What's Better: the ACC or Big East?

The Sporting News's Mike DeCourcy actually tried to settle the ongoing debate once and for all with this, a piece describing the obvious reasons why the ACC is sooo much better than the Big East. Now, other people are chiming in.

So, DeCourcy breaks it down for us -- the ACC has more wins against other power conferences, a better overall win percentage, nine wins against the Big East, more star power (don't know how you could ever gauge that) and just two teams near the .500 mark.

DeCourcy then gives us the Big East side -- fewer wins against other power conferences, a lower win percentage, six wins against the ACC, less star power and four teams in the .500 range or below.

Well, you know I disagree with all that baloney.

First of all, the ACC only has three legitimate Final Four contenders (Duke, UNC and Wake Forest) and a pretender in orange (Clemson). By my count, that's 25 percent of the conference that is actually good, and 8 percent of that is going to lose in the first round to a 13 seed -- looking at you, Clemson. That is, if Clemson doesn't go 7-9 in the conference like we're all expecting.

After that, there's no one good in the ACC. Florida State? Bubble team. Maryland? Garbage. Virginia Tech? Enjoy the NIT, guys. Boston College? 0-1 against Harvard. Miami? Only one good win. NC State, Virginia and Georgia Tech? Putrid.

That's four bids in a 12-team conference. So, 33 percent of the conference is good. And you want to tell me the "whole league is tough," Coach K? Are you serious? I'm sure Syracuse would love to play the only good teams in its conference four times and spread those games out over the next two months. Instead, the Orange played at Georgetown, hosted Notre Dame, went to Pittsburgh, return home for Louisville, go to bubble team Providence, then play West Virginia, at Villanova, at UConn, Georgetown, then Villanova again.

And that's without cushy officiating and fouls called whenever Coach K would like.

Don't get me wrong. I think the ACC is probably the second-best conference around. But I don't think it's even close when these two leagues are compared.

The Big East has six Final Four contenders. Seriously. Count 'em: UConn, Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame and Marquette. That's without mentioning Georgetown, another team fully capable of surprising some higher seeds and making a run. So, that's 37 percent of the league, with the chance to go to 44 percent, that is a legitimate Final Four contender.

I think nine or 10 Big East teams will have arguments to get into the Tournament. I'm including West Virginia and Villanova as eight and nine, and thinking Cincinnati, Providence or Seton Hall could help their own causes, but will all end up in the NIT, like Virginia Tech, Boston College, Maryland and possibly Florida State. By my count, that's 50 to 56 percent of the league. In a 12-team league, that's six or seven Tournament teams. Right now, the ACC only has five (assuming Miami makes the Tournament as an 8-11 seed).

And all this garbage about the ACC being 9-6 against the Big East -- there's only two remotely good games on that list: Duke-Georgetown at Cameron Arena, UNC-Notre Dame in Hawaii and UConn-Miami in the Virgin Islands.

So, Duke, which lost to Michigan (which just lost by 15 to Penn State. Penn State!!!), beat the sixth- or seventh-best team in the Big East at home. UNC, which lost to Boston College (which lost by 12 to Harvard. Harvard!!!), beat Notre Dame, probably the fourth- or fifth-best team in the Big East in November. And UConn, which lost to a Sweet 16 team Georgetown, beat Miami by 13 at a neutral site.

Wow, that's conclusive.

Oh, and the star power argument? Are you serious?

Here are the ACC stars: Tyler Hansbrough, Coach K, Roy Williams, Gerald Henderson, Jack McClinton, Kyle Singler, Jeff Teague, Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, KC Rivers and ... anyone else? Not really.

Here are the Big East stars: Jim Calhoun, Rick Pitino, Jim Boeheim, Hasheem Thabeet, Luke Harangody, DeJuan Blair, Sam Young, Terrence Williams, Samardo Samuels, Earl Clark, AJ Price, Jeff Adrien, Jerome Dyson, Levance Fields, Scottie Reynolds, DaJuan Summers, Kyle McAlarney, Dominic James, Jerel McNeal, Wesley Matthews, Jonny Flynn, Eric Devendorf, Paul Harris, Bob Huggins, Jamie Dixon, Jay Wright ... God, this list is long.

All I'm saying is there isn't enough fair evidence to prove one way or another. You can clearly make good arguments on both sides. And it's all purely subjective. DeCourcy got to pick and choose pre-2009 stuff that will iron itself out in the NCAA Tournament.

Let's wait until March, when we can fully expect to see Duke, UNC and Wake Forest make it to the second weekend (unfortunately, Clemson will have already lost to Siena and Miami will have lost to a Big East team), where they'll have to play UConn, Pitt, Louisville, Marquette, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Syracuse and probably either West Virginia or Villanova.

Let's see how the ACC does then. In the meantime, why can't we just relax and enjoy both conferences for what they are?

(After all, one is a no-defense, run-and-gun league with ticky-tack fouls, primadona players and one good game every few weeks or so; the other is a physically demanding, rigorous conference with the most athletic and rugged players in the nation, a flair for the dramatic and great games almost every night. But I digress.)