valley view of slu

[bills16]

I view St. Louis as a team without any real identity. Their status is based entirely on the company they keep. I can certainly understand why they wwould not want to be in the Valley, but they would not add anything to the Valley either. My guess is that they would be a middle of the pack team wherever they go. Almost any valley team could have taken their place in Conference USA with no dropoff as far as the conference is concerned.

     

Dawgbit

Posted: Aug 26 2003, 03:25 AM   

ValleyTalk Starter

Group: Members

Posts: 264

Member No.: 21

Joined: 20-October 02

Mom's recipe for Billiken stew:

Turn to simmer, throw in some arrogant juice, and let the mixture stew for two months.

[bills16]

It's really kind of sad how detached from reality some of them are...some of them are basically saying they think their President will be able to bully his way into the Big East...yeah...that'll happen...

[slufanskip]

This idiot is up at 3:25 posting on a valley message board. Yea...he's got a clue.

Tell him to get a life....

[jjray]

In fairness, I have to mention that one of their middle-of-the-pack teams (Southwest Missouri State) has beaten us the last two years and S. Illinois (one of their better teams) has beaten us 2 of the last 3. However, the point they are missing is the City of St. Louis. Not one Valley team is in a large city. Unless you are a large public university, that an important factor in the attractiveness of a school for a conference. DePaul certainly has not had a better B-ball program than SLU the last 10 years (nor soccer team) ... but they are located in Chicago. That separates them from SLU in the same fashion that St. Louis separates SLU from Southwest Missouri State, Bradley, Creighton, and SIU.

[slufanskip]

The problem with us against SMS is that to them it is a bigger game than it is to us. Same as us vs Mizzou.

Mizzou has been the better team in the better league, and we almost swept them, except for a last second shot in one game, and an extremely poor officiated game in the one at Hearnes. ( We should have won that game ... Looking at Kareem was a foul.

[thetorch]

I will have to respectfully disagree with these valley proponents. The Mo Valley is a fine league, and I would prefer joining that league to many others, but being realistic as it stands CUSA is better, and even without Cincy, L'Ville, Marq, and DePaul it would be on a simialr level although maybe not for long.

As regards to SLU in the Valley, if the Billikens were a Valley team we would be in the top 3 every year, more often than not winning titles. Historically SLU has shown this, we were always a top team in the MCC, a league that is quite similar to the Valley now. In the Great Midwest a league much better than the Valley were among the top teams and we have remained so in CUSA. Each time SLU has raised the bar as far as conference affiliation we have more than held our own. The Mo Valley while it has some strong programs, SLU would still be one of the top 3 teams year in year out, if not the top team.

[TheA_Bomb]

Lets look at the Valley last year...hmmm....well you have only 4 teams with winning records. Those teams were Valley Ranked #1 SIUC, #2 Creighton, #3 Wichita St. and #4 SMS. Could we not be in at least the top three in the Valley if we finished in the top 4 of CUSA? Most likely. Why? Well CUSA has final four Marquette, perennial power Louisville, Cincincatti, and decent programs like Charlotte (who had a bad year) and DePaul (who had a decent year w/ new coach). Let's look at Wichita St.'s record:

Date Opponent Result

Nov 23 TX-Arlington W 76-74

Nov 27 Chicago St W 71-65

Nov 30 @ Oral Roberts L 71-76

Dec 4 @ Tulsa L 69-80

Dec 7 Northwestern St W 74-55

Dec 14 Kansas St L 66-79

Dec 18 Lamar W 92-73

Dec 21 Oklahoma St L 58-68

Dec 30 Western Ill W 74-56

Jan 4 Northern Iowa W 79-55

Jan 7 Indiana St W 71-55

Jan 11 SMS W 67-63

Jan 15 @ Southern Ill L 64-69

Jan 18 @ Illinois St W 69-66

Jan 21 Drake W 69-61

Jan 25 @ Bradley W 64-60

Jan 29 @ Evansville L 74-75

Feb 1 Southern Ill L 59-94

Feb 4 Illinois St W 85-71

Feb 8 @ Northern Iowa L 72-80

Feb 10 Evansville W 89-84

Feb 15 Creighton W 80-74

Feb 19 @ Drake W 80-70

Feb 22 @ Indiana St W 72-63

Feb 25 Bradley L 77-86

Mar 1 @ SMS W 71-65

Mar 3 @ Creighton L 60-86

Mar 8 vs Bradley W 70-66 (Missouri Valley)

Mar 9 vs Creighton L 69-70 (Missouri Valley)

@ - road game, vs - neutral site

They beat one team that went to the NCAA tournament last year. SLU's record:

Date Opponent Result

Nov 22 Tenn-Martin L 58-63

Nov 26 SMS L 64-72 OT

Nov 30 vs St. Bonaventure W 56-54

Dec 3 @ Arizona L 58-91

Dec 7 TX-Pan American W 57-42

Dec 14 Dayton W 63-55

Dec 18 Grambling W 83-54

Dec 21 @ Butler L 46-68

Dec 28 Southern Ill W 71-60

Jan 2 @ Kansas St L 48-65

Jan 4 West Virginia W 75-45

Jan 7 Marquette L 54-60

Jan 11 @ Louisville L 54-73

Jan 15 Cincinnati L 56-66

Jan 18 @ Houston L 59-72

Jan 25 Memphis W 69-66

Jan 29 @ Charlotte L 55-62

Feb 1 DePaul W 65-57

Feb 5 @ Marquette L 64-68

Feb 8 @ South Florida L 64-71

Feb 12 Louisville W 59-58

Feb 15 East Carolina W 56-42

Feb 18 @ Cincinnati W 58-55

Feb 22 @ DePaul W 62-61

Mar 1 Tulane W 76-74 2 OT

Mar 5 Charlotte W 50-39

Mar 8 @ East Carolina W 58-48

Mar 13 vs Southern Miss W 69-56 (Conference USA)

Mar 14 vs UAB L 62-63 (Conference USA)

@ - road game, vs - neutral site

all data from collegerpi.com

WSU played 7 games v. teams that went to the tourny and won 1. Had an RPI of 121. SLU played 11 games v. teams that went to the tourny and won 5. We won 500% more games against teams that went to the tourny than Wichita St. and our RPI is less than half of WSU at 47. What makes you think that SLU would not be in the top of this conf. again?

Hey why don't you mention that SLU's rpi is higher because we played teams like Cincy, UofL, and Marq.? Well that is because we are in a better conference and we want to stay that way. I think some teams in the Valley do play decent basketball SIUC, Creighton, and SMS (when they are playing SLU but that is about to end) but I don't want to join them. I'll just admire from afar as the conf. tourny decides which one team will get in to the NCAAs (most years).

PS We spanked SIUC badly. I was there courtside seats it was really really ugly especially the first half.

[Billiken Law]

I'm with you, SLU would be the Xavier of the MVC - a contender every year. In fact, I kind of think that the MVC might be the best place for SLU to go in order to "build the program." Xavier is in a mid-major conference but isn't considered a mid-major based on their annual success and now they are being seriously considered for Big East membership. If SLU moves to the MVC and contends yearly in 5 years when the Big East coalition conference splits they are right there as a likely member of that conference.

Besides, the MVC is a preferable option to a watered down, southern based CUSA based on geography and academics alone.

[davidnark]

I agree with everything you said, but I also had the sense that your post was a little patronizing due to your Marquette persepctive (i.e., SLU should spend a few years in the MVC and maybe, just maybe, it can reach the level of Marquette and join the Big East). Lest we forget that Marquette was a bucket away from sitting home with SLU and watching Mizzou parade to the final four and a few buckets away from being swept by SLU last year.

[Schasz]

My big fear regarding SLU settling with the MVC is what affects it would have on recruiting. On a smaller scale, I'd agree with the notion that on the surface, the bottom feeders in the MVC aren't as good as the lower tiered CUSA teams. All of this is pure speculation, because no one really knows how all this conference moving is really going to play out in the wash.

[cheeseman]

One more time and the last - the Valley is a step down for SLU! All this talk about the Valley being a suitable place for SLU is nonsense. If you want to be a big dog then you have to run with them.

[billiken_roy]

i am with you cheeseman. i have shown them the comparison of the conferences rpi's, not sure why they want to be playing the likes of drake and northern iowa twice a year. there is more to the mvc than siu and creighton. like i said before, if you attend the opening day sessions of both conference tourney's, you would completely understand the overall comparison and not ever want to be in the mvc.

now if the talk was about stealing creighton, siu, sms and maybe another school to replace any departing cusa schools, i can see that. or if the talk was being the leader in forming a new conference that would be made up of the likes of butler, creighton, dayton, xaiver, etc. i could see that. but to accept the demotion to the mvc to me would be a signal of the end of any top 25 program talk. sure gonzaga and creighton sneak up to that level occasionally but they have to fight like hell for games out of conference and then hope that their conference schedule doesnt bring down their rpi too much to allow them to stay in the fight without winning their respective conference tourney. as we know, they have lost that gamble a few times the last few years. we dont need it.

[davidnark]

I agree that the MVC, in its current state, is not an appropriate place for SLU. However, the CUSA sans MU, DePaul, Louisville, and Cincy is also not an appropriate place for SLU. We do not need to be in a conference with mostly NASCAR schools.

If we are raped of these four programs, we need to seek out the A-10 or take the initiative in forming a brand new conference. The current MVC and the gutted CUSA should not be an option.

[Quality Is Job 1]

As far as BASKETBALL goes, the Atlantic 10 cannot be cosidered mid-major. Furthermore, Xavier is not head-and-shoulders above schools like Dayton and Temple in its conference. You're acting like Xavier is still in the Horizon or confusing it with Butler.

[thetorch]

Xavier has been a perennial top 25 team now for a decade. No one else in the A-10 comes close to that. I don't think the A-10 is a mid-major conference, but they are pretty close, definetely not better than CUSA who some consider mid-major.

[kwyjibo]

Umm, Temple? They made it to the NCAA's 12 frickin' years in a row ( 17 out of 18 years from 83 to 2001)!

The major conference distinction comes from having a representative on all NCAA committees that touch non-football sports. The A-10 is not so blessed. The majors are the 6 BCS conferences as well CUSA and Mountain West. It is this important distinction that is consistently lacking in discussions of where SLU should go (wherever it is they should make every effort to go to a "major conference" under this rule as then you have--if nothing else a conference rep come selection Sunday--rules committee reps and finance committee would not hurt either).

Unfortunately the notion of major and mid-major has become blurred by use/misuse. I prefer to use it correctly but if even Thicks is blurring the distinction what hope do I have.

[Quality Is Job 1]

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Does anyone know where I could find that information?

[kwyjibo]

It is actually a little more complicated because the D-1 board of directors has reps from all 11 football conferences and rotating membership amongst the other members.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance...on_I/index.html

A-10 probably gets a higher rotation for membership on committees than other non-football conferences (has a member on the basketball rules committee and no member on the board of directors and the selection). I admittedly haven't looked a lot at this but it seemed to me years ago that having a permanent rep on the selection committee was pretty important as their were so many weird pro-major picks (that philosophy has changed a bit in recent years due to the TV revenues reaped from cinderellas).

[Quality Is Job 1]

According to this page, http://tinyurl.com/leh1 , the Atlantic 10 is I-AA (mid-major). However, the same page lists the Sun Belt as I-A (high major). I've never thought of the Sun Belt as a high-major conference.

At this point, I don't know what to consider high-major or mid-major.

[davidnark]

The classifications on the website you linked are based upon the level of the football programs. While many persons define a conference as mid-major or major based upon the level of the football programs, this classification has only coincidental effect on the quality of the basketball program. If the 10 best football-less programs form a new conference, should it be labeled mid-major?

The A-10 is comparable to C-USA in terms of the level and quality of basketball programs. It is misleading to assume that CUSA is a bigger and better basketball conference than the A-10 because Louisville and Cincy are so-so football programs instead of bad football programs.

[kwyjibo]

11 conferences play bigtime football so are considered I-A and have a permanent rep on the Board of Directors for Division I. Eight of them (6 BCS plus Mountain West and CUSA) get to be on all committees.

Three of the I-A's Big Sky, MAC and Sunbelt are permannetly on the Board but may not be on all the basketball committees (like selection and rules).

I should be clear that at the only reason I make this distinction is that there used to be a Mid-Major poll and C-USA/SLU was by definition out of it. The A-10 I think was eventually left out as well so you we all have good reason to be confused. Basically while the word was rooted in a specific definition it now appears to mean something else. I do think the word should not be used in terms of "quality of play" but rather use it in regards to resources or opportunities (bigger schools and budgets).

[thetorch]

Good for Temple.

They have stunk since 01. Cheney is old and not getting the kids he used to. Without Cheney IMO Temple goes nowhere and he will be leaving soon or retiring. They are not a power in that conference anymore.

[thetorch]

If you look at the conference ratings the last several years the A-10 has been falling drastically. The A-10 is on the cusp of major along with the WAC, right above the Mo Valley.

The A-10 has not had a national championship contender since UMASS. Xavier has been the star of the conference the last 5 years and is a perrenial top 25 team but they are the best the league has to offer. Dayton, St. Joes, Temple have also had top 50 programs lately but I just don't think they can stack up to the best of the CUSA.

[cheeseman]

Roy, you are right about trying to hook up with the top teams in the A-10. SLU, UNC-C, Xavier, Dayton, Temple, Creighton, Butler, and another would be much better than the MVC or maybe even the remaining CUSA. Memphis would be a huge member but with football they probably won't go there. Until I hear that MU and DePaul are gone, I still see the as viable members also. If you can get both then you can drop a Butler or a Temple. Remember, just because the BE has asked about MU and DePaul does not mean they want to go.