Rumor---NBC will pay $20-24 million per year to ND (contract renewal)

[whaler11]

Memphis bball is bsu fball. Both will be great for the nbe.

Boy you done lost your mind.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Memphis bball is bsu fball. Both will be great for the nbe.

not even close

 

[whaler11]

This is why I cannot take you seriously most times, and I'm guessing that others can't either. Here is Memphis' record under Josh Pastner:

2009-2010: 24-10 (NIT)
2010-2011: 25-10 (NCAA Tourney)
2011-2012: 26-9 (NCAA Tourney)
Overall winning percentage as Memphis HC: .721

That's "what it's based on"....not "hope." Do you just like to argue for argument's sake? C'mon, man!

If people can't take me 'seriously' because I don't think Memphis is a better conference partner than Pittsburgh.... it's hardly an argument for arguments sake - every neutral party would agree.

If Memphis had the same academic requirements to enroll players that most of the current Big East has - they wouldn't win like they have the last decade.

 

[UConnDan97]

If people can't take me 'seriously' because I don't think Memphis is a better conference partner than Pittsburgh.... it's hardly an argument for arguments sake - every neutral party would agree.

If Memphis had the same academic requirements to enroll players that most of the current Big East has - they wouldn't win like they have the last decade.

It wasn't about Memphis being a "better conference partner than Pittsburgh!" Upstater had said that there is no reason Memphis couldn't be as good as Pitt. That is what you were arguing against (and apparently continuing to argue against). And if you want to talk 8-9 games in the NCAA tourney, please tell me the last time that Pitt did anything in the NCAA tournament?

I'm not going to argue that C-USA bball is anywhere near the Big East, because it's not. Not by a long-shot, because Big East basketball is the best in the land. But last year, three of their losses were to the Big East (2x versus GTown [one in OT] and 1x to L'Ville) and they racked up wins against Tennessee twice (a team that beat us), UCF twice (a team that beat us), Xavier, and Miami.

This is a very good team, plain and simple. To say anything else is ridiculous, especially to say that they can only win if someone takes their SAT's for them.

 

[UConnDan97]

For once I gotta go with whaler on this one. I think Memphis and Temple have a good foundation with fans and program because of past success but they're going to need to step up their game to compete in the Big East. Not saying it can't happen but it's hard to compare past success in a lesser basketball conference to how they might do in the Big East. Last year's tournament showing doesn't bode well for them. In 2011 they were a 12 seed and lost to Arizona. While Arizona was nasty that year, we beat them in the Elite 8, it's still an example of them not doing well against better competition.

If you look at Memphis last season they beat only Tennessee twice (one was in double OT) and Miami. They lost to Michigan, Georgetown twice, Louisville, and Murray State. There's not a quality win on the schedule. Now remove Rice, Tulane, ECU, Tulsa and replace them with Marquette, UConn, Cincinnati, and Villanova and I must say that it's not gonna be easy for them.

Not saying they can't get there soon, just that it's not going to be as simple as jumping in and being an elite program like Pitt has been every season except last season for the past 10 years or so.

Let me address this point by point:

1) If their past year's tourney performance is what defines whether or not they are an elite team, then UConn is in trouble too. (which I don't believe, by the way)

2) If losing to Arizona in 2011 was a bad thing, the second best team in the tourney in my opinion (Kentucky third), then that is a ridiculous criteria. It took every ounce of our being to beat those guys (and a last-second shot to hit the rim).

3) Let's say I buy your argument about taking away 6 C-USA teams and replacing them with 6 elite teams from the Big East (an argument that I agree fully with, by the way), then their record assuming they lost every one of those games would have been 20-14.......just like UConn, with 2 lottery picks on our squad. Also keep in mind that three of their losses were already to elite BE teams, so they would have replaced those games with 3 cupcake OOC's (i.e., the Fairfields of the world...hint, hint).

4) The original argument was can Memphis be as good as Pitt, and I don't see any reason at all why they can't be, based on the fact that they have had success with multiple coaches and have made a basketball brand name for themselves that they can effectively recruit with.

That's all I'm saying, fellas. The fact that I believe Upstater was absolutely right, and that I have not yet seen any evidence that would suggest otherwise.

 

[whaler11]

It wasn't about Memphis being a "better conference partner than Pittsburgh!" Upstater had said that there is no reason Memphis couldn't be as good as Pitt. That is what you were arguing against (and apparently continuing to argue against). And if you want to talk 8-9 games in the NCAA tourney, please tell me the last time that Pitt did anything in the NCAA tournament?

I'm not going to argue that C-USA bball is anywhere near the Big East, because it's not. Not by a long-shot, because Big East basketball is the best in the land. But last year, three of their losses were to the Big East (2x versus GTown [one in OT] and 1x to L'Ville) and they racked up wins against Tennessee twice (a team that beat us), UCF twice (a team that beat us), Xavier, and Miami.

This is a very good team, plain and simple. To say anything else is ridiculous, especially to say that they can only win if someone takes their SAT's for them.

But again - you are betting on potential against someone who is already there. That's the point. Lots of schools have potential - potential is less valuable than certainty.

As for your SAT comment. What have they done without Cal? Much much less than with him - they have been to 22 tourneys and vacated 6 of those seasons. They have two good stretches in their history and both were marred with violations. It's another planet from the history of the Big East.

 

[Waquoit]

They have two good stretches in their history and both were marred with violations. It's another planet from the history of the Big East.

We are coming off probation, our head coach suspended for games and are banned from post-season play next year. Who are we to talk?

 

[UConnDan97]

We are coming off probation, our head coach suspended for games and are banned from post-season play next year. Who are we to talk?

+1. I guess that means we have a ways to go to be like Pitt. Holy Christ, some days, the Boneyard makes me feel like I'm on crazy pills. I describe how the new Memphis coach has been to two NCAA tourneys in the last three years and has well over a .700 winning percentage, and I have to hear about "What have they done without Cal?"

 

[whaler11]

+1. I guess that means we have a ways to go to be like Pitt. Holy Christ, some days, the Boneyard makes me feel like I'm on crazy pills. I describe how the new Memphis coach has been to two NCAA tourneys in the last three years and has well over a .700 winning percentage, and I have to hear about "What have they done without Cal?"

It's pretty simple. They fell off cliff compared to when he was there. Their league is so bad that Quinnipiac was ahead of half the teams in their league in the computers. But sure, winning percentage is a great measurement for a team in a league that according to the Sagarins is closer to the Patriot League than the Big East.

Memphis hasn't won an NCAA game since Cal left. If you think they are an equal replacement for Pitt.... Clearly we aren't going to agree.

Maybe I'm stupid to respect what Pitt basketball has brought to the league - they have won a hell of a lot of games in the best league in the country for a long time with multiple coaches. I guess they can be easily replaced with teams from the 10th best league in the country. Sure, Houston and SMU were 50 teams worse than Quinnipiac in the Pomeroys this year, but now I guess they are going to try.

 

[UConnDan97]

It's pretty simple. They fell off cliff compared to when he was there. Their league is so bad that Quinnipiac was ahead of half the teams in their league in the computers. But sure, winning percentage is a great measurement for a team in a league that according to the Sagarins is closer to the Patriot League than the Big East.

Memphis hasn't won an NCAA game since Cal left. If you think they are an equal replacement for Pitt.... Clearly we aren't going to agree.

Maybe I'm stupid to respect what Pitt basketball has brought to the league - they have won a hell of a lot of games in the best league in the country for a long time with multiple coaches. I guess they can be easily replaced with teams from the 10th best league in the country. Sure, Houston and SMU were 50 teams worse than Quinnipiac in the Pomeroys this year, but now I guess they are going to try.

Nobody is saying that Pitt didn't bring a heck of a lot to the league in basketball! Also, nobody is saying that Pitt isn't a better bball program than Memphis currently! (not Upstater, and not me!). What is being said is that Memphis has every opportunity to be as good as them; mostly because they continue to go to the tourney with multiple coaches.

If they fell off a cliff, it was a 1-ft high cliff, whereby they landed on another almost equally high cliff. Again, three of their losses last year were to Big East elite, and if they were to be in the league, they would replace those three games with three OOC cupcakes, just like we do. They would also have a good chance of beating DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, USF, and maybe even St. John's. It's ridiculous to think that they "fell off a cliff". If you have fallen off of a cliff, you are not in the NCAA tourney and in the national discussion, period!!

You are right about one thing, though; we aren't going to agree...

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Seriously? You don't think that can be said about us?

Our rivalry with Pitt does exist and is not easily replaceable. The juice in the building when we have played Pitt in a big game is undeniable. (Well, at least outside of this board.)

I think Final Fours and National Championships provide a little more lasting reputation for a program than a bunch of regular season wins, so i guess we will have to disagree that Pitt's basketball program is equivalent to UConn's.

 

[businesslawyer]

I think Final Fours and National Championships provide a little more lasting reputation for a program than a bunch of regular season wins, so i guess we will have to disagree that Pitt's basketball program is equivalent to UConn's.

What is truly amazing is you can quote my post and then immediately below the quote respond to something not in it.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Nobody is saying that Pitt didn't bring a heck of a lot to the league in basketball! Also, nobody is saying that Pitt isn't a better bball program than Memphis currently! (not Upstater, and not me!). What is being said is that Memphis has every opportunity to be as good as them; mostly because they continue to go to the tourney with multiple coaches.

If they fell off a cliff, it was a 1-ft high cliff, whereby they landed on another almost equally high cliff. Again, three of their losses last year were to Big East elite, and if they were to be in the league, they would replace those three games with three OOC cupcakes, just like we do. They would also have a good chance of beating DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, USF, and maybe even St. John's. It's ridiculous to think that they "fell off a cliff". If you have fallen off of a cliff, you are not in the NCAA tourney and in the national discussion, period!!

You are right about one thing, though; we aren't going to agree...

Pitt is a solid program. Easily a top 5 program in the BE the past 10 years. On a national level they have underachieved. Still a solid program.
Memphis is probably just a drop behind but will easily catch up with the advantage of playing in the BE... It would be hard for any program not to have a drop off after Cal... Love him or hate him, he's a national figure that commands attention. Postner has Memphis on the right track. Could be another Louisville in 5 years...

 

[RS9999X]

When Larry Brown shows up at Gampel you will forget all about Pitt or WVU basketball. As big as Huggins or Lavin are ,I think Brown will create the same buzz at SMU. A perfect hire for them.

Overall basketball has the potential to be just as strong. Football? Are Houston and Boise better than Pitt and SU?

The foot print sucks. The Big Sprawl. The loss of SU basketball and WVU football hurt. The rest? Maybe not so much. The Pitt rivalry will never be what it was again anyway in the years after the Khalid El-Amin game. And SU? No Preston Shumperts ready to have a career game against UConn at the Dome? No Devolution? Ahh...memories. It will pass.

 

[whaler11]

When Larry Brown shows up at Gampel you will forget all about Pitt or WVU basketball. As big as Huggins or Lavin are ,I think Brown will create the same buzz at SMU. A perfect hire for them.

Overall basketball has the potential to be just as strong. Football? Are Houston and Boise better than Pitt and SU?

The foot print sucks. The Big Sprawl. The loss of SU basketball and WVU football hurt. The rest? Maybe not so much. The Pitt rivalry will never be what it was again anyway in the years after the Khalid El-Amin game. And SU? No Preston Shumperts ready to have a career game against UConn at the Dome? No Devolution? Ahh...memories. It will pass.

Larry Brown at SMU is certainly interesting, but he's not exactly one for seeing things through. To me the football product may improve long term on the changes, I'm not seeing how the basketball hasn't been downgraded. Based on the size of this league and Brown's 'history', it's probably about even odds he ever even coaches a game against UConn at Gampel or XL.

Nobody is saying that Pitt didn't bring a heck of a lot to the league in basketball! Also, nobody is saying that Pitt isn't a better bball program than Memphis currently! (not Upstater, and not me!). What is being said is that Memphis has every opportunity to be as good as them; mostly because they continue to go to the tourney with multiple coaches.

If they fell off a cliff, it was a 1-ft high cliff, whereby they landed on another almost equally high cliff. Again, three of their losses last year were to Big East elite, and if they were to be in the league, they would replace those three games with three OOC cupcakes, just like we do. They would also have a good chance of beating DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, USF, and maybe even St. John's. It's ridiculous to think that they "fell off a cliff". If you have fallen off of a cliff, you are not in the NCAA tourney and in the national discussion, period!!

You are right about one thing, though; we aren't going to agree...

If in the the three years after Calhoun leaves UConn doesn't win an NCAA tournament game and doesn't have a seed higher than 8... you don't think the perception will be that the program fell off? I must be missing how NIT/12 seed/8 seed - no NCAA wins is 'almost equally high' as Cal had them at where they went to multiple Elite 8s in a row.

I think you highly underestimate the grind of a Big East schedule versus a CUSA schedule. Yes, there are a few nights off in the Big East - DePaul, Rutgers... but CUSA has a half dozen teams that aren't even in the top 150 in the computers. When you have teams 50 slots behind 18-13 NEC teams.... those teams are just plain when compared to a Seton Hall or USF.

Memphis might step up and be great in the league. That's very different that what UConn and Pitt have shared the last decade. I respect your opinions across the board - we are probably just talking past each other at this point.

 

[BlueMAB]

Memphis is probably just a drop behind but will easily catch up with the advantage of playing in the BE...

Can you explain that? It seems like you are high on Postner. That's fine, I won't argue that.

But many people make the argument that playing in the Big East will help the new programs. It hasn't helped Rutgers, Seton Hall, Providence, Depaul, or USF.

Yes, maybe they will be able to recruit a higher caliber player, they are also going to be playing a much tougher schedule (even without SU/Pitt/WVU).

 

[UConnDan97]

If in the the three years after Calhoun leaves UConn doesn't win an NCAA tournament game and doesn't have a seed higher than 8... you don't think the perception will be that the program fell off? I must be missing how NIT/12 seed/8 seed - no NCAA wins is 'almost equally high' as Cal had them at where they went to multiple Elite 8s in a row.

I think you highly underestimate the grind of a Big East schedule versus a CUSA schedule. Yes, there are a few nights off in the Big East - DePaul, Rutgers... but CUSA has a half dozen teams that aren't even in the top 150 in the computers. When you have teams 50 slots behind 18-13 NEC teams.... those teams are just plain when compared to a Seton Hall or USF.

Memphis might step up and be great in the league. That's very different that what UConn and Pitt have shared the last decade. I respect your opinions across the board - we are probably just talking past each other at this point.

Please read this reply very slowly, so as to absorb my point. I didn't say that they didn't have a drop-off from Calipari's teams to what they have now. But they sure as hell didn't "fall off a cliff" as you suggested!! Your words, not mine. And if UConn go NIT / 12 seed / 8 seed in the three years after Calhoun, I would still say that we hadn't "fallen off a cliff". That's the point that I'm trying to make here; that Memphis is still a bubble-team caliber type of team.

They will undoubtedly take a few more knocks in the Big East, as I have already mentioned a couple of times. So their record will be the 21-13 variety instead of the 26-8. But with a couple of years of being in the Big East (and getting Big East recruits / exposure), there is no reason to believe that they cannot reach the level of success that Pitt has enjoyed. That is my point. That was Upstater's point. I'm not sure why you are looking at Memphis as if they are Hofstra! Most of the pundits around the country accept that Memphis is still a very strong name in basketball, which is why they called their addition a "basketball move". You wouldn't call someone's addition a "basketball move" if they weren't very good at it...

 

[UConnDan97]

Can you explain that? It seems like you are high on Postner. That's fine, I won't argue that.

But many people make the argument that playing in the Big East will help the new programs. It hasn't helped Rutgers, Seton Hall, Providence, Depaul, or USF.

Yes, maybe they will be able to recruit a higher caliber player, they are also going to be playing a much tougher schedule (even without SU/Pitt/WVU).

Sure it has helped them! Do you think that a team like Seton Hall would have the amount of non-conference wins (or talent on their roster) if they were in the CAA?? USF made the tourney last year, and the Hall was on the bubble out. DePaul, Rutgers, and Providence still win their fair share of OOC games because they have better talent than most conferences, they just can't consistently beat G'Town / Ville / UConn / Cuse / Marquette / ND / Cincy (all NCAA tourney teams, mind you). It's like saying that South Carolina hasn't benefited from being in the SEC just because they never win the conference or play in the big games. That's just not true.

 

[whaler11]

Please read this reply very slowly, so as to absorb my point. I didn't say that they didn't have a drop-off from Calipari's teams to what they have now. But they sure as hell didn't "fall off a cliff" as you suggested!! Your words, not mine. And if UConn go NIT / 12 seed / 8 seed in the three years after Calhoun, I would still say that we hadn't "fallen off a cliff". That's the point that I'm trying to make here; that Memphis is still a bubble-team caliber type of team.

They will undoubtedly take a few more knocks in the Big East, as I have already mentioned a couple of times. So their record will be the 21-13 variety instead of the 26-8. But with a couple of years of being in the Big East (and getting Big East recruits / exposure), there is no reason to believe that they cannot reach the level of success that Pitt has enjoyed. That is my point. That was Upstater's point. I'm not sure why you are looking at Memphis as if they are Hofstra! Most of the pundits around the country accept that Memphis is still a very strong name in basketball, which is why they called their addition a "basketball move". You wouldn't call someone's addition a "basketball move" if they weren't very good at it...

Yeah I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I'm not sold on them without Cal. I don't think their basketball has proven to have enough staying power to merit the inclusion of that disaster of a football program or the overall university profile. Hopefully it ends up working out - but I still don't get it.

 

[UConnDan97]

Yeah I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I'm not sold on them without Cal. I don't think their basketball has proven to have enough staying power to merit the inclusion of that disaster of a football program or the overall university profile. Hopefully it ends up working out - but I still don't get it.

I appreciate the sentiment, because I believe that you want the new teams in the Big East to succeed (or at least I know that you know their success positively affects UConn). But you have to look at this from an 18-year-old's perspective: Memphis is a "name" in basketball. Their lack of football prowess might even tempt you to go there more, because you will be the BMOC. They can't remember what Memphis was 15+ years ago (I'm not sure I do either). But I liken that to being recruited by a Gonzaga. Who the heck were they before Mark Few got there?? But now they are "Gonzaga", and that means something to an 18 year old. Imagine if you were selling, "Come to 'Gonzaga', member of the Pac-12!" (let's forget for a moment that Pac-12 basketball has seen better days). You're going to take it even more seriously.

That's what I'm saying Memphis will leverage here. Games against top25 opponents frequently. National tv exposure more often. Tourney in MSG under the bright lights of NYC. And they're already a basketball name...

 

[BlueMAB]

Sure it has helped them! Do you think that a team like Seton Hall would have the amount of non-conference wins (or talent on their roster) if they were in the CAA?? USF made the tourney last year, and the Hall was on the bubble out. DePaul, Rutgers, and Providence still win their fair share of OOC games because they have better talent than most conferences, they just can't consistently beat G'Town / Ville / UConn / Cuse / Marquette / ND / Cincy (all NCAA tourney teams, mind you). It's like saying that South Carolina hasn't benefited from being in the SEC just because they never win the conference or play in the big games. That's just not true.

Football and basketball are too different to draw comparisons thanks to the bowl system. If you go .500, you go to a bowl game 99% of the time. .500 in basketball doesn't get you in the NCAA, and I don't think anyone really cares about the NIT.

Winning your fair share of OOC games doesn't matter. Going to the NCAA tourney matters. You're kind of making my point by saying that Depaul, RU, etc win their fair of OOC games, but can't beat the power teams in the Big East... that is exactly the reason they are very rarely NCAA tournament teams. Playing in the Big East doesn't get you in the NCAA, it makes getting into the NCAA harder. DePaul went 3-15 last year in the conference, going 9-4 in OOC games doesn't matter. So what if they beat up on Miss. Valley St, Ark-Pine Bluff, and Chicago State? Their league schedule is so brutal it's tough for them to even approach .500 in the conference and be tournament worthy.


I'm not sure how old you are, but Seton Hall has had much better teams than what they've had recently. The "talent on their roster" still didn't get them in the tourney. And bringing up the amount of talent on their roster again makes my point. They do have talent, and still couldn't make the tourney, why? They went 8-10 in the conference. Going 13-3 OOC didn't matter.


If never winning conference tournaments and or playing in big games is your idea of maintained success, then I'd hate to see what it takes to be considered a failure.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Can you explain that? It seems like you are high on Postner. That's fine, I won't argue that.

But many people make the argument that playing in the Big East will help the new programs. It hasn't helped Rutgers, Seton Hall, Providence, Depaul, or USF.

Yes, maybe they will be able to recruit a higher caliber player, they are also going to be playing a much tougher schedule (even without SU/Pitt/WVU).

Memphis has a solid basketball program that thrived under Calipari such that they became a national program. He left and they had to deal with some issues. I think Postner has done a good job of righting the ship, recruiting players, and getting the program back on track.
We can debate all we want, but time will tell. Memphis is in a great location, has great corporate sponsors, and has a chance to become the next Louisville. If that happens, that's good news for the BE.

 

[whaler11]

I appreciate the sentiment, because I believe that you want the new teams in the Big East to succeed (or at least I know that you know their success positively affects UConn). But you have to look at this from an 18-year-old's perspective: Memphis is a "name" in basketball. Their lack of football prowess might even tempt you to go there more, because you will be the BMOC. They can't remember what Memphis was 15+ years ago (I'm not sure I do either). But I liken that to being recruited by a Gonzaga. Who the heck were they before Mark Few got there?? But now they are "Gonzaga", and that means something to an 18 year old. Imagine if you were selling, "Come to 'Gonzaga', member of the Pac-12!" (let's forget for a moment that Pac-12 basketball has seen better days). You're going to take it even more seriously.

That's what I'm saying Memphis will leverage here. Games against top25 opponents frequently. National tv exposure more often. Tourney in MSG under the bright lights of NYC. And they're already a basketball name...

As long as the Catholics are around I'm
not really worried about the basketball league. I guess in a pure basketball sense having Memphis around helps to hedge against the departure of Georgetown, Nova, Marquette and Notre Dame.

If the bright lights remain in MSG it will help Memphis - the key is keeping MSG special and it's tougher with SMU, Houston and UCF.

 

[BlueMAB]

Memphis has a solid basketball program that thrived under Calipari such that they became a national program. He left and they had to deal with some issues. I think Postner has done a good job of righting the ship, recruiting players, and getting the program back on track.
We can debate all we want, but time will tell. Memphis is in a great location, has great corporate sponsors, and has a chance to become the next Louisville. If that happens, that's good news for the BE.

I don't know why people say they were a national program. They made two championship games and lost. Butler did that too, are they a national program? Half of their elite 8 appearances (6 total) were with Cal, they happened consecutively, and one was ultimately vacated.

The comparisons to Louisville are way premature. Louisville was a very succesful program long before they joined the Big East. They have two national championships (none as member of big east) and 9 final fours. Memphis has been to 3 final fours, had one vacated, had a total of 6 NCAA appearances vacated, and has no national championships. They are a good program in a crappy conference. I expect they'll be better than DePaul, but don't see why they would be any better than Cincinatti. Louisville? No way.

I want them to be relatively succesful as well. But I think the comparisons to Ville and the belief that simply upgrading to the Big East will mean they will get enough talent to make it back to a final four are unfounded.

Als0, there's this... http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/17/12172808-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america?lite1
Memphis ranked 5th on the most dangerous cities in the country according to the FBI. Maybe the violence is concentrated and away from campus?

 

[Marty Jackson]

I don't know why people say they were a national program. They made two championship games and lost. Butler did that too, are they a national program? Half of their elite 8 appearances (6 total) were with Cal, they happened consecutively, and one was ultimately vacated.

The comparisons to Louisville are way premature. Louisville was a very succesful program long before they joined the Big East. They have two national championships (none as member of big east) and 9 final fours. Memphis has been to 3 final fours, had one vacated, had a total of 6 NCAA appearances vacated, and has no national championships. They are a good program in a crappy conference. I expect they'll be better than DePaul, but don't see why they would be any better than Cincinatti. Louisville? No way.

I want them to be relatively succesful as well. But I think the comparisons to Ville and the belief that simply upgrading to the Big East will mean they will get enough talent to make it back to a final four are unfounded.

Als0, there's this... http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/17/12172808-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america?lite1
Memphis ranked 5th on the most dangerous cities in the country according to the FBI. Maybe the violence is concentrated and away from campus?

The only point I made was that Memphis in the BE would have every chance to be as successful as Pitt, a solid BE program that has for the most part underachieved in the NCAA tourney. Even if you exclude the Cal years, one could argue that Memphis' tourney success has already surpassed Pitt.

Nobody said they would surpass UofL or Cincy.

 

[UConnDan97]

Football and basketball are too different to draw comparisons thanks to the bowl system. If you go .500, you go to a bowl game 99% of the time. .500 in basketball doesn't get you in the NCAA, and I don't think anyone really cares about the NIT.

Winning your fair share of OOC games doesn't matter. Going to the NCAA tourney matters. You're kind of making my point by saying that Depaul, RU, etc win their fair of OOC games, but can't beat the power teams in the Big East... that is exactly the reason they are very rarely NCAA tournament teams. Playing in the Big East doesn't get you in the NCAA, it makes getting into the NCAA harder. DePaul went 3-15 last year in the conference, going 9-4 in OOC games doesn't matter. So what if they beat up on Miss. Valley St, Ark-Pine Bluff, and Chicago State? Their league schedule is so brutal it's tough for them to even approach .500 in the conference and be tournament worthy.


I'm not sure how old you are, but Seton Hall has had much better teams than what they've had recently. The "talent on their roster" still didn't get them in the tourney. And bringing up the amount of talent on their roster again makes my point. They do have talent, and still couldn't make the tourney, why? They went 8-10 in the conference. Going 13-3 OOC didn't matter.


If never winning conference tournaments and or playing in big games is your idea of maintained success, then I'd hate to see what it takes to be considered a failure.

I'm old enough to remember Seton Hall's glory days in the late 80's, which was directly due to their involvement with the Big East and playing the likes of Syracuse, Georgetown, and St. John's. They were on the bubble of the NCAA tourney this year also, and if they were in a different conference, they would have to win the conference tourney outright in order to get in, kinda like a St. Bonaventure's or a Siena. That makes MY point, not yours. Going 8-10 in the Big East isn't a shame. It makes them like....UConn.

It's also curious to see that you tried to doctor your data to help your point by pulling up DePaul's wins against Ark-Pine Bluff and Chicago State rather than talk about their wins against Arizona State and Texas Tech, huh? These teams on the bottom of the Big East still attract enough talent to beat many of the other "BCS conference" teams. That's how teams like Rutgers have the talent level and capability to beat a team like Florida. And the NCAA committee knows this, and that is why we consistently get 8+ teams in the tourney every year. So yes, this helps make my point. If they stay in the top half of the league, they will be a tourney team every year, with relevance and national tv exposure every year. And better recruits...

 

[Waquoit]

I'm old enough to remember Seton Hall's glory days in the late 80's, which was directly due to their involvement with the Big East and playing the likes of Syracuse, Georgetown, and St. John's.

That's true. When UConn was at their nadir in Big East hoop, Hall was worse. When out of desperation UConn was putting baseball and soccer players out on the court, they still beat Seton Hall. And BCU, of course.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The gap between Houston, Temple and Memphis, and Pitt, WVU and Syracuse, when it comes to basketball, is pretty thin. And when you look at recruiting, Houston, Philly and Memphis destroy the cities of Syracuse, Pittsburgh and the state of West Virginia by so much it isn't even close. Syracuse, Pitt and WVU have no natural advantages in basketball. They were who they were solely by virtue of outstanding coaches, conference affiliation, and in Syracuse's case, great history. Those programs could never afford to have a Josh Pastner learning on the job, because they don't have a steady stream of local talent to provide a floor for the program.

I think there is an 80% chance that Pitt drops back to regular losing records without the NYC pipeline it had while in the Big East. Travel is a lot tougher on hoops than football, so I would expect WVU to slide back, especially when Huggins health problems finally catch up with him. I think Syracuse will remain a national power after Boeheim is gone, although it could take a small step back.

Houston is going to be a powerhouse in the Big East if UConn, Louisville, Cincinnati and the Catholics stick around. The basketball talent in Houston is spectacular, and Houston has as good a history for hoops as any school in Texas. Even a mediocre coach will be successful there. Memphis is already a very good program and Pastner is still learning. Dunphy is a mediocre recruiter and has Temple very competitive. SMU and UCF are the problems. I don't see either as more than a pin cushion, despite the Larry Brown experiment.

Re: Depaul: Wainwright was one of the worst coaches at any major program in the last 20 years. It will take some time to recover from that. Even the third tier HS talent in Chicago is good enough to comprise a bubble team with any kind of decent coaching.

 

[UConnDan97]

That's true. When UConn was at their nadir in Big East hoop, Hall was worse. When out of desperation UConn was putting baseball and soccer players out on the court, they still beat Seton Hall. And BCU, of course.

The early 80's were a fun time, right? But Carlesimo had them in the final game of the NCAA tourney in 1989. That was a direct result of their suffering in the Big East prior to that, but getting the exposure they needed to get the good coach and the good players.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Bottom line:

Strictly looking at the numbers its possible Memphis coulld attain Pitts level of success in the BE.
There is a very low chance we develop anywhere near the rivalry we had with Pitt.
Memphis football sucks and does nothing for the league, however in terms of 'prestige' its way more about the top ranked teams than the bottom.
I expect Memphis hoops to perform like Cincy has done and that's a good thing.

If the BE had any level of competency (debatable) they would have made any of these additions with the OK from tv media consultants. Guess we'll find out this fall how they did.