Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[MUBoxer]

Then you have your answer, don't you. No one cares about dated accomplishments. If anyone cared about dated accomplishments, wouldn't UD already be in the Big East?

Xavier's resume does blow Dayton's resume out of the water. It blows it out of the water with respect to the NCAA Tournament as it is presently configured - call it the modern era with at least 64 teams competing in it. Beyond that, it blows UD away in head-to-head competition in that same time frame. And Xavier was primarily responsible for the A10's financial success and exposure during its last 10 years or so in it, while UD bumbled its way to anointing itself pre-season champion about every year on its way to racking up a .500 conference performance.

You don't have a reading comprehension problem based upon what the Marquette fan wrote. You simply have a comprehension problem.

With all due respect I feel like X fans will naturally feel that way because the vast majority of your success has come recently. At MU, Georgetown or Nova I'd guarantee we care tons about our titles, I'm sure Depaul cares tons about the George Mikan final four as well as the Mark Agguire final four. A big selling point of this conference is the tradition (new and old) of these teams. For the kids going to high school now they've been alive for just 4 St Johns NCAA tournament appearances, doesn't mean they won't know that St Johns has a great history.

That being said Dayton fan touting that runner up as the reason they're better than X is like a Loyola Chicago fan saying they're the best team in Illinois because they won the championship. They haven't had remotely the same consistency.

I love how our success has either been too recent or too long ago. So, what you are saying is we have been good for a long time, right?

Ya your 16 total appearances is such a long time. The 62 schools with more appearances are quaking in their boots. You have a 5 year stretch from 65-70, and couple stretches of back to back appearances then long droughts. No consistency whatsoever.

[jaxalum]

There are reasons why UD was not considered when expansion happened this last go around. We can postulate what those reasons were all day, but only the C7 Presidents know for sure. The fact remains that there were enough reasons for UD to essentially not even be considered. Try this on for size. The powers that be searched 730 miles PAST UD to find a "better" fit in Omaha. That should tell you something right there. You can incessantly debate the so called merits as to why you should or should not have been selected, or why you suddenly now are deemed worthy. You can nit pick facts and stats, old and new, to further your case. In the end, you were found lacking and not selected. And to think ONE run in 30 years changes that is ludicrous at best.

You sound like the kid on the playground, who, when picking teams, is either picked last, or not picked at all. But he will endlessly justify his slight by manufacturing outlandish claims as to why he was not chosen. Classic defense mechanism for a severe inferiority complex. Your interminably blabbering and chest bumping is really quite sad.

Maybe you should step away from your computers for a quick reality check. You are on a conference board that is not your own, pleading with others to understand why you are "worth it", knowing full well that there is not a person on here that has ANY say and ZERO influence as to who might be chosen in the next go around of expansion if and when that may happen. We are talking ex-girlfriend, jilted lover, stalkerish tendencies here. It's depressing and annoying to see. As an X fan, I had hoped to never have to read another insufferable UD post again when X joined this Conference. Dreams don't always come true.

But sound reasoning has never stopped the scorned UD fan, and unfortunately, I don't expect that trend to change.

Unfortunately there's not very much that's factual in this post.

"Only the C7 presidents know . . .", followed by "Dayton . . . not even considered." How did we get from the first point to the second? How could anyone on the outside possibly know who was considered and who wasn't? How could anyone know why they stopped at 10 at that juncture or how badly they wanted anyone outside that 10?

The "one run in 30 years." The run was 2 years ago. So, why pick a 30 year time frame? Convenient because if you picked 32 years, it would have been 2 runs. And what's a "run"? And when did it become a criterion? Creighton hasn't even had one run in 40 years, but they're in.

The last sentence pleads for "sound reasoning" but the 2 paragraphs before it are full of childish insults. I agree that it would be better to have sound reasoning.

There is absolutely no reason why the Big East "should" add Dayton or anyone else. But if they want to expand, they're going to have to look long and hard to find a better candidate:

1. Perfect fit - Catholic and private.
2. In the footprint.
3. Top 50 all time in wins.
4. Recent Elite 8 (2014).
5. Top 25 most valuable college basketball programs (Forbes and WSJ).
6. 12,000+ attendance annually.

While there are reasons not to take them, it's not like they have nothing going for them.

"Only the C7 presidents know . . .", followed by "Dayton . . . not even considered." How did we get from the first point to the second? How could anyone on the outside possibly know who was considered and who wasn't?

Unfortunately there's not very much that's factual in this post.

Bill, when it comes to how or why a school was selected or not selected, it's ALL postulation. Nothing factual there of course as I said only the C7 Presidents would know for sure. I'm not jumping to conclusions when I say they "essentially" were not even considered, essentially being the operative word. I'm sure their name probably came up, but per my post, why would their eye (c7 Presidents) wander 700 plus miles to the WEST of Dayton to find another candidate when, last I checked, this was the Big EAST conference. Its a safe assumption to say there were some serious issues with their candidacy. Again, where did I state everything I posted was factual? 95% of all the posts in this thread are opinion and conjecture.

The "one run in 30 years." The run was 2 years ago. So, why pick a 30 year time frame? Convenient because if you picked 32 years, it would have been 2 runs. And what's a "run"? And when did it become a criterion? Creighton hasn't even had one run in 40 years, but they're in.

It's not "convenient". I think 30 years even reaches to far back. 10-20 years makes more sense and is a more plausible timeframe. Why? You aren't living off of successes that only the eldest of your fan base remembers, its a long enough sample size to show the ability to maintain consistent success, and its a better indicator of your ability to succeed presently and in the future. Houston has three Final Fours thirty plus years ago and they are not on any conference commissioners radar. Why? It was thirty plus years ago. Idaho St, Kent State, and George Mason have all made it to the Elite 8. Should they be in the expansion discussion?

And what's a "run"? And when did it become a criterion?

Whether we like it or not, "runs" in March are THE criterion as to how a basketball teams season and program are judged. Is it fair? Probably not. Arguably from there it goes NCAA Tourney berths, regular season championships, conference tournament champs, and everything else. VCU is VCU right now most notably because they made a "run" to the Final Four. Does anyone remember how many regular season titles they won? Probably not, but we sure as hell know that they went to the Final Four. Would Nova fans give up their regular season championship and/or their conference tourney championship in exchange for a "run" to the Elite 8 or Final Four? I won't speak for them, but if I was given that choice for my team I would take that deal in less than a heart beat.

The last sentence pleads for "sound reasoning" but the 2 paragraphs before it are full of childish insults. I agree that it would be better to have sound reasoning.

What's the "sound reasoning" and explanation as to why the C7 Presidents passed on Dayton for another team thats 700 miles WEST of Dayton and 1300 miles WEST of the Big East headquarters? According to you they are the "perfect fit" and "in the footprint" aka your "sound reasoning". It would seem their reasoning is quite different from yours.

[Bill Marsh]

With all due respect I feel like X fans will naturally feel that way because the vast majority of your success has come recently. At MU, Georgetown or Nova I'd guarantee we care tons about our titles, I'm sure Depaul cares tons about the George Mikan final four as well as the Mark Agguire final four. A big selling point of this conference is the tradition (new and old) of these teams. For the kids going to high school now they've been alive for just 4 St Johns NCAA tournament appearances, doesn't mean they won't know that St Johns has a great history.

That being said Dayton fan touting that runner up as the reason they're better than X is like a Loyola Chicago fan saying they're the best team in Illinois because they won the championship. They haven't had remotely the same consistency.

I love how our success has either been too recent or too long ago. So, what you are saying is we have been good for a long time, right?

Ya your 16 total appearances is such a long time. The 62 schools with more appearances are quaking in their boots. You have a 5 year stretch from 65-70, and couple stretches of back to back appearances then long droughts. No consistency whatsoever.

Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.

Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.

For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.

[MUBoxer]

Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.

Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.

For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.

I'm well aware of the NIT's glory days however, it's been said many a time, this is a what have you done recently world and the NCAA tournament totals is about all anyone's going to look up. Notice the blue bloods were choosing the NCAA not NIT back then. It was a heck of a lot more prestigious but that doesn't suddenly put the Duke, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky or UNC in there. In particular I'd argue about the time that Cinci was winning the back to back titles is when the NCAA overtook the NIT.

[Xudash]

Then you have your answer, don't you. No one cares about dated accomplishments. If anyone cared about dated accomplishments, wouldn't UD already be in the Big East?

Xavier's resume does blow Dayton's resume out of the water. It blows it out of the water with respect to the NCAA Tournament as it is presently configured - call it the modern era with at least 64 teams competing in it. Beyond that, it blows UD away in head-to-head competition in that same time frame. And Xavier was primarily responsible for the A10's financial success and exposure during its last 10 years or so in it, while UD bumbled its way to anointing itself pre-season champion about every year on its way to racking up a .500 conference performance.

You don't have a reading comprehension problem based upon what the Marquette fan wrote. You simply have a comprehension problem.

With all due respect I feel like X fans will naturally feel that way because the vast majority of your success has come recently. At MU, Georgetown or Nova I'd guarantee we care tons about our titles, I'm sure Depaul cares tons about the George Mikan final four as well as the Mark Agguire final four. A big selling point of this conference is the tradition (new and old) of these teams. For the kids going to high school now they've been alive for just 4 St Johns NCAA tournament appearances, doesn't mean they won't know that St Johns has a great history.

That being said Dayton fan touting that runner up as the reason they're better than X is like a Loyola Chicago fan saying they're the best team in Illinois because they won the championship. They haven't had remotely the same consistency.

I was not impugning your work. I actually enjoyed the data. And I obviously agree with your last point, because that essentially was the point I was making. Traditions add to the richness of a conference. However, when it comes to the expansion topic, a program's overall tradition has to take a back seat to its recent, sustainable success rate. You noted it yourself: whether it be Loyola or the University of San Francisco or LaSalle, those achievements are in the way too distant past to matter when it comes to how those programs stack up as prospective expansion targets. I don't tend to bring up Xavier's 1958 NIT Championship in this context, as it has no bearing on sustainable success, though, like you, I like that as a component of tradition.

I wrote what I wrote in response to the UD troll. It seems to be universally accepted that recent history is more critical to making decisions regarding expansion, if expansion is to ever take place. It was easy to take the data you presented and look at it for total body of work and then for relevant current sustainable success. The UD fan couldn't "comprehend" how Xavier's track record was so much better than UD's track record. He and his friends can't comprehend how the vast majority of fans don't care about what a program did at a time when television sets were contained in wooden pieces of furniture, three primary network channels existed, and Laugh-In aired on NBC.

The BTG UD troll thinks that it's arbitrary to consider a timeframe when the Tournament was established in essentially its present form. Actually, based on the metric being relevant sustainable current success, I should have gone with "since 2000." A clean enough cut-off with ample time for considering sustainable performance. There is nothing arbitrary about using the modern 64 team format as a means of assessing a track record; the Tournament in essentially its present day form is a meaningful way of taking a look at that, without impugning a program's tradition. For sake of better clarity, it certainly should be the case that using 2000 as a cut-off for evaluating sustainable current performance should be reasonable enough, or just go back 10 years if that makes even more sense. A program's track record has to be long enough and current enough to evaluate its sustainability for expansion purposes. That's the point, and it isn't arbitrary.

UD fans will continue to come here and overstate how their fan base travels, how much national press they think they're getting (they actually seem to think that they're special in this regard; it's pretty funny), how relevant their television market is (it isn't relevant in the scheme of things), that they're now as good as any program in the Big East now that they've been to the NCAA Tournament for TWO years in a row, or how wonderful it is for Dayton to host the PIG games. Whatever. If you enjoy reading all that, then knock yourself out. To their credit, never has a basketball program done so little with so much (especially sweater vests). Ponder that one for a minute, knowing that Archie MILLER will be gone from Dayton, OH in the very not too distant future.

Let's step back again - or try to - and ponder the essence of this realignment discussion when it comes to expanding or not expanding the Big East Conference. Some thoughts, in a kind of waterfall order:

1. Word was that Fox would support a financial package with equal per team money up to 12 teams when the deal was coming together with the C7.

2. The C7 itself had to determine whether it was going to be 9 or 10, or something else.

3. On comes Xavier, Butler and Creighton and the music stopped. If you look back at it without blinders, that process happened quickly and definitively.

4. Stop right there: ask yourself if you thought that was some kind of "staging" maneuver to digest 10 and take on more later, or if that was it, or it for the foreseeable future.

5. Two years are now under the BE's belt with some fans around here (e.g. Stever) overreacting to Fox numbers and NCAA bids, etc.; and again only 2 years into the mission!

6. What about those 2 years? By any measure, except for deeper Tournament runs, the Big East had a successful year this past season.

7. That being the case, you would think the President's, Fox and MSG are happy and inclined to let the brand continue to build. It doesn't need fixing.

8. That's where they now sit: THEY ARE UNDER NO FORM OF STRESS OF ANY KIND TO EXPAND THE CONFERENCE.

(a) They don't need to do it because they're at risk with their television partner; the TV partner is building, along with BE viewership.

(b) They don't need to do it because they feel the need to ATTEMPT to game the NCAA Units systems, having put 60% of their teams into the Tournament in 2015.

9. They have the luxury of being able to wait: they can let the brand build and see how that develops.

10. They have the luxury of being able to wait to see if changes in the football landscape open presently non-existent material opportunities - if ever needed.

That's what they're doing. It's that simple. Short of perhaps Gonzaga, which we all know presents real geographical challenges, there is not a program out there that is perceived to be impactful enough to warrant consideration for inclusion in the Big East. Brand management does not seem to receive a sufficient amount of consideration around here. The Presidents are in fact managing the brand.

It's simply too soon to adjust the current formula. Adjusting it now with what's available would be perceived to be a dilutive and reactive move, especially coming off a year where the Big East conference:

- Produced a #1 Seed.
- Put 6 teams into the NCAA Tournament (60% of the conference).
- Held a successful BE Tournament.
- Cranked up the #2 RPI Conference in the nation.
- Generated strong attendance numbers.
- Established a strong, positive trend in recruiting results.

Who in their right mind would mess with that now?

[Bill Marsh]

I post when I have free time, of which I didn't have much today. So, I was in a rush. Another poster was comparing Dayton with Creighton back to 2000, which is why I took this back that far. Sorry for running the 2 posts together in my mind.

As for the last 6 years, I was wrong. It was 7. Cut me some slack.

Nonetheless, Dayton won a least one game in each of the 3 seasons that they were a #11 seed, thereby validating the selection. Each. Time they beat a team from a power conference in the round of 64 - West Virginia (2009), Ohio State (2014), and Providence (2015), all of those were on neutral courts, not on their home court.

As for a 10 seed being better than an 11, I was responding to your point that an 11 seed is "barely making the tournament". An 11 is one of the 44 highest ranked teams in the tournament. If you stretch the concept of the bubble, you can legitimately count a #11 as "barely making it" - especially when they're in a play-in game as they were this year. But there is no way to claim that a 10 is "barely" making it. A 10 is one of the top 40 teams and is solidly in the field, not close to the bubble. That's why I included 2004 with their 4-seed in 2003.

I have no idea why you're trying to disparage their accomplishments in the first place. Do we do that to any other tournament teams? They've had a nice run over the past 7 years.

I have no problem with them being "not right for right now." As I said in one of my posts, there are legitimate reasons not to take them. I was just trying to balance the onslaught of negatives about them, which is way out of balance to what they are. Big East expansion is not my decision. It's only being discussed because people representing BE schools have put it our there in the first place. For whatever the reasons not to take Dayton, I'm trying to figure out who are the powerhouses that the BE is going to take instead. Gonzaga has been dismissed due to geography. VCU due to being public. Who? Davidson? Richmond? Please. Who?

I'd personally love Davidson if they continue their recent success in the A10 plus they add the 24th biggest DMA to our map while Dayton is 64. If I was a decision maker I'd also talk to Belmont (Nashville DMA 29), not offer but get a finger on their future plan for the basketball program, and see if what they said was intriguing enough to stall an expansion to see the plan in execution. Before anyone goes crazy that I suggested that they've been D1 less time than I've been alive and yet have 7 ncaa appearances already with a couple NITs, I think they'll be the next Gonzaga.

I really don't get the interest in Davidson. They have an enrollment of 1800 undergrads. Their home attendance averaged 4600 this year. Does that look like a Big East program to you?

Davidson may be in the 24th largest DMA, but I doubt that they add it to the Big East in any meaningful way other than on paper. Does the interest of Charlotte sports fans rise and fall with the fortunes of a small liberal arts college 20 miles out of town?

Belmont is more of the size that we've come to expect of a Big East university. But home attendance averaged only a paltry 1900 this year. Despite their success on the court, this program has simply not developed to Big East levels or anything close to it at this point.

[marquette]

If I was a decision maker I'd also talk to Belmont (Nashville DMA 29), not offer but get a finger on their future plan for the basketball program, and see if what they said was intriguing enough to stall an expansion to see the plan in execution.

Belmont, while interesting, is the definition of one coach carrying the program. They have had the same coach for 100% of their D1 history. They also average less than 3,000 fans per game in a 5,000 seat arena, while making the NCAA tourney seven out of 10 years.It is also another small school with no real history of a traveling fan base. Interesting to discuss, but probably not what the presidents are looking for.

[jaxalum]

Then you have your answer, don't you. No one cares about dated accomplishments. If anyone cared about dated accomplishments, wouldn't UD already be in the Big East?

Xavier's resume does blow Dayton's resume out of the water. It blows it out of the water with respect to the NCAA Tournament as it is presently configured - call it the modern era with at least 64 teams competing in it. Beyond that, it blows UD away in head-to-head competition in that same time frame. And Xavier was primarily responsible for the A10's financial success and exposure during its last 10 years or so in it, while UD bumbled its way to anointing itself pre-season champion about every year on its way to racking up a .500 conference performance.

You don't have a reading comprehension problem based upon what the Marquette fan wrote. You simply have a comprehension problem.

With all due respect I feel like X fans will naturally feel that way because the vast majority of your success has come recently. At MU, Georgetown or Nova I'd guarantee we care tons about our titles, I'm sure Depaul cares tons about the George Mikan final four as well as the Mark Agguire final four. A big selling point of this conference is the tradition (new and old) of these teams. For the kids going to high school now they've been alive for just 4 St Johns NCAA tournament appearances, doesn't mean they won't know that St Johns has a great history.

That being said Dayton fan touting that runner up as the reason they're better than X is like a Loyola Chicago fan saying they're the best team in Illinois because they won the championship. They haven't had remotely the same consistency.

I was not impugning your work. I actually enjoyed the data. And I obviously agree with your last point, because that essentially was the point I was making. Traditions add to the richness of a conference. However, when it comes to the expansion topic, a program's overall tradition has to take a back seat to its recent, sustainable success rate. You noted it yourself: whether it be Loyola or the University of San Francisco or LaSalle, those achievements are in the way too distant past to matter when it comes to how those programs stack up as prospective expansion targets. I don't tend to bring up Xavier's 1958 NIT Championship in this context, as it has no bearing on sustainable success, though, like you, I like that as a component of tradition.

I wrote what I wrote in response to the UD troll. It seems to be universally accepted that recent history is more critical to making decisions regarding expansion, if expansion is to ever take place. It was easy to take the data you presented and look at it for total body of work and then for relevant current sustainable success. The UD fan couldn't "comprehend" how Xavier's track record was so much better than UD's track record. He and his friends can't comprehend how the vast majority of fans don't care about what a program did at a time when television sets were contained in wooden pieces of furniture, three primary network channels existed, and Laugh-In aired on NBC.

The BTG UD troll thinks that it's arbitrary to consider a timeframe when the Tournament was established in essentially its present form. Actually, based on the metric being relevant sustainable current success, I should have gone with "since 2000." A clean enough cut-off with ample time for considering sustainable performance. There is nothing arbitrary about using the modern 64 team format as a means of assessing a track record; the Tournament in essentially its present day form is a meaningful way of taking a look at that, without impugning a program's tradition. For sake of better clarity, it certainly should be the case that using 2000 as a cut-off for evaluating sustainable current performance should be reasonable enough, or just go back 10 years if that makes even more sense. A program's track record has to be long enough and current enough to evaluate its sustainability for expansion purposes. That's the point, and it isn't arbitrary.

UD fans will continue to come here and overstate how their fan base travels, how much national press they think they're getting (they actually seem to think that they're special in this regard; it's pretty funny), how relevant their television market is (it isn't relevant in the scheme of things), that they're now as good as any program in the Big East now that they've been to the NCAA Tournament for TWO years in a row, or how wonderful it is for Dayton to host the PIG games. Whatever. If you enjoy reading all that, then knock yourself out. To their credit, never has a basketball program done less with more. Ponder that one for a minute, knowing that Archie MILLER will be gone from Dayton, OH in the very not too distant future.

Let's step back again - or try to - and ponder the essence of this realignment discussion when it comes to expanding or not expanding the Big East Conference. Some thoughts, in a kind of waterfall order:

1. Word was that Fox would support a financial package with equal per team money up to 12 teams when the deal was coming together with the C7.

2. The C7 itself had to determine whether it was going to be 9 or 10, or something else.

3. On comes Xavier, Butler and Creighton and the music stopped. If you look back at it without blinders, that process happened quickly and definitively.

4. Stop right there: ask yourself if you thought that was some kind of "staging" maneuver to digest 10 and take on more later, or if that was it, or it for the foreseeable future.

5. Two years are now under the BE's belt with some fans around here (e.g. Stever) overreacting to Fox numbers and NCAA bids, etc.; and again only 2 years into the mission!

6. What about those 2 years? By any measure, except for deeper Tournament runs, the Big East had a successful year this past season.

7. That being the case, you would think the President's, Fox and MSG are happy and inclined to let the brand continue to build. It doesn't need fixing.

8. That's where they now sit: THEY ARE UNDER NO FORM OF STRESS OF ANY KIND TO EXPAND THE CONFERENCE.

(a) They don't need to do it because they're at risk with their television partner; the TV partner is building, along with BE viewership.

(b) They don't need to do it because they feel the need to ATTEMPT to game the NCAA Units systems, having put 60% of their teams into the Tournament in 2015.

9. They have the luxury of being able to wait: they can let the brand build and see how that develops.

10. They have the luxury of being able to wait to see if changes in the football landscape open presently non-existent material opportunities - if ever needed.

That's what they're doing. It's that simple. Short of perhaps Gonzaga, which we all know presents real geographical challenges, there is not a program out there that is perceived to be impactful enough to warrant consideration for inclusion in the Big East. Brand management does not seem to receive a sufficient amount of consideration around here. The Presidents are in fact managing the brand.

It's simply too soon to adjust the current formula. Adjusting it now with what's available would be perceived to be a dilutive and reactive move, especially coming off a year where the Big East conference:

- Produced a #1 Seed.
- Put 6 teams into the NCAA Tournament (60% of the conference).
- Held a successful BE Tournament.
- Cranked up the #2 RPI Conference in the nation.
- Generated strong attendance numbers.
- Established a strong, positive trend in recruiting results.

Who in their right mind would mess with that now?

+1

[Bill Marsh]

There are reasons why UD was not considered when expansion happened this last go around. We can postulate what those reasons were all day, but only the C7 Presidents know for sure. The fact remains that there were enough reasons for UD to essentially not even be considered. Try this on for size. The powers that be searched 730 miles PAST UD to find a "better" fit in Omaha. That should tell you something right there. You can incessantly debate the so called merits as to why you should or should not have been selected, or why you suddenly now are deemed worthy. You can nit pick facts and stats, old and new, to further your case. In the end, you were found lacking and not selected. And to think ONE run in 30 years changes that is ludicrous at best.

You sound like the kid on the playground, who, when picking teams, is either picked last, or not picked at all. But he will endlessly justify his slight by manufacturing outlandish claims as to why he was not chosen. Classic defense mechanism for a severe inferiority complex. Your interminably blabbering and chest bumping is really quite sad.

Maybe you should step away from your computers for a quick reality check. You are on a conference board that is not your own, pleading with others to understand why you are "worth it", knowing full well that there is not a person on here that has ANY say and ZERO influence as to who might be chosen in the next go around of expansion if and when that may happen. We are talking ex-girlfriend, jilted lover, stalkerish tendencies here. It's depressing and annoying to see. As an X fan, I had hoped to never have to read another insufferable UD post again when X joined this Conference. Dreams don't always come true.

But sound reasoning has never stopped the scorned UD fan, and unfortunately, I don't expect that trend to change.

Unfortunately there's not very much that's factual in this post.

"Only the C7 presidents know . . .", followed by "Dayton . . . not even considered." How did we get from the first point to the second? How could anyone on the outside possibly know who was considered and who wasn't? How could anyone know why they stopped at 10 at that juncture or how badly they wanted anyone outside that 10?

The "one run in 30 years." The run was 2 years ago. So, why pick a 30 year time frame? Convenient because if you picked 32 years, it would have been 2 runs. And what's a "run"? And when did it become a criterion? Creighton hasn't even had one run in 40 years, but they're in.

The last sentence pleads for "sound reasoning" but the 2 paragraphs before it are full of childish insults. I agree that it would be better to have sound reasoning.

There is absolutely no reason why the Big East "should" add Dayton or anyone else. But if they want to expand, they're going to have to look long and hard to find a better candidate:

1. Perfect fit - Catholic and private.
2. In the footprint.
3. Top 50 all time in wins.
4. Recent Elite 8 (2014).
5. Top 25 most valuable college basketball programs (Forbes and WSJ).
6. 12,000+ attendance annually.

While there are reasons not to take them, it's not like they have nothing going for them.

What's the "sound reasoning" and explanation as to why the C7 Presidents passed on Dayton for another team thats 700 miles WEST of Dayton and 1300 miles WEST of the Big East headquarters? According to you they are the "perfect fit" and "in the footprint" aka your "sound reasoning". It would seem their reasoning is quite different from yours.

Thanks for the reply.

I have no idea why the C7 presidents made the decision that they did. But I do know this: half of the presidents who will be making the decision this time weren't involved in the decision last time. Marquette and St. John's both have new presidents in the last few years. Xavier, Butler, and Creighton were obviously candidates and not decision makers last time. So, whatever the reasons were in the last round, the dynamic could be very different this time.

The other part of the dynamic that could be very different is Fox. Ratings have been disappointing. While they appeared to be hands off last time, I would expect that to change this time since they have a lot of money riding on the decision.

[MUBoxer]

Was unaware of the attendence figures of the two. Personally I think some of those issues are caused by the quality of competition coming in though it'd be hard to prove that without setting up a home and home. Davidson you may be able to prove by seeing how much their attendence increased with the upgrade to the a10 (did it?)

Note I certainly dont think Davidson or Belmont are better options currently but Id love to get a pulse on their plans and see them executed because with Dayton we know what we're getting a consistent NIT team that occasionally puts together a season to get over that hump. With Davidson and Belmont we're getting a clean slate that's used to winning at their respective levels and a big step up may attract more casual fans.