KenPom Rankings Out

[Chief Wiggum]

You resent having anyone point out the obvious shortcomings of this hear's Creighton roster, but you have no problems disparaging Butler's from last year?

Butler did not have a really bad roster last year despite the loss of Jones. They were bringing back Dunham, a 4-star recruit 2 years earlier, and Marshall, both starters on a 27 win NCAA tournament team the year before. Both had averaged 10 ppg. Marshall had been the team's #2 rebounder (7) and Dunham had been it's 2nd best 3-point shooter (35%). Creighton is simply not bringing back an inside-outside combination comparable to those two. They were also bring back the top 3 reserves off the bench, all of whom had averaged double figures minutes. That's 5 of their top 8 players from a team that wasn't so heavily dependent on one or two players the way that Creighton was last year.

In contrast, among the 4 starters they are losing, Creighton is losing both of their top 2 starters and both of their top 2 rebounders. They don't bring back a single player who scored in double figures last year. Players will have to learn completely new roles because last year's strategy was to get the ball to Doug so he could get to work. As a team Creighton shot over 40% from 3, which is incredible. They hit such a high % that they didn't have to worry about hitting the offensive boards (295th in the country in offensive rebounds). However, McDermott, Wragge, Gibbs, and Manigat all hit over 40% from 3. They were the reason why Creighton was so good and they're all gone. Chatman can hit the 3, but who else? The offense has been gutted. With 3's not falling this year the way they did last, the team is going to have to learn a new skill - rebounding. And they're not going to be able to simply outscore teams. They're going to have to hold scores down.

I don't resent anything. I'm simply disagreeing with the notion that Creighton is talent-less, and pointing out some areas where you're missing some points.

We have game tape to view which illustrates Butler's obvious shortcomings last season. You're basing much of your analysis on Creighton on what we lost (everyone is aware they lost a ton), not what remains on the roster. That's where we differ. There are plenty of pieces on the roster. And if you think the strategy was "get the ball to Doug so he could get to work", then I'm not sure what you watched. He scored a ton of points, while also being extremely efficient, specifically because we didn't just give him the ball and watch him work. His points were within the flow of the offense, and he connected on the shots he took. Will the new players be able to connect on theirs? Who knows, but there are plenty of shooters remaining.

Chatman can hit the three. Zierden can hit the three (was one of the top shooters in the nation coming out of HS), Hegner is 6'10" and can hit the three. Brooks has apparently been lights out in practice from distance. Milliken was one of the top JUCO 3pt shooters in the country. Avery Dingman is a career 37% shooter from 3, and shot 42% as a freshman. There are plenty of shooters left on the roster.

My guess is most will welcome Creighton running the same type of offense as they did last year as if they play similar defense like they have since Mcdermott arrived...if so they will get run off the court most nights. But, my guess is Mcdermott won't be running and gunning like last year as thus far he only has one proven shooter on the team in Chatman and that was with him getting mostly open shots because defenses were glued in on his son.

[Bill Marsh]

You resent having anyone point out the obvious shortcomings of this hear's Creighton roster, but you have no problems disparaging Butler's from last year?

Butler did not have a really bad roster last year despite the loss of Jones. They were bringing back Dunham, a 4-star recruit 2 years earlier, and Marshall, both starters on a 27 win NCAA tournament team the year before. Both had averaged 10 ppg. Marshall had been the team's #2 rebounder (7) and Dunham had been it's 2nd best 3-point shooter (35%). Creighton is simply not bringing back an inside-outside combination comparable to those two. They were also bring back the top 3 reserves off the bench, all of whom had averaged double figures minutes. That's 5 of their top 8 players from a team that wasn't so heavily dependent on one or two players the way that Creighton was last year.

In contrast, among the 4 starters they are losing, Creighton is losing both of their top 2 starters and both of their top 2 rebounders. They don't bring back a single player who scored in double figures last year. Players will have to learn completely new roles because last year's strategy was to get the ball to Doug so he could get to work. As a team Creighton shot over 40% from 3, which is incredible. They hit such a high % that they didn't have to worry about hitting the offensive boards (295th in the country in offensive rebounds). However, McDermott, Wragge, Gibbs, and Manigat all hit over 40% from 3. They were the reason why Creighton was so good and they're all gone. Chatman can hit the 3, but who else? The offense has been gutted. With 3's not falling this year the way they did last, the team is going to have to learn a new skill - rebounding. And they're not going to be able to simply outscore teams. They're going to have to hold scores down.

I don't resent anything. I'm simply disagreeing with the notion that Creighton is talent-less, and pointing out some areas where you're missing some points.

We have game tape to view which illustrates Butler's obvious shortcomings last season. You're basing much of your analysis on Creighton on what we lost (everyone is aware they lost a ton), not what remains on the roster. That's where we differ. There are plenty of pieces on the roster. And if you think the strategy was "get the ball to Doug so he could get to work", then I'm not sure what you watched. He scored a ton of points, while also being extremely efficient, specifically because we didn't just give him the ball and watch him work. His points were within the flow of the offense, and he connected on the shots he took. Will the new players be able to connect on theirs? Who knows, but there are plenty of shooters remaining.

Chatman can hit the three. Zierden can hit the three (was one of the top shooters in the nation coming out of HS), Hegner is 6'10" and can hit the three. Brooks has apparently been lights out in practice from distance. Milliken was one of the top JUCO 3pt shooters in the country. Avery Dingman is a career 37% shooter from 3, and shot 42% as a freshman. There are plenty of shooters left on the roster.

Chatman - 39% (40% career)
Zierden - 33%
Brooks - 28%
Milliken - 42% (JC)
Dingman - 26% (37% career)

That's what those guys shot last year. Hegner is a red shirt who was a 3-star recruit coming out of high school. This isn't high school. And it isn't junior college. It isn't just whether you have anyone who can hit the 3, it's that you're asking them to replace 4 guys who ALL hit over 40%. And you're asking. Them to do it without McDermott to draw defenses to him. Just getting. The shots off next year will be incredibly different. While we're at it, it's worth noting that Dingman's 3 point shooting % has declined each of the past 2 years.

You don't resent anything? Than why are you whining that Creighton has been accused of being talentless? Never said that. I've gone out of my way to say the opposite and to point out that the key is not just how good the talent is but how it stacks up against everyone else's talent.

Are you seriously telling me that the entire Creighton offense didn't flow through Doug last year? Seriously? That's like saying the old Celtic offenses didn't flow through Larry Bird or the Bulls' offenses through Michael Jordan. Whether Doug was on the perimeter or on the low blocks, he touched the ball on every possession. He was such a great passer that he could take the ball in the low post and hit the open man on the perimeter in perfect position to give Creighton a great inside-out game. The fact that he was efficient had nothing to do with it. Creighton would have been crazy not to run the offense through him since he drew a ton of defenders to him every time he touched the ball, thereby creating open looks. For teammates. Of course the offense ran through him, and of course it will look different next head, and of course this hear's players will have to learn to play differently without him. To claim otherwise is to diminish what he was.

[FlyJays]

Who says our defense is going to be like last years? As you have all clearly pointed out, a lot of the same guys aren't going to be on the floor. Many around the program anticipate our defense being much improved over last season, in large part due to the fact that Wragge and Gibbs were below average defenders, with Doug being average.

[Chief Wiggum]

Who says our defense is going to be like last years? As you have all clearly pointed out, a lot of the same guys aren't going to be on the floor. Many around the program anticipate our defense being much improved over last season, in large part due to the fact that Wragge and Gibbs were below average defenders, with Doug being average.

I say it. Creighton is still a roster full of average athletes compared to the majority of the Big East. The difference being this year they will not have the top player in college basketball on the floor. The two freshman recruits appear to be an uprade in the athleticism department but it remains to be seen if either will play. And if they do...will their body hold up thru the grind as they need to hit the weights. I don't think Creighton will be terrible...but I do see them in the bottom half of the Big East more years than not. Including this year...despite all of them looking like All Americans in practice.

[FlyJays]

Chatman - 39% (40% career)
Zierden - 33%
Brooks - 28%
Milliken - 42% (JC)
Dingman - 26% (37% career)

That's what those guys shot last year. Hegner is a red shirt who was a 3-star recruit coming out of high school. This isn't high school. And it isn't junior college. It isn't just whether you have anyone who can hit the 3, it's that you're asking them to replace 4 guys who ALL hit over 40%. And you're asking. Them to do it without McDermott to draw defenses to him. Just getting. The shots off next year will be incredibly different. While we're at it, it's worth noting that Dingman's 3 point shooting % has declined each of the past 2 years.

You don't resent anything? Than why are you whining that Creighton has been accused of being talentless? Never said that. I've gone out of my way to say the opposite and to point out that the key is not just how good the talent is but how it stacks up against everyone else's talent.

Are you seriously telling me that the entire Creighton offense didn't flow through Doug last year? Seriously? That's like saying the old Celtic offenses didn't flow through Larry Bird or the Bulls' offenses through Michael Jordan. Whether Doug was on the perimeter or on the low blocks, he touched the ball on every possession. He was such a great passer that he could take the ball in the low post and hit the open man on the perimeter in perfect position to give Creighton a great inside-out game. The fact that he was efficient had nothing to do with it. Creighton would have been crazy not to run the offense through him since he drew a ton of defenders to him every time he touched the ball, thereby creating open looks. For teammates. Of course the offense ran through him, and of course it will look different next head, and of course this hear's players will have to learn to play differently without him. To claim otherwise is to diminish what he was.

Do you understand the definition of resent? There's a huge difference between being bitter about something and simply disagreeing.

And once again, you're taking a point I made and turning into nineteen other points I didn't make. You stated the offense was "give the ball to Doug and watch him work", which to me sounds like a claim that we gave the ball to Doug and watched him work one on one all day. That wasn't the case. Of course the offense ran through him. He was the best player in America. However, a TON of the points he scored came within the flow of our offense. And it's not just me saying this. It's coaches around the league. The offense Creighton ran last year was crisp, and it created a boatload of open shots. For Doug, Wragge, and other shooters. The difference with Doug was the he hit almost all of his open shots, and a really high percentage of his difficult ones.

We are all well aware that Creighton is a different team this year. We are all aware of what various guys shot last season. We are all aware Doug was a once-in-a-generation player for us. We get it. And frankly, you are making the same conclusions that most outsiders would. That's fine. But if everything is going to look so different, then how do you have any clue what the results are going to look like? The fact is, nobody does. But I'm pretty confident in the information I have, and I'm near certain it's better than simply looking up the roster, realizing you don't really know any of the players outside of Chatman, and concluding that a 9th place season is on the horizon.

[Bill Marsh]

Chatman - 39% (40% career)
Zierden - 33%
Brooks - 28%
Milliken - 42% (JC)
Dingman - 26% (37% career)

That's what those guys shot last year. Hegner is a red shirt who was a 3-star recruit coming out of high school. This isn't high school. And it isn't junior college. It isn't just whether you have anyone who can hit the 3, it's that you're asking them to replace 4 guys who ALL hit over 40%. And you're asking. Them to do it without McDermott to draw defenses to him. Just getting. The shots off next year will be incredibly different. While we're at it, it's worth noting that Dingman's 3 point shooting % has declined each of the past 2 years.

You don't resent anything? Than why are you whining that Creighton has been accused of being talentless? Never said that. I've gone out of my way to say the opposite and to point out that the key is not just how good the talent is but how it stacks up against everyone else's talent.

Are you seriously telling me that the entire Creighton offense didn't flow through Doug last year? Seriously? That's like saying the old Celtic offenses didn't flow through Larry Bird or the Bulls' offenses through Michael Jordan. Whether Doug was on the perimeter or on the low blocks, he touched the ball on every possession. He was such a great passer that he could take the ball in the low post and hit the open man on the perimeter in perfect position to give Creighton a great inside-out game. The fact that he was efficient had nothing to do with it. Creighton would have been crazy not to run the offense through him since he drew a ton of defenders to him every time he touched the ball, thereby creating open looks. For teammates. Of course the offense ran through him, and of course it will look different next head, and of course this hear's players will have to learn to play differently without him. To claim otherwise is to diminish what he was.

Do you understand the definition of resent? There's a huge difference between being bitter about something and simply disagreeing.

And once again, you're taking a point I made and turning into nineteen other points I didn't make. You stated the offense was "give the ball to Doug and watch him work", which to me sounds like a claim that we gave the ball to Doug and watched him work one on one all day. That wasn't the case. Of course the offense ran through him. He was the best player in America. However, a TON of the points he scored came within the flow of our offense. And it's not just me saying this. It's coaches around the league. The offense Creighton ran last year was crisp, and it created a boatload of open shots. For Doug, Wragge, and other shooters. The difference with Doug was the he hit almost all of his open shots, and a really high percentage of his difficult ones.

We are all well aware that Creighton is a different team this year. We are all aware of what various guys shot last season. We are all aware Doug was a once-in-a-generation player for us. We get it. And frankly, you are making the same conclusions that most outsiders would. That's fine. But if everything is going to look so different, then how do you have any clue what the results are going to look like? The fact is, nobody does. But I'm pretty confident in the information I have, and I'm near certain it's better than simply looking up the roster, realizing you don't really know any of the players outside of Chatman, and concluding that a 9th place season is on the horizon.

I'm glad we've cleared up the point about the offense going through Doug. I could have phrased it better and I didn't mean that the rest stood around while he just went one on one. I meant that everyone's role was defined by having him on the floor. The fact that he won't be there means that it's not just about replacing parts, but it will also be about using parts differently.

All I've claimed to be saying is what Creighton looks like on paper. What else can Ken Pom or any of the rest be going on? My disagreement is with him because any computer program that takes in stats and other data on Creighton and spits them back out as a top 50 program - as Ken Pom did - isn't worth anything and needs to be replaced with a new program.

Ken Pom didn't do what you are doing. Which is a talent assessment based on your knowledge of the players and actually see them play. He's only going by what's on paper too. He came up with a wrong conclusion.

I appreciate that you shared so much info about the program - info that none of the rest of us could know. I simply ask that you also take what you know about Creighton and stack it up against what you know about the rest of the Big East teams and then tell us what your conclusion about where they rank is. I've done that and my honest conclusion is that the stack up 9th when I compare all the teams. That's not a prediction. I don't do that. Some teams are going to play above their ability and some are going to play below. I'm jus saying what each team appears to have going into the season relative to the other 9 teams in the conference.

If Creighton finishes in the middle of the pack, IMO that will be a real accomplishment by McDermott and a real credit to his players. Not saying it can't be done, just that they have more obstacles to overcome.

[Amase2]

Chatman - 39% (40% career)
Zierden - 33%
Brooks - 28%
Milliken - 42% (JC)
Dingman - 26% (37% career)

That's what those guys shot last year. Hegner is a red shirt who was a 3-star recruit coming out of high school. This isn't high school. And it isn't junior college. It isn't just whether you have anyone who can hit the 3, it's that you're asking them to replace 4 guys who ALL hit over 40%. And you're asking. Them to do it without McDermott to draw defenses to him. Just getting. The shots off next year will be incredibly different. While we're at it, it's worth noting that Dingman's 3 point shooting % has declined each of the past 2 years.

You don't resent anything? Than why are you whining that Creighton has been accused of being talentless? Never said that. I've gone out of my way to say the opposite and to point out that the key is not just how good the talent is but how it stacks up against everyone else's talent.

Are you seriously telling me that the entire Creighton offense didn't flow through Doug last year? Seriously? That's like saying the old Celtic offenses didn't flow through Larry Bird or the Bulls' offenses through Michael Jordan. Whether Doug was on the perimeter or on the low blocks, he touched the ball on every possession. He was such a great passer that he could take the ball in the low post and hit the open man on the perimeter in perfect position to give Creighton a great inside-out game. The fact that he was efficient had nothing to do with it. Creighton would have been crazy not to run the offense through him since he drew a ton of defenders to him every time he touched the ball, thereby creating open looks. For teammates. Of course the offense ran through him, and of course it will look different next head, and of course this hear's players will have to learn to play differently without him. To claim otherwise is to diminish what he was.

Do you understand the definition of resent? There's a huge difference between being bitter about something and simply disagreeing.

And once again, you're taking a point I made and turning into nineteen other points I didn't make. You stated the offense was "give the ball to Doug and watch him work", which to me sounds like a claim that we gave the ball to Doug and watched him work one on one all day. That wasn't the case. Of course the offense ran through him. He was the best player in America. However, a TON of the points he scored came within the flow of our offense. And it's not just me saying this. It's coaches around the league. The offense Creighton ran last year was crisp, and it created a boatload of open shots. For Doug, Wragge, and other shooters. The difference with Doug was the he hit almost all of his open shots, and a really high percentage of his difficult ones.

We are all well aware that Creighton is a different team this year. We are all aware of what various guys shot last season. We are all aware Doug was a once-in-a-generation player for us. We get it. And frankly, you are making the same conclusions that most outsiders would. That's fine. But if everything is going to look so different, then how do you have any clue what the results are going to look like? The fact is, nobody does. But I'm pretty confident in the information I have, and I'm near certain it's better than simply looking up the roster, realizing you don't really know any of the players outside of Chatman, and concluding that a 9th place season is on the horizon.

I'm glad we've cleared up the point about the offense going through Doug. I could have phrased it better and I didn't mean that the rest stood around while he just went one on one. I meant that everyone's role was defined by having him on the floor. The fact that he won't be there means that it's not just about replacing parts, but it will also be about using parts differently.

All I've claimed to be saying is what Creighton looks like on paper. What else can Ken Pom or any of the rest be going on? My disagreement is with him because any computer program that takes in stats and other data on Creighton and spits them back out as a top 50 program - as Ken Pom did - isn't worth anything and needs to be replaced with a new program.

Ken Pom didn't do what you are doing. Which is a talent assessment based on your knowledge of the players and actually see them play. He's only going by what's on paper too. He came up with a wrong conclusion.

I appreciate that you shared so much info about the program - info that none of the rest of us could know. I simply ask that you also take what you know about Creighton and stack it up against what you know about the rest of the Big East teams and then tell us what your conclusion about where they rank is. I've done that and my honest conclusion is that the stack up 9th when I compare all the teams. That's not a prediction. I don't do that. Some teams are going to play above their ability and some are going to play below. I'm jus saying what each team appears to have going into the season relative to the other 9 teams in the conference.

If Creighton finishes in the middle of the pack, IMO that will be a real accomplishment by McDermott and a real credit to his players. Not saying it can't be done, just that they have more obstacles to overcome.

Great freaking post Bill

[FlyJays]

I have no special information. Everything I know about the team is based off of information from other Creighton message board fans and Creighton beat writers who, like most people on this board, follow their respective teams pretty closely. And you're right, I don't know a ton about the other Big East teams outside of how they perform against Creighton, and I shouldn't expect that from you regarding Creighton's roster. The general feeling among Creighton fans just seems to be that the team will be better on defense this season, and good enough on offense to have a better season than most predict. Not a great season by any stretch, but a decent one.

Is it out of the question that Creighton finishes 9th? No, it's not. But I would be surprised. And I would also be quite surprised if they finish anything higher than 5th. In a way, we're probably splitting hairs. Neither of us thinks Creighton finishes in the top 3 or 4. I tend to think we finish 5th-7th, and you're saying 8th or 9th. We'll see what happens. Can not wait for the season to start.

[handdownmandown]

There are two schools of thought here. It's human nature to see the glass as half full think that your guys are better than they are, especially right before the season starts; it's also very possible that the fans of the team in question know more about what talent is available than what a bunch of fans of other programs that are half way across the nation do. I guess we will see which is which.

I will bring up two observations: first, at this time last season, it was en vogue to say that Creighton was about to fall back to Earth - the reason being, this was now THE BIG EAST, and teams just don't stroll out of the Valley and succeed. It just doesn't happen that way. So yes, Creighton is a nice story, but you don't have the athletes to compete. Whoops. And now, it's, well, sure you had Doug, but you don't have crap behind it. We can't prove it, since there isn't a non-CU fan that could even put names to faces for this season's team, but we know better. It makes no difference that Creighton been overshooting its recruiting since Clinton was lying to grand juries, we know better.

Maybe you're right. I guess my answer to that is, if you think we're annoying you now, you'd better hope we don't make the top half; this sort of disdainful underestimation is what we as Jays fans have had to put up with from 'big school' fans ever since I can remember, and it's the hot button for a lot of us. If you're wrong, we are going to be almost unbearable. So consider yourself warned.

That's the first observation. The second is more complicated.



I must say that we have been welcomed to the Big East in an incredibly positive and enthusiastic manner. However, there still seems to be a slight whiff from C7 fans of wishing the three of us 'well, but not too well'. Why? The BE superiority story is pretty much ingrained in the fandom of the original C7; I wouldn't expect it to be any other way, really, and even in pointing it out I wouldn't characterize it as a negative. But the idea that Butler, Xavier, or Creighton can just roll in and do well, and consistently? That's not a thought most C7 fans want to entertain, because if it plays out like that, it brings up some questions that will (depending on which team you root for) range from queasy to vomit inducing. So, while being extended a very positive and genuine invite, the C7 seems to be thinking, best of luck, because really what we're thinking is, we hope you get your ducks in line pretty quickly, because this is a whole new ball of wax, and we don't want you dragging us down.

And again, I get that. And when that's your default basis for decision making, naturally the idea of Creighton at .500 or better in the conference (or whatever overachieving would be) is just something that can't be processed, because such an outcome isn't attainable. You cannot beat Big East teams with a bunch of Valley players; the same argument as was made last season, just in a different package. If our B team shows up and does well, proving you can amass strong BE results WHILE DOING SO WITH FAR, FAR LESS RESOURCES, then there's absolutely no excuse for the non-big 3 (Nova, GTown, Marq) to have underachieved to the degree that they have over the years, and that idea can't be entertained. Better to banish it.

Before you run in here and say, WTF, this guy is saying it's a conspiracy that C7 fans want the new three to fail, a)that's not what I'm saying at all and b)as C7 fans, you probably don't even realize you give off such an attitude. I'd bet $$$ that Butler and X fans agree with me, too, but even if they don't, we can smell it. And it's why dander gets raised when it starts to rear its head which is what's happening here: we see a blanket dismissal based on nothing other than reading a few dubious articles and sprinkling it with what, as C7 fans, you suspect isn't there (talent, because of your disdain for the players we could only get as a member of an inferior league), as fightin' words.

So if Chief Wiggum et al. want to wax rhapsodically about how there's no way for us to excel this year, bring it on. We're up for it. And if we blow, I'll be the first person on here to say, you were right. What we ask is you do the same.

//rant

As an addendum, I would like to give a shout out to one person on here who, last season, pretty much owned up to what I just said: admin. Total props for having the balls to come out and say, yes it's great that X and CU have done so well, but I'm really pretty disappointed in the efforts of the C7, because I wanted them to represent what we stood for in the BE in a much better manner than they did - teams joining from a lesser league and doing this well shouldn't be possible. That's not in quotes, because I didn't go find the thread where he said it (it's from memory), but I remember reading it and thinking, FINALLY SOMEONE HAS THE STONES TO SAY WHAT A LOT OF THE C7 IS THINKING. So, bravo for that, Admin.

[R to the OB]

There are two schools of thought here. It's human nature to see the glass as half full think that your guys are better than they are, especially right before the season starts; it's also very possible that the fans of the team in question know more about what talent is available than what a bunch of fans of other programs that are half way across the nation do. I guess we will see which is which.

I will bring up two observations: first, at this time last season, it was en vogue to say that Creighton was about to fall back to Earth - the reason being, this was now THE BIG EAST, and teams just don't stroll out of the Valley and succeed. It just doesn't happen that way. So yes, Creighton is a nice story, but you don't have the athletes to compete. Whoops. And now, it's, well, sure you had Doug, but you don't have crap behind it. We can't prove it, since there isn't a non-CU fan that could even put names to faces for this season's team, but we know better. It makes no difference that Creighton been overshooting its recruiting since Clinton was lying to grand juries, we know better.

Maybe you're right. I guess my answer to that is, if you think we're annoying you now, you'd better hope we don't make the top half; this sort of disdainful underestimation is what we as Jays fans have had to put up with from 'big school' fans ever since I can remember, and it's the hot button for a lot of us. If you're wrong, we are going to be almost unbearable. So consider yourself warned.

That's the first observation. The second is more complicated.



I must say that we have been welcomed to the Big East in an incredibly positive and enthusiastic manner. However, there still seems to be a slight whiff from C7 fans of wishing the three of us 'well, but not too well'. Why? The BE superiority story is pretty much ingrained in the fandom of the original C7; I wouldn't expect it to be any other way, really, and even in pointing it out I wouldn't characterize it as a negative. But the idea that Butler, Xavier, or Creighton can just roll in and do well, and consistently? That's not a thought most C7 fans want to entertain, because if it plays out like that, it brings up some questions that will (depending on which team you root for) range from queasy to vomit inducing. So, while being extended a very positive and genuine invite, the C7 seems to be thinking, best of luck, because really what we're thinking is, we hope you get your ducks in line pretty quickly, because this is a whole new ball of wax, and we don't want you dragging us down.

And again, I get that. And when that's your default basis for decision making, naturally the idea of Creighton at .500 or better in the conference (or whatever overachieving would be) is just something that can't be processed, because such an outcome isn't attainable. You cannot beat Big East teams with a bunch of Valley players; the same argument as was made last season, just in a different package. If our B team shows up and does well, proving you can amass strong BE results WHILE DOING SO WITH FAR, FAR LESS RESOURCES, then there's absolutely no excuse for the non-big 3 (Nova, GTown, Marq) to have underachieved to the degree that they have over the years, and that idea can't be entertained. Better to banish it.

Before you run in here and say, WTF, this guy is saying it's a conspiracy that C7 fans want the new three to fail, a)that's not what I'm saying at all and b)as C7 fans, you probably don't even realize you give off such an attitude. I'd bet $$$ that Butler and X fans agree with me, too, but even if they don't, we can smell it. And it's why dander gets raised when it starts to rear its head which is what's happening here: we see a blanket dismissal based on nothing other than reading a few dubious articles and sprinkling it with what, as C7 fans, you suspect isn't there (talent, because of your disdain for the players we could only get as a member of an inferior league), as fightin' words.

So if Chief Wiggum et al. want to wax rhapsodically about how there's no way for us to excel this year, bring it on. We're up for it. And if we blow, I'll be the first person on here to say, you were right. What we ask is you do the same.

//rant

As an addendum, I would like to give a shout out to one person on here who, last season, pretty much owned up to what I just said: admin. Total props for having the balls to come out and say, yes it's great that X and CU have done so well, but I'm really pretty disappointed in the efforts of the C7, because I wanted them to represent what we stood for in the BE in a much better manner than they did - teams joining from a lesser league and doing this well shouldn't be possible. That's not in quotes, because I didn't go find the thread where he said it (it's from memory), but I remember reading it and thinking, FINALLY SOMEONE HAS THE STONES TO SAY WHAT A LOT OF THE C7 IS THINKING. So, bravo for that, Admin.

+1,000,000,000,000
I pledge to be the second to say you were right if you are. I, like HDMD, ask that you do the same if we are right.