those could be argued in my opinion as the second best. Top to bottom, I think it's the Big East.

I certainly don't follow any conferences closely aside from ACC, and not to say that Big East isnt a top 6 conference, but you do have to factor in who the teams are playing in non conference when discussing their record. I dont know about this year, but I believe it was last year, Georgetown had a great record to begin the season, either undefeated or 1 loss and was barely mentioned in others receiving votes to be ranked. It was because of their awful non conference.

And looking at the top teams you mentioned, I have an issue with one. They are always highly ranked, but I don't think Gonzaga deserves to be mentioned with the Duke, UNC, UVA, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan State, Villanova teams. You put a team like VT (I'm a UNC fan btw) in the WCC, and they would do nearly as good. And VT is a team looked at as a decent team. It matters who you play to me. That's why I cant put too much stock into teams who inflate their record by having mediocre non conference, or mediocre conferences.

But none of that gives credence to slight Mr. McClung. He is just a freshman and I believe in a good place for his skillset. I don't think he would match very well at UVA.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT