Bill Marsh wrote:
Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.
Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.
For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.
MUBoxer wrote:Bill Marsh wrote:
Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.
Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.
For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.
I'm well aware of the NIT's glory days however, it's been said many a time, this is a what have you done recently world and the NCAA tournament totals is about all anyone's going to look up. Notice the blue bloods were choosing the NCAA not NIT back then. It was a heck of a lot more prestigious but that doesn't suddenly put the Duke, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky or UNC in there. In particular I'd argue about the time that Cinci was winning the back to back titles is when the NCAA overtook the NIT.
MUBoxer wrote:Was unaware of the attendence figures of the two. Personally I think some of those issues are caused by the quality of competition coming in though it'd be hard to prove that without setting up a home and home. Davidson you may be able to prove by seeing how much their attendence increased with the upgrade to the a10 (did it?)
Note I certainly dont think Davidson or Belmont are better options currently but Id love to get a pulse on their plans and see them executed because with Dayton we know what we're getting a consistent NIT team that occasionally puts together a season to get over that hump. With Davidson and Belmont we're getting a clean slate that's used to winning at their respective levels and a big step up may attract more casual fans.
Hoopfan wrote:Bill Marsh wrote:
Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.
Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.
For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.
I'm no expert or have all the facts but it had something to do with the UD coach and NCAA having a disagreement and UD refusing to play in NCAA tournament at the time. Looking back now...was a bad decision
falcon wrote: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.
MUBoxer wrote:Ya your 16 total appearances is such a long time. The 62 schools with more appearances are quaking in their boots. You have a 5 year stretch from 65-70, and couple stretches of back to back appearances then long droughts. No consistency whatsoever.
paulxu wrote:JP, I haven't claimed (as you well know from the other board) to have completely studied the math on all this; but I do trust your insights into how it works. Sometimes though I have a thought that maybe it's not as cut and dried as it may seem.
For example: if you added UD and Bona, and wanted to have Dayton be 9-9, assumedly most of their wins would come from teams below them to not upset the current 6 bids. Seton Hall had 12 loses. If they got 2 more wins from Bona, they are at 8-10. But the schedule would be reworked because you no longer play everyone twice, so I just think it would be very difficult. Not impossible (see Big 12) but tough.
I really do like the round robin; it's a rivalry of a different sort, getting to play everybody twice, H/H.
Bill Marsh wrote:Trust me his math doesn't work for Bonaventure. He acknowledges that OOC must improve. The Bonnie's would do just the opposite.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests