SpiderInTheMixingBowl

ESPN got this part right. The Horizon was not going to allow Butler in their tournament.

jpschmack

I think UD could have been. UD went with the Great Midwest and tried to play out of their league (while not getting paid for it), and Xavier went the path of least resistence and dominated the MCC.

X had the bids, built the rep, and when X joined the A-10, it was "national scene" for them.

By the time Oliver Purnell brought UD's program back to a competitive level, they were 15 years behind Xavier. And without the likes of the MCC to pummel the crap out of, and being in a league like the A-10, they can't go to the dance every single year and become that national program.

Unlike Gonzaga, who ran train on the WCC from 1998-present.
Or Butler, who took over for Xavier in the MCC/Horizon with 10 bids in 15 years.

jpschmack

I don't claim it to be false. But I haven't seen anyone else state that. Other articles that reference it, like the article on Yahoo, or the report from the Green Bay paper, site Andy Katz's unnamed source.

Usually, it comes out from a variety of people.

ace93

McGlade basically said that was the reason without saying it was the exact reason.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...nstead-of-2013

jpschmack

Hmm, I just assumed that because VCU asked to join immediately, we reached out to Butler. I didn't realize they were in the same boat. Oh, either way, yay.

FlyingElvis

As a Flyer fan, it's strange hearing about our good offense and bad defense. That's a total role reversal from the Brian Gregory years, but it rings so true based on last year. Dillard is the best distributor of the ball we have had in 20 years, and he creates a ton of wide open shots for our other players. The defense was horrific most of the year. We also were not a deep team last year with open scholies as a result of the coaching change and Benson going down to injury. Miller did a decent job with what he had, but we need more focus on defense in order to improve.

We lacked athleticism among our bigs which was a contributor to our porous defense IMO. But I see that particular problem getting fixed this year with the addition of our new forwards. We still need our guards to be able to stay in front of their players defensively.

I still hold out hope that we land another combo-guard type of player, becasue I think it's necessary for the guard depth that we need going into next year. I would prefer a guard who is a major pest defensively. We need a guy who can pressure the ball. There are going to be a few games where someone is dinged up or sick, and we will be very thin at the position.

__________________
"US Bank Arena can't be that bad"

MudFlap

True, if Dilliard gets a hangnail, totally different team.

FlyingElvis

Last year that was definitely the case. I hope that we are not as reliant on him offensively this year, but the future is cloudy for me right now. I haven't seen any of the frosh play live. And I have only seen the transfers who sat out last year play once.

__________________
"US Bank Arena can't be that bad"

paulxu

I would think Dillard is set up to have a really good year.
He was second in Assists last year behind Williams, and if he gets any offensive help at all he can raise that easily. Having Benson back should make a difference for him.

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

xavierhoops

Almost sounds like Muddy's "If UD only made one more basket" or "UD won the cumulative point total over Xavier this year."

Trying to reason why Xavier's program is at the successful, national level it is at and Dayton's program is, well, where it's at, is because of the conference's they played in over 20 years ago... is, well, funny.

jpschmack

?

Why? How do you think Xavier became a top 40 program?
It's common sense: "Win, get good players, win more, get even better players."

What do UNLV, Xavier, Gonzaga and Butler all have in common?

Obviously, coaches, coaching hires, and fan support, and facilities and all play a role.

Creighton: 7 bids in 8 years. Good facilities, fans, and coach. No second weekend trips: They fell off.
Pacific: Three straight bids, two wins, got screwed out of a third. Good facilities, fans, and coach. They fell off.

Gonzaga: won their weaker conference, three-straight Cinderella runs, lost a coach, then built the facilities. Still rolling.
UNLV: ran train on the Big West, a number of deep runs, moved to a better conference. Still a top 40 program.
Butler: won their weaker conference, lost multiple coaches, still in an old facility, won a couple NCAA games, got better kids, then made deep NCAA runs to Final Fours, now joining the A-10.

This isn't rocket surgery. It boils down to: High School kids want to be in the Dance. When you're on the bracket every year, you get better kids. When you make the second weekend, you get even better kids. It's easier to get into the dance by winning a league against Evansville, UIC, Loyola Chicago and Wright State than a league with Louisville, Cincinnati, DePaul, Marquette and Memphis.

A10fan2

You're way over simplifying it jp. High school kids want to play right away at the highest level they "think" they can play at. Playing in the NCAA's is probably 3rd or 4th on the list for most kids. I'd put NBA desires, playing time availability, and competition level ie BE, B12,SEC, B10 above NCAA tournament appearances.

__________________
Muddy's from 2009

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

jpschmack

Yes, I am over simplifying. But how do they know schools exist? And how do they know which school at a "lower level" (aka non-BCS) they want to play at?

The bracket and the NCAA Tournament is the biggest exposure a school gets.

"Well, I'm not good enough to play at UNC, but I could play at one of these smalls schools... Hey, Ohio University is hanging with UNC in this Sweet 16 game. I'm going to check them out, maybe I can play there."

(Plus, you've seen my long-winded posts. Probably a good idea for me to over simplify!)

xavierhoops

I see what you're saying. Basically your posts boil down to winning breeds more winning. Right, I agree. The best exposure to potential recruits is consistent bids and consistent advancement in the NCAA. I certainly agree with that. Valid points.

But that really wasn't the argument you were originally making. Somehow you were trying to argue the UD program is in the very average state it is in and Xavier is at the level it is at because UD played in the Great Midwest Conference for 2 season nearly 20 years ago. That's what doesn't make sense. UD has had the talent. That talent just hasn't produced results for the past 3-4 decades.

__________________
Chris Mack in 3 years at Xavier has had twice the NCAA wins (4) of the entire Dayton coaching staff in the modern era of NCAA basketball (2).

jpschmack

Well, yeah. Our "arguments" aren't really that different.

Look at the talent Oliver Purnell brought to UD: NOT great athletes, but very good basketball players from a skill, technical sense. Their 2003 (Under Purnell) and 2004 (under Gregory) teams had guys who'd be #3 or #4 options on top 20 teams. And they were in the the top 25 most the season because they had SEVEN of them. That's why when they played X with West and Sato (#1 and #2 guys), they lost. That's why an athletic Tulsa team beat them in the NCAAs.

But once they were successful with THAT kind of team, A-10 champs, in the bracket, etc. they got better ATHLETES on the recruiting trail: The Gregory squad that beat West Virginia in the dance, for example).

We know they produced OOC after that. But then they crapped the bed in conference three out of the last five years (and just sucked one year; and yes, one of those seasons they were good enough to make the dance but got boned on Selection Sunday because of Wright's injury).

Regression is easy when you're in the NIT. Your top targets pick George Mason, VCU or Butler.


Xavier is a top 40 program because they took steps forward every single year from the MCC years, and were strong enough when they joined the A-10, they still kept going to the dance. And now they are at the point where they are "self-sustaining." By that, I mean, they don't have to worry when they lose a good coach, but the BEST COACH at the next level down will jump all over the Xavier job. They're GOING to get kids talented enough to make the dance every year.

Dayton, by playing in GMW, didn't take steps forward every year. Their last two years they were a 5-win team and a 7-win team. The A-10 to them wasn't a "step up in competition" compared to their old conference (it was for Xavier, but they had built the program in the MCC that they could step in and finish top 4 and remain the bracket). Dayton was playing catch up, and while they got to the dance in 2000, 2003 and 2004, and got better talent. They didn't parlay that into CONSISTENT bids. They had similar talent to teams like Richmond, URI, GW, Bona, SJU, who can and do earn bids, but not Temple/Xavier "Yeah, they're ALWAYS good status."


I'm not belittling Xavier in ANY way shape or form by saying this. They took a smart path that played into their strengths and made them grow stronger. Dayton made a mistake they deeply regret, and made it harder on themselves. As a X fan, you'd say "as usual, they have no one to blame but themselves."