Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[Bill Marsh]

I say it is best to look at success, or lack thereof, since the inception of the NBE. You can pull out any other time frame and make any argument you want, ie, Dayton had the winningest team in all of college bball over the 50's and 60's or X had so many sweet sixteens over the past 25 years. We live in a "what have you done lately" environment and Dayton has been more successful over these past two years than any NBE team in the tourney. Add in the women's team and Dayton is only one of 5 teams to have both the men's and women's team reach the E8 over past two years.

Problem is the Big East isn't looking for any one (or two) hit wonders. If that were the case, they'd have already added Dayton, along with SFA, Mercer, St. Louis, Drexel, etc... For any mid-major to truly be a legitimate expansion candidate, they need to show consistency. Look at the 3 schools the Big East initially added for example.

From 2000-2013 (Big East invite)
Xavier- 11 NCAA Tournaments, 4 sweet 16s, 2 elite 8s, and 10 conference championships (including regular season and tournament)
Butler- 9 NCAA Tournaments, 7 round of 32, 4 sweet 16s, 2 elite 8s, 2 final fours, 14 conference championships
Creighton- 8 NCAA Tournaments, 11 conference championships, and happened to be bringing the best player in the country with them.

When a school in a mid major conference pops up that wins consistently for a decade plus like these three, then we can have a legitimate discussion about adding that school. The only one that currently fits the bill is Gonzaga, but they come with the well noted distance issue.

The fact of the matter is that the Big East is still fighting for the respect of the F5 and can't afford to risk watering down its product by adding every hot mid major that has a good 2-3 year stretch. I'm personally not in favor of expanding from 10 teams at all, but if it has to happen Dayton does have the potential to be a good candidate. However, first they need to prove their sustainability by turning those back-to-back NCAA Tournament appearances into something like 8 out of 10.

It strikes me that Dayton. Is every bit as qualified as Creighton was. Yes, Creighton was getting tournament bids, but what did they do when they got to the tournament? Not much.

Here's a more complete comparison of the 2 teams in the tournament since 2000 up to the time when they were BE candidates.

Creighton - 9 bids, 3 wins
Dayton - 6 bids, 6 wins

And Dayton wasn't beating also rans to get those 6 wins. They beat West Virginia, Ohio State, Stanford, Syracuse, Boise State, and Providence. Creighton had 3 more bids, but Dayton had 3 more wins

The fact is that since 2000, Dayton has had 12 20-win seasons, 12 postseason appearances, an NIT championship, and an Elite 8. I believe that shows every bit as much consistency as Creighton getting to the tournament from a weaker mid major conference than the A10.

Creighton brought the best player in the country. That benefitted the Big East one year. Dayton's Elite 8 is just as good a credential even if you want to dismiss them as a one-year wonder.

Dayton is one of the 50 winningest teams in college basketball history. They're ranked as one of the top 25 most valuable college basketball programs by both Forbes and The Wall Street Journal. They draw 12,000 fans year in and year out. That is a very strong program.

[Bill Marsh]

History and recent success are both important but they're not the only things that re important.

Attendance, fan base, and financial stability are all important as well. Dayton has all those in spades and they are a perfect fit with the conference's mission. Given the assets which the Dayton program brings, getting back on the winning track should gaunt their program to the top of a short list of candidates. How much recent winning is enough? That will vary from person to person, but I doubt that it will take much more than what they've done over the last half dozen years.

Half dozen years? maybe two 11 seeds in seasons (3 in 7) is winning to you but I read that as barely squeaking in the tournament 3 times and catching lightning in a bottle once. I agree they're the best out there now but still have work left to do before it's a match made in heaven like you seem to insinuate it is.

The problem with your dismissive "barely squeaking in the tournament" is that they were also a #4 seed one year (2003) and a #10 seed in another (2004). That's not barely squeaking in. And they validated their selection as a #11 seed in each of their last 3 bids by winning games in the tournament every time, not just one year. When a team wins games as an 11-seed, they're beating 6-seeds, i.e top 25 teams. They simply were not a token bid that went one and done.

[UD FAN]

I say it is best to look at success, or lack thereof, since the inception of the NBE. You can pull out any other time frame and make any argument you want, ie, Dayton had the winningest team in all of college bball over the 50's and 60's or X had so many sweet sixteens over the past 25 years. We live in a "what have you done lately" environment and Dayton has been more successful over these past two years than any NBE team in the tourney. Add in the women's team and Dayton is only one of 5 teams to have both the men's and women's team reach the E8 over past two years.

Problem is the Big East isn't looking for any one (or two) hit wonders. If that were the case, they'd have already added Dayton, along with SFA, Mercer, St. Louis, Drexel, etc... For any mid-major to truly be a legitimate expansion candidate, they need to show consistency. Look at the 3 schools the Big East initially added for example.

From 2000-2013 (Big East invite)
Xavier- 11 NCAA Tournaments, 4 sweet 16s, 2 elite 8s, and 10 conference championships (including regular season and tournament)
Butler- 9 NCAA Tournaments, 7 round of 32, 4 sweet 16s, 2 elite 8s, 2 final fours, 14 conference championships
Creighton- 8 NCAA Tournaments, 11 conference championships, and happened to be bringing the best player in the country with them.

When a school in a mid major conference pops up that wins consistently for a decade plus like these three, then we can have a legitimate discussion about adding that school. The only one that currently fits the bill is Gonzaga, but they come with the well noted distance issue.

The fact of the matter is that the Big East is still fighting for the respect of the F5 and can't afford to risk watering down its product by adding every hot mid major that has a good 2-3 year stretch. I'm personally not in favor of expanding from 10 teams at all, but if it has to happen Dayton does have the potential to be a good candidate. However, first they need to prove their sustainability by turning those back-to-back NCAA Tournament appearances into something like 8 out of 10.

It strikes me that Dayton. Is every bit as qualified as Creighton was. Yes, Creighton was getting tournament bids, but what did they do when they got to the tournament? Not much.

Here's a more complete comparison of the 2 teams in the tournament since 2000 up to the time when they were BE candidates.

Creighton - 9 bids, 3 wins
Dayton - 6 bids, 6 wins

And Dayton wasn't beating also rans to get those 6 wins. They beat West Virginia, Ohio State, Stanford, Syracuse, Boise State, and Providence. Creighton had 3 more bids, but Dayton had 3 more wins

The fact is that since 2000, Dayton has had 12 20-win seasons, 12 postseason appearances, an NIT championship, and an Elite 8. I believe that shows every bit as much consistency as Creighton getting to the tournament from a weaker mid major conference than the A10.

Creighton brought the best player in the country. That benefitted the Big East one year. Dayton's Elite 8 is just as good a credential even if you want to dismiss them as a one-year wonder.

Dayton is one of the 50 winningest teams in college basketball history. They're ranked as one of the top 25 most valuable college basketball programs by both Forbes and The Wall Street Journal. They draw 12,000 fans year in and year out. That is a very strong program.

+1

[Bill Marsh]

There are reasons why UD was not considered when expansion happened this last go around. We can postulate what those reasons were all day, but only the C7 Presidents know for sure. The fact remains that there were enough reasons for UD to essentially not even be considered. Try this on for size. The powers that be searched 730 miles PAST UD to find a "better" fit in Omaha. That should tell you something right there. You can incessantly debate the so called merits as to why you should or should not have been selected, or why you suddenly now are deemed worthy. You can nit pick facts and stats, old and new, to further your case. In the end, you were found lacking and not selected. And to think ONE run in 30 years changes that is ludicrous at best.

You sound like the kid on the playground, who, when picking teams, is either picked last, or not picked at all. But he will endlessly justify his slight by manufacturing outlandish claims as to why he was not chosen. Classic defense mechanism for a severe inferiority complex. Your interminably blabbering and chest bumping is really quite sad.

Maybe you should step away from your computers for a quick reality check. You are on a conference board that is not your own, pleading with others to understand why you are "worth it", knowing full well that there is not a person on here that has ANY say and ZERO influence as to who might be chosen in the next go around of expansion if and when that may happen. We are talking ex-girlfriend, jilted lover, stalkerish tendencies here. It's depressing and annoying to see. As an X fan, I had hoped to never have to read another insufferable UD post again when X joined this Conference. Dreams don't always come true.

But sound reasoning has never stopped the scorned UD fan, and unfortunately, I don't expect that trend to change.

Unfortunately there's not very much that's factual in this post.

"Only the C7 presidents know . . .", followed by "Dayton . . . not even considered." How did we get from the first point to the second? How could anyone on the outside possibly know who was considered and who wasn't? How could anyone know why they stopped at 10 at that juncture or how badly they wanted anyone outside that 10?

The "one run in 30 years." The run was 2 years ago. So, why pick a 30 year time frame? Convenient because if you picked 32 years, it would have been 2 runs. And what's a "run"? And when did it become a criterion? Creighton hasn't even had one run in 40 years, but they're in.

The last sentence pleads for "sound reasoning" but the 2 paragraphs before it are full of childish insults. I agree that it would be better to have sound reasoning.

There is absolutely no reason why the Big East "should" add Dayton or anyone else. But if they want to expand, they're going to have to look long and hard to find a better candidate:

1. Perfect fit - Catholic and private.
2. In the footprint.
3. Top 50 all time in wins.
4. Recent Elite 8 (2014).
5. Top 25 most valuable college basketball programs (Forbes and WSJ).
6. 12,000+ attendance annually.

While there are reasons not to take them, it's not like they have nothing going for them.

[falcon]

I'm a SJU alum and would love to see the redmen play Dayton, in conference or out of conference. I think they would have a pretty good turnout for any game at MSG. I don't know the whole history of the feud with Xavier, but both have a lot to be proud of recently. If the league decides to expand, I'd pick Dayton first. This is a TV driven conference, and Fox needs games that have full arenas and enthusiastic fans. Dayton would also show up, in large numbers, for the post-season tournament.

[UD FAN]

I'm a SJU alum and would love to see the redmen play Dayton, in conference or out of conference. I think they would have a pretty good turnout for any game at MSG. I don't know the whole history of the feud with Xavier, but both have a lot to be proud of recently. If the league decides to expand, I'd pick Dayton first. This is a TV driven conference, and Fox needs games that have full arenas and enthusiastic fans. Dayton would also show up, in large numbers, for the post-season tournament.

+1

[MUBoxer]

History and recent success are both important but they're not the only things that re important.

Attendance, fan base, and financial stability are all important as well. Dayton has all those in spades and they are a perfect fit with the conference's mission. Given the assets which the Dayton program brings, getting back on the winning track should gaunt their program to the top of a short list of candidates. How much recent winning is enough? That will vary from person to person, but I doubt that it will take much more than what they've done over the last half dozen years.

Half dozen years? maybe two 11 seeds in seasons (3 in 7) is winning to you but I read that as barely squeaking in the tournament 3 times and catching lightning in a bottle once. I agree they're the best out there now but still have work left to do before it's a match made in heaven like you seem to insinuate it is.

The problem with your dismissive "barely squeaking in the tournament" is that they were also a #4 seed one year (2003) and a #10 seed in another (2004). That's not barely squeaking in. And they validated their selection as a #11 seed in each of their last 3 bids by winning games in the tournament every time, not just one year. When a team wins games as an 11-seed, they're beating 6-seeds, i.e top 25 teams. They simply were not a token bid that went one and done.

What does 2003 and 2004 have to do with this? Your original post was "I doubt that it will take much more than what they've done over the last half dozen years" a half dozen years is 6 that's 09-10 to this past season. In that span they've been an 11 seed twice, one great run I'm happy for them it's a great start. And one time barely squeaking in getting to play at home in the NCAA tournament that's an insane advantage and I doubt they win that game without that advantage. You're suddenly bringing in years that you didn't mention and therefore I had no reason to address so come on stick to the argument you laid out initially. But anyways I have to say I laughed when you brought up being a 10 seed in 2004 as if it's so much better than being an 11.

I completely agree about what they bring in as far as assets go but that doesn't mean I think they're right for now. Wait 2 years if they continue on this path then I'd welcome them with open arms.

[DudeAnon]

I don't know why Dayton would even want to join. We are the Big Least according to them.

[Bostonspider]

No idea if it is still relevant, but I asked Richmond's president in a personal 1 on 1 conversation about the Big East and expansion maybe 18 months ago, and he said that the BE was at that time still considering expanding by two and the three schools were UR, SLU and UD. He said the BE was very impressed by all three schools, but were must impressed by SLU and were undecided if they wanted to take two catholic midwestern schools, or SLU and UR to balance out the East - West levels. According to him, VCU was not a realistic candidate. Now as I said this was in October 2013, so I am not sure how relevant is today.

Here is the Robins Center, which was just completely renovated, is on campus, but seats less than 8K..

[paulxu]

It strikes me that Dayton. Is every bit as qualified as Creighton was. Yes, Creighton was getting tournament bids, but what did they do when they got to the tournament? Not much.

Here's a more complete comparison of the 2 teams in the tournament since 2000 up to the time when they were BE candidates.

Creighton - 9 bids, 3 wins
Dayton - 6 bids, 6 wins

And Dayton wasn't beating also rans to get those 6 wins. They beat West Virginia, Ohio State, Stanford, Syracuse, Boise State, and Providence. Creighton had 3 more bids, but Dayton had 3 more wins

Bill, just a little clarity. When both Creighton and Dayton were "BE candidates" at the league restructuring, it was 2013.
At that point in time, Dayton had been to 3 NCAA's since 2000, and only had 1 win in those dozen years. Creighton clearly had a better track record. The wins you note in the last two years were after the candidates were selected.