We hear a lot about cultural fit as cementing the stability of a league.

Except what would be a better cultural fit for the C-7, private Catholic northeastern, than Notre Dame? Stellar academics, national profile, Jesuit.

Except Notre Dame just bolted without a second thought because cultural fit didn't mean squat next to the university's athletic priorities, which are football football and football.

Wasn't everyone talking about how happy the Big West was to have big, public SDSU--or to be exact Cal State-San Diego? Oh, what a brotherhood of UCs and Cal States they were going to have, bussing up and down the California freeways. And meanwhile, SDSU football was lined up with big-city public-school programs like Houston, USF, UCF, Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UConn (Hartford).

Except that SDSU dumped Cal State Fullerton and UC Davis and Houston and USF for the cow colleges of the Front Range (and the less attractive Cal States in Fresno and San Jose.)

If you can afford it, you choose cultural fit considerations over athletics. Two years ago, when the ACC could afford it, academics ruled out Louisvile and West Virginia. The Big Ten can afford to take a chance on Rutgers, and to take a Maryland with money problems. The PAC could afford to turn down not just Boise State but Okla-freakin-homa--they've got their TV contract in hand. Now if the PACnet is a financial flop, they might start regretting that, or maybe not.

If you're not doing big-time athletics, then you can do cultural-fit moves. The WCC can bring in University of the Pacific partially because they're a soccer recruiting hotbed or whatever.

We're doing big-time athletics, but we don't have credibility to burn the way the Big Ten does. If St Johns, Providence, Seton Hall and DePaul had been to 3-4 tournaments each over the last ten years instead of 1-2, then maybe we'd have that luxury.

(02-01-2013 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  We hear a lot about cultural fit as cementing the stability of a league.

Except what would be a better cultural fit for the C-7, private Catholic northeastern, than Notre Dame? Stellar academics, national profile, Jesuit.

Except Notre Dame just bolted without a second thought because cultural fit didn't mean squat next to the university's athletic priorities, which are football football and football.

Wasn't everyone talking about how happy the Big West was to have big, public SDSU--or to be exact Cal State-San Diego? Oh, what a brotherhood of UCs and Cal States they were going to have, bussing up and down the California freeways. And meanwhile, SDSU football was lined up with big-city public-school programs like Houston, USF, UCF, Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UConn (Hartford).

Except that SDSU dumped Cal State Fullerton and UC Davis and Houston and USF for the cow colleges of the Front Range (and the less attractive Cal States in Fresno and San Jose.)

If you can afford it, you choose cultural fit considerations over athletics. Two years ago, when the ACC could afford it, academics ruled out Louisvile and West Virginia. The Big Ten can afford to take a chance on Rutgers, and to take a Maryland with money problems. The PAC could afford to turn down not just Boise State but Okla-freakin-homa--they've got their TV contract in hand. Now if the PACnet is a financial flop, they might start regretting that, or maybe not.

If you're not doing big-time athletics, then you can do cultural-fit moves. The WCC can bring in University of the Pacific partially because they're a soccer recruiting hotbed or whatever.

We're doing big-time athletics, but we don't have credibility to burn the way the Big Ten does. If St Johns, Providence, Seton Hall and DePaul had been to 3-4 tournaments each over the last ten years instead of 1-2, then maybe we'd have that luxury.

Notre Dame is not Jesuit.

johnbragg - The issue that I have is that you seem to believe that the C7 doesn't have a choice here other than going by who we would pick first in a game of pickup hoops today, whereas I think they have a lot more power in their sphere (specifically, non-FBS Division I schools) than you give them credit for. Sure, the C7 is piddly when compared to the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac-12/ACC. Everyone knows that. However, when you get outside of that top sphere, the C7 is about as strong as you can get brand-wise (and that strength has a tangential relationship to on-the-court performance, but it's NOT *all* about on-the-court performance).

Regardless, let's put aside the "all or nothing" debate - it's not 100% about cultural fit (or else Butler wouldn't be invited) or 100% about performance (or else Dayton and SLU wouldn't be considered at all). This is about what balance each candidate brings. Duquense, for instance, would be a fantastic cultural fit (top 10% on that metric of the reasonably available schools), but none of us here that isn't smoking some strong stuff from Colorado (even the "cultural fit" minded like me) would suggest them at all because they are off-the-charts horrible (not just mediocre) at basketball (bottom 10%). Wichita State, on the other hand, has great on-the-court marks (top 10%), but there's zero cultural fit there (bottom 10%).

Butler isn't top 10% in terms of cultural fit - they're maybe more like top 25% as a non-Catholic private school. However, they are elite (maybe top 1%, much less 10%) in terms of what they have achieved on the court both recently and in terms of long-term tradition. So, Butler not being a completely cultural fit was outweighed by the facts that they (1) aren't waaaaay out of the cultural fit range and (2) have achieved extraordinary on-the-court success.

My issue with VCU isn't that they don't have a great record - I absolutely believe that they do. However, I don't think that they have such an extraordinary record that this would outweigh the cultural fit issue. They might be in the top 10% in the on-the-court metric (better than Wichita State but under Butler), yet in the bottom 25% in terms of cultural fit (once again, better than Wichita State as a result of geography but substantially lower than Butler).

To me, VCU is borderline compared to SLU and Dayton, and when you're talking about borderline, I weigh the attributes that will never change (type of institution, TV market, location) more heavily than the attributes that can easily change year-to-year (on-the-court performance). Some people may disagree with that weighting, which is fine for me. However, what I don't quite understand is the argument that VCU isn't a borderline case and instead should be a slam dunk case. If the C7 wouldn't have ever even mentioned VCU's name 5 years ago as a candidate if they had split off then, that shows me that VCU won't have any bearing on whether the C7 will be looked at as a power league 5 years from now. I still can't believe that I'm arguing this to St. John's and Georgetown fans, of all people. Have more confidence in your position in the college sports world, guys. It waaaaay stronger than what you're giving your own schools credit for. (You're basically the bizarro versions of New Big East fans, where people from Memphis and Houston are so blinded in homerism that they have convinced themselves that they're attractive to the ACC.) Fox isn't providing a spec offer of $500 million over 12 years based upon VCU or even Butler - they're basing it on you (SJU, Georgetown, etc.).

(02-01-2013 04:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  johnbragg - The issue that I have is that you seem to believe that the C7 doesn't have a choice here other than going by who we would pick first in a game of pickup hoops today, whereas I think they have a lot more power in their sphere (specifically, non-FBS Division I schools) than you give them credit for. Sure, the C7 is piddly when compared to the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac-12/ACC. Everyone knows that. However, when you get outside of that top sphere, the C7 is about as strong as you can get brand-wise (and that strength has a tangential relationship to on-the-court performance, but it's NOT *all* about on-the-court performance).

Regardless, let's put aside the "all or nothing" debate - it's not 100% about cultural fit (or else Butler wouldn't be invited) or 100% about performance (or else Dayton and SLU wouldn't be considered at all). This is about what balance each candidate brings. Duquense, for instance, would be a fantastic cultural fit (top 10% on that metric of the reasonably available schools), but none of us here that isn't smoking some strong stuff from Colorado (even the "cultural fit" minded like me) would suggest them at all because they are off-the-charts horrible (not just mediocre) at basketball (bottom 10%). Wichita State, on the other hand, has great on-the-court marks (top 10%), but there's zero cultural fit there (bottom 10%).

Butler isn't top 10% in terms of cultural fit - they're maybe more like top 25% as a non-Catholic private school. However, they are elite (maybe top 1%, much less 10%) in terms of what they have achieved on the court both recently and in terms of long-term tradition. So, Butler not being a completely cultural fit was outweighed by the facts that they (1) aren't waaaaay out of the cultural fit range and (2) have achieved extraordinary on-the-court success.

My issue with VCU isn't that they don't have a great record - I absolutely believe that they do. However, I don't think that they have such an extraordinary record that this would outweigh the cultural fit issue. They might be in the top 10% in the on-the-court metric (better than Wichita State but under Butler), yet in the bottom 25% in terms of cultural fit (once again, better than Wichita State as a result of geography but substantially lower than Butler).

To me, VCU is borderline compared to SLU and Dayton, and when you're talking about borderline, I weigh the attributes that will never change (type of institution, TV market, location) more heavily than the attributes that can easily change year-to-year (on-the-court performance). Some people may disagree with that weighting, which is fine for me. However, what I don't quite understand is the argument that VCU isn't a borderline case and instead should be a slam dunk case. If the C7 wouldn't have ever even mentioned VCU's name 5 years ago as a candidate if they had split off then, that shows me that VCU won't have any bearing on whether the C7 will be looked at as a power league 5 years from now. I still can't believe that I'm arguing this to St. John's and Georgetown fans, of all people. Have more confidence in your position in the college sports world, guys. It waaaaay stronger than what you're giving your own schools credit for. (You're basically the bizarro versions of New Big East fans, where people from Memphis and Houston are so blinded in homerism that they have convinced themselves that they're attractive to the ACC.) Fox isn't providing a spec offer of $500 million over 12 years based upon VCU or even Butler - they're basing it on you (SJU, Georgetown, etc.).

I don't know if what about to say will make sense to anyone, but I'll try and explain it in terms of an elementary differential equation.

Essentially, you are looking at this like a linear function. X team has Y characteristics that give an output of Z value to the league, where the Z values are easy to determine and based solely on the characteristics of the team. That makes it easy to say that a team like Dayton will have a higher average value than VCU because they will bring a cultural fit (raising their minimum in this case).

However, this is not the way this conference will work. Instead, the starting point becomes important because the conference's performance will also be based on the rate of change at certain points.

Basically, that means that your equation isn't static. You cannot simply look at the inputs, but also at your starting point. In this case, let's say our league gets some sort of positive feedback affect if its starting value (an output technically) is above a certain limit, and gets a negative feedback below somewhere below that limit.

Since this is an equation with respect to time, the point is that you are ignoring the value of a strong start and assuming that you can calculate the output from the sum of the league's members at some point in a fairly distance future. But in this type of equation, starting strong changes the value of each team.

For a graphical idea of what I am trying to say, see this graph:



Basically, starting strong would mean starting above 0 in that graph and would push us towards a higher value. Starting below 0 pushes us downwards; the route we follow depends on where you start.

What I am trying to say is that it may be true that Dayton or SLU might bring a higher average value to the league than VCU, but we need to elevate whether the short-term benefits of adding a VCU could create a long-term benefit unconnected to VCU's further success.

Short-term success is very pertinent in my mind to the future of the league, and it isn't as simply as just looking at the team's and trying to determine their average value. In this case, the positive push would for a good media perception (ease of getting ranked or getting bids), plus the creation of an environment that aids recruiting and draws coaches.

(02-01-2013 04:30 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  Basically, starting strong would mean starting above 0 in that graph and would push us towards a higher value. Starting below 0 pushes us downwards; the route we follow depends on where you start.

I'd say your graph is a good representation of the headwinds of perception. Imagine the league as a sailing ship and that graph as describing the winds and currents--you have some control over your course, but going north and east gets a lot easier once you cross that zero mark.

Quote:Short-term success is very pertinent in my mind to the future of the league, and it isn't as simply as just looking at the team's and trying to determine their average value. In this case, the positive push would for a good media perception (ease of getting ranked or getting bids), plus the creation of an environment that aids recruiting and draws coaches.

I think the same sort of analysis applies to FoxSports1--if they can start strong, like say with Big East basketball, it makes it a lot easier for them to stay strong. If they're showing re-broadcasted Tier 3 college hoops for those first few months (stuff they show now on Fox College Sports), that's the first impression they make.

(02-01-2013 04:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sure, the C7 is piddly when compared to the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac-12/ACC. Everyone knows that.

No, we don't know that. Not in basketball. We do not aspire to be the best non-power conference. We aspire to be the best basketball conference in the country. We may not get there, but that is the goal.

That's why being a Catholic-private little-brother to the Big Ten has no appeal for me. If you are a Big East school, you are expected to be in direct competition with your meatheaded football-playing neighbors and to compete on an equal footing for wins and market share. Marquette going up against Wisconsin, Georgetown up against Maryland, Butler against Indiana, Creighton against Nebraska, Providence vs BC and now St Johns against Syracuse and Seton Hall against Rutgers. Xavier vs Ohio State is David vs Goliath, but it's worth doing. If Dayton gets in, I have no problem, because with the Big East recruiting tag I think they can give Ohio State or anybody a run.

VCU's basketball program can compete with UVa's or Virginia Tech's without question. Sit there and tell me with a straight face that Saint Louis can compete with Mizzou. Go ahead.

(02-01-2013 05:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 04:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sure, the C7 is piddly when compared to the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac-12/ACC. Everyone knows that.

No, we don't know that. Not in basketball. We do not aspire to be the best non-power conference. We aspire to be the best basketball conference in the country. We may not get there, but that is the goal.

That's why being a Catholic-private little-brother to the Big Ten has no appeal for me. If you are a Big East school, you are expected to be in direct competition with your meatheaded football-playing neighbors and to compete on an equal footing for wins and market share. Marquette going up against Wisconsin, Georgetown up against Maryland, Butler against Indiana, Creighton against Nebraska, Providence vs BC and now St Johns against Syracuse and Seton Hall against Rutgers. Xavier vs Ohio State is David vs Goliath, but it's worth doing. If Dayton gets in, I have no problem, because with the Big East recruiting tag I think they can give Ohio State or anybody a run.

VCU's basketball program can compete with UVa's or Virginia Tech's without question. Sit there and tell me with a straight face that Saint Louis can compete with Mizzou. Go ahead.

Why is this incomprehensible? SLU beat Butler last night, who happens to be higher ranked than Missouri. If that doesn't matter, SLU also won a game in the NCAA Tournament last year, which is something Missouri wasn't able to do. You can say those are random instances, but I would say that's no more random than a #11-seed going from being the last at-large team that makes it to the NCAA Tournament and then getting hot to get to the Final Four (like VCU). Would I wager on SLU beating Mizzou tonight? No. However, do I think SLU is somehow permanently structurally disadvantaged from competing with Mizzou and Illinois (the other large state school that has a lot of St. Louis-based alums and the place that I'm an alum of) compared to VCU vs. UVA/VT? Absolutely not. VCU's primary advantage is a charismatic young coach that connects with players and a relentless recruiter. Now, he might end up staying there for the next 20 years, in which case, more power to VCU. But the gap between SLU's resources and facilities and those of Missouri's is actually much smaller than the gap between VCU's resources and facilities and those of both UVA and VT. VCU has a coaching personality advantage, but in the structural department, SLU is far ahead of VCU. In housing terms, SLU has "good bones" in a top neighborhood.

Regardless, I guess I'm just completely puzzled by this small-time perception of SLU (and maybe it's just a function of me being from the Midwest or something, so I have a bit more personal exposure to SLU's influence). SLU is to the St. Louis market as Marquette is to Milwaukee, St. John's is to New York, Villanova is to Philly, DePaul is to Chicago, etc. Sure, there are larger state schools nearby, but that's going to be the case with every single school that we're looking at. I'm getting the impression that many of the East Coast people think SLU is more on the level of Fordham in NYC or GWU in DC, which is *definitely* not the case. SLU has the ability to deliver its market and when you're talking about a market as large as St. Louis, that's a LOT harder to find than a school that has a few years of being on a hot streak on-the-court. The A-10 knew this itself - it invited SLU immediately after C-USA split up a decade ago, whereas they didn't take in VCU until this year.

Once again, I honestly see it more of a battle between VCU and Dayton for the last spot based on a "traditional" conference realignment metrics if it comes down to that if it weren't for the fact that I believe a lot of the university presidents in the C7 have a strong personal affinity for Dayton.

I really think people are often overlooking the aspect that the CONFERENCE brings value to the school just as much as the school brings value to the conference.

What a school is doing NOW is not an accurate representation of their potential within the C7 (and it's not guarantee a school will meet that potential in the C7, either).

For example, Duquesne mentioned as a cultural fit, but not a performance fit... it is not an unreasonable outcome that if Duquesne was invited, their fan base would be invigorated, they'd sell more tickets with Nova, GTown, Marquette, coming to play conference games; they'd have more revenue from that and from TV to re-invest in athletics, increase their facilities/recruiting budgets/coaches compensation and it would raise their level of performance across the board.

Or they might get killed.


I think what makes Dayton a great pick is because you know you're not going to be stuck with a team that you wish you didn't have in the conference with them. Not to say they won't have bad conference records and down years... but they haven't had a losing OOC record since 1994, and they still average 12,500 when that happens. It's never going to be a bleak situation where they can't keep up. They'll have the resources to be successful and to keep buying out coaches until they are.

(02-01-2013 05:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 05:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 04:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sure, the C7 is piddly when compared to the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac-12/ACC. Everyone knows that.

No, we don't know that. Not in basketball. We do not aspire to be the best non-power conference. We aspire to be the best basketball conference in the country. We may not get there, but that is the goal.

That's why being a Catholic-private little-brother to the Big Ten has no appeal for me. If you are a Big East school, you are expected to be in direct competition with your meatheaded football-playing neighbors and to compete on an equal footing for wins and market share. Marquette going up against Wisconsin, Georgetown up against Maryland, Butler against Indiana, Creighton against Nebraska, Providence vs BC and now St Johns against Syracuse and Seton Hall against Rutgers. Xavier vs Ohio State is David vs Goliath, but it's worth doing. If Dayton gets in, I have no problem, because with the Big East recruiting tag I think they can give Ohio State or anybody a run.

VCU's basketball program can compete with UVa's or Virginia Tech's without question. Sit there and tell me with a straight face that Saint Louis can compete with Mizzou. Go ahead.

Why is this incomprehensible? SLU beat Butler last night, who happens to be higher ranked than Missouri. If that doesn't matter, SLU also won a game in the NCAA Tournament last year, which is something Missouri wasn't able to do. You can say those are random instances, but I would say that's no more random than a #11-seed going from being the last at-large team that makes it to the NCAA Tournament and then getting hot to get to the Final Four (like VCU).

Mizzou has as many Sweet Sixteens as Saint Louis has tournament appearances. Mizzou had as many tournament wins in 2009 at Saint Louis had since the Russians launched Sputnik. (Or was Mizzou's 2009 tournament run a fluke too?) Saint Louis would absolutely be the Depaul to Mizzou's Illinois.

Let me clarify something: DePaul-Illinois is NOT how the Big East/Big Ten relationship is supposed to work.

Quote:Would I wager on SLU beating Mizzou tonight? No. However, do I think SLU is somehow permanently structurally disadvantaged from competing with Mizzou and Illinois (the other large state school that has a lot of St. Louis-based alums and the place that I'm an alum of) compared to VCU vs. UVA/VT? Absolutely not. VCU's primary advantage is a charismatic young coach that connects with players and a relentless recruiter. Now, he might end up staying there for the next 20 years, in which case, more power to VCU. But the gap between SLU's resources and facilities and those of Missouri's is actually much smaller than the gap between VCU's resources and facilities and those of both UVA and VT.

And VCU is kicking Virginia and VT's ass, while Saint Louis pretty much has their thumb up theirs. If money and resources were as key as you seem to think, Tulane would be Southern Miss and vice versa.

Quote:VCU has a coaching personality advantage,

And now they have a resume. Before Shaka Smart leaves, they'll have more resume. And if VCU gets in the Big East, Smart maybe doesn't have to leave.

Quote: but in the structural department, SLU is far ahead of VCU. In housing terms, SLU has "good bones" in a top neighborhood.

Regardless, I guess I'm just completely puzzled by this small-time perception of SLU (and maybe it's just a function of me being from the Midwest or something, so I have a bit more personal exposure to SLU's influence). SLU is to the St. Louis market as Marquette is to Milwaukee, St. John's is to New York, Villanova is to Philly, DePaul is to Chicago, etc. Sure, there are larger state schools nearby, but that's going to be the case with every single school that we're looking at. I'm getting the impression that many of the East Coast people think SLU is more on the level of Fordham in NYC or GWU in DC, which is *definitely* not the case.

Actually, GW's tournament resume is better than SLU's. 10 NCAA bids for GW vs 7, a Sweet Sixteen in 1993 vs 1957, 3 tournament wins in the last 50 years vs 2.

When your resume doesn't blow away GW's moment in the sun with Yinka Dare, you pretty much suck. I don't care how nice your arena is.

Quote: SLU has the ability to deliver its market and when you're talking about a market as large as St. Louis, that's a LOT harder to find than a school that has a few years of being on a hot streak on-the-court. The A-10 knew this itself - it invited SLU immediately after C-USA split up a decade ago, whereas they didn't take in VCU until this year.

And Saint Louis, with a big-time coach, has done squat in the A-10. If they can't hack the A-10, what are they going to do in the Big East?

Quote:Once again, I honestly see it more of a battle between VCU and Dayton for the last spot based on a "traditional" conference realignment metrics if it comes down to that if it weren't for the fact that I believe a lot of the university presidents in the C7 have a strong personal affinity for Dayton.

I wonder if the presidents learned anything from the Tulane "you're invited/you stink so bad we have to leave the room" fiasco.

Y'know what, the arguments for Saint Louis sound a lot like the arguments for Tulane, plus a few thousand people in the arena.

How many people are going to be in the arena when the Billikens are going 1-17 in conference?

Compare to the upside--if SLU goes to a Final Four, do they move ahead of Mizzou in the pecking order? The way VCU basically has in Virginia college basketball?

(02-01-2013 06:10 PM)JPSchmack Wrote:  I think what makes Dayton a great pick is because you know you're not going to be stuck with a team that you wish you didn't have in the conference with them. Not to say they won't have bad conference records and down years... but they haven't had a losing OOC record since 1994, and they still average 12,500 when that happens. It's never going to be a bleak situation where they can't keep up. They'll have the resources to be successful and to keep buying out coaches until they are.

Ask the leftover members of the Great Midwest how much they liked the idea of having Dayton in the new Conference they created, CUSA. If you think Fordham and DePaul are the deadweights of their current conferences, then you'll understand why UD didn't make the cut for membership in CUSA!

The fact that UD can schedule in such a way as to avoid losing non-conference records and put over 12,000 fans in the stands for each home game simply cannot be the justification for membership in a Conference with the lofty goals and objectives as the one that will contain the C7. Members of that Conference must be chosen on the basis of what they can be expected to contribute to the league in new eyes on the TV screen, probable on-court success based on relatively recent history, and reasonable expectations for earning NCAA Tourney units.

On those three criteria, VCU wins out over Dayton in a landslide.

(02-01-2013 08:48 PM)muskienick Wrote:  Ask the leftover members of the Great Midwest how much they liked the idea of having Dayton in the new Conference they created, CUSA. If you think Fordham and DePaul are the deadweights of their current conferences, then you'll understand why UD didn't make the cut for membership in CUSA!

The fact that UD can schedule in such a way as to avoid losing non-conference records and put over 12,000 fans in the stands for each home game simply cannot be the justification for membership in a Conference with the lofty goals and objectives as the one that will contain the C7. Members of that Conference must be chosen on the basis of what they can be expected to contribute to the league in new eyes on the TV screen, probable on-court success based on relatively recent history, and reasonable expectations for earning NCAA Tourney units.

On those three criteria, VCU wins out over Dayton in a landslide.

Yeah, but you're forgetting that UD isn't freaking terrible now like they were in 1994.

What happens when you dump all the "bad teams" from the league and have a league of nothing but basketball powers? Someone goes from C-USA DePaul (who made the dance half the time) to Big East DePaul (cellar dweller).

If you put UNC, Duke, Kansas, Michigan St, Ohio St, Kentucky, Syracuse, Louisville, UConn and Gonzaga in a conference together, someone's going 5-13 in conference play.

Dayton is a team that wins OOC games, but let's YOU go to the tournament. They're not Fordham, who's 7-6 OOC in a GOOD YEAR. Dayton's 7-6 OOC in a BAD YEAR. Dayton is like 10-4 on average OOC, over nearly 20 years. They win OOC games, lose conference games, and help their conference.

It's humorous to me that the X fans are all in favor of leaving UD behind. You've won 28 straight games at home over UD and what, 19 of the 28 at their place in that span? Why on earth would you be willing to give up 1-3 Top 100 RPI wins for a team that MIGHT ACTUALLY BEAT YOU?

If Dayton gets left out, and they finish 12-4 instead of 9-7 since they don't have to play Xavier and Temple three times, and make the NCAA Tournament, and a 9-9 C7 Xavier team doesn't make the dance because they lost to VCU, I am going to laugh hysterically. Daily. Until the next Selection Sunday.

Xavier would be EFFING CRAZY to want VCU in the league over a team they OWN.

couldnt the same argument about regreting leaving vcu behind be made about other schools such as st louis and dayton? with the cream of the a10 crop gone, why couldnt it be stlouis or dayton that rises to the top and gets the a10 bid and eventually makes noise in the tourney? would the c7 "regret" leaving them behind?

(02-01-2013 10:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  couldnt the same argument about regreting leaving vcu behind be made about other schools such as st louis and dayton? with the cream of the a10 crop gone, why couldnt it be stlouis or dayton that rises to the top and gets the a10 bid and eventually makes noise in the tourney? would the c7 "regret" leaving them behind?

Somebody's going to win the A-10. If it's Saint Louis or even Dayton, though, there's no reason to expect them to do any more damage in the tournament than St Joe's or Richmond or GW. VCU, on the other hand, has a proven ability to win tournament games.

"B-b-but they only did it once!" Which is once more than the others have, barring Richmond's Sweet Sixteen last year.

(02-01-2013 10:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  couldnt the same argument about regreting leaving vcu behind be made about other schools such as st louis and dayton? with the cream of the a10 crop gone, why couldnt it be stlouis or dayton that rises to the top and gets the a10 bid and eventually makes noise in the tourney? would the c7 "regret" leaving them behind?

Somebody's going to win the A-10. If it's Saint Louis or even Dayton, though, there's no reason to expect them to do any more damage in the tournament than St Joe's or Richmond or GW. VCU, on the other hand, has a proven ability to win tournament games.

"B-b-but they only did it once!" Which is once more than the others have, barring Richmond's Sweet Sixteen last year.

true, however, just because vcu won the CAA and advanced to the final 4 recently doesnt mean they will win in the more competitive a10 or the even more competitive c7. I honsetly am not against vcu but the 'we need them or else" attitude some have on here really baffles me. What was their history/performance 5 years ago? 10 years ago? I dont know some i am seriuosly asking.

(02-01-2013 04:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If the C7 wouldn't have ever even mentioned VCU's name 5 years ago as a candidate if they had split off then, that shows me that VCU won't have any bearing on whether the C7 will be looked at as a power league 5 years from now.

For what it's worth, five years ago, Butler would have been a questionable pick.

Xavier (18 bids, 13 NCAA wins) and Dayton (13 bids, 13 wins) would have been in, and so would Creighton (16 bids, 9 wins). The last two spots would have been between Richmond (7 bids, 2 wins), Butler (7 bids, 7 wins, 2007 Sweet Sixteen), Saint Louis (6 bids, 3 wins) and VCU (8 bids, 5 wins).

George Mason would have gotten a look because of their 2006 Final Four run, but 4 NCAA bids and 4 wins all-time would have been ruled out, and a team ten or fifteen miles from Georgetown would have been ruled out.

(02-01-2013 11:02 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  couldnt the same argument about regreting leaving vcu behind be made about other schools such as st louis and dayton? with the cream of the a10 crop gone, why couldnt it be stlouis or dayton that rises to the top and gets the a10 bid and eventually makes noise in the tourney? would the c7 "regret" leaving them behind?

Somebody's going to win the A-10. If it's Saint Louis or even Dayton, though, there's no reason to expect them to do any more damage in the tournament than St Joe's or Richmond or GW. VCU, on the other hand, has a proven ability to win tournament games.

"B-b-but they only did it once!" Which is once more than the others have, barring Richmond's Sweet Sixteen last year.

true, however, just because vcu won the CAA and advanced to the final 4 recently doesnt mean they will win in the more competitive a10 or the even more competitive c7. I honsetly am not against vcu but the 'we need them or else" attitude some have on here really baffles me. What was their history/performance 5 years ago? 10 years ago? I dont know some i am seriuosly asking.

NCAA Tournament appearances
1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012

In 1981, 82, 83, 85 and 87 they went to the second round. They went to the NCAA's under 3 different coaches in the last ten years. Their all-time winning percentage is 63%, top 25 in Division I.

It's not so much that we need VCU. It's that we need to want strong basketball schools rather than needing private, Catholic colleges that have a strong (or not so strong) basketball program. It's that if we assume that we are the lords of the realm with the luxury to take on questionable projects, then the power conferences will eat our lunch.

(02-01-2013 11:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:02 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  couldnt the same argument about regreting leaving vcu behind be made about other schools such as st louis and dayton? with the cream of the a10 crop gone, why couldnt it be stlouis or dayton that rises to the top and gets the a10 bid and eventually makes noise in the tourney? would the c7 "regret" leaving them behind?

Somebody's going to win the A-10. If it's Saint Louis or even Dayton, though, there's no reason to expect them to do any more damage in the tournament than St Joe's or Richmond or GW. VCU, on the other hand, has a proven ability to win tournament games.

"B-b-but they only did it once!" Which is once more than the others have, barring Richmond's Sweet Sixteen last year.

true, however, just because vcu won the CAA and advanced to the final 4 recently doesnt mean they will win in the more competitive a10 or the even more competitive c7. I honsetly am not against vcu but the 'we need them or else" attitude some have on here really baffles me. What was their history/performance 5 years ago? 10 years ago? I dont know some i am seriuosly asking.

NCAA Tournament appearances
1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012

In 1981, 82, 83, 85 and 87 they went to the second round. They went to the NCAA's under 3 different coaches in the last ten years. Their all-time winning percentage is 63%, top 25 in Division I.

It's not so much that we need VCU. It's that we need to want strong basketball schools rather than needing private, Catholic colleges that have a strong (or not so strong) basketball program. It's that if we assume that we are the lords of the realm with the luxury to take on questionable projects, then the power conferences will eat our lunch.

i get your point, but having a token large public university wont really change the image of the c7. like ive said before i dont have an issue with vcu, i just dont think they should be a slam dunk addition. They should be the last one in (at 12) or not at all

(02-01-2013 11:43 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:02 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:42 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  couldnt the same argument about regreting leaving vcu behind be made about other schools such as st louis and dayton? with the cream of the a10 crop gone, why couldnt it be stlouis or dayton that rises to the top and gets the a10 bid and eventually makes noise in the tourney? would the c7 "regret" leaving them behind?

Somebody's going to win the A-10. If it's Saint Louis or even Dayton, though, there's no reason to expect them to do any more damage in the tournament than St Joe's or Richmond or GW. VCU, on the other hand, has a proven ability to win tournament games.

"B-b-but they only did it once!" Which is once more than the others have, barring Richmond's Sweet Sixteen last year.

true, however, just because vcu won the CAA and advanced to the final 4 recently doesnt mean they will win in the more competitive a10 or the even more competitive c7. I honsetly am not against vcu but the 'we need them or else" attitude some have on here really baffles me. What was their history/performance 5 years ago? 10 years ago? I dont know some i am seriuosly asking.

NCAA Tournament appearances
1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012

In 1981, 82, 83, 85 and 87 they went to the second round. They went to the NCAA's under 3 different coaches in the last ten years. Their all-time winning percentage is 63%, top 25 in Division I.

It's not so much that we need VCU. It's that we need to want strong basketball schools rather than needing private, Catholic colleges that have a strong (or not so strong) basketball program. It's that if we assume that we are the lords of the realm with the luxury to take on questionable projects, then the power conferences will eat our lunch.

i get your point, but having a token large public university wont really change the image of the c7. like ive said before i dont have an issue with vcu, i just dont think they should be a slam dunk addition. They should be the last one in (at 12) or not at all

It's not so much that they're public, it's that they A) have recent tournament bling and B) figure to continue to be good. Let them recruit with the Big EAst tag, and you have another strong program in the league.

What say you posters?!?!?!

The thread seems open to me.