(12-26-2012 04:44 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 02:53 PM)Yoda Wrote:  You don't have a clue what the Project was about.

Benson and I had discussed for years the underlying concept for the project. When it finally came down, however, I was not in the loop

. . . and that's obviously why it failed.

Damn that Benson, how stoopid can you be not involving Yoda!

Yeah, that was my point. Sure.

Watching Yo Gabba Gabba with my niece. This is one wild kids show

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

I can agree with this.

(12-26-2012 04:44 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 02:53 PM)Yoda Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 01:43 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  The "Project" appears to have been a figment of USU's prez/AD's imagination. Here's the scoop as I recall it.

USU sensed an opportunity to scuttle the MWC since at the time it occurred, there appeared to be no way USU would get into the MWC. So during the few weeks between Utah announcing it was leaving for the Pac and BYU's formal announcement it was leaving too, USU apparently talked with former WAC commish Karl Benson and they cooked up the Project. The plan became public through SJ Mercury-News columnist Jon Wilner. Wilner's column said reliable sources had told him BYU was considering returning to the WAC, as were SDSU and UNLV. Boise, Fresno and Nevada hadn't been offered admission to the MWC yet so since there were already rumors that TCU was being courted by the BE, losing Utah, BYU, SDSU and UNLV as well as possibly TCU would have been a stake through the MWC's heart.

Scuttlebutt is that SJSU was supposed to convince SDSU to return to the WAC and Nevada was supposed to do the same with UNLV. But since the first domino was to get BYU to return and USU was unable to get that done, those second dominoes had no chance of falling. They particularly had no chance since the afternoon the Project was made public by Wilner, the MWC offered Boise, Fresno and Nevada, all of which immediately accepted admission. (The WAC had implemented a $5M exit penalty only a few weeks before and everybody had allegedly sworn allegiance to the WAC. IIRC, Boise had refused to approve of the exit penalty but Nevada and Fresno both did. However, once Nevada reneged on its promise, Fresno immediately did so too.) So if anything killed the WAC, it was that stupid plan concocted by USU and Benson. BTW, USU's prez immediately denied its existence but USU's AD had to admit to it a couple days later after so many roads led straight back to USU.

The extent to which USU botched both the Project and then the campaign to get itself admitted to the MWC half a year later speaks volumes about what a mess that school's administration is. So make no mistake. As the USF poster said, USU is going to join the MWC in July only because the MWC was desperate to add two schools and couldn't find anybody better than them and SJSU.

You don't have a clue what the Project was about.

Benson and I had discussed for years the underlying concept for the project. When it finally came down, however, I was not in the loop

. . . and that's obviously why it failed.

Damn that Benson, how stoopid can you be not involving Yoda!

The only thing Monty added to my summary that I'm not sure is accurate is why AFA didn't commit to the BE. Word from a guy who claimed to be a big time AFA booster is that their AD was all hot to trot on the idea and had allegedly contacted the Mizzou Valley Conference about moving AFA's Oly sports over there. The MVC didn't say straight out no way, simply asked whether the AD was speaking for the university. Of course, the AD hadn't yet consulted AFA's commandant, or whatever his title is, and once the head honcho saw how far many MVC schools were to the nearest major airport, he put the kibosh on the idea. Which is why AFA still hasn't committed to the BE to this day. There are a number of things I haven't liked over the years about being in the same conference with AFA (horrible Oly sports, chop blocking, etc.) but one thing I respect greatly is that at service academies, the term "student-athlete" isn't' a misnomer like it is at almost every other FBS school.

disagree absolutely: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/m...addd1.html

AFA AD shot his mouth off, was rebuffed by the MVC and the idea died there, Army back-hand-ily calling them out added the flourish and the excuse for the fact that no one of any substance wants AFA's other sports - maybe the summit will get desperate.

(12-26-2012 02:53 PM)Yoda Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 01:43 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  The "Project" appears to have been a figment of USU's prez/AD's imagination. Here's the scoop as I recall it.

USU sensed an opportunity to scuttle the MWC since at the time it occurred, there appeared to be no way USU would get into the MWC. So during the few weeks between Utah announcing it was leaving for the Pac and BYU's formal announcement it was leaving too, USU apparently talked with former WAC commish Karl Benson and they cooked up the Project. The plan became public through SJ Mercury-News columnist Jon Wilner. Wilner's column said reliable sources had told him BYU was considering returning to the WAC, as were SDSU and UNLV. Boise, Fresno and Nevada hadn't been offered admission to the MWC yet so since there were already rumors that TCU was being courted by the BE, losing Utah, BYU, SDSU and UNLV as well as possibly TCU would have been a stake through the MWC's heart.

Scuttlebutt is that SJSU was supposed to convince SDSU to return to the WAC and Nevada was supposed to do the same with UNLV. But since the first domino was to get BYU to return and USU was unable to get that done, those second dominoes had no chance of falling. They particularly had no chance since the afternoon the Project was made public by Wilner, the MWC offered Boise, Fresno and Nevada, all of which immediately accepted admission. (The WAC had implemented a $5M exit penalty only a few weeks before and everybody had allegedly sworn allegiance to the WAC. IIRC, Boise had refused to approve of the exit penalty but Nevada and Fresno both did. However, once Nevada reneged on its promise, Fresno immediately did so too.) So if anything killed the WAC, it was that stupid plan concocted by USU and Benson. BTW, USU's prez immediately denied its existence but USU's AD had to admit to it a couple days later after so many roads led straight back to USU.

The extent to which USU botched both the Project and then the campaign to get itself admitted to the MWC half a year later speaks volumes about what a mess that school's administration is. So make no mistake. As the USF poster said, USU is going to join the MWC in July only because the MWC was desperate to add two schools and couldn't find anybody better than them and SJSU.

You don't have a clue what the Project was about.

Benson and I had discussed for years the underlying concept for the project. When it finally came down, however, I was not in the loop and how it came down was different than we had always imagined it would be. BYU wanted to go indy in football as they were mortified that UU got into the PAC while they were left behind. In order to go Indy in football, they needed a home for their Olympic sports and the WAC was only too happy to accommodate them. At that point, anything to screw the MWC was of great interest.

But there was a problem -- if BYU leaves the MWC, then the MWC would likely respond by taking WAC schools and BYU didn't want to join the WAC only to have the whole thing fall apart.

So the agreement was made that the WAC members would sign an agreement to not leave the conference for five years (or, if they did, to pay a $5 mil exit penalty -- which none of them could afford to pay). With that in place, then BYU would come on board.

But the WAC saw an opportunity to do something more-- to take back Boise and San Diego State and to effectively crush the MWC. By signing that agreement, the MWC had no way to expand in the west because the WAC schools were off the table. Further, if BYU goes to the WAC for all but football, then that loss (on top of the loss of Utah, TCU, etc) and on top of the inability to add western schools, would probably be enough of a catalyst to get Boise to come back. And with Boise, would come SDSU. Essentially, the entire MWC would want to come to the WAC after that happened and the WAC could cherry pick the schools they wanted and send the rest to C-USA or the Sun Belt.

The strategy was sound but the execution sucked. The contract was horribly worded, in my view. It failed to anticipate any complications, was unclear on the trigger dates, etc. And worse, the conference failed to recognize how effective that strategy could have been and what the MWC's response to it would be. Meaning, it would have worked so thoroughly that it left the MWC only one course of action -- they had to pay the exit fees for Fresno and Nevada (it turned out) or the MWC would have ceased to exist as a legitimate FBS conference. Even if Fresno and Nevada couldn't afford to pay the exit fees -- which they couldn't -- the MWC could. And given the alternative, they were only to happy to.

So the contract wasn't sufficient to hold anyone and even if it had been, the exit fee was way too small -- it had to be high enough that the MWC couldn't afford to pay it. Maybe $20 mil each, not $5 mil.

So maybe two days after the deal was signed, the MWC invited Fresno and Nevada and offered to pay part of the exit fees and to front the rest and Fresno and Nevada said goodbye to the WAC.

The WAC was outraged, as they should have been. Fresno had taken a leading role in getting the Project approved and had then immediately back-stabbed those that they sold it to. Personally, I'm hard pressed to believe that we didn't know that the MWC would have no choice but to invite us and to pay the costs but who knows? Maybe they hadn't thought that far ahead.

So that is how BYU ended up in the WCC -- the WAC botched it up big time.

In any event, conference expansion generally and specifically this effort at it is why, in my opinion, the MWC survived while the WAC did not.

Yoda out...

In the attempt to return brevity to this thread that could rival "War and Peace" for length:

Yes.

(12-26-2012 05:45 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

I can agree with this.

Top 25 in the Last 25 Years or so:

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Michigan State
8. Arizona
9. UCLA
10. Arkansas
11. Michigan
12. Indiana
13. Louisville
14. Syracuse
15. UNLV
16. Georgetown
17. Maryland
18. Villanova
19. Ohio State
20. Oklahoma
21. Butler
22. Georgia Tech
23. Oklahoma State
24. Memphis
25. LSU

(12-26-2012 08:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 05:45 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

I can agree with this.

Top 25 in the Last 25 Years or so:

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Michigan State
8. Arizona
9. UCLA
10. Arkansas
11. Michigan
12. Indiana
13. Louisville
14. Syracuse
15. UNLV
16. Georgetown
17. Maryland
18. Villanova
19. Ohio State
20. Oklahoma
21. Butler
22. Georgia Tech
23. Oklahoma State
24. Memphis
25. LSU

No Cincinnati on that list is a joke. Somebody must dislike the Bearcats. Heck where is Gonzaga, Xavier, Purdue, and Marquette. Look at the entire body of work. Butler, LSU, Memphis, Georgia Tech, Villanova, UNLV, Arkansas, and Michigan are too high. Some of those programs had serious down periods much longer than Cincinnati ever had. Some had with the NCAA where records were vacated and the schools were put on probation. Heck, some had both.

(12-26-2012 07:26 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  In the attempt to return brevity to this thread that could rival "War and Peace" for length:

Nah. Just Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Gawd bless Yoda, though. He means well.

(12-26-2012 08:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 05:45 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

I can agree with this.

Top 25 in the Last 25 Years or so:

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Michigan State
8. Arizona
9. UCLA
10. Arkansas
11. Michigan
12. Indiana
13. Louisville
14. Syracuse
15. UNLV
16. Georgetown
17. Maryland
18. Villanova
19. Ohio State
20. Oklahoma
21. Butler
22. Georgia Tech
23. Oklahoma State
24. Memphis
25. LSU

Nova, LSU Gtech and no UC....lol sure

(12-26-2012 08:53 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 08:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 05:45 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

I can agree with this.

Top 25 in the Last 25 Years or so:

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Michigan State
8. Arizona
9. UCLA
10. Arkansas
11. Michigan
12. Indiana
13. Louisville
14. Syracuse
15. UNLV
16. Georgetown
17. Maryland
18. Villanova
19. Ohio State
20. Oklahoma
21. Butler
22. Georgia Tech
23. Oklahoma State
24. Memphis
25. LSU

No Cincinnati on that list is a joke. Somebody must dislike the Bearcats. Heck where is Gonzaga, Xavier, Purdue, and Marquette. Look at the entire body of work. Butler, LSU, Memphis, Georgia Tech, Villanova, UNLV, Arkansas, and Michigan are too high. Some of those programs had serious down periods much longer than Cincinnati ever had. Some had with the NCAA where records were vacated and the schools were put on probation. Heck, some had both.

Arkansas, Villanova, UNLV, and Michigan won national championships as well as getting to multiple Final Fours! You wouldn't trade all your Elite 8's for a NC? You have a point about Butler, Georgia Tech, and Memphis. I hesitated to put them on, but they didn't just get to the Final Four more than once; all 3 got to the championship game. I'm not going to defend LSU. They're my #25. You could easily find someone else to slide in there who was just as good.

Are you going to measure a program by what it did at its peak or the lack of down years? Most people would value the peak a lot more than a lot of years that are "very good" but ultimately disappointing.

Marquette? Purdue? I'm not sure what they've done over the past 25 years or so to deserve being on the list. I think that Temple with 5 Elite 8's would have a better argument. Gonzaga? Overhyped. Once to the Elite 8 and they were nobody in the first half of this quarter century, so they have the same problem as the ones you criticize for long down periods. Same is true for Xavier, a factor just in the past decade. Two Elite 8's. That's it.

Compare LSU to Purdue, both from power conferences. Purdue has 2 Elite 8's to show for their last 25 years.

Cincy has had 3 Elite 8's in the past 25 years, going to the Final Four after one of them. They've had a lot of very good regular seasons but haven't done a lot of damage against national competition in the tournament otherwise. Compare that to a team like Memphis with 5 Elite 8's and 2 Final Fours including a NC game where they fell just short of the title.

If we're going to talk Gonzaga, how can we pick them over Butler, another team out of a mid major conference? And it's not like Butler just had the 2 big championship game seasons. They've been to 10 tournaments in roughly the same span as Gonzaga and have gotten to the Sweet 16 4 times. The difference is that they've advanced farther than Gonzaga once they've gotten there.

Compare LSU to Purdue, both from power conferences. Purdue has 2 Elite 8's to show for their past 25 years. LSU has 3 since 1986 and moved onto the Final Four in 2 of them.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Of course I may be wrong. Happy New Year!

(12-26-2012 10:31 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 08:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 05:45 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

I can agree with this.

Top 25 in the Last 25 Years or so:

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Michigan State
8. Arizona
9. UCLA
10. Arkansas
11. Michigan
12. Indiana
13. Louisville
14. Syracuse
15. UNLV
16. Georgetown
17. Maryland
18. Villanova
19. Ohio State
20. Oklahoma
21. Butler
22. Georgia Tech
23. Oklahoma State
24. Memphis
25. LSU

Nova, LSU Gtech and no UC....lol sure

Yeah, I stretched the 25 years a little for Nova and Georgetown because the original post I was reacting to said "25 years or so." So, since 1984 (29 years):

Cincinnati ---- 16 tournaments, 4 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 1 FF, 0 NC
Villanova ----- 17 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 1 NC
Georgetown -- 20 tournaments, 9 Sweet 16's, 6 Elite 8's, 3 FF, 1 NC
Georgia Tech - 15 tournaments, 6 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 0 NC

Where does Cincinnati have the edge over any of the 3 teams you're complaining about?

Let me throw out someone who didn't make my list:

Temple ------- 22 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 5 Elite 8's, 0 FF, 0 NC

I had a very tough time leaving Temple off the list. Except for their 1 Final four, where does Cincinnati have any advantage over Temple? If you want to talk about body of work, Temple had 22 seasons in 29 years that were good enough to get them into the tournament and were ranked #1 for a good part of the year in at least one of those seasons. I'd say that's a pretty good body of work.

(12-26-2012 10:48 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:31 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 08:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 05:45 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

I can agree with this.

Top 25 in the Last 25 Years or so:

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Michigan State
8. Arizona
9. UCLA
10. Arkansas
11. Michigan
12. Indiana
13. Louisville
14. Syracuse
15. UNLV
16. Georgetown
17. Maryland
18. Villanova
19. Ohio State
20. Oklahoma
21. Butler
22. Georgia Tech
23. Oklahoma State
24. Memphis
25. LSU

Nova, LSU Gtech and no UC....lol sure

Yeah, I stretched the 25 years a little for Nova and Georgetown because the original post I was reacting to said "25 years or so." So, since 1984 (29 years):

Cincinnati ---- 16 tournaments, 4 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 1 FF, 0 NC
Villanova ----- 17 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 1 NC
Georgetown -- 20 tournaments, 9 Sweet 16's, 6 Elite 8's, 3 FF, 1 NC
Georgia Tech - 15 tournaments, 6 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 0 NC

Where does Cincinnati have the edge over any of the 3 teams you're complaining about?

Let me throw out someone who didn't make my list:

Temple ------- 22 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 5 Elite 8's, 0 FF, 0 NC

I had a very tough time leaving Temple off the list. Except for their 1 Final four, where does Cincinnati have any advantage over Temple? If you want to talk about body of work, Temple had 22 seasons in 29 years that were good enough to get them into the tournament and were ranked #1 for a good part of the year in at least one of those seasons. I'd say that's a pretty good body of work.

29 years is different from 25. If you start at the 1990's Cincinnati belongs in the top 25 easy. What schools had more conference championship than Cincinnati during that period. Cincinnati during its Great Midwest and C-USA days competed with Marquette, Memphis, Louisville (C-USA only), and out classed them all from 1992-2002. Check out the number of top 25 and 15 finishes for Cincinnati during that period too.

I would have put Temple on the list too because I value consistency.

I think Cinci and Temple would have to be on that list. But then again, I'm biased on that matter. :)

(12-26-2012 04:54 PM)Yoda Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 04:44 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 02:53 PM)Yoda Wrote:  You don't have a clue what the Project was about.

Benson and I had discussed for years the underlying concept for the project. When it finally came down, however, I was not in the loop

. . . and that's obviously why it failed.

Damn that Benson, how stoopid can you be not involving Yoda!

Yeah, that was my point. Sure.

Wait, Yoda, in are you still?

(12-26-2012 11:30 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:48 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:31 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 08:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 05:45 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  I can agree with this.

Top 25 in the Last 25 Years or so:

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Michigan State
8. Arizona
9. UCLA
10. Arkansas
11. Michigan
12. Indiana
13. Louisville
14. Syracuse
15. UNLV
16. Georgetown
17. Maryland
18. Villanova
19. Ohio State
20. Oklahoma
21. Butler
22. Georgia Tech
23. Oklahoma State
24. Memphis
25. LSU

Nova, LSU Gtech and no UC....lol sure

Yeah, I stretched the 25 years a little for Nova and Georgetown because the original post I was reacting to said "25 years or so." So, since 1984 (29 years):

Cincinnati ---- 16 tournaments, 4 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 1 FF, 0 NC
Villanova ----- 17 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 1 NC
Georgetown -- 20 tournaments, 9 Sweet 16's, 6 Elite 8's, 3 FF, 1 NC
Georgia Tech - 15 tournaments, 6 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 0 NC

Where does Cincinnati have the edge over any of the 3 teams you're complaining about?

Let me throw out someone who didn't make my list:

Temple ------- 22 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 5 Elite 8's, 0 FF, 0 NC

I had a very tough time leaving Temple off the list. Except for their 1 Final four, where does Cincinnati have any advantage over Temple? If you want to talk about body of work, Temple had 22 seasons in 29 years that were good enough to get them into the tournament and were ranked #1 for a good part of the year in at least one of those seasons. I'd say that's a pretty good body of work.

29 years is different from 25. If you start at the 1990's Cincinnati belongs in the top 25 easy. What schools had more conference championship than Cincinnati during that period. Cincinnati during its Great Midwest and C-USA days competed with Marquette, Memphis, Louisville (C-USA only), and out classed them all from 1992-2002. Check out the number of top 25 and 15 finishes for Cincinnati during that period too.

I would have put Temple on the list too because I value consistency.

29 years is different but the original poster said "25 years . . . or so. Starting in the 1990's is also different than 25 years. Even if you want to shorten the time period a few years, who do you want to kick out in favor of Cincy?

You value consistency but I value excellence. When I ran out of it in the 25 year period, I looked at some teams who had success in the 25 year period but who achieved excellence if I stretched it back just a little further. "Or so" seemed to allow for that.

Conference championships prove nothing on a national level. They only prove what you did on a regional level with a selected group of opponents. Conference championships get you into the tournament, but what you do there over many years is the test of what you can do against national competition in big game situations. Cincinnati's record is good but not exceptional.

If you want to post top 15 or top 25 finishes, feel free to do so and the we can discuss it. But asking the question about who had more such finishes is not information. It's just a question and I have no idea what the answer is.

However, I have posted a lot of information about their ability to make the tournament based on their regular season record and what they did in the tournament once they got there. Look at what I posted and show me where their record is better than anyone on my list. If you do, I'll be happy to concede the point.

Cincinnati may have outclassed GMC and CUSA competition, but they weren't playing in the ACC like Georgia Tech where the competition was even tougher. They weren't playing in the Big East like Georgetown and Villanova where the competition was tougher as well. And when Cincy got to the Big East, they didn't outclassed anyone.

Cincy's dominance in the GMC and in CUSA got them into the NCAA tournament, but what did they do when they got there? A few big years, but really, they did not establish a record better than the teams on my list. Every year that is the ultimate test.

(12-26-2012 11:36 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  I think Cinci and Temple would have to be on that list. But then again, I'm biased on that matter. :)

I tried to put Temple on the list and I couldn't find a way to do it. I really like their record, so I'm open to suggestion. Who do you think they should replace?

Let's look at them since 1986 compared to my #25:

Temple - 20 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 5 Elite 8's, 0 FF, 0 NC
LSU ----- 13 tournaments, 4 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 0 NC

Temple has a big edge on tournament bids, which says more good regular seasons. But with all of those additional opportunities, they made only one more Sweet 16 and 2 more Elite 8's, always failing to go to the Final Four.

Temple was one & done 8 times, which seemed to me to take a lot of the luster off their advantage of 7 more tournament appearances. Did they just get into the tournament because they played in a weaker league than LSU was in? With 13 appearances, it's not like LSU had only a few isolated big years in the tournament when they got hot and were second rate the rest of the time. They obviously had a lot of good years.

So, ultimately the question for me came down to Temple's edge in Sweet 16's and Elite 8's vs LSU's edge in Final Fours. While the tournament championship is the ultimate prize, everyone dreams of getting to the Final Four. I think that most schools would trade off a couple of Elite 8's for a couple of Final Fours. So, I went with LSU.

This was my toughest call in compiling the list. I really wanted to go with Temple. I love their tradition and I'm an eastern basketball guy, but I felt that LSU had the better highs, the bigger accomplishments.

If you want to replace LSU with Temple, you won't really get an argument from me. There's very little difference between what the 2 of them have done over the past 25 years or so. And Temple did have a great season in 1988 when they ended the regular season ranked #1 in the country and had both the national coach of the year and the national player of the year.

I'm confused is yoda in or out?

(12-27-2012 12:28 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 11:36 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  I think Cinci and Temple would have to be on that list. But then again, I'm biased on that matter. :)

I tried to put Temple on the list and I couldn't find a way to do it. I really like their record, so I'm open to suggestion. Who do you think they should replace?

Let's look at them since 1986 compared to my #25:

Temple - 20 tournaments, 5 Sweet 16's, 5 Elite 8's, 0 FF, 0 NC
LSU ----- 13 tournaments, 4 Sweet 16's, 3 Elite 8's, 2 FF, 0 NC

Temple has a big edge on tournament bids, which says more good regular seasons. But with all of those additional opportunities, they made only one more Sweet 16 and 2 more Elite 8's, always failing to go to the Final Four.

Temple was one & done 8 times, which seemed to me to take a lot of the luster off their advantage of 7 more tournament appearances. Did they just get into the tournament because they played in a weaker league than LSU did? With 13 appearances, it's not like LSU had only a few isolated big years in the tournament when they got hot and were second rate the rest of the time. They obviously had a lot of good years.

So, ultimately the question for me came down to Temple's edge in Sweet 16's and Elite 8's vs LSU's edge in Final Fours. While the tournament championship is the ultimate prize, everyone dreams of getting to the Final Four. I think that most schools would trade off a couple of Elite 8's for a couple of final fours. So, I went with LSU.

This was my toughest call in compiling the list. I really wanted to go with Temple. I love their tradition and I'm an eastern basketball guy, but I felt that LSU had the better highs, the bigger accomplishments.

If you want to replace LSU with Temple, you won't really get an argument from me. There's very little difference between what the 2 of them have done over the past 25 years or so.

I think you made a good argument. I'm not going to bash you over the head or anything. :)

I think Temple has a long basketball tradition and we've accomplished a lot despite belonging to a much smaller conference and having a very limited sports budget. Our record speaks for itself. Obviously, we all were hoping that the Big East would help Temple increase its national exposure and recruiting capabilities so we could get into the Sweet 16, Elite 8, and Final 4 more frequently. Fingers crossed that happens...

(12-27-2012 12:38 AM)TigerSeth Wrote:  I'm confused is yoda in or out?

I think his woman has the same question.

(12-27-2012 09:42 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(12-27-2012 12:38 AM)TigerSeth Wrote:  I'm confused is yoda in or out?

I think his woman has the same question.