MUScoop

8 teams? 20 teams? Divisions? Pods?  Name 'em.

What's your ideal conference setup? Try to be realistic (aka, no Kansas). I'll start.

EAST
Georgetown
Villanova
Xavier
St. John's
Seton Hall
Providence
Dayton
Richmond

WEST
Marquette
Gonzaga
Butler
Creighton
Wichita St
St. Mary's
St. Louis
DePaul

Marquette
DePaul
Georgetown
Villanova
Providence
Seton Hall
St Johns

Xavier
Butler
Gonzaga

Memphis
Temple

No divisions

10-12 teams tops.

Georgetown, Villanova, Seton Hall, St. John's, Providence, DePaul, Marquette, Xavier, Butler and Creighton for a 10-team league. For a 12-team league, add St. Louis and VCU.

I really dislike divisions. I would like 12 teams ideally but I can live with 10 as well.

Marquette
Georgetown
Nova
Depaul
Providence
St. Johns
Seton Hall

First 3 choices
Xavier
Butler
Creighton

Next 2 for 12 team league
SLU
Dayton/VCU two way tie for me for the final spot.

UDPride guy really makes me want to play Dayton and beat them badly.

EAST
Providence
St. John's
Georgetown
Villanova
Cleveland State
Xavier

WEST
Dayton
Butler
Marquette
DePaul
St. Louis
Creighton

Cleveland State?  No football.  They'd have to make a commitment to upgrade the program, so make them a probationary member.  We all know how state schools can have a financial advantage growing sports programs.  They are in a city with an NBA team and and NBA arena.  As a Division I program their recruits would be eligible to scrimmage against Cavaliers.  A city that is also a two and a half hour drive from Columbus, so you know that Cleveland residents can't regularly go to Ohio State basketball games.  Decent TV market that would benefit the league once the program improved.  Taking a step up in conference affiliation should be the impetus for improvement, but the league would still have to get a solid commitment from Cleveland State to improve the athletic program across the board.  Solid recruiting area.

No Seton Hall?  Doormat of the Big East.  Still trying to build with other school's rejects.  Redundant in the New York market.  Although, if any city can handle two league teams it would be New York.  But, does Seton Hall really have a following?  Dumping them is probably unrealistic given the fact that we bolted out the door with them in tow. Damn!

I'd be a big fan of a Catholic Conference.

Big East
C7

A-10
Xavier
Dayton
St. Joe's
St. Louis
Fordham


If we need more than 12
Creighton
Detroit

16-team "SuperConference"
Gonzaga
St. Mary's (CA)

Quote from: LittleMurs on December 15, 2012, 11:55:23 PM

No Seton Hall?  Doormat of the Big East.  Still trying to build with other school's rejects.  Redundant in the New York market.  Although, if any city can handle two league teams it would be New York.  But, does Seton Hall really have a following?  Dumping them is probably unrealistic given the fact that we bolted out the door with them in tow. Damn!

If we're being "realistic," eliminating one of the "C7" is not an option

Quote from: MARQ_13 on December 15, 2012, 11:25:30 PM
Marquette
DePaul
Georgetown
Villanova
Providence
Seton Hall
St Johns

Xavier
Butler
Gonzaga

Memphis
Temple

No divisions

I'd love to have both Memphis and Temple, but we really are dreaming to expect either of them to drop their football teams from FBS to FCS status.  They'll be in the new Big East.

C7 plus Xavier, Butler, Creighton.

Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Xavier
VCU
Butler

Gonzaga
Creighton

As mentioned, the C7 are a must. We lose the automatic bid without Seton Hall (or DePaul, Providence, etc). The next three names add quality and make the conference more about basketball than theology by adding non-Catholic Butler and public VCU. I really want Gonzaga. Probably more than anyone other than Xavier. Even if they are basketball-only. If we went to 14, I'd probably say St Louis and BYU.

Quote from: MUinPHX on December 16, 2012, 12:03:15 AM
I'd be a big fan of a Catholic Conference.

Big East
C7

A-10
Xavier
Dayton
St. Joe's
St. Louis
Fordham


If we need more than 12
Creighton
Detroit

16-team "SuperConference"
Gonzaga
St. Mary's (CA)

The C7 left the Big East prompted by the addition of Tulane in all sports and you want to add Fordham?  The C7 would have to leave the new league and start all over again.

Ah, Detroit, the third team in southeast Michigan.  Maybe fourth.  Where's Eastern Michigan?

St. Joe's would be fine.  You've just got to sell Villanova on the idea of sharing Philadelphia with them.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 16, 2012, 12:12:27 AM
Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Xavier
VCU
Butler

Gonzaga
Creighton

As mentioned, the C7 are a must. We lose the automatic bid without Seton Hall (or DePaul, Providence, etc). The next three names add quality and make the conference more about basketball than theology by adding non-Catholic Butler and public VCU. I really want Gonzaga. Probably more than anyone other than Xavier. Even if they are basketball-only. If we went to 14, I'd probably say St Louis and BYU.

Wow, I completely forgot about BYU.  They make a lot more sense as a second western team than St. Mary's does.  Mitt needs a job.  Maybe if we got Mitt to be commissioner of the new conference......

Marquette
Providence
DePaul
St Johns
Villanova
G Town
Seton Hall
Creighton
Xavier
Butler
Gonzaga
BYU

I think 12 is a good number of teams. Other possibilities: Memphis, temple, VCU, UCONN, Cincy.

Quote from: LittleMurs on December 16, 2012, 12:15:19 AM
The C7 left the Big East prompted by the addition of Tulane in all sports and you want to add Fordham?  The C7 would have to leave the new league and start all over again.

Ah, Detroit, the third team in southeast Michigan.  Maybe fourth.  Where's Eastern Michigan?

St. Joe's would be fine.  You've just got to sell Villanova on the idea of sharing Philadelphia with them.

Fordham is NOT a basketball powerhouse, there's no doubt about that.  However, it 1) increases the conference's presence in New York and 2) greatly improves the academic quality of the league (Fordham would EASILY be the second-best school academically behind only Georgetown).

Detroit is 1) like-minded in that it is Jesuit, 2) improving in basketball and a popular pick for Horizon League champ this year, and 3) provides a new media market (despite, as you fairly mentioned, by no means locks-up Detroit).

I can't imagine Nova would be against adding St. Joe's, but I suppose it's possible.

At any rate, you have to take into consideration that these decisions are about more than basketball (as you aptly noted in regards to Detroit).

I prefer a 12 team over 10 team league for greater exposure and bigger conferences are the trend.

10 Teams: Georgetown, Villanova, Seton Hall, St. John's, Providence, DePaul, Marquette, Xavier, Butler and Creighton.

12 Teams: Add St. Louis and Dayton.

Quote from: augoman on December 16, 2012, 12:08:41 AM
C7 plus Xavier, Butler, Creighton.

Winner.  I'll also accept these plus SLU and VCU, though I'm starting to prefer the 10 team model.  

Ya'll need to gtfo with your football schools and craptacular basketball schools that happen to be Jesuit.  We're not playing football or having an academic bowl.  There's a reason Presidents, ADs, and coaches of the C7 have stressed this is a basketball move.

Quote from: MUinPHX on December 16, 2012, 12:27:42 AM
Fordham is NOT a basketball powerhouse, there's no doubt about that.  However, it 1) increases the conference's presence in New York and 2) greatly improves the academic quality of the league (Fordham would EASILY be the second-best school academically behind only Georgetown).

Detroit is 1) like-minded in that it is Jesuit, 2) improving in basketball and a popular pick for Horizon League champ this year, and 3) provides a new media market (despite, as you fairly mentioned, by no means locks-up Detroit).

I can't imagine Nova would be against adding St. Joe's, but I suppose it's possible.

At any rate, you have to take into consideration that these decisions are about more than basketball (as you aptly noted in regards to Detroit).

A sentimental reason to go with Detroit is their past history as a MU foe.  With Dickie V., baby!  Detroit's PG is a junior who also happens to be a Jr.  When head coach Ray McCallum's son Ray, Jr. graduates, it'll be interesting to see if Detroit can stay as good a team.  Sharing the same geographic area as two Big Ten teams is just too much of a ball crusher for that to happen, IMO.  Just look at what competing with Northwestern has done to DePaul!  If we're going to raid the horizon, let's be imaginative and take Cleveland State, instead.

C7
Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Add
Xavier
Butler
+1 of these 3: Creighton, VCU, St. Louis

I like starting with 10 teams, then the conference can pick and choose if they decide to grow over time. 

Quote from: chapman on December 16, 2012, 12:34:59 AM
Winner.  I'll also accept these plus SLU and VCU, though I'm starting to prefer the 10 team model.  

Ya'll need to gtfo with your football schools and craptacular basketball schools that happen to be Jesuit.  We're not playing football or having an academic bowl.  There's a reason Presidents, ADs, and coaches of the C7 have stressed this is a basketball move.

Stressed?  There's not much "stress" in a single press release.  It's completely asinine to believe that athletic conferences do not paint a broader portrait of universities and their reputations overall.  

The Big Ten, for example, has long coveted their AAU membership.  Similarly, the Ivy League is the pedestal for excellence in education, despite the reality that Dartmouth is by no means as academically prestigious as Harvard.  

Alternatively, revenue (i.e. media markets) were the catalyst behind the entire conference carousel in the first place.  For that matter, conferences EXIST for the purposes of reputation and revenue, not to improve athletic quality.

You're correct - this single press release did not specifically cite academics or media markets as factors in the formation of a new league, but to assert that basketball will be the singular focus of a new conference and that all else will go unconsidered is absolutely infantile.

Quote from: MUinPHX on December 16, 2012, 12:52:26 AM
Stressed?  There's not much "stress" in a single press release.

The press release, SJU's President's news conference, Larry Williams, Buzz, and JTIII have all brought up basketball as the reason for this split and the key for the new conference, and LW definitely made it clear that this is not the "Catholic Conference" for a reason.  Of course they're going to consider other factors aside from basketball, which is why schools that might be willing to join and park football elsewhere won't be invited.  But above all, schools that haven't committed resources to basketball success won't get a second look. 

if we are talking semi realistic ideal, even for a few years, i can't imagine why this setup wouldn't be in the cards, if we are talking dream for as long as it lasts, and future stability when teams bolt. as follows:
c7 (obviously)
notre dame
BYU
memphis
temple
UCONN
CINN
Butler
Xavier
Gonzaga

after football schools leave, add, in this order:
VCU
Creighton
Dayton
SLU
st marys
richmond
wichita st.
george mason (?) [hope it doesn't get this far]
This is the dream, obviously. throw in UNLV, San Diego st, Utah state, etc. if you have slightly less fear of football schools than I do.

Quote from: Aughnanure on December 15, 2012, 11:21:24 PM
8 teams? 20 teams? Divisions? Pods?  Name 'em.

What's your ideal conference setup? Try to be realistic (aka, no Kansas). I'll start.

EAST
Georgetown
Villanova
Xavier
St. John's
Seton Hall
Providence
Dayton
Richmond

WEST
Marquette
Gonzaga
Butler
Creighton
Wichita St
St. Mary's
St. Louis
DePaul

I'd switch Dayton with VCU. I think going big including the Zags and St. Mary's is the way to go. Play everyone once, let the league with our TV partner determine the mirror games.

As for non-basketball sports I am sure they'll figure a way that is cost effective and not a burden to the "real student athletes".

Let's get Loyola a new stadium so they can join too.  They are the only Illinois team to ever win an NCAA title.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 16, 2012, 12:12:27 AM
Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Xavier
VCU
Butler

Gonzaga
Creighton

As mentioned, the C7 are a must. We lose the automatic bid without Seton Hall (or DePaul, Providence, etc). The next three names add quality and make the conference more about basketball than theology by adding non-Catholic Butler and public VCU. I really want Gonzaga. Probably more than anyone other than Xavier. Even if they are basketball-only. If we went to 14, I'd probably say St Louis and BYU.

This.  100% agree with everything.  I'll barf if we add SLU to this league before creighton, gonzaga, vcu, st. marys, even dayton.

I think 10 teams is ideal. That allows an 18-game home-and-away conference schedule, with every team playing all the others twice a year — a balanced approach that should help build strong rivalries. (Not a fan of the Big East's recent approach to scheduling. Don't think the Duke-UNC rivalry would be what it is without playing twice a year.)

My Top 10:
Butler
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
VCU
Villanova
Xavier

Xavier and Butler are locks. The third addition is a toss-up for me between St. Louis, VCU and Creighton.

VCU gets the nod for a few reasons, primarily recent success and geography. While the Rams don't have the same long-standing tradition as many of the C7 schools, they've made the NCAA tourney 11 times — including 5 appearances since 2004 and a Final Four. That's roughly in line with Butler's resume. VCU's home in Richmond also gives the new conference access to the Southeast for recruiting. Both those factors are more important to me than the larger market size of St. Louis.

Butler
DePaul
Georgetown
Gonzaga
Marquette
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Villanova
Xavier

Done.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 16, 2012, 12:12:27 AM
Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Xavier
VCU
Butler

Gonzaga
Creighton

As mentioned, the C7 are a must. We lose the automatic bid without Seton Hall (or DePaul, Providence, etc). The next three names add quality and make the conference more about basketball than theology by adding non-Catholic Butler and public VCU. I really want Gonzaga. Probably more than anyone other than Xavier. Even if they are basketball-only. If we went to 14, I'd probably say St Louis and BYU.

I'm on the same page as BrewCity.  I prefer to keep it Midwest & Northeast.  First 10 are easy.  11 & 12 gets tough.  If you want known better programs and are OK with wider geography then definitly Creighton & Gonzaga.  If you don't want to stretch that far then sub Dayton & StLU.  Like the BYU idea if their game. 

[Sagarin rating in brackets]
The C7 plus [avg 81.06]

Ten Team League
Xavier [84.37]
Dayton [80.03]
Butler [82.15]

Twelve Team League
3 above plus:
Creighton [81.98]
St. Louis [77.90]

If you want to keep the lague all Catholic, I would switch out Butler for Saint Joseph [80.31]
The reason i would select St. Louis over Saint Joseph is that they have a far better facility and they are in a market not covered by any other school.
The Reason i would select Dayton over Creighton is that i think it helps to not spread out the league unnessacarily

We've heard LW, JTIII and others say this is about basketball. To me that rules out both Notre Dame and Brigham Young — programs that are built around football.

Seems like a relatively simple (and sound) principle. Ultimately, ND's we'll-join-for-all-sports-except-football stance didn't work out for either the school or the Big East. Stability means you're either in or you're out. There is no in-between. Let the ACC be warned.

Quote from: PTM on December 16, 2012, 10:31:57 AM
Butler
DePaul
Georgetown
Gonzaga
Marquette
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Villanova
Xavier

Done.

Like it, but would add Creighton and St. Louis. Two more ldecent-sized markets and more places to host later games. Think TV double-header with first game tipping off at 7 p.m. Eastern followed by a 9 p.m. (Eastern) start in Milwaukee, St. Louis, Omaha, Spokane, etc.

C7 plus Xavier, VCU, Creighton, Butler, and Dayton.   Two divisions.   Home and home within your division, one game against the other division.  

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 16, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
This.  100% agree with everything.  I'll barf if we add SLU to this league before creighton, gonzaga, vcu, st. marys, even dayton.

Agreed. I also agree with Brew. This has to be the list if basketball is #1 priority.

Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Xavier
VCU
Butler

Gonzaga
Creighton

I swear to God I'll pistol whip the next person that suggests Dayton.

Quote from: PTM on December 16, 2012, 03:22:22 PM
I swear to God I'll pistol whip the next person that suggests Dayton.

http://www.udpride.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3

Can I watch?

Marquette
DePaul
Georgetown
Villanova
Providence
Seton Hall
St Johns

If 10 teams
Butler
Xavier
Gonzaga

If 12 teams
Creighton
SLU

Quote from: PTM on December 16, 2012, 03:22:22 PM
I swear to God I'll pistol whip the next person that suggests Dayton.

Don't want an NIT regular that hasn't made the second weekend of the tournament in 28 years, has annoying fans and a mostly redundant market to Xavier?

From the board they seem pretty tame though...either they have one or two wackos or a rival fan is trolling to make them look bad.

Dayton.

Keep it at 9 teams for now, C7 + Xavier and Butler.  16 game home-and-home schedule gives everyone more flexibility to schedule 2 more home-and-home's each year against teams from other conferences.  At least at the beginning, it will be critical to show we're one of the top leagues, and having more opportunities to beat other "BCS" league teams will help demonstrate that.  We'll have a better chance to raise our RPI and get "signature wins" by playing more tough out of conference games.

Plus, I don't want to be stuck in the Western division and lose annual games against Georgetown, Villanova and St. Johns.

Quote from: PTM on December 16, 2012, 03:22:22 PM
I swear to God I'll pistol whip the next person that suggests Dayton.

Can someone explain the rational reason for this animosity toward Dayton?

Not every team in the league can be a top-half contender.  If no other reason, we need someone that gives DePaul a fighting chance at not being the "DePaul" of the new league.  

Quote from: PTM on December 16, 2012, 03:22:22 PM
I swear to God I'll pistol whip the next person that suggests Dayton.

Couldn't agree more.

I'd be okay with Dayton if basketball tradition were the only factor. The Flyers have more NCAA appearances (including reaching the 1967 title game) than either St. Louis or VCU.

What absolutely knocks them out of the running for me is proximity to Xavier. Dayton is within 60 miles of Cincinnati and it's the #62 ranked media market in the country. So it doesn't expand our reach for either TV viewers or recruiting. St. Louis, VCU or Creighton would bring far more to the table.

Somewhere down the road, the new conference might want to have two schools from essentially the same market. There's room in the ACC for Duke and UNC. But I just don't see how Dayton is one of the 3 (or even 5) best candidates for entry right now.

Why all the Dayton love? I'm not sure if the voting is done by majority or it has to be unanimous when adding teams to the new conference, but if the powers at MU votes for them to be in the conference I would be disappointed and would lose some respect for them. If it's majority, there isn't much MU can do.

Dayton is a mid major, has a whiny fan base, and has been sub-par for a long time now. We can get a little more creative than Dayton, come on now. Maybe as a last resort or something but there's no rush to grab them now.

Also, that's ridiculous to think that Xavier and Dayton are a package deal. If Xavier says we'll join but only if Dayton comes, then the C7 should say thanks, but no thanks. They have a lot of options and Dayton shouldn't be one of them.

Quote from: PTM on December 16, 2012, 10:31:57 AM
Butler Creighton
DePaul
Georgetown
Gonzaga
Marquette
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Villanova
Xavier

Done.

Avid ... Creighton but not Butler?
For the love of all that is holy, why?
I like Creighton as team 10 or 11, but never ahead of Butler.

No saint Louis.  No Dayton.  If those are the schools we have to admit to a 12 team league, this league isn't going to be so hot.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 16, 2012, 06:09:46 PM
Avid ... Creighton but not Butler?
For the love of all that is holy, why?
I like Creighton as team 10 or 11, but never ahead of Butler.

i don't like butler's future without stevens...if someone in the know has strong knowledge that stevens is staying put until coach k. retires, or something along those lines, i think butler could get their feet under themselves in a new league.  i'm not sure about butler's facilities...i know creighton draws really well.  i just worry that butler has a hard of being relevant once stevens leaves.  the other schools have been successful under multiple coaches.  

Why BYU....they have a football program?

Quote from: avid1010 on December 16, 2012, 07:25:01 PM
i don't like butler's future without stevens...if someone in the know has strong knowledge that stevens is staying put until coach k. retires, or something along those lines, i think butler could get their feet under themselves in a new league.  i'm not sure about butler's facilities...i know creighton draws really well.  i just worry that butler has a hard of being relevant once stevens leaves.  the other schools have been successful under multiple coaches.  

butler was relevant before brad steven's. they play in hinkle field house - the arena from hoosiers. i was speaking with some butler alums (former athletes) last night and they were filling me on their plans on them currently raising $7M for renovations to their athletic practice facilities. stevens has a nice payday at butler and i don't see him moving until k leaves. also, indiana is a recruiting hotbed for talent.

Quote from: avid1010 on December 16, 2012, 07:25:01 PM
i don't like butler's future without stevens...if someone in the know has strong knowledge that stevens is staying put until coach k. retires, or something along those lines, i think butler could get their feet under themselves in a new league.  i'm not sure about butler's facilities...i know creighton draws really well.  i just worry that butler has a hard of being relevant once stevens leaves.  the other schools have been successful under multiple coaches.  

I have to reject this argument.    What is the future at MU if Buzz leaves?    When McDermott graduates from Creighton?   If Wright leaves Villanova?   If Shaka leaves VCU?   What has St Louis ever done without Shoonhour or Majerus?    Other than the fact they have been part of the BEast forever, why do we actually want Providence, St Johns, and Seton Hall?    And if you are going to make that argument about Butler, then you must WANT Dayton, as they have a long history of being decent.    

The tie that binds this new conference going forward is a commitment to being the best basketball-only conference in the country, much like the original vision for the Big East.      There are 'what-ifs' everywhere.   Who knows, upgrading the conference affilitation may KEEP Brad at Butler and Shaka at VCU.  

Quote from: tower912 on December 16, 2012, 05:03:51 PM
Dayton.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ah5uyLk11rorg5fo1_500.gif)

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 16, 2012, 05:15:33 PM
Can someone explain the rational reason for this animosity toward Dayton?

Not every team in the league can be a top-half contender.  If no other reason, we need someone that gives DePaul a fighting chance at not being the "DePaul" of the new league.  

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgisk6GnaM1qgq4hio1_500.gif)

I actually do like divisions. I think it adds something for the media and fans to follow, root for, and debate to a conference. It creates a race. Something else to win - and a rivalry between the divisions.

12-Team, all private, play everyone in your division twice, 18-game schedule, one home-and-home cross division rival, division winners are #1 & #2 seeds in conference tourney.

East
Georgetown
St. John's
Villanova
Xavier
Providence
Seton Hall

West
Marquette
Gonzaga
Butler
St. Louis
Creighton
DePaul

Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Xavier
Butler
Saint Louis

Memphis *
Cincinnati*
Connecticut *
Massachusetts*


* Institutions that compete in NCAA FBS football and would have to house its football programs as either an independent or as an associate member of another conference

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 16, 2012, 05:15:33 PM
Can someone explain the rational reason for this animosity toward Dayton?

Not every team in the league can be a top-half contender.  If no other reason, we need someone that gives DePaul a fighting chance at not being the "DePaul" of the new league.  

It may have already been summarized, but everyone (rationally) hates on Dayton coming into the conference because of their insignificant TV market and proximity to Xavier, lack of much b-ball tradition, and lack of recent success.  Those are reasons enough not not invite them, but most of us just hate Dayton because they have an annoying fanbase with an inferiority complex.

We'll invite Butler, Xavier, and VCU, and  St. Louis before we invite Dayton. Probably Creighton before Dayton as well, even though the TV market is slightly smaller.

Augh, remember divisions are the reason that UW at Madison is going to the rose bowl in spite of the fact that teams in the other division have better records and finished ahead of them in final standings (and are not on sanctions).  Whenever I mention that 'yes, they're going to the rose bowl, but with an asterisk' the assumption is that I am referring to the two ineligible schools that finished ahead of bajrs in their division.  True, but there are others that are more worthy, although finishing behind Nebraska eliminated them from the opportunity.  IMHO divisions suck.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 16, 2012, 05:15:33 PMCan someone explain the rational reason for this animosity toward Dayton?

Not every team in the league can be a top-half contender.  If no other reason, we need someone that gives DePaul a fighting chance at not being the "DePaul" of the new league.

The reasoning probably started with the UDPride guy coming on here and acting as though Dayton and the A-10 were light years better off than the Big East and pretty much saying we should come groveling to them for spots in their league and maybe they'd let us in. That may not be rational, but I think a few people were turned off by that.

For a rational reason, it's about what they bring. Dayton doesn't have a major market or even top-50. They are basically in Xavier's back yard, so if we have the Musketeers, what more do the Flyers bring? On the court, they've only been to the tournament 4 times in the past 20 years and it's been nearly 30 years since they made it past the first weekend. The only thing I really like is that they host the First Four every year, but is it worth that small amount of added exposure for something their basketball team is not doing in order to invite them to the conference? Will anyone outside of Ohio get that excited for a Xavier/Dayton rivalry game, or any other school playing Dayton?

And as far as your second point, I think that's the completely wrong way of looking at it. You don't bring anyone in to be a bottom feeder. You only bring in contenders. You could argue Seton Hall and Providence will share that space with DePaul (maybe even 'Nova) but you don't recruit for that reason. You recruit the best teams and let the battles on the court settle who will be the bottom-feeders. If you can get Xavier, Butler, Gonzaga, VCU, and Creighton and all of them will be perennial contenders, you do it because it strengthens the league.

Buzz doesn't recruit players to be last on the bench, and when guys show up that don't have the ability or work ethic, they are advised to find somewhere to better fit in. It won't be that easy to convince invited universities to transfer as it is students, so don't bother bringing them. Only bring in the best.

Quote from: tower912 on December 16, 2012, 07:43:06 PM
I have to reject this argument.    What is the future at MU if Buzz leaves?    When McDermott graduates from Creighton?   If Wright leaves Villanova?   If Shaka leaves VCU?   What has St Louis ever done without Shoonhour or Majerus?    Other than the fact they have been part of the BEast forever, why do we actually want Providence, St Johns, and Seton Hall?    And if you are going to make that argument about Butler, then you must WANT Dayton, as they have a long history of being decent.    

The tie that binds this new conference going forward is a commitment to being the best basketball-only conference in the country, much like the original vision for the Big East.      There are 'what-ifs' everywhere.   Who knows, upgrading the conference affilitation may KEEP Brad at Butler and Shaka at VCU.  

I wasn't looking at teams that are already in, and when I looked at Creighton and Butler I just looked at their past NCAA tournament history.  MU won under KO who has proven to be very average in other jobs. We won under TC, then Buzz, and have a strong tradition.  I see the same thing with Gonzaga and Xavier.  The 10th team worries me, and think it's important its a team that's not a current flavor, but has some rich history.  Maybe with a new elevated conference, Butler already has that in the last 5 years.  That said, if I knew Stevens was leaving after this year I would worry.  As pointed out...we have plenty of other teams in the conference that have struggled to find consistency. 

Quote from: Pakuni on December 16, 2012, 03:25:10 PM
http://www.udpride.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3

Can I watch?

Cowards closed their registration.

Another reason to hate Dayton.

Quote from: PTM on December 17, 2012, 08:21:23 AM
Cowards closed their registration.

Another reason to hate Dayton.

Two thoughts on Dayton:

1) All the facts they post ignore that Xavier and Butler seem to have agreed to join up, taking their two most successful teams over the past 15 years.
2) Any of them would leave in a heartbeat if we extended the offer.
3) Based on the vitriol they are spewing, they seem pretty sure they will NOT be team #10...or #11 or #14 for that matter.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 17, 2012, 08:28:11 AM
Two thoughts on Dayton:

1) All the facts they post ignore that Xavier and Butler seem to have agreed to join up, taking their two most successful teams over the past 15 years.
2) Any of them would leave in a heartbeat if we extended the offer.
3) Based on the vitriol they are spewing, they seem pretty sure they will NOT be team #10...or #11 or #14 for that matter.

Absolutely my impression as well.  They are in full spin mode.  The thread about the A-10 being the better conference especially tickled me.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 17, 2012, 08:28:11 AM
Two thoughts on Dayton:

1) All the facts they post ignore that Xavier and Butler seem to have agreed to join up, taking their two most successful teams over the past 15 years.
2) Any of them would leave in a heartbeat if we extended the offer.
3) Based on the vitriol they are spewing, they seem pretty sure they will NOT be team #10...or #11 or #14 for that matter.

4) Believe their 'First Four' involvement carries too much clout. Believes ESPN LOVES Dayton and adds value to any TV contract.

Quote from: PTM on December 17, 2012, 08:31:16 AM
4) Believe their 'First Four' involvement carries too much clout. Believes ESPN LOVES Dayton and adds value to any TV contract.

I like the First Four thing, but the idea that it's make or break is silly. It helps put them probably 7th or 8th in terms of who I want in the league. Still behind Xavier, Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, Creighton, and St. Louis. About a wash with St. Mary's.

And someone needs to tell them Dan Patrick left Bristol YEARS ago.

EDIT: Oh, and...

5) They put WAY too much importance on December RPI and common opponents.

Quote from: augoman on December 17, 2012, 12:18:46 AM
Augh, remember divisions are the reason that UW at Madison is going to the rose bowl in spite of the fact that teams in the other division have better records and finished ahead of them in final standings (and are not on sanctions).  Whenever I mention that 'yes, they're going to the rose bowl, but with an asterisk' the assumption is that I am referring to the two ineligible schools that finished ahead of bajrs in their division.  True, but there are others that are more worthy, although finishing behind Nebraska eliminated them from the opportunity.  IMHO divisions suck.

First, I'm really not sure how this applies to basketball, as there is nothing like an automatic Rose Bowl invite awaiting division winner. There's a conference tourney, that ALL conference members will play-in. Also, I dont get why you can ignore that the reason UW-Madison even got in was b/c of the probation on Ohio St and Penn St. Any other year, it would've been fine. I think that's a pretty unfair situation to use against divisions.

Regardless, besides having an extra 'championship' and an auto #1 or #2 seed in the conference tourney  along with a bye - the NCAA will judge the conference teams on their overall resume, not division finishes. Plus, there will 4 teams total that get a bye in the conference tourney in a 12-team format. So you could still have one division get 3 of the byes, while the other gets just one.

I dont understand what potential controversial could be created with divisions- but if anything, it spurs debate and attention like this. Such as: The records of the West teams weren't as good, but that's because that division was better overall

I actually like the idea of starting a 9 or 10 and seeing what happens.

You can always add a "western division" later with Gonzaga, St. Mary's and (insert other schools).

I'd hate for MU to be in the "Western Division", because we'd have to give up some games against Georgetown and Nova, but if it makes the whole product better, we might have to bite the bullet.

Anyways, to start just go with 10 teams, you get the following (good) matchups:

Usually Good:
Georgetown (x2)
Nova (x2)
XU (x2)
Butler (x2)
Creighton (x2)

The next tier down (teams that have potential):
St. John's (x2)
DePaul (x2) (they aren't good, yet... but they could be decent, and this is a rivalry game)

That's 14 pretty good games, 7 of those are at home and might draw pretty well (provided the opponent is playing well). Give it a handful of years and there could be some decent rivalries born/enhanced... especially playing twice per year.

The last 4 games against Prov. and SHU are kind of throw-aways at this point... but those teams always have potential to jump up every few years.

That conf. could avg. 4 bids per year, with maybe 5 or 6 in a really good year and only 2 or 3 in a down year.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 17, 2012, 08:35:30 AM


5) They put WAY too much importance on December RPI and common opponents.

6) They put WAY too much importance on a November 2008 game played in Hoffman Estates.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 17, 2012, 08:53:26 AM
I actually like the idea of starting a 9 or 10 and seeing what happens.

You can always add a "western division" later with Gonzaga, St. Mary's and (insert other schools).

I'd hate for MU to be in the "Western Division", because we'd have to give up some games against Georgetown and Nova, but if it makes the whole product better, we might have to bite the bullet.
...

That's 14 pretty good games, 7 of those are at home and might draw pretty well (provided the opponent is playing well). Give it a handful of years and there could be some decent rivalries born/enhanced... especially playing twice per year.

Of course it depends on what teams are in the western division, but I like the idea of potentially becoming Gonzaga's main division rival. ESPN would be all over the Gonzaga-Marquette games twice a year - and we'd be able to be the leaders of our division.

The bad thing about 9 teams is that's not a lot of inventory to sell if we're trying to create a good TV deal. A 20% jump in the number of teams would increase the inventory significantly. I saw the numbers for this on the Hoya board or the Xavier board (too lazy to figure out on my own how many total conference games each set-up would get to sell), but it was a large increase for a much smaller boost in the number of teams.

Quote from: Aughnanure on December 17, 2012, 09:15:19 AM
Of course it depends on what teams are in the western division, but I like the idea of potentially becoming Gonzaga's main division rival. ESPN would be all over the Gonzaga-Marquette games twice a year - and we'd be able to be the leaders of our division.

The bad thing about 9 teams is that's not a lot of inventory to sell if we're trying to create a good TV deal. A 20% jump in the number of teams would increase the inventory significantly. I saw the numbers for this on the Hoya board or the Xavier board (too lazy to figure out on my own how many total conference games each set-up would get to sell), but it was a large increase for a much smaller boost in the number of teams.

Yea, for revenue's sake, you might have to go with at least 12 to start. I get it.

But, from a pure rivalry and conference building standpoint, I'd start with 10.

$ will probably win out, and I guess that's fine.

Quote from: augoman on December 17, 2012, 12:18:46 AM
IMHO divisions suck.

Agree.  Only necessary in football.  The SEC just scrapped them for basketball because they were a mess that added no value.

Quote from: PTM on December 17, 2012, 08:31:16 AM
4) Believe their 'First Four' involvement carries too much clout. Believes ESPN LOVES Dayton and adds value to any TV contract.

They hope their team can make it there someday.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 17, 2012, 09:17:21 AM
Yea, for revenue's sake, you might have to go with at least 12 to start. I get it.

But, from a pure rivalry and conference building standpoint, I'd start with 10.

$ will probably win out, and I guess that's fine.

But how do you do scheduling? I think you have to do division/regional scheduling if you want Gonzaga in - and I think you want Gonzaga in. I just hate to see division type-scheduling (like the Big 12  used to do) but then division-less standings when all the teams didn't play matching schedules.

Quote from: avid1010 on December 17, 2012, 06:29:55 AM
I wasn't looking at teams that are already in, and when I looked at Creighton and Butler I just looked at their past NCAA tournament history.  MU won under KO who has proven to be very average in other jobs. We won under TC, then Buzz, and have a strong tradition.  I see the same thing with Gonzaga and Xavier.  The 10th team worries me, and think it's important its a team that's not a current flavor, but has some rich history.  Maybe with a new elevated conference, Butler already has that in the last 5 years.  That said, if I knew Stevens was leaving after this year I would worry.  As pointed out...we have plenty of other teams in the conference that have struggled to find consistency.  

Yes, Butler could drop off if/when Stevens leaves, but it should be pointed out that Butler had a consistently good program for 10+ years before Stevens.
In the 11 years before Stevens, Butler made six NCAAs and three NITs. Of those six NCAAs, they made two Sweet 16s and one round of 32 ... nearly always beating higher-seeded opponents. And they did it under three different coaches.
Obviously this all occurred in a far lesser conference, but it's pretty respectable nonetheless. I'm not terribly worried about Butler dropping off the cliff if they lost their coach.

Quote from: Aughnanure on December 17, 2012, 09:21:32 AM
But how do you do scheduling? I think you have to do division/regional scheduling if you want Gonzaga in - and I think you want Gonzaga in. I just hate to see division type-scheduling (like the Big 12  used to do) but then division-less standings when all the teams didn't play matching schedules.

Yea, I really don't know how to approach it above 10 teams. That's above my pay-grade.

They might have to go to divisions, which is less than ideal... but if that means more tv$, then you have to do it.

Like I said, I'd like to see 10 teams to build some rivalries and familiarity and then go up to 12 or 14... or maybe in 5 years the landscape looks even different and you go to 20 teams, or maybe stay at 10. I dunno.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 17, 2012, 09:29:34 AM
They might have to go to divisions, which is less than ideal... but if that means more tv$, then you have to do it.

I think divisions are actually worse for TV revenue.  They lock you into set scheduling, which promotes imbalance rather than solving it.  The current BE actually had a better approach with the way they handled the home-and-homes, with scheduling based on preseason predictions.  NFL does similar with its two in-conference, out of division floaters each year being based on previous year standings (how we saw a big deal Colts/Patriots game every year instead of once every three).  I would assume offering a similar approach in a television deal would be appealing to a network as you're telling them that your schedule will adjust to give them more of the premiere match-ups that they want to air.

Quote from: chapman on December 17, 2012, 09:49:10 AM
I think divisions are actually worse for TV revenue.  They lock you into set scheduling, which promotes imbalance rather than solving it. The current BE actually had a better approach with the way they handled the home-and-homes, with scheduling based on preseason predictions.  NFL does similar with its two in-conference, out of division floaters each year being based on previous year standings (how we saw a big deal Colts/Patriots game every year instead of once every three).  I would assume offering a similar approach in a television deal would be appealing to a network as you're telling them that your schedule will adjust to give them more of the premiere match-ups that they want to air.

I think the NFL does it because there's 32 teams and only 16 games....and they use divisions/pods. At 10-12 teams with a 16-20 game schedule, the difference you can make through competitive scheduling is non-existent to minimal at best.

Quote from: Aughnanure on December 16, 2012, 10:51:49 PM
I actually do like divisions. I think it adds something for the media and fans to follow, root for, and debate to a conference. It creates a race. Something else to win - and a rivalry between the divisions.

12-Team, all private, play everyone in your division twice, 18-game schedule, one home-and-home cross division rival, division winners are #1 & #2 seeds in conference tourney.

East
Georgetown
St. John's
Villanova
Xavier
Providence
Seton Hall

West
Marquette
Gonzaga
Butler
St. Louis
Creighton
DePaul

+100000000000000000000


This should be our conference. These divisions are pretty well balanced. Home and home within division. One home-and-home with a rival from the other division (could rotate). Play everyone else in the other division once. Structure the conference tournament so each division is one side of the bracket.

I also think this approach mitigates, if not eliminates, the travel issue with Gonzaga. Everyone within their division is in the midwest. Those flights are 3-4 hours tops (not awesome, but definitely workable). They have to travel to the east coast maybe 3-4 times a year, that's it.

I threw this idea out in another thread, and I'll toss it out a second time if only to liven the discussion.

I have always liked the English soccer league's system of tiers and relegation/promotion, where the lowest team in the "A League" gets relegated to the "B League", and the best from "B" gets promoted to "A".  The system gives overachieving teams with small budgets and second rate facilities a chance to play with the big boys, and it doesn't let the big boys get fat, lazy, and uncompetitive.  Plenty of pros and cons, I'm sure.  But if the rest of D1 is aligning superconferences to generate excitement TV negotiating power, might this be a creative way to create one ourselves?

2014/15 tiers would be based on a predetermined measure (ie 2012/2013 ratings - Sagarin, Pomeroy, Value-Add, whatever).  $'s awarded proportionately to the biggest contributors.  A hasty example of how it might play out...

*Tier 1*
Georgetown
Marquette
St Johns
Gonzaga
Xavier
Butler
Villanova
VCU
Creighton

*Tier2*
Seton Hall
DePaul
VCU
Providence
St Louis
St. Joe's
Dayton
St. Mary's
George Mason

*Tier 3*
Duquesne
Fordham
St. Bonaventure
LaSalle
Loyola
Richmond
Sienna
Iona
Manhattan College (a sentimental favorite)

The problem with promotion/relegation is how do you schedule it? And how do you factor standings? You need the tiers to be completely separate, which would require 30 teams to really work. I love the idea but just don't see it working at this level.

C7 Plus

Xavier
Butler
Creighton
Gonzaga (if they want to join and extra revenue offset additional travel costs)
St. Louis (only if Gonzaga accepts to make 12)

Wait a few years and see who out of this group is worthy of an invitation. Make it known that they can play their way into the conference. Give them a chance to improve basketball program.

Dayton - probably already worhty, but Xavier already has the market
Boston University
Cleveland State
Detroit
UMass (if no football program)
others....

No divisions

NO FOOTBALL SCHOOLS. No sense in helping build up/maintain programs that will eventually leave. Let them wither away without a good conference affiliation. If Memphis, UCONN, Cincinnati all become has-beens in the world of college basketball that means there is more room for our teams to ascend in prestige.

Dayton board claiming that Marquette and Georgetown are pulling for fellow Jesuit institution, SLU, over Dayton with St. John's in UD's corner. Take it for what it is worth.

http://www.udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?p=286272#post286272 (http://www.udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?p=286272#post286272)

Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 17, 2012, 03:01:14 PM
Dayton board claiming that Marquette and Georgetown are pulling for fellow Jesuit institution, SLU, over Dayton with St. John's in UD's corner. Take it for what it is worth.

http://www.udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?p=286272#post286272 (http://www.udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?p=286272#post286272)

Hope that's true.

Quote from: PTM on December 17, 2012, 03:03:09 PM
Hope that's true.

Same here. Their fans remind me of UWM's dozen fans. Whiny and annoying.

Quote from: speri on December 17, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
C7 Plus

Xavier
Butler
Creighton
Gonzaga (if they want to join and extra revenue offset additional travel costs)
St. Louis (only if Gonzaga accepts to make 12)

Wait a few years and see who out of this group is worthy of an invitation. Make it known that they can play their way into the conference. Give them a chance to improve basketball program.

Dayton - probably already worhty, but Xavier already has the market
Boston University
Cleveland State
Detroit
UMass (if no football program)
others....

No divisions

NO FOOTBALL SCHOOLS. No sense in helping build up/maintain programs that will eventually leave. Let them wither away without a good conference affiliation. If Memphis, UCONN, Cincinnati all become has-beens in the world of college basketball that means there is more room for our teams to ascend in prestige.

Adding a program like Gonzaga would be great for every basketball program involved, but we can't forget that there are other athletic programs that need to be considered.  It would be a tremendous strain on the individual school's athletic department budgets to send non-revenue generating teams (ie. golf, tennis, track & field, etc) all the way to Seattle to play a game / match and fly home.  Sure the flight from Milwaukee is 4 hours, but the flight from Providence or Georgetown is 6-7 hours...

Gonzaga would be a great addition for basketball purposes, but it probably isn't the most realistic scenario...

Agree, I think if you add Gonzaga you have to add St Mary and/or USF.  Then the non rev sports could travel to both on the same trip (I know they are 2 hours apart) same time zone.  Everywhere Gonzaga goes is and will be a trip.

I may be biased, but I'd love to see the C-7 expand to the West Coast. From a pure competition standpoint adding Xavier, the WCC-3, and Butler would be the best choice.

5 year average RPI (According to realtimerpi.com)
#1 Xavier 21.6
#2 BYU 27
#3 Gonzaga 35.4
#4 Saint Mary's 40.4
#5 Butler 40.6
#6 VCU 50
#7 Dayton 52.4
#8 Creighton 70
#9 St. Louis 110.6

5 year average Kenpom
#1 Gonzaga 28.8
#2 BYU 29
#3 Xavier 29.6
#4 Saint Mary's 48.2
#5 Butler 48.6
#6 VCU 54
#7 Dayton 67.8
#8 Creighton 79
#9 St. Louis 103.6

5 year average Sagarin
#1 Xavier 86.1
#2 BYU 85.76
#3 Zags 85.756
#4 Butler 84.486
#5 Saint Mary's 83.342
#6 VCU 81.916
#7 Dayton 81.62
#8 Creighton 79.81
#9 St Louis 77.664


East:
Georgetown
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
VCU
Villanova
Xavier

West:
BYU
Butler
Creighton or Dayton
Depaul
Gonzaga
Marquette
Saint Mary's

This would be a truly national, basketball-first conference with like minded institutions. Anyway, that is my ideal new conference.

Quote from: MUfan12 on December 17, 2012, 03:18:18 PM
Same here. Their fans remind me of UWM's dozen fans. Whiny and annoying.

Reading that thread made my head hurt. Whiny is right on the money. From both a basketball and entertainment stand point (would love to read the meltdown), keep Dayton out.

Quote from: Victor McCormick on December 17, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
+100000000000000000000


This should be our conference. These divisions are pretty well balanced. Home and home within division. One home-and-home with a rival from the other division (could rotate). Play everyone else in the other division once. Structure the conference tournament so each division is one side of the bracket.

I also think this approach mitigates, if not eliminates, the travel issue with Gonzaga. Everyone within their division is in the midwest. Those flights are 3-4 hours tops (not awesome, but definitely workable). They have to travel to the east coast maybe 3-4 times a year, that's it.

Nice to meet another fan of divisions.

Dayton fan here.  I've been registered here for a few years, before all of this was going down, and thought I would check up on what the thoughts are.  I've heard that X and Butler have been offered in private and have accepted in something of a gentlemen's agreement.  Rumor is that Saint Louis and UD have been talked about as a possible addition for a 10-team league, with Saint Louis leading and being advocated strongly by Marquette.

I'm not sure how it all shakes out, but I would obviously like UD to be a part of the best league that they can manage.  If we miss the cut on this league, I'm OK with it, but my preference would be to be in.  Xavier, Butler, Marquette, Georgetown and Nova are obviously high caliber games that would be great to see at UD Arena.  I think our recent history is better than Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul and St. John's although those teams all have nice potential and history.  I don't doubt that we could compete in such a league, as we have done very well against the soon to be former Big East members in the last 5-10 years, and we are always very tough at UD Arena, no matter who the opponent is.  As far as our basketball legacy, it's pretty good, especially in the 60's and 70's.  Our ability to draw a crowd won't be affected too much by whatever our league might be.  We are always going to put 12,000-13,000 in the seats.  We slumped in the late 80's and early nineties, and put our program out of the running during some very formative years of early conferences.  That was a shame because Dayton is a basketball town and has quite the loyal following, similar to Creighton.

The UDPride site has had closed registration for a few years because it was being trolled heavily by some Xavier fans.

Quote from: MU_Iceman on December 17, 2012, 04:08:33 PM
Adding a program like Gonzaga would be great for every basketball program involved, but we can't forget that there are other athletic programs that need to be considered.  It would be a tremendous strain on the individual school's athletic department budgets to send non-revenue generating teams (ie. golf, tennis, track & field, etc) all the way to Seattle to play a game / match and fly home.  Sure the flight from Milwaukee is 4 hours, but the flight from Providence or Georgetown is 6-7 hours...

Gonzaga would be a great addition for basketball purposes, but it probably isn't the most realistic scenario...

I do not buy that argument in the least.  These schools already do something very similar with regards to USF.  They've survived just fine.  Plus there is talk of schools getting even more revenue than they got in the Big East.  The major strain is on Gonzaga, as they will have to fly long distances for every game/sport.  But if they want to, who cares.  If we can add Gonzaga, we 100% absolutely, positively have to add them.

If I'm thinking about the basketball product and nothing else there's no doubt it would be Gonzaga, Xavier, and Butler added to make 10 teams.  They have by far the most success in the last 10 years.  If it goes up to 12 teams I would probably go with Creighton.  After that there's a lot of schools that are about the same in my book.  I also hate the idea of divisions.

Quote from: UDfan on December 17, 2012, 06:34:54 PM
Dayton fan here.  I've been registered here for a few years, before all of this was going down, and thought I would check up on what the thoughts are.  I've heard that X and Butler have been offered in private and have accepted in something of a gentlemen's agreement.  Rumor is that Saint Louis and UD have been talked about as a possible addition for a 10-team league, with Saint Louis leading and being advocated strongly by Marquette.

I'm not sure how it all shakes out, but I would obviously like UD to be a part of the best league that they can manage.  If we miss the cut on this league, I'm OK with it, but my preference would be to be in.  Xavier, Butler, Marquette, Georgetown and Nova are obviously high caliber games that would be great to see at UD Arena.  I think our recent history is better than Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul and St. John's although those teams all have nice potential and history.  I don't doubt that we could compete in such a league, as we have done very well against the soon to be former Big East members in the last 5-10 years, and we are always very tough at UD Arena, no matter who the opponent is.  As far as our basketball legacy, it's pretty good, especially in the 60's and 70's.  Our ability to draw a crowd won't be affected too much by whatever our league might be.  We are always going to put 12,000-13,000 in the seats.  We slumped in the late 80's and early nineties, and put our program out of the running during some very formative years of early conferences.  That was a shame because Dayton is a basketball town and has quite the loyal following, similar to Creighton.

The UDPride site has had closed registration for a few years because it was being trolled heavily by some Xavier fans.

Honestly, I am ambivalent if it is Dayton, SLU, Creighton, etc.  None particularly excite me, but no options really do.  I am glad that it looks like they will just do 10 schools for the time being and let it grow from there.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 17, 2012, 07:15:59 PM

Honestly, I am ambivalent if it is Dayton, SLU, Creighton, etc.  None particularly excite me, but no options really do.  I am glad that it looks like they will just do 10 schools for the time being and let it grow from there.

Where do you get that it looks like the league will go to 10 teams? Just your impression or have I missed some announcement?

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 17, 2012, 07:15:59 PM

Honestly, I am ambivalent if it is Dayton, SLU, Creighton, etc.  None particularly excite me, but no options really do.  I am glad that it looks like they will just do 10 schools for the time being and let it grow from there.

I really like Creighton. They've proven they can maintain a well above average basketball program. Just go to 12 and add them all (or Gonzaga over Dayton). More games.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 17, 2012, 07:34:15 PM
Where do you get that it looks like the league will go to 10 teams? Just your impression or have I missed some announcement?

Couple places...the Dayton dude even mentions it.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 17, 2012, 07:56:49 PM

Couple places...the Dayton dude even mentions it.

The rumor he mentions is from the UD Pride board. Hardly an authoritative source. This seems like on of those "facts" that is based on speculation that gained steam on the Internet. Not saying it won't happen, I just don't get how it went from speculation to "fact."

Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 17, 2012, 08:14:07 PM
The rumor he mentions is from the UD Pride board. Hardly an authoritative source. This seems like on of those "facts" that is based on speculation that gained steam on the Internet. Not saying it won't happen, I just don't get how it went from speculation to "fact."

https://twitter.com/WisBBYearbook/status/280832520721948672

Quote from: UDfan on December 17, 2012, 06:34:54 PM

The UDPride site has had closed registration for a few years because it was being trolled heavily by some Xavier fans.

God, that site would be incredibly easy to troll.

Their posters are like nuns in the convent.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 17, 2012, 08:28:25 PM
https://twitter.com/WisBBYearbook/status/280832520721948672

Gracias. Poor SLU.

When considering Gonzaga, St. Mary's and BYU, I think some people are being too narrowly focused.  If the Big East added only Xavier and Butler, it would be at nine teams for a 16 game home-and-home schedule.  The WCC also has nine teams.  It would make for a logical New Conference versus WCC Challenge with one crossover game every Saturday of conference play.  Therefore, every league team could play every Saturday and the New Conference can split the tv revenue nine ways instead of 10 ways.

You could schedule based on the caliber of the team... Georgetown versus Gonzaga... Villanova versus St. Mary's... Marquette versus BYU.

Quote from: PTM on December 17, 2012, 08:21:23 AM
Cowards closed their registration.

Another reason to hate Dayton.

Damn, when did Dodds get control of the Dayton board?

Why would we go to 12 teams?  I'm maxed at watching 20 games per week.  I can't imagine the marginal revenue would justify the marginal cost of splitting more ways.

In addition, I'd be disappointed if we don't come out of this conference mess with a true conference home-and-home schedule.

Related, is there a maximum to the number of conference games you can have?  With all basketball schools, I would love if the conference season started right after Christmas, if not before, so there would be basketball to watch during the boring bowl madness.  If we go to 12 teams, I demand a 22 game conference schedule.  I won't have to talk to my family during Christmas dinner because I'll be busy watching SLU versus Dayton in the Jesus Bowl.

Quote from: Mufflers on December 17, 2012, 09:30:44 PM
Why would we go to 12 teams?  I'm maxed at watching 20 games per week.  I can't imagine the marginal revenue would justify the marginal cost of splitting more ways.

In addition, I'd be disappointed if we don't come out of this conference mess with a true conference home-and-home schedule.

Related, is there a maximum to the number of conference games you can have?  With all basketball schools, I would love if the conference season started right after Christmas, if not before, so there would be basketball to watch during the boring bowl madness.  If we go to 12 teams, I demand a 22 game conference schedule.  I won't have to talk to my family during Christmas dinner because I'll be busy watching SLU versus Dayton in the Jesus Bowl.

No conference games over Winter Break, another great perk of a 10-team conference.

Mark Miller tweeted that it would be Xavier, Butler, and Dayton. I really hope it's not Dayton. Not because of their crappy market or their NIT caliber team, but rather because their fans seem to be complete douchebags. I'd rather add Philadelphia Eagles fans than Dayton fans. What a bunch of whiny, self-important, insecure jackasses. The only positive to adding them is to kick their ass twice yearly and give DePaul someone to beat.

Don't know why not Creighton if that's the case.  Fairly regular NCAA team (8 in last 14 years, 9/15 after this one), great attendance, clearly makes the "commitment to basketball" that we're hearing so much about, expands the footprint without being a major geographic outlier, based on the AD's comments they would want in.

Quote from: chapman on December 17, 2012, 09:53:39 PM
Don't know why not Creighton if that's the case.  Fairly regular NCAA team (8 in last 14 years, 9/15 after this one), great attendance, clearly makes the "commitment to basketball" that we're hearing so much about, expands the footprint without being a major geographic outlier, based on the AD's comments they would want in.

There is absolutely no reason why Creighton should not be issued an invite. If it takes 12 teams to get them, you do it.

Xavier
Butler
VCU

Gonzaga
Creighton

Call it a day, or really do it big...

Wichita State
St. Mary's

That that point you go divisions. That, is the best case scenario.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 17, 2012, 09:50:15 PM
Mark Miller tweeted that it would be Xavier, Butler, and Dayton. I really hope it's not Dayton. Not because of their crappy market or their NIT caliber team, but rather because their fans seem to be complete douchebags. I'd rather add Philadelphia Eagles fans than Dayton fans. What a bunch of whiny, self-important, insecure jackasses. The only positive to adding them is to kick their ass twice yearly and give DePaul someone to beat.

Whoa, whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Dayton is better than 4 out of the 7 BE Catholic schools.

Quote from: PTM on December 17, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
Whoa, whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Dayton is better than 4 out of the 7 BE Catholic schools.

In women's field hockey AND thumb wrestling. 

I understand people are tired of SOME of the Dayton posters being douche's but the reality is sooner or later Dayton will probably be in the conference.  Will they get the first round of invites?  Maybe not.

I really believe they will be on our conference at some point.  We have had a great rivalry with them (along with DePaul and others), they have great fan support, a good endowment, etc..

Especially if the conference decides to say East of the Mississippi I think we will see Dayton in sooner or later.

Quote from: chapman on December 17, 2012, 09:53:39 PM
Don't know why not Creighton if that's the case.  Fairly regular NCAA team (8 in last 14 years, 9/15 after this one), great attendance, clearly makes the "commitment to basketball" that we're hearing so much about, expands the footprint without being a major geographic outlier, based on the AD's comments they would want in.

I like Dayton, but "expands the footprint"?  Well, yeah, like a small toe expands the footprint.

I like Dayton. A friend of mine called UD "Marquette without books." I visited there in college and they party hard. I like the UD grads I know personally as well so overall I have a positive affinity for UD.

I was very impressed at the Nova story as to how profitable their program is. That clinched it for me. Hope to see them in the Priest League.

Quote from: LittleMurs on December 17, 2012, 10:17:33 PM
I like Dayton, but "expands the footprint"?  Well, yeah, like a small toe expands the footprint.

They may rhyme, but Creighton's not Dayton ;)

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 17, 2012, 10:26:20 PM
They may rhyme, but Creighton's not Dayton ;)

You lost me.

Catholic 7, Butler, Xavier, SLU, Creighton, Dayton

No divisions. I'm a fan of geographical compactness.

Quote from: LittleMurs on December 17, 2012, 10:30:51 PM
You lost me.

chapman was talking about Creighton, not Dayton.

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on December 17, 2012, 10:46:45 PM
Catholic 7, Butler, Xavier, SLU, Creighton, Dayton

No divisions. I'm a fan of geographical compactness.

You're also a fan of being a mid major conference.  Butler, Xavier, Creighton, Gonzaga, VCU.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 17, 2012, 11:30:25 PM
You're also a fan of being a mid major conference.  Butler, Xavier, Creighton, Gonzaga, VCU.

Not exactly mid major. If Dayton and SLU were teams 11 and 12, and that conference was in play last year, it would have sent 5 teams to the NCAAs (MU, GTown, Xavier, SLU, Creighton). That's as many as the current incarnation of the ACC, and only one less than the Big 10.

My sources come from both X and UD, not the UDPride board.  There are a lot of people who are connected to both programs around here because of their proximity.  It's second hand information from people who are connected to the administrations.  I know that talks are taking place daily, so maybe things have changed lately, but a few days ago, I heard that talks were leaning towards 10 teams.  The people I spoke to are convinced that Butler and X are in and have both have accepted informal invites.  With all the information and spin going around, it could be wrong, but I trust the people who told me.

I really wish I was hearing VCU more frequently. It sounds like the one public that everyone wants isn't in the mix, and that's a shame. They've been committing to the program, don't forget Anthony Grant was having success there before Smart came along, and certainly fit the footprint. They aren't Gonzaga, but after XU and Butler, I'm hard pressed to think of anyone this side of the Mississippi that adds more value.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 17, 2012, 11:30:25 PM
You're also a fan of being a mid major conference.  Butler, Xavier, Creighton, Gonzaga, VCU.

This is why I hate labels.  Somehow Dayton makes this group "mid-major," but Creighton, Gonzaga and VCU don't?  Makes absolutely no sense.

Does anyone realize that Creighton is in Nebraska??

Quote from: Dreadman24 on December 18, 2012, 08:01:59 AM
Does anyone realize that Creighton is in Nebraska??

They're closer to Milwaukee than any C7 school except DePaul.  After this year they will have made 9 of the last 15 NCAA tournaments.  They're right up there with MU on the attendance lists.  The TV market size is questionable, but the geography shouldn't be an issue and they have an obvious commitment to basketball. 

Creighton is good, and they are good get.

Obviously they are good at hoops, but they are pretty good at several other sports as well, which helps.

I have run all of the numbers, but my gut is that they are a better add than Dayton.

Butler even makes me a little nervous, but they are in Indiana, so you figure they should be able to build a decent program for the long term.

Quote from: chapman on December 18, 2012, 08:38:06 AM
They're closer to Milwaukee than any C7 school except DePaul.  After this year they will have made 9 of the last 15 NCAA tournaments.  They're right up there with MU on the attendance lists.  The TV market size is questionable, but the geography shouldn't be an issue and they have an obvious commitment to basketball. 

If we go to 12 I'd be committed to getting our friends from Omaha.  At 10, I'd need to think some more.

Question...would the capacity of Loyola's gym preclude it from being invited? I realize they're not on par with nearly any of the other programs, but they are a Jesuit institution and has a pretty strong history - just not recently. And they were in Butlers conference. Just curious. I know they're a non-starter

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 18, 2012, 08:55:40 AM
Question...would the capacity of Loyola's gym preclude it from being invited? I realize they're not on par with nearly any of the other programs, but they are a Jesuit institution and has a pretty strong history - just not recently. And they were in Butlers conference. Just curious. I know they're a non-starter

Not sure what the Gym size is, but Gonzaga's is only 6,500. So probably not if the program was actually good enough.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 18, 2012, 08:55:40 AM
Question...would the capacity of Loyola's gym preclude it from being invited? I realize they're not on par with nearly any of the other programs, but they are a Jesuit institution and has a pretty strong history - just not recently. And they were in Butlers conference. Just curious. I know they're a non-starter

DePaul wouldn't want to share the Chicago market. For that matter, MQ probably wouldn't be thrilled with having another Jesuit school in the same league only 70 miles away. Loyola is even closer than DePaul. I'd see Detroit and their market joining before Loyola.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 17, 2012, 11:30:25 PM
You're also a fan of being a mid major conference.  Butler, Xavier, Creighton, Gonzaga, VCU.

Majority of these teams have had better success than Marquette over the last decade in March.

Momentum with consistent winning is the only label you should concern yourself about.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 18, 2012, 07:49:47 AM

This is why I hate labels.  Somehow Dayton makes this group "mid-major," but Creighton, Gonzaga and VCU don't?  Makes absolutely no sense.

It's a perception, and you know it's true.  If we add St. Louis, people are gonna be like "really?"  If we add Gonzaga, people are gonna say "wow."  Same with VCU over Dayton.  People will think, "hey, they were just in the final four and have that Shaka Smart coach that every major program wants."  Instead of "Dayton?  what have they done in the last 15 years?"  Creighton, nationally, may not have the cachet of VCU and Gonzaga, but their sustained success is impressive nonetheless, and the envy of teams like SLU and Datyon.

Honestly, I just don't want SLU in this league.  It would be an add strictly for the TV market.  They have a pretty terrible program over the last 15 years, and I think any recent momentum they got with Majerus will now be lost.  People in St. Louis just don't care about them, either, as they barely crack the top 100 in attendance.  I've said it before.  To be relevant, this league needs to base decisions solely on basketball.  Not TV markets.  Not religious affiliation.  But basketball.

Quote from: LittleMurs on December 17, 2012, 09:24:50 PM
Damn, when did Dodds get control of the Dayton board?

Did a bunch of dudes gets banned for sayin' their former coach pees in the shower?

Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on December 18, 2012, 09:11:54 AM
Majority of these teams have had better success than Marquette over the last decade in March.

Momentum with consistent winning is the only label you should concern yourself about.

I agree completely.  Which is why I want Creighton, Gonzaga and VCU and NOT Dayton or SLU.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 18, 2012, 09:15:12 AM
I agree completely.  Which is why I want Creighton, Gonzaga and VCU and NOT Dayton or SLU.

In the Big East, Geogetown, Marquette and Villanova have been consistently top-half teams.
Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, DePaul have been consistently bottom-half teams.

In all the discussions, I've seen a strong desire to only add teams that will likely keep Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall and DePaul firmly ensconced in the bottom of this new conference, and quite possibly, become the dominant teams going forward, pushing MU, Georgetown and Villanova into a new middle ground.

I guess the question is this:
Do you want/exepct DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns to be successful again?  If so, which of the good teams (MU, GU, Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga, VCU, Creighton, etc), do you expect to fall and take thier place in the bottom half?

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 09:48:11 AM
In the Big East, Geogetown, Marquette and Villanova have been consistently top-half teams.
Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, DePaul have been consistently bottom-half teams.

In all the discussions, I've seen a strong desire to only add teams that will likely keep Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall and DePaul firmly ensconced in the bottom of this new conference, and quite possibly, become the dominant teams going forward, pushing MU, Georgetown and Villanova into a new middle ground.

I guess the question is this:
Do you want/exepct DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns to be successful again?  If so, which of the good teams (MU, GU, Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga, VCU, Creighton, etc), do you expect to fall and take thier place in the bottom half?

Only the blueblood programs are good every single year. Most other programs have some ups and downs. If St. John's is in an up-cycle, they might be better than MU or GU if they are in a down cycle. 

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 09:48:11 AM
I guess the question is this:
Do you want/exepct DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns to be successful again?  If so, which of the good teams (MU, GU, Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga, VCU, Creighton, etc), do you expect to fall and take thier place in the bottom half?

Competition, my friend.  Don't recruit for the bottom.  If the bottom C7 teams want to be good, it's on them to make it happen, not to bring in schools that they can beat now.  As for the top half, also survival of the fittest.  You can have a 9-9 or 14-4 conference record and be a bubble team in either case, depending on the company you keep.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 09:48:11 AM
In the Big East, Geogetown, Marquette and Villanova have been consistently top-half teams.
Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, DePaul have been consistently bottom-half teams.

In all the discussions, I've seen a strong desire to only add teams that will likely keep Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall and DePaul firmly ensconced in the bottom of this new conference, and quite possibly, become the dominant teams going forward, pushing MU, Georgetown and Villanova into a new middle ground.

I guess the question is this:
Do you want/exepct DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns to be successful again?  If so, which of the good teams (MU, GU, Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga, VCU, Creighton, etc), do you expect to fall and take thier place in the bottom half?

Again, with few exceptions, there's not the permanency of the standings that you seem to envision. There will be winners and losers in any given year, but it doesn't have to be the same winners and losers every year.

Take the ACC, for example. More often than not, Duke and UNC have been at or near the top. But since 2005 (the league's last expansion, with BC) every team in the conference except Virginia Tech and Miami has made multiple NCAA tournament appearances. Five different teams have won either a conference regular season or tournament championship.

Te vast majority of the people who run college athletics don't seem to agree with your ideas. Despite your insistence that the cream of the A-10 schools have a much better deal, both financially and competitively, where they're at today, they seem all eager to join what ought to be a more challenging conference and leave their great A-10 deal behind.
What are they missing?

You made this same argument against MU joining the big East. It was wrong then, just as it is wrong now.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 09:48:11 AM
In the Big East, Geogetown, Marquette and Villanova have been consistently top-half teams.
Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, DePaul have been consistently bottom-half teams.

In all the discussions, I've seen a strong desire to only add teams that will likely keep Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall and DePaul firmly ensconced in the bottom of this new conference, and quite possibly, become the dominant teams going forward, pushing MU, Georgetown and Villanova into a new middle ground.

I guess the question is this:
Do you want/exepct DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns to be successful again?  If so, which of the good teams (MU, GU, Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga, VCU, Creighton, etc), do you expect to fall and take thier place in the bottom half?

I want those schools to be successful again, but we don't owe them anything to help them achieve that.  If it comes at the expense of MU, that's MU's fault, not anyone else's.  In the meantime, why water down the league?  Doing so would be detrimental to every school in the league and the viability of this conference over time.  I expect all of these schools to have good years and bad years, but yes, some schools will be consistently closer to the top and some schools will be consistently closer to the bottom.  But you don't submarine your conference because you are trying to prop up certain programs.  

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 09:48:11 AMI guess the question is this:
Do you want/exepct DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns to be successful again?  If so, which of the good teams (MU, GU, Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga, VCU, Creighton, etc), do you expect to fall and take thier place in the bottom half?

Yes, I do. But for them to be successful again, the answer is not to fill the conference with cannon-fodder teams. The answer is for them to improve their facilities, recruiting, and coaching staffs and to start winning games that matter. Sure, we could bring in Detroit, St. Bonaventure, and Fordham and allow them to get a few easier wins, but what does that do for the good of the conference, other than to falsely suggest some of our lower tier teams are better than people might think?

It's just like recruiting. Buzz doesn't recruit guys to sit on the bench for four years. He recruits guys to succeed and play meaningful minutes here. And if you prove unable to do that, hopefully the staff can help the player find another school at which they can be successful. The difference here is we won't be able to gently move schools along as easily as we can recruits, so you go for the absolute best and encourage them to get even better. And if those other schools want to move up in the pecking order, they do it the right way, by improving their program and level of recruiting from the inside and winning games on the court. You don't handhold DePaul and St. John's just because you want those markets to be successful, just like no one handheld Marquette in their rise to the upper echelon of the Big East. We did it by recruiting and winning. That's the only way to do it.

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on December 17, 2012, 10:46:45 PM
Catholic 7, Butler, Xavier, SLU, Creighton, Dayton

No divisions. I'm a fan of geographical compactness.

My preferred lineup as well.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 18, 2012, 11:17:34 AM
Yes, I do. But for them to be successful again, the answer is not to fill the conference with cannon-fodder teams. The answer is for them to improve their facilities, recruiting, and coaching staffs and to start winning games that matter. Sure, we could bring in Detroit, St. Bonaventure, and Fordham and allow them to get a few easier wins, but what does that do for the good of the conference, other than to falsely suggest some of our lower tier teams are better than people might think?

It's just like recruiting. Buzz doesn't recruit guys to sit on the bench for four years. He recruits guys to succeed and play meaningful minutes here. And if you prove unable to do that, hopefully the staff can help the player find another school at which they can be successful. The difference here is we won't be able to gently move schools along as easily as we can recruits, so you go for the absolute best and encourage them to get even better. And if those other schools want to move up in the pecking order, they do it the right way, by improving their program and level of recruiting from the inside and winning games on the court. You don't handhold DePaul and St. John's just because you want those markets to be successful, just like no one handheld Marquette in their rise to the upper echelon of the Big East. We did it by recruiting and winning. That's the only way to do it.

+1. UCONN won the national championship after a 9-9 season in the meat grinder that was the Big East. The more competitive the conference the better for all concerned.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 18, 2012, 05:43:47 AM
I really wish I was hearing VCU more frequently. It sounds like the one public that everyone wants isn't in the mix, and that's a shame. They've been committing to the program, don't forget Anthony Grant was having success there before Smart came along, and certainly fit the footprint. They aren't Gonzaga, but after XU and Butler, I'm hard pressed to think of anyone this side of the Mississippi that adds more value.

What VCU did in making the Final 4 was very impressive. But to be honest, I never heard of VCU before that tourney run. Haven't heard a lot from them since.

By your logic, why not go after George Mason?

Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 18, 2012, 11:56:52 AM
What VCU did in making the Final 4 was very impressive. But to be honest, I never heard of VCU before that tourney run. Haven't heard a lot from them since.

By your logic, why not go after George Mason?

They've made 5 of the last 9 tournaments so they're definitely a solid program, GMU has 3 of the last 7 so probably a notch below.  Nevertheless, I see your point; if they don't get invited as a surprise selection in 2011 and take it to the Final Four nobody is bringing them up as a potential invite.  Then again, some would say our Final Four run in '03 was what got us to the Big East so maybe hypocritical to completely overlook them.  So worthy of consideration, but perhaps not to be too excited about.       

You don't remember Eric Maynor upsetting Duke in 2007?  And Anthony Grant coaching them to dominance in the CAA (three straight first place finishes) before leaving for Alabama?  Or Shaka Smart taking them to the round of 32 last year and being on every single short list for high profile jobs the last two years?  VCU has been good for the last 10 years.  Extremely good for the last 6.

Quote from: Avenue Commons on December 18, 2012, 09:07:36 AM
DePaul wouldn't want to share the Chicago market. For that matter, MU probably wouldn't be thrilled with having another Jesuit school in the same league only 70 miles away. Loyola is even closer than DePaul. I'd see Detroit and their market joining before Loyola.

Detroit doesn't have a market anymore.  Michigan and Michigan State beat them up and took it away.

Quote from: LittleMurs on December 18, 2012, 12:12:04 PM
Detroit doesn't have a market anymore.  Michigan and Michigan State beat them up and took it away.

Looks like they went to scorched earth.

(http://heckeranddecker.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/detroit.jpg?w=500&h=335)

All these names and discussions are great, but what I'm not hearing out of the media is a legitimate reason for these teams to leave the A-10. I wish somebody in the know would at least give a hint as to what the C7 schools are planning.

Are they planning a raid of the A-10? If so, with what money? This is a new-ish conference without football, where is the all-mighty TV dollar coming from?

And while the tradition of the the C7 schools is good, the best of times for most involved was the 1980s. Recent successes are a good benefit, but prolonged success is preferred which this group just doesn't have. I'm afraid for the future only because I honestly don't trust any of the C7 schools to negotiate a well paying non-football based TV contract, be able to make credible arguments to schools to join the league, and I don't trust the East Coast bias of the group to look out for the interests of the whole as opposed to the interests of the NY-Philly-DC schools.

A ten team conference with Butler, Creighton and Xavier is all we need to get started - form the strongest foundation as possible from day one.  Each team plays each other twcie every year.  Not sure why people are so interested in SLU and Dayton; especially SLU.  

Quote from: hutchfor3 on December 18, 2012, 12:30:07 PM
All these names and discussions are great, but what I'm not hearing out of the media is a legitimate reason for these teams to leave the A-10. I wish somebody in the know would at least give a hint as to what the C7 schools are planning.

Are they planning a raid of the A-10? If so, with what money? This is a new-ish conference without football, where is the all-mighty TV dollar coming from?

And while the tradition of the the C7 schools is good, the best of times for most involved was the 1980s. Recent successes are a good benefit, but prolonged success is preferred which this group just doesn't have. I'm afraid for the future only because I honestly don't trust any of the C7 schools to negotiate a well paying non-football based TV contract, be able to make credible arguments to schools to join the league, and I don't trust the East Coast bias of the group to look out for the interests of the whole as opposed to the interests of the NY-Philly-DC schools.

You're joking, right?

Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on December 18, 2012, 12:30:48 PM
A ten team conference with Butler, Creighton and Xavier is all we need to get started - form the strongest foundation as possible from day one.  Each team plays each other twcie every year.  Not sure why people are so interested in SLU and Dayton; especially SLU.  

This! If we're eliminating Gonzaga due to distance, Creighton is the clear choice for #10.

Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on December 18, 2012, 12:30:48 PM
A ten team conference with Butler, Creighton and Xavier is all we need to get started - form the strongest foundation as possible from day one.  Each team plays each other twcie every year.  Not sure why people are so interested in SLU and Dayton; especially SLU.  

I agree with this for the most part.  But I think forming the strongest possible foundation has to include Gonzaga, if possible.  The problem with starting with ten and expanding later is that you lock yourself into your TV deal and you would not be able to extract the value that adding a team like Gonzaga may provide.  But I agree, if we cannot get Gonzaga, stay at ten with Butler, Xavier and Creighton.  No SLU.  No Dayton.  Preferably ever.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
Again, with few exceptions, there's not the permanency of the standings that you seem to envision. There will be winners and losers in any given year, but it doesn't have to be the same winners and losers every year.

Take the ACC, for example. More often than not, Duke and UNC have been at or near the top. But since 2005 (the league's last expansion, with BC) every team in the conference except Virginia Tech and Miami has made multiple NCAA tournament appearances. Five different teams have won either a conference regular season or tournament championship.

You're making my case.  IF we have two teams as strong as Duke and UNC, the REST of the league should be satisfied if they're the equivalent of Miami or Clemson.  That's a big step down for an MU, Xavier or Georgetown.

More to the point, I was thinking of the  Big East, where there has been a clearly defined top and bottom, and there has been the same teams almost every year over a seven year stretch.  Some teams are consistently good (Syracuse, Marquette, ND, Georgetown, UL, UConn, Pitt and Villanova), some consistently bad (UC, USF, Seton Hall, Rutgers, St. Johns, Providence, DePaul).  

Making the tourney once every 7 years isn't much of a consolation.

And please, don't bother trying to arguie that USF made the tourney in 2012 or St. Johns in 2011.  You and I both know fans of MU, Georgetown, Butler, Xavier etc. will not be satisfied with one tourney every 7 years.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
Te vast majority of the people who run college athletics don't seem to agree with your ideas. Despite your insistence that the cream of the A-10 schools have a much better deal, both financially and competitively, where they're at today, they seem all eager to join what ought to be a more challenging conference and leave their great A-10 deal behind.
What are they missing?

Did I miss an official announcement?  Have Butler or Xavier officially joined this new conference?  My point is that there was enough accumulated money on the table where leaving wouldn't be a "no brainer" decision.  Which is apparetly the case, given they didn't opt to be part of the initial annoucement last Saturday and are still making guarded anouncements saying they're "thinking" about joining--which means there is someting to think about.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 10:40:55 AM
You made this same argument against MU joining the big East. It was wrong then, just as it is wrong now.

It wasn't wrong.  

First, the Big east HAS settled into a top half and a bottom half--exactly as predicted.  And for those teams stuck in the bottom, it's been exceptionally difficult for them to climb out.  After 7 years, DePaul, St. John's, Seton Hall, and Providence are no closer to consistent success than the day we joined.  

Second, check the NCAA performance of Memphis or Xavier or Butler or Gonzaga since 2006.  Check the average top 25 rankings.  Check RPI.  Check W/L records.  Check the number of NCAA wins, number of final fours, elite eights and sweet 16s.  You simply can't say that those teams have floundered since 2006--its just not true.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 01:10:07 PM
You're making my case.  IF we have two teams as strong as Duke and UNC, the REST of the league should be satisfied if they're the equivalent of Miami or Clemso .  That's a big step down for an MU, Xavier or Georgetown.

Right, because the ACC is made up of two good programs and 10 Miamis and Clemsons (oh, by the way, Clemson has made the tourney four out of the last five seasons).
Never mind all the success of Maryland, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Virginia, NC State, etc. has had. Two good programs, 10 Miamis.

QuoteMore to the point, I was thinking of the  Big East, where there has been a clearly defined top and bottom, and there has been the same teams almost every year over a seven year stretch.  Some teams are consistently good (Syracuse, Marquette, ND, Georgetown, UL, UConn, Pitt and Villanova), some consistently bad (UC, USF, Seton Hall, Rutgers, St. Johns, Providence, DePaul).  

UC has been consistently bad?
Since recovering from the Huggins fallout - which had nothing to do with conference affiliation - they've been consistently good. And happen to be the #11 team in the country.
The larger point, though, is that being bad is not a result of other teams in your conference being good. Teams are good or bad on their own account. Providence hasn't been bad because UConn is good. MU isn't good because Rutgers is bad.
Your argument might hold a shred of validity of teams like DePaul, Providence and Rutgers etc., tore up their nonconference schedules but then faltered only against BE competition. But that hasn't happened. It's not their conference affiliation that's holding them back. It's that they haven't been good programs.

QuoteYou and I both know fans of MU, Georgetown, Butler, Xavier etc. will not be satisfied with one tourney every 7 years.

Huh? What? Is this going to be a one-bid conference? The new MEAC?
Oh, because that's they're guaranteed fate. Just as it was when MU joined the Big East.

QuoteSecond, check the NCAA performance of Memphis or Xavier or Butler or Gonzaga since 2006.  Check the average top 25 rankings.  Check RPI.  Check W/L records.  Check the number of NCAA wins, number of final fours, elite eights and sweet 16s.  You simply can't say that those teams have floundered since 2006--its just not true.

Umm ... who said those teams floundered since 2006?
Those were all good programs before 2006. I fail to see how them continuing to be good programs after 2006 is relevant to anything.
A better question to ask is where are all the great success stories of C-USA post-2005?
Memphis was a quality program then and is today. But what about the rest? Why haven't UAB, Houston, East Carolina, Southern Miss become powerhouses in the wake of lesser competition? Your logic dictates that playing in a weak conference naturally elevates a few teams to greatness.
Well, why hasn't it happened in C-USA?

Make sure you leave enough room for Notre Dame down the road (BYU as well). So I see no reason to go beyond 12.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 02:02:51 PM
Right, because the ACC is made up of two good programs and 10 Miamis and Clemsons (oh, by the way, Clemson has made the tourney four out of the last five seasons).
Never mind all the success of Maryland, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Virginia, NC State, etc. has had. Two good programs, 10 Miamis.

First, I didn't say 10 Miamis.  I said Miami or Clemson. 

Why do you suppose I used Clemson and Miami as the examples? 

Past 7 years NCAA tournament appearances:

UNC:  6 NCAA tourneys
Duke: 7

Clemson: 4
Florida State: 4
Maryland 3:
Boston College: 3
Georgia Tech: 2
Wake Forest: 2
Virginia: 2
NC State: 2
Virginia Tech: 1
Miami 1

As I said, two consitently good teams over the last 7 years:  UNC & Duke.  Everyone else is bracketed somewhere between Clemson at the top and Miami at the bottom.   
 

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 02:02:51 PM
The larger point, though, is that being bad is not a result of other teams in your conference being good. Teams are good or bad on their own account. Providence hasn't been bad because UConn is good. MU isn't good because Rutgers is bad.

Your argument might hold a shred of validity of teams like DePaul, Providence and Rutgers etc., tore up their nonconference schedules but then faltered only against BE competition. But that hasn't happened. It's not their conference affiliation that's holding them back. It's that they haven't been good programs.

You're just not correct on this.  Once you include the zero-sum aspect of conference play, a team may find itself buried in the bottom of the standings in a more difficult league, even if they are good enough to earn an NCAA bid in a league with less competition.

For example, last year DePaul went 9-3 in non-conference, Providence 11-2 or  Seton Hall 11-1.

I'm farily certain that Seton Hall or Providence (or DePaul for that matter) were arguably better and more talented than say Iona (at-large team out of the MAAC).   

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 03:44:23 PM
For example, last year DePaul went 9-3 in non-conference, Providence 11-2 or  Seton Hall 11-1.

I'm farily certain that Seton Hall or Providence (or DePaul for that matter) were arguably better and more talented than say Iona (at-large team out of the MAAC).   

You'd be wrong about Iona.
But while you're working on your answer about C-USA's inability to produce any new good programs post-2005, despite its lesser competition (that answer is coming, right?), riddle me this:

If Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul would be better off in lesser leagues, why aren't they scrambling to get into lesser leagues?
I'm sure the Horizon would love to have DePaul.
The CAA would happily take Seton Hall.
The Northeast Conference would open its arms wide for Providence.
Why do you believe these schools are acting against their own best interests?

Quote from: Aughnanure on December 18, 2012, 12:53:35 PM
This! If we're eliminating Gonzaga due to distance, Creighton is the clear choice for #10.

Agreed, but I really want them to explore every avenue possible to get Gonzaga in the confernce.  It would be such a huge addition to the conference and I think it would get a lot of attention from the get go.  You need to add the best programs possible regardless of the size of the market they're in. 

The success and popularity will really be on the success of the conference, I think the number 1 priority should be getting all the best teams together regardless of where they're situated, they need to think long term about the culture and reputation as opposed to focusing on near term TV revenue.

Boy, that Dayton board is amusing.  I love how they seem to think they are on par with Marquette, except for the 70's, the only time we have ever been good (obviously!).  They don't seem to realize that we have the same amount of tourney wins in the last 5 seasons as they have since 1969.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 04:06:23 PM
You'd be wrong about Iona.
But while you're working on your answer about C-USA's inability to produce any new good programs post-2005, despite its lesser competition (that answer is coming, right?), riddle me this:

No, I'd be right about Iona.  And I already answered the CUSA question, but let's make it clearer for you:

Let's comapre two equivalent teams over a 10-year stretch in GMC/CUSA.  In the same conferences for the decade prior to the split:
Memphis: 2 NCAA tournaments (both 7 seeds in 2003, 2004).  1-2 tournament record.  
DePaul:  2 NCAA tournaments (9 seed in 2000, 7 seed in 2004).  1-2 tournament record.

Since the CUSA/BE split in 2006, one of these two emerged as a national power, and one has languished.

Memphis:  6 NCAA tournaments in 7 years.
DePaul: 0 NCAA tournaments in 7 years.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 04:06:23 PM
If Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul would be better off in lesser leagues, why aren't they scrambling to get into lesser leagues?
I'm sure the Horizon would love to have DePaul.
The CAA would happily take Seton Hall.
The Northeast Conference would open its arms wide for Providence.
Why do you believe these schools are acting against their own best interests?

There are a bunch of possible reasons.  Not sure any of them have any relevance at this point--just you trying to change the subject.

The question you must still be pondering is if it was truly a "no brainer" for Xavier, Memphis, Gonzaga etc. to join this new conference, where were they last Saturday?  Could it be that they actually DO have to think about this?  

As I said, they may still decide to join--but the fact that it didn't happen last Saturday means the decision wasn't the no-brainer you and other claim it to be.  And based on the comparitive success of X, Butler and Gonzaga, there's probably only one way for them to go if they start beating up on each other (and MU, Georgetown, etc).

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 06:12:29 PM
No, I'd be right about Iona.  And I already answered the CUSA question, but let's make it clearer for you:

Let's comapre two equivalent teams over a 10-year stretch in GMC/CUSA.  In the same conferences for the decade prior to the split:
Memphis: 2 NCAA tournaments (both 7 seeds in 2003, 2004).  1-2 tournament record.  
DePaul:  2 NCAA tournaments (9 seed in 2000, 7 seed in 2004).  1-2 tournament record.

Since the CUSA/BE split in 2006, one of these two emerged as a national power, and one has languished.

Memphis:  6 NCAA tournaments in 7 years.
DePaul: 0 NCAA tournaments in 7 years.

There are a bunch of possible reasons.  Not sure any of them have any relevance at this point--just you trying to change the subject.

And by "a bunch of possible reasons," could you mean John and Calipari and Jerry and Wainwright?
How do you expect anyone to find you remotely credible when you suggest the difference between DePaul and Memphis over the last seven years hasn't been respective coaching hires ... but rather conference affiliation?

And, no, you haven't answered the C-USA question and apparently will not because we both already know the answer. Which, again, proves your silly theory wrong.

QuoteThe question you must still be pondering is if it was truly a "no brainer" for Xavier, Memphis, Gonzaga etc. to join this new conference, where were they last Saturday?  Could it be that they actually DO have to think about this?  

Could it be they haven't been extended official invites yet?
Could it be they just have made a formal announcement yet because they're still deciding how many, and which, teams to add to the C7?
Could it be you ignored Xavier's coach saying over the weekend that he's already "on board" with the new conference?
Could it be you've ignored reports from last week that Gonzaga has reached out to the C7 asking for an invite?
Could it be you're the only person to seriously mention Memphis as a potential member?
Could it be that you're trying way too hard to save face after proclaiming for months that the A-10 was far too sweet of a deal for Xavier, Butler, etc.. to ever consider leaving it?

Could it be that they only formally withdrew from the conference on Saturday...AND IT'S ONLY TUESDAY??!???

Jeez....72 hours later and people are ready to crap the bed.  Even if they were invited, schools have to do their due dilligence and get their board's approval before such a change.

Regardless of what schools end up in the conference, I hope MU can keep some of the other games going.  I think it is imperative to keep Louisville on the schedule.  Not only are they a high quality opponent, but those were always the most fun games.

I think that Xavier and Butler are indeed no-brainers. I think that to the point that I am certain they have already accepted. I don't have insider info, I could be wrong, but I would be absolutely floored if they weren't members as soon as this league tips. To the point that I will make any site-related bet anyone wants to make. If people really think this is some difficult decision for them and that they will pass, name your stakes.

Not going for other schools, as I don't know how many will be invited and don't know which will be offered, but I will put my Internet currency where my keyboard is.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
And by "a bunch of possible reasons," could you mean John and Calipari and Jerry and Wainwright?
How do you expect anyone to find you remotely credible when you suggest the difference between DePaul and Memphis over the last seven years hasn't been respective coaching hires ... but rather conference affiliation?

And, no, you haven't answered the C-USA question and apparently will not because we both already know the answer. Which, again, proves your silly theory wrong.

First, Memphis under Calipari only made 2 of 5 tournaments before the split, 4 of 4 after.  Same coach.  Same team.  Can't blame that on a coaching change.

Second, its obvous to anyone who actually followed Wainwtigh's hiring was that the potential competition in the Big East scared away a number of better qualified coaches for DePaul.  You may recall the same thing happened with Marquette--Sean Miller and Tony Bennett didn't want to coach in the Big East either.

And that's just with Memphis.  Xavier rode easier conferences--first the MCC then the A10 to sustained success.  Butler did the same in the MCC/Horizon after Butler moved out.  I don't see any of those teams having that level of success had they been in the Big East.  

Why don't you just admit that it was a valid point instead of this silly nitpicking.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
Could it be they haven't been extended official invites yet?

Doubtful.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
Could it be they just have made a formal announcement yet because they're still deciding how many, and which, teams to add to the C7?

Multiple reports said the C7 most coveted Xavier, Butler & Gonzaga.  Now you're saying they haven't decided whether the C7 really want those teams? 

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
Could it be you ignored Xavier's coach saying over the weekend that he's already "on board" with the new conference?

No, because coaches say a lot of things but carry almost no weight. Go back and read what Pitino and Boehiem said about joining the ACC before you try to respond.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
Could it be you've ignored reports from last week that Gonzaga has reached out to the C7 asking for an invite?

You just said the C7 hadn't yet extended invitations or even decided who or how many teams.   Now your'e saying that they actually went out?

Actually, this one I'll believe.  And I'll add that because it was not yet accepted, its evidently not a "no-brainer"

Quote from: Pakuni on December 18, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
Could it be that you're trying way too hard to save face after proclaiming for months that the A-10 was far too sweet of a deal for Xavier, Butler, etc.. to ever consider leaving it?

No, beacuse I never said that.  I have repeatedly said that Xavier etc. may well leave, but its simply not the finalncial no-brainer you and others make it out to be.   Because if it was a no brainer, they would have been part of the annocement last week.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 08:33:45 PMNo, beacuse I never said that.  I have repeatedly said that Xavier etc. may well leave, but its simply not the finalncial no-brainer you and others make it out to be.   Because if it was a no brainer, they would have been part of the annocement last week.

Sorry, but I think that is an absolutely false statement. The C7 has announced their intention to leave. They have not left. It is not finalized. Xavier would be absolutely idiotic to announce they are leaving the A-10 before having a formal invitation and before the C7 is ready to make an announcement. No one else was going to be part of last week's announcement because last week's announcement was merely one of intent, not of a finalized action.

When the C7 is ready to announce teams that will be joining them, Xavier will be one of those teams announced. But not until the C7 is ready.

The more I think about it, the more I hope something can be worked out to get Gonzaga on board.  They are a high profile name, a consistently good team and would be a marquee game once (or twice) a season. When you consider all the teams that have been mentioned, the highest profile team, and the biggest attraction game would be the Zags.  Since joining the Big East, MU has played top 5 teams on a regular basis and a huge number of top 25 match ups.  While I don't think it it realistic to think any of the teams that could be added will be in the Top 5 range on a regular basis, the league needs to be filled out with teams that at least have to potential to bring those top 25 match ups to the table. 

We are going to need to replace some huge games on the schedule.  If the league is filled out with X, Bulter, Gonzaga that is a good start.  Obviously these teams don't replace games against Cuse, Louisville, UConn, but they would be attractive games, that would be good wins.  The best national brand, as well as the most exciting game.  I know I would be pumped to watch a Marquette- Gonzaga match up, much more so than Dayton, VCU, SLU, Providence, or Seton Hall. 

I know it isn't the best logistical choice, but I really hope the conference ends up with Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga, and if needed 2-4 more teams to make it work.

The 2-4, if they are needed wouldn't matter so much, Dayton, Creighton, SMC, USF, SLU.  For the sake of divisions, USF and SMC seem to make sense as 2 of them. 

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 08:33:45 PM
 I have repeatedly said that Xavier etc. may well leave, but its simply not the finalncial no-brainer you and others make it out to be.   Because if it was a no brainer, they would have been part of the annocement last week.

It's a no brainier.

Can someone explain to me why we keep hearing USF mentioned? I'm assuming that's San Francisco, not South Florida. This isn't the 1950s. They aren't relevant anymore.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 18, 2012, 08:41:07 PM
Sorry, but I think that is an absolutely false statement. The C7 has announced their intention to leave. They have not left. It is not finalized. Xavier would be absolutely idiotic to announce they are leaving the A-10 before having a formal invitation and before the C7 is ready to make an announcement. No one else was going to be part of last week's announcement because last week's announcement was merely one of intent, not of a finalized action.

When the C7 is ready to announce teams that will be joining them, Xavier will be one of those teams announced. But not until the C7 is ready.

And you know this how?  

Its one thing if you were to come out and have a different opinion.  But for you to declare it not just "false" but absolutely implies that you have insider information.

I can't go with absolute knowledge--but I can make educated guesses.

1.  We know that these discussions among the C7 have been going on for months.
2.  It is inconceivable that during those months of discussions, nobody thought about discussing teams beyond 7.
3.  It is inconcievable that nobody in the C7 thought about what other teams they might invite.
4.  It is inconcievable that the C7 didn't short list Xavier, Gonzaga and Butler as potential teams to invite.
5.  It is inconcievalble that if Butler and Xavier and Gonzaga were shortlisted while discussions were private, they would have been asked to join prior to any annoucments being made. (and this is apparently consistent with the comments out of Gonzaga).
6.  If Xaiver and Butler and Gonzaga had been seriously interested or said they were on board,  the C7 would have either included them last Saturday or held of making any annoucement until everyone could be  publicly behind it.

Therefore, my best guess is that the C7 asked Butler, Xavier & Gonzaga--and were put on ice--which makes sense since Xavier would have to walk away from a ton of money. Not satisfied with the "let us think about it" the C7 made an immedeate public annoucement to put public pressure on the other three and strengthen negotiating positions.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 09:16:39 PM
And you know this how?  

Its one thing if you were to come out and have a different opinion.  But for you to declare it not just "false" but absolutely implies that you have insider information.

I can't go with absolute knowledge--but I can make educated guesses.

1.  We know that these discussions among the C7 have been going on for months.
2.  It is inconceivable that during those months of discussions, nobody thought about discussing teams beyond 7.
3.  It is inconcievable that nobody in the C7 thought about what other teams they might invite.
4.  It is inconcievable that the C7 didn't short list Xavier, Gonzaga and Butler as potential teams to invite.
5.  It is inconcievalble that if Butler and Xavier and Gonzaga were shortlisted while discussions were private, they would have been asked to join prior to any annoucments being made. (and this is apparently consistent with the comments out of Gonzaga).
6.  If Xaiver and Butler and Gonzaga had been seriously interested or said they were on board,  the C7 would have either included them last Saturday or held of making any annoucement until everyone could be  publicly behind it.

Therefore, my best guess is that the C7 asked Butler, Xavier & Gonzaga--and were put on ice--which makes sense since Xavier would have to walk away from a ton of money. Not satisfied with the "let us think about it" the C7 made an immedeate public annoucement to put public pressure on the other three and strengthen negotiating positions.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous and I think your assumption is quite a stretch.  Every ounce of common sense suggests Butler and Xavier would jump at this opportunity.  Also, realignment has shown that there are things going on behind the scenes for long stretches before decisions are actually made.

My oh my. Put the Equalizer on ice. Get this please: the C7 just announced the intention to leave the BE. they have not even formally said they are leaving. Not official. They give up voting rights once it is official. There are negotiations on going now with the BE. Lots of issues to tie up.  

Informally the C7, would have contacted targets. It will be made official soon enough. Until then chill out. Please.  If they got a bunch of not interested, they would not be planning a BE exit.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 09:16:39 PM
And you know this how?  

Its one thing if you were to come out and have a different opinion.  But for you to declare it not just "false" but absolutely implies that you have insider information.

You did notice I used the phrasing "I think", didn't you? That indicates this statement is my opinion.

And you can make educated guesses all you like, but I disagree with them. I have no doubt the C7 not only considered schools but have had back channel conversations. But it makes no sense to announce who is joining the conference before you've even made your departure official.

Regardless, any friendly wager you like. Signature bet, avatar bet, whatever. Xavier and Butler will be on the docket when the formal announcement of teams is made.

Quote from: GOO on December 18, 2012, 09:42:38 PM
My oh my. Put the Equalizer on ice. Get this please: the C7 just announced the intention to leave the BE. they have not even formally said they are leaving. Not official. They give up voting rights once it is official. There are negotiations on going now with the BE. Lots of issues to tie up.  

Informally the C7, would have contacted targets. It will be made official soon enough. Until then chill out. Please.  If they got a bunch of not interested, they would not be planning a BE exit.

I think you're confusing the two statements released last week.

Thursday was the general, non offical statement of intent that the C7 wanted to split.

Saturday was the official announcement that we filed notice with the league, which was confirmed by the Big East in thier own satement:
"The basketball institutions have notified us that they plan to withdraw from the BIG EAST Conference"

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21406573/catholic-7-officially-announce-separation-from-football-playing-members

Equalizer, if you really feel there's a chance Xavier and Butler don't join up with the C7 then bet brew, he's offered twice already.  If not, than stop arguing minor details.  Who cares if it was announced Saturday or next week or next month.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 18, 2012, 10:02:36 PM
You did notice I used the phrasing "I think", didn't you? That indicates this statement is my opinion.

And you can make educated guesses all you like, but I disagree with them. I have no doubt the C7 not only considered schools but have had back channel conversations. But it makes no sense to announce who is joining the conference before you've even made your departure official.

Regardless, any friendly wager you like. Signature bet, avatar bet, whatever. Xavier and Butler will be on the docket when the formal announcement of teams is made.

Actually, we have made the departure official, and the Big East has confirmed as much:
"The basketball institutions have notified us that they plan to withdraw from the BIG EAST Conference"

Perhaps you were confused by the two different annoucments last week.  Thursday was the unofficial annoucment of intent, Saturday was the official notice. 

Butler and Xavier may well join later--but they're not on the docket today. 

So that's a "no" on the "any friendly wager you like" offer?

So, in summation, the basketball world according to The Equalizer:

1. The reason Memphis had a great run in the late 2000s isn't because John Calipari landed players like Derrick Rose, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Rodney Carney, Darius Washington and Joey Dorsey, but because they played in a weakened C-USA.
2. The reason DePaul has struggled for the past seven years isn't because of a bad coaching hire, subpar recruiting and other structural problems with the program, but because the Big East has been too darn tough for them (uniquely so, among the C-USA refugees).
3. The reason no other C-USA school rose to prominence with the weakened schedule resulting from the departures of MU, DePaul, Cincy and Louisville is ... oh, wait, he can't answer that one.
4. The reason Xavier, Butler, etc. aren't officially members of the new conference yet isn't because the conference doesn't even formally exist yet or because multimillion dollar entities sometimes take more than a few days to put together, but because they're having doubts about being on board (despite one program's coach on record as saying they're on board).
(Forgot one) 5. The reason one of Sean Miller or Tony Bennett is not Marquette's head coach today is because they are too scared to be in the Big East.

I think I ought to be done with this discussion.

Equalizer,

In theory, there is such a thing as too many good teams in a conference and having them feast on one another, and ultimately hurting each other. 

Your theory has some merit.

However, I don't think we have seen a conference approach this type of critical mass. It would take quite a few elite teams in the same conference for a number of years for any impact to be actually felt. And, given that elite players usually want to play for and against elite teams, this type of conference might actually attract a larger pool of talent which over time could become an annual type of thing. Example: SEC Football.

In theory, you have a point, but I think we are pretty far away from that with the C7.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 19, 2012, 08:39:26 AMIn theory, there is such a thing as too many good teams in a conference and having them feast on one another, and ultimately hurting each other.

In theory, though that theory didn't hold up when the ACC got 6/8 (75%) teams in in 1989 or the Big Ten got 7/10 (70%) teams in 1990 or when the Big East got 7/9 (77.8%) teams in in 1991 or 11/16 (68.8%) in 2011.

If we add Xavier, Butler, and Creighton, could we see a year where 7/10 make the dance? Definitely possible. I think there's a very good chance we could put 6/10 in every now and then. And if we add two more and go to 12, could we get 8 bids? Not at all unthinkable.

If we add to the bottom to artificially inflate the top teams, what does that really do for them? Give them a false sense of superiority? No one needs that. We need the best teams possible to build the best league possible. If that means some deserving teams get missed every now and then, so be it. That already happens every single year on Selection Sunday. Better to have more quality than less.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 19, 2012, 08:39:26 AM
Equalizer,

In theory, there is such a thing as too many good teams in a conference and having them feast on one another, and ultimately hurting each other. 

In theory? Maybe, but when 7/9 Big East teams or 7/10 Big Ten teams made it was the team that finished 8th in each instance robbed? I'd say no. Much more risky to be in a lesser conference where one bad game in the conference tourney could cost you a bid.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2012, 09:14:35 AM
In theory, though that theory didn't hold up when the ACC got 6/8 (75%) teams in in 1989 or the Big Ten got 7/10 (70%) teams in 1990 or when the Big East got 7/9 (77.8%) teams in in 1991 or 11/16 (68.8%) in 2011.

If we add Xavier, Butler, and Creighton, could we see a year where 7/10 make the dance? Definitely possible. I think there's a very good chance we could put 6/10 in every now and then. And if we add two more and go to 12, could we get 8 bids? Not at all unthinkable.

If we add to the bottom to artificially inflate the top teams, what does that really do for them? Give them a false sense of superiority? No one needs that. We need the best teams possible to build the best league possible. If that means some deserving teams get missed every now and then, so be it. That already happens every single year on Selection Sunday. Better to have more quality than less.

I don't think we have seen it in practice(as you correctly point out), but in theory, this conference would have problems:

UCLA
Indiana
Kentucky
Duke
North Carolina
Texas
Florida
Kansas
Michigan State

Now, if these teams play well in the non-conf., then a below .500 record in the conf. won't keep them out of the tourny. However, if you have a young team, or a particularly tough non-conf. schedule, you are at risk of missing out. There is no room for error.

And, this would have likely have a more long-term effect than anything else. Finishing below .500 in the conference for several years in a row might hurt a schools "brand" and perception. Do you think Kansas fans are going to like being 8-10 in conference? Even if they go to the sweet 16, they aren't going to be happy.

Again, this is all theoretical and pretty pointless. I'm just pointing out that Equalizers theory isn't entirely false, but it would take an extreme situation for it to have any long term effects.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2012, 09:28:02 AM
In theory? Maybe, but when 7/9 Big East teams or 7/10 Big Ten teams made it was the team that finished 8th in each instance robbed? I'd say no. Much more risky to be in a lesser conference where one bad game in the conference tourney could cost you a bid.

Absolutely correct. I'd much rather be in a premium conference than a weaker conference.

But, if you extrapolate to the 10,000th degree, then he has a point.

My point is not to debate his theory, but rather the idea that it could actually happen.

It just can't happen in the real world.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 19, 2012, 09:34:57 AMI don't think we have seen it in practice(as you correctly point out), but in theory, this conference would have problems:

True, but as you also point out, in the real world this hasn't been an issue. This league is going to have some down teams, and even if they move up in the pecking order, others will replace them because most teams naturally go through up and down cycles (look at 'Nova).

Either way, even if we added Xavier, Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, and Creighton (arguably the 5 best programs strictly in terms of basketball) to Marquette, Georgetown, and Villanova (the 3 most consistent C7 teams) you still have Providence, DePaul, and Seton Hall at the bottom with St. John's probably the one most likely to fight their way from the bottom to the top. I think 8 bids would be possible from that league, and if one of the teams at the bottom wanted a place at the table, then do it by climbing over one of the teams at the top.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
True, but as you also point out, in the real world this hasn't been an issue. This league is going to have some down teams, and even if they move up in the pecking order, others will replace them because most teams naturally go through up and down cycles (look at 'Nova).

Either way, even if we added Xavier, Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, and Creighton (arguably the 5 best programs strictly in terms of basketball) to Marquette, Georgetown, and Villanova (the 3 most consistent C7 teams) you still have Providence, DePaul, and Seton Hall at the bottom with St. John's probably the one most likely to fight their way from the bottom to the top. I think 8 bids would be possible from that league, and if one of the teams at the bottom wanted a place at the table, then do it by climbing over one of the teams at the top.

Yea, I don't see this as an issue for the C7 at all.

I'm merely pointing out that Equalizer's theory isn't wrong, but rather it's not really possible in the real world, and definitely won't happen to the C7.

And, whatever new conference is formed, I would expect an avg. of 4 bids per year. In a particularly good year you might get 6, and in a down year you might just get 2.

It's not unlike the Pac12, which can look really good some years (Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, A. State, Cal.), but can look pretty bad in some other years (like last year).

There will be some ups and downs.

Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on December 18, 2012, 09:11:54 AM
Majority of these teams have had better success than Marquette over the last decade in March.

Momentum with consistent winning is the only label you should concern yourself about.

Here's the post-season record of the teams in March this past decade:

Marquette: 2 NITs, 8 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 1 Elite Eight, 3 Sweet Sixteens (10 NCAA wins)
Georgetown: 3 NITs, 6 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 1 Elite Eight, 2 Sweet Sixteens (7 NCAA wins)
Villanova: 2 NITs, 7 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 2 Elite Eights, 4 Sweet Sixteens (12 NCAA wins)
Seton Hall: 3 NITs, 2 NCAAs (1 NCAA win)
St. John's: 2 NITs, 1 NCAA (0 NCAA wins)
Providence: 3 NITs, 1 NCAA (0 NCAA wins)
DePaul: 3 NITs, 1 NCAA (1 NCAA win)

Xavier: 0 NITs, 9 NCAAs, 2 Elite Eights, 5 Sweet Sixteens (14 NCAA wins)
Butler: 0 NITs, 1 CBI, 6 NCAAs, 2 Runner ups, 2 Final Fours, 2 Elite Eights, 4 Sweet Sixteens (15 NCAA wins)
Gonzaga: 0 NITs, 10 NCAAs, 2 Sweet Sixteens (10 NCAA wins)
VCU: 2 NITs, 1 CBI, 5 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 1 Elite Eight, 1 Sweet Sixteen (7 NCAA wins)
Dayton: 4 NITs, 3 NCAAs (1 NCAA win)
St. Louis: 2 NITs, 1 CBI, 1 NCAA (1 NCAA win)

Happen to know Creighton's numbers?

That list makes it pretty clear that we want Xavier, Butler, Gonzaga and VCU.  I would venture to guess Creighton would compare favorably as well.  Those are the 5 I have been campaigning for.  SLU is such a bad program.  Dayton isn't much better.

Edited:  Here's Creighton: 4 NITs, 1 CBI, 5 NCAA's (2 wins)

I would like the set up below.  You play each team in your division twice and the teams from the other division once for a 16 game schedule.  In that scenario, we would have 6 games against teams in our division currently in the AP top 20, plus Xavier which is usually pretty good.  DePaul is DePaul, but that's a solid schedule for RPI purposes.

East:
1.   Georgetown
2.   Villanova
3.   Seton Hall
4.   Providence
5.   St. John's
6.   VCU

West:
1.   Marquette
2.   DePaul
3.   Butler
4.   Xavier
5.   Creighton
6.   Gonzaga

The west division is stacked.

Yeah... Those divisions look like the sec football divisions in terms of power

But it's a purely geographic breakdown.  The relative strength of those teams will ebb and flow.

Both SEC divisions have 3 teams in the top 10 of the BCS by the way.  Pretty balanced.

Quote from: frozena pizza on December 19, 2012, 01:31:11 PM
I would like the set up below.  You play each team in your division twice and the teams from the other division once for a 16 game schedule.  In that scenario, we would have 6 games against teams in our division currently in the AP top 20, plus Xavier which is usually pretty good.  DePaul is DePaul, but that's a solid schedule for RPI purposes.

East:
1.   Georgetown
2.   Villanova
3.   Seton Hall
4.   Providence
5.   St. John's
6.   VCU

West:
1.   Marquette
2.   DePaul
3.   Butler
4.   Xavier
5.   Creighton
6.   Gonzaga

Sign me up. If we can't get Gonzaga, put St. Louis in for them.

Quote from: Norm on December 19, 2012, 10:38:57 AM
Here's the post-season record of the teams in March this past decade:

Marquette: 2 NITs, 8 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 1 Elite Eight, 3 Sweet Sixteens (10 NCAA wins)
Georgetown: 3 NITs, 6 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 1 Elite Eight, 2 Sweet Sixteens (7 NCAA wins)
Villanova: 2 NITs, 7 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 2 Elite Eights, 4 Sweet Sixteens (12 NCAA wins)
Seton Hall: 3 NITs, 2 NCAAs (1 NCAA win)
St. John's: 2 NITs, 1 NCAA (0 NCAA wins)
Providence: 3 NITs, 1 NCAA (0 NCAA wins)
DePaul: 3 NITs, 1 NCAA (1 NCAA win)

Xavier: 0 NITs, 9 NCAAs, 2 Elite Eights, 5 Sweet Sixteens (14 NCAA wins)
Butler: 0 NITs, 1 CBI, 6 NCAAs, 2 Runner ups, 2 Final Fours, 2 Elite Eights, 4 Sweet Sixteens (15 NCAA wins)
Gonzaga: 0 NITs, 10 NCAAs, 2 Sweet Sixteens (10 NCAA wins)
VCU: 2 NITs, 1 CBI, 5 NCAAs, 1 Final Four, 1 Elite Eight, 1 Sweet Sixteen (7 NCAA wins)
Dayton: 4 NITs, 3 NCAAs (1 NCAA win)
St. Louis: 2 NITs, 1 CBI, 1 NCAA (1 NCAA win)

Xavier's post-season record over the past ten years is extraordinarily impressive. I knew it was good, but 5 Sweet 16s out of 9/10 appearances in a decade is remarkable.

Quote from: frozena pizza on December 19, 2012, 02:13:04 PM
But it's a purely geographic breakdown.  The relative strength of those teams will ebb and flow.

Both SEC divisions have 3 teams in the top 10 of the BCS by the way.  Pretty balanced.

Sorry was actually going for basketball there Florida, Kentucky, vandy (till this year), and mizzou kinda trumps the other division

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 19, 2012, 01:58:29 PM
Yeah... Those divisions look like the sec football divisions in terms of power

Which also looked like SEC basketball divisions in terms of power imbalance, which is why they scrapped them.

Quote from: Norm on December 19, 2012, 02:16:19 PM
Sign me up. If we can't get Gonzaga, put St. Louis in for them.

NOOOOOO!  St. Louis is a terrible, awful basketball program. 

Just lobbying for Dayton here.

In the early 90's, Dayton left the MCC for the Great Midwest, both conferences that Marquette was once a member of.  Dayton did terribly in the Great Midwest, winning 1 conference game in 2 years.  Dayton then joined the A10.

Dayton fired Jim O'Brien, who took the program to its lowest ever level, hired Oliver Purnell, and Purnell brought the program back to respectability.  Purnell 9 years, 2 NCAA's, 3 NIT's.  Purnell left for Clemson and is now at DePaul.

Brian Gregory was supposed to elevate the program, but IMO he did not elevate the program, instead the program pretty much treaded water.  Gregory elevated recruiting, but he couldn't put it all together.  Gregory did very well out of conference, but he struggled a lot in the A10.  IMO, Gregory refused to adjust his game plans/schemes to combat A10 teams that knew exactly what he was going to do.  Out of conference opponents were surprised by Dayton's athleticism.  Gregory 8 years, 2 NCAA's, 3 NIT'S.  But, Gregory did win the NIT in 2010.

IMO, our current coach Archie Miller is going to do better than either Purnell or Gregory and take UD to new heights.

I vote for the Flyers. 

Quote from: tower912 on December 19, 2012, 03:05:03 PM
I vote for the Flyers. 

Thanks, we need all the votes we can get! ;D

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 18, 2012, 08:33:45 PMSecond, its obvous to anyone who actually followed Wainwtigh's hiring was that the potential competition in the Big East scared away a number of better qualified coaches for DePaul.

No.

DePaul felt stung by Dave Leitao.  They had given him a huge (by their standards) contract extension after he took them to the 2nd round of the NCAA Tournament.  A year later, Leitao was off to Virginia, with very little warning.  This was the first time in the school's history that they'd been treated as a stepping stone.

Their problem was that rather than going out and getting the next Leitao, they went out and looked for someone who saw DePaul as a destination.  Therefore, bring in the middle-aged, Chicago guy who everyone liked and who remembered the school's glory days.  The only person from that search who withdrew his name was Brian Gregory.

It was a tremendously conservative hire that the school still hasn't recovered from.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2012, 09:14:35 AM
In theory, though that theory didn't hold up when the ACC got 6/8 (75%) teams in in 1989 or the Big Ten got 7/10 (70%) teams in 1990 or when the Big East got 7/9 (77.8%) teams in in 1991 or 11/16 (68.8%) in 2011.

If we add Xavier, Butler, and Creighton, could we see a year where 7/10 make the dance? Definitely possible. I think there's a very good chance we could put 6/10 in every now and then. And if we add two more and go to 12, could we get 8 bids? Not at all unthinkable.

If we add to the bottom to artificially inflate the top teams, what does that really do for them? Give them a false sense of superiority? No one needs that. We need the best teams possible to build the best league possible. If that means some deserving teams get missed every now and then, so be it. That already happens every single year on Selection Sunday. Better to have more quality than less.

Okay--so across six major conferences between 1989 and today--78 opportunities--you've found four instances where the NCAA went exceptionally deep in a conference.  

I went back over the 7 years we've been in the Big East--and looked at how many teams on average make the tourney--and I did the same for the six power conferences.

On average--across the six major conferences--only 45.1%.  231 appearances out of 512 possible opportunities.

Big Ten has been historically the best (52%), the SEC worst (39%).   But nobody has come close to approacing 60%.

I'll admit that it is *possible* that once in a great while, significantly more than 50% of the teams in any given league will make the touranment.  

But we're probably going to be at the lower end of the scale.  No matter who we add, we aren't going to be as strong at the top as the other conferences because we have no Kansas, no Kentucky, no UNC or Duke, no Ohio State or MSU, no Pitt, Syracuse, or UConn to anchor the top of the league.    

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2012, 06:06:24 PM
Okay--so across six major conferences between 1989 and today--78 opportunities--you've found four instances where the NCAA went exceptionally deep in a conference. 

I went back over the 7 years we've been in the Big East--and looked at how many teams on average make the tourney--and I did the same for the six power conferences.

On average--across the six major conferences--only 45.1%.  231 appearances out of 512 possible opportunities.

Big Ten has been historically the best (52%), the SEC worst (39%).   But nobody has come close to approacing 60%.

I'll admit that it is *possible* that once in a great while, significantly more than 50% of the teams in any given league will make the touranment. 

But we're probably going to be at the lower end of the scale.  No matter who we add, we aren't going to be as strong at the top as the other conference because we have no Kansas, no Kentucky, no UNC or Duke, no Ohio State or MSU, no Pitt, Syracuse, or UConn to anchor the top of the league.     

What gets a league 50%+ NCAA invites isn't the strength at the top of the conference, its the strength in the middle of the conference.

Quote from: LittleMurs on December 19, 2012, 06:09:27 PM
What gets a league 50%+ NCAA invites isn't the strength at the top of the conference, its the strength in the middle of the conference.

Exactly.
Memphis, Gonzaga and Butler haven't exactly lifted the middling teams of C-USA, the WCC and the Horizon, respectively, into position where they're competing for tourney bids.
The A-10 ... without a Kansas, Kentucky, etc. - got four bids last year.
The SEC ... with a Kentucky and a Florida -got four.
The ACC ... with a Duke and a UNC - got five.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 19, 2012, 02:57:46 PM
NOOOOOO!  St. Louis is a terrible, awful basketball program. 

They're fine. More than likely they'll get in over a VCU, so you should probably get used to them.

Quote from: Aughnanure on December 19, 2012, 06:19:54 PM
They're fine. More than likely they'll get in over a VCU, so you should probably get used to them.

They're not fine.  They have made 1 NCAA tourney in the last 10 years.  They don't have any fans, as evidenced by their terrible attendance numbers.  And the only thing they had going for them recently passed away.   

Hopefully this is the 12th team we're talking about and have already added Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier and Creighton.  At that point, I'd rather have VCU, St. Mary's, St. Joe's, Dayton, and probably even George Mason before I'd want SLU.

But yes, I understand they will probably be in this conference.  But I refuse to like it.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2012, 06:06:24 PM
Okay--so across six major conferences between 1989 and today--78 opportunities--you've found four instances where the NCAA went exceptionally deep in a conference.  

I went back over the 7 years we've been in the Big East--and looked at how many teams on average make the tourney--and I did the same for the six power conferences.

On average--across the six major conferences--only 45.1%.  231 appearances out of 512 possible opportunities.

Big Ten has been historically the best (52%), the SEC worst (39%).   But nobody has come close to approacing 60%.

I'll admit that it is *possible* that once in a great while, significantly more than 50% of the teams in any given league will make the touranment.  

But we're probably going to be at the lower end of the scale.  No matter who we add, we aren't going to be as strong at the top as the other conferences because we have no Kansas, no Kentucky, no UNC or Duke, no Ohio State or MSU, no Pitt, Syracuse, or UConn to anchor the top of the league.    

There is a problem in your logic:

The teams that weren't making the tournament weren't victims of their conference or their schedule. They were victims of not being very good at basketball.

DePaul hasn't made the tournament in a number of years. That's because their players are bad, and their coach was/is average.

If you are bad, you are bad. Doesn't matter what conference you play in. Things like RPI and strength of schedule are evaluated for this very reason.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 19, 2012, 07:01:29 PM
They're not fine.  They have made 1 NCAA tourney in the last 10 years.  They don't have any fans, as evidenced by their terrible attendance numbers.  And the only thing they had going for them recently passed away.   

Hopefully this is the 12th team we're talking about and have already added Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier and Creighton.  At that point, I'd rather have VCU, St. Mary's, St. Joe's, Dayton, and probably even George Mason before I'd want SLU.

But yes, I understand they will probably be in this conference.  But I refuse to like it.

I'm so sick of the "that team is bad now therefore they will be bad in perpetuity." St. Louis is a nice add b/c they're a larger private school, have the resources to support athletics, have a 10,000 seat on campus arena, have a good market (yes, they does matter) and fit perfectly into the geographic layout of this conference.

George Mason? Really? Gross. St Mary's facilities are pathetic. St. Joe's is pointless w/ Villanova. VCU is 33k public school that just doesn't fit/match with ANY other schools.

All that matters is basketball.  And they suck at it.

They have made SEVEN NCAA tourneys TOTAL.  As in ever.  So yeah, they have been bad in perpetuity.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 19, 2012, 08:03:58 PM
They have made SEVEN NCAA tourneys TOTAL.  As in ever.  So yeah, they have been bad in perpetuity.

I really don't care. When you've been living in ONE bid leagues (aka a conference tourney champ to get in), that's really not all that surprising. Majerus showed that that program can be successful.

What are you talking about?  They were in CUSA from 95-05 and the A10 since.  These are/were multi bid leagues.  How many bids did they have in that time?  Three.  And if you think 1 NCAA bid in five years under majerus is successful, then I can see why you want them in the league.  Cause your expectations are incredibly low.  SLU sucks.

Every coach who has coached at SLU since 1982 has a winning record while at SLU.

I was down there for part of Anthony Bonner's career, and their stadium was rocking back then.  They were a top ten or close to it in attendance program around then, and If they are going to continue being serious (like they were when they hired Majerus) they could really become a top program.

The key for them is the same as the key for DePaul, they need to get their share of the local talent.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 19, 2012, 08:38:27 PM
What are you talking about?  They were in CUSA from 95-05 and the A10 since.  These are/were multi bid leagues.  How many bids did they have in that time?  Three.  And if you think 1 NCAA bid in five years under majerus is successful, then I can see why you want them in the league.  Cause your expectations are incredibly low.  SLU sucks.

Cause they they shouldve been better than Louisville, Memphis, Marquette, Cincy? That seems unrealistic. They HAD to win the conference tourney to get in. Should they have done better? Sure. But pointing out a lack of NCAA appearances when you're adding mid-major teams is limiting when we're looking toward the future. Should we add Winthrop?

You didnt say they had to win the conference tourney cause of good competition, you said they were in one bid leagues which is completely false.  And if you don't think they should be able to compete with MU, cincy and memphis why are we adding them?  To be doormats?  And yeah, that's what I'm saying: add Winthrop.  I'm saying add BETTER programs than St. Louis, who have never had consistent success.

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 19, 2012, 09:04:59 PM
You didnt say they had to win the conference tourney cause of good competition, you said they were in one bid leagues which is completely false.  And if you don't think they should be able to compete with MU, cincy and memphis why are we adding them?  To be doormats?  And yeah, that's what I'm saying: add Winthrop.  I'm saying add BETTER programs than St. Louis, who have never had consistent success.

Question. How long was the C-USA around? And before that? How many bids did those leagues get yearly? And can Dayton and George Mason now suddenly compete with Memphis? Your putting on extremely absolute labels onto programs simply because they are not Xavier, Gonzaga or Creighton. St. Louis got trapped between Xavier (who never did much really before the A10. Dayton had much more prestige). The landscape allowed for it to be that way. St. Louis couldn't have been worthy if Creighton was as well.

We need programs COMMITTED to basketball. Not just GOOD at it. Which is why Dayton and St. Louis are better adds than Mason, St. Joe's, St. Mary's, etc.

At what point do you look at your options and do you argue all of the same things?

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 19, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
There is a problem in your logic:

The teams that weren't making the tournament weren't victims of their conference or their schedule. They were victims of not being very good at basketball.

DePaul hasn't made the tournament in a number of years. That's because their players are bad, and their coach was/is average.

If you are bad, you are bad. Doesn't matter what conference you play in. Things like RPI and strength of schedule are evaluated for this very reason.

Not sure that makes much sense.   The best any conference has done over 7 years is sending 52% of their teams to the tournament.   On average, its 45%.  

In each of those conferences and every year SOME team was in last place.

But let's assume DePaul was better--lets say instead of 0-18 or 1-17 as they were in 2009, 10, and 11.  that each season they were 7-11.  They still wouldn't have made the touney--but the 7 additional losses would have to be taken by teams north of them in the standings--quite possibly knocking them out of the tournament.  

A good example would have been in 2011.  If DePaul were slightly better, they may have put one of those losses on us.  If USF and Providence were  better, they may have beaten Villanova and knocked them out.  So instead of us going 9-9 in conference getting in as the 10th and 11the teams,Villanov and us would be 8-10.  No tourney.  No sweet 16.  only 9 instead of 11 teams in the tournament.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2012, 09:34:15 PMA good example would have been in 2011.  If DePaul were slightly better, they may have put one of those losses on us.  If USF and Providence were  better, they may have beaten Villanova and knocked them out.  So instead of us going 9-9 in conference getting in as the 10th and 11the teams,Villanov and us would be 8-10.  No tourney.  No sweet 16.  only 9 instead of 11 teams in the tournament.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas. The reality is that conferences can send over 70% of their teams in an up year, and if we have a 12-team league and average 5 teams per year, that's fine. Which is why we need to add the best teams possible to increase that likelihood.

Here's the thing...these teams are going to earn their bids in November and December. If we have teams capable of beating BCS teams in the first two months, all it will take is a 9-9 or 10-8 conference record to make the dance. The odds say we'll have 5-6 teams every year that are .500 or better in the league. So if we take the best teams and they can beat teams in other leagues, we'll get the bids and be just fine. And it's certainly smarter than trying to bring in deliberately weak teams that will run our RPI down with early season losses, because as we know, every league goes .500 once you get to conference play, so you absolutely need to maximize the quality wins you can get in the non-conference, which requires bringing in the best teams you can get.

I don't want mason or Dayton.  I want VCU.  But mason and Dayton would be preferable to SLU, although I'll admit that mason is really close. 

I really don't know why you wouldn't want VCU over any of these schools.  Cause they are public?  Who cares?  They have made a huge financial commitment to Shaka Smart and have proven over the last 10 years they can compete and beat the big boys. 

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on December 19, 2012, 09:50:46 PM
I don't want mason or Dayton.  I want VCU.  But mason and Dayton would be preferable to SLU, although I'll admit that mason is really close. 

I really don't know why you wouldn't want VCU over any of these schools.  Cause they are public?  Who cares?  They have made a huge financial commitment to Shaka Smart and have proven over the last 10 years they can compete and beat the big boys. 

I'm not sure why you're putting up such a hard fight for #5. I like St. Louis for a few reasons. Are they perfect? Hell no. But then again I like them at #5, or #6 behind Dayton. I'm not going to flip out if Richmond and VCU get chosen, but you're acting like its the end of the world when it is a perfectly reasonable choice as the #5 addition when you just got Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler, and Creighton.   

What's Your Ideal New Conference?

Any one without Wisconsin-Green Bay in it.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas. The reality is that conferences can send over 70% of their teams in an up year, and if we have a 12-team league and average 5 teams per year, that's fine. Which is why we need to add the best teams possible to increase that likelihood.

Funny thing is, you're the one dealing in hypotheticals, and I'm using real data.

You can claim we'll get 6 of 10 in regularly, but the reality is that on average, the BEST conferences send 45% of their teams to the tournament--and thats with their RPI raised by elite-level teams.

IF everything goes exactly perfect, you're right that we MIGHT on rare occasions get 7 of 10 or 8 of 12 in the tournament.  A you pointed out, its happened 4 times out of the last 78 changes.

But as you say if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, right? 

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2012, 09:41:24 PM
Here's the thing...these teams are going to earn their bids in November and December. If we have teams capable of beating BCS teams in the first two months, all it will take is a 9-9 or 10-8 conference record to make the dance.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts . . . aren't you glad you introduced that concept? 

Frankly is doesn't matter at this point, becase not only have the teams not beaten the collctive BCS opponents, the C7 have taken losses from the Ohio Valley, Big South, Sun Belt, Ivy and tonight the Horizon.

And we've lost more BCS games than we've won over the past five years.

Again, reality:  .500 might be good enough in the Big Ten, the ACC or old Big East--but only about half the time.  Its probably going to require better than that in this new league.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2012, 09:34:15 PM
A good example would have been in 2011.  If DePaul were slightly better, they may have put one of those losses on us.  If USF and Providence were  better, they may have beaten Villanova and knocked them out.  So instead of us going 9-9 in conference getting in as the 10th and 11the teams,Villanov and us would be 8-10.  No tourney.  No sweet 16.  only 9 instead of 11 teams in the tournament.

Yea, but DePaul being better wouldn't be in a vacuum. If they were better, they would have been better all year and would've had a better RPI in the non-conference, and therefore a conference loss to them wouldn't have been that big of a deal, right?

Teams don't miss the tournament because of the teams in their conference. Teams miss the tournament because they are bad.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2012, 10:18:32 PMFunny thing is, you're the one dealing in hypotheticals, and I'm using real data.

I think we'll generally get 5 out of 10 or 6 out of 12. I think some years we can do better than that. And I also used real data I provided.

But again...if we're losing more games against BCS teams than we're winning, then we need better teams to lead this conference forward. You NEVER recruit to the lowest common denominator. If we need cupcakes we can play them in November and December. It'd be stupid to deliberately schedule the Fordhams and St. Bonaventures of the world in Janurary and February.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 19, 2012, 10:23:46 PM
Teams don't miss the tournament because of the teams in their conference. Teams miss the tournament because they are bad.

Suppose instead of their .500 non-conference record at 6-6, they matched our non-conference record of 9-4.  Plus the one more conference win against us.

I dont' think anyone would say 8-10 is a tournament-worthy record because last-place DePaul was 11-21 instead of only 7-24.  They would still be 2-16 (instead of 1-17) in conference.  They'd still be the last place team.  They would still be a bad loss.  Nobody is going argue "but they were good in non-conference."

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2012, 11:00:52 PM
I think we'll generally get 5 out of 10 or 6 out of 12. I think some years we can do better than that. And I also used real data I provided.

You cherry-picked four examples over 13 years that fit the argument. 

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2012, 11:00:52 PM
But again...if we're losing more games against BCS teams than we're winning, then we need better teams to lead this conference forward. You NEVER recruit to the lowest common denominator. If we need cupcakes we can play them in November and December. It'd be stupid to deliberately schedule the Fordhams and St. Bonaventures of the world in Janurary and February.

Why would it be stupid?  Xavier has outperformed us over the last decade doing exactly that.

Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St. Johns
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence
Butler
Xavier
Dayton
Gonzaga
St. Marys

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 20, 2012, 11:27:02 AM
You cherry-picked four examples over 13 years that fit the argument. 

Why would it be stupid?  Xavier has outperformed us over the last decade doing exactly that.

*out performed us in the tournament. I'll take our regular seasons any day.

Quote from: The Equalizer on December 20, 2012, 11:27:02 AMWhy would it be stupid?  Xavier has outperformed us over the last decade doing exactly that.

Because it's not about us. It's about the conference. The conference shouldn't look at what will be best for their individual members but what will be good for them as a whole. If Marquette misses the tournament a time or two because the conference is tough and other teams are simply better that year, it is still to the good of the conference in terms of tourney shares.

I don't want teams strictly there to lose. I want teams that can compete from day one and teams that motivate schools like DePaul and Seton Hall to improve their programs rather than simply handing them punching bags to make them feel better about themselves.