UMass87

It's about perception and press, Adam. Getting into the NCAA and losing in the first round is good for the total number of bids the conference gets. It's bad when we start rank ordering conferences based on their NCAA winning percentages (which everyone does). Getting to the NIT championship brings good press whether deserved or not. There is no question that I would rather my team get into the NCAA than win the NIT. That's not the same as saying it's better for the conference. In any case, the way I weighted it, the NIT champ got a total of 7 points whereas the NCAA first or second round loser got 5 points (assuming they didn't choke in the first round). Not a huge bonus for winning the NIT.

In any case, taking away all points for NIT does not have a significant impact on the rank order (it puts UR ahead of SJU and GW ahead of URI)

LumsdnA10academc98SBU

You not only did nothing to stick up for your numbers, you in no way shot down my contention of your arbitrary, unscientific "criteria." You merely changed the subject.

It has nothing to do with SBU, which I never even mentioned, but now that you have, does anyone really think La Salle has brought almost THREE TIMES more to the league in the last decade? Duquesne almost FOUR times more?

By the way, any reason why you chose 10 years? Most recruits have no recollection of who was who in the Atlantic 10 when they were 6-7 years old. Why 10 years?

What's worse than wasting your time on this is that you're still backing it as if it has any meaning. Get real.

ExplorerSteve

Agreed, he really thinks that he is funny.

__________________
www.LaSalle-Explorers.com Unofficial Source for FREE LaSalle Explorers Information along with "Explorers Universe" Messageboard.

X-man47

Ya hear that? We're using codenames.

__________________
Xavier always goes to the NCAA tournament, and almost always makes some noise while there. Projecting anything less than that this season feels like folly.
Eamonn Brennan, ESPN (Summer Shootaround, 2012)

AdamtheFlyer

Does getting to the NIT finals (or winning it) really bring good press? Without looking it up, I challenge you to name the NIT champion in 2005 or 2007. Now name me the other NIT semi final participants in those years.

No one starts the year hoping to make the NIT. No one. Everyone has the goal of making the tourney. The NIT is the consolation prize. Growing up I played select soccer. We had a pretty good team with some guys who went on to play in college. Most tourneys we would make the championship bracket after round robin play, but sometimes we would be sent to the consolation. We won a few consolation brackets. We enjoyed it. We didn't claim we had really won anything.

That's the NIT. Sure it's nice to play and win some more games, but it's not the show. The show is the show. Using hindsight to quantitatively compare one to the other is really faulty logic. Getting to the show is the bigger accomplishment.

__________________
Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I'm not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

A10fan2

It's code for GO XAVIER

__________________
Muddy's from 2009

He has since made the same "prediction" this year. CLASSIC

MudFlap

Finally something we agree on. Winning the NIT is worth something (Parade?), but otherwise no pts for being mediocre.

Knobby

Hmm - Did you all hear that? That is the sound of almost every other Dayton fan turnng their backs on Muddy. People (Dayton fans!) actually admitting that other teams in this conference have done more than Dayton? I think I may have even read that a Dayton fan found an 8th place prediction to be "reasonable" - where are the locusts?

__________________
Well, we were smaller, but at least we were slower!

Blue Blobster

I think that if you are going to take off for losing to a higher seed in the first round the penalty should only be about a point in your system. Making the NCAA should be worth a lot more then you have it, at least ten. For the NIT, I think winning the NIT is great for the conference. But I don't think that one should get points for making the NIT. Winning the NIT should be worth between 5 and 10 points.

I like the wins loss points. I shows who is successful over the decade and who is not. Dayton is the definition of a 20 win team. They are always right there. Thats why they are so high on the list.

Overall I liked the rating system. I think it gave a good overall look at the conference and what teams have been good. Temple should be rated 2nd though. Its simply an outlyer. no big deal. Temple and X are top two for the dacade.

__________________
Xavier likes to Play in the NCAA tournaments
Dayton likes to host them while they play in the NIT

UMass87

Your interpretation of the numbers suggest that you really don't understand numbers. La Salle, Duquesne, Fordham, SBU, and Charlotte have, over the past decade, been net negative for the A10. La Salle can't have "brought almost THREE TIMES more to the league in the last decade" because they have been net negative. The time period chosen is as arbitrary as the weights. Ten years is the longest I would consider reasonable. Five years is probably the shortest I'd consider reasonable.

Five year impact:

Xavier 127
Temple 67
Dayton 56
UR 53
SLU 29
URI 24
DU 18
UMass 12
LSU 2
SBU 1
SJU -1
Charlotte -10
GW -14
FU -46

paulxu

I'm pretty sure our points would stay the same if you took the NIT out of your consideration completely.

__________________
...he went up late, and I was already up there.

KA

Your belief that these numbers that you made up have any bearing on reality shows that you really don't understand reality.

pongbaba

For what it is worth... I googled '098m7nb' to see if it is some new internet jargon that I was behind on...

Knobby

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to come up with a reasonable assessment of who has and has not done something for this confernece (in basketball terms).

We can all sit here and gloat about the 1950-whatever championship game - nobody gives a flying fk about that except alumni who were around at that time. The big picture is what has happened during your tenure in this conference. How many conference titles, how many NCAA appearences; how many big time wins. Anything that brings positive national attention to your school even if it is only for a day. Making the NIT is a positive thing; but it becomes little more than a dubious distinction if it is not the stepping stone to bigger things - this is not intended to pick on Dayton - it jsut happened that way. If Umass gets to the tourney this year, the NIT was a good thing, if they don't it is just a couple of extra games they played last season (just like a few years back whe the made the NIT final). Playing (and winning) nationally televised games brings something to the table too. There are not to many examples of that for this conference, but hopefully that will change this year??? Alums playing in the NBA is huge! Isn't that what this is all about to begin with? You get a run of players in the big show, you get your school memntioned A LOT, and recruits know that your coach can help you get there.

In the more narrow view it really comes down to the Tourney and reputation - From the national perspective, other than X and Temple there are no "Name programs" from the conference. By that, I mean if you are out west and and you read that team A beat Xavier, you immediately think "hmm that was a good win". The same team beats Fordham and they don't even know if Fordham is a D1 school? Out here on the East Coast - who the F ever heard of Gonzaga or could tell you where they were from until 15 years ago? THAT is bringing something to the conference.

If you really get down to brass tax, X and Temple are carrying this conference right now. There are a bunch of middlers who have done something in recent memory (last 3 or 4 years); that list includes St Louis, Dayton, Umass, Bonnies, Richmond, St Joes and Richmond. This group has done something - be it NIT, NCAA, beating a nationally ranked team or two.... I would argue that VCU and Butler should be included as well because they have brought some very positive press to this conference and already and much more that the last group has (combined)in recent memory - They (and the conference) will be an early season headline in the sport (and it will hopefully carry through the whole season if they play well).

The last group has brought the least positive attention (and in some cases almost none) to the conference: Charlotte, Duquesne, Fordham, URI, GW, LaSalle. GW has had a rough stretch, but they had some really good teams more than a couple years back, but if you are not from this conference, those have been forgotten, same for URI to some degree (but they still have Lamar Odom in the headlines).



I can summarize the whole argument in one sentence - A point system that puts Dayton ahead of Temple to define who has brought more to the conference is flawed.

__________________
Well, we were smaller, but at least we were slower!

ace93

I think they have some bearing on reality. The numbers are not perfect, but ranking systems rarely are. One thing I think could be argued is that since the system is about what you have done *lately*, the more recent successes/failures should likely carry a bit more weight than an equal task done 8 years ago.

UMass87, I'd like a clarification. You said the NIT Champ only gets 7 points, but do they not get point for each of the NIT categories you listed? 2 for making it, 2 for making the finals and 5 for winning it? Or does the 5 for winning it include the 2 for making the finals?