(07-26-2013 08:56 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I know this is going to sound mean and all, and I know to VCU fans one deep run does make a program, but one deep run will NOT make anyone a legit program. Just ask George Mason.

Doesn't sound mean, just super annoying.

I'm not saying one run makes a program, I'm saying one run can spark a program.

George Mason had massive potential that they essentially wasted. The Patriots and VCU are the two largest schools in Virginia. But unlike VCU, Mason didn't build off their Final 4 run. They didn't build a practice facility, didn't listen to their coach, and now they are rebuilding. VCU on the other hand made their coach a millionaire, expanded their arena (with another major expansion in the works), jumped to a higher conference as soon as they could, and planned a new practice facility (also in the works).

Interest in hoops at George Mason has fizzled since their run while it's continued to grow at VCU (VCU has sold out every game since their Final 4 run and have a season ticket wait list).

I'm just of the opinion that larger alumni bases have the potential to equal more interest in a conference. The question was asked, but apparently my answer was unacceptable to you.

With the departure of Brad to the Pro's, how confident are you guys that Shaka will stick around for awhile?

(07-27-2013 01:26 PM)VCUfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to think that VCU has established itself in the current pecking order of college basketball programs. They are more than just one deep run.

VCU has made it to the tournament 5 times in the past 10 years. That's an accomplishment all by itself. In addition to their Final Four run, they've won games in 2 of their other 5 tournament seasons, including an upset of Duke in 2007. In addition, they've posted 27 or more wins 4 straight years and 24 or more wins 7 straight years.

This is a legit program.

It's actually 6 NCAAs in the last 10 seasons advancing 3 times besides the Final Four year (Duke '07, Wichita St. '12, Akron '13).

I certainly think we're on the right track, but I wouldn't begrudge those who would counter with 'Well who did they play?'. We obviously have respect for our former brethren in the CAA, but nationally they weren't regarded as world-beaters. Getting 20+ wins a year over the CAA isn't quite the same as doing it in the Big East or one of the Power 5 conferences in most cases. Those are valid questions.

In the end, institutional fit is a bigger deal than performance and while I don't think any of Richmond, Dayton, or SLU have VCU's profile on the court over the last 10 seasons, they all make up for it in different ways that make going with them over VCU for the sake of institutional continuity very feasible.

Thanks for the corrections. completely stupid of me to have overlooked a tournament season with a win in there. Glad to have you around to fix it for me.

(07-27-2013 12:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to think that VCU has established itself in the current pecking order of college basketball programs. They are more than just one deep run.

VCU has made it to the tournament 6 times in the past 10 years. That's an accomplishment all by itself. In addition to their Final Four run, they've won games in 2 of their other 5 tournament seasons, including an upset of Duke in 2007. In addition, they've posted 27 or more wins 4 straight years and 24 or more wins 7 straight years.

This is a legit program.

The thing is that people don't respect the CAA and Horizon. If they do that in the A-10 people will respect that. Just saying. The CAA wasn't a murders row and if you are legit you are expected to win that league every year. I think VCU along with SLU and one of the Philly schools will be the class of the A-10. Once they start making the tourny out of that league and winning the A-10 on the reg people will take notice.

(07-27-2013 08:41 PM)ivet Wrote:  With the departure of Brad to the Pro's, how confident are you guys that Shaka will stick around for awhile?

As confident as anyone that their coach would stick around after turning down the schools he has.

Shaka publicly stated that he has no interest in the NBA to the media when asked last year. Mentioned that he enjoys watching the high school to college transition with his players. He would have been a college professor if he hadn't gone into coaching.

He's a college coach. He may leave one day, but it's not going to be for the NBA.

Just because Brad Stevens jumped to the NBA doesn't mean Shaka Smart is Brad Stevens 2.0. Different people, different situations.

(07-27-2013 10:04 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to think that VCU has established itself in the current pecking order of college basketball programs. They are more than just one deep run.

VCU has made it to the tournament 6 times in the past 10 years. That's an accomplishment all by itself. In addition to their Final Four run, they've won games in 2 of their other 5 tournament seasons, including an upset of Duke in 2007. In addition, they've posted 27 or more wins 4 straight years and 24 or more wins 7 straight years.

This is a legit program.

The thing is that people don't respect the CAA and Horizon. If they do that in the A-10 people will respect that. Just saying. The CAA wasn't a murders row and if you are legit you are expected to win that league every year. I think VCU along with SLU and one of the Philly schools will be the class of the A-10. Once they start making the tourny out of that league and winning the A-10 on the reg people will take notice.

But people respect the WCC? Gonzaga goes to the tournament every year out of the West Coast's version of the MAAC but never get past the Sweet 16 - and only gets there in a good year - and they get respect. But Butler goes to 2 championship games and we don't take winning the Horizon seriously? VCU to the Final Four and wins 27 games a year over and over and George Mason also comes out of the Colonial with a run to the Final Four but we don't take that league seriously either? Once may be a fluke but when each of those leagues produces 2 teams that get to the Final Four, that kind of disproves the fluke theory.

(07-27-2013 10:04 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  The thing is that people don't respect the CAA and Horizon. If they do that in the A-10 people will respect that. Just saying. The CAA wasn't a murders row and if you are legit you are expected to win that league every year. I think VCU along with SLU and one of the Philly schools will be the class of the A-10. Once they start making the tourny out of that league and winning the A-10 on the reg people will take notice.

You honestly don't think people have taken notice of VCU? I mean, this is a Big East forum is it not? And a fan of a Big East team posed a question to VCU fans. At least one person seems to have heard of the Rams.

(07-28-2013 12:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 10:04 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to think that VCU has established itself in the current pecking order of college basketball programs. They are more than just one deep run.

VCU has made it to the tournament 6 times in the past 10 years. That's an accomplishment all by itself. In addition to their Final Four run, they've won games in 2 of their other 5 tournament seasons, including an upset of Duke in 2007. In addition, they've posted 27 or more wins 4 straight years and 24 or more wins 7 straight years.

This is a legit program.

The thing is that people don't respect the CAA and Horizon. If they do that in the A-10 people will respect that. Just saying. The CAA wasn't a murders row and if you are legit you are expected to win that league every year. I think VCU along with SLU and one of the Philly schools will be the class of the A-10. Once they start making the tourny out of that league and winning the A-10 on the reg people will take notice.

But people respect the WCC? Gonzaga goes to the tournament every year out of the West Coast's version of the MAAC but never get past the Sweet 16 - and only gets there in a good year - and they get respect. But Butler goes to 2 championship games and we don't take winning the Horizon seriously? VCU to the Final Four and wins 27 games a year over and over and George Mason also comes out of the Colonial with a run to the Final Four but we don't take that league seriously either? Once may be a fluke but when each of those leagues produces 2 teams that get to the Final Four, that kind of disproves the fluke theory.

Because they are in the tournament ever single year, not every other year at best. Also if you think the WCC is the west coast version of the MAAC then you just lost a lot of credibility. Are they the A-10? No. But they have been better than the CAA and Horizon. Especially with the addition of BYU. Gonzaga, St. Mary's and BYU are head and shoulders above the CAA and Horizon.

VCU was in a very weak league and dod not dominate it. If they can dominate the A-10 that will go a long way. Hell Xavier was one of the dominate programs in the A-10 making 5 sweet 16's in 6 years and still had trouble being recognized. One single run past the first weekend is not better than that.

That's a fair point. Although Creighton didn't dominate the Missouri Valley either or do a whole lot in the NCAAs and it wasn't much different of a conference to the CAA with George Mason, Old Dominion, and VCU who were all among the stronger mids in the country in the last decade, especially over the last several years. The last 2 years the MVC got both Wichita State and Creighton in, the 4 years before that the league was 1-bid. They hardly dominated the MVC, didn't go as often to the NCAAs and had little NCAA success when they did get there. No one is saying Creighton wasn't impressive, they were enough to get into the Big East. It's a convenient argument to put out the weak league angle to discount VCU and put our achievements in a negative context, but more of a distractor to get around the notion the Big East simply doesn't want a public.

Performance is being overrated a little bit. There are a lot of reasons VCU isn't likely to be picked up. Most of it is that institutionally VCU just doesn't fit. I think the Big East got it right with the squads they took if they had to pick 3 institutionally similar basketball schools with the best combination of big league support, facilities, coaching, and history.

Any of SLU, Richmond, Dayton and VCU lack the same balance. It's why they and us weren't included and for us the added disadvantage of our profile. VCU is also by far the youngest basketball program of any of the 4 (by several decades actually). SLU started playing in 1914, Richmond in 1913, Dayton in 1903. By comparison VCU started playing basketball in 1968. Despite that we match up pretty favorably on the court with all of those programs.

If it's just a basketball argument, VCU has done at least as well as all the other candidates, especially over the last decade. It isn't though, and that's perfectly fine. The Big East can choose and apply criteria to whoever and however they like. It's their conference. Everyone has to do what they feel is best for them.

(07-29-2013 10:58 AM)VCUfan Wrote:  That's a fair point. Although Creighton didn't dominate the Missouri Valley either or do a whole lot in the NCAAs and it wasn't much different of a conference to the CAA with George Mason, Old Dominion, and VCU who were all among the stronger mids in the country in the last decade, especially over the last several years. The last 2 years the MVC got both Wichita State and Creighton in, the 4 years before that the league was 1-bid. They hardly dominated the MVC, didn't go as often to the NCAAs and had little NCAA success when they did get there. No one is saying Creighton wasn't impressive, they were enough to get into the Big East. It's a convenient argument to put out the weak league angle to discount VCU and put our achievements in a negative context, but more of a distractor to get around the notion the Big East simply doesn't want a public.

Performance is being overrated a little bit. There are a lot of reasons VCU isn't likely to be picked up. Most of it is that institutionally VCU just doesn't fit. I think the Big East got it right with the squads they took if they had to pick 3 institutionally similar basketball schools with the best combination of big league support, facilities, coaching, and history.

Any of SLU, Richmond, Dayton and VCU lack the same balance. It's why they and us weren't included and for us the added disadvantage of our profile. VCU is also by far the youngest basketball program of any of the 4 (by several decades actually). SLU started playing in 1914, Richmond in 1913, Dayton in 1903. By comparison VCU started playing basketball in 1968. Despite that we match up pretty favorably on the court with all of those programs.

If it's just a basketball argument, VCU has done at least as well as all the other candidates, especially over the last decade. It isn't though, and that's perfectly fine. The Big East can choose and apply criteria to whoever and however they like. It's their conference. Everyone has to do what they feel is best for them.

Seems like someone forgot about Southern Illinois, Wichita St, Northern Iowa and Bradley. All have gotten to the Sweet 16 in the past decade (WSU twice, SI twice) while VCU and GMU each got their only once. MVC>CAA.

And even though Creighton therefore technically had the least amount of pure NCAA success, I think it says something about their program when it is still considered stronger and more well regarded than all those. NCAA success is not everything, and is in essence a lot of luck. But they've been a consistently solid and known program for coming up on 20 years now (people in Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, know and respect Creighton basketball).

Just like how no one should consider Butler a stronger program than Xavier.

(07-27-2013 12:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to think that VCU has established itself in the current pecking order of college basketball programs. They are more than just one deep run.

VCU has made it to the tournament 6 times in the past 10 years. That's an accomplishment all by itself. In addition to their Final Four run, they've won games in 3 of their other 5 tournament seasons, including an upset of Duke in 2007. In addition, they've posted 27 or more wins 4 straight years and 24 or more wins 7 straight years.

This is a legit program.

I guess it depends on what your definition of a "legit program" is. Respectable? Sure. Competitive? Of course. A perennial power? Not at all yet. VCU isn't a Xavier, Marquette, Villanova type level program.

So I kinda get annoyed when terms like "legit program" get thrown around because what does that even mean? One bad hiring can domino and suddenly you look up and its 6 years since you've been in the tourney. Its hard and it's only going to get harder for VCU in an A10 that won't allow them to easily win every other year even when their coach leaves.

Ask Southern Illinois. From 2002-2007 they were arguably the best mid-major outside Gonzaga in the country.

Just pointing out that all those programs by the same definition wouldn't be considered impressive programs in a league that has been a single bid 4 out of the last 6 years, the last 2 years being 2 bid years.

No doubt in the mid-2000's the MVC was superior, even significantly so. Not so much in recent years. Very much a wash, especially in the 5 years before VCU left the CAA. 4 1-bid years for the MVC and then a 2-bid year in 2012. Meanwhile the CAA had 3 in 2011. Bradley, Southern Illinois, and UNI couldn't sustain their success.

Oh I agree with NCAA success not being the end all and be all, that's why I brought up Creighton's lack of consistency. That wasn't the reason they were chosen but now it's being bandied about as the reason that VCU isn't an acceptable choice when in fact both the MVC and CAA were very comparable conferences the 5 years before VCU left the CAA and Creighton wasn't a world beater in it. Obviously finishing 2nd in a 5-bid A-10 last year also doesn't hurt us.

It's just cherry-picking facts to fit a narrative one wants to create.

It's not a basketball-decision. It doesn't have to be. None of the teams that would be added aren't supposed to be world-beaters. There isn't that much value when you're getting down to 11 and 12. It is what it is. The Big East can afford to pick whoever they like for whatever reason they like.

As for the whole coach leaving guaranteeing VCU falling apart, the same was said when Jeff Capel left, the same with Anthony Grant, and the program has gotten better each time. Everything else is just dealing in speculation.

It doesn't have to be a 'let's trash schools we don't like', just pick who you want to pick. No one has to justify why. There are lots of reasons to pick a school, NCAA success is just one of several. It didn't factor in as much with Creighton because they had other redeeming qualities.

It won't apply much to any of Richmond, SLU, or Dayton either. The Big East will choose who they think fits best with them. None of them have been world-beaters for any consistent period of time and the A-10 wasn't always the 4-5 bid league it was the last 2 seasons. It was a 2-bid league for 3 or 4 years in the 2000's, and some years only because of a conference tournament upset. It was a 1-bid league in 2005.

(07-29-2013 02:16 PM)VCUfan Wrote:  Just pointing out that all those programs by the same definition wouldn't be considered impressive programs in a league that has been a single bid 4 out of the last 6 years, the last 2 years being 2 bid years.

No doubt in the mid-2000's the MVC was superior, even significantly so. Not so much in recent years. Very much a wash, especially in the 5 years before VCU left the CAA. 4 1-bid years for the MVC and then a 2-bid year in 2012. Meanwhile the CAA had 3 in 2011. Bradley, Southern Illinois, and UNI couldn't sustain their success.

Oh I agree with NCAA success not being the end all and be all, that's why I brought up Creighton's lack of consistency. That wasn't the reason they were chosen but now it's being bandied about as the reason that VCU isn't an acceptable choice when in fact both the MVC and CAA were very comparable conferences the 5 years before VCU left the CAA and Creighton wasn't a world beater in it. Obviously finishing 2nd in a 5-bid A-10 last year also doesn't hurt us.

It's just cherry-picking facts to fit a narrative one wants to create.

It's not a basketball-decision. It doesn't have to be. None of the teams that would be added aren't supposed to be world-beaters. There isn't that much value when you're getting down to 11 and 12. It is what it is. The Big East can afford to pick whoever they like for whatever reason they like.

As for the whole coach leaving guaranteeing VCU falling apart, the same was said when Jeff Capel left, the same with Anthony Grant, and the program has gotten better each time. Everything else is just dealing in speculation.

It doesn't have to be a 'let's trash schools we don't like', just pick who you want to pick. No one has to justify why.

Sorry, but lack of consistency? 10 appearances (assuming they'll make next year w/ McDermott) in 15 years is pretty consistent.

The reason VCU isn't considered is simply they don't have an as long-running success. Certainly there is consistency, but I'd argue Southern Illinois had just as much if not more. We'll see if VCU can sustain it in a league that will make it harder to be that consistent, especially if/when a coach leaves.

Certainly fair. I agree VCU has a lot to prove when you're talking about a stage like the Big East. Point taken regarding Creighton's consistency. I was looking within a smaller time-window but looking at a 15-year window does paint a different picture for sure.

I'd say the same for SLU, Dayton, or Richmond having to prove themselves too however if we're holding them all to the same standard.

If any of those programs couldn't be consistently good in the A-10, none of them should be expected to do so in the Big East.

That's why I think the whole 'you haven't been consistent enough' is disingenuous on its face. None of these programs have been. The bottom-line is that other factors are going into these decisions. Not just basketball success. That's perfectly fine, but when it gets turned into a 'you're not good enough at basketball' argument, it doesn't make much sense since none of these programs really fit that bill.

I think it's simple enough to just say 'look, we're not getting great value with any of these picks, but we like to associate with schools that are in-line with us institutionally and we like school x because we think they have x, y, and z that bring value to the league and gives us the belief that they can grow their program into the model we want for the Big East going forward'.

No one can disrespect that and the Big East has every right to do that, especially given how things went with the Old Big East.

(07-29-2013 02:41 PM)VCUfan Wrote:  Certainly fair. I agree VCU has a lot to prove when you're talking about a stage like the Big East. Point taken regarding Creighton's consistency. I was looking within a smaller time-window but looking at a 15-year window does paint a different picture for sure.

I'd say the same for SLU, Dayton, or Richmond having to prove themselves too however if we're holding them all to the same standard.

If any of those programs couldn't be consistently good in the A-10, none of them should be expected to do so in the Big East.

That's why I think the whole 'you haven't been consistent enough' is disingenuous on its face. None of these programs have been. The bottom-line is that other factors are going into these decisions. Not just basketball success. That's perfectly fine, but when it gets turned into a 'you're not good enough at basketball' argument, it doesn't make much sense since none of these programs really fit that bill.

I think it's simple enough to just say 'look, we're not getting great value with any of these picks, but we like to associate with schools that are in-line with us institutionally and we like school x because we think they have x, y, and z that bring value to the league and gives us the belief that they can grow their program into the model we want for the Big East going forward'.

No one can disrespect that and the Big East has every right to do that, especially given how things went with the Old Big East.

Completely agree on those 3. But SLU will get in for a myriad of other reasons as they simply fit with the league better than anyone else available and have a strong academic reputation and overall athletic program.

I don't think these programs will have "dominate" the A-10 like they would be expected to in a Horizon and depleted CAA, but one of them is atleast going to have to become the big dog of the conference (maybe not as much as Xavier was though).

I especially agree with your last point. Make no mistake, if Marquette, GTown, Nova, SJU and Xavier can be who we know they can be, this league will be in great shape regardless of who we add or how bad the other teams end up being. We honestly don't need every freakin' team to be the perfect basketball fit and fighting for the tourney. Not having a clear top tier can actually cost the league a lot (certainly, they no adds can be terrible at bball - but they don't have to reach what Xavier did).

The top teams will need to win a lot of games so they can get the high W-L records that result in top seeds. If everyone is just equal and we have a lot of 11-7, 10-8, 9-9 records we will have awful seeds for our top teams. If we go to 12, we need at least 3 teams to be pretty bad so the rest of the league can increase their average. Look at most leagues. We need to be carried by the top, so even if we add, say, a SLU program that ends up becoming bad they're not a drain because when they go 4-14 that'll allow a Nova to go 14-4. Ya need the bottom as much at the top.

Some school that NO ONE is currently talking will become a very viable option if the Big East, say, waits 5-10 years. The realignment has opened up a power vacuum in many of these leagues, so there's suddenly some opportunity for new teams rise up. That's why I wouldn't sleep on seeing a Drake, Richmond, or even Detroit type program.

I agree with that.

For several reasons I don't think VCU gets in even if we continue our trend, Shaka sticks around, and we become a dominant or one of the leading A-10 programs. It just doesn't make much sense for the Big East to take a public given the make-up of the league. I just think that's all it comes down to. The Big East doesn't have to apologize for that. It's just the nature of the situation.

Agreed on the Big East likely being very strong at the top. I wouldn't sleep on Cooley at Providence either. He's recruiting at a very high level.

Good discussion. Glad we were able to keep it civil.

(07-29-2013 03:40 PM)VCUfan Wrote:  I agree with that.

For several reasons I don't think VCU gets in even if we continue our trend, Shaka sticks around, and we become a dominant or one of the leading A-10 programs. It just doesn't make much sense for the Big East to take a public given the make-up of the league. I just think that's all it comes down to. The Big East doesn't have to apologize for that. It's just the nature of the situation.

Agreed on the Big East likely being very strong at the top. I wouldn't sleep on Cooley at Providence either. He's recruiting at a very high level.

Good discussion. Glad we were able to keep it civil.

Same. Trying to play between the "VCU has arrived!" and the "VCU is just a fluke mentalities.

I do think if for some reason this league moves beyond 12, the conference won't be able to stay so institutionally picky and VCU moves to the top of the list along with WSU.

I think it's VCU and WSU anymore.

SLU had their shot, and they didn't fit then. What changes in the future?

Yea, that's where the difficulty lies.

When you speak with most fans there's no middle ground, it's the classic 'WE'RE THE BEST!' mentality. Not all fans of every fan base have those types, but every fan base has them. At the other end of the spectrum fans of other teams can get annoyed with that (understandably so) and then default to the 'You aren't as hot as you think you are' mentality because they're put off by observing the aforementioned behavior. Classic human psychology, but the truth gets lost in the mix as a result.

I agree that there's a bit of a middle ground there. We've had some success and garnered some national publicity in recent years, but we're not a national power by any means yet. We're building but we haven't arrived either. We've had support and growth but we've yet to determine if we have true staying power.

Interesting hypothesis regarding going beyond 12. As a VCU fan I want the best for my program, and much more money and a profile upgrade would definitely be something I'm sure any fan of a team in a non-power conference would want to see for their rooting interest. That said, I don't see any reason why the Big East would go beyond 12. Truth be told, I'm not sure what going to 12 accomplishes either, but I'm not the one making the decisions at Big East HQ.

Should be a fine basketball conference and will definitely replace the A-10 as the best basketball-centric conference in the country going forward. We in the A-10 will try to keep up but I'm pretty sure we're stuck in 2nd place for the forseeable future with the programs, money, and publicity in the new Big East. Your league will be fine.

I like to think VCU will do just fine as well regardless of what happens. Time will tell.

(07-29-2013 06:08 PM)VCUfan Wrote:  Yea, that's where the difficulty lies.

When you speak with most fans there's no middle ground, it's the classic 'WE'RE THE BEST!' mentality. Not all fans of every fan base have those types, but every fan base has them. At the other end of the spectrum fans of other teams can get annoyed with that (understandably so) and then default to the 'You aren't as hot as you think you are' mentality because they're put off by observing the aforementioned behavior. Classic human psychology, but the truth gets lost in the mix as a result.

I agree that there's a bit of a middle ground there. We've had some success and garnered some national publicity in recent years, but we're not a national power by any means yet. We're building but we haven't arrived either. We've had support and growth but we've yet to determine if we have true staying power.

Interesting hypothesis regarding going beyond 12. As a VCU fan I want the best for my program, and much more money and a profile upgrade would definitely be something I'm sure any fan of a team in a non-power conference would want to see for their rooting interest. That said, I don't see any reason why the Big East would go beyond 12. Truth be told, I'm not sure what going to 12 accomplishes either, but I'm not the one making the decisions at Big East HQ.

Should be a fine basketball conference and will definitely replace the A-10 as the best basketball-centric conference in the country going forward. We in the A-10 will try to keep up but I'm pretty sure we're stuck in 2nd place for the forseeable future with the programs, money, and publicity in the new Big East. Your league will be fine.

I like to think VCU will do just fine as well regardless of what happens. Time will tell.

I think you will too. VCU has looked pretty good from my neck of the woods.