(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.