VCU vs UVA

[XBand15]

My problem with VCU as a lock is that until the 2011 final four they were nothing more than your average mid-major that made the tournament when they won their league. Sure they are really good right now, but what happens when Shaka leaves because he's going to eventually and if you think i'm wrong just ask any Butler fan. If we expanded tomorrow on purely basketball terms it would make sense to take VCU, but if we expand it will be a couple years down the road and there is no guarantee that VCU will be worth taking by then. When you look for new conference members it isn't just about athletics. Academics and institutional fit matter just as much if not more. You can call me out on that but why do you think the Big Ten took Rutgers? Surely wasn't based purely on athletics. I get that this is going to be a hot topic between VCU and Richmond fans but calling VCU a lock is foolish because expansion isn't happening tomorrow and if/when it does come, the college basketball landscape could look a lot different.

[trephin]

i don't think VCU is being ignored by the people looking at expansion for the conference. these are presumably intelligent people who are considering multiple criteria for any possible future invitee. as such, there is unlikely to be a litmus test. stever, i would posit that you are also using a litmus test: the athletic performance in a single sport (albeit the flagship of the conference) in what some may consider an arbitrary sample size.

[Bill Marsh]

My problem with VCU as a lock is that until the 2011 final four they were nothing more than your average mid-major that made the tournament when they won their league. Sure they are really good right now, but what happens when Shaka leaves because he's going to eventually and if you think i'm wrong just ask any Butler fan. If we expanded tomorrow on purely basketball terms it would make sense to take VCU, but if we expand it will be a couple years down the road and there is no guarantee that VCU will be worth taking by then. When you look for new conference members it isn't just about athletics. Academics and institutional fit matter just as much if not more. You can call me out on that but why do you think the Big Ten took Rutgers? Surely wasn't based purely on athletics. I get that this is going to be a hot topic between VCU and Richmond fans but calling VCU a lock is foolish because expansion isn't happening tomorrow and if/when it does come, the college basketball landscape could look a lot different.

It's hard for me to swallow the idea that a team that's been to the tournament 6 times in the past decade under 3 different coaches is just an average mid major. Sure, they've had they've peaked under Shaka,but the coaches before him built a foundation that he built on and the university has invested in facilities so that he had fan support and something to attract recruits.

Jeff Capel hot VCU to its first tournament of the decade in 2004. Just a one & done mid major? Yes, but they showed that they belonged by playing Wake Forest to a stand still, losing that game by just one point.

Anthony Grant got them to their next tournament in 2007. Another one & done? Not this time. They pulled a huge upset by knocking off Duke in the first round before losing to Pitt in the 2nd round in a close game. Grant got them back to the tournament in 2009 and it was another one point first round loss - this time to UCLA.

VCU had only one win to show for their 3 tournaments before Shaka. But they played 4 big time programs from the ACC, the Big East, and the PAC-12 dead even, coming within a whisker of winning in their 3 losses.I don't see anything wrong with a mid major getting to the tournament by winning its conference if they prove that they belong once they get there. That's basically what Gonzaga does and it's what VCU did in those 3 tournaments. It was evident that the VCU program was poised to break through which they did as an at large in 2011in a big way obviously Their strong showing in their 3 previous appearances established credibility for the program and set them up for the at large bid they received under Shaka. They followed that up with 2 more bids and 2 more wins.

The fact that VCU had significant success under Capel and Grant before Shaka got there tells me that the success over the past 3 years isn't an aberration. Just as Butler peaked under Stevens. But as the logical culmination of what had been built by his predecessors, so too has VCU peaked under Grant but only as a continuation of what had been started before he got there.

[aughnanure]

My problem with VCU as a lock is that until the 2011 final four they were nothing more than your average mid-major that made the tournament when they won their league. Sure they are really good right now, but what happens when Shaka leaves because he's going to eventually and if you think i'm wrong just ask any Butler fan. If we expanded tomorrow on purely basketball terms it would make sense to take VCU, but if we expand it will be a couple years down the road and there is no guarantee that VCU will be worth taking by then. When you look for new conference members it isn't just about athletics. Academics and institutional fit matter just as much if not more. You can call me out on that but why do you think the Big Ten took Rutgers? Surely wasn't based purely on athletics. I get that this is going to be a hot topic between VCU and Richmond fans but calling VCU a lock is foolish because expansion isn't happening tomorrow and if/when it does come, the college basketball landscape could look a lot different.

It's hard for me to swallow the idea that a team that's been to the tournament 6 times in the past decade under 3 different coaches is just an average mid major. Sure, they've had they've peaked under Shaka,but the coaches before him built a foundation that he built on and the university has invested in facilities so that he had fan support and something to attract recruits.

Jeff Capel hot VCU to its first tournament of the decade in 2004. Just a one & done mid major? Yes, but they showed that they belonged by playing Wake Forest to a stand still, losing that game by just one point.

Anthony Grant got them to their next tournament in 2007. Another one & done? Not this time. They pulled a huge upset by knocking off Duke in the first round before losing to Pitt in the 2nd round in a close game. Grant got them back to the tournament in 2009 and it was another one point first round loss - this time to UCLA.

VCU had only one win to show for their 3 tournaments before Shaka. But they played 4 big time programs from the ACC, the Big East, and the PAC-12 dead even, coming within a whisker of winning in their 3 losses.I don't see anything wrong with a mid major getting to the tournament by winning its conference if they prove that they belong once they get there. That's basically what Gonzaga does and it's what VCU did in those 3 tournaments. It was evident that the VCU program was poised to break through which they did as an at large in 2011in a big way obviously Their strong showing in their 3 previous appearances established credibility for the program and set them up for the at large bid they received under Shaka. They followed that up with 2 more bids and 2 more wins.

The fact that VCU had significant success under Capel and Grant before Shaka got there tells me that the success over the past 3 years isn't an aberration. Just as Butler peaked under Stevens. But as the logical culmination of what had been built by his predecessors, so too has VCU peaked under Grant but only as a continuation of what had been started before he got there.

Tell me how high you were on VCU before the Final Four run. Getting to the tourney 6 times in a decade isn't some amazing feat. Southern Illinois looked amazing back in the mid-2000s. They've still only gotten past the first weekend once. They'd be a fine add, but a "must" is stretching it.

If the Big East's fate is decided by if we invite VCU or not, it's not looking good for us.

[stever20]

The thing is though you can't sweep away the final 4 run like it never happened. It did happen. That's the dumbest thing folks that hate VCU say- what did you think about them before the final 4. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.

If VCU makes another run, things get a whole lot harder in the expansion process. At some point, VCU will become a must add. I am kind of surprised the non-VCU wanting Presidents aren't pushing the issue up quicker and quicker trying to get the decision before VCU can make that type of run again.

[ArmyVet]

The thing is though you can't sweep away the final 4 run like it never happened. It did happen. That's the dumbest thing folks that hate VCU say- what did you think about them before the final 4. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.

If VCU makes another run, things get a whole lot harder in the expansion process. At some point, VCU will become a must add. I am kind of surprised the non-VCU wanting Presidents aren't pushing the issue up quicker and quicker trying to get the decision before VCU can make that type of run again.

I am very familiar with VCU and I'd ask those in favor of adding them to the Big East this question: Other than being a good basketball program, in what other way is VCU similar to the other members of the Big East? Now if you are the president of a Big East school, the answer (or lack thereof) will determine how interested you are in VCU. Remember, the Big East is about more than just basketball now.

[Bill Marsh]

It's hard for me to swallow the idea that a team that's been to the tournament 6 times in the past decade under 3 different coaches is just an average mid major. Sure, they've had they've peaked under Shaka,but the coaches before him built a foundation that he built on and the university has invested in facilities so that he had fan support and something to attract recruits.

Jeff Capel hot VCU to its first tournament of the decade in 2004. Just a one & done mid major? Yes, but they showed that they belonged by playing Wake Forest to a stand still, losing that game by just one point.

Anthony Grant got them to their next tournament in 2007. Another one & done? Not this time. They pulled a huge upset by knocking off Duke in the first round before losing to Pitt in the 2nd round in a close game. Grant got them back to the tournament in 2009 and it was another one point first round loss - this time to UCLA.

VCU had only one win to show for their 3 tournaments before Shaka. But they played 4 big time programs from the ACC, the Big East, and the PAC-12 dead even, coming within a whisker of winning in their 3 losses.I don't see anything wrong with a mid major getting to the tournament by winning its conference if they prove that they belong once they get there. That's basically what Gonzaga does and it's what VCU did in those 3 tournaments. It was evident that the VCU program was poised to break through which they did as an at large in 2011in a big way obviously Their strong showing in their 3 previous appearances established credibility for the program and set them up for the at large bid they received under Shaka. They followed that up with 2 more bids and 2 more wins.

The fact that VCU had significant success under Capel and Grant before Shaka got there tells me that the success over the past 3 years isn't an aberration. Just as Butler peaked under Stevens. But as the logical culmination of what had been built by his predecessors, so too has VCU peaked under Grant but only as a continuation of what had been started before he got there.

Tell me how high you were on VCU before the Final Four run. Getting to the tourney 6 times in a decade isn't some amazing feat. Southern Illinois looked amazing back in the mid-2000s. They've still only gotten past the first weekend once. They'd be a fine add, but a "must" is stretching it.

If the Big East's fate is decided by if we invite VCU or not, it's not looking good for us.

I've never said that VCU is a "must" add. Nor have I said that the Big East's fate will be decided on a decision with regard to VCU. What I have said is that I like a 10 team basketball conference and wish the BE would stay at that number. But I'm not the one who makes those decisions and I'm not the one who's pushing for expansion. That impetus is coming from some place else - probably from Fox.

Expansion is what makes the question complicated. What would be bad for the conference would be to bring in programs that water down the quality of competition. One thing we can say for sure about VCU based on their track record over the pasta decade is that they would not water down the quality of play. They don't have to be a huge upgrade to be attractive; they just have to avoid being a down grade.

In response to your question about being high on VCU before the Final 4, I've actually been aware of VCU as a good basketball school since the '80's. More recently, I sat up and took notice when they upset Duke back in 2007. A lot of people in college basketball had begun paying attention to them again at around that time. Their success landed big time coaching jobs in power conferences for Jeff Capel and Anthony Grant.

But was I high on them before the Final 4? No. Obviously that run elevated them to a different level. But it's not like they came out of nowhere to do that any more than Butler came out of nowhere a year earlier. When they made that run, I frankly looked at them differently than George Mason and Wichita State, both of whom had the feel more of being one year wonders than programs on the rise. Because of their earlier success under previous coaches as well as their success, VCU feels more like Butler, more like the real deal than those two.

It's not that VCU's Final Four was "some amazing feat" as you put it. It's more that it demonstrates a program on the rise that peaked after hard work and gradual improvement under several coaches, not Shaka.

[XBand15]

its funny you bring up George Mason and Wichita State. I was tempted to compare VCU to these exact two schools earlier. The funny thing is, they compare pretty well on paper. Honestly I believe the only thing that keeps VCU in the discussion and these team's out is the Richmond market. If VCU were in a bad market town aka Wichita or in the metro area of a city were we already have a team, they wouldn't be in the discussion plain and simple. It would be all Richmond. So like I said, this is about more than just basketball. Sure I agree to disagree with you Bill on the viability of VCU as a basketball program but they are playing good basketball right now but that can't be all we look at. I would much rather take a school that is a better fit as a whole than a team with not much to offer but a "good" basketball program.

[Bill Marsh]

The thing is though you can't sweep away the final 4 run like it never happened. It did happen. That's the dumbest thing folks that hate VCU say- what did you think about them before the final 4. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.

If VCU makes another run, things get a whole lot harder in the expansion process. At some point, VCU will become a must add. I am kind of surprised the non-VCU wanting Presidents aren't pushing the issue up quicker and quicker trying to get the decision before VCU can make that type of run again.

I am very familiar with VCU and I'd ask those in favor of adding them to the Big East this question: Other than being a good basketball program, in what other way is VCU similar to the other members of the Big East? Now if you are the president of a Big East school, the answer (or lack thereof) will determine how interested you are in VCU. Remember, the Big East is about more than just basketball now.

Other than being a good basketball program . . . ? Uh, isn't that the point of all this? To bring together the best non-football basketball-first schools? Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play.

But in addition to the quality of their basketball, there are some other things in common, most of which center around VCU's geography. First of all, they're East Coast.That's a big deal. A really big deal. The traditions of this conference were built on providing a major platform for eastern schools with the beliefs that the great recruits in this region would stay home if they had a viable, high profile alternative to the power schools who had been stealing our recruits and using them to win national championships at places like North Carolina, UCLA, and Louisville most prominently. The conference eventually expanded to embrace the latter two, but it doesn't change Dave Gavitt's vision for the conference. This conference should never become a predominantly Midwestern conference. What would be the point of that? When you look up and down the East Coast, there really is no one else available that brings the quality of program that VCU does.

Second, VCU's geography not only balances the league east and west, but it provides cost savings travel benefits for the core eastern members and their fans. It brings a new eastern market. It not only brings the Richmond market, but it is a school with a sate wide profile in a big state that doesn't already have a consistent winner in basketball.

Third, the Big East needs to sell out its tournament in March. The greater the distance, the harder it is for fans to make the trek. This is critical for the success of the league. Selling out the tournament is a MUST. VCU brings a fan base with easy access to the Garden by every conceivable mode of transportation. With the conference losing so many members who reliably put fannies in the seats, an East Coast school with a strong fan base is an enormous asset.

Finally, one way in which VCU is different is also important. They are a state university with an enrollment of 30,000. That's 10 times the enrollment of Richmond! With so many smaller private schools in the conference it would be icing on the cake to bring in one school whose sheer numbers make them desirable for both attendance and ratings. Like many southern colleges these days, they also draw a significant minority of their enrollment from northern states, which means to some extent they are looking north and not south. As a public school, they are also more likely than the privates to draw interest from casual fans - especially those who are transplanted and can't get to see their alma mater very often. As taxpayers and citizens of Virginia, the transplants can feel a good deal of civic pride in cheering for State U that never comes from cheering for a private school like Richmond.

[Bill Marsh]

its funny you bring up George Mason and Wichita State. I was tempted to compare VCU to these exact two schools earlier. The funny thing is, they compare pretty well on paper. Honestly I believe the only thing that keeps VCU in the discussion and these team's out is the Richmond market. If VCU were in a bad market town aka Wichita or in the metro area of a city were we already have a team, they wouldn't be in the discussion plain and simple. It would be all Richmond. So like I said, this is about more than just basketball. Sure I agree to disagree with you Bill on the viability of VCU as a basketball program but they are playing good basketball right now but that can't be all we look at. I would much rather take a school that is a better fit as a whole than a team with not much to offer but a "good" basketball program.

Yes, agree to disagree, but the banter is fun and the challenge of disagreement is good exercise for the brain. I appreciate the different POV and the exchange of ideas.

VCU has been sending teams to the NCAA tournament every decade for 4 decades. Within the past decade alone, they have sent 6 different teams to the tournament with 3 different coaches. It was actually Anthony Grant's VCU team that upset Duke in 2007 that put them on the map before Shaka took them to the Final Four. You simply can't make the same statements about GMU or Wichita State either with regard to sustained success or with recent success under multiple coaches.