What's the most important thing when adding a school?

[aughnanure]

Oh, I am not doubting the Bluejays have a stronger basketball resume right now, though I would not discount a colleged owned 10,000 seat arena compared to a rented 18,000 seat civic arena. I just think that SLU is a "basketball school" as well. I think the hiring of Majerus, coupled with the building of Chaifetz, put them on that level.

So SLU's arena situation is better than every C7 school too? SLU is trying to become a basketball school after not prioritizing it for decades. I think they should be absolutely added, but they have to put more time in to be declared a "basketball school" in my opinion.

[yorost]

K, let's just talk about basketball.

NCAA tournament bids: 18 for Creighton (8 in last 15), 7 for SLU (3 in last 15)
Fan Support: 17,000 fans a game for Creighton (12,000 season ticket holders), 6-7K for SLU
Facilities: 18,500 NBA style arena for Creighton, 10,000 College Arena for SLU

There is no way SLU beats Creighton in any aspect related to basketball period.

If you're going to count your own NCAA bid from 1941, you should be mentioning older NIT bids. The further you go back the stronger the NIT was, and in the 40's it might have been the stronger tournament than the NCAA's. Creighton has 2 pre-75 (at large introduction) NIT bids while St. Louis has 11. Creighton did have an additional NIT bid in the short period after, where the NCAA+NIT still represented less bids than the NCAA has today.

I'd love to get a comprehensive data set on postseason bids and the schools eligible in each season. It's a curious question as to how prestigious any individual bid should be.

Might have been is the key phrase. Only once did the Helms Athletic Foundation choose an NIT champ over the NCAA and often teams played in both. Still, by the 60s there was no argument about which was the real tournament, and probably not even much in the 50s.

As I said, the further you go back the closer it gets. The clear changeover took place during the early 50's, but the chosen champion just isn't the point. The point is strength of field and how many bids were available (vs how many teams were eligible, i.e. DI today). If you took the past NCAA/NIT situation and applied it today, the NCAA's would get Indiana (assumed AQ) while the NIT could get Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio St and any other B1G team they thought worthy of a bid. It might leave the NCAA's as a the tournament for choosing the champion, but not as a dominant tournament over the NIT as it is today. Even into the 70;s the NIT was getting top rated teams in its tournament. The changes in 71 (cannot turn down NCAA) and 75 (allow multi bids from a conference) marked the true downgrade of the NIT, but even until the early 80's the two tournaments still represented less bids than the NCAA offers today (though I'm not sure on the eligible team comparison).

[aughnanure]

Might have been is the key phrase. Only once did the Helms Athletic Foundation choose an NIT champ over the NCAA and often teams played in both. Still, by the 60s there was no argument about which was the real tournament, and probably not even much in the 50s.

As I said, the further you go back the closer it gets. The clear changeover took place during the early 50's, but the chosen champion just isn't the point. The point is strength of field and how many bids were available (vs how many teams were eligible, i.e. DI today). If you took the past NCAA/NIT situation and applied it today, the NCAA's would get Indiana (assumed AQ) while the NIT could get Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio St and any other B1G team they thought worthy of a bid. It might leave the NCAA's as a the tournament for choosing the champion, but not as a dominant tournament over the NIT as it is today. Even into the 70;s the NIT was getting top rated teams in its tournament. The changes in 71 (cannot turn down NCAA) and 75 (allow multi bids from a conference) marked the true downgrade of the NIT, but even until the early 80's the two tournaments still represented less bids than the NCAA offers today (though I'm not sure on the eligible team comparison).[/quote]

Your one example fro the 1970s is Marquette, #2 at the time, who turned it down because we were forced to ply out in the West bracket. Al said 'f*** that' and took his team to the NIT where and won it. That 1971 rule came for that reason. At a certain point, we just have to stop caring about college basketball history because it was so confusing and because it did not become the not the national attraction it is now until the 50s and 70s. So I agree with you there. I don't think any one should be going through NIT appearances in the 30s and 40s to prove a point. You've had plenty of time since to do something.

[aughnanure]

As I said, the further you go back the closer it gets. The clear changeover took place during the early 50's, but the chosen champion just isn't the point. The point is strength of field and how many bids were available (vs how many teams were eligible, i.e. DI today). If you took the past NCAA/NIT situation and applied it today, the NCAA's would get Indiana (assumed AQ) while the NIT could get Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio St and any other B1G team they thought worthy of a bid. It might leave the NCAA's as a the tournament for choosing the champion, but not as a dominant tournament over the NIT as it is today. Even into the 70;s the NIT was getting top rated teams in its tournament. The changes in 71 (cannot turn down NCAA) and 75 (allow multi bids from a conference) marked the true downgrade of the NIT, but even until the early 80's the two tournaments still represented less bids than the NCAA offers today (though I'm not sure on the eligible team comparison).

Your one example from the 1970s is Marquette, #2 at the time, who turned it down because we were forced to ply out in the West bracket. Al said 'f*** that' and took his team to the NIT where we won it. That 1971 rule came for that reason. At a certain point, we just have to stop caring about college basketball history because it was so confusing and because it did not become the not the national attraction it is now until the 50s and 70s. So I agree with you there. I don't think any one should be going through NIT appearances in the 30s and 40s to prove a point. You've had plenty of time since to do something.

[BillEsq]

Really the NIT v. NCAA argument is truly a useless enterprise unless your a SLU fan in Kentucky and can blow a UK fans mind by saying that you were there real national champion in 1948.

There is a point to be said that prior to the 70's the was a severe limitation of bids and at some point no at larges. Also any independent team would have been NIT. prestige wise lets face it NCAA included 8 champions of good leagues and a bunch for champions from bad teams. The NIT took the top 32 teams and played at MSG. prestige pre TV was the new york tournament. That slowly eroded over time and if you want to argue what year good luck with that, its like arguing the exact point where a river turns into the ocean, and really a useless enterprise.

I think the argument is 1 SLU had some good teams in the 40-50s and well they were a national power at the time.
The other argument is that the 40-50s were a long time ago ... that is likewise true
Recently SLU has had some good teams in a good CONF USA and did not make the tournament these teams would have been fighting for the top of the colonial and mo-valley ( a classic what if and also really a pointless and fruitless argument)

the fact is all of these schools are basketball first schools who you can and most have argued good fits for various reasons I think the league will be based on media/ competition/ similarity/ mindsets with a serious look at what each school brings to the table in all sports (costs and competition as well as filling out leagues) I doubt an esoteric argument as whether my 1950's NIT = your 1950's NCAA will sway the vote. Likewise the my 3rd place in a conference is better in that your 1st in your conference in the 90's is a similarly worthless argument.

[yorost]

As I said, the further you go back the closer it gets. The clear changeover took place during the early 50's, but the chosen champion just isn't the point. The point is strength of field and how many bids were available (vs how many teams were eligible, i.e. DI today). If you took the past NCAA/NIT situation and applied it today, the NCAA's would get Indiana (assumed AQ) while the NIT could get Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio St and any other B1G team they thought worthy of a bid. It might leave the NCAA's as a the tournament for choosing the champion, but not as a dominant tournament over the NIT as it is today. Even into the 70;s the NIT was getting top rated teams in its tournament. The changes in 71 (cannot turn down NCAA) and 75 (allow multi bids from a conference) marked the true downgrade of the NIT, but even until the early 80's the two tournaments still represented less bids than the NCAA offers today (though I'm not sure on the eligible team comparison).

Your one example from the 1970s is Marquette, #2 at the time, who turned it down because we were forced to ply out in the West bracket. Al said 'f*** that' and took his team to the NIT where we won it. That 1971 rule came for that reason. At a certain point, we just have to stop caring about college basketball history because it was so confusing and because it did not become the not the national attraction it is now until the 50s and 70s. So I agree with you there. I don't think any one should be going through NIT appearances in the 30s and 40s to prove a point. You've had plenty of time since to do something.

First off, no, many other teams in the 70's were strong in the NIT. The NCAA rules ensured it because conferences still couldn't send multiple teams. That left nice pickings for the NIT. These NIT bids are most likely more impressive than getting a low at large in today's NCAA.

Second, I'm not trying to make a point about any particular team, which I stated clearly earlier. I don't consider this NIT question too relevant to discussing strength of programs in today's market, but it is relevant in discussing and comparing the history of programs. My point is only that counting NCAA bids throughout an entire history is disingenuous, If you count old NCAA bids alongside modern ones you need to give consideration to how tournament selection has changed over the years, especially in relation to at large bids and the NIT.

[BillEsq]

Oh, I am not doubting the Bluejays have a stronger basketball resume right now, though I would not discount a colleged owned 10,000 seat arena compared to a rented 18,000 seat civic arena. I just think that SLU is a "basketball school" as well. I think the hiring of Majerus, coupled with the building of Chaifetz, put them on that level.

So SLU's arena situation is better than every C7 school too? SLU is trying to become a basketball school after not prioritizing it for decades. I think they should be absolutely added, but they have to put more time in to be declared a "basketball school" in my opinion.

Curious if SLU isn't a basketball school what is it? A soccer school? I 'mean they haven't had a football team since the 20's or a hockey team since the 80's. Seriously if it wasn't basket ball what was their sport priority? Tennis? Swimming?