(12-26-2012 10:24 AM)courtjester Wrote:  If WSU is added, we might as well add Detroit and Loyola. At least Loyola has won a title. If the league is looking for average academics, little national recognition, a program that wins a little over 50% of their games (historically) and a school that is one of the most sanctioned schools in NCAA history, I think WSU would get the first call.

I'm glad that a North Carolina fan (how are those fake classes going for you, speaking of NCAA sanctions?), is preaching to me about what a different conference wants. Now, let me answer the question: What is Wichita State?

1. The best midmajor last year, one of the best 3 this year (with Gonzaga and Creighton).

2. A program that is investing nearly as much money as some Big East schools already with basically no revenue from TV deals or and little from NCAA units.

3. A program with NCAA appearances in 5 decades, Sweet 16 appearances in 3 decades, 3 Elite Eights, and a Final Four. They have been a peak and valley team, but they have peaked multiple times in different eras of basketball. And because you obviously didn't do your homework, that is as much as you can ask for almost any of these expansion candidates.

Now, go back to the ACC or start being productive. You haven't addressed almost any of the arguments I've made in this thread, and you've essentially just attacked Wichita State with little substance with doing your homework on the other schools the Catholic 7 is considering.

The fact that you mention Detroit and Loyola-Chicago as equal candidates shows your ignorance, because neither has been as relevant either recently or in the past and neither has the basketball investment that Wichita State currently has.

johnbragg Wrote:Or we could be both more selective and more regional and stop at Butler, Xavier and VCU.

That is probably the most logical choice, in my opinion, if you add just three.

Fake classes don't equate to sanctions, but nice try. As a WSU grad, there are plenty of easy courses on that campus. You are talking about WSU in the past three years. Earlier, we were told of their 50-60 year era of being something special. Really? I gave facts earlier in this thread about your overrated WSU program, both in terms of wins, tournament appearances and probation. Loyola has recently invested in their program with brand new facilities and a budget that has increased nearly 400%. You say Loyola hasn't done anything in their history, yet, they have a national title...does WSU? I guess you didn't do your research (surprising for a WSU fan?). WSU has been nothing more than average over the past 50 years with the exception of a few years of inconsistent runs. They are average and nothing more. If they were more than that, conferences would be begging to include them.

(12-26-2012 10:51 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:24 AM)courtjester Wrote:  If WSU is added, we might as well add Detroit and Loyola. At least Loyola has won a title. If the league is looking for average academics, little national recognition, a program that wins a little over 50% of their games (historically) and a school that is one of the most sanctioned schools in NCAA history, I think WSU would get the first call.

I'm glad that a North Carolina fan (how are those fake classes going for you, speaking of NCAA sanctions?), is preaching to me about what a different conference wants. Now, let me answer the question: What is Wichita State?

1. The best midmajor last year, one of the best 3 this year (with Gonzaga and Creighton).

2. A program that is investing nearly as much money as some Big East schools already with basically no revenue from TV deals or and little from NCAA units.

3. A program with NCAA appearances in 5 decades, Sweet 16 appearances in 3 decades, 3 Elite Eights, and a Final Four. They have been a peak and valley team, but they have peaked multiple times in different eras of basketball. And because you obviously didn't do your homework, that is as much as you can ask for almost any of these expansion candidates.

Now, go back to the ACC or start being productive. You haven't addressed almost any of the arguments I've made in this thread, and you've essentially just attacked Wichita State with little substance with doing your homework on the other schools the Catholic 7 is considering.

The fact that you mention Detroit and Loyola-Chicago as equal candidates shows your ignorance, because neither has been as relevant either recently or in the past and neither has the basketball investment that Wichita State currently has.

" A program with NCAA appearances in 5 decades, Sweet 16 appearances in 3 decades, 3 Elite Eights, and a Final Four. They have been a peak and valley team, but they have peaked multiple times in different eras of basketball. And because you obviously didn't do your homework, that is as much as you can ask for almost any of these expansion candidates. "

This just shows how deluded your thinking is...there is more that you can ask! You can ask that they be private and/or Catholic with a national reputation. People think Butler is a flash in the pan. Butler has a very strong basketball history and a history that wasn't stained with recruiting violations during their best seasons.

Friend,

Butler is going for its 5th Sweet 16 in a decade this year (currently sitting #18 in the Top 25), you may want to pick some battles that are actually winnable. (I suppose St Louis, but even that's not close)

(12-26-2012 11:52 AM)Title Wrote:  Friend,

Butler is going for its 5th Sweet 16 in a decade this year (currently sitting #18 in the Top 25), you may want to pick some battles that are actually winnable. (I suppose St Louis, but even that's not close)

I'm not trying to put down Butler at all. In fact, I think they should be a sure-fire add. My point is that they are a sure-fire add despite having a comparable long-term history (and yes, it is comparable, despite recent success). Saint Louis is not the basketball school Wichita State is or was, but is a reasonable add otherwise.

To courtjester

Quote:This just shows how deluded your thinking is...there is more that you can ask! You can ask that they be private and/or Catholic with a national reputation. People think Butler is a flash in the pan. Butler has a very strong basketball history and a history that wasn't stained with recruiting violations during their best seasons.

Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Wichita State has been clean for 3 decades, but the program you root for had far more serious problems LAST YEAR.

Again, I am talking from a basketball-first, market-second prospective with all other things a distant third. You simply cannot argue that Wichita has a worse history than all other candidates (Dayton, Saint Louis, Creighton, Butler, VCU, Gonzaga are all comparable or worse beyond the last decade), and you cannot say they have worse recent success than all other candidates. Heck, they have the best road record of any team in the country over the last few years!

More so, Wichita State has invested for the future as well as any of candidates have. They have their coach of their future, the monetary investment, and the facilities. They have been a good to great basketball team in the past, they are a good to great team now, and they will be good to great in the future. If this conference is primarily concerned with basketball quality, then Wichita State is entirely a reasonable add. If they are not, Wichita State is not.

Well stated. I think WSU is a better fit for Conference USA.

(12-26-2012 11:52 AM)Title Wrote:  Friend,

Butler is going for its 5th Sweet 16 in a decade this year (currently sitting #18 in the Top 25), you may want to pick some battles that are actually winnable. (I suppose St Louis, but even that's not close)

(12-26-2012 12:19 PM)courtjester Wrote:  Well stated. I think WSU is a better fit for Conference USA.

(12-26-2012 11:52 AM)Title Wrote:  Friend,

Butler is going for its 5th Sweet 16 in a decade this year (currently sitting #18 in the Top 25), you may want to pick some battles that are actually winnable. (I suppose St Louis, but even that's not close)

CUSA is a step down from where we currently are. At least based off of Conference RPI numbers the past decade or so. And with the loss of Memphis, it's going to be weaker. Although if Creighton were to leave, it'd be a lateral move in hopes that it becomes stronger than what's left of the MVC.

(12-26-2012 12:19 PM)courtjester Wrote:  Well stated. I think WSU is a better fit for Conference USA.

Let me get this straight. You feel Wichita State (a school that started as a private, New England style Christian college) is not a good fit with the Catholic 7 for non-basketball reasons.

And yet, at the same time you feel they fit in with a conference with a football-first attitude that is based out of the South? No offense, but you have amazing ability to work with cognitive dissonance.

(12-26-2012 12:12 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 11:52 AM)Title Wrote:  Friend,

Butler is going for its 5th Sweet 16 in a decade this year (currently sitting #18 in the Top 25), you may want to pick some battles that are actually winnable. (I suppose St Louis, but even that's not close)

I'm not trying to put down Butler at all. In fact, I think they should be a sure-fire add. My point is that they are a sure-fire add despite having a comparable long-term history (and yes, it is comparable, despite recent success).

They've achieved comparable levels of total success, but it took Butler about 15 years while it took WSU about 50 years. That comparison doesn't really help you.

Quote:Saint Louis is not the basketball school Wichita State is or was, but is a reasonable add otherwise.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to grow a program in a 3M metro than it is to grow Wichita, KS into St Louis, MO. SLU already has a presence on the local sports scene, Top 100 attendance, and NIT level success. More money and visibility and it's easy to see SLU as a tournament regular. Yes, WSU could say the same, but a tournament regular in St Louis is worth more to the conference than one in Wichita.

Quote:Again, I am talking from a basketball-first, market-second prospective with all other things a distant third.

By that limited criteria, yes, Wichita comes in to a 14-team C-7 along with Creighton, St Louis and Dayton. But even by your criteria, Wichita State isn't dramatically better than any of the other three.

Quote: Wichita State is entirely a reasonable add. If they are not, Wichita State is not.

Sure. But, to be a little bit Simon Cowell here, we're (I'm) not looking for reasonable adds. I'm looking for slam dunks.

I think he has an amazing ability for apathy. It's simply irrelevant. Wichita State is not going to be in this league. Discussing the merits of the program is as pertinent as doing so on a Pac-12 or America East board.

I'm talking about the public school thing, which also reunited you with Tulsa. Many conferences today are merging basketball with football schools. Why not CUSA? That makes more sense than a minor league public school merging with private schools on the eastern seaboard.

(12-26-2012 12:28 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 12:19 PM)courtjester Wrote:  Well stated. I think WSU is a better fit for Conference USA.

And yet, at the same time you feel they fit in with a conference with a football-first attitude that is based out of the South? No offense, but you have amazing ability to work with cognitive dissonance.

(12-26-2012 12:19 PM)courtjester Wrote:  Well stated. I think WSU is a better fit for Conference USA.

This is after you've been arguing that the C-7 is going to stay CAtholic and private, and now saying that Wichita State should join what's going to be a one-bid FBS league going forward, with no indication they want any non-football schools.

I'm not saying that you're trolling, but let's either stay consistent or explain why the different standards in the different cases.

EDIT: Withdrawn, I saw the bit about Tulsa--Tulsa and WSU have history, so OK. I thought Tulsa was a small private school, though?

Saint Louis is Catholic and private, two of the main considerations for the league. WSU is not. Period.

Secondly, if Marshall is the WSU coach of the future, why do Shocker fans crap themselves anytime an SEC or equal job opens up. Marshall is gone and if he wasn't before, he will be once WSU is being left behind in the conference wars.

(12-26-2012 12:12 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 11:52 AM)Title Wrote:  Friend,

Butler is going for its 5th Sweet 16 in a decade this year (currently sitting #18 in the Top 25), you may want to pick some battles that are actually winnable. (I suppose St Louis, but even that's not close)

I'm not trying to put down Butler at all. In fact, I think they should be a sure-fire add. My point is that they are a sure-fire add despite having a comparable long-term history (and yes, it is comparable, despite recent success). Saint Louis is not the basketball school Wichita State is or was, but is a reasonable add otherwise.

To courtjester

Quote:This just shows how deluded your thinking is...there is more that you can ask! You can ask that they be private and/or Catholic with a national reputation. People think Butler is a flash in the pan. Butler has a very strong basketball history and a history that wasn't stained with recruiting violations during their best seasons.

Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Wichita State has been clean for 3 decades, but the program you root for had far more serious problems LAST YEAR.

Again, I am talking from a basketball-first, market-second prospective with all other things a distant third. You simply cannot argue that Wichita has a worse history than all other candidates (Dayton, Saint Louis, Creighton, Butler, VCU, Gonzaga are all comparable or worse beyond the last decade), and you cannot say they have worse recent success than all other candidates. Heck, they have the best road record of any team in the country over the last few years!

More so, Wichita State has invested for the future as well as any of candidates have. They have their coach of their future, the monetary investment, and the facilities. They have been a good to great basketball team in the past, they are a good to great team now, and they will be good to great in the future. If this conference is primarily concerned with basketball quality, then Wichita State is entirely a reasonable add. If they are not, Wichita State is not.

I don't think any school should be dismissed from consideration. The MVC has a great history and Wichita State is a major part of it. I'm not a big fan of UNC fans (who have absolutely nothing to do with the new C7 except you helped destroy our old league) coming on here a ripping into any potential C7 school. The nice thing so far about this board (compared to the FB boards) is that we haven't had the continual daily trashing of any schools. It's also been good that (based on the members here) no school under consideration feels entitled to be part of the C7.

Some schools have the inside track (Xavier and Butler). Others will end up getting bonus points for more reasonable geography. It's also good if schools have long histories with current members, like Creighton's old school rivalry with Marquette, DePaul and even PC. The likelihood of Wichita State being invite probably isn't very high, but they shouldn't be trashed on this board.

What does a one-bid league have to do with a catholic / private school league. I just think if WSU wants to jump ship (MVC), CUSA makes more sense than the C7. Most of those schools are public. They stretch across the country a bit more which would expand WSU's recruiting and media reach, and gives C-USA a program that has done well recently. And, as I said, WSU can replace Creighton as a rival with Tulsa, their one time rival in the MVC. Once realignment settles in, perhaps MVC is a better league. But, if Creighton leaves, is the MVC better than the restructured CUSA?

(12-26-2012 12:34 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 12:19 PM)courtjester Wrote:  Well stated. I think WSU is a better fit for Conference USA.

This is after you've been arguing that the C-7 is going to stay CAtholic and private, and now saying that Wichita State should join what's going to be a one-bid FBS league going forward, with no indication they want any non-football schools.

I'm not saying that you're trolling, but let's either stay consistent or explain why the different standards in the different cases.

EDIT: Withdrawn, I saw the bit about Tulsa--Tulsa and WSU have history, so OK. I thought Tulsa was a small private school, though?

My apologies. I just think their history is being overblown and that they are not a candidate at this time for the league.

(12-26-2012 12:36 PM)billyjack Wrote:  I don't think any school should be dismissed from consideration. The MVC has a great history and Wichita State is a major part of it. I'm not a big fan of UNC fans (who have absolutely nothing to do with the new C7 except you helped destroy our old league) coming on here a ripping into any potential C7 school. The nice thing so far about this board (compared to the FB boards) is that we haven't had the continual daily trashing of any schools. It's also been good that (based on the members here) no school under consideration feels entitled to be part of the C7.

Some schools have the inside track (Xavier and Butler). Others will end up getting bonus points for more reasonable geography. It's also good if schools have long histories with current members, like Creighton's old school rivalry with Marquette, DePaul and even PC. The likelihood of Wichita State being invite probably isn't very high, but they shouldn't be trashed on this board.

I didn't do anything to destroy the Big East. Secondly, I attended Xavier and Marquette, so I believe I have a connection to the league and would love to see it do well. Yes, I root for UNC as well and live in Wichita. Rough life.

(12-26-2012 12:36 PM)billyjack Wrote:  The MVC has a great history and Wichita State is a major part of it. I'm not a big fan of UNC fans (who have absolutely nothing to do with the new C7 except you helped destroy our old league) coming on here a ripping into any potential C7 school.

(12-26-2012 12:41 PM)courtjester Wrote:  What does a one-bid league have to do with a catholic / private school league. I just think if WSU wants to jump ship (MVC), CUSA makes more sense than the C7. Most of those schools are public. They stretch across the country a bit more which would expand WSU's recruiting and media reach, and gives C-USA a program that has done well recently. And, as I said, WSU can replace Creighton as a rival with Tulsa, their one time rival in the MVC. Once realignment settles in, perhaps MVC is a better league. But, if Creighton leaves, is the MVC better than the restructured CUSA?

The problem is that you assume "public school" defines Wichita State. It doesn't. Wichita State has very little in common with public schools that primarily exist in college towns.

Instead, Wichita State is an urban school, with a focus on basketball. The central theme of their identity is that they represent the largest urban center in their state, which makes them more diverse and more connected (particularly to the aerospace industry) than other colleges in the area.

The lack of a football program is another part of the school's identity. They don't associate with football-first schools, and the school does not view realignment through a grid-iron lens. C-USA is a football-first conference, with basketball as a distant second, and that alone alienates Wichita State.

Wichita State will not go to a bad basketball conference where their program will rot and be given no recognition because football gets all the attention. They will not try and associate with more traditional public schools that exist in their own isolated worlds (college towns), as they simply do not share the same culture.

Again, the main point is that Wichita State's culture and identity have far more in common with the Catholic 7 than with a conference like C-USA (which is why the Shockers are currently in a league with a large number of private schools/small public schools instead of the C-USA). And the leaders in the Catholic 7 have continually stated that the new league is not going to based solely around private Catholic schools, but instead around basketball, markets, money, and stability.

The modern era of college basketball began in 1985 with the expansion to the present (modified) bracket of 64.

The unofficial "launch" of the NCAA Tournament as something more than any other college sports championship was in 1979. CBS's Seth Davis actually wrote a book (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/wr...index.html discussing the season and to the other point how he believes that year is what launched the modern era of college basketball.

So, lets just say, sometime between the late 70s and early 80s, college basketball moved from its "dead ball" era into something that is recognizable today.

Its no different than baseball. Things that happened in the distant past need to be examined through a different lens than things in the modern era.

Since 1981, Wichita State has 2 tournament wins in 5 tries. Creighton leaving might be the best thing that has happened to the program in the modern era of college basketball.