Would Miller Have Left Dayton If They Were In The BE?

[BEXU]

Dayton had their best run cuz they didn't have to play Xavier, Butler or Temple. Cake walk. Played a bunch of meaningless games in hs gyms, some of which they lost anyway. Oh, but I do remember A 30 point blow-out in Orlando a year or so ago.

[Bill Marsh]

Dayton had their best run cuz they didn't have to play Xavier, Butler or Temple. Cake walk. Played a bunch of meaningless games in hs gyms, some of which they lost anyway. Oh, but I do remember A 30 point blow-out in Orlando a year or so ago.

Nope.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Can't we just create a thread for all of the VCU, Dayton and Wichita State fans to talk to themselves and not continually hijacks threads about how the Big East is making a mistake by not inviting them?

You can't argue with crazy.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

Can't we just create a thread for all of the VCU, Dayton and Wichita State fans to talk to themselves and not continually hijacks threads about how the Big East is making a mistake by not inviting them?

You can't argue with crazy.

CrawfishBucket
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017

Would Miller Have Left Dayton If They Were In The BE?

I think this is a relevant question if the conference ever looks to expand again.

With Archie Miller, Dayton had the makings of a long term Big East producer. However, instead of taking the 'gimme', the conference allowed that grape to wither on the vine and Dayton doesn't look as attractive anymore.

So, that inspires the ultimate question. Is the Big East content to remain a small conference?

Newbie started it. Ill-advised topic on the Holy Land of Hoops MB to be sure, but hopefully, 'Bucket will cop on and do better in the future.

I remain unconvinced that the posts about VCU and Wichita State were relevant to the thread's stated topic.

BTW, I have never posted that the Big East should expand, or that Dayton should be invited to the Big East. That is still my position. I am a fan of Big East basketball, and I have posted a lot of factual information about it. I also challenge posts which contain provably false assertions about the Dayton Flyers.

[X-man]

A far better question to ask is why anyone other than crier fans like Muddy cares what the answer is to the question asked in the title to this thread. I know my answer...they don't.

[beltwaybluejay]

Best comment of the thread X-man. One of my favorite lines from old SNL is( Bill Murray I believe) "What if Hannibal would have had helicopter gunships?".

[MUBoxer]

Dayton won 17 post-season games (NCAA Tournament and NIT) during the 60’s.

Dayton Season • W-L • Post-season Tournament Results

1960–61 • 20–9 • NIT Final Four
1961–62 • 24–6 • NIT Champions (Dayton did not appear in the AP Poll at any point during the 1961-62 season.)
1962–63 • 16–10
1963–64 • 15–10
1964–65 • 22–7 • NCAA Sweet 16
1965–66 • 23–6 • NCAA Sweet 16
1966–67 • 25–6 • NCAA Tournament Runner-up (Dayton did not appear in the AP Poll at any point during the 1966-67 season.)
1967–68 • 21–9 • NIT Champions (Dayton did not appear in the AP Poll at any point during the 1967-68 season.)
1968–69 • 20–7 • NCAA 1st Round

The percentage of AP Polls that Dayton appeared in during the 1960’s does not reflect the quality of Dayton’s basketball program during that decade, and for three significant reasons:

1. The AP regular-season polls from 1949-60 had 20 teams, from 1961-68 had 10 teams, from 1969-1989 had 20 teams, and 1990-present has 25 teams.

2. The Final AP Polls were conducted prior to the post-season tournaments, meaning that none of Dayton's (nor any other teams’) tournament wins were considered in the AP Polls.

3. The The ESPN/Sagarin All-Time Rankings (which you have confirmed is 'malarkey') takes into consideration all of the games that each team plays – not just the regular-season games on which the AP Polls are based.

I would contend that an evaluation methodology which considers all of a team’s games has more validity than sports writer's polls based solely on regular-season games. If you do not like the results of a methodology, that does not mean that the methodology is 'malarkey'.

Ok I'm going to move away from Dayton, focus on the major error I found, then point out that because of a glaring error such as this you can't quite trust the rest of the rankings to be spot on with programs that I'm not as familiar with.

UNC went 239-65 during the 1970s, they made the NCAA tournament 6 times with 4 NIT appearances. They won the NIT in 71, were NCAA runner up in 77 and made the Final four in 72.

During that same period Marquette went 251-41, they made the NCAA tournament 9 times with 1 NIT appearances. They won the NIT in 70, were NCAA runner up in 74 and won the tournament in 77.

There is no logical reason that ESPN could put UNC over MU during that period and that goes for if they're weighing Tournament or regular season success as more important MU wins both categories. Because of this I stand by my statement that the list is "malarky" and cannot be trusted. Sorry the list that shines Dayton in the greatest light is not valid.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

It appears that North Carolina ran up the score on their opponents more frequently (or by a bigger margin) than Marquette did in the 1970's, or perhaps North Carolina had a tougher Strength of Schedule than Marquette did during the 1970's. It could well be a combination of all three of these factors.

The ESPN/Sagarin All-Time Rankings

We know what you’re thinking: How in the world did UCLA not come out on top? Well, as dominant as the Bruins were under John Wooden, they didn’t even rank as a top-40 program in the 1940s. Meanwhile, Kentucky hasn’t finished lower than 10th in any decade. We’re guessing you’re nearly as shocked by Northwestern’s No. 77 ranking—pretty remarkable for a team that’s never made the NCAA Tournament. But with eight Big Ten programs in the Top 20, the Wildcats have faced some of college basketball’s toughest conference slates for more than seven decades. Just goes to show how much Strength of Schedule matters.

ABOUT THE RANKINGS: CHESS (named for the system of rating chess players) considers only a school’s wins and losses. PREDICTOR considers
only its scoring margin. RATING is a combination of the two.

The Top 40 Programs of Each Decade

The 1970's:

NO. TEAM • RATING • CHESS

1 UCLA • 96.31 • 96.79
2 North Carolina • 91.70 • 90.93
3 Marquette • 90.49 • 90.72
4 Kentucky • 89.80 • 89.78
5 Indiana • 89.16 • 89.03
6 NC State • 88.98 • 88.84
7 Maryland • 87.38 • 87.10
8 Notre Dame • 87.23 • 86.50
9 Louisville • 86.84 • 86.50
10 Purdue • 86.47 • 85.81

In any event, it appears that you are getting overly emotional about a very small difference in RATINGs, and drawing conclusions which you cannot prove.

What cannot be disputed is that Marquette and North Carolina had all-time great basketball teams during the 70's and that Al McGuire was a great coach.

[MUBoxer]

It appears that North Carolina ran up the score on their opponents more frequently (or by a bigger margin) than Marquette did in the 1970's, or perhaps North Carolina had a tougher Strength of Schedule than Marquette did during the 1970's. It could well be a combination of all three of these factors.

The ESPN/Sagarin All-Time Rankings

We know what you’re thinking: How in the world did UCLA not come out on top? Well, as dominant as the Bruins were under John Wooden, they didn’t even rank as a top-40 program in the 1940s. Meanwhile, Kentucky hasn’t finished lower than 10th in any decade. We’re guessing you’re nearly as shocked by Northwestern’s No. 77 ranking—pretty remarkable for a team that’s never made the NCAA Tournament. But with eight Big Ten programs in the Top 20, the Wildcats have faced some of college basketball’s toughest conference slates for more than seven decades. Just goes to show how much Strength of Schedule matters.

ABOUT THE RANKINGS: CHESS (named for the system of rating chess players) considers only a school’s wins and losses. PREDICTOR considers
only its scoring margin. RATING is a combination of the two.

The Top 40 Programs of Each Decade

The 1970's:

NO. TEAM • RATING • CHESS

1 UCLA • 96.31 • 96.79
2 North Carolina • 91.70 • 90.93
3 Marquette • 90.49 • 90.72
4 Kentucky • 89.80 • 89.78
5 Indiana • 89.16 • 89.03
6 NC State • 88.98 • 88.84
7 Maryland • 87.38 • 87.10
8 Notre Dame • 87.23 • 86.50
9 Louisville • 86.84 • 86.50
10 Purdue • 86.47 • 85.81

In any event, it appears that you are getting overly emotional about a very small difference in RATINGs, and drawing conclusions which you cannot prove.

What cannot be disputed is that Marquette and North Carolina had all-time great basketball teams during the 70's and that Al McGuire was a great coach.

Using scoring margin for a list of all times is a HUGE fallacy especially when most of those All Time decades did not have a shot clock. I reiterate my statement that this is an extremely poor list.

Don't get me wrong I respect daytons program, I think the fans have some of the most over inflated views of it with NCAA appearance totals in the teens and no championship but I still really respect it. I just saw the post and hate ESPN and see a massive error one which they backtracked on when they did the ESPN 50 in 50 and suddenly said outside of UCLA 70s and UK 50s no program has had a better decade win percentage than Marquette in the 70s. So I see this old list you're using as a source that contradicts that statement and id very much like to prove its wrong.

Sorry for any errors or weird rambling I'm easter drunk. Maybe will better address your statement in the AM

[hortle]

Don't get me wrong I respect daytons program, I think the fans have some of the most over inflated views of it with NCAA appearance totals in the teens and no championship but I still really respect it.

Yes, your um...really real respect...of dayton's program couldn't have been more...respectfully real?