Guys, waiting 3-5 years before adding more teams and then renegotiating will doom us to be the ACC of Fox Sports. All that will do is give us a small boost while they add more years to the deal which means we'll be in the same deal for 15 or more years. no, No, NO! Thats not even close to the best way to handle the situation. Get your expansion done BEFORE you sign a TV deal, then the deal ends faster and then you can fully renegotiate for a much higher rate than just a small bump. Opening it up leaves you at the mercy of the TV partner, when the contract ends you have much more leverage.

(01-22-2013 05:50 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Guys, waiting 3-5 years before adding more teams and then renegotiating will doom us to be the ACC of Fox Sports. All that will do is give us a small boost while they add more years to the deal which means we'll be in the same deal for 15 or more years. no, No, NO! Thats not even close to the best way to handle the situation. Get your expansion done BEFORE you sign a TV deal, then the deal ends faster and then you can fully renegotiate for a much higher rate than just a small bump. Opening it up leaves you at the mercy of the TV partner, when the contract ends you have much more leverage.

I agree. The FOX proposal is for 12 schools. The C7 cannot wait to go to 12. It must be at 12 for 2014-15. There are more than enough qualified candidates. Do the comparison and pick your 5. The only real question is whether FOX would improve its proposal if the C7 went to 13 or 14 now.

(01-22-2013 01:37 AM)Xbus Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 10:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

School A:
Losses: UMass, Penn State, Boston College, Brown
Wins: Miss St, Rhode Island

School B:
Losses: Temple, La Salle, Alabama, Columbia
Wins: St Joes, Purdue, Vanderbuilt

School C
Loses: Washington, LSU
Wins: Rhode Island, Wake Forest

School D:
Loses: Loyola, Gardner Webb, Wichita State, Western Kentucky
Wins: Auburn, Az State

School E:
Loses: Santa Clara, Washington, Kansas
Wins: Texas A&M, Loyola Marymount, New Mexico

School F:
Loses: Wichita State, Missouri, Duke
Wins: Memphis, ODU, Alabama

School G:
Loses: Illinois State, USC, Colorado, Weber State
Wins: Boston College, Auburn, Alabama

School H:
Wins: Tulsa, Cal, Nebraska, St Joes, Wisconsin, Az State
Loses: Boise State

School I:
Wins: VCU, DePaul, Tulsa, Air Force
Loses: Tulsa

Dude, using only this year is ridiculous to decide who you want to form a 20+ conference relationship with. That's all I'm saying. I promise.

Dude it doesn't matter if I use this year or last year. The fact of the matter is the bottom of the Big East this year, last year and likely next year are C-7 teams. The league has a good chance to be a 2-3 bid league unless we invite a clear set of strong teams now. That means we must invite Butler, VCU, Xavier and Creighton and along with Creighton, Wichita State.

If the league wants to position itself as the best the reality is the C-7 need help now and we can't risk Butler, VCU, and/or Xavier having a down year. We have to go to 12 and it has to be the best teams in the central or eastern time zone who are available.

If the C-7 were the top and the middle of the league predominately I would be talking differently. But they aren't and we must face reality and address it. And don't give me the league excuse because their OOC results aren't currently much better.

(01-22-2013 09:26 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 01:37 AM)Xbus Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 10:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

School A:
Losses: UMass, Penn State, Boston College, Brown
Wins: Miss St, Rhode Island

School B:
Losses: Temple, La Salle, Alabama, Columbia
Wins: St Joes, Purdue, Vanderbuilt

School C
Loses: Washington, LSU
Wins: Rhode Island, Wake Forest

School D:
Loses: Loyola, Gardner Webb, Wichita State, Western Kentucky
Wins: Auburn, Az State

School E:
Loses: Santa Clara, Washington, Kansas
Wins: Texas A&M, Loyola Marymount, New Mexico

School F:
Loses: Wichita State, Missouri, Duke
Wins: Memphis, ODU, Alabama

School G:
Loses: Illinois State, USC, Colorado, Weber State
Wins: Boston College, Auburn, Alabama

School H:
Wins: Tulsa, Cal, Nebraska, St Joes, Wisconsin, Az State
Loses: Boise State

School I:
Wins: VCU, DePaul, Tulsa, Air Force
Loses: Tulsa

Dude, using only this year is ridiculous to decide who you want to form a 20+ conference relationship with. That's all I'm saying. I promise.

Dude it doesn't matter if I use this year or last year. The fact of the matter is the bottom of the Big East this year, last year and likely next year are C-7 teams. The league has a good chance to be a 2-3 bid league unless we invite a clear set of strong teams now. That means we must invite Butler, VCU, Xavier and Creighton and along with Creighton, Wichita State.

If the league wants to position itself as the best the reality is the C-7 need help now and we can't risk Butler, VCU, and/or Xavier having a down year. We have to go to 12 and it has to be the best teams in the central or eastern time zone who are available.

If the C-7 were the top and the middle of the league predominately I would be talking differently. But they aren't and we must face reality and address it. And don't give me the league excuse because their OOC results aren't currently much better.

The reality is we're building for the long haul. Taking teams who are good right now isn't the best way to build that. You take who you want to be in business with for the next 30+ years.

(01-21-2013 10:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The point... [there are] existing C-7 teams who don't have impressive resumes.
...School A, B, and D would not finish in the top 3 of the A-10 or MVC.

Uh, School A hired the coach of this team, who freakin rolled the Missouri Valley in his only year at Drake, then came to PC, stunk up the joint, packed us into a Yugo, and drove us off the Newport Bridge.

FWIW, on the Xavier board I frequent, there has been a lot of discussion today, after posters have been searching around other various forums.

http://www.xavierhoops.com/showthread.ph...oon/page73

On another board, the ADs of the schools want 10 teams in the new league, while FOX wants 12. I think FOX will win that fight. Also, on the next page (taken from a Providence board), "In any event, I can say for sure 2 of the top A10 schools have made it very clear they want in with or without equal shares. $2M + is a bit more than $400K at least in the math classes I took."

I am guessing those 2 schools are X and Butler.

(01-22-2013 11:46 AM)bmorex Wrote:  FWIW, on the Xavier board I frequent, there has been a lot of discussion today, after posters have been searching around other various forums.

http://www.xavierhoops.com/showthread.ph...oon/page73

On another board, the ADs of the schools want 10 teams in the new league, while FOX wants 12. I think FOX will win that fight. Also, on the next page (taken from a Providence board), "In any event, I can say for sure 2 of the top A10 schools have made it very clear they want in with or without equal shares. $2M + is a bit more than $400K at least in the math classes I took."

I am guessing those 2 schools are X and Butler.

Could also be Dayton and Saint Louis, who would have much bigger worries about being left out.

(01-22-2013 09:52 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:26 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 01:37 AM)Xbus Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 10:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

School A:
Losses: UMass, Penn State, Boston College, Brown
Wins: Miss St, Rhode Island

School B:
Losses: Temple, La Salle, Alabama, Columbia
Wins: St Joes, Purdue, Vanderbuilt

School C
Loses: Washington, LSU
Wins: Rhode Island, Wake Forest

School D:
Loses: Loyola, Gardner Webb, Wichita State, Western Kentucky
Wins: Auburn, Az State

School E:
Loses: Santa Clara, Washington, Kansas
Wins: Texas A&M, Loyola Marymount, New Mexico

School F:
Loses: Wichita State, Missouri, Duke
Wins: Memphis, ODU, Alabama

School G:
Loses: Illinois State, USC, Colorado, Weber State
Wins: Boston College, Auburn, Alabama

School H:
Wins: Tulsa, Cal, Nebraska, St Joes, Wisconsin, Az State
Loses: Boise State

School I:
Wins: VCU, DePaul, Tulsa, Air Force
Loses: Tulsa

Dude, using only this year is ridiculous to decide who you want to form a 20+ conference relationship with. That's all I'm saying. I promise.

Dude it doesn't matter if I use this year or last year. The fact of the matter is the bottom of the Big East this year, last year and likely next year are C-7 teams. The league has a good chance to be a 2-3 bid league unless we invite a clear set of strong teams now. That means we must invite Butler, VCU, Xavier and Creighton and along with Creighton, Wichita State.

If the league wants to position itself as the best the reality is the C-7 need help now and we can't risk Butler, VCU, and/or Xavier having a down year. We have to go to 12 and it has to be the best teams in the central or eastern time zone who are available.

If the C-7 were the top and the middle of the league predominately I would be talking differently. But they aren't and we must face reality and address it. And don't give me the league excuse because their OOC results aren't currently much better.

The reality is we're building for the long haul. Taking teams who are good right now isn't the best way to build that. You take who you want to be in business with for the next 30+ years.

The long haul won't matter if the league creates an impression in year 1 and 2 that it is nothing more than an eastern WCC.

(01-22-2013 01:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:52 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:26 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 01:37 AM)Xbus Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 10:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

School A:
Losses: UMass, Penn State, Boston College, Brown
Wins: Miss St, Rhode Island

School B:
Losses: Temple, La Salle, Alabama, Columbia
Wins: St Joes, Purdue, Vanderbuilt

School C
Loses: Washington, LSU
Wins: Rhode Island, Wake Forest

School D:
Loses: Loyola, Gardner Webb, Wichita State, Western Kentucky
Wins: Auburn, Az State

School E:
Loses: Santa Clara, Washington, Kansas
Wins: Texas A&M, Loyola Marymount, New Mexico

School F:
Loses: Wichita State, Missouri, Duke
Wins: Memphis, ODU, Alabama

School G:
Loses: Illinois State, USC, Colorado, Weber State
Wins: Boston College, Auburn, Alabama

School H:
Wins: Tulsa, Cal, Nebraska, St Joes, Wisconsin, Az State
Loses: Boise State

School I:
Wins: VCU, DePaul, Tulsa, Air Force
Loses: Tulsa

Dude, using only this year is ridiculous to decide who you want to form a 20+ conference relationship with. That's all I'm saying. I promise.

Dude it doesn't matter if I use this year or last year. The fact of the matter is the bottom of the Big East this year, last year and likely next year are C-7 teams. The league has a good chance to be a 2-3 bid league unless we invite a clear set of strong teams now. That means we must invite Butler, VCU, Xavier and Creighton and along with Creighton, Wichita State.

If the league wants to position itself as the best the reality is the C-7 need help now and we can't risk Butler, VCU, and/or Xavier having a down year. We have to go to 12 and it has to be the best teams in the central or eastern time zone who are available.

If the C-7 were the top and the middle of the league predominately I would be talking differently. But they aren't and we must face reality and address it. And don't give me the league excuse because their OOC results aren't currently much better.

The reality is we're building for the long haul. Taking teams who are good right now isn't the best way to build that. You take who you want to be in business with for the next 30+ years.

The long haul won't matter if the league creates an impression in year 1 and 2 that it is nothing more than an eastern WCC.

Why are all the butler fans on here so bleak? Do you honestly think a league with GTown, Nova, Marquette, Butler and Xavier will be written off so quickly? If you've noticed the press for this new league has been very positive. No way is it written off as a 1 bid league.

Having Dayton and SLU isn't going to make us into a mid major. If the top teams fall off it won't matter if we have 10 or 12 teams. We'll be in the sane spot no matter what. At 12 we make more money, that is a fact.

(01-22-2013 11:25 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 10:58 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The point... [there are] existing C-7 teams who don't have impressive resumes.
...School A, B, and D would not finish in the top 3 of the A-10 or MVC.

Uh, School A hired the coach of this team, who freakin rolled the Missouri Valley in his only year at Drake, then came to PC, stunk up the joint, packed us into a Yugo, and drove us off the Newport Bridge.

I am not dissing Providence. They deserve credit for establishing the Big East and building the brand where it is today. The same goes for Villanova and DePaul.

However, all 3 programs are down right now and aren't close to being an at large caliber team unless some dramatic recruits are coming in next year. Butler is a great program but we graduate Clark and Smith and those are big shoes to fill. Xavier is down this year and needs a very strong run to qualify as an at-large team.

We need to add 5 quality teams so that we can be sure 2-3 of them are at-large caliber to be paired with hopefully 2-3 existing teams. Given only Marquette would currently be considered a lock this year we are a ways away.

(01-22-2013 01:33 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Why are all the butler fans on here so bleak? Do you honestly think a league with GTown, Nova, Marquette, Butler and Xavier will be written off so quickly? If you've noticed the press for this new league has been very positive. No way is it written off as a 1 bid league.

Having Dayton and SLU isn't going to make us into a mid major. If the top teams fall off it won't matter if we have 10 or 12 teams. We'll be in the sane spot no matter what. At 12 we make more money, that is a fact.

All the Butler fans aren't bleak... If we weren't excited about the new league we wouldn't be here and no one ever said it would be a one bid league.

But a 2-3 bid league is WCC level and not what this league could be if it prioritizes fit as defined a passion and funding for sports, current excellance in basketball. As opposed to fit being small private academically elite.

This league could easily be a 4-6 bid league mentioned in the same breath with the BCS leagues if done right. That is what at least I am hoping for.

(01-22-2013 02:48 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 01:33 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Why are all the butler fans on here so bleak? Do you honestly think a league with GTown, Nova, Marquette, Butler and Xavier will be written off so quickly? If you've noticed the press for this new league has been very positive. No way is it written off as a 1 bid league.

Having Dayton and SLU isn't going to make us into a mid major. If the top teams fall off it won't matter if we have 10 or 12 teams. We'll be in the sane spot no matter what. At 12 we make more money, that is a fact.

All the Butler fans aren't bleak... If we weren't excited about the new league we wouldn't be here and no one ever said it would be a one bid league.

But a 2-3 bid league is WCC level and not what this league could be if it prioritizes fit as defined a passion and funding for sports, current excellance in basketball. As opposed to fit being small private academically elite.

I don't think most of us on the board are challenging Wichita State because of academics or because of public vs private. We're challenging Wichita State's on-court resume. Say whatever you want about Providence, in the last 10 year Wichita State was earned only 1 more tournament bid than PRovidence and won only 2 more NCAA tournament games than PRovidence. It wasn't Wichita State that was just in the Final Four, that was Butler and VCU. It wasn't Wichita STate in the Sweet 16 4 times in 5 years, that was Xavier.

The record indicates that Wichita STate is a graduating player or two from another 5- to 10- year NCAA drought if they stay in the MVC competing against Drake and Illinois State. There's no real indication that WSU would be able to step up and compete at a higher level.

(01-22-2013 01:33 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 01:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The long haul won't matter if the league creates an impression in year 1 and 2 that it is nothing more than an eastern WCC.

Why are all the butler fans on here so bleak? Do you honestly think a league with GTown, Nova, Marquette, Butler and Xavier will be written off so quickly? If you've noticed the press for this new league has been very positive. No way is it written off as a 1 bid league.

Having Dayton and SLU isn't going to make us into a mid major. If the top teams fall off it won't matter if we have 10 or 12 teams. We'll be in the sane spot no matter what. At 12 we make more money, that is a fact.

The key to success will be resources and exposure. Resources means quality facilities and quality coaches that don't leave every time the school has a winning season. Exposure means perception that the league is big time, which feeds recruiting.

With respect to resources, all of the C7 schools have current athletic budgets in excess of $20 million/year, with some over $30 million/year without football. These are substantial budgets, comparable with BCS AQ schools excluding football. I believe all of the expansion candidates have budgets over $15 million, with some over $20 million.

All of the C7 schools average over 7,000 per game in attendance. As a group, they averages around 9,500 per game, only 300-400 less than the ACC. Add Creighton, Dayton, Xavier, SLU and Butler, and average attendance jumps to almost 10,000 (despite Butler only drawing 6,600). For comparison, the WCC averaged 4,300 last year. Bottom line, each of these schools has tremendous fan support, comparable to the FBS AQ schools.

The existing level of resources converts into highly competitive basketball. Looking at the Sagarin Ratings through today, I calculate the average rating of the C7 to be 79.35, which would put it above the SEC despite being a "down year" for the group as a whole. Add Creighton, Dayton, Xavier, SLU and Butler, and the average jumps to 80.88, comparable to the ACC, B12 and P12. For comparison, the WCC is at 76, respectably in 10th place. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sa...kc1213.htm

The FOX TV proposal would pay $3.5/million school, a signficant increase from the current Big East's $1.5 million/school. For comparison, Notre Dame is going to be paid $3.5-4/million from the ACC contract. The TV money for basketball is therefore comparable to the FBS AQ schools.

Unlike NBC and CBS, FOX has a great record of cross promoting its properties. You can bet FOX will promote the heck out of FS1 on FOX, FX, its RSNs, Fox Sports Radio, etc. With MLB, P12 and B12 football, NASCAR, and other quality properties, FS1 will not become an afterthought like CBSSN and NBCSN have become.

Bottom line, the coaches in this league, and there are a number of great ones, will have no problem recruiting to this league, and no problem generating 4-6 NCAA bids per year. This league blows away the WCC in terms of top to bottom quality, both in on court success and fan support.

(01-22-2013 03:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think most of us on the board are challenging Wichita State because of academics or because of public vs private. We're challenging Wichita State's on-court resume. Say whatever you want about Providence, in the last 10 year Wichita State was earned only 1 more tournament bid than PRovidence and won only 2 more NCAA tournament games than PRovidence. It wasn't Wichita State that was just in the Final Four, that was Butler and VCU. It wasn't Wichita STate in the Sweet 16 4 times in 5 years, that was Xavier.

The record indicates that Wichita STate is a graduating player or two from another 5- to 10- year NCAA drought if they stay in the MVC competing against Drake and Illinois State. There's no real indication that WSU would be able to step up and compete at a higher level.

This isn't just about Wichita State and I am less concerned about tourney wins than who can garner an at-large bid and their OOC profile.

In the last three years WSU has won the NIT, been seeded 5th and is in line for a high seed again. That is a better resume over the past three years than most schools in the conference. If they hadn't run into VCU last year who know where they would have gone.

And before you diss the NIT let my ask why Providence or someone else from the big east didn't win it? I am sure someone from your league was in it.

To maintain the rep you built we need teams that are strong today and WSU and VCU fit the bill but not the profile.

(01-22-2013 03:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 03:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think most of us on the board are challenging Wichita State because of academics or because of public vs private. We're challenging Wichita State's on-court resume. Say whatever you want about Providence, in the last 10 year Wichita State was earned only 1 more tournament bid than PRovidence and won only 2 more NCAA tournament games than PRovidence. It wasn't Wichita State that was just in the Final Four, that was Butler and VCU. It wasn't Wichita STate in the Sweet 16 4 times in 5 years, that was Xavier.

The record indicates that Wichita STate is a graduating player or two from another 5- to 10- year NCAA drought if they stay in the MVC competing against Drake and Illinois State. There's no real indication that WSU would be able to step up and compete at a higher level.

This isn't just about Wichita State and I am less concerned about tourney wins than who can garner an at-large bid and their OOC profile.

In the last three years WSU has won the NIT, been seeded 5th and is in line for a high seed again. That is a better resume over the past three years than most schools in the conference. If they hadn't run into VCU last year who know where they would have gone.

And before you diss the NIT let my ask why Providence or someone else from the big east didn't win it? I am sure someone from your league was in it.

To maintain the rep you built we need teams that are strong today and WSU and VCU fit the bill but not the profile.

You don't build a league that is supposed to stand for decades with who is good right now.

(01-22-2013 03:35 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 03:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 03:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think most of us on the board are challenging Wichita State because of academics or because of public vs private. We're challenging Wichita State's on-court resume. Say whatever you want about Providence, in the last 10 year Wichita State was earned only 1 more tournament bid than PRovidence and won only 2 more NCAA tournament games than PRovidence. It wasn't Wichita State that was just in the Final Four, that was Butler and VCU. It wasn't Wichita STate in the Sweet 16 4 times in 5 years, that was Xavier.

The record indicates that Wichita STate is a graduating player or two from another 5- to 10- year NCAA drought if they stay in the MVC competing against Drake and Illinois State. There's no real indication that WSU would be able to step up and compete at a higher level.

This isn't just about Wichita State and I am less concerned about tourney wins than who can garner an at-large bid and their OOC profile.

In the last three years WSU has won the NIT, been seeded 5th and is in line for a high seed again. That is a better resume over the past three years than most schools in the conference. If they hadn't run into VCU last year who know where they would have gone.

And before you diss the NIT let my ask why Providence or someone else from the big east didn't win it? I am sure someone from your league was in it.

To maintain the rep you built we need teams that are strong today and WSU and VCU fit the bill but not the profile.

You don't build a league that is supposed to stand for decades with who is good right now.

This!!!

(01-22-2013 03:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  That is a better resume over the past three years

This is the whole root of the problem. We're looking at a longer time horizon than three years. Because three years from now, you {Not you, Wichita State, sorry} could easily be where you were three years ago. It's pretty likely in fact. Predicting is always uncertain, but we're looking at where you were five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago. And over those timeframes, Dayton keeps looking at least as good as WSU, and usually better.

I don't put a ton of emphasis on this stat, but I have it. The C-7 schools all have all-time winning percentages at or above 60% except for Seton Hall at 58%. VCU, Butler, Creighton and Xavier all have all time winning percentages of 58-60%. Wichita State and Saint Louis are at 54%.

Dayton is at 59%. You can make a case that WSU is a stronger program than Saint Louis. But any way you make that case, Dayton has a stronger case for the No. 12 spot.

The problems with the league are thus:

1. A minimum or 4 programs that are currently not very strong from the original Catholic 7
2. A large concentration of relatively good teams, but no standout "great" teams (championship contenders)

If you have a 2-4 bid league, you are the A10 2.0, not the Big East 2.0. Additionally, you have to consider that the team will need more good teams to balance out the lack of a superstar. The skepticism from some fans comes from that.

Consider the balance of the league if you add Xavier, Butler, and Dayton.

You have a few likely tournament teams: Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier, and Butler.
You have a one to two teams that are probably NIT level: Villanova, St. Johns
And a bunch of teams that won't make the post-season: Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, Dayton

How strong a league is that? Arguably weaker than the A-10 now minus the truly awful teams at the bottom of that conference. Definitely not competitive with the power conferences.

Now consider the balance in the opposite scenario. Add Xavier, Butler, Creighton, VCU, Saint Louis, Gonzaga, and Wichita State.

Tournament teams: Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier, Butler, Creighton, VCU, Gonzaga, Wichita State
NIT: Saint Louis, Villanova, St. John's
No postseason: DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall

So 9 teams that could be tournament quality out of 16. 3 more solid teams. 3 bottom feeders. That league is strong enough to make any doubts go away about the strength of the league. I'm not saying that those teams should all join; I'm using them as an example of the opposite extreme. There is a large difference between half of the league being below NIT quality and over half being tournament quality. The perception of one league is that of a high quality mid-major conference, and the other an elite basketball-only conference.

(01-22-2013 03:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 03:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  That is a better resume over the past three years

This is the whole root of the problem. We're looking at a longer time horizon than three years. Because three years from now, you {Not you, Wichita State, sorry} could easily be where you were three years ago. It's pretty likely in fact. Predicting is always uncertain, but we're looking at where you were five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago. And over those timeframes, Dayton keeps looking at least as good as WSU, and usually better.

I don't put a ton of emphasis on this stat, but I have it. The C-7 schools all have all-time winning percentages at or above 60% except for Seton Hall at 58%. VCU, Butler, Creighton and Xavier all have all time winning percentages of 58-60%. Wichita State and Saint Louis are at 54%.

Dayton is at 59%. You can make a case that WSU is a stronger program than Saint Louis. But any way you make that case, Dayton has a stronger case for the No. 12 spot.

I understand your point about long term consistency. I don't think you get mine about the current issue we face. What you did 20 years ago won't matter in terms of current perception of the league.

I think Dayton is a great add but I think you desperately need teams that can qualify for an at-large bid and recently Dayton hasn't proven to be that team. When your credibility is being challenged by people like Lunardi you have to account for the short term.

(01-22-2013 04:50 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  The problems with the league are thus:

1. A minimum or 4 programs that are currently not very strong from the original Catholic 7
2. A large concentration of relatively good teams, but no standout "great" teams (championship contenders)

If you have a 2-4 bid league, you are the A10 2.0, not the Big East 2.0. Additionally, you have to consider that the team will need more good teams to balance out the lack of a superstar. The skepticism from some fans comes from that.

Consider the balance of the league if you add Xavier, Butler, and Dayton.

You have a few likely tournament teams: Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier, and Butler.
You have a one to two teams that are probably NIT level: Villanova, St. Johns
And a bunch of teams that won't make the post-season: Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, Dayton

How strong a league is that? Arguably weaker than the A-10 now minus the truly awful teams at the bottom of that conference. Definitely not competitive with the power conferences.

Your being generous making Butler or Xavier an at-large lock. We aren't in the class of Georgetown or Marquette as we don't attract those levels of recruits. Don't forget last year we went to the CBI.

We are at best a maybe+ until the new league affiliation allows us to get better recruits. We need more maybe+ teams to insure we are more than a 3 bid league. The danger period is the first 3-5 years. You are all worried about 20+ when you still have to establish yourself in the 3-5 timeframe. Once you have done that the ball will keep rolling. Will you have a DePaul? Sure but the league as a whole will be healthy.