What's Your Ideal New Conference?

[4everwarriors]

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?

[dwaderoy2004]

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.

[The Equalizer]

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?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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. 

[chapman]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[dwaderoy2004]

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.  

[brewcity77]

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?

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.

[Avenue Commons]

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

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

My preferred lineup as well.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Avenue Commons]

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?

[chapman]

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.       

[dwaderoy2004]

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.

[Dawson Rental]

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.

[chapman]

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.

[hutchfor3]

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.

[MarquetteFan94]

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.  

[Hards Alumni]

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?

[Aughnanure]

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.

[dwaderoy2004]

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.

[The Equalizer]

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.

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.

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

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).  

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.

You 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.

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.

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?

[Aughnanure]

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

[The Equalizer]

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.   
 

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).   

[Pakuni]

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?