Sat. March 7th games

[Bill Marsh]

Steve, why are you arguing so vociferously for the AAC?

I told you it was my POV.

Why did you trash the Big East so vociferously last year for its OOC schedule and results but have no problem with an even worse OOC situation in the AAC? This year?

Why do you ignore my point about UConn and Temple needing Eastern rivals and focus all your attention on a meaningless comparison of UMass vs Tulsa basketball. The point is that UMass asked all is good enough AND it's location, enrollment, and less instate competition all combined to have made it a better choice than tiny Tulsa with little or no upside potential ink either sport.

Why do you give the AAC on failing to build basketball and make an unsubstantiated claim that they might still add VCU? They might do anything, but. They had. The chance to gra a hot VCU program and passed on them.

Why do you ignore the fact that the AAC. has made all of its decisions based on football aspirations and claim that they are building their basketball programs? They aren't. They don't have the resources to build both and their cultures make basketball a low priority.

There is a huge gap between the AAC and the conferences that take basketball seriously. Imagine what they will look like if/when UConn leaves. When a conferee is that dependent on one program for its stature, it has real problems.

What did I say last year about the Big East? That it's OOC results put us behind the 8 ball in terms of getting more than 3-4 teams in the tourney. And that's EXACTLY what happened. We had a 10-8 team in St John's miss the tourney. Why? Because of a poor OOC schedule for themselves. Teams OOC schedules matter. Also, individual teams matters about OOC scheduling more than the entire conference.

And I'm sorry- for the league to have 2 of their top 3-4 programs be decidedly down and still be very likely to have 3 teams in the tourney, with an outside shot of 4- that just shows it's not a bad league. The claims you are making make them seem like they are Conference USA.

And you say there's a huge gap between the AAC and conferences that take basketball seriously. There is no gap at all between the A10 and the AAC. None. Just look at the conference tourney. A10 SF's could be Richmond/Davidson and Rhode Island/Dayton. AAC sf's could be Temple/SMU and Cincy or UConn/Tulsa. You tell me which one is more appealing. And only one in the A10 that could make it any better would be if VCU beats Richmond.

Yes, that's what you were saying about the BE last year. So, why aren't you following that same line of reasoning with the AAC whose OOC I far worse this year?

You got me on "the conferences that take basketball seriously." To clarify, I was talking about the P5 + the BE. The AAC is comparable to the A10. Both have serious problems with the lower half of their conferences who don't take it so seriously.

[Steve Lavin]

Nova fans puff their chests out and declare "we beat you guys 13 out of 14 times". That is very misleading though. While true, you need to look deeper. St. John's pre-Lavin was literally a mid major most years in the old Big East. We didn't even start recruiting great players and having 20 win seasons until he came here. So to compare pre-Lavin era SJU with current SJU is stupid. The new Big East version of SJU has been successful for the most part. We also have 3 20 win seasons in 4 years with him. Compare that to a dead in the water SJU before he came. You count those wins when SJU was still old SJU with zero recruits or success. Yes, in the new Big East Nova still has the advantage, but there have been several close games. Even the last game it was neck and neck at half time. SJU was hanging right with Nova both games in the first half. It wasn't until in the 2nd where we ran out of steam due to zero depth and injuries to starters. So don't pat yourselves on the back too hard.

As I said, before last game, I saw Nova as a classy organization which wins with class. After the game though, I have a different perspective. When a horse is dead, there is no need to stand over it and continue to hit it. There have been games SJU has totally dominated an opponent, but once up by around 20 late in the second half, the brakes get put on and the clock is run out. Instead, Nova was running and gunning up by a million. It's like dunking it in the opponent's face with 5 seconds left up by 40 when you could have just dribbled it out. You don't prove anything by beating a dead horse after it's already long dead. Well, except that you play like a jack*ss.

[stever20]

Steve, why are you arguing so vociferously for the AAC?

I told you it was my POV.

Why did you trash the Big East so vociferously last year for its OOC schedule and results but have no problem with an even worse OOC situation in the AAC? This year?

Why do you ignore my point about UConn and Temple needing Eastern rivals and focus all your attention on a meaningless comparison of UMass vs Tulsa basketball. The point is that UMass asked all is good enough AND it's location, enrollment, and less instate competition all combined to have made it a better choice than tiny Tulsa with little or no upside potential ink either sport.

Why do you give the AAC on failing to build basketball and make an unsubstantiated claim that they might still add VCU? They might do anything, but. They had. The chance to gra a hot VCU program and passed on them.

Why do you ignore the fact that the AAC. has made all of its decisions based on football aspirations and claim that they are building their basketball programs? They aren't. They don't have the resources to build both and their cultures make basketball a low priority.

There is a huge gap between the AAC and the conferences that take basketball seriously. Imagine what they will look like if/when UConn leaves. When a conferee is that dependent on one program for its stature, it has real problems.

What did I say last year about the Big East? That it's OOC results put us behind the 8 ball in terms of getting more than 3-4 teams in the tourney. And that's EXACTLY what happened. We had a 10-8 team in St John's miss the tourney. Why? Because of a poor OOC schedule for themselves. Teams OOC schedules matter. Also, individual teams matters about OOC scheduling more than the entire conference.

And I'm sorry- for the league to have 2 of their top 3-4 programs be decidedly down and still be very likely to have 3 teams in the tourney, with an outside shot of 4- that just shows it's not a bad league. The claims you are making make them seem like they are Conference USA.

And you say there's a huge gap between the AAC and conferences that take basketball seriously. There is no gap at all between the A10 and the AAC. None. Just look at the conference tourney. A10 SF's could be Richmond/Davidson and Rhode Island/Dayton. AAC sf's could be Temple/SMU and Cincy or UConn/Tulsa. You tell me which one is more appealing. And only one in the A10 that could make it any better would be if VCU beats Richmond.

Yes, that's what you were saying about the BE last year. So, why aren't you following that same line of reasoning with the AAC whose OOC I far worse this year?

You got me on "the conferences that take basketball seriously." To clarify, I was talking about the P5 + the BE. The AAC is comparable to the A10. Both have serious problems with the lower half of their conferences who don't take it so seriously.

The thing is- individual teams OOC matters for the individual teams- it's not the conference decision that you want to make.. So for instance- last year St John's OOC wasn't good. That's why they didn't get in. Compare to Temple. Their OOC SOS this year was 40. So the SOS for the other teams in a lot of ways doesn't matter.

Also the problem that the Big East had last year for trying to get 5 or 6 teams in the dance was that everyone had 3+ OOC losses except for Nova, Creighton, and Butler. Because of that and then the round robin head to head, means anyone finishing 5th/6th place would be in trouble because they would have 11-12 losses before the BET. The difference is as well look at the final AAC standings. 15-3, 14-4, 2 13-5's, and 2 10-8's. If their top teams had taken care of business OOC, they would be having 5 or 6 teams in the tourney pretty easily. You have got to remember- Memphis 5 OOC losses. UConn 5 OOC losses. Temple 4 OOC losses. Tulsa 5 OOC losses. Cincy 4 losses. SMU 3 losses. If these teams only had 3 OOC losses, with the conference records they had, it'd be lock city for all of those- maybe not the 2 10-8's- but that would hinge on their specific SOS OOC- just looking Memphis was 26 and UConn 72- Memphis probably a lock with 2 more wins(out of Wichita, Baylor, SF Austin, Oklahoma St, or Gonzaga. UConn not as much of a lock- but still 2 more wins out of West Virginia, Texas, Yale, Duke, Stanford. You are wanting to make things conference dependent. It's not. It's team dependent. Case in point is Xavier. If they don't have the wins over SF Austin, Murray St, or Cincy right now- they aren't in the tourney. Or St John's- if they don't have the wins over Minnesota, St Mary's, or Syracuse right now- they aren't in the tourney. Individual OOC is what is the key. Conferences just aren't looked at as a whole, it's everyone for themselves.

The difference to me between A10 and AAC is up top. AAC has 4 programs that a lot of folks know about- Memphis, UConn, Cincy, and Temple. How many do the A10 have now? VCU and ???

[Bill Marsh]

Tulsa is doing better as a basketball team than UMass- not just this year- but it's been to the tourney 9 times and has 11 wins(7 in 95-96 and 4 the other years combined). Tulsa has been 15 times and has 12 wins. So I'm sorry- but Tulsa is stronger in basketball compared to UMass.

UMass is not just as good as Tulsa right now. They've not won a tourney game since 1996. About Tulsa's appearances- only last year were they lower than a 12 seed. Means most of the time they would have gotten in at large. In fact of their 15 appearances, 8 of those were with at large bids. Of the other 7 times, 4 of them they would have gotten in regardless(2 of them they were seeded 3 and 4- the other 2 times 10 and 11). 1 of the others was in 1955. Only last 2 times would what you be saying be right.

As far as UMass- look at their program the last several years

Season Record RPI Rank SOS Rank
2013-2014 24-8 0.6138 23 0.5662 38
2012-2013 21-11 0.5747 56 0.5490 72
2011-2012 22-11 0.5577 77 0.5197 117
2010-2011 14-15 0.5030 151 0.5241 106
2009-2010 11-20 0.4963 181 0.5474 65
2008-2009 11-18 0.5044 152 0.5497 63
2007-2008 21-10 0.5786 42 0.5422 70
2006-2007 23-8 0.5722 62 0.5077 131
2005-2006 13-15 0.5205 126 0.5370 81
2004-2005 16-12 0.5142 136 0.5135 124
2003-2004 10-19 0.4859 174 0.5329 81
2002-2003 10-18 0.4706 209 0.5084 127
2001-2002 13-16 0.5244 106 0.5498 54
2000-2001 15-15 0.5615 64 0.5820 17
1999-2000 16-15 0.5300 108 0.5347 83
1998-1999 14-16 0.5267 108 0.5468 56

If that's not mediocre I don't know what it was. Last year was the fluke. This year back to 75. So 2 years last 16 with a sub 50 RPI. That's awful- definitely not the game changer you would like to make it out to be.

Steve, I was going to ignore this digression from Big East topics, but your misrepresentation of the UMass-Tulsa comparison is so egregious that I can't let it stand. I'll start with the most glaring point.

1. You went to the trouble of listing UMass data since 1999 while you don't list any data for Tulsa. Listing data for only one of the 2 programs is not a comparison. The fact is that neither program has done much in the past decade - 1 tournament appearance apiece. But the Tulsa tournament appearance was as champion of a weakened CUSA after Memphis left. They never would have made the tournament as an at-large last year. UMass playing in a much tougher A10 did in fact earn their tournament appearance on their merits as an at-large.

2. Had you listed comparable data for Tulsa, it would have shown a similar run of mediocrity for over a decade. The fact is that each program had a single decade of peak performance in their school's history - UMass in the '90's and Tulsa in 1994-2003. However, UMass had the higher peak:

Sweet 16 - UMass: 3 - Tulsa: 3
Elite 8 ---- UMass: 2 - Tulsa: 1
Final 4 ---- UMass: 1 - Tulsa: 0

3. You cite their tournament histories as further evidence that Tulsa has a better program, pointing to 15 tournament appearances for Tulsa VS 9 for UMass. But you don't mention that 7 of those Tulsa tournament bids came as a representative of weakened conferences while UMass spent the past 40 years in the much tougher Eastern 8/Atlantic 10. Here's Tulsa's conference bid history:

Missouri Valley - won bids only after the conference's power teams had broken off to form the Metro Conference
WAC - won bids only after the conference's power teams had broken off to form the Mountain West
CUSA - won a bid only after the conference's power teams left for the Big East/AAC

4. In an interesting footnote to tournament history, the NCAA took away the automatic tournament bid from the old Yankee Conference in 1968. In the next 9 years before becoming a founding member of the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10, UMass dominated the Yankee conference, winning or tying for the conference championship 8 times. Had the conference had an automatic bid, UMass would have had at least 6 more bids, bringing them to the same 15 bids as Tulsa. Had they won a conference play-off in their 2 co-championship seasons, they would have exceeded the number of bids Tulsa has earned. Given that this period coincided with the playing days of Hall of Famer Julius Erving at UMass, they would likely have added to their tournament win total as well. The Yankee Conference was certainly the equivalent of the garbage conferences that Tulsa was succeeding in. If we're talking program history, UMass has at least as distinguished a history as Tulsa.

The fact is that Tulsa has not been a stronger program in recent years or historically. The 2 programs have been comparable for more than a decade with UMass being the only one of the two to earn a tournament appearance on merit in that time. Despite playing in a tougher conference UMass has had a vey similar W/L record to Tulsa over the last dozen years:

UMass (214-166, .563)
Tulsa (217-169, .562)

[stever20]

the problem with your conference argument is that Tulsa got in via at large 8 times, and 4 other times they got in automatic, but with a seed that they would have been at large regardless. So kind of tough to use that against them...

funny you use the last dozen years for your comparison. why? because years 10, 11, and 12 were the only 3 losing years for Tulsa in the last oh 28 years.

let's look at the 5 years before your gerrymandered look
UMass 70-81
Tulsa 131-43

lets go to 20 years
UMass 360-274 .568
Tulsa 413-242 .631

bottom line, it's really close one way or the other for Tulsa/UMass. So to say that the AAC showed they don't care about basketball because they took Tulsa over UMass just isn't right. UMass just isn't a special program at all. They have floundered for years. The only time they were really good was with Calipari and we know that final 4 appearance isn't counted by the NCAA.

[stever20]

Also Bill, the A10 was lower than the conference Tulsa was in 5 times over the last 13 years in Ken Pom. Got to remember there was a 6 year stretch for the A10 where the A10 was never higher than 9th and 2 years they were 12th and 14th. 2 years the A10 was a 1 bid league and a 3rd time, they got 2 bids because Xavier won the league(and was a 14 seed) while 1 other team made it. So the gap between conferences wasn't all that dramatic.

[stever20]

It is amazing what lengths Stever seems to go to defend a conference that is ranked somewhere near tenth in the rpi and has a horrible media contract while trying to teach us that a conference ranked #2 with one of the best media contracts in the country is destined to fail.

It's quite odd

It's 8th in the RPI and They have all conference games televised on either CBSSN or one of the ESPN networks. That's not a horrible TV contract.

[ChestRockwell85]

Steve Lavin,

I don't like to pound my chest but I don't like to see my coach called classless. If anybody calls Jay Wright classless, you are CLUELESS.

I am sorry you guys took a horrific beating, but in my almost 3 decades of watching Villanova basketball, I have NEVER seen walk-ons play that much. That one kid took about 3 or 4 threes from the same location before hitting one.

If you are going to be upset. Be upset with your coach who hit the snooze bar a few too many times on recruiting last year and kept you guys thin.

We are all rooting for the Big East's NYC team to do well for the sake of the conference, but if you guys start to call out a guy like Jay Wright, don't expect Villanova fans not to shoot you down.

[Bill Marsh]

the problem with your conference argument is that Tulsa got in via at large 8 times, and 4 other times they got in automatic, but with a seed that they would have been at large regardless. So kind of tough to use that against them...

funny you use the last dozen years for your comparison. why? because years 10, 11, and 12 were the only 3 losing years for Tulsa in the last oh 28 years.

let's look at the 5 years before your gerrymandered look
UMass 70-81
Tulsa 131-43

lets go to 20 years
UMass 360-274 .568
Tulsa 413-242 .631

bottom line, it's really close one way or the other for Tulsa/UMass. So to say that the AAC showed they don't care about basketball because they took Tulsa over UMass just isn't right. UMass just isn't a special program at all. They have floundered for years. The only time they were really good was with Calipari and we know that final 4 appearance isn't counted by the NCAA.

Steve,you are just wrong on this one. No one cares what the Tulsa was doing 20 years ago. Anything much beyond the past decade is irrelevant. It was different. Coaches, different leagues, etc. I don't care if, you pick8 years, 10 years, or 12 years, UMass and Tulsa have been comparable programs in the recent past. Much beyond that is ancient history unless it's part of a continuing pattern, which hasn't been the case for either Tulsa or UMass.

I never said that UMass was a "special program" so I don't know why you're refuting that straw man. I said just the opposite, that they were comparable to Tulsa. Anything else is misrepresenting the facts.

Where the 2 schools have been different is on the gridiron, not on the basketball court. Football is the reason why Tulsa was selected and that's precisely the problem. They gained nothing in basketball by taking Tulsa over UMass and they missed an opportunity to improve basketball by passing on VCU. No surprise since they're a football focused conference.

Tulsa is a small private school with an undergrad enrollment of about 3,000. They draw about 20,000 or so for football and that is probably their ceiling. They are in a state with a population of about 4 million that is dominated by Oklahoma and OK State. There really is no up side for them in terms of enhancing the conference in terms of a TV market or ever having the potential to be a big time program.

In contrast, UMass is the flag ship university with an enrollment of 30,000 In a state with a population of almost 7 million with only BC, a private school, as big time competition for college sports fans. Regardless of their history in college athletics, they have all kinds of potential up side. That's their advantage over Tulsa regardless of what years of basketball history that either of us wants to cherry pick. They bring the potential to penetrate a big market and the resources of a very large university with the potential for a very large fan base.

Moreover, given that the loss of Rutgers created a hole in the Northeast wing of the AAC, UMass would have plugged that hole perfectly. They would have brought the additional benefit of having a long history with UConn, thereby bringing a ready made rivalry.

Tulsa was selected because the southern football schools, who by the time the decision was to be made had the votes, opted for a school they felt comfortable with from their days together in CUSA. The decision did not reflect any forward thinking on their part. It was small minded and mid major.

Regardless of how good they ever become in any sport, would a P5 conference ever want Tulsa? Never. They're too small and will never be a big enough draw for attendance or. TV ratings. They will always be 3rd in a relatively small state. If UMass ever developed big time success in football, they are exactly what a P5 conference would be looking for - a state flagship, land grant university with a large enrollment in a relatively large state where they have the potential to be #1.

Let me ask you again. Why do you defend the AAC so vigorously? Do you see anything about them that deserves to be criticized?

You have all kinds of criticism for the Big East but you don't bring the same critical eye to the AAC. Why not? I don't get it. You're a pretty well informed guy, but you don't seem to see a single thing wrong with the AAC. That conference is a marriage of convenience and was formed under duress. With the benefit of hindsight, there are some results that even they would probably like to change. It's not hard to find things to be critical of. Except for you. Why?

[Phillycat]

Nova fans puff their chests out and declare "we beat you guys 13 out of 14 times". That is very misleading though. While true, you need to look deeper. St. John's pre-Lavin was literally a mid major most years in the old Big East. We didn't even start recruiting great players and having 20 win seasons until he came here. So to compare pre-Lavin era SJU with current SJU is stupid. The new Big East version of SJU has been successful for the most part. We also have 3 20 win seasons in 4 years with him. Compare that to a dead in the water SJU before he came. You count those wins when SJU was still old SJU with zero recruits or success. Yes, in the new Big East Nova still has the advantage, but there have been several close games. Even the last game it was neck and neck at half time. SJU was hanging right with Nova both games in the first half. It wasn't until in the 2nd where we ran out of steam due to zero depth and injuries to starters. So don't pat yourselves on the back too hard.

As I said, before last game, I saw Nova as a classy organization which wins with class. After the game though, I have a different perspective. When a horse is dead, there is no need to stand over it and continue to hit it. There have been games SJU has totally dominated an opponent, but once up by around 20 late in the second half, the brakes get put on and the clock is run out. Instead, Nova was running and gunning up by a million. It's like dunking it in the opponent's face with 5 seconds left up by 40 when you could have just dribbled it out. You don't prove anything by beating a dead horse after it's already long dead. Well, except that you play like a jack*ss.

You're embarrassing yourself dude