DePaul makes the CBI!!!

[Marcus92]

Does the CBI really deserve a championship series? How many people want to watch DePaul play South Florida three times? The announced attendance for the second game -- played in Chicago, with a metro population of more than 9 million people -- was just 1,704.

At least DePaul is making men's basketball somewhat of a priority, and is trying to become relevant again.

[Bocephys]

Does the CBI really deserve a championship series? How many people want to watch DePaul play South Florida three times? The announced attendance for the second game -- played in Chicago, with a metro population of more than 9 million people -- was just 1,704.

At least DePaul is making men's basketball somewhat of a priority, and is trying to become relevant again.

That's a 10x increase from their regular season attendance

[Heisenberg]

Come on goose this isn't Marquette here. For a depaul program that had one ok season since 2004 it's about little victories.

+1

Every journey starts with a first step.  One of those first steps for DePaul is winning tomorrow.

Go Blue Demons!

[Goose]

Galway

I said I am happy to see improved DePaul program. Just said the celebration for 20 is a bit tarnished with number of games played.

[Warrior Code]

Galway

I said I am happy to see improved DePaul program. Just said the celebration for 20 is a bit tarnished with number of games played.

Agreed. Instead of looking at 20 wins as a baseline, maybe now we should look at seasons with single-digit losses as a measuring stick. Winning 20 games these days when you're 20-15 doesn't mean as much as winning 20 by going 20-5.

Any season that ends with 9 or fewer losses is pretty good. Only a handful of teams do that in a given year, and even fewer do it in a major conference. 

[GooooMarquette]

Agreed. Instead of looking at 20 wins as a baseline, maybe now we should look at seasons with single-digit losses as a measuring stick. Winning 20 games these days when you're 20-15 doesn't mean as much as winning 20 by going 20-5.

Any season that ends with 9 or fewer losses is pretty good. Only a handful of teams do that in a given year, and even fewer do it in a major conference.

Yes, but you even have to take the number of losses with a grain of salt. I'm much more impressed with an 18-10 team in the ACC than a 21-7 team in the Horizon.

[Billy Hoyle]

Agreed. Instead of looking at 20 wins as a baseline, maybe now we should look at seasons with single-digit losses as a measuring stick. Winning 20 games these days when you're 20-15 doesn't mean as much as winning 20 by going 20-5.

Any season that ends with 9 or fewer losses is pretty good. Only a handful of teams do that in a given year, and even fewer do it in a major conference.

I treat scoring records the same way.  When you think about what George Thompson did in three years, with no shot clock and no three-point line and fewer games in a season (29) it is damn impressive.  Only three players have passed him, two, Jerel and Lazar, who needed four years, and Markus who did it in three.

[Warrior Code]

Yes, but you even have to take the number of losses with a grain of salt. I'm much more impressed with an 18-10 team in the ACC than a 21-7 team in the Horizon.

That's true. But:
1) we don't play in the Horizon, so for our purposes I think it works; and

2) I think that most Horizon teams would likely call that year a success, don't you? And I don't think that ACC team would be all that impressed with the 18 - 10 year, so I think it works either way.

[Billy Hoyle]

That's true. But:
1) we don't play in the Horizon, so for our purposes I think it works; and

2) I think that most Horizon teams would likely call that year a success, don't you? And I don't think that ACC team would be all that impressed with the 18 - 10 year, so I think it works either way.

Two ways to look at it.

18-10 with a 14-4 conference record or 18-10 with a 9-9 conference record (basically St. John's this past season).  I'd rather have the better conference record.

[jesmu84]

I treat scoring records the same way.  When you think about what George Thompson did in three years, with no shot clock and no three-point line and fewer games in a season (29) it is damn impressive.  Only three players have passed him, two, Jerel and Lazar, who needed four years, and Markus who did it in three.

Agreed. So shouldn't the record really be on a ppg basis? And there would need to be categories for pre shot clock and pre 3 point

[Warrior Code]

Two ways to look at it.

18-10 with a 14-4 conference record or 18-10 with a 9-9 conference record (basically St. John's this past season).  I'd rather have the better conference record.

I suppose. Either way, 18-10 isn't a record I think most of Scoop would consider successful, so it doesn't necessarily apply to my test.

(It also seems to be too few total games for the current schedule.)

[GooooMarquette]

That's true. But:
1) we don't play in the Horizon, so for our purposes I think it works; and

2) I think that most Horizon teams would likely call that year a success, don't you? And I don't think that ACC team would be all that impressed with the 18 - 10 year, so I think it works either way.

Yes, but even within many conferences, the value of a given record varies from year to year. In the BE, a record of 18-10 would've been pretty decent in recent years, but not so much this season.

[mu_hilltopper]

DePaul lost .. 77-65.