(02-26-2013 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  A10 would have next year- 36 VCU, 78 Richmond, 123 Dayton, 35 SLU, 39 LaSalle, 55 UMass, 86 St Joseph's, and 111 St Bonaventure.

Didn't realize St. Bonny had recovered that well. They were down for a long time.

I agree that the C7 needs to establish itself as THE premier non-football conference right out of the gate. I actually think taking Butler and Xavier would do that. But I also see the logic of getting the 12 (14?) you want from the get-go, and then enjoying the stability.

(02-26-2013 04:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  A10 would have next year- 36 VCU, 78 Richmond, 123 Dayton, 35 SLU, 39 LaSalle, 55 UMass, 86 St Joseph's, and 111 St Bonaventure.

Didn't realize St. Bonny had recovered that well. They were down for a long time.

I agree that the C7 needs to establish itself as THE premier non-football conference right out of the gate. I actually think taking Butler and Xavier would do that. But I also see the logic of getting the 12 (14?) you want from the get-go, and then enjoying the stability.

But they don't need to just bump the A10 to become the premier non-football conference: they need to perennially beat out 2-3 of the power conferences in basketball. Otherwise it's just the new and improved A10 and will get paid accordingly during the next round of TV rights buying.

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

Does it, really?

I don't see having both would be a bad idea, except that if you're trying to hold the line at 12 there may simply not be enough room.

It reduces the chances considerably. I mean look at the situation Dayton looks like they could be in- and Dayton and Xavier are a lot further apart than Richmond and VCU.

I think bottom line- if we go 10, and Richmond isn't a part of it- it means VCU is a very real candidate for 12. And conversely, if Richmond isn't a part of it at 10, the chances of them getting in at 12 are a lot lower.

Thats a very large assumption. Also the thought at EITHER definitely getting in is a large assumption. Could very well be the first five that we heard and we've just talked ourselves into scenarios that may have already been decided.

(02-26-2013 05:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

Does it, really?

I don't see having both would be a bad idea, except that if you're trying to hold the line at 12 there may simply not be enough room.

It reduces the chances considerably. I mean look at the situation Dayton looks like they could be in- and Dayton and Xavier are a lot further apart than Richmond and VCU.

I think bottom line- if we go 10, and Richmond isn't a part of it- it means VCU is a very real candidate for 12. And conversely, if Richmond isn't a part of it at 10, the chances of them getting in at 12 are a lot lower.

Thats a very large assumption. Also the thought at EITHER definitely getting in is a large assumption. Could very well be the first five that we heard and we've just talked ourselves into scenarios that may have already been decided.

Doesn't jive with what was on the Xavier board at all.

(02-26-2013 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 05:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

Does it, really?

I don't see having both would be a bad idea, except that if you're trying to hold the line at 12 there may simply not be enough room.

It reduces the chances considerably. I mean look at the situation Dayton looks like they could be in- and Dayton and Xavier are a lot further apart than Richmond and VCU.

I think bottom line- if we go 10, and Richmond isn't a part of it- it means VCU is a very real candidate for 12. And conversely, if Richmond isn't a part of it at 10, the chances of them getting in at 12 are a lot lower.

Thats a very large assumption. Also the thought at EITHER definitely getting in is a large assumption. Could very well be the first five that we heard and we've just talked ourselves into scenarios that may have already been decided.

Doesn't jive with what was on the Xavier board at all.

I never believe someone on a message board saying they were in some meeting and is in a position to get information. Those folks do not come onto message boards babbling about the confidential things they've heard.

(02-26-2013 07:09 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 05:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Does it, really?

I don't see having both would be a bad idea, except that if you're trying to hold the line at 12 there may simply not be enough room.

It reduces the chances considerably. I mean look at the situation Dayton looks like they could be in- and Dayton and Xavier are a lot further apart than Richmond and VCU.

I think bottom line- if we go 10, and Richmond isn't a part of it- it means VCU is a very real candidate for 12. And conversely, if Richmond isn't a part of it at 10, the chances of them getting in at 12 are a lot lower.

Thats a very large assumption. Also the thought at EITHER definitely getting in is a large assumption. Could very well be the first five that we heard and we've just talked ourselves into scenarios that may have already been decided.

Doesn't jive with what was on the Xavier board at all.

I never believe someone on a message board saying they were in some meeting and is in a position to get information. Those folks do not come onto message boards babbling about the confidential things they've heard.

So, you'd thinking they made it up?

(02-26-2013 07:29 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:09 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 05:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It reduces the chances considerably. I mean look at the situation Dayton looks like they could be in- and Dayton and Xavier are a lot further apart than Richmond and VCU.

I think bottom line- if we go 10, and Richmond isn't a part of it- it means VCU is a very real candidate for 12. And conversely, if Richmond isn't a part of it at 10, the chances of them getting in at 12 are a lot lower.

Thats a very large assumption. Also the thought at EITHER definitely getting in is a large assumption. Could very well be the first five that we heard and we've just talked ourselves into scenarios that may have already been decided.

Doesn't jive with what was on the Xavier board at all.

I never believe someone on a message board saying they were in some meeting and is in a position to get information. Those folks do not come onto message boards babbling about the confidential things they've heard.

So, you'd thinking they made it up?

All i'm saying i personally don't believe any of that right off the bat.

I think the actual folks in the know if they want to talk they go through journalists anonymously, not come onto message boards.

the thing is, what was on the Xavier board jives with a- what we've heard, and b- logic. It passes the smell test. I think you're HOPING neither get in frankly.

(02-26-2013 03:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

He's not an independent source--he credits it to Feinstein, and garbles it by leaving Providence out and putting in both Siena and Richmond.

Feinstein is the only one to include Siena. Even then he says it is mainly because of the big, empty arena it uses for home games.

(02-26-2013 07:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the thing is, what was on the Xavier board jives with a- what we've heard, and b- logic. It passes the smell test. I think you're HOPING neither get in frankly.

So logic dictates that Siena is an actual option because of...wait for it...their "TV Market"? Yes, that is what they also said.

I think YOU'RE hoping that this confirms what you WANT to happen. It passes YOU'RE smell tests, not everyone else's.

"My guy hadn't heard of any particular schools and he didn't know if any in particular were even being discussed. He just knew that other than XU and Butler, there is absolutely no consensus as to who the other 1-3 schools are -- and that they are therefore doing a lot of research and talking to potential suitors about whether they could/would make that transition. That research has led to Siena being a very serious contender (TV market)."

(02-26-2013 07:33 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:29 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 07:09 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 05:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 05:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Thats a very large assumption. Also the thought at EITHER definitely getting in is a large assumption. Could very well be the first five that we heard and we've just talked ourselves into scenarios that may have already been decided.

Doesn't jive with what was on the Xavier board at all.

I never believe someone on a message board saying they were in some meeting and is in a position to get information. Those folks do not come onto message boards babbling about the confidential things they've heard.

So, you'd thinking they made it up?

All i'm saying i personally don't believe any of that right off the bat.

I think the actual folks in the know if they want to talk they go through journalists anonymously, not come onto message boards.

I understand. What you're saying certainly makes perfect sense.

So maybe I'm the naive one here. When I read message board fodder, I try to evaluate it to see if it appears to have any merit.

In this case, it tells me that Siena is being discussed among Xavier fans in Ohio independent of Feinstein. Tat in and of itself is interesting.

Second the Siena rumor within the Xavier community seems to serve no agenda they may have (other than undermining Dayton LOL) nor provide them any benefit. So, I'm starting to pay attention.

Finally, the very implausibility of the idea makes it seem more plausible. I mean, who would make something like that up? Now I'm beginning to buy in. I'm thinking that these posters really did hear this from someone whom they believe has access and is credible. It could be a secretary this guys been bangin'. Who knows?

Bottom line is that Feinstein is not the only guy who's heard there's something to it. So, take it for what it's worth, but if guys in Ohio are hearing the same thing that Feinstein heard in DC, I'm thinking there's something to it. Not that Siena is getting in. I can't believe they'd be that stupid, but that they're on a somewhat short list.

BTW, the only thing stupider than Siena is probably Richmond.

this is something else that he posted:
I don't know the "other" schools. I think Siena is more of an option than anyone realizes. I definitely agree that the C7 thinking is that if they create the right conference and the school is willing to make the financial commitment, the conference itself will help schools emerge such that current status is not necessarily a determining factor.

Also, I'm hearing that the conference almost certainly will start with 9 or 10 schools. And more likely 10. G'Town is pushing for Richmond but others like VCU. So it may well be SLU or Creighton to to get to 10, because if it's Richmond then it means the VCU debate is over.

to me taking out the Siena stuff(which is hard admittedly- but 2nd person that has mentioned Siena)- the scenario he paints with Richmond/VCU/SLU/Creighton totally makes sense.

See the problem is that we don't know if this opinion in Ohio is independent of Feinstein. We just saw a writer in St. Louis get sucked into that mess. The person talking to them could have gotten that name from the Feinstein article as well for all we know.

(02-26-2013 08:23 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  See the problem is that we don't know if this opinion in Ohio is independent of Feinstein. We just saw a writer in St. Louis get sucked into that mess. The person talking to them could have gotten that name from the Feinstein article as well for all we know.

But what would be the motive of Xavier fans to include it and to insist on it so strongly?

The St. Louis reporter's motive was to come up with a column that day. I guess that was as food a topic as any on a slow day. He was just quoting Feinstein an d wasn't pushing the Siena angle. Just the opposite with the Xavier fans. They knew that Siena sounded dumb but they insisted on it anyway. It wasn't a throw away line.

I think they were serious about what they were saying.

could it be that the people in ohio saw siena mentioned in feinsteins article? who said it 1st? why hasnt siena been mentioned by anyone credible (feinstein aside)? The AD at Siena said they werent approached. there hasnt been anything about it in the Albany papers.
Siena going to the A10 is a long shot. Siena to the C7 would be a real head scratcher to put it mildly

(02-26-2013 08:47 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  could it be that the people in ohio saw siena mentioned in feinsteins article? who said it 1st? why hasnt siena been mentioned by anyone credible (feinstein aside)? The AD at Siena said they werent approached. there hasnt been anything about it in the Albany papers.
Siena going to the A10 is a long shot. Siena to the C7 would be a real head scratcher to put it mildly

So, you're saying that Feinstein's not credible?

(02-26-2013 09:09 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:47 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  could it be that the people in ohio saw siena mentioned in feinsteins article? who said it 1st? why hasnt siena been mentioned by anyone credible (feinstein aside)? The AD at Siena said they werent approached. there hasnt been anything about it in the Albany papers.
Siena going to the A10 is a long shot. Siena to the C7 would be a real head scratcher to put it mildly

So, you're saying that Feinstein's not credible?

did i? re read my post

(02-26-2013 08:30 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 08:23 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  See the problem is that we don't know if this opinion in Ohio is independent of Feinstein. We just saw a writer in St. Louis get sucked into that mess. The person talking to them could have gotten that name from the Feinstein article as well for all we know.

But what would be the motive of Xavier fans to include it and to insist on it so strongly?

The St. Louis reporter's motive was to come up with a column that day. I guess that was as food a topic as any on a slow day. He was just quoting Feinstein an d wasn't pushing the Siena angle. Just the opposite with the Xavier fans. They knew that Siena sounded dumb but they insisted on it anyway. It wasn't a throw away line.

I think they were serious about what they were saying.

Being serious isn't the same as being correct. They can be very serious about this, but the person they are getting their info from might not be. We have no idea who they are getting this info from. Yes they all trust it but that doesn't mean squat. Look at these boards and what people believe. They are also serious about those things too.

What's the incentive to toss Siena out there because you read about them two weeks ago in a widely discredited/mocked WaPo piece? These guys are long time posters over there. The mention of Siena is immediately met with universal revulsion by every C7 fan base (and I think even by Siena itself). Why burn even an ounce of credibility on dropping a name that is not only seemingly implausible, but that no one wants and will instantly catch a lot of pushback on? Not seeing the angle here, except to screw with Dayton fans.

(02-26-2013 10:37 PM)thegalen Wrote:  What's the incentive to toss Siena out there because you read about them two weeks ago in a widely discredited/mocked WaPo piece? These guys are long time posters over there. The mention of Siena is immediately met with universal revulsion by every C7 fan base (and I think even by Siena itself). Why burn even an ounce of credibility on dropping a name that is not only seemingly implausible, but that no one wants and will instantly catch a lot of pushback on? Not seeing the angle here, except to screw with Dayton fans.

You know why I don't believe it? Because Siena's AD laughed harder at the idea than we did.