I completely agree with that. It's unfortunate that facts have given way to personal attacks and irrelevant tarnishing of the academics of schools.

Sorry, didn't mean for that to come out that way.:sorry:

(12-26-2012 05:22 PM)gmubballfan Wrote:  VCU guy, I'm really not interested in going tit-for-tat with you, and I'm quite sure it's even less interesting for the fans of the C7 schools.

I think we're good with it. For one thing, between GMUBballfan and VCUguy, we're getting an education about George Mason's program that I didn't get as a grad student in history at Mason. Knowledge will come in handy in a year or two when George Mason is in the A-10.

For another thing, (I could swear there was a popcorn smilie in there somewhere. Oh well.)

Quote:You may think it makes VCU more attractive to the C7 because your president has dramatically raised student fees in an era of already skyrocketing tuition to keep a basketball coach (who's still going to leave at some point), but I think it says a lot about VCU's second-rate academics that it markets itself as a "basketball school."

Pow! Although changing the conversation from athletics to academics is usually used as covering fire for a retreat.

Quote:Our administration is just as committed to highlighting the accomplishments of our faculty's Nobel laureates

Law and Economics FTW! Whoo hoo!]

Quote:It probably won't make a difference in the final analysis, but the overall character of our university has far more in common with the C7 schools than does VCU.

Hmm. Okay, athletics aside, I don't see either Mason or VCU as a fit with the C-7. Big non-elite public schools, one with a moneyball approach to academic prestige, both with commuter-school reputations. Not a lot of overlap with Georgetown, top 20 elite private Catholic school, Villanova, top-ranked liberal arts small private Catholic college, St Johns, big middle-of-the-road Catholic school.

(12-26-2012 05:32 PM)LJay Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 04:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='VCUfan' pid='8749236' dateline='1356556645']

Start debate how Creighton's 3 tournament wins in 20 years are light-years better than SLU's 3 tournament wins in 20 years.

What you think doesn't mean **** when it comes down to what the presidents decide so trying to bait a Creighton fan (a couple exceptions out there) doesn't work. Stick with baiting Wichita fans if you want entertainment.

Just kidding. Seriously, this board is the place for discussing and comparing these teams. FWIW, Creighton's 3 wins are better because they went with consistent tournament appearances, and often with bubble status when you didn't go.

Bragg, I agree with that. Neither school is an institutional fit with the 7 schools.

If it's about institutional fit with regards to academics or religious affiliation, neither is close to being in the conversation.

If it's about basketball, that discussion changes, but I do think institutional fit is a huge part of this equation. It's fun to discuss though!

The fit is there and it will be schools that are committed to building a power bball conference in a world driven mostly by cfb...just like the OG BE!

I honestly think the public school thing is totally overrated. We previously played in a league with a number of public schools from a variety of different academic tiers. The divorce wasn't over public vs private or AAU status vs commuter school. The divorce was over what's the most important sports program to your University. We at the C7 say basketball, if you say basketball, then lets talk.

(12-26-2012 07:20 PM)TheRock Wrote:  The fit is there and it will be schools that are committed to building a power bball conference in a world driven mostly by cfb...just like the OG BE!

I think so too. The original Gavitt plan was Georgetown, Temple, Rutgers, St Johns, UConn, Providence and BC, wasn't it? You never heard a peep out of anybody wanting to dump Syracuse, Pitt and UConn for Holy Cross, Duquesne and Fordham, did you?

(12-26-2012 07:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 07:20 PM)TheRock Wrote:  The fit is there and it will be schools that are committed to building a power bball conference in a world driven mostly by cfb...just like the OG BE!

I think so too. The original Gavitt plan was Georgetown, Temple, Rutgers, St Johns, UConn, Providence and BC, wasn't it? You never heard a peep out of anybody wanting to dump Syracuse, Pitt and UConn for Holy Cross, Duquesne and Fordham, did you?

i think holy cross was an original target. when they seemed less than enthused and dragged their feet, BC was asked. I think i read somewhere that uconn,uri, BC and Holy Cross (or was it umass?) Told each other they would act as a group, meaning all 4 would go or none would. When the time came, the foursome couldnt agree and bc and uconn moved on. there is an article about it. (interview with
syracuse ad jake cromuthal(sp))

The original eight, as I was told by two people who were around back then, was BC, Holy Cross, Providence, UConn, Syracuse, St. John's, Rutgers, and Georgetown. Gavitt actually wanted to join four New England schools up with four strong hoops programs from other areas along the Northeast Corridor.

Holy Cross mulled things over but then said no. At that point, Gavitt supposedly started looking at Temple, but then Rutgers said no as well. Seton Hall quickly took their place. The decision by Rutgers, driven by wanting to stay with Paterno as well as the fact that their AD was president of the Eastern 8, allegedly convinced Temple to also stick with Paterno. Villanova then entered the picture, but it was too late to change their schedules for 1979-80.

I can also believe that the New England Four mentioned above had a pact to stick together that was later broken. One problem is that Providence likely wanted to be in a separate conference from Rhode Island, which basically forced the other schools to choose sides, leading to BC and UConn going off.

I think institutional fit does play some part in it. Look at the other conferences, the B1G usually doesn't pick schools w/poor academics and there is a reason why the PAC-12 will never accept Boise State or San Diego State even though athletics wise, they would be good fits, just not academically. I'm a fan of VCU getting in over SLU or Dayton (as long as Creighton gets in as well of course) but I think the C7 will look for schools similar to them academically and athletically.

(12-27-2012 09:05 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  I think institutional fit does play some part in it. Look at the other conferences, the B1G usually doesn't pick schools w/poor academics and there is a reason why the PAC-12 will never accept Boise State or San Diego State even though athletics wise, they would be good fits, just not academically. I'm a fan of VCU getting in over SLU or Dayton (as long as Creighton gets in as well of course) but I think the C7 will look for schools similar to them academically and athletically.

You are probably correct in your assessment. I just think that the money ($2-3M) is too large to ignore. Fox needs a new league asap and the C7 are now happy to oblige.

This is great for the 5-8 universities being bandied about as potential C7 additions. As for new league names... Keep the Big East of course, if they can. Otherwise - go back to a former league name Eastern 8 (12), ECAC, or a new one.

http://gtmos-bluenotes.blogspot.com/sear...date=false

It is easier to dust off an old conference name, charter, by-laws, and the like - do a bit of editing as needed, and they are in business. No need to attempt to recreate the wheel, when a previous edition is available for suitable editing and updating.

Besides, I was always fond of the ECAC...just kind of rolls off the tongue.

New Conf names:

All American Conferencee




Metro 12 Conference