Which BEast programs NEED to succeed

[MUBoxer]

GT and Marquette NEED to succeed. They're our best programs both at this point in time and historically. Sorry, but none of the rest of us are at that level on both counts.

Wizard, time for blind resume time:

Team 1:
All-time NCAA Tourney wins - 38-31
FF : 3
NCAA Campionships - 1
Last 10 yrs - 8 appearances; 1 E8; 3 S16

Team 2:
All-time NCAA Tourney wins - 49-32
FF : 4
NCAA Campionships - 1
Last 10 yrs - 8 appearances; 1 FF; 2 E8; 4 S16

Team 3:
All-time NCAA Tourney wins - 46-27
FF : 5
NCAA Campionships - 1
Last 10 yrs - 7 appearances; 1 FF; 1 E8; 2 S16


Objectively rank the above. I think you misspoke.

Forgetting that Villanova had the '71 Final Four revoked? That's 3 Final Fours.

Next where'd the 10 come from? If the past 10 years mattered Ben Howland would still be coach at UCLA. Let's do 5 years since that'd be the rough time these athletes have been on the team and the time that current seniors would be recruited for. (note I don't do carry over so 1 final four doesn't suddenly give you an elite 8 and sweet 16). I'm not saying anything bad about Nova but Marquette has been the model of consistency the past 5 years Kinda like how Villanova was 06, 07, 08, 09.

Team 1:
Tournament Appearances 5; 1 E8 2 S16

Team 2:
Tournament Appearances 4; 1FF

Team 3:
Tournament Appearances 4

[MUBoxer]

Depaul plain and simple. Depaul is America's largest Catholic school and during the 80s when they were amazing they were top 10 in attendance all the time not to mention the amount of Alumni that they have to come to the garden would dwarf everybody else in the conference. I'm not saying that they need the Ray Meyer reincarnate but they need to be competitive again.

[GumbyDamnit!]

GT and Marquette NEED to succeed. They're our best programs both at this point in time and historically. Sorry, but none of the rest of us are at that level on both counts.

Wizard, time for blind resume time:

Team 1:
All-time NCAA Tourney wins - 38-31
FF : 3
NCAA Campionships - 1
Last 10 yrs - 8 appearances; 1 E8; 3 S16

Team 2:
All-time NCAA Tourney wins - 49-32
FF : 4
NCAA Campionships - 1
Last 10 yrs - 8 appearances; 1 FF; 2 E8; 4 S16

Team 3:
All-time NCAA Tourney wins - 46-27
FF : 5
NCAA Campionships - 1
Last 10 yrs - 7 appearances; 1 FF; 1 E8; 2 S16


Objectively rank the above. I think you misspoke.

Forgetting that Villanova had the '71 Final Four revoked? That's 3 Final Fours.

Next where'd the 10 come from? If the past 10 years mattered Ben Howland would still be coach at UCLA. Let's do 5 years since that'd be the rough time these athletes have been on the team and the time that current seniors would be recruited for. (note I don't do carry over so 1 final four doesn't suddenly give you an elite 8 and sweet 16). I'm not saying anything bad about Nova but Marquette has been the model of consistency the past 5 years Kinda like how Villanova was 06, 07, 08, 09.

Team 1:
Tournament Appearances 5; 1 E8 2 S16

Team 2:
Tournament Appearances 4; 1FF

Team 3:
Tournament Appearances 4

MU B 5 is a pretty small sample. Thought 10 made more sense but if you need it to be 5 to make your argument, then OK. I'll still take the FF (which also includes a E8 and Sw16) over not getting to the FF and making it 1 more year. Also some stupid asterisk does not wipe away the fact that Nova played one of the legendary UCLA teams in the FF. Did the Fab 5 not make multiple FF's in your mind either?

[FriarFan77]

It really will not matter which programs succeed early. What will be important is for the top teams in the Big East to be able to stand toe to toe with the top teams in the ACC, Big 10 etc. If Georgetown and St. Johns dominate the league and fall in the first two rounds of the NCAA's then it could hurt the league overall.

[Wizard of Westroads]

I never meant to insult the Nova. I bow to their accomplishments and am honored to be in the same league. My point is that we need a couple of top teams to do well, because that's what most affects the national perception. And right now, the national perception is that GT and Marquette are the top programs. National perception can change, of course, but right now Nova is more likely to be mentioned in the conversation after the other two.

[MUBoxer]

MU B 5 is a pretty small sample. Thought 10 made more sense but if you need it to be 5 to make your argument, then OK. I'll still take the FF (which also includes a E8 and Sw16) over not getting to the FF and making it 1 more year. Also some stupid asterisk does not wipe away the fact that Nova played one of the legendary UCLA teams in the FF. Did the Fab 5 not make multiple FF's in your mind either?

In college basketball 4 or 5 is a pretty valid sample it's about the time it takes for a coach to go from hero to zero. Plus Buzz Williams has only been around 5 years whereas JT3 and Jay Write have had considerably more time so we must compare the coach to coach. But if you're going to use a larger sample use the time we were both in the big east or like 20 years which would be the rough age of a recruit. Don't just say ten because that's a decade it has no significance to why you're trying to measure. Next regarding the final four no it does not count your star player cheated you guys pay the penalty bottom line is its not listed on the banners so it does not count. Sorry you disagree but rules are rules.

[muskienick]

Realistically, all of them need to succeed.

For brand-perception, Georgetown, Marquette, and Villanova need to.

St. John's is also important to get NYC to buy into the conference.

I agree with the above. One might ask, just out of curiosity, "Which Big East programs DON'T need to succeed?" Plus, success is relative. A 20-11 record and a 13-seed for Georgetown would likely be considered a "season from hell." The same record and seeding for DePaul would likely indicate a sign of its possible rebirth as a respected program.

[Bill Marsh]

MU B 5 is a pretty small sample. Thought 10 made more sense but if you need it to be 5 to make your argument, then OK. I'll still take the FF (which also includes a E8 and Sw16) over not getting to the FF and making it 1 more year. Also some stupid asterisk does not wipe away the fact that Nova played one of the legendary UCLA teams in the FF. Did the Fab 5 not make multiple FF's in your mind either?

In college basketball 4 or 5 is a pretty valid sample it's about the time it takes for a coach to go from hero to zero. Plus Buzz Williams has only been around 5 years whereas JT3 and Jay Write have had considerably more time so we must compare the coach to coach. But if you're going to use a larger sample use the time we were both in the big east or like 20 years which would be the rough age of a recruit. Don't just say ten because that's a decade it has no significance to why you're trying to measure. Next regarding the final four no it does not count your star player cheated you guys pay the penalty bottom line is its not listed on the banners so it does not count. Sorry you disagree but rules are rules.

Their star player did not cheat and the team gained absolutely no advantage from benefit from what he did. It was a ridiculous rule, developed only for the exploitation of young athletes that served absolutely no purpose. The kid was a legitimate student athlete and Villanova earned that spot in the championship based on their play on the court, not based on any cheating. To make such an allegation is totally absurd.

[Bill Marsh]

It really will not matter which programs succeed early. What will be important is for the top teams in the Big East to be able to stand toe to toe with the top teams in the ACC, Big 10 etc. If Georgetown and St. Johns dominate the league and fall in the first two rounds of the NCAA's then it could hurt the league overall.

Totally agree. It doesn't matter who the successful teams are as long as someone can do it on the highest level.

The other thing that matters is that everyone needs to win as many OOC games as possible. that will build conference RPI, thereby benefitting everyone.

[MUBoxer]

Their star player did not cheat and the team gained absolutely no advantage from benefit from what he did. It was a ridiculous rule, developed only for the exploitation of young athletes that served absolutely no purpose. The kid was a legitimate student athlete and Villanova earned that spot in the championship based on their play on the court, not based on any cheating. To make such an allegation is totally absurd.

Here's why I consider it cheating:

Comparable situation the same year Marquette was 27-0 When all American Jim Chones came out and admitted he was gonna go professional and signed rather than hiding it from the ncaa like Howard porter did. MU subsiquently lost (I mean you lose an all american starter that's gonna happen) whereas a decent but not great Nova team went on to the final four. If Chones had done what Howard did you would've had the two biggest powerhouses p the 70s let alone that year (no denying that) against eachother.

Next Websters defines cheating as the act or instance of fraudulently deceiving. Howard deceived that's a fact consequently he cheated whether you agree with the rules or not they're their and every other team played by them (ok well not western Kentucky that year either) so it is cheating.

And to say that try gained no advantage by getting to keep the tournament MVP when he was ineligible is a complete joke of a statement.