What's Your Ideal New Conference?

[dwaderoy2004]

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

[dwaderoy2004]

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

[Aughnanure]

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.

[dwaderoy2004]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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?

[dwaderoy2004]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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?

[The Equalizer]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

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.

[dwaderoy2004]

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. 

[Aughnanure]

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.   

[Dawson Rental]

What's Your Ideal New Conference?

Any one without Wisconsin-Green Bay in it.

[The Equalizer]

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? 

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[brewcity77]

Funny 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.

[The Equalizer]

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."

[The Equalizer]

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. 

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.

[KJS]

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

[Aughnanure]

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.

[brewcity77]

Why 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.