wow it's the Butler troll at it again. You don't have a clue if VCU will or will not be in the conference. Your sources don't mean squat.

No one knows whats going to happen so everyone should chill out. We don't make the decisions so there is no need to get all upset about it and insult each other.

(02-20-2013 12:17 AM)Title Wrote:  I hearby promise to not speak of your open enrollment, commuter school, with a Frosty in the greenhouse's chance of gaining membership again.

I think VCU has an equal or better chance than Dayton (market saturation), Saint Louis (lack of success over the last 50+ years), or Richmond (competing with VCU for market, less basketball success). You can make an argument they should be equal to or above Creighton because of travel. Basically all of the candidates besides Xavier and Butler have problems.

(02-20-2013 12:22 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  No one knows whats going to happen so everyone should chill out. We don't make the decisions so there is no need to get all upset about it and insult each other.

Old Steve-O doesn't have much ammo upstairs, you need to forgive him.

wow is that all you got Title? Man I expected more from you quite frankly.....

(02-20-2013 12:24 AM)Title Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 12:22 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  No one knows whats going to happen so everyone should chill out. We don't make the decisions so there is no need to get all upset about it and insult each other.

Old Steve-O doesn't have much ammo upstairs, you need to forgive him.

Turn on your personal messages Title.

(02-19-2013 11:57 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 10:56 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know why you're projecting the future based on an analysis of this year, a single season. A bigger sample size makes more sense.

Once you include Butler and Xavier, it doesn't matter who else you put in the mix, the C7+ has advanced over 40 teams to the tournament over the past 10 years with 5 - 6 teams to the Final Four. That's a 4 - 5 bid league annually and with that number of teams in the Final 4, it's a power league by anyone's definition.

It is a gut feeling. My gut feeling is that 3 of the 7 schools leaving the broken Big East are probably going to be good, along with Butler and Xavier.

However, my gut feeling is that over half of the C7 are going to have a hard time winning games and getting into the tournament. Add Richmond, Saint Louis, and Dayton to that as well (double that for the "not a candidate" teams like Siena and Detroit).

If you have 5 strong teams and 7 teams that would be at the bottom of a power conference, you don't have a power conference. You have a slightly bigger MWC focused on the east coast instead of the west. To use a power conference analogy, the C7 would be the Big 12 without Kansas, but with five teams about where KState or Baylor are and seven TCUs and Texas Techs.

IMHO, this direction would make the C7 competitive with the A10, MWC, and nBE, not the power conferences. You have to take into account that this league doesn't have a blue blood type team, so it would have to offset top-end quality with quantity. You can argue that this league could be better than the SEC or Pac12 if those conferences had a down year, but the same argument applies to the other mid-major conferences.

If I had total control, I'd go with 10 teams (Butler + Xavier + Gonzaga/VCU/Creighton). If I had to go 12, I'd look at adding all of those teams over Richmond, Saint Louis, or Dayton. Only at 14+ would I add a team that doesn't have something basketball related that makes me say "wow." To me, the biggest issue is offsetting the teams in the C7 that haven't been strong lately.

I agree with you that they should be looking at top quality teams rather than ones based on "fit" alone. And frankly I think that's what they will do, so I don't regard Title's posts as information but as rumor.

Let's go with the 9 programs around whom there seems to be consensus, which are the C7 + Butler and Xavier. 5 of those 9 teams have been successful in recent years, so your gut makes sense.

4 have been struggling although all 4 of them have been to the tournament at least once in the past 10 years. But why do you assume that they are all hopeless cases? You can find the same in any power conference where there are members who are down at any given point. All 4 of the lower teams in this group have strong histories and traditions. 3 of the 4 have been to the Elite 8 as recently as the '90's. They are all capable of being rebuilt.

Clearly VCU is a no brainer to making this a stronger conference. With them the conference could stop at 10 and be as strong as almost any power conference. If Fox wants to go to 12, they'll have to do that and the choices will be made based on what's best for Fox. I'd like to see Creighton & Dayton, but I don't honk it matters much if one of them is replaced with St. Louis.

Compare this group with the so called power conferences. UCLA is the only Pac 12 team to get to the Final 4 in the past 10 years. Rarely is anyone else from this league a factor in the tournament. After Kentucky & Florida, the rest of the SEC rarely does much damage in the tournament - LSU's 2006 run excepted. The Big 12 has no more depth than this group.

How about the Big Ten. They include Northwestern, Iowa, Nebraska, Purdue, Penn State, & Rutgers - all of whom have been non-factors for years if not decades. That's almost half the league and at any given point you can throw in one of the others who is having a down year.

The ACC is the biggest name in college basketball. But who is a consistent threat from that league after Carolina and Duke?

The idea that the power leagues are loaded with power teams is a total myth. They all have their equivalents of the lower teams in the C7.

As for the comparison to the mid majors, I don't know what you're thinking, but there's no comparison to this group. The best of them are at a whole different level. The A10 has gotten 1 team to the Final 4 in the entire history of the league. The Missouri Valley hasn't gotten anyone to the Final 4 since the 1960's. When Butler & VCU got to the Final 4, they left their respective leagues. Tell me a mid major conference with anything comparable to the credentials of the C7+. A mid major that gets 4-5 teams to the tournament every year and gets 5-6 teams to the Final 4 in a decade simply doesn't exist.

The C7+ is without doubt a power conference and it is an exciting development for college basketball fans.

lets look:
2003-2012 seasons
Georgetown- 6 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 2 sweet 16, 8 wins
Marquette- 8 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 3 sweet 16, 10 wins
Villanova- 7 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 12 wins
St Johns- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
Seton Hall- 2 NCAA spots, 1 win
Providence- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
DePaul- 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
total C7- 26 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 32 wins
contenders:
Butler 6 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 15 wins
Creighton 4 NCAA spots, 1 win
Dayton 3 NCAA spots, 1 win
Richmond 3 NCAA spots, 1 sweet 16 2 wins
St Louis 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
VCU 5 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 1 sweet 16 7 wins
you take all but VCU- 17 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 5 sweet 16, 20 wins
take all but Richmond 19 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 5 sweet 16, 25 wins

C7+all but VCU 43 NCAA spots, 5 final 4, 14 sweet 16, 52 wins
C7+all but Richmond 45 NCAA spots, 6 final 4, 14 sweet 16, 57 wins

so roughly 4.3-4.5 spots per year, 5-6 final 4 teams.

I think your analysis of power conferences is a bit off. ACC now with all the adds is a good conference. Big Ten- sure they have 5 dogs, but they also have 8-9 really good teams. SEC and Pac 12- you can't just ignore the top teams.

(02-20-2013 01:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  lets look:
2003-2012 seasons
Georgetown- 6 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 2 sweet 16, 8 wins
Marquette- 8 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 3 sweet 16, 10 wins
Villanova- 7 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 12 wins
St Johns- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
Seton Hall- 2 NCAA spots, 1 win
Providence- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
DePaul- 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
total C7- 26 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 32 wins
contenders:
Butler 6 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 15 wins
Creighton 4 NCAA spots, 1 win
Dayton 3 NCAA spots, 1 win
Richmond 3 NCAA spots, 1 sweet 16 2 wins
St Louis 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
VCU 5 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 1 sweet 16 7 wins
you take all but VCU- 17 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 5 sweet 16, 20 wins
take all but Richmond 19 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 5 sweet 16, 25 wins

C7+all but VCU 43 NCAA spots, 5 final 4, 14 sweet 16, 52 wins
C7+all but Richmond 45 NCAA spots, 6 final 4, 14 sweet 16, 57 wins

so roughly 4.3-4.5 spots per year, 5-6 final 4 teams.

I think your analysis of power conferences is a bit off. ACC now with all the adds is a good conference. Big Ten- sure they have 5 dogs, but they also have 8-9 really good teams. SEC and Pac 12- you can't just ignore the top teams.

If you're talking to me . . .

You've made a critical error. You left off Xavier & 9 NCAA tournament invitations.

Your 2nd error is that you're shooting low rather than evaluating the potential. So, start w with adding the 3 best programs: Butler, Xavier, & VCU. That brings the total to 45 tournament spots & 6 Final 4's.

Then if you add Creighton + Dayton, the next 2 strongest programs, you add 7 more tournament bids for a total of 52. That's an average of 5.2 bids per year. That's the potential this C7 move represents. If they want to scale back from there, that's up to them. But even if they choose Richmond over VCU, a mistake IMO, they still have 50 bids, or 5.0 per year and 5 Final 4's. Still a power league.

If you think that the Big Ten has 8 or 9 really good teams, I'd love to have you name them. I think you're completely exaggerating the strength of that conference.

I'm not ignoring the top teams of the PAC 12 and the SEC, but that means they have 1 or 2 power teams each; it doesn't mean they are power conferences on a level that is any stronger than the C7+ which has much greater depth than either of those 2. A conference is more than 1 or 2 teams.

I concede your point on the ACC. With their additions, they are now on a different level than they used to be. And they are in a different level than everyone else. But that's it. They are the only ones on a different level than the C7+.

(02-20-2013 12:50 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I agree with you that they should be looking at top quality teams rather than ones based on "fit" alone. And frankly I think that's what they will do, so I don't regard Title's posts as information but as rumor.

Let's go with the 9 programs around whom there seems to be consensus, which are the C7 + Butler and Xavier. 5 of those 9 teams have been successful in recent years, so your gut makes sense.

4 have been struggling although all 4 of them have been to the tournament at least once in the past 10 years. But why do you assume that they are all hopeless cases? You can find the same in any power conference where there are members who are down at any given point. All 4 of the lower teams in this group have strong histories and traditions. 3 of the 4 have been to the Elite 8 as recently as the '90's. They are all capable of being rebuilt.

Clearly VCU is a no brainer to making this a stronger conference. With them the conference could stop at 10 and be as strong as almost any power conference. If Fox wants to go to 12, they'll have to do that and the choices will be made based on what's best for Fox. I'd like to see Creighton & Dayton, but I don't honk it matters much if one of them is replaced with St. Louis.

Compare this group with the so called power conferences. UCLA is the only Pac 12 team to get to the Final 4 in the past 10 years. Rarely is anyone else from this league a factor in the tournament. After Kentucky & Florida, the rest of the SEC rarely does much damage in the tournament - LSU's 2006 run excepted. The Big 12 has no more depth than this group.

How about the Big Ten. They include Northwestern, Iowa, Nebraska, Purdue, Penn State, & Rutgers - all of whom have been non-factors for years if not decades. That's almost half the league and at any given point you can throw in one of the others who is having a down year.

The ACC is the biggest name in college basketball. But who is a consistent threat from that league after Carolina and Duke?

The idea that the power leagues are loaded with power teams is a total myth. They all have their equivalents of the lower teams in the C7.

As for the comparison to the mid majors, I don't know what you're thinking, but there's no comparison to this group. The best of them are at a whole different level. The A10 has gotten 1 team to the Final 4 in the entire history of the league. The Missouri Valley hasn't gotten anyone to the Final 4 since the 1960's. When Butler & VCU got to the Final 4, they left their respective leagues. Tell me a mid major conference with anything comparable to the credentials of the C7+. A mid major that gets 4-5 teams to the tournament every year and gets 5-6 teams to the Final 4 in a decade simply doesn't exist.

The C7+ is without doubt a power conference and it is an exciting development for college basketball fans.

When I say mid-majors, I don't mean the MVC, MAAC, or anything like that. I am speaking about three to four leagues, total: the A-10 (if they can rebuild), the MWC, the nBE, and possibly the WCC. Basically multi-bid conferences without as much respect as the power conferences.

My assumptions on this conference are based around the idea that we don't have a heavy hitter like UCLA (Pac12), Indiana/Michigan/Ohio State/Michigan State (B1G), Kansas (Big 12), Duke/North Carolina (ACC), or Kentucky (SEC). To compensate, we cannot just get about 5 teams into the tournament, we need to have a strong enough league that almost any team with a .500 conference record has a good chance of getting in the league.

I also assume that if any of the bottom four in the C7 improve, it could be at the expense of the teams that are more successful right now. I don't expect an expansion candidate to get any better after joining the conference, as it is far more likely they will play worse with tougher competition.

(One note: The MVC has gotten teams to the Final Four more recently than the 60s. Indiana State was national runner up in 1979. The conference was perhaps one of the top two or three conferences in the 60s and 70s, but is not nearly that good today).

2003-2012 seasons
Georgetown- 6 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 2 sweet 16, 8 wins
Marquette- 8 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 3 sweet 16, 10 wins
Villanova- 7 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 12 wins
St Johns- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
Seton Hall- 2 NCAA spots, 1 win
Providence- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
DePaul- 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
total C7- 26 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 32 wins
contenders:
Butler 6 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 15 wins
Creighton 4 NCAA spots, 1 win
Dayton 3 NCAA spots, 1 win
Richmond 3 NCAA spots, 1 sweet 16 2 wins
St Louis 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
VCU 5 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 1 sweet 16 7 wins
Xavier 9 NCAA Spots, 5 sweet 16, 14 wins
Butler,Xavier,VCU, Dayton, St Louis 24 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 10 sweet 16, 38 wins
with that group+ C7 50 NCAA spots, 6 final 4, 19 sweet 16, 70 wins

Big Ten with 3 teams as 1/2 seeds this year- it's hard to call them anything other than a power conference. This year, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio St, and Wisconsin all in tourney along with those 3. All 7 teams top 7 seeds. That's a power conference.

But here's my thing with us. A conference with 5 NCAA spots a year on average- I'm not sure in this day of 16 team conferences(which we are going to) one with 5 spots a year is all that powerful. I'm not saying 16 teams getting 10-11 teams will become the norm, but I think 16 teams getting 7-9 will become the norm.

(02-19-2013 04:56 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 04:39 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 03:11 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  No Creighton would be stupid.

Just make it Xavier, Butler, SLU, Creighton, and Dayton. It;s what everyone was thinking right when this was announced anyway. We've talked ourselves in circles to make this more complicated than it really is.

Creighton would be stupid but you're including them in your final list?

What am I missing here. Tell me soon because I'm getting a headache.

No, I said No Creighton would be stupid (i.e., not including Creighton would be a remarkably dumb decision).

Sorry. I misread your post. Kick me hard.



I feel better now.

(02-20-2013 08:26 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 12:50 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I agree with you that they should be looking at top quality teams rather than ones based on "fit" alone. And frankly I think that's what they will do, so I don't regard Title's posts as information but as rumor.

Let's go with the 9 programs around whom there seems to be consensus, which are the C7 + Butler and Xavier. 5 of those 9 teams have been successful in recent years, so your gut makes sense.

4 have been struggling although all 4 of them have been to the tournament at least once in the past 10 years. But why do you assume that they are all hopeless cases? You can find the same in any power conference where there are members who are down at any given point. All 4 of the lower teams in this group have strong histories and traditions. 3 of the 4 have been to the Elite 8 as recently as the '90's. They are all capable of being rebuilt.

Clearly VCU is a no brainer to making this a stronger conference. With them the conference could stop at 10 and be as strong as almost any power conference. If Fox wants to go to 12, they'll have to do that and the choices will be made based on what's best for Fox. I'd like to see Creighton & Dayton, but I don't honk it matters much if one of them is replaced with St. Louis.

Compare this group with the so called power conferences. UCLA is the only Pac 12 team to get to the Final 4 in the past 10 years. Rarely is anyone else from this league a factor in the tournament. After Kentucky & Florida, the rest of the SEC rarely does much damage in the tournament - LSU's 2006 run excepted. The Big 12 has no more depth than this group.

How about the Big Ten. They include Northwestern, Iowa, Nebraska, Purdue, Penn State, & Rutgers - all of whom have been non-factors for years if not decades. That's almost half the league and at any given point you can throw in one of the others who is having a down year.

The ACC is the biggest name in college basketball. But who is a consistent threat from that league after Carolina and Duke?

The idea that the power leagues are loaded with power teams is a total myth. They all have their equivalents of the lower teams in the C7.

As for the comparison to the mid majors, I don't know what you're thinking, but there's no comparison to this group. The best of them are at a whole different level. The A10 has gotten 1 team to the Final 4 in the entire history of the league. The Missouri Valley hasn't gotten anyone to the Final 4 since the 1960's. When Butler & VCU got to the Final 4, they left their respective leagues. Tell me a mid major conference with anything comparable to the credentials of the C7+. A mid major that gets 4-5 teams to the tournament every year and gets 5-6 teams to the Final 4 in a decade simply doesn't exist.

The C7+ is without doubt a power conference and it is an exciting development for college basketball fans.

When I say mid-majors, I don't mean the MVC, MAAC, or anything like that. I am speaking about three to four leagues, total: the A-10 (if they can rebuild), the MWC, the nBE, and possibly the WCC. Basically multi-bid conferences without as much respect as the power conferences.

My assumptions on this conference are based around the idea that we don't have a heavy hitter like UCLA (Pac12), Indiana/Michigan/Ohio State/Michigan State (B1G), Kansas (Big 12), Duke/North Carolina (ACC), or Kentucky (SEC). To compensate, we cannot just get about 5 teams into the tournament, we need to have a strong enough league that almost any team with a .500 conference record has a good chance of getting in the league.

I also assume that if any of the bottom four in the C7 improve, it could be at the expense of the teams that are more successful right now. I don't expect an expansion candidate to get any better after joining the conference, as it is far more likely they will play worse with tougher competition.

(One note: The MVC has gotten teams to the Final Four more recently than the 60s. Indiana State was national runner up in 1979. The conference was perhaps one of the top two or three conferences in the 60s and 70s, but is not nearly that good today).

Yes, I overlooked the MVC of the 1970's. There day was done when the Metro was formed in 1975 and the MVC lost Louisville, Memphis, etc. Indiana State was their last hurrah.

But my point remains the same. They haven't gotten anyone to a Final 4 in a very long time, i.e. 34 years. Let's look at the other midmajors you've mentioned in terms of Final 4's:

A10 - 1 Final Four in the entire history of the league - UMass (1996)

Mountain West - No Final Fours in league history

West Coast - San Francisco (1955, 56, 57)

New Big East - UConn (1999, 2004, 09, 11), Memphis (2008)

So, the nBE is the only one that has a team that has gone to the Final Four in recent memory. But the nBE is lacking depth. That group has gotten only 26 tournament bids in the last 10 years. That's a 2-3 bid league.

The C7+ has 50-52 bids in the last 10 years. That's a 5 bid league. And if they want to think outside the box, they could replace Dayton with Gonzaga, who has 10 bids in the last 10 years. That would give the C7+ 57 bids, or almost 6 (5.7) per year. No matter how you slice it, the C7+ is a notch above the nBE. More bids, more Final 4's.

We can do a more detailed analysis to show that none of these midmajors has the history of getting the number of bids that the C7+ have. But the bottom line is that the only way that the C7+ doesn't qualify as a power conference is if you require a team with a history of multiple national championships that gets to the tournament most of the time.

If that's the case, then the old Big East didn't qualify as a power conference either because they didn't have anyone who met those criteria until UConn's recent success. Are you really going to tell me that the old Big East was not a power conference?

(02-19-2013 11:57 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 10:56 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know why you're projecting the future based on an analysis of this year, a single season. A bigger sample size makes more sense.

Once you include Butler and Xavier, it doesn't matter who else you put in the mix, the C7+ has advanced over 40 teams to the tournament over the past 10 years with 5 - 6 teams to the Final Four. That's a 4 - 5 bid league annually and with that number of teams in the Final 4, it's a power league by anyone's definition.

It is a gut feeling. My gut feeling is that 3 of the 7 schools leaving the broken Big East are probably going to be good, along with Butler and Xavier.

However, my gut feeling is that over half of the C7 are going to have a hard time winning games and getting into the tournament. Add Richmond, Saint Louis, and Dayton to that as well (double that for the "not a candidate" teams like Siena and Detroit).

If you have 5 strong teams and 7 teams that would be at the bottom of a power conference, you don't have a power conference. You have a slightly bigger MWC focused on the east coast instead of the west. To use a power conference analogy, the C7 would be the Big 12 without Kansas, but with five teams about where KState or Baylor are and seven TCUs and Texas Techs.

IMHO, this direction would make the C7 competitive with the A10, MWC, and nBE, not the power conferences. You have to take into account that this league doesn't have a blue blood type team, so it would have to offset top-end quality with quantity. You can argue that this league could be better than the SEC or Pac12 if those conferences had a down year, but the same argument applies to the other mid-major conferences.

If I had total control, I'd go with 10 teams (Butler + Xavier + Gonzaga/VCU/Creighton). If I had to go 12, I'd look at adding all of those teams over Richmond, Saint Louis, or Dayton. Only at 14+ would I add a team that doesn't have something basketball related that makes me say "wow." To me, the biggest issue is offsetting the teams in the C7 that haven't been strong lately.

This is an overreaction and an oversimplification. Are we going to compete with the ACC or B1G for the best conference? Of course not, and no teams we add will change that.

But could we compete with the Pac 12, SEC and Big 12? Absolutely. Those conferences that put around 3-6 teams in the tourney every year are where we are.

We are not going to be 'competing' with conferences that we have 3-4X as many bids as. The A-10 isn't getting 5 bids, much less more than 2 after the C7 raid. Marquette, Villanova, Georgetown, St. John's, Xavier, Butler, and Creighton puts this league head and shoulders above any non Power-6 and equal, if not better, than the Pac-12, SEC and Big 12 most years.

I think you guys are selling the MWC short. They are most years at least the equal to the Pac 12. This year they were #1 in RPI just a week ago(haven't looked to see if that's still the case or not). No reason to think that's going to change any time soon.

(02-20-2013 08:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  2003-2012 seasons
Georgetown- 6 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 2 sweet 16, 8 wins
Marquette- 8 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 3 sweet 16, 10 wins
Villanova- 7 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 12 wins
St Johns- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
Seton Hall- 2 NCAA spots, 1 win
Providence- 1 NCAA spot, 0 wins
DePaul- 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
total C7- 26 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 9 sweet 16, 32 wins
contenders:
Butler 6 NCAA spots, 2 final 4, 4 sweet 16, 15 wins
Creighton 4 NCAA spots, 1 win
Dayton 3 NCAA spots, 1 win
Richmond 3 NCAA spots, 1 sweet 16 2 wins
St Louis 1 NCAA spot, 1 win
VCU 5 NCAA spots, 1 final 4, 1 sweet 16 7 wins
Xavier 9 NCAA Spots, 5 sweet 16, 14 wins
Butler,Xavier,VCU, Dayton, St Louis 24 NCAA spots, 3 final 4, 10 sweet 16, 38 wins
with that group+ C7 50 NCAA spots, 6 final 4, 19 sweet 16, 70 wins

Big Ten with 3 teams as 1/2 seeds this year- it's hard to call them anything other than a power conference. This year, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio St, and Wisconsin all in tourney along with those 3. All 7 teams top 7 seeds. That's a power conference.

But here's my thing with us. A conference with 5 NCAA spots a year on average- I'm not sure in this day of 16 team conferences(which we are going to) one with 5 spots a year is all that powerful. I'm not saying 16 teams getting 10-11 teams will become the norm, but I think 16 teams getting 7-9 will become the norm.

Of course the Big ten is a power conference. I never disputed that.

The problem with your analysis is that you're projecting into the future (16 team leagues which don't exist yet) and then applying that to the past when 16 team leagues did not exist.

The point is that the history of this group is as strong as any conference has been over the past 10 years. They are not as strong as the ACC will be. But if the Big Ten goes to 16 or 18 in the future, those teams will likely come from the ACC. So, the Big Ten will simply replace the ACC as the top dog and the ACC will slip back to be on a par with the C7+.

If the future is 16+ teams per league, then the C7+ has the opportunity to expand like everyone else. They can bring in Gonzaga which would immediately increase them from a 5 bid league to a 6 bid league. They could pick and choose like everyone else and push that to a 7 bid league with the right additions. The difference between them and the other leagues is that they would be adding strictly based on basketball success while other leagues in some cases bringing in basketball dogs to increase their football power.

Throughout its history the NCAA has always been a tournament in which basketball first schools have achieved major success along with teams from the football power conferences. The beauty of the C7+ is that they now have the opportunity to bring those teams together under one banner to institutionalize that niche.

That's what the old Big East was attempting to do back in 1979. But their were 2 significant differences back then. They made a deal with the devil when they included a couple of football schools and they were only thinking regionally at the time. Now that they are freed of the football schools and now that history has led them into the Midwest, they can put together a larger, more powerful conference than was possible 35 years ago.

To me as a basketball fan, this is the most exciting development in college sports since the formation of the Big East in 1979.

(02-20-2013 09:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think you guys are selling the MWC short. They are most years at least the equal to the Pac 12. This year they were #1 in RPI just a week ago(haven't looked to see if that's still the case or not). No reason to think that's going to change any time soon.

The fact that the PAC XII is the = of the MWC most years does not show the strength of the MWC, it shows the weakness of the Pac XII. Also note that the past record of the MWC includes Utah, perhaps the league's premier team. Utah is gone. Power conferences are not defined by RPI or by a single season. Let's see how they do in the tournament and if they can sustain it into the future.

(02-20-2013 09:40 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Yes, I overlooked the MVC of the 1970's. There day was done when the Metro was formed in 1975 and the MVC lost Louisville, Memphis, etc. Indiana State was their last hurrah.

But my point remains the same. They haven't gotten anyone to a Final 4 in a very long time, i.e. 34 years. Let's look at the other midmajors you've mentioned in terms of Final 4's:

A10 - 1 Final Four in the entire history of the league - UMass (1996)

Mountain West - No Final Fours in league history

West Coast - San Francisco (1955, 56, 57)

New Big East - UConn (1999, 2004, 09, 11), Memphis (2008)

So, the nBE is the only one that has a team that has gone to the Final Four in recent memory. But the nBE is lacking depth. That group has gotten only 26 tournament bids in the last 10 years. That's a 2-3 bid league.

The C7+ has 50-52 bids in the last 10 years. That's a 5 bid league. And if they want to think outside the box, they could replace Dayton with Gonzaga, who has 10 bids in the last 10 years. That would give the C7+ 57 bids, or almost 6 (5.7) per year. No matter how you slice it, the C7+ is a notch above the nBE. More bids, more Final 4's.

We can do a more detailed analysis to show that none of these midmajors has the history of getting the number of bids that the C7+ have. But the bottom line is that the only way that the C7+ doesn't qualify as a power conference is if you require a team with a history of multiple national championships that gets to the tournament most of the time.

If that's the case, then the old Big East didn't qualify as a power conference either because they didn't have anyone who met those criteria until UConn's recent success. Are you really going to tell me that the old Big East was not a power conference?

One correction: the MWC would have UNLV, which has 4 Final Fours in the school's history. I don't know about any other school in that conference.

My criteria for being a power conference is thus:

1. Have a championship contending team every year, either in the form of a single superpower (Kansas, Kentucky), or in the form of multiple teams that could be that good but aren't that way every year (Big East with Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, etc.).

OR

2. Consistently get at least 50% of the league into the tournament.


I don't think the C7 + Butler/Xavier/Dayton/SLU/Richmond meets the first criteria. I see Georgetown as a potential Final Four team on good years, and may Butler and Xavier will get to that level as well, but I don't feel like there are enough good teams to guarantee that one will be that level almost every year.

Additionally, I don't feel that the C7 would meet the second criteria. That would be a 3-5 bid league, and I feel getting 50% of the teams into the tournament would be an exception, not the rule. Essentially, what I'm saying is that if you forced me to say which teams COULD be tournament level over the next 5-10 years, I would say:

C7:
Georgetown
Villanova
Marquette
St. John's

Candidates:
Butler
Xavier
Creighton
Gonzaga
VCU

That doesn't mean that DePaul couldn't regain its swagger or that Saint Louis won't continue to stay competitive, but I feel these are your best basketball schools for the near future. Loading up on teams outside this list makes it a lot harder to justify the C7 as a power conference. They may be better on some year's than the Pac 12 or Big 12 minus Kansas, but that doesn't mean they will be good enough to get respect in the media.

(02-20-2013 12:24 AM)Title Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 12:22 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  No one knows whats going to happen so everyone should chill out. We don't make the decisions so there is no need to get all upset about it and insult each other.

Old Steve-O doesn't have much ammo upstairs, you need to forgive him.

Since you have yet to turn on your personal messages after being asked multiple times and continue to push buttons i'll do this publicly.

Knock off the name calling and instigating. It's counter productive and derails threads. People have the right to different opinions.

No one knows how this is going to shake out so quit giving VCU fans grief.

(02-20-2013 10:07 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:40 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Yes, I overlooked the MVC of the 1970's. There day was done when the Metro was formed in 1975 and the MVC lost Louisville, Memphis, etc. Indiana State was their last hurrah.

But my point remains the same. They haven't gotten anyone to a Final 4 in a very long time, i.e. 34 years. Let's look at the other midmajors you've mentioned in terms of Final 4's:

A10 - 1 Final Four in the entire history of the league - UMass (1996)

Mountain West - No Final Fours in league history

West Coast - San Francisco (1955, 56, 57)

New Big East - UConn (1999, 2004, 09, 11), Memphis (2008)

So, the nBE is the only one that has a team that has gone to the Final Four in recent memory. But the nBE is lacking depth. That group has gotten only 26 tournament bids in the last 10 years. That's a 2-3 bid league.

The C7+ has 50-52 bids in the last 10 years. That's a 5 bid league. And if they want to think outside the box, they could replace Dayton with Gonzaga, who has 10 bids in the last 10 years. That would give the C7+ 57 bids, or almost 6 (5.7) per year. No matter how you slice it, the C7+ is a notch above the nBE. More bids, more Final 4's.

We can do a more detailed analysis to show that none of these midmajors has the history of getting the number of bids that the C7+ have. But the bottom line is that the only way that the C7+ doesn't qualify as a power conference is if you require a team with a history of multiple national championships that gets to the tournament most of the time.

If that's the case, then the old Big East didn't qualify as a power conference either because they didn't have anyone who met those criteria until UConn's recent success. Are you really going to tell me that the old Big East was not a power conference?

One correction: the MWC would have UNLV, which has 4 Final Fours in the school's history. I don't know about any other school in that conference.

My criteria for being a power conference is thus:

1. Have a championship contending team every year, either in the form of a single superpower (Kansas, Kentucky), or in the form of multiple teams that could be that good but aren't that way every year (Big East with Louisville, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, etc.).

OR

2. Consistently get at least 50% of the league into the tournament.


I don't think the C7 + Butler/Xavier/Dayton/SLU/Richmond meets the first criteria. I see Georgetown as a potential Final Four team on good years, and may Butler and Xavier will get to that level as well, but I don't feel like there are enough good teams to guarantee that one will be that level almost every year.

Additionally, I don't feel that the C7 would meet the second criteria. That would be a 3-5 bid league, and I feel getting 50% of the teams into the tournament would be an exception, not the rule. Essentially, what I'm saying is that if you forced me to say which teams COULD be tournament level over the next 5-10 years, I would say:

C7:
Georgetown
Villanova
Marquette
St. John's

Candidates:
Butler
Xavier
Creighton
Gonzaga
VCU

That doesn't mean that DePaul couldn't regain its swagger or that Saint Louis won't continue to stay competitive, but I feel these are your best basketball schools for the near future. Loading up on teams outside this list makes it a lot harder to justify the C7 as a power conference. They may be better on some year's than the Pac 12 or Big 12 minus Kansas, but that doesn't mean they will be good enough to get respect in the media.

I think it's funny about Creighton. I think I thought they had been to the tourney a lot more than 4 times over the last 10 years. To me, them and Dayton are close to the same, with Dayton the better location. I mean only 1 more NCAA spot over last 10 years isn't that big of a deal.

I think the problem that Creighton will face. Some schools are going to say if we have to travel further to play a team, we might as well go to Gonzaga than Creighton.