Hinson out at MSU and get this

[Bearvision]

If Brad can't get kids to come to St. Louis, he won't be able to get them to come to SPRINGFIELD. Springfield SUCKS. But w/ a new arena, who knows?

Springfield is a very fun town for a college kid. Have you seen the amount of tail running around in a 3 mile radius of this city? There is nothing to do but go out, go greek, or be an athlete. The bars are all together, and the campus is not a commuter campus, so the girls are all either on campus or right by campus in campus housing. Get the right coach in here, with all the other elements this place has going for it, and you can recruit here easily.

No traffic like St. Louis, basketball is the big fish in the city, the clubs aren't all a $75 cab ride away, the people of the city care about the basketball program a lot (SLU is not even close to the only game in town). If RM can recruit to SLU with tougher admissions standards and other obstacles, I think you can recruit to Springfield.

Again, I think you're selling this job very short.

[Bearvision]

I see it's smoke and mirrors when MSU has a high RPI, but it hasn't been for countless posts holding up A-10 teams. I'm not one to say they got screwed either year, but when one year your argument is they didn't beat anyone, and then next it is they beat a great team but then didn't win enough games in your conference tourney, you kind of contradict yourself.

I really do not want to debate the merits of MSU getting in or not getting in, I just get a little tired of hearing smoke and mirrors when it fits ones argument, and then totally flipping around and saying the opposite when it doesn't. The RPI rules are all laid out there for everyone to see, MSU didn't trick anything, they followed the criteria set forth by the committee to obatin a high ranking.

Hopefully, the committee will start rewarding mid-majors from all conferences (including the A-10) when they have the high numbers and great seasons, and not rewarding floundering BCS conference teams with marginal records come tournament selection time.

[Majerus Magic]

I don't think you quite understand how good of a job that Missouri St. is in basketball. I dare say it is at least on par with LSU, due to that school being a football school, ignoring basketball for the most part, seeing the expectations put on the coach there (they were just in the Final Four a few years ago and they fire their coach?).

It is not Indiana, but that's why the guy said "one of." I don't hate SLU, and don't downplay their program, so I just can't understand why some SLU fans do that to the MSU program.

The money is all over the place here, and they will pay it. I'd love for Kellogg of Memphis to come here and coach.

There is no way it is on par with LSU. LSU was in the final four 2 years ago and regularly signs highly regarded recruiting classes. They may have struggled this year but their best player is a freshman who is expected to be drafted in the top 5, Anthony Randolph.

[jjray]

As to coaching at TT, I am not the expert but I've read several posts which say that Knight, in fact, was feeling alot of pressure at TT and that it was not certain if he would be back even as early as next year. Again, I defer to others in that I am only repeating.

I strongly disagree with that statement. TT was not going to fire Bob Knight "as early as next year". He raised the profile of that program several notches. The administration & booster surely must have known that nobody they brought in would be higher profile than Bob Knight. If he still wants to coach, he left TT for his own reasons not because he was pushed.

[Pistol]

I see it's smoke and mirrors when MSU has a high RPI, but it hasn't been for countless posts holding up A-10 teams. I'm not one to say they got screwed either year, but when one year your argument is they didn't beat anyone, and then next it is they beat a great team but then didn't win enough games in your conference tourney, you kind of contradict yourself.

I really do not want to debate the merits of MSU getting in or not getting in, I just get a little tired of hearing smoke and mirrors when it fits ones argument, and then totally flipping around and saying the opposite when it doesn't. The RPI rules are all laid out there for everyone to see, MSU didn't trick anything, they followed the criteria set forth by the committee to obatin a high ranking.

Hopefully, the committee will start rewarding mid-majors from all conferences (including the A-10) when they have the high numbers and great seasons, and not rewarding floundering BCS conference teams with marginal records come tournament selection time.

How was I being contradictory? I said the 2006 team had a hyperinflated RPI, didn't play anybody, and didn't beat anybody. Oh yeah, and they failed to make noise in the Valley tournament. Then they became the team on Selection Sunday that the CBS cameras could film crying. They figured out they needed a marquee win the following year, beat Wisconsin to take care of that, but then uh oh, early exit in the Valley tournament to a much lower seed. Now they're sitting there sweating it with double digit losses after getting their shorts handed to them in their conference tournament, and it's deja vu all over again.

I am baffled at how that is contradictory. Both of those teams had major strikes against them and had to battle loads of other qualified teams for the last spots in the Dance. Just because one team has one major flaw (no big opponents, no big wins) and the next year there is another major flaw (double digit losses, big loss right away in the conference tournament) doesn't mean they are contradictory. It's a moving target and the committee has different decisions to make every year.

Also, I never wrote anything in my argument upholding the A10. Granted, the A10 is a superior conference and unfortunately was too balanced for its own good this year, but that had nothing to do with my argument about MSU.

I do agree with you about your last point. For example, I'd rather see those 3 WCC teams get in than the .500 teams from the SEC.

[TheChosenOne]

Missouri State left themselves open to be let down and the committe let them down. I think they really got screwed over in 2006 and in 2007 they got screwed, but I would say they did it to themselves by bowing out of the conference tourney so early. In 2006 they have this sparkling RPI and they get left out and are told that they did not have a real statement win. The following season they have the sparkling RPI with that statement win, but lose in St. Louis early and they again get left out. In 2007 a team like Stanford with a RPI of 65 and a 18-12 record gets in. I just feel like if you are going to have a ranking system and not give it much credence than why even have it. How can Missouri State be at fault for "figuring" it out? It is not like they solved some intricate puzzle. If they had an "inflated" RPI because they figured out the system then your system is flawed and if you aren't truly going to use it, get rid of it. I just feel like a team like Missouri State did everything they thought they had to do to please the committee and get an invite to the dance and they were left out and it has to be an extremely tough pill to swallow.

Pistol, when is SLU's next chance to move to the MVC? I think we all agree this would be in everyone's best interest.

[Pistol]

Missouri State left themselves open to be let down and the committe let them down. I think they really got screwed over in 2006 and in 2007 they got screwed, but I would say they did it to themselves by bowing out of the conference tourney so early. In 2006 they have this sparkling RPI and they get left out and are told that they did not have a real statement win. The following season they have the sparkling RPI with that statement win, but lose in St. Louis early and they again get left out. In 2007 a team like Stanford with a RPI of 65 and a 18-12 record gets in. I just feel like if you are going to have a ranking system and not give it much credence than why even have it. How can Missouri State be at fault for "figuring" it out? It is not like they solved some intricate puzzle. If they had an "inflated" RPI because they figured out the system then your system is flawed and if you aren't truly going to use it, get rid of it. I just feel like a team like Missouri State did everything they thought they had to do to please the committee and get an invite to the dance and they were left out and it has to be an extremely tough pill to swallow.

Pistol, when is SLU's next chance to move to the MVC? I think we all agree this would be in everyone's best interest.

The RPI isn't the be all and end all. It is one component of the entire puzzle that the committee looks at. The system helps but isn't absolute. If it were, they could just take the top 65 teams in the RPI and call it a day. But they have the smaller conference tournament winners, teams altered by injury and momentum, different schedules for everyone, overall W-L, etc. I didn't like Stanford getting in last year, either, but there were a few others that could have taken that last spot. I agree with the first half of your argument for sure.

As for our move to the Valley, it just can't happen soon enough. I'm sick of playing in one-horse towns like NYC, DC, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, and Richmond. I'm sick of playing a bunch of other private, Catholic schools that share our mission. I'm sick of playing in a conference that has produced 2 national players of the year in this decade. I'm sick of having to compete with a perennial top-tier program like Xavier. I'm sick of trying to get SLU's name out nationally to east coast students.

What we need is less chance of national television exposure, less chance of exposure to students in other parts of the country, smaller market competition, easy bus rides to hot towns like Terre Haute and Normal, a refusal to leave the breadbasket of America, permanent entrenchment in a mid-major conference, lower-ranked academic peers in the conference, and a disruption of the existing balance by becoming the 11th member, located in the same spot as the neutral conference tournament. Why think nationally when we can be insular? That's the way to go if Biondi really wants to boost our rankings. Hopefully we get our chance sooner than later.

[Postcard]

The RPI isn't the be all and end all. It is one component of the entire puzzle that the committee looks at. The system helps but isn't absolute. If it were, they could just take the top 65 teams in the RPI and call it a day. But they have the smaller conference tournament winners, teams altered by injury and momentum, different schedules for everyone, overall W-L, etc. I didn't like Stanford getting in last year, either, but there were a few others that could have taken that last spot. I agree with the first half of your argument for sure.

As for our move to the Valley, it just can't happen soon enough. I'm sick of playing in one-horse towns like NYC, DC, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, and Richmond. I'm sick of playing a bunch of other private, Catholic schools that share our mission. I'm sick of playing in a conference that has produced 2 national players of the year in this decade. I'm sick of having to compete with a perennial top-tier program like Xavier. I'm sick of trying to get SLU's name out nationally to east coast students.

What we need is less chance of national television exposure, less chance of exposure to students in other parts of the country, smaller market competition, easy bus rides to hot towns like Terre Haute and Normal, a refusal to leave the breadbasket of America, permanent entrenchment in a mid-major conference, lower-ranked academic peers in the conference, and a disruption of the existing balance by becoming the 11th member, located in the same spot as the neutral conference tournament. Why think nationally when we can be insular? That's the way to go if Biondi really wants to boost our rankings. Hopefully we get our chance sooner than later.

What do Lawrence, KS, Eugene, OR , Ann Arbor, MI, Chapel Hill, NC, Knoxville, TN and Madison, WI all have in common? They are certainly not similar to NYC, DC, Philly and the like. I could go on and on. For the most part college towns are podunk small towns in the middle of nowhere. Since 99.9% of Bills fans don't travel to games anyways what's it matter if their opponents are in one-horse towns? Have you never visited other colleges before? Most college towns can be a great place to visit especially since you're usually just going down for the game and leaving anyway. We can argue about the Valley being a mid major until we're blue in the face but that mid-major conference has been more successful than the A10 for years. And the A10 will never be a BCS conference so what does it matter. It will always be on the outside looking in. As far joining lower ranked peers, that hasn't seemed to hurt Creighton, Drake or Bradley. I don't get the obsesson to play other Catholic schools that share our mission. Is this a basketball league or a prayer circle. Since when is recruiting players and giving them scholarships only to boot them off the team because they their not good enough a Jesuit value? It doesn't sound like any "Man for Others" that I know. Xavier is a perennial top-tier program? Maybe top mid major tier but that's about it. They are certainly no more impressive than Creighton or SIU has been. And did you realy bring up National television exposure? The A10 has the worst TV contract in America. I have a better chance of seeing WAC games on TV than I do A10 games. I"m not saying the MVC is the conference for SLU but to act like we're too good for it is flat out wrong. You might want to check our recent history before we decide we're too good for them or many other conferences.

[TheChosenOne]

The RPI isn't the be all and end all. It is one component of the entire puzzle that the committee looks at. The system helps but isn't absolute. If it were, they could just take the top 65 teams in the RPI and call it a day. But they have the smaller conference tournament winners, teams altered by injury and momentum, different schedules for everyone, overall W-L, etc. I didn't like Stanford getting in last year, either, but there were a few others that could have taken that last spot. I agree with the first half of your argument for sure.

I realize that the RPI is not meant to be the only part of the equation, but if it is a flawed ranking that can be "figured out" and is thus flawed why even have it? If you are already looking at overall records, conference records, looking at key wins, recent performance, why even use the RPI? If the RPI were a legitimate ranking system wouldn't it take into accout things such as "different schedules for everyone, overall W-L,etc?" The RPI seemed to be a really good measuremet as to who would get in up until the past couple years with SMS getting shafted and Stanford getting in with a RPI of 65.

[Pistol]

What do Lawrence, KS, Eugene, OR , Ann Arbor, MI, Chapel Hill, NC, Knoxville, TN and Madison, WI all have in common? They are certainly not similar to NYC, DC, Philly and the like. I could go on and on. For the most part college towns are podunk small towns in the middle of nowhere. Since 99.9% of Bills fans don't travel to games anyways what's it matter if their opponents are in one-horse towns? Have you never visited other colleges before? Most college towns can be a great place to visit especially since you're usually just going down for the game and leaving anyway. We can argue about the Valley being a mid major until we're blue in the face but that mid-major conference has been more successful than the A10 for years. And the A10 will never be a BCS conference so what does it matter. It will always be on the outside looking in. As far joining lower ranked peers, that hasn't seemed to hurt Creighton, Drake or Bradley. I don't get the obsesson to play other Catholic schools that share our mission. Is this a basketball league or a prayer circle. Since when is recruiting players and giving them scholarships only to boot them off the team because they their not good enough a Jesuit value? It doesn't sound like any "Man for Others" that I know. Xavier is a perennial top-tier program? Maybe top mid major tier but that's about it. They are certainly no more impressive than Creighton or SIU has been. And did you realy bring up National television exposure? The A10 has the worst TV contract in America. I have a better chance of seeing WAC games on TV than I do A10 games. I"m not saying the MVC is the conference for SLU but to act like we're too good for it is flat out wrong. You might want to check our recent history before we decide we're too good for them or many other conferences.

It isn't about recent history or where things stand now or SLU having a superiority complex- it is about potential. The A10 will not stay in its current state forever, and the programs are working hard to figure out a new TV deal. We made the move based on putting ourselves in the best position when the conferences re-shuffle again instead of moving to the Valley, where we would probably be stuck for a long, long time. As for the mission stuff, that decision was made by the administration; whether you share their viewpoints doesn't matter to them as they try to build a more national university. Calling Xavier a mid-major is a joke; don't tell me to check my recent history if you haven't looked at what that program has done. If you think the college towns of the Valley are comparable to Ann Arbor, Madison, or Lawrence, you definitely don't get out much. You would be insulting true college towns with that comparison. The Valley cities have a much different demographic breakdown and I don't know if you could truly call any of them college towns just because the Valley team in each is the biggest sport in town.

[Pistol]

I realize that the RPI is not meant to be the only part of the equation, but if it is a flawed ranking that can be "figured out" and is thus flawed why even have it? If you are already looking at overall records, conference records, looking at key wins, recent performance, why even use the RPI? If the RPI were a legitimate ranking system wouldn't it take into accout things such as "different schedules for everyone, overall W-L,etc?" The RPI seemed to be a really good measuremet as to who would get in up until the past couple years with SMS getting shafted and Stanford getting in with a RPI of 65.

I think the RPI has some value and see no reason to get rid of it. No matter how much they try to quantify things with the RPI, Sagarin, Polls, etc., there is always some degree of subjectivity. If you make the argument that there is no point to having an RPI if it is flawed, then all other measures should be thrown out as well and teams should be selected by a lottery system.

Plus, I think the RPI has only been exposed in recent years because some conferences have made a conscious effort across all programs to boost their ratings by avoiding teams above a certain number in the RPI, whereas before most larger programs just took whatever "buy" games they could get without much regard for RPI implications. If this trend continues, the teams that wind up north of 200 in the RPI are going to have a tough time scheduling because the rest of the bunch will continue to push them out of the picture. I would argue that this makes the RPI more flawed now than in previous years. How can a team like Missouri State finish with an RPI of 22 when it played virtually no other highly-rated programs. It's toughest non-conference foe that year was Arkansas (who I believe had a mid-60s RPI, but I might be wrong), and Arkansas won. But if Missouri State and the rest of the Valley make a concerted effort to avoid the bottom third of the RPI, then all of their ratings are naturally boosted so they reap the benefit of that when they play each other.

I don't know what to suggest to tweak either the RPI or NCAA Tournament selection system, but something had to give and MSU was on the rough end of it. I understand how that is frustrating for the Valley because they want multiple bids, which meant to improve the RPI, and they did that. But they went about it the opposite way that you would expect; I would recommend playing tougher teams in non-conference play. Play the top 100 instead of avoiding the bottom 100 because the committee has shown that key wins are just as important as RPI.

[Billiken Rich]

What do Lawrence, KS, Eugene, OR , Ann Arbor, MI, Chapel Hill, NC, Knoxville, TN and Madison, WI all have in common? They are certainly not similar to NYC, DC, Philly and the like. I could go on and on. For the most part college towns are podunk small towns in the middle of nowhere. Since 99.9% of Bills fans don't travel to games anyways what's it matter if their opponents are in one-horse towns? Have you never visited other colleges before? Most college towns can be a great place to visit especially since you're usually just going down for the game and leaving anyway. We can argue about the Valley being a mid major until we're blue in the face but that mid-major conference has been more successful than the A10 for years. And the A10 will never be a BCS conference so what does it matter. It will always be on the outside looking in. As far joining lower ranked peers, that hasn't seemed to hurt Creighton, Drake or Bradley. I don't get the obsesson to play other Catholic schools that share our mission. Is this a basketball league or a prayer circle. Since when is recruiting players and giving them scholarships only to boot them off the team because they their not good enough a Jesuit value? It doesn't sound like any "Man for Others" that I know. Xavier is a perennial top-tier program? Maybe top mid major tier but that's about it. They are certainly no more impressive than Creighton or SIU has been. And did you realy bring up National television exposure? The A10 has the worst TV contract in America. I have a better chance of seeing WAC games on TV than I do A10 games. I"m not saying the MVC is the conference for SLU but to act like we're too good for it is flat out wrong. You might want to check our recent history before we decide we're too good for them or many other conferences.

We aren't necessarily too good for the valley. I would say that we want to be better than we can be in the Valley. Also, speaking personally, the chances of me and mine paying $450 per seat per year to watch a Valley team, even SLU, are nil.

[TheChosenOne]

I think the RPI has some value and see no reason to get rid of it. No matter how much they try to quantify things with the RPI, Sagarin, Polls, etc., there is always some degree of subjectivity. If you make the argument that there is no point to having an RPI if it is flawed, then all other measures should be thrown out as well and teams should be selected by a lottery system.

Plus, I think the RPI has only been exposed in recent years because some conferences have made a conscious effort across all programs to boost their ratings by avoiding teams above a certain number in the RPI, whereas before most larger programs just took whatever "buy" games they could get without much regard for RPI implications. If this trend continues, the teams that wind up north of 200 in the RPI are going to have a tough time scheduling because the rest of the bunch will continue to push them out of the picture. I would argue that this makes the RPI more flawed now than in previous years. How can a team like Missouri State finish with an RPI of 22 when it played virtually no other highly-rated programs. It's toughest non-conference foe that year was Arkansas (who I believe had a mid-60s RPI, but I might be wrong), and Arkansas won. But if Missouri State and the rest of the Valley make a concerted effort to avoid the bottom third of the RPI, then all of their ratings are naturally boosted so they reap the benefit of that when they play each other.

I don't know what to suggest to tweak either the RPI or NCAA Tournament selection system, but something had to give and MSU was on the rough end of it. I understand how that is frustrating for the Valley because they want multiple bids, which meant to improve the RPI, and they did that. But they went about it the opposite way that you would expect; I would recommend playing tougher teams in non-conference play. Play the top 100 instead of avoiding the bottom 100 because the committee has shown that key wins are just as important as RPI.

That is not my logic. I am saying if you are going to base any part of your decision on a rating system that is not accurate and are thus putting less stock in it than before why even use it. Other measurements are not flawed Pistol. Looking at a teams record in conference, non conference, against top 50, 100 teams, recent winning trend are all measurements that are substantial and not flawed. Once you get to picking for the last couple of spots and picking one team over another for those final spots is where things get difficult and some deal of subjectivity will always come into play. I just think the MVC played the RPI game because that is what they believed would get teams in and then when they had the rankings it suddenly was not good enough. I feel like the committee is constantly asking mid majors to jump thru hoops to get a bid and when they jump thru those hoops they throw out another hoop. If Missouri State and other mid majors beat the system then correct the system, don't punish them for having the wherewithal to figure it out.

[Pistol]

That is not my logic. I am saying if you are going to base any part of your decision on a rating system that is not accurate and are thus putting less stock in it than before why even use it. Other measurements are not flawed Pistol. Looking at a teams record in conference, non conference, against top 50, 100 teams, recent winning trend are all measurements that are substantial and not flawed. Once you get to picking for the last couple of spots and picking one team over another for those final spots is where things get difficult and some deal of subjectivity will always come into play. I just think the MVC played the RPI game because that is what they believed would get teams in and then when they had the rankings it suddenly was not good enough. I feel like the committee is constantly asking mid majors to jump thru hoops to get a bid and when they jump thru those hoops they throw out another hoop. If Missouri State and other mid majors beat the system then correct the system, don't punish them for having the wherewithal to figure it out.

I think that's fair, you make a good point. I was just saying that the RPI is helpful but not an absolute, just like overall record is helpful but not absolute, big wins, etc. The difference is that there's no way around the other measures- you have to play good teams and win is what it comes down to. But that said, I do agree that the committee makes it tougher on mid-majors than they do for the BCS conference schools. I would just like to see a commitment from more of the mid-majors to play more of the BCS schools every year to prove their worth. Then we wouldn't get another Missouri State '06 situation where they found a way to make themselves look as good as possible without having to play tough games outside the conference.

[Clock_Tower]

Missouri State left themselves open to be let down and the committe let them down. I think they really got screwed over in 2006 and in 2007 they got screwed, but I would say they did it to themselves by bowing out of the conference tourney so early. In 2006 they have this sparkling RPI and they get left out and are told that they did not have a real statement win. The following season they have the sparkling RPI with that statement win, but lose in St. Louis early and they again get left out. In 2007 a team like Stanford with a RPI of 65 and a 18-12 record gets in. I just feel like if you are going to have a ranking system and not give it much credence than why even have it. How can Missouri State be at fault for "figuring" it out? It is not like they solved some intricate puzzle. If they had an "inflated" RPI because they figured out the system then your system is flawed and if you aren't truly going to use it, get rid of it. I just feel like a team like Missouri State did everything they thought they had to do to please the committee and get an invite to the dance and they were left out and it has to be an extremely tough pill to swallow.

Pistol, when is SLU's next chance to move to the MVC? I think we all agree this would be in everyone's best interest.

Chosen. Speak for yourself. I don't want to be in the Valley. Get real.

[Pistol]

Chosen. Speak for yourself. I don't want to be in the Valley. Get real.

He was definitely joking- he knows my feelings on the issue and set me up for my sarcastic rant.

You and I are definitely on the same page, CT. I'm exhausted from arguing this for the past few years now. I just don't know how to make the other side understand.

[Postcard]

He was definitely joking- he knows my feelings on the issue and set me up for my sarcastic rant.

You and I are definitely on the same page, CT. I'm exhausted from arguing this for the past few years now. I just don't know how to make the other side understand.

Calling Xavier a mid-major is a joke; don't tell me to check my recent history if you haven't looked at what that program has done.

Xavier the last 10 years has:

3 times not made the tourney

2 times lost their first game in the tourney

4 times won their first game and lost second game

1 time made Elite 8

So that is a top tier team? Once in the last 10 years they made it past the sweet 16? That's hardly Duke, Kansas or UCLA like. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for the Bills to duplicate that success but to say Xavier is a top tier team is wrong. They are a good second to third tier team at best which is right about where their conference is.

[NashvilleBilliken]

The RPI isn't the be all and end all. It is one component of the entire puzzle that the committee looks at. The system helps but isn't absolute. If it were, they could just take the top 65 teams in the RPI and call it a day. But they have the smaller conference tournament winners, teams altered by injury and momentum, different schedules for everyone, overall W-L, etc. I didn't like Stanford getting in last year, either, but there were a few others that could have taken that last spot. I agree with the first half of your argument for sure.

As for our move to the Valley, it just can't happen soon enough. I'm sick of playing in one-horse towns like NYC, DC, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, and Richmond. I'm sick of playing a bunch of other private, Catholic schools that share our mission. I'm sick of playing in a conference that has produced 2 national players of the year in this decade. I'm sick of having to compete with a perennial top-tier program like Xavier. I'm sick of trying to get SLU's name out nationally to east coast students.

What we need is less chance of national television exposure, less chance of exposure to students in other parts of the country, smaller market competition, easy bus rides to hot towns like Terre Haute and Normal, a refusal to leave the breadbasket of America, permanent entrenchment in a mid-major conference, lower-ranked academic peers in the conference, and a disruption of the existing balance by becoming the 11th member, located in the same spot as the neutral conference tournament. Why think nationally when we can be insular? That's the way to go if Biondi really wants to boost our rankings. Hopefully we get our chance sooner than later.

Good stuff, Pistol.

[Pistol]

Xavier the last 10 years has:

3 times not made the tourney

2 times lost their first game in the tourney

4 times won their first game and lost second game

1 time made Elite 8

So that is a top tier team? Once in the last 10 years they made it past the sweet 16? That's hardly Duke, Kansas or UCLA like. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for the Bills to duplicate that success but to say Xavier is a top tier team is wrong. They are a good second to third tier team at best which is right about where their conference is.

First off, how big is your top tier? 3? 4? I would think top-tier is about 20 or 25 deep, and XU is in that bunch without question. You pretty much make my argument for me. By your math, Xavier in the past 10 years has:

7 times made the tourney

4 times made the second round or deeper (they have 3 times lost in the first round, not 2)

Made the Elite 8

And in addition (since 1998):

4 times won the A10 tournament

5 times won the A10 regular season title

4 players sent to the NBA

1 national player of the year

They have 18 all-time tournament appearances, 17 of those since 1983, and #19 is on the way.

There is a very small list of programs that can top what Xavier has done, especially in the past 10-20 years.

[TheChosenOne]

Chosen. Speak for yourself. I don't want to be in the Valley. Get real.

I know Pistol and that is why I addressed him when making the comment. I knew he would realize I was joking because we have discussed this issue at naseum and had this argument with so many people it is painful.

[TheChosenOne]

Pistol, why would a Xavier alumn even consider joining the Billiken Club?

If you read what Pistol wrote he said that Xavier has been a top tier program when looking at the recent past. The term top tier could be clarfied, but I would assume he meant a top 25 type program. I think it would be hard to look at their resume and really dispute that.

[Pistol]

Pistol, why would a Xavier alumn even consider joining the Billiken Club?

If you read what Pistol wrote he said that Xavier has been a top tier program when looking at the recent past. The term top tier could be clarfied, but I would assume he meant a top 25 type program. I think it would be hard to look at their resume and really dispute that.

Haha, Xavier alum. I can't help it if they're geographically convenient and my gf has been a lifelong fan. I'm a Billken for life and now I have the Billiken Club membership card to prove it.

Yeah, I think it comes down to the definition of top tier. I meant top 25. Sorry if I confused anyone. When dividing up tiers, though, top 25 makes sense to me- there are over 330 DI teams now. Anyway, I'm not shifting loyalties to Xavier, but I do cheer for them when they're not playing SLU for the sake of the conference and my relationship and in spite of Burrell (can't wait until that jerk graduates). As Roy and kshoe said in another thread, the successes of other teams in our conference are good for us, too.

[TheChosenOne]

Haha, Xavier alum. I can't help it if they're geographically convenient and my gf has been a lifelong fan. I'm a Billken for life and now I have the Billiken Club membership card to prove it.

Are Xavier fans as obnoxious as Ohio State, Bengal, or Dayton fans? At the Dayton game I had UD students telling me that Dayton was a highly regarded academic institution. I told them the only part of that statement that I would even consider arguing if I was them is that it is in fact an academic institution. Ohio State fans make me sick and Bengals fans talk about their team as if they have accomplished something over the past 15 years. I hope enjoy being a sell out Pistol.

[billiken_roy]

Xavier the last 10 years has:

3 times not made the tourney

2 times lost their first game in the tourney

4 times won their first game and lost second game

1 time made Elite 8

So that is a top tier team? Once in the last 10 years they made it past the sweet 16? That's hardly Duke, Kansas or UCLA like. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for the Bills to duplicate that success but to say Xavier is a top tier team is wrong. They are a good second to third tier team at best which is right about where their conference is.

postcard, you should realize that life in the a-10 changed the day slu and charlotte joined the league. all at once the "majority" of the league power shifted from complacency to get better. there is a reason that linda bruno is gone. the conference leadership realizes that changes had to be made and i think that all started a couple of years ago. once we get a competent leader there that will mirror the majority it will continue to get better at an even faster pace.

[Pistol]

Are Xavier fans as obnoxious as Ohio State, Bengal, or Dayton fans? At the Dayton game I had UD students telling me that Dayton was a highly regarded academic institution. I told them the only part of that statement that I would even consider arguing if I was them is that it is in fact an academic institution. Ohio State fans make me sick and Bengals fans talk about their team as if they have accomplished something over the past 15 years. I hope enjoy being a sell out Pistol.

I've actually been impressed with their fans. The students fill their section every game, with a few exceptions over winter break. The rest of the fan base is loyal and vocal without being obnoxious. I think it's at least partly because they go about it with a chip on their shoulders- A top 25 program over the past couple decades from a non-BCS school that has been overlooked by most and traditionally has gotten the second-most headlines in its own city. The past two years it has gotten a lot more than UC, though. Honestly, just imagine if SLU was a better program and what our fans would be like, and that's probably about the same as XU's fan base- nice people overall. When I wear SLU stuff to their home games, it's more of a conversation starter than a reason to throw nachos and beer at me. They like to converse with fellow Jesuit school alums and fellow A10 fans.

Dayton fans remind me a lot of those in the Valley cities. They don't have a lot else going on in town so they really, really want (and need) the team to do well. They've had a good program and home games are fun there, but they do seem to think they're more big time than they really are. Cincinnati doesn't seem like OSU country, so I don't see much of that. The little bit that I do see is ugly; mouths outweigh brains, big time. Bengals fans seem passionate but unreasonable- 1 winning season in the past 17 years and they somehow have crazy high expectations every year. Reds fans are great- nice, knowledgable, and I recently read an article I think on CBS Sportsline where the author said Cincinnati as a city changes on gameday more than any other city but St. Louis. The only problem is that numbers for home games have been weak in the second half of most recent years because the team has stunk.