collapse

Resources

2024-2025 SOTG Tally


2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.10
Mitchell6
Joplin4
Ross2
Gold1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

OT MU adds swimming program by Billy Hoyle
[Today at 09:19:20 AM]


Ethan Johnston to Marquette by tower912
[Today at 09:18:31 AM]


Pope Leo XIV by tower912
[May 08, 2025, 09:06:36 PM]


2025-26 Schedule by Galway Eagle
[May 08, 2025, 01:47:03 PM]


NIL Money by MU82
[May 08, 2025, 08:54:49 AM]


Recruiting as of 4/15/25 by Juan Anderson's Mixtape
[May 07, 2025, 10:37:23 PM]


APR Updates by Jay Bee
[May 07, 2025, 10:26:24 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
66
Marquette
Scrimmage
Date/Time: Oct 4, 2025
TV: NA
Schedule for 2024-25
New Mexico
75

Tugg Speedman

In another thread CBB said the following which I thought was worthy of its own thread.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 19, 2012, 02:07:48 PM
I would argue there are some among the C7 that don't even fit that bill, but Belmont certainly doesn't.

I agree with this and want to ask why Seton Hall, DePaul and Providence are part of the C7. Or, if it was the C4 or C5 would we be courting these schools?  I think the answer is no.

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

Thoughts?

Nukem2

Providence will be good this year now that Dunn and Johnson are on the court ( plus Ledo next year ).

ChicosBailBonds

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 04:19:36 PM
In another thread CBB said the following which I thought was worthy of its own thread.

I agree with this and want to ask why Seton Hall, DePaul and Providence are part of the C7. Or, if it was the C4 or C5 would we be courting these schools?  I think the answer is no.

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

Thoughts?

My guess is that it just makes more sense to move in that direction with all 7 like minded schools considering the current affiliation.  We need some mass to do this and going at it with 4 vs 5, or 6 or 7 makes it that much harder.  Also, with 7 you get the automatic bid from the NCAA so that is one hurdle already cleared.  It also tells your other schools that you are trying to convince to come into the league that there is some broader commitment.  I don't mind it, we need some bottom feeders.  Every league has a an equilibrium point where there is a top and a bottom and typically a pliable middle.  In most leagues the top is relatively constant with some aberrations in some years.  We're going to need a few programs like that.

Tugg Speedman

Quote from: Nukem2 on December 19, 2012, 04:22:21 PM
Providence will be good this year now that Dunn and Johnson are on the court ( plus Ledo next year ).

That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.  How long can the new conference afford for them to be this bad?

A 16 team conference can carry two terrible teams, what about a risky new type of basketball only conference, can it afford to carry them?

TheButlerDidIt

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 19, 2012, 04:40:50 PM
Also, with 7 you get the automatic bid from the NCAA so that is one hurdle already cleared.

You'd have to think that MU, Georgetown, SJU, and Nova would be granted a waiver from the NCAA, right?

But as you've said in other posts, it's more than just bball.

SaintPaulWarrior

#5
I could be wrong but didn't they need all the votes of the 7 schools to do this?

honkytonk

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 04:19:36 PM
In another thread CBB said the following which I thought was worthy of its own thread.

I agree with this and want to ask why Seton Hall, DePaul and Providence are part of the C7. Or, if it was the C4 or C5 would we be courting these schools?  I think the answer is no.

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

Thoughts?

I think you have lost your mind. Are you in favor of continuing the Big East name? If so, explain to me how dropping SHU and PU will make college basketball fans around the country identify the BE's history with its new make-up. DePaul and MU were added when the conference was serving dessert. You want to drop those two schools and carry the BE name? If you are in favor of discontinuing the BE name, then you have an argument. SHU was warned by the BE in either 2009 or 2010 that it was nearing the minimum investment for its athletic department. The school is not doing well by itself. At least PU has Cooley and has potential. Heck, I like PU's potential more than I like SJU's potential.

Pakuni

#7
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.  How long can the new conference afford for them to be this bad?

A 16 team conference can carry two terrible teams, what about a risky new type of basketball only conference, can it afford to carry them?

About 20 years ago, when MU was in the dumps and DePaul was still going pretty strong, some (mostly) Midwestern schools with good basketball traditions got together to form the Great Midwest Conference. DePaul was one of the leaders of that effort, and because of MU's longstanding ties to them, they were kind enough to invite us along at a time when MU was "not competitive" (zero NCAAs in the previous nine seasons, losing records three of the previous four years).
Getting into the Great Midwest helped Marquette get into C-USA which helped Marquette get into the Big East. It set in motion the path to Tom Crean and Dwyane Wade and Buzz Williams and Jae Crowder.
If DePaul had said "screw those guys, they're not competitive now" Marquette could be Detroit Mercy or Loyola today. Instead, DePaul looked out for MU and we have very successful program to enjoy.

So, before you go chasing off DePaul as not worthy of sharing a conference with mighty Marquette, perhaps you should reflect a bit upon history and consider what they did for us a couple of decades ago.

MuMark

Quote from: Pakuni on December 19, 2012, 05:13:22 PM
About 20 years ago, when MU was in the dumps and DePaul was still going pretty strong, some (mostly) Midwestern schools with good basketball traditions got together to form the Great Midwest Conference. DePaul was one of the leaders of that effort, and because of MU's longstanding ties to them, they were kind enough to invite us along at a time when MU was "not competitive" (zero NCAAs in the previous nine seasons, losing records three of the previous four years).
Getting into the Great Midwest helped Marquette get into C-USA which helped Marquette get into the Big East. It set in motion the path to Tom Crean and Dwyane Wade and Buzz Williams and Jae Crowder.
If DePaul had said "screw those guys, they're not competitive now" Marquette could be Detroit Mercy or Loyola today. Instead, DePaul looked out for MU and we have very successful program to enjoy.

So, before you go chasing off DePaul as not worthy of sharing a conference with mighty Marquette, perhaps you should reflect a bit upon history and consider what they did for us a couple of decades ago.

Well said......people have short memories

tower912

Because they are the basketball only schools from the Big East.   They have a common bond and a common goal for their programs.    Plus, moving as a bloc gives them more leverage.
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

Tommy Brice for Coach

Quote from: MuMark on December 19, 2012, 05:32:16 PM
Well said......people have short memories

+1. It is important to stick with DPU.

Galway Eagle

#11
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.  How long can the new conference afford for them to be this bad?

A 16 team conference can carry two terrible teams, what about a risky new type of basketball only conference, can it afford to carry them?

Depaul only has one more loss than us and is really starting to gel.  Next year they have a top60 recruit (lord knows how long it's been since the last one) an they'll have something like 5 seniors, and all their starters back.  They're probs gonna be competitive this year and good next year.  Also no matter what percent of people at MU are from the chicagoland area Depaul still has more control over it. As far as Hall goes I dont like them at all.  
Retire Terry Rand's jersey!

chapman

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.


Since they've been left out of the discussion so far, Seton Hall's BE records since we joined: 9-7, 4-12, 7-11, 7-11, 9-9, 7-11, 8-10.

How is that not competitive?  They haven't been good, but they've only been really bad one year, which came after an NCAA appearance.  Not going to kill a league enough to justify ending all ties that for some are over 30 years old.  Similar in strength to a lot of the middling A-10 teams that have been discussed as potential additions but with a good market and tradition.

Dawson Rental

Quote from: Nukem2 on December 19, 2012, 04:22:21 PM
Providence will be good this year now that Dunn and Johnson are on the court ( plus Ledo next year ).

From what I've heard, only if Providence moves up to the NBA.
You actually have a degree from Marquette?

Quote from: muguru
No...and after reading many many psosts from people on this board that do...I have to say I'm MUCH better off, if this is the type of "intelligence" a degree from MU gets you. It sure is on full display I will say that.

Dawson Rental

Why the C7, Why not the C4 or C5?

Because the seven schools discussed their options together, made a joint decision on what to do, and committed to leaving the conference together. 

In a history of conference realignment defined by schools acting in their sole self interest, cutting any of the C7 schools out of the new conference at this point would be the most ruthless selfish action taken by any school(s) to date.  Would that be a fitting tribute for schools whose mission includes a religious component?
You actually have a degree from Marquette?

Quote from: muguru
No...and after reading many many psosts from people on this board that do...I have to say I'm MUCH better off, if this is the type of "intelligence" a degree from MU gets you. It sure is on full display I will say that.

Aughnanure

DePaul is the largest Catholic university in the country in the second largest TV market and is Marquette's main ally. They're going nowhere, and they shouldn't.

Providence basically gave birth to the Big East, so just stop - they will always have a place (and again, they should!).

I could listen to Seton Hall, but if you're saying let's replace them with Dayton or St. Louis I'm going to be rolling my eyes.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Tugg Speedman

Here is my question again, which has not been addressed ...

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

Tugg Speedman

Here is what ESPN's Joe Lundari said

(from this thread)
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34955.msg429817#msg429817

The bottom line of all this number-crunching, even if tweaked to the advantage of certain schools or groups of schools, is that the so-called Catholic Seven is a long, long, long way from its Big East glory days. Villanova, Marquette and Georgetown can never be good enough to carry their four average-to-below-average (and we're being kind) partners.


------

Lundari argued the new C7 is not very good because of the bottom of the conference, not a lack of good schools at the top.

Is he wrong?  So I ask again, how long can the bottom feeders stay that way in the new conference?


Tugg Speedman

Quote from: chapman on December 19, 2012, 05:45:16 PM

Since they've been left out of the discussion so far, Seton Hall's BE records since we joined: 9-7, 4-12, 7-11, 7-11, 9-9, 7-11, 8-10.

How is that not competitive?  They haven't been good, but they've only been really bad one year, which came after an NCAA appearance.  Not going to kill a league enough to justify ending all ties that for some are over 30 years old.  Similar in strength to a lot of the middling A-10 teams that have been discussed as potential additions but with a good market and tradition.

No above .500 seasons in the last six years is not good.  No NCAA in the last six years is not good.

Pakuni

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 06:48:38 PM
Here is what ESPN's Joe Lundari said

(from this thread)
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34955.msg429817#msg429817

The bottom line of all this number-crunching, even if tweaked to the advantage of certain schools or groups of schools, is that the so-called Catholic Seven is a long, long, long way from its Big East glory days. Villanova, Marquette and Georgetown can never be good enough to carry their four average-to-below-average (and we're being kind) partners.


------

Lundari argued the new C7 is not very good because of the bottom of the conference, not a lack of good schools at the top.

Is he wrong?  So I ask again, how long can the bottom feeders stay that way in the new conference?



Lunardi's numbers aren't really relevant, as they fail to consider the quality programs that are likely to be included in the new conference, i.e. Xavier, Butler, etc.

JoBo2756

Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on December 19, 2012, 04:55:02 PM
I could be wrong but didn't they need all the votes of the 7 schools to do this?

Yeah. that pretty much answers the question right there.

boyonthedock

none of the catholic 7 are terrible right now.they are all top third teams in the nation, and the only reason some at the bottom are going to have a losing record is because of the monster conference they are in. If you want to talk terrible, we'll talk Penn State, Boston College, Wake Forrest, Nebraska, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, Arizona State, Auburn, South Carolina, and Mississippi state. Even the worst teams in the big east this year are about as good as Northwestern, Arkansas, Florida state, or Oklahoma. Its one of the reasons the big east is so tough, because even the bottom feeders are still good basketball teams with brutal schedules. And having a strong bottom is the key to keeping that rpi up in conference play.

chapman

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 06:52:07 PM
No above .500 seasons in the last six years is not good.  No NCAA in the last six years is not good.

But they are competitive.  Moreso than St. John's has been, and far better than DePaul and Providence.

honkytonk

So I guess the ultimate question is this:

The regular season conference champion will expect to receive an NCAA tournament seed of......????????

Im guessing a 2 seed is best case scenario. I wouldnt be surprised if a 3 seed is more along the lines of the average.

The ACC will dominate. The SEC will get a #1 seed. The BIG will get a #1 seed. The Big 12 will LIKELY get a #1 (Kansas...and at times, Texas or OU). Can we get people on the selection committee? Will we be looked upon as a mid major and have no one in the Selection Sunday room? Will the chairs be dominated by the football playing schools? THAT worries me.

Aughnanure

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 19, 2012, 06:32:51 PM
Here is my question again, which has not been addressed ...

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?


If every team is 9-9 this conference sucks. Guess what guys? There WILL BE BOTTOM FEEDERS if we want to have legit nationally-hyped successful title contending teams. If we go 14-4, someone more than likely has to go 4-14.

That being said, I don't think anyone will be as much of a bottom feeders as they were in the former BE. That league suffocated programs, and didn't allow them to get above water to regain their footing to go forward. This new setup will provide those schools with so much more breathing room then they're used to.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Previous topic - Next topic