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

[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.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

The gap between Houston, Temple and Memphis, and Pitt, WVU and Syracuse, when it comes to basketball, is pretty thin.

I stopped reading after this sentence because of how laughably wrong it is. If you just said WVU, you'd have a fairly reasonable point. To put Houston, Temple, and Memphis in the same category as Pitt, much less Syracuse is beyond stupid.

 

[BlueMAB]

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...

So what happened between the late 80's and this past year? They've been involved in the Big East the entire time, why did their glory days happen 25 years ago? Do you think coaching had a role, or is it the conference that matters? Yes, memphis should get better recruits, but they'll be playing against better recruits, and the coaches will be facing better coaches. That is profoundly more important than the ability to tell recruits they're in the best conference in the country. UCLA killed it in recruiting this year, and the Pac 12 is garbage.

Memphis didn't have to win CUSA to get into the NCAA. CUSA and other mid major conferences can and do send more than one team. Now you want to use MAAC like conferences to talk about getting into the dance? That doesn't make your point, it shows you have to resort to citing the weakes single bid conferences as convoluted evidence why a team (like RU who never makes the dance) is improved simply by competing with teams that do. Weren't you complaining about no grey area? Now you suppose teams either have to play in the Big East where the same 8-10 programs always make the dance, or you have to play in a one bid conference?

No, going 8-10 in the conference doesn't make them like UConn. Winning the Big East or a national championship (or 3) would make them like UConn. Shame on you!

I didn't doctor my data, I pointed out most of those wins were against weak competition. Great they beat Tex. Tech (8-23) and AZ State (10-21). Those are good wins? Two teams 15 and 11 games under .500 played on a nuetral court?

They also lost to Minnesota and Milwaukee. Some of their other quality wins that I left out: Lewis (WHO?) UT-Pan American, and Cal -Polytechnic. I doctored the data? They had the 197th ranked SOS. http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html

The point is, most teams play weak OOC schedules. Especially power conference teams. Which is why they tend to have winning OOC records. Which is why going 9-4 OOC doesn't help you get in the dance if you can only win 3 conference games.

RU beat Florida, but didn't make the dance right? Just checking.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

Ok, then what happened between 1989 and 2012? Why haven't they been back there? They are still in the Big East, is Carlesimo still the coach?

Coaching > Conference affiliation

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

Memphis is in a great location, has great corporate sponsors, and has a chance to become the next Louisville.

I didn't accuse you of saying 'surpass', I said you made the comparison, there's the proof.

If Memphis has already surpassed Pitt, surely they've surpassed Cincy in the process.

 

[UConnDan97]

So what happened between the late 80's and this past year? They've been involved in the Big East the entire time, why did their glory days happen 25 years ago?

No, going 8-10 in the conference doesn't make them like UConn. Winning the Big East or a national championship (or 3) would make them like UConn. Shame on you!

I didn't doctor my data, I pointed out most of those wins were against weak competition.

Wow, this is getting tiring:

1) They were a bubble team last year, so give it a rest about Seton Hall!
2) You are right, going 8-10 in conference is unlike UConn. We can also go 9-9 and win the National Championship, right? There is no shame on me, because I love the Huskies and hope they go 35-0 every year.
3) Most of our wins are against weak competition.

This will likely be my last post on the issue, since it's clear that you won't budge on the ideas that you don't believe a) Memphis is already a very good, nationally respected team (although most journalists disagree with you), and b) that the Big East will help them recruit even better. That's about it.

 

[BlueMAB]

Wow, this is getting tiring:

1) They were a bubble team last year, so give it a rest about Seton Hall!
2) You are right, going 8-10 in conference is unlike UConn. We can also go 9-9 and win the National Championship, right? There is no shame on me, because I love the Huskies and hope they go 35-0 every year.
3) Most of our wins are against weak competition.

This will likely be my last post on the issue, since it's clear that you won't budge on the ideas that you don't believe a) Memphis is already a very good, nationally respected team (although most journalists disagree with you), and b) that the Big East will help them recruit even better. That's about it.

You want me to give it a rest on Seton Hall?! LOL. Why, because you see my point? PJ Carlesimo had them in the final four and they haven't been back since. Why? The Big East? Or Coaching??? I'll give it a rest if you answer the question, but you won't because it proves my point.

I agreed several times that their recruiting should improve. The difference is you don't think the improvement in the level of competition on the court, and on the sidelines will matter. You seem to think they'll be able to overcome it rather easily. I'm not sold. I think Temple has a better shot, and Houston/SMU have virtually no shot at being competitive.

FYI-You don't speak for most journalists.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I stopped reading after this sentence because of how laughably wrong it is. If you just said WVU, you'd have a fairly reasonable point. To put Houston, Temple, and Memphis in the same category as Pitt, much less Syracuse is beyond stupid.

What exactly has Pitt accomplished? This has been a good program for the past 10 years that has reached ONE Elite 8 and won two Big East Tournament Championships. That is it. Temple and Memphis both have several more Elite 8's than Pitt, and Houston has a bunch of Final Fours.

What bugs me about debates is when someone like you, speaking from a position of complete and total ignorance, behaves like a jerk. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't feel obligated to participate. To participate in a discussion without having the slightest idea what you are talking about is beyond stupid.

 

[UConnDan97]

You want me to give it a rest on Seton Hall?! LOL.

I agreed several times that their recruiting should improve.

FYI-You don't speak for most journalists.

1) BECAUSE THEY WERE A BUBBLE TEAM LAST YEAR!! THAT'S WHY!

2) If you agree then just say so and save us all hours of our lives.

3) You're right; I don't speak for them. They do. They called Big East's move with Memphis a "basketball move." You do that when you believe that a school is only an improvement on......wait for it......BASKETBALL!!!! (Holy Christ, some people are thick!)

 

[BlueMAB]

1) BECAUSE THEY WERE A BUBBLE TEAM LAST YEAR!! THAT'S WHY!

2) If you agree then just say so and save us all hours of our lives.

3) You're right; I don't speak for them. They do. They called Big East's move with Memphis a "basketball move." You do that when you believe that a school is only an improvement on......wait for it......BASKETBALL!!!! (Holy Christ, some people are thick!)

LMAO - why are you getting so mad?

1) Seton Hall 1989 - final four. 2012 - Bubble team. Yup, you proved your point. They went from a final four program under one coach to a bubble team under another coach, all while playing in the same conference. Thank God for the Big East, otherwise coaching might have a lot to do with a team's success. Yes, people are thick, that's why you keep talking about the bubble instead of the coaching. Tell us again how good those AZ State and Cal Polytech wins were for Depaul! Were those bubble teams??? LMAO

2) It takes you hours to write those posts? #ThinkSmarter. If you stopped ignoring the point made in the rest of that sentence maybe we could have a discussin instead of you shouting the same thing over and over again.

3) Ohhh, the atrociousness of their football team isn't why we added them? Memphis is an improvement on who? Pitt? Nope. WVU? Nope. Saracuse? LMAO. So because they made the obvious connection that Memphis wasn't added for football, that means they all view Memphis as good national program? That's an incredible leap in logic. Thick? LMAO. SDSU was a football move, does that mean it was an improvement on football? Are we better off with SDSU than WVU? By your logic, yes. Yup, some people are thick.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I'm not really sure what the Seton Hall argument is even about, but I'll chime in:

Coaching/recruiting is obviously more important that conference affiliation, but conference affiliation in this regard is only going to help Memphis. More exposure, more tv dollars and better competition. Those three things should be key in getting better coaches, retaining better coaches and getting better players.

Not sure what you want from Seton Hall though? They are probably better suited to be in the Atlantic 10 instead of playing with state funded institutions and the catholics that invest more into their programs. They've made some bad hires, like Bobby Gonzalez, but it looks like Willard could be a good one. The fact that they play in the Big East is probably the reason why they were able to get to hire either of those coaches.

The conference alone isn't going to obviously dictate your success but it's certainly a platform that other schools in C-USA or the A10 can't offer.