MUBoxer wrote:I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.
MUBoxer wrote:I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.
Frank the Tank wrote:Hoyas wrote:
You tell me. We add SLU tomorrow. What do you think ESPN, CBS, etc. are going to say about the move? Nothing positive one bit. Nada. Then when they start worse off than even DePaul, it's going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Also, I don't see Fox wanting to add SLU right now at all.
Right now, SLU has a problem in some ways similar to Dayton or VCU. They have got to show that the 3 good years were due to more than just Rick Majerus recruiting. The Big East would be absolute fools for adding SLU at least until they can get back at least into the top 100. They have to show a pulse.
In all seriousness, who cares? The pundits are absolutely irrelevant. The Big East presidents should be building an institutional brand that lasts for decades and goes far beyond basketball, not a short-term fix for NCAA Tournament bids. Those pundits certainly ripped the Big Ten for adding Rutgers... and the bosses of those pundits at ESPN and Fox will be falling all over themselves within the next couple of years to make the Big Ten the richest conference in history by far. The university presidents don't care whatsoever about those pundits and shouldn't (just as the Big Ten ignored the pundits with the Rutgers/Maryland addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the BTN and the SEC ignored the pundits with the Texas A&M/Missouri addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the creation of the SEC Network). The Big Ten and SEC didn't wait around for Rutgers, Maryland, A&M and Mizzou to get perfect on-the-field before adding them (and none of them were when they were added). They had a big picture plan based on *institutional* power and markets that can't be changed by a coaching move or some NCAA Tournament appearances.
Look - I get it. Many fans and their generally financially and academically ignorant sports media counterparts (with a handful of exceptions like Brett McMurphy) don't want to see the big picture - they just want to see entertaining games NOW. It makes sense - all of those pundits don't want to be writing about cable households and TV networks and just wish they could talk about recruiting classes and whether the game that they have to watch next week will be interesting. That's why they're not running conferences and universities, though.
Now, that being said, the Big East should certainly care what the bosses of those pundits think since they're the ones that actually have some power. The top executives of ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS certainly matter. The blathering TV and Internet pundits that work for them are irrelevant with respect to conference realignment.
The key to a great conference realignment move isn't striking when a school is hot on-the-field/court. Instead, it's about finding those schools (as opposed to teams) that add to institutional conference strength even if they don't win a single game. THOSE are the valuable schools in conference realignment (which is something that the Big Ten and SEC have understood for many years).
MUBoxer wrote:I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.
muskienick wrote:It's true that the Flyers have done quite well over the last two years on the hardwood. Furthermore, their fan support has been wonderful for decades and their TV viewing of college basketball has also been traditionally great (although in a smallish media market).
But one has to go back to the Don Donoher/Tom Blackburn years to find a consistently good program on the floor and in the stands. Furthermore, during the years UD was in a Conference (MCC, Great Midwest, and A-10), they have seldom experienced ultimate success in those Conferences in terms of regular season and Conference Tourney championships.
The same deficiencies cannot be applied to a few of UD's main competitors for membership in the Big East, especially Gonzaga, VCU, and Wichita State. Of course, each of those schools lack at least one criterion that Dayton has: geography vs Gonzaga; private institution vs VCU and Wichita State.
Bluejay wrote:I disagree strongly that there is a great desire by this group of presidents to expand…
…With no extra money from Fox, there is no reason to expand now. Perhaps when the pool of NCAA tourney credits builds up or we are a lot closer to the contract renewal period the environment would change, but financially it is just a dumb idea to do it right now.
MUBoxer wrote:I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.
GoldenWarrior11 wrote:I cannot stress this enough, but the current and reconfigured Big East needs at least several seasons under its belt to rebuild its image and its brand. The 10 schools need to work together, strengthen rivalries and continue putting on exciting games of basketball. Only then will any expansion school(s) be able to be assimilated into the conference and grow into a basketball power. Any school that wishes to be considered a Big East expansion candidate needs to begin putting serious resources into their basketball programs (if they have not yet done so already) and aim for sustained basketball success (repeated NCAA/NIT bids).
GibsoniaPA wrote:That's good enough for me- bring Dayton in. Where else do we see this seething anger other than a X fan reacting to anything UD? Will be fun to watch.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests