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

[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.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

It's not just about Seton Hall.

The argument made by many posters in support of the basketball additions is "they are joining the big east, they'll be able to recruit better players, and therefore they'll be more succesful".

Yes, they'll be able to recruit better players. They are also going to play in a much tougher conference, and they are going face much better coaching. And there are a number of other teams joining the big east that will make that same recruiting pitch. there are also programs that have long standing reputations in the big east and will continue to sell that. bottom line, it will be coaching that decides the fate of these programs.

 

[Marty Jackson]

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.

are you serious? Your post suggested it when you brought up Cincy. I can copy and paste as well...

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.

who mentioned Cincy? And I never said they'd surpass UofL. I said that they could become the next Louisville in 5 years. Big difference.

And now you want to suggest that Pitt is a better program than Cincy? On what basis?

 

[mattp]

just because some knucklehead reporter calls it a bball move b/c their bball program is better than their fb program doesn't make it so. all of our moves were football moves. we didn't need more bball teams, that's why half of the additions are for fb only. we added them b/c of market demographics, and the potential of their football program. memphis may improve our bball conference overall, but if they didn't have a 1A football team they wouldn't have been invited to join the Big East, plain and simple.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

One thing that irks me is the attitude towards Houston. for years, many (not necessarily from this board) spoke of DePaul & St John's, and their glory days from the early-mid 1980's, claiming that returning to that level would not be unreasonable. Houston did better, for longer than either of those schools (basically Elvin Hayes through Hakeem Olajuwon). Personally, I don't view it as unreasonable to offer Houston the same courtesy that many were offering Str John's and DePaul.

On Seton Hall, I give them some credit for at least trying (albeit, very misguided at times) when many of the other catholic members were merely going through the motions. Their biggest mistake was believing they could do better than where Louis Orr had them (almost always above the bottom third of the conference, on many years capable of cracking the top third of the conference). If they realized their limitations, they would be far better off today.

Anyone who doesn't realize that Memphis and Temple are already well above the bulk of the catholic membership 9and even some of the state schools) in the BE hasn't been paying attention.

 

[Marty Jackson]

just because some knucklehead reporter calls it a bball move b/c their bball program is better than their fb program doesn't make it so. all of our moves were football moves. we didn't need more bball teams, that's why half of the additions are for fb only. we added them b/c of market demographics, and the potential of their football program. memphis may improve our bball conference overall, but if they didn't have a 1A football team they wouldn't have been invited to join the Big East, plain and simple.

I think Temple fb was added out of neccessity for 2012. BB isn't joining until 2013.
There are a lot of D1 FB programs that we could have added that were better than Memphis. this was an olive branch to the BB schools.

 

[UConnDan97]

are you serious? Your post suggested it when you brought up Cincy. I can copy and paste as well...

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.

who mentioned Cincy? And I never said they'd surpass UofL. I said that they could become the next Louisville in 5 years. Big difference.

And now you want to suggest that Pitt is a better program than Cincy? On what basis?

Don't get mad, Marty. He doesn't read others' posts.

 

[UConnDan97]

I think Temple fb was added out of neccessity for 2012. BB isn't joining until 2013.
There are a lot of D1 FB programs that we could have added that were better than Memphis. this was an olive branch to the BB schools.

That's absolutely true. If it weren't true, ECU would currently be in the Big East. Simple as that.

 

[mattp]

I think Temple fb was added out of neccessity for 2012. BB isn't joining until 2013.
There are a lot of D1 FB programs that we could have added that were better than Memphis. this was an olive branch to the BB schools.

Louisville said they along with Cinci wanted Memphis as a regional rival as well. they all share a CUSA (and Metro Conference before that) history. Memphis was added to keep Louisville more than Georgetown

 

[mattp]

J

Yeah. I'm speaking for the media. Nobody out there believes that Memphis is a good bball team, huh? This was the first page of a Google search, and I am not going to venture onto page 2...enjoy, everyone.

who are you arguing with? i don't recall anyone saying that Memphis isn't a good bball team.

 

[UConnDan97]

who are you arguing with? i don't recall anyone saying that Memphis isn't a good bball team.

It was an argument with WingU, primarily. I basically made the comment that the media and the nation view Memphis as a very good basketball team, and he took offense that I was "speaking for the media." I posted all of those media links in order to drive my point home, but I realized that it's petty and I just removed it from the thread. Maybe my removing the thread is my olive branch to WingU.

 

[UConnDan97]

Louisville said they along with Cinci wanted Memphis as a regional rival as well. they all share a CUSA (and Metro Conference before that) history. Memphis was added to keep Louisville more than Georgetown

I think that more is being made of the L'Ville / Cincy / Memphis rivalries than what is there. The reason I say that is because they aren't even sure that they will be in the same divisions together at this point, and most of the alignments that I have seen thus far (North-South, East-West, or "one from each state") don't seem to have the Ville playing in the same division as Memphis anyways. I could be wrong. But everything I have seen to this point was that it was mostly a move to placate all of the basketball schools. It also helps that they have a large media market and FedEx on their side, so it wasn't just basketball.

 

[mattp]

all said and done you never know why the BE does what it does. i'm still waiting to hear the rationale for DePaul. i would think you have to have UofL and Memphis in the same bracket. Louisville is probably the only school that's within a bus ride of Memphis, and the three were actually considered rivals when they were all together in CUSA. not the biggest rivalry in the world, but the three of them were longer and more fierce rivals than the northeast BE threesome of Cuse, Rutgers and UConn, so it would be wise to nurture it. now that the Backyard Brawl is gone, these are probably the Big East's biggest all sports rivalries, which is odd to say considering it's really a Metro conference rivalry

 

[UConnDan97]

all said and done you never know why the BE does what it does. i'm still waiting to hear the rationale for DePaul. i would think you have to have UofL and Memphis in the same bracket. Louisville is probably the only school that's within a bus ride of Memphis, and the three were actually considered rivals when they were all together in CUSA. not the biggest rivalry in the world, but the three of them were longer and more fierce rivals than the northeast BE threesome of Cuse, Rutgers and UConn, so it would be wise to nurture it. now that the Backyard Brawl is gone, these are probably the Big East's biggest all sports rivalries, which is odd to say considering it's really a Metro conference rivalry

I agree with you, but I think that everything I have heard leading up to this point was that L'Ville really preferred to be in the East division of an East/West alignment and there was almost no chance of Memphis being in the East division. I could be wrong and they could send the Ville West, but I think that would peeve them off big time and perhaps not be in the spirit of throwing them a bone.

At the end of the day, does it even matter if we throw them a bone? If they are offered from another conference, they are gone. I think that the NBE should align the teams in the best interest of the conference as a whole. And I think that would mean both Cincy and Ville joining Memphis in the West along with Boise, SDSU, SMU, and Houston. That would keep UConn, Rutgers, Temple, USF, UCF, and Navy together in the East (the "I-95 Division"). But I have also heard that the BE will throw Temple out west, too. Weird...

 

[BlueMAB]

are you serious? Your post suggested it when you brought up Cincy. I can copy and paste as well...

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.

who mentioned Cincy? And I never said they'd surpass UofL. I said that they could become the next Louisville in 5 years. Big difference.

And now you want to suggest that Pitt is a better program than Cincy? On what basis?

I see what you mean. I did suggest it, but I didn't mean to. Poor choice of words in that post, I just meant that Memphis isn't even approaching the status of Louisville, and it would take a lot for them to surpass them.

In order to become Ville, who has about 9 final fours, 2 national championships, several big east championships, and a lot more tradition. Memphis would have to win several big east and a couple national championships within the next 5 years. Their achievements aren't even close to what Ville has accomplished. This is what's necessary to surpass Ville in 5 years, and if upgrading to the Big East alone is enough to do that, then I think people are forgetting how difficult playing in the big east is. A recruiting bump alone isn't enough. Maybe Pastner is the guy, but that remains to be seen. He'll have to be incredible to do what you think they can.

Historically, because of a good run in the 1960's, Cincy has more overall success than Pitt.

As far as Big East play, Pitt has had more success than Cincy. Pitt has been atrocious in NCAA play, but Cincy hasn't equaled Pitt's Big East performances. I don't think a couple sweet 16 appearances are more impressive than a big east regular season/tournament championship. You only have to win 2 games to get to the sweet 16. Winning the big east is far more difficult than that.

 

[BlueMAB]

Don't get mad, Marty. He doesn't read others' posts.

Nice to meet you Mr. Kettle.

Still waiting for an explanation on why playing in the Big East hasn't gotten Seton Hall back to the final four since 1989. Anytime you're ready, I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

[Marty Jackson]

I see what you mean. I did suggest it, but I didn't mean to. Poor choice of words in that post, I just meant that Memphis isn't even approaching the status of Louisville, and it would take a lot for them to surpass them.

In order to become Ville, who has about 9 final fours, 2 national championships, several big east championships, and a lot more tradition. Memphis would have to win several big east and a couple national championships within the next 5 years. Their achievements aren't even close to what Ville has accomplished. This is what's necessary to surpass Ville in 5 years, and if upgrading to the Big East alone is enough to do that, then I think people are forgetting how difficult playing in the big east is. A recruiting bump alone isn't enough. Maybe Pastner is the guy, but that remains to be seen. He'll have to be incredible to do what you think they can.

Historically, because of a good run in the 1960's, Cincy has more overall success than Pitt.

As far as Big East play, Pitt has had more success than Cincy. Pitt has been atrocious in NCAA play, but Cincy hasn't equaled Pitt's Big East performances. I don't think a couple sweet 16 appearances are more impressive than a big east regular season/tournament championship. You only have to win 2 games to get to the sweet 16. Winning the big east is far more difficult than that.

Appreciate the change in tone...
I wasn't suggesting that Pastner could replicate all UofL's achievements in 5 years. My point was that they are on the up swing. And if this trend continues, they could be where Louisville is. A top program in the BE, challenging for the BE title, national exposure, and the expectation of advancing deep in the tourney (not just making it).
And again, you keep using the word surpass. All I said was Memphis could be the next Louisville. And curiously, how many BE titles has UofL won? Wasn't last year their first?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I see what you mean. I did suggest it, but I didn't mean to. Poor choice of words in that post, I just meant that Memphis isn't even approaching the status of Louisville, and it would take a lot for them to surpass them.

In order to become Ville, who has about 9 final fours, 2 national championships, several big east championships, and a lot more tradition. Memphis would have to win several big east and a couple national championships within the next 5 years. Their achievements aren't even close to what Ville has accomplished. This is what's necessary to surpass Ville in 5 years, and if upgrading to the Big East alone is enough to do that, then I think people are forgetting how difficult playing in the big east is. A recruiting bump alone isn't enough. Maybe Pastner is the guy, but that remains to be seen. He'll have to be incredible to do what you think they can.

Historically, because of a good run in the 1960's, Cincy has more overall success than Pitt.

As far as Big East play, Pitt has had more success than Cincy. Pitt has been atrocious in NCAA play, but Cincy hasn't equaled Pitt's Big East performances. I don't think a couple sweet 16 appearances are more impressive than a big east regular season/tournament championship. You only have to win 2 games to get to the sweet 16. Winning the big east is far more difficult than that.

Why does Memphis have to win two NC's in the next five years to match Louisville who hasn't won one in 26 years? We get that Louisville is a great program, but let's put a little bit of perspective around it. They have two Final Fours in the last 26 years. Their Sweet 16 track record is impressive, 10 in the last 24 years, I will give them that.

Pitt has been terrible to mediocre for most of the history of the Big East. In many ways, they are the inverse of Seton Hall, who was very good for a while, with much more tournament success than Pitt ever experienced, followed by 20 years of mediocrity and bad basketball.

I think your argument boils down to: Because Seton Hall is not good, therefore the Big East can not make a team better. Got it.

 

[BlueMAB]

Why does Memphis have to win two NC's in the next five years to match Louisville who hasn't won one in 26 years? We get that Louisville is a great program, but let's put a little bit of perspective around it. They have two Final Fours in the last 26 years. Their Sweet 16 track record is impressive, 10 in the last 24 years, I will give them that.

Pitt has been terrible to mediocre for most of the history of the Big East. In many ways, they are the inverse of Seton Hall, who was very good for a while, with much more tournament success than Pitt ever experienced, followed by 20 years of mediocrity and bad basketball.

I think your argument boils down to: Because Seton Hall is not good, therefore the Big East can not make a team better. Got it.

How else does Memphis equal a program with more national championships, 2 or 3x as many final fours, and a couple big east championships without winning national championships, going to some more final fours, and winning a couple big east championships?

In the time Cincy has been in the big east, Pitt has performed better.

My argument is, there are numerous teams who are perennially stuck in the bottom half of the big east. Occasionally those teams have "bubble years", but they go back to the bottom. There are programs at the top, that occasionally go down to the bubble, but eventually rise back up to the top. It takes more than a recruiting bump from joining to succeed in this conference, it takes coaching. Even the best schools go south fast with bad coaching hires.

 

[BlueMAB]

Appreciate the change in tone...
I wasn't suggesting that Pastner could replicate all UofL's achievements in 5 years. My point was that they are on the up swing. And if this trend continues, they could be where Louisville is. A top program in the BE, challenging for the BE title, national exposure, and the expectation of advancing deep in the tourney (not just making it).
And again, you keep using the word surpass. All I said was Memphis could be the next Louisville. And curiously, how many BE titles has UofL won? Wasn't last year their first?

I'll give you Memphis is better positioned than any of the other schools except maybe Temple.

I didn't mean to use the word surpass again, multi-tasking. Sorry. I meant equal.

Louisville has 2 tourney champs- 2008-09, 2011-12, 1 regular season champ. 08-09

 

[UConnDan97]

Nice to meet you Mr. Kettle.

Still waiting for an explanation on why playing in the Big East hasn't gotten Seton Hall back to the final four since 1989. Anytime you're ready, I'm looking forward to reading it.

You just won't let a sleeping dog lie, will you? Okay. I tried to take the high road, but f' it. I will explain to you how the Big East hasn't gotten Seton Hall back to the final four since 1989 the second that you explain to me how many Final Fours the Pittsburgh Panthers have been to (you know, the team that has been the crux of the entire argument!)?

I'll save you the trouble, since you won't answer the question for all of the eager Boneyarders. They have been to 1. That's right. 1. Back in 1941 (yes, 1941, when WWII started for the US). Under HC "Doc" Carlson. How come Jamie Dixon didn't get them there? How come Ben Howland didn't get them there either? Could it be that the Final Four is not the appropriate measure of an elite basketball program??? OH NO!!! WHAT?? As it turns out, Pitt would need to go to the Final Four one more time to equal.....DePaul....

TheTruth.com

Now please stop. Seriously.