(04-30-2013 08:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:36 AM)ivet Wrote:  Why no mention of Wichita State? They did go to the Final Four. If we include VCU in the conversation, we should include WSU as well.

Geography. VCU would fit- making the league 6 east 6 midwest. Wichita wouldn't- making the league 5 east and 7 midwest. Outside of on the court, it's the biggest plus for VCU right now I believe.

That is just not factually correct given we have Creighton already in. What matters most about geography is do you have reasonable travel partners for minor sports. For example in the A-10 last year St Louis was a travel partner with Butler. That meant teams would fly into St Louis play the Billikens and then Bus 6 hours to Butler. If the games were back to back this was a brutal trip.

The question in terms of geography is really can you create reasonable travel partners, ideally meaning a 1 or 2 hour bus ride with a team already in the league.

Marquette and DePaul are travel partners
Butler and Xavier are travel partners
Wichita state is closer to Creighton than St Louis would be.

In the east... VCU would make a travel partner with Georgetown as would Richmond. The school with the biggest geography issue is actually Dayton who doesn't fit as a travel partner with anyone.

(04-29-2013 06:30 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 02:09 PM)kobe Wrote:  It most likely coming down to St. Louis, Dayton and Richmond for just 2 spots. I think Dayton (great fan sport from the city, always 10K+) and Richmond (good institutional fit, good overall athletic department) should be the pick. However, choosing St. Louis wouldn't be the worst thing in the world and it brings a school in closer to Creighton.

I'm a SLU fan, but putting SLU behind BOTH Dayton and Richmond?

I don't think you can do this very well as Butler and Creighton are too far apart to be travel partners. The west has to bring in SLU or Wichita State and the east must bring in VCU or Richmond.

Dayton is a great school with great sports but when Butler got added with Xavier they sort of took Dayton's spot.

(04-30-2013 10:38 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:30 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 02:09 PM)kobe Wrote:  It most likely coming down to St. Louis, Dayton and Richmond for just 2 spots. I think Dayton (great fan sport from the city, always 10K+) and Richmond (good institutional fit, good overall athletic department) should be the pick. However, choosing St. Louis wouldn't be the worst thing in the world and it brings a school in closer to Creighton.

I'm a SLU fan, but putting SLU behind BOTH Dayton and Richmond?

I don't think you can do this very well as Butler and Creighton are too far apart to be travel partners. The west has to bring in SLU or Wichita State and the east must bring in VCU or Richmond.

Dayton is a great school with great sports but when Butler got added with Xavier they sort of took Dayton's spot.

I don't see how that is true at all. You dont need travel partners when you have 5/6 schools clumped in a relatively close area.

Also, the school presidents are not fretting over travel partners.

I wonder if the BE Presidents are waiting to see if SLU can maintain what they have for another year or two with the new coach. Make sure they aren't a flash in the pan.

(04-30-2013 10:16 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:36 AM)ivet Wrote:  Why no mention of Wichita State? They did go to the Final Four. If we include VCU in the conversation, we should include WSU as well.

Geography. VCU would fit- making the league 6 east 6 midwest. Wichita wouldn't- making the league 5 east and 7 midwest. Outside of on the court, it's the biggest plus for VCU right now I believe.

That is just not factually correct given we have Creighton already in. What matters most about geography is do you have reasonable travel partners for minor sports. For example in the A-10 last year St Louis was a travel partner with Butler. That meant teams would fly into St Louis play the Billikens and then Bus 6 hours to Butler. If the games were back to back this was a brutal trip.

The question in terms of geography is really can you create reasonable travel partners, meaning a 1 or 2 hour bus ride with a team already in the league.

Marquette and DePaul are travel partners
Butler and Xavier are travel partners
Wichita state is closer to Creighton than St Louis would be.

TRAVEL PARTNERS DO NOT MATTER FOR THE BIG EAST.

It might be a concern for other smaller and less financially flush conferences, but it is one of the most overrated concerns on this board here. Gonzaga's geography is a legit concern. However, the fact that Wichita State is closer to Creighton is irrelevant when SLU is a bus ride for all 4 of DePaul, Marquette, Butle and Xavier (and would be for Dayton, as well).

We all know (or should know) that it's down to SLU and one of either Dayton or Richmond (with VCU in there as a wild card). Wichita State has no chance at this league. It's not that they aren't good enough on-the-court (they certainly are) - it's that they're a smaller public university in a small market that would be a geographic outlier. There is also ZERO commonality between Wichita State and anyone in the Big East other than maybe Creighton (and that's more based on recent history and geography). At least VCU has eastern geography in its favor and will send fans to MSG in NYC.

(04-30-2013 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the BE Presidents are waiting to see if SLU can maintain what they have for another year or two with the new coach. Make sure they aren't a flash in the pan.

I doubt the short-term on-the-court results will mean much. It isn't as if though there's a massive pool of schools that the Big East is looking at: there are 3 or 4 realistic candidates at most and SLU seems to be a lock. As much as we want everything to go quickly, they're still well within the timeline that virtually everyone has said from the beginning: 10 schools in 2013-14 and 12 schools in 2014-15. They likely didn't want to get the 2014-15 invites out until all of the logistics were set up (the formation of the conference itself, the Big East name, the Fox contract, and last but not least, the new commissioner).

It also lets the 10 initial schools take the position of being the founders with 100% equity shares from day 1, while the next 2 new schools will need to pay entrance fees as it would have done to join any other conference. Hence, the different treatment of Xavier, Butler and Creighton versus the expansion candidates (and why they deliberately set this up as a 10-team league initially).

(04-30-2013 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the BE Presidents are waiting to see if SLU can maintain what they have for another year or two with the new coach. Make sure they aren't a flash in the pan.

I doubt the short-term on-the-court results will mean much. It isn't as if though there's a massive pool of schools that the Big East is looking at: there are 3 or 4 realistic candidates at most and SLU seems to be a lock. As much as we want everything to go quickly, they're still well within the timeline that virtually everyone has said from the beginning: 10 schools in 2013-14 and 12 schools in 2014-15. They likely didn't want to get the 2014-15 invites out until all of the logistics were set up (the formation of the conference itself, the Big East name, the Fox contract, and last but not least, the new commissioner).

It also lets the 10 initial schools take the position of being the founders with 100% equity shares from day 1, while the next 2 new schools will need to pay entrance fees as it would have done to join any other conference. Hence, the different treatment of Xavier, Butler and Creighton versus the expansion candidates (and why they deliberately set this up as a 10-team league initially).

One thing about that though if we go 12 for 2014-15, the announcement would need to be done in the next 8 weeks, to allow the teams leaving presumably the A10 the discounted exit fee.

(04-30-2013 12:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the BE Presidents are waiting to see if SLU can maintain what they have for another year or two with the new coach. Make sure they aren't a flash in the pan.

I doubt the short-term on-the-court results will mean much. It isn't as if though there's a massive pool of schools that the Big East is looking at: there are 3 or 4 realistic candidates at most and SLU seems to be a lock. As much as we want everything to go quickly, they're still well within the timeline that virtually everyone has said from the beginning: 10 schools in 2013-14 and 12 schools in 2014-15. They likely didn't want to get the 2014-15 invites out until all of the logistics were set up (the formation of the conference itself, the Big East name, the Fox contract, and last but not least, the new commissioner).

It also lets the 10 initial schools take the position of being the founders with 100% equity shares from day 1, while the next 2 new schools will need to pay entrance fees as it would have done to join any other conference. Hence, the different treatment of Xavier, Butler and Creighton versus the expansion candidates (and why they deliberately set this up as a 10-team league initially).

One thing about that though if we go 12 for 2014-15, the announcement would need to be done in the next 8 weeks, to allow the teams leaving presumably the A10 the discounted exit fee.

SLU has gone on record saying they will pay whatever they need to get into the Big East so 1 mil extra is not a big deal to them to get into the league.

(04-30-2013 02:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 12:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the BE Presidents are waiting to see if SLU can maintain what they have for another year or two with the new coach. Make sure they aren't a flash in the pan.

I doubt the short-term on-the-court results will mean much. It isn't as if though there's a massive pool of schools that the Big East is looking at: there are 3 or 4 realistic candidates at most and SLU seems to be a lock. As much as we want everything to go quickly, they're still well within the timeline that virtually everyone has said from the beginning: 10 schools in 2013-14 and 12 schools in 2014-15. They likely didn't want to get the 2014-15 invites out until all of the logistics were set up (the formation of the conference itself, the Big East name, the Fox contract, and last but not least, the new commissioner).

It also lets the 10 initial schools take the position of being the founders with 100% equity shares from day 1, while the next 2 new schools will need to pay entrance fees as it would have done to join any other conference. Hence, the different treatment of Xavier, Butler and Creighton versus the expansion candidates (and why they deliberately set this up as a 10-team league initially).

One thing about that though if we go 12 for 2014-15, the announcement would need to be done in the next 8 weeks, to allow the teams leaving presumably the A10 the discounted exit fee.

SLU has gone on record saying they will pay whatever they need to get into the Big East so 1 mil extra is not a big deal to them to get into the league.

The thing about that then is next years records would play a part. If they wait until say next March to make the decision(which I don't think), and SLU goes into the tank next year, it will make an impact on them getting in. I do think the AD's probably have signifigant questions about SLU's ability to compete long term.

Also, I can't imagine us wanting to keep on pulling teams out with only 3 months notice. Not how presidents want to be known.

(04-30-2013 02:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 02:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 12:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the BE Presidents are waiting to see if SLU can maintain what they have for another year or two with the new coach. Make sure they aren't a flash in the pan.

I doubt the short-term on-the-court results will mean much. It isn't as if though there's a massive pool of schools that the Big East is looking at: there are 3 or 4 realistic candidates at most and SLU seems to be a lock. As much as we want everything to go quickly, they're still well within the timeline that virtually everyone has said from the beginning: 10 schools in 2013-14 and 12 schools in 2014-15. They likely didn't want to get the 2014-15 invites out until all of the logistics were set up (the formation of the conference itself, the Big East name, the Fox contract, and last but not least, the new commissioner).

It also lets the 10 initial schools take the position of being the founders with 100% equity shares from day 1, while the next 2 new schools will need to pay entrance fees as it would have done to join any other conference. Hence, the different treatment of Xavier, Butler and Creighton versus the expansion candidates (and why they deliberately set this up as a 10-team league initially).

One thing about that though if we go 12 for 2014-15, the announcement would need to be done in the next 8 weeks, to allow the teams leaving presumably the A10 the discounted exit fee.

SLU has gone on record saying they will pay whatever they need to get into the Big East so 1 mil extra is not a big deal to them to get into the league.

The thing about that then is next years records would play a part. If they wait until say next March to make the decision(which I don't think), and SLU goes into the tank next year, it will make an impact on them getting in. I do think the AD's probably have signifigant questions about SLU's ability to compete long term.

Also, I can't imagine us wanting to keep on pulling teams out with only 3 months notice. Not how presidents want to be known.

It's like going around in circles sometimes. One years record will not change anyones minds about how well they fit into the league.

We will do what we think is best for us. It's not like every year we'll be adding teams on short notice.

(04-30-2013 02:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 12:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the BE Presidents are waiting to see if SLU can maintain what they have for another year or two with the new coach. Make sure they aren't a flash in the pan.

I doubt the short-term on-the-court results will mean much. It isn't as if though there's a massive pool of schools that the Big East is looking at: there are 3 or 4 realistic candidates at most and SLU seems to be a lock. As much as we want everything to go quickly, they're still well within the timeline that virtually everyone has said from the beginning: 10 schools in 2013-14 and 12 schools in 2014-15. They likely didn't want to get the 2014-15 invites out until all of the logistics were set up (the formation of the conference itself, the Big East name, the Fox contract, and last but not least, the new commissioner).

It also lets the 10 initial schools take the position of being the founders with 100% equity shares from day 1, while the next 2 new schools will need to pay entrance fees as it would have done to join any other conference. Hence, the different treatment of Xavier, Butler and Creighton versus the expansion candidates (and why they deliberately set this up as a 10-team league initially).

One thing about that though if we go 12 for 2014-15, the announcement would need to be done in the next 8 weeks, to allow the teams leaving presumably the A10 the discounted exit fee.

SLU has gone on record saying they will pay whatever they need to get into the Big East so 1 mil extra is not a big deal to them to get into the league.

Your statement is 100% accurate. If the Big East said we need you to leave the A-10 tomorrow, SLU ponies up. That's why I don't think July 1 is all that big a deal. If the A-10 pulls a CAA (which I really don't think they'll do), even that doesn't bother me. So we miss a conference tournament? Oh well, there are greater injustices that have been done.

Good luck to all those in the Big East for next year.

Yeah, SLU cannot miss a tournament while a member of the A-10 going forward (assuming it's more than one year). I honestly think SLU MUST win the Atlantic 10 again next year (if there's no July 1 declaration) to keep their spot in line. This year that just passed wasn't even considered in the argument, so we're going to have to do it again.

What's the line for sustained success in terms of tournaments?

P.S., I know it's more than 2.

(04-30-2013 03:06 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 02:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 02:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 12:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I doubt the short-term on-the-court results will mean much. It isn't as if though there's a massive pool of schools that the Big East is looking at: there are 3 or 4 realistic candidates at most and SLU seems to be a lock. As much as we want everything to go quickly, they're still well within the timeline that virtually everyone has said from the beginning: 10 schools in 2013-14 and 12 schools in 2014-15. They likely didn't want to get the 2014-15 invites out until all of the logistics were set up (the formation of the conference itself, the Big East name, the Fox contract, and last but not least, the new commissioner).

It also lets the 10 initial schools take the position of being the founders with 100% equity shares from day 1, while the next 2 new schools will need to pay entrance fees as it would have done to join any other conference. Hence, the different treatment of Xavier, Butler and Creighton versus the expansion candidates (and why they deliberately set this up as a 10-team league initially).

One thing about that though if we go 12 for 2014-15, the announcement would need to be done in the next 8 weeks, to allow the teams leaving presumably the A10 the discounted exit fee.

SLU has gone on record saying they will pay whatever they need to get into the Big East so 1 mil extra is not a big deal to them to get into the league.

The thing about that then is next years records would play a part. If they wait until say next March to make the decision(which I don't think), and SLU goes into the tank next year, it will make an impact on them getting in. I do think the AD's probably have signifigant questions about SLU's ability to compete long term.

Also, I can't imagine us wanting to keep on pulling teams out with only 3 months notice. Not how presidents want to be known.

It's like going around in circles sometimes. One years record will not change anyones minds about how well they fit into the league.

We will do what we think is best for us. It's not like every year we'll be adding teams on short notice.

But fit isn't the only factor.. It's one thing where if say next March we only have 4 tourney teams in, with no real high seeds, and SLU has fallen apart and doesn't make the tourney, it's going to be hard to take them.

(04-30-2013 03:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 03:06 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 02:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 02:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 12:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  One thing about that though if we go 12 for 2014-15, the announcement would need to be done in the next 8 weeks, to allow the teams leaving presumably the A10 the discounted exit fee.

SLU has gone on record saying they will pay whatever they need to get into the Big East so 1 mil extra is not a big deal to them to get into the league.

The thing about that then is next years records would play a part. If they wait until say next March to make the decision(which I don't think), and SLU goes into the tank next year, it will make an impact on them getting in. I do think the AD's probably have signifigant questions about SLU's ability to compete long term.

Also, I can't imagine us wanting to keep on pulling teams out with only 3 months notice. Not how presidents want to be known.

It's like going around in circles sometimes. One years record will not change anyones minds about how well they fit into the league.

We will do what we think is best for us. It's not like every year we'll be adding teams on short notice.

But fit isn't the only factor.. It's one thing where if say next March we only have 4 tourney teams in, with no real high seeds, and SLU has fallen apart and doesn't make the tourney, it's going to be hard to take them.

You may be right. If SLU falls flat, it could be a problem. 13 SLU is better than 12 SLU on paper...but we'll see how it plays out.

(04-30-2013 10:49 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:38 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:30 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 02:09 PM)kobe Wrote:  It most likely coming down to St. Louis, Dayton and Richmond for just 2 spots. I think Dayton (great fan sport from the city, always 10K+) and Richmond (good institutional fit, good overall athletic department) should be the pick. However, choosing St. Louis wouldn't be the worst thing in the world and it brings a school in closer to Creighton.

I'm a SLU fan, but putting SLU behind BOTH Dayton and Richmond?

I don't think you can do this very well as Butler and Creighton are too far apart to be travel partners. The west has to bring in SLU or Wichita State and the east must bring in VCU or Richmond.

Dayton is a great school with great sports but when Butler got added with Xavier they sort of took Dayton's spot.

I don't see how that is true at all. You dont need travel partners when you have 5/6 schools clumped in a relatively close area.

Also, the school presidents are not fretting over travel partners.

The school Presidents are fretting about costs especially in non-revenue sports and having travel partners in close proximity reduces costs. It is much cheaper to book a to and from flight and bus between two schools for a travel weekend.

(04-30-2013 04:28 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:49 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:38 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:30 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 02:09 PM)kobe Wrote:  It most likely coming down to St. Louis, Dayton and Richmond for just 2 spots. I think Dayton (great fan sport from the city, always 10K+) and Richmond (good institutional fit, good overall athletic department) should be the pick. However, choosing St. Louis wouldn't be the worst thing in the world and it brings a school in closer to Creighton.

I'm a SLU fan, but putting SLU behind BOTH Dayton and Richmond?

I don't think you can do this very well as Butler and Creighton are too far apart to be travel partners. The west has to bring in SLU or Wichita State and the east must bring in VCU or Richmond.

Dayton is a great school with great sports but when Butler got added with Xavier they sort of took Dayton's spot.

I don't see how that is true at all. You dont need travel partners when you have 5/6 schools clumped in a relatively close area.

Also, the school presidents are not fretting over travel partners.

The school Presidents are fretting about costs especially in non-revenue sports and having travel partners in close proximity reduces costs. It is much cheaper to book a to and from flight and bus between two schools for a travel weekend.

This isn't the Horizon league, the presidents are not freaking out about travel since there are two groups of schools who are close to each other. (GTown, SHU, Nova, SJU and Prov; XU, Butler, DP and Marq) Plus we are the 6th highest paid conference in all of college athletics.

(04-30-2013 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:16 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:36 AM)ivet Wrote:  Why no mention of Wichita State? They did go to the Final Four. If we include VCU in the conversation, we should include WSU as well.

Geography. VCU would fit- making the league 6 east 6 midwest. Wichita wouldn't- making the league 5 east and 7 midwest. Outside of on the court, it's the biggest plus for VCU right now I believe.

That is just not factually correct given we have Creighton already in. What matters most about geography is do you have reasonable travel partners for minor sports. For example in the A-10 last year St Louis was a travel partner with Butler. That meant teams would fly into St Louis play the Billikens and then Bus 6 hours to Butler. If the games were back to back this was a brutal trip.

The question in terms of geography is really can you create reasonable travel partners, meaning a 1 or 2 hour bus ride with a team already in the league.

Marquette and DePaul are travel partners
Butler and Xavier are travel partners
Wichita state is closer to Creighton than St Louis would be.

TRAVEL PARTNERS DO NOT MATTER FOR THE BIG EAST.

It might be a concern for other smaller and less financially flush conferences, but it is one of the most overrated concerns on this board here. Gonzaga's geography is a legit concern. However, the fact that Wichita State is closer to Creighton is irrelevant when SLU is a bus ride for all 4 of DePaul, Marquette, Butle and Xavier (and would be for Dayton, as well).

We all know (or should know) that it's down to SLU and one of either Dayton or Richmond (with VCU in there as a wild card). Wichita State has no chance at this league. It's not that they aren't good enough on-the-court (they certainly are) - it's that they're a smaller public university in a small market that would be a geographic outlier. There is also ZERO commonality between Wichita State and anyone in the Big East other than maybe Creighton (and that's more based on recent history and geography). At least VCU has eastern geography in its favor and will send fans to MSG in NYC.

That is akin to saying costs don't matter which is silly. Now I did say that SLU would could be a travel partner with Creighton as could Wichita State. And I get you are a big proponent of institutional fit which is a reasonable argument. But to say they are a geographic outlier just doesn't take into account how non-revenue sports travel and the impact on costs. Lastly what really matters is what kind of basketball market are they and I am not convinced that SLU is a bigger basketball market than Wichita/Kansas.

(04-30-2013 03:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  But fit isn't the only factor.. It's one thing where if say next March we only have 4 tourney teams in, with no real high seeds, and SLU has fallen apart and doesn't make the tourney, it's going to be hard to take them.

It's a much bigger factor than one seasons record. Though I guess you have a team in mind if SLU struggles right Stever?

(04-30-2013 04:34 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:16 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 08:36 AM)ivet Wrote:  Why no mention of Wichita State? They did go to the Final Four. If we include VCU in the conversation, we should include WSU as well.

Geography. VCU would fit- making the league 6 east 6 midwest. Wichita wouldn't- making the league 5 east and 7 midwest. Outside of on the court, it's the biggest plus for VCU right now I believe.

That is just not factually correct given we have Creighton already in. What matters most about geography is do you have reasonable travel partners for minor sports. For example in the A-10 last year St Louis was a travel partner with Butler. That meant teams would fly into St Louis play the Billikens and then Bus 6 hours to Butler. If the games were back to back this was a brutal trip.

The question in terms of geography is really can you create reasonable travel partners, meaning a 1 or 2 hour bus ride with a team already in the league.

Marquette and DePaul are travel partners
Butler and Xavier are travel partners
Wichita state is closer to Creighton than St Louis would be.

TRAVEL PARTNERS DO NOT MATTER FOR THE BIG EAST.

It might be a concern for other smaller and less financially flush conferences, but it is one of the most overrated concerns on this board here. Gonzaga's geography is a legit concern. However, the fact that Wichita State is closer to Creighton is irrelevant when SLU is a bus ride for all 4 of DePaul, Marquette, Butle and Xavier (and would be for Dayton, as well).

We all know (or should know) that it's down to SLU and one of either Dayton or Richmond (with VCU in there as a wild card). Wichita State has no chance at this league. It's not that they aren't good enough on-the-court (they certainly are) - it's that they're a smaller public university in a small market that would be a geographic outlier. There is also ZERO commonality between Wichita State and anyone in the Big East other than maybe Creighton (and that's more based on recent history and geography). At least VCU has eastern geography in its favor and will send fans to MSG in NYC.

That is akin to saying costs don't matter which is silly. Now I did say that SLU would could be a travel partner with Creighton as could Wichita State. And I get you are a big proponent of institutional fit which is a reasonable argument. But to say they are a geographic outlier just doesn't take into account how non-revenue sports travel and the impact on costs. Lastly what really matters is what kind of basketball market are they and I am not convinced that SLU is a bigger basketball market than Wichita/Kansas.

Did St. Louis, Missouri's market shrink? Last I saw, it was the 21st ranked media market in the US.

(04-30-2013 04:34 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TRAVEL PARTNERS DO NOT MATTER FOR THE BIG EAST.

It might be a concern for other smaller and less financially flush conferences, but it is one of the most overrated concerns on this board here. Gonzaga's geography is a legit concern. However, the fact that Wichita State is closer to Creighton is irrelevant when SLU is a bus ride for all 4 of DePaul, Marquette, Butle and Xavier (and would be for Dayton, as well).

We all know (or should know) that it's down to SLU and one of either Dayton or Richmond (with VCU in there as a wild card). Wichita State has no chance at this league. It's not that they aren't good enough on-the-court (they certainly are) - it's that they're a smaller public university in a small market that would be a geographic outlier. There is also ZERO commonality between Wichita State and anyone in the Big East other than maybe Creighton (and that's more based on recent history and geography). At least VCU has eastern geography in its favor and will send fans to MSG in NYC.

That is akin to saying costs don't matter which is silly. Now I did say that SLU would could be a travel partner with Creighton as could Wichita State. And I get you are a big proponent of institutional fit which is a reasonable argument. But to say they are a geographic outlier just doesn't take into account how non-revenue sports travel and the impact on costs. Lastly what really matters is what kind of basketball market are they and I am not convinced that SLU is a bigger basketball market than Wichita/Kansas.

Wichita will never EVER overtake KU and KSU. SLU can own a city much bigger than Wichita.