(12-25-2012 05:34 PM)courtjester Wrote: Good for the past 60 yrs? Prior to this recent run, they had only won 5 conference titles since 1963. Their best run, during the early 80's, they were put on probation for recruiting violations...among other things. They haven't had an all american since 1985. In the last 50 yrs, they are 812-650, with 21 of those years at .500 or worse. If you take away the last four years of Smithson's probation run, they only have won 54% of their games over the past 50 years. They have 9 tournament appearance in over 60 years and if you take away their probation years (early 80's), they are 5-9 in the tourney, including 4 first round exits in those appearances. I think the term "good" is being used loosely here.
How about the Final Four run? The three Elite 8s (find another expansion candidate with that number; I'll wait)? The loss to the eventual national runner-up by 1 point in 1976? Sweet 16 appearances in 3 decades?
As far as successful players, to represent the Shockers, let's start back a fair ways in history. The first player west of the Mississippi to get 2,000 points in a season was Cleo Littleton in the 40s. Next you have Dave Stallworth, who averaged a career 24.2 PPG and was a consensus All-American. Terry Benton, who averaged 16.8 RPG for his career. Xavier McDaniels, the first player to lead the nation in scoring and rebounding (still not enough to get PoY though) with 27.2 PPG and 14.8 RPG. Wichita State has had its fair share of great players.
And yes, they had recruiting violations. The best Shocker team that had been ever been assembled did not go to the NIT or NCAA, and that probably cost Wichita State two appearances and most likely a shot at the Sweet 16 or higher.
And, to be blatantly honest, many of the golden candidates right now fair worse looking back than Wichita State. Butler, for instance, has 56.4% winning record over the last 50 years (836-1480). They went 17 years before winning a title in the Horizon League, and yet people seem to have no qualms with adding them. VCU hasn't even had a basketball program for 50 years, and hadn't advanced beyond the second round of the NCAA tournament until last year. Saint Louis has won around 52% of its games since 1965 and hasn't advanced past the second round in 55 years.
Again, if you look at the peaks of the program and current success, it stands with any other expansion candidate. The program currently has an RPI higher than any school in the Big East, with a win over the second highest rated expansion candidate (also ranked higher than any Big East school). They have gone as far as the Final Four, have more Elite 8s than any other expansion candidate, and they've been to the Sweet 16 more recently than Creighton (1974), Dayton (1984), Saint Louis (1957), or for that matter, DePaul, St. John's, Seton Hall, or Providence. And they are willing to invest whatever is necessary to compete.
If you want to disqualify them for certain reasons, that is fine. If the geography is too much of a factor, take Creighton, Saint Louis, Gonzaga, and Saint Mary's off your list. If their recent success is too much of a problem, take Creighton, Dayton, and Saint Louis off your list (along with exiling half the current C7). If past success is too much of a problem, then you are going to have to take off VCU, Butler, Gonzaga, Dayton, and Saint Louis.
Essentially, the only school that doesn't have any of those problems is Xavier, who should be an automatic add to the conference (along with Butler). Everyone else has flaws just as severe as Wichita State, which just happens to have more investment in it's program than most of its competition and a better team right now. Again, you can disqualify them for reasons of geography or the nature of the university, but they are absolutely in the mix from a basketball prospective.
/
Should Wichita State be a candidate for expansion?
