It's mostly an article about SLU, but if you scroll down a bit, you see where it says several sources have told the Washington Post of the teams above joining. What I'm thinking is where's Providence? Nothing official of course, but an interesting kink in the situation.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/b...f89a4.html

(02-26-2013 01:40 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's mostly an article about SLU, but if you scroll down a bit, you see where it says several sources have told the Washington Post of the teams above joining. What I'm thinking is where's Providence? Nothing official of course, but an interesting kink in the situation.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/b...f89a4.html

Don't believe anything this guy writes. He didn't do his homework and has very little credibility in the STL sports market.

(02-26-2013 01:50 PM)kappy96 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:40 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's mostly an article about SLU, but if you scroll down a bit, you see where it says several sources have told the Washington Post of the teams above joining. What I'm thinking is where's Providence? Nothing official of course, but an interesting kink in the situation.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/b...f89a4.html

Don't believe anything this guy writes. He didn't do his homework and has very little credibility in the STL sports market.

He was just rehashing Feinstein's reporting. But re: Siena, there is this:
http://www.xavierhoops.com/showthread.ph...post382872

(02-26-2013 01:40 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's mostly an article about SLU, but if you scroll down a bit, you see where it says several sources have told the Washington Post of the teams above joining. What I'm thinking is where's Providence? Nothing official of course, but an interesting kink in the situation.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/b...f89a4.html

There are a lot of inconsistencies in the article. Despite the elimination of Providence, he repeatedly refers to the "Catholic 7". He also includes VCU when he lists ranked teams from the new conference despite the fact that he hadn't included them on the original list.

Just an article from a guy who is not very well informed on the subject, written strictly from a St. Louis POV. He obviously doesn't care too much about any of the other details.

None of the current C7 can be dropped, otherwise the NCAA would not recognize the whole conference. A new conference forming from a split has to have at least 7 members together for seven years. Otherwise: no autobid for seven years, no other sports autobid for two years, no conference vote or input on any NCAA matter, no NCAA credit accruals to the whole conference, etc.

He's quoting Feinstein when he lists Siena and omits PRovidence. Lousy article. The guy was probably up against a deadline and typed that one in a hurry.

Interesting reading the Xavier blog...

Sounds like the 10 vs 12 thing is very interesting....

Xavier and Butler are 8 and 9 for sure..

They say that a lot besides Marquette are pushing for Creighton at 10. One main reason- they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

(02-26-2013 02:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  He's quoting Feinstein when he lists Siena and omits PRovidence. Lousy article. The guy was probably up against a deadline and typed that one in a hurry.

He was quoting Feinstein, but not accurately. Feinstein didn't omit Providence. He said: "Richmond OR Siena." It was never both.

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Interesting reading the Xavier blog...

Sounds like the 10 vs 12 thing is very interesting....

Xavier and Butler are 8 and 9 for sure..

They say that a lot besides Marquette are pushing for Creighton at 10. One main reason- they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

I agree. Very interesting read.

I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

BTW, Steve, maybe they'll just go with 9 instead of 10 to start if they can get it off the ground this year as you've suggested.

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Interesting reading the Xavier blog...

Sounds like the 10 vs 12 thing is very interesting....

Xavier and Butler are 8 and 9 for sure..

They say that a lot besides Marquette are pushing for Creighton at 10. One main reason- they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

I agree. Very interesting read.

I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

BTW, Steve, maybe they'll just go with 9 instead of 10 to start if they can get it off the ground this year as you've suggested.

I don't think there would be any problem at all getting to 12 even quite frankly.

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

He's not an independent source--he credits it to Feinstein, and garbles it by leaving Providence out and putting in both Siena and Richmond.

(02-26-2013 03:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

He's not an independent source--he credits it to Feinstein, and garbles it by leaving Providence out and putting in both Siena and Richmond.

They were talking about the two X posters who were there for the board meeting.

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

Does it, really?

I don't see having both would be a bad idea, except that if you're trying to hold the line at 12 there may simply not be enough room.

(02-26-2013 03:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

He's not an independent source--he credits it to Feinstein, and garbles it by leaving Providence out and putting in both Siena and Richmond.

I'm talking about posts on the Xavier thread that talk about Siena from sources independent of Feinstein.

(02-26-2013 03:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Interesting reading the Xavier blog...

Sounds like the 10 vs 12 thing is very interesting....

Xavier and Butler are 8 and 9 for sure..

They say that a lot besides Marquette are pushing for Creighton at 10. One main reason- they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

I agree. Very interesting read.

I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

BTW, Steve, maybe they'll just go with 9 instead of 10 to start if they can get it off the ground this year as you've suggested.

I don't think there would be any problem at all getting to 12 even quite frankly.

According to the Xavier thread, they are studying each of the prospective candidates thoroughly, but no consensus has emerged yet. If they need more time to get an agreement, they could go with 9 next year, including only the 2 who are unanimous choices.

(02-26-2013 03:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

Does it, really?

I don't see having both would be a bad idea, except that if you're trying to hold the line at 12 there may simply not be enough room.

It reduces the chances considerably. I mean look at the situation Dayton looks like they could be in- and Dayton and Xavier are a lot further apart than Richmond and VCU.

I think bottom line- if we go 10, and Richmond isn't a part of it- it means VCU is a very real candidate for 12. And conversely, if Richmond isn't a part of it at 10, the chances of them getting in at 12 are a lot lower.

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Interesting reading the Xavier blog...

Sounds like the 10 vs 12 thing is very interesting....

Xavier and Butler are 8 and 9 for sure..

They say that a lot besides Marquette are pushing for Creighton at 10. One main reason- they don't want Richmond yet, as that closes out the VCU possibility.

I agree. Very interesting read.

I have to laugh at all of the posters here who trashed Feinstein for including Siena. Do they think he just made it up? Here's corroboration from an independent source that Siena has been part of the conversation.

BTW, Steve, maybe they'll just go with 9 instead of 10 to start if they can get it off the ground this year as you've suggested.

I don't think there would be any problem at all getting to 12 even quite frankly.

According to the Xavier thread, they are studying each of the prospective candidates thoroughly, but no consensus has emerged yet. If they need more time to get an agreement, they could go with 9 next year, including only the 2 who are unanimous choices.

yeah makes sense.

One thing- that would make a long NCAA run very important this year- if someone like a Dayton(oops, not gonna happen), Richmond(oops, not going to happen), Creighton(might have a chance if they do well enough last 2 weeks), SLU, or VCU- goes on a long NCAA run, that would do a lot for them.

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

Quote:BTW, Steve, maybe they'll just go with 9 instead of 10 to start if they can get it off the ground this year as you've suggested.

According to the Xavier thread, they are studying each of the prospective candidates thoroughly, but no consensus has emerged yet. If they need more time to get an agreement, they could go with 9 next year, including only the 2 who are unanimous choices.

I haven't heard that idea mentioned before, but it sounds reasonable. Bring in X and B right now, then let the other candidates prove who is most worthy.

(02-26-2013 04:03 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

Quote:BTW, Steve, maybe they'll just go with 9 instead of 10 to start if they can get it off the ground this year as you've suggested.

According to the Xavier thread, they are studying each of the prospective candidates thoroughly, but no consensus has emerged yet. If they need more time to get an agreement, they could go with 9 next year, including only the 2 who are unanimous choices.

I haven't heard that idea mentioned before, but it sounds reasonable. Bring in X and B right now, then let the other candidates prove who is most worthy.

I'll tell you why it's not reasonable...

A10 would have next year- 36 VCU, 78 Richmond, 123 Dayton, 35 SLU, 39 LaSalle, 55 UMass, 86 St Joseph's, and 111 St Bonaventure. Heck, #134 GW. That's 9 top 134 schools. They could gerrymander the schedule where the top teams only see RI, Duquesne, and Fordam 1x each. Bottom line, the A10 could be a VERY good league, even without Butler and Xavier. The last thing we need is our 1st year to have the A10 ANYWHERE near the C7 league. Even if we're taking teams for the next year.

(02-26-2013 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 04:03 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:58 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

Quote:BTW, Steve, maybe they'll just go with 9 instead of 10 to start if they can get it off the ground this year as you've suggested.

According to the Xavier thread, they are studying each of the prospective candidates thoroughly, but no consensus has emerged yet. If they need more time to get an agreement, they could go with 9 next year, including only the 2 who are unanimous choices.

I haven't heard that idea mentioned before, but it sounds reasonable. Bring in X and B right now, then let the other candidates prove who is most worthy.

I'll tell you why it's not reasonable...

A10 would have next year- 36 VCU, 78 Richmond, 123 Dayton, 35 SLU, 39 LaSalle, 55 UMass, 86 St Joseph's, and 111 St Bonaventure. Heck, #134 GW. That's 9 top 134 schools. They could gerrymander the schedule where the top teams only see RI, Duquesne, and Fordam 1x each. Bottom line, the A10 could be a VERY good league, even without Butler and Xavier. The last thing we need is our 1st year to have the A10 ANYWHERE near the C7 league. Even if we're taking teams for the next year.

Unless this is about "taking the money and [running]." Fox is paying above market value for a need they have here and now in launching a new sports channel. Ten years from now will each school still be worth $3 mill a year for ten more years? If no, and I'm GTown, then my interests are 1) escaping a crumbling nBE 2) getting paid as much as I can for as long as I can while the next round of realignment goes down and 3) making sure I am a lock for the tourney every single year while retaining my leverage in the new league.

UR+Siena et al make a lot more sense if these, and running a fiefdom, are your priorities. So does starting at 9 or 10 and slow-footing getting to 12. It's not wasting the first year if the #1 goal isn't truly to set the conference up for maximal long-term basketball success.