Which BEast programs NEED to succeed

[Friarfan2]

What the heck does that fair point system have to do with brand recognition? And to clarify the above posters question, we aren't talking about the most successful programs. We are talking about the most visible and recognizable, which are clearly nova and Georgetown.

Look, here is the bottom line with Marquette: for anyone say in their 30's, their exposure is as follows: heard about al McGuire in the history books, never heard a thing about Marquette from 1983 - 1993. While Marquette was making some tourneys in the 1990's, they were in a low exposure league and unless you were from the Midwest you didn't hear of them. They re-entered the national conversation about 10 years ago and have been a pretty good brand. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but villanova and georgetown were winning rings and making deep runs in the 80's when Marquette was in their drought, they were always on national television in the 90's before espn2 and espnu were everywhere and at a time when Marquette wasn't getting much airtime, and they have been just as good as Marquette recently but were starting from positions of higher exposure.

As a result, villanova and Georgetown have greater brand recognition than Marquette. Marquette's lack of exposure from 1983-2003, during a period when nova and Georgetown were all over espn, is something that you cannot seem to comprehend.

Notre dame is one of the best brands in college football. There have been at least two dozen teams with better success the past 15 or so yrs (last yr excluded) yet cannot touch ND's brand recognition. That's like what you are trying to do pointing to a short sample size where Marquette was about as good as nova and Georgetown but are discounting the prior two decades and failing to acknowledge that nova and Georgetown were in a much better starting position in terms of brand recognition than Marquette.

Also, St. John's is a comparable brand as Marquette, and I would put the two if them in the next tier (so teams 3 and 4 in the conference).

[GumbyDamnit!]

Fair point system:

CONFERENCE TITLE - 5 POINTS
For best win percentage in regular season regardless of division. Independents that finished ahead of two major conference champions in final AP poll received credit.
CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT TITLE - 3 POINTS
Independents that finished ahead of two major-conference champions in final AP poll received credit.
WIN PERCENTAGE
80 percent and above = 4 points, 60-79 percent = 2 points, 35.1-49.9 percent = minus-2 points, less than 35 percent = minus-4 points.
NO. 1 SEED - 2 POINTS
Started in 1979.
NCAA TOURNAMENT BERTH - 1 POINT
NCAA 1ST-RD. WIN AS 12-16-SEED - 1 POINT
Started in 1979 for 12-seeds only, 1985 for seeds 12-16.
LOSING IN SECOND ROUND - 3 POINTS
Started in 1985, every team had to win a game to advance to Round of 32.
SWEET 16 LOSS - 5 PTS
Started in 1975, every team had to win at least once to advance to Sweet 16.
ELITE EIGHT LOSS - 10 PTS
NATIONAL SEMIFINAL LOSS - 15 POINTS
TITLE GAME LOSS - 20 POINTS
NATIONAL TITLE - 25 POINTS
NIT TITLE - 1 POINT
FIRST-TEAM ALL-AMERICAN - 3 POINTS
SECOND-TEAM ALL-AMERICAN - 2 POINTS
PLAYER TAKEN IN NBA'S TOP 10 - 2 POINTS
Started in 1966, common draft.
VACATED SEASON - MINUS-2 POINTS
Any season where wins were vacated.
SANCTIONS
TV ban = minus-1 point, postseason ban = minus-2 points, probation = minus-1 point, loss of financial aid = minus-1 point, recruiting violation = minus-1 point, show-cause action = minus-2 points.

Marquette finishes with 326 points (after 51 years)
Villanova finishes with 317 points (after 51 seasons)

There's an objective way to measure old and new power and Friarfan I didn't come up with the point system it was taken from the 50 in 50 series and adjusted to add this year so it wouldn't look like I was trying to screw villanova out of their 62 sweet 16. If success is everything in terms of perception and every decade is weighted evenly (which neither of us were doing you too much on the 80s and me too much on the 2000s then there you go.) I starte to do SJU but then decided it wasn't remotely worth it.

Well that settles it...LOL!!! An absolutely arbitrary collection of weighted #s chosen by some random stat geek. You win MUBoxer. You seem hell bent on choosing whatever random sample of #s to make your argument. I concede. Marquette is the bestest ever. Ever.

Yeah cause that's what I was going for... I was saying we were on the same level. If you truly think I was sitting here trying to say Marquette is the best ever then you are a complete fool. And I chose that point system because its objective and covers every base.

Like I said MUB, can you get any more random? Why just 51 years? Why not 60 or 70? And can you explain the subjective value assigned to each pt value? And I'm assuming the 1971 Nova National Finalist team was quickly pulled out. I mean that team alone would have meant 25 or more points in this analysis for Nova which would have completely ruined your argument.

Answer yourself these questions:

More tourney appearances all time?
More tourney wins all time?
Produced more NBA players all time?
More FF's all time?
More recent National Championship?
More recent FF?
Longer stay in a power conference?

[Friarfan2]

Muboxer, according to that fair point scale you have:
The fab five would hurt Michigan
Marcus Camry hurts umass
Derek Rosie's team hurt Memphis
Jerry tarkian's early 1990s unlv teams would hurt them

So what the heck does that metric have to do with brand recognition? Nothing.

The aforementioned examples are clearly among the most recognizable teams in those schools histories. These were huge for the brand recognition of those schools. When I say that villanova has the most recognizable brands, I'm not debating whether one team has 8 versus 7 tourney appearances the past decade or whatever. It is a matter of which teams are our strongest draws from a product recognition stance. Marquette spent twenty years under the radar when villanova and Georgetown were household names. I don't care if you think Marquette has a very slight edge over those two over the past decade or whatever, that doesn't change the fact the villanova basketball and Georgetown basketball are more recognizable and valuable brands than Marquette basketball. Vitamin water might be outperforming Gatorade lately, but Gatorade is still the more valuable brand.

(So I assume that I'm your metric where Marquette slightly edges villanova, you punish villanova for one of their final fours and one of their most outstanding player achievements?)

[Friarfan2]

To further the topic, I would say seton hall has more brand recognition than creighton. And we all know that creighton has been better than seton hall.

Casual fans still recognize seton hall. Creighton isn't there yet.

You can use any fair point system that you think is objective that you want, but that is the perception, fair or not.

[Daffron24]

Which Beast programs need to succeed?? The more the better. I think right now the teams at the top are the teams that need to succeed. If we are talking about historical success, tv market, or even rivalries my answer would be different, but I am thinking short term. Being that this is the inaugural season of the "new" Big East, I think it is important that the teams that are supposed to win actually win. This upcoming season I think it is important for Georgetown, Marquette, Creighton, St. Johns, Villanova, and Providence perform well. I believe these are the top teams in our conference next year, and people watch and follow what's "IN" now ie FGCU in the tourney. I believe Marquette and Creighton are the top teams in the conference and it is important they back it up come tourney time (min sweet 16).

After this season I believe Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, St. Johns, and possibly Butler (lots of uncertainty) will continue to drive the conference and help create the new identity of the new Big East. Georgetown is probably this biggest national brand and will continue to do so. Marquette is one of the most successful programs in the BE in recent years and will continue to do so with Buzz at the helm. Jay Wright will have Nova back to competing for BE championships in due time. St. Johns has a great recruiter in Lavin and a great market that BE centers around. Butler just lost the most sought after young coach, but Butler has shown it can lose a coach and still come back. Honorary mention: Depaul....Chicago nuff said.

All that being said, I can't wait for the season to start.

[Bill Marsh]

Why do you think Depaul isn't in this conversation? I history mattered so much they should be as Ray Meyer and his son took it to the same level as Anyone else in the 80s but because recent success does matter a lot more than stuff over 20 years ago they aren't.

This is actually a very interesting point. They are very similar schools in terms of size (25,000 for DePaul, 21,000 for St. John's), endowment (approximately $350 million), both are Vincentian, similar rankings (in US News both are tier 1 universities only 15 places apart), and both are in huge markets. Both have 2 final 4's ('43 and '79 for DePaul and '52 and '85 for St. John's), DePaul has more sweet 16's, but St. John's has more elite 8's. St. John's does have a national runner up, although it is from 1952. St. John's is definitely on the upswing, though.

Anyway, back to the original conversation (and not directed at you, Boxer). In my opinion we are all in great markets. Any team that does well will have plenty of coverage. The most important thing is that at least half of the conference does well enough to make it to the NCAA tourney and some elite 8's and final 4's would be nice as well. We do need to win a championship eventually, but that can wait a couple of years. We will all be on national television this year, that's some great exposure if we perform. Half the point of this league is that we are all in great markets, so anyone who performs will get coverage. I would tend toward Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and St. John's as must-perform teams, but you can't tell me that if Xavier, Creighton, DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall, or Butler make a run to the Final 4 or the championship that won't be good for the league.

As an aside, it's good to see a quality poster such as yourself, MUboxer, getting involved on the board. I really enjoy your posts over on scoop.

Just as an aside that doesn't really matter . . .

There is no comparison between St. John's and DePaul historically. St. John's has been the far better program. Historically, you can't just look at NCAA finishes because there was a time when the NIT was just as important and then a time when it was still important although not as important. St. John's won 4 NIT's between 1943-65 while DePaul won one.

Another piece of historical trivia is that the Helms foundation named mythical national champions for a long time. They are generally used for the era before tournament play and polls. St. John's was named national champion by the Helms Foundation for 1913.

Again, none of this really matters, but with St. John's we're talking about a program whose success at the highest levels goes back a century with just the past decade being down as a program. The St. John's program has won about 300 more games in its history than DePaul, which is another way of demonstrating the relative success of the two programs over their histories.

[Bill Marsh]

Does anyone have any idea why posters are arguing over "brand recognition"?

Is it the belief that already "recognizable brands" must continue to be successful in order for the conference to succeed? That the same programs must be repeatedly successful? Regardless of who the most recognizable brands are, why does it matter? New history is being created all the time. 15 years ago, no one cared about UConn. Now 3 national championships later, they're one of the most dominant programs in the country. And they're not in a huge market. Let any Big East program do the same thing and it won't matter if they're from hicksville or from metropolis, people will b eat a path to their door.

Clearly bigger markets present bigger opportunities for exposure. So, that puts NYC, Chicago, and Philadelphia as the 3 biggest opportunities. OTOH, Creighton, Marquette, and Xavier draw the most fans to their games and that matters too.

Regardless of who has the best history or who has the best brand (whatever that is), or who is most recognizable, I just hope that the conference wins ball games. That will take care of everything.

[redmen9194]

The bottom line is this - none of this really matters. From today forward these ten schools must all make a commitment to excel. Over thirty years ago the Big East formed as a grand experiment with a fledgling network. We are now doing the same with all eyes on our league to see if a non-football conference can stay competitive with the football leagues. We are in major cities, we have programs that have what they need to compete. It makes no difference now if Nova has a better history than Quette or whether St. John's is the winningest program in the league (we're number 7 overall - like how I did that?). We are all in this together and everyone has to do well. Now, there has to be teams that finish last. Every league has them. But we have to forget the past and just move forward. As a Johnnies fan, I hope the path that Lavin has us on gets us back to where we should be. A strong St. John's and big games that mean something in Madison Square Garden will be good for the league. But I also will be rooting for the Jays, the Pirates, (and even the Hoyas) out of conference because we all need to do well. I will be at Madison Square garden for Fox's Super Saturday Hoops on February 1. Once I finish rooting for the Johnnies to beat Marquette, I will be a Hoya fan for two hours or so as they play Michigan State.

[MUBoxer]

Ugh so many posts to respond to and my computer isn't working. Ok first Villanova cheated in 71 it was taken away they still reciever points in that metric but were deducted 2 for a revoked season. Second everybody seems to think I came up with the scale when I clearly stated I didn't. Why did I choose 51 years? Simple, because the majority of college basketball fans are between the ages of 18-34 which puts the largest demographic of people back then in the age where they're either dying off or soon retiring. Plus it is a well known fact that college basketball received a huge spike in prominence in the 60s and 70s whereas before it was just kind of there. Next, I stated I was done arguing about Nova and GTown I respectfully disagree with your assessments but whatever, while I will argue to my grave that Marquette is a bigger draw than SJU. There is absolutely no base for that claim not in success, not in attendence, not in prominence of NBA players, etc. and to further this argument you keep stating that Marquette isn't on the level of GTown or nova because we were mostly an NIT team for 10 years (it's 9 though I mean did you really read my post or do you just argue like that to be annoying?) but when SJU sucks in the more recent time (the era where the lArgest demographic would have grown up) you give them all the leeway you can. Please use facts to tell me why SJU is on the same level as Marquette, I can provide sources for anything that I've said here so instead of continuing to repeat the same crap try examining to me why SJU is on MU's level. And it seems to me that this exposure thing is convienient for you because there's no way to standardize it it's basically for you to just sit there and subjectively say "nope these teams are higher exposure" because I'd need TV ratings, attendence figures and to know an estimated value of the program in order to have facts to shut you up.

[MUBoxer]

Like I said MUB, can you get any more random? Why just 51 years? Why not 60 or 70? And can you explain the subjective value assigned to each pt value? And I'm assuming the 1971 Nova National Finalist team was quickly pulled out. I mean that team alone would have meant 25 or more points in this analysis for Nova which would have completely ruined your argument.

Answer yourself these questions:

More tourney appearances all time?
More tourney wins all time?
Produced more NBA players all time?
More FF's all time?
More recent National Championship?
More recent FF?
Longer stay in a power conference?

More tournament appearances all time is villanova (by one if you include the year where Marquette turned down the ncaa tournament by two if you just do years we actually showed up)
Villanova with wins as well
Marquette with more NBA players all time (see I bet when you asked these subjective questions to trap me you didn't do all your research)
More recent national championship? Really? That's a stupid question it's not like you guys won one these last few years no you won one 8 years after us. Same with final four its not like our recent one was ages ago you won one six years after us that like saying louisvilles been better than UConn because their national championship is more recent no they're both recent. But for the sake of you not being whinny villanova. And longer stay in a power conference really has nothing to do with it as power conferences have bad teams to. Would a DePaul fan say to an Xavier fan that because theyve been in the BE longer they're better? I hope to god they wouldn't. But read I'm done arguing this nova vs MU crap I'm arguing about friarfan saying that SJU is the same as MU. Also if I wanted to play your game though I could come up with questions to make all the answers Marquette watch

Most appearances in national championship game?
Better attendence?
Most NBA players all time? (Credit to you for that one)
Least ncaa sanctions? (B*tch all you want about 71 but Howard cheated and rules are rules)
More recent elite 8 or sweet 16? (I figure if you can say recent stuff matters why don't I?)

See none if that matters though when you're talking about two programs that are definitelly on the same level of prominence. Like seriously I'm not even talking down Nova I have emense respect for them and have been saying the Big three in the conference is GTown Nova and MU I'm only arguing were on the same level.