XBand15 wrote: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.
Bill Marsh wrote:XBand15 wrote: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.
stever20 wrote: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.
aughnanure wrote:Bill Marsh wrote:
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.
ArmyVet wrote:stever20 wrote: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.
XBand15 wrote: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.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests