We had a rivalry of sorts with Houston, but it really wasn't much to talk about. Back in the early 80s when both programs had top flight basketball programs we looked at each other with distain. One of the best basketball games I've ever been too, mared by the fact that we lost was the "Doctors of Dunk" vs. "Phi Slama Jama" in the 1983 semi-finals. Everyone just assumed that the winner of that game was the REAL finals.

We were all proved wrong when much to my pleasure, Houston lost to NC State. I like to think we took a lot out of them and that is why they lost because they had a great team.

(04-14-2011 09:19 AM)Yragha Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 09:13 AM)Cardsshark Wrote:  If I had to guess it probably has to do with long term revenue potential. If you play games on campus the money is yours, if you play in a Pro-stadium like USF and Pitt, then you have to pay to play. My guess is they figured out that playing on campus has better long term effects.

We have a winner!

The two main reason for facility upgrades is not only because of the facilities themselves, but:

(1) - Demonstrate that you have the financial support and gullet to make the transition possible, and

(2) - Demonstrate a willingness to compete at the next level.

Common sense logic. Villanova wants to, but doesn't seem to have a damn clue as to how it will happen.