(01-22-2013 05:16 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(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.

I brought it up in another post. These schools will become better options for good coaches when they join the C7. They will have more money to spend and more exposure in the new league.

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(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.

I understand what you are saying, but to say that having a 2-3 year span of sending 3-4 teams a year will doom us forever as a mid major is not accurate.

(01-22-2013 05:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, but to say that having a 2-3 year span of sending 3-4 teams a year will doom us forever as a mid major is not accurate.

In terms of public perception, it absolutely will. What you describe is the A-10, though the A-10 actually might actually send more teams than that this year.

You have two options.

1. Add with basketball as the main consideration. Aim for 50% or more teams at NCAA quality, and become an equal to the power conferences (and get the power conference cash).

or

2. Add with fit as the main goal. Send 2-4 teams a year and be happy with that. Clear notch below the power conferences and roughly equal to the nBE and MWC, slightly above MVC and A-10. Mid-major.

(01-22-2013 06:44 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, but to say that having a 2-3 year span of sending 3-4 teams a year will doom us forever as a mid major is not accurate.

In terms of public perception, it absolutely will. What you describe is the A-10, though the A-10 actually might actually send more teams than that this year.

You have two options.

1. Add with basketball as the main consideration. Aim for 50% or more teams at NCAA quality, and become an equal to the power conferences (and get the power conference cash).

or

2. Add with fit as the main goal. Send 2-4 teams a year and be happy with that. Clear notch below the power conferences and roughly equal to the nBE and MWC, slightly above MVC and A-10. Mid-major.

Is the Pac-12 a major conference? They have eight bids total in the last three seasons.
What about the ACC? They sent 3 in 1999, 2000 and four in 2002, 2003. That's a five-year average of 4.0 bids.

the perception isn't going to be tied to bids, it's going to be tied to length of tournament runs. If you get 3 bids because someone ran the table in conference and makes the Final Four? you're fine. If you get five bids and no one makes the second weekend every year, the comparisons to the MWC or A10 might start.

(01-22-2013 05:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(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.

I understand what you are saying, but to say that having a 2-3 year span of sending 3-4 teams a year will doom us forever as a mid major is not accurate.

I disagree once perceptions are set they are hard to change positively or negatively.

Look at Butler, last year they only qualified for the CBI but all anyone can remember is back to back final four runs. Heck our starting point guard is a walk-on who received zero basketball offers. But still our perception stands strong.

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  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.

Maybe I'm being a homer, but I would consider Xavier an at-large lock most years. We have made the Sweet 16 4 of the past 5 years and made the tournament 10 of the past 11.

(01-22-2013 06:51 PM)JPSchmack Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:44 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, but to say that having a 2-3 year span of sending 3-4 teams a year will doom us forever as a mid major is not accurate.

In terms of public perception, it absolutely will. What you describe is the A-10, though the A-10 actually might actually send more teams than that this year.

You have two options.

1. Add with basketball as the main consideration. Aim for 50% or more teams at NCAA quality, and become an equal to the power conferences (and get the power conference cash).

or

2. Add with fit as the main goal. Send 2-4 teams a year and be happy with that. Clear notch below the power conferences and roughly equal to the nBE and MWC, slightly above MVC and A-10. Mid-major.

Is the Pac-12 a major conference? They have eight bids total in the last three seasons.
What about the ACC? They sent 3 in 1999, 2000 and four in 2002, 2003. That's a five-year average of 4.0 bids.

the perception isn't going to be tied to bids, it's going to be tied to length of tournament runs. If you get 3 bids because someone ran the table in conference and makes the Final Four? you're fine. If you get five bids and no one makes the second weekend every year, the comparisons to the MWC or A10 might start.

Your just reinforcing the point about perceptions. Right now the MWC is a better conference than the PAC-12 but perceptions once established are slow to change. And yes deep runs help but more teams in means greater odds of making a deep run. Look at UConn 2 years ago as a perfect example. Without them the league was hurting.

If you have 4-6 teams you have a much better shot of 1 of them making the final four.

(01-22-2013 06:55 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(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.

I understand what you are saying, but to say that having a 2-3 year span of sending 3-4 teams a year will doom us forever as a mid major is not accurate.

I disagree once perceptions are set they are hard to change positively or negatively.

Look at Butler, last year they only qualified for the CBI but all anyone can remember is back to back final four runs. Heck our starting point guard is a walk-on who received zero basketball offers. But still our perception stands strong.

That's because you guys don't have a deep history like a GTown or Nova. That's why folks can only remember the final fours.

(01-22-2013 07:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:51 PM)JPSchmack Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:44 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, but to say that having a 2-3 year span of sending 3-4 teams a year will doom us forever as a mid major is not accurate.

In terms of public perception, it absolutely will. What you describe is the A-10, though the A-10 actually might actually send more teams than that this year.

You have two options.

1. Add with basketball as the main consideration. Aim for 50% or more teams at NCAA quality, and become an equal to the power conferences (and get the power conference cash).

or

2. Add with fit as the main goal. Send 2-4 teams a year and be happy with that. Clear notch below the power conferences and roughly equal to the nBE and MWC, slightly above MVC and A-10. Mid-major.

Is the Pac-12 a major conference? They have eight bids total in the last three seasons.
What about the ACC? They sent 3 in 1999, 2000 and four in 2002, 2003. That's a five-year average of 4.0 bids.

the perception isn't going to be tied to bids, it's going to be tied to length of tournament runs. If you get 3 bids because someone ran the table in conference and makes the Final Four? you're fine. If you get five bids and no one makes the second weekend every year, the comparisons to the MWC or A10 might start.

Your just reinforcing the point about perceptions. Right now the MWC is a better conference than the PAC-12 but perceptions once established are slow to change. And yes deep runs help but more teams in means greater odds of making a deep run. Look at UConn 2 years ago as a perfect example. Without them the league was hurting.

If you have 4-6 teams you have a much better shot of 1 of them making the final four.

You're forgetting that the C7 have a positive perception about us.

(01-22-2013 06:55 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  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.

Maybe I'm being a homer, but I would consider Xavier an at-large lock most years. We have made the Sweet 16 4 of the past 5 years and made the tournament 10 of the past 11.

How many years would Xavier have qualified for an at-large slot? You have to assume winning the tournament will not happen in a stronger league and you need to be a lock.

For example this year Xavier may very well win the tournament but if not they won't likely go too many bad losses to teams like Pacific.

(01-22-2013 07:20 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:55 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  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.

Maybe I'm being a homer, but I would consider Xavier an at-large lock most years. We have made the Sweet 16 4 of the past 5 years and made the tournament 10 of the past 11.

How many years would Xavier have qualified for an at-large slot? You have to assume winning the tournament will not happen in a stronger league and you need to be a lock.

For example this year Xavier may very well win the tournament but if not they won't likely go too many bad losses to teams like Pacific.

In the past 11 years, Xavier has only won the A10 tournament 3 times. So, qualified for 8 spots.

Also, I'm not sure it's really fair to bring up the Muskies lone rebuild season. The team returned 0 starters and less than 20% of its scoring this season.

The history speaks for itself.

(01-22-2013 07:26 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 07:20 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:55 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  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.

Maybe I'm being a homer, but I would consider Xavier an at-large lock most years. We have made the Sweet 16 4 of the past 5 years and made the tournament 10 of the past 11.

How many years would Xavier have qualified for an at-large slot? You have to assume winning the tournament will not happen in a stronger league and you need to be a lock.

For example this year Xavier may very well win the tournament but if not they won't likely go too many bad losses to teams like Pacific.

In the past 11 years, Xavier has only won the A10 tournament 3 times. So, qualified for 8 spots.

Also, I'm not sure it's really fair to bring up the Muskies lone rebuild season. The team returned 0 starters and less than 20% of its scoring this season.

The history speaks for itself.

There is no arguing with these Wichita people. They feel they are deserving of inclusion based on their decent 1/2 season they have had. They are delusional.

(01-22-2013 07:53 PM)Xbus Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 07:26 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 07:20 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:55 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  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.

If they make the Tournament again, they might get confused and start thinking they're Kansas.

Maybe I'm being a homer, but I would consider Xavier an at-large lock most years. We have made the Sweet 16 4 of the past 5 years and made the tournament 10 of the past 11.

How many years would Xavier have qualified for an at-large slot? You have to assume winning the tournament will not happen in a stronger league and you need to be a lock.

For example this year Xavier may very well win the tournament but if not they won't likely go too many bad losses to teams like Pacific.

In the past 11 years, Xavier has only won the A10 tournament 3 times. So, qualified for 8 spots.

Also, I'm not sure it's really fair to bring up the Muskies lone rebuild season. The team returned 0 starters and less than 20% of its scoring this season.

The history speaks for itself.

There is no arguing with these Wichita people. They feel they are deserving of inclusion based on their decent 1/2 season they have had. They are delusional.

If they make the tournament this year, they'll start thinking they ARE Kansas, not just in Kansas.

(01-22-2013 07:53 PM)Xbus Wrote:  There is no arguing with these Wichita people. They feel they are deserving of inclusion based on their decent 1/2 season they have had. They are delusional.

I am pretty sure he is a Butler fan.

(01-22-2013 07:26 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 07:20 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:55 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  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.

Maybe I'm being a homer, but I would consider Xavier an at-large lock most years. We have made the Sweet 16 4 of the past 5 years and made the tournament 10 of the past 11.

How many years would Xavier have qualified for an at-large slot? You have to assume winning the tournament will not happen in a stronger league and you need to be a lock.

For example this year Xavier may very well win the tournament but if not they won't likely go too many bad losses to teams like Pacific.

In the past 11 years, Xavier has only won the A10 tournament 3 times. So, qualified for 8 spots.

Also, I'm not sure it's really fair to bring up the Muskies lone rebuild season. The team returned 0 starters and less than 20% of its scoring this season.

The history speaks for itself.

I would agree. I would put you in the same class as Marquette and Georgetown based on that. I don't think Butler is yet in that class but we are working on it.

(01-22-2013 08:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 07:53 PM)Xbus Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 07:26 PM)bmorex Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 07:20 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:55 PM)bmorex Wrote:  If they make the Tournament again, they might get confused and start thinking they're Kansas.

Maybe I'm being a homer, but I would consider Xavier an at-large lock most years. We have made the Sweet 16 4 of the past 5 years and made the tournament 10 of the past 11.

How many years would Xavier have qualified for an at-large slot? You have to assume winning the tournament will not happen in a stronger league and you need to be a lock.

For example this year Xavier may very well win the tournament but if not they won't likely go too many bad losses to teams like Pacific.

In the past 11 years, Xavier has only won the A10 tournament 3 times. So, qualified for 8 spots.

Also, I'm not sure it's really fair to bring up the Muskies lone rebuild season. The team returned 0 starters and less than 20% of its scoring this season.

The history speaks for itself.

There is no arguing with these Wichita people. They feel they are deserving of inclusion based on their decent 1/2 season they have had. They are delusional.

Pretty sure I stated multiple times I have no connection to Wichita State at all and I am a Butler fan - well more a parent.

Also guess it is pretty clear who isn't reading my posts with an open mind ;-)

(01-22-2013 08:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Pretty sure I stated multiple times I have no connection to Wichita State at all and I am a Butler fan - well more a parent.

Also guess it is pretty clear who isn't reading my posts with an open mind ;-)

OK, I missed the Butler fan part.

i have no problem with wichita. i think they would be a good add IF we were going to 14. (along with whichever school between vcu st louis and dayton isnt #12) i just think 14 is too many. at least at this time
plus if we went over 12, we'd run the risk that 5 years from now we'd still be talking about a BE split, only this time between the midwestern and northeastern schools!

There's really no reason to invite past the minimum number of what Fox will pay for... yet.

Adding teams later allows you to re-open negotiations (if you put that clause in your TV deal, which anyone is sure to do). Once the new money becomes the usual money, THEN you add two teams, renegotiate your TV deal with new markets and cash in.

That solves the problem of locking yourself into "who's good now." What would happen if [insert team here] lost their coach, the new coach swung and missed at recruits he probably wasn't going to get, had to scramble to fill his roster and the team went into the crapper? You'd be stuck with someone you picked more for recent success than historical competitiveness.

But if you take the no-brainers now and wait on the "second cut" list of teams, and see who goes Butler-style all over their now weaker conferences, you let THEM decide who's consistently good.

Xavier gets in because they've been to like 14 of the last 17 tourneys. If they're not in the A-10 (along with Temple), someone is probably going to step up and run that league like the Owls/Musketeers did. If it's VCU or Dayton in the A-10 and Wichita State pimpslapping a Creighton-less MVC, you add them later. If those conferences turn into parity central where EVERYONE'S taking a turn at the top... then you don't give someone else access.

If we were going 14, I would think we would add VCU and Gonzaga along with the logical other 5 schools. Now if Gonzaga is too far, WSU would be a viable option, although I highly doubt the C7 presidents are even considering WSU. Funny how WSU is probably the most talked about school out of all the "candidates" on this board...