Basketball question
- Thread starter Crush Nasty
- Start date
ODU, Rice, UTEP and a couple others can barely compete, or want to, in football as well.
Fundamentally incorrect. At least in your use of "want to". The reason schools are in this football conference is exactly and precisely BECAUSE they wish to be on this level in FOOTBALL. They brought along their MBB, and every other sport, which were all at vastly different places, ranging from solid, some solid with a great history; to pretty good; to inept; to being something they play because it is the price of admission to football status.
If football was not a factor, there is zero point zero chance that teams in El Paso, Norfolk, Miami, Birmingham, Huntington, and random wide spots in the road in between are in the same conference. Without football, every CUSA school would find a conference home that makes sense geographically, and in terms of what level they consider themselves to be.
Which is why, while CUSA MBB has 14 members, it really only has 5 or 6 that matter. The rest should be automatic, every year, no questions asked. Which is why this garbage basketball league is there to be grabbed by the throat and controlled.
sorry, I did not have a class in Egyptian Hieroglyphics in school. What in the world are you trying to say in your post? I think I understand what the last thing was trying to say. No comparison 130 football schools vs something like 325 basketball schools. Apples to Oranges
Posting reformatted the text and eliminated spacing and tabs.
Comparing football to basketball since the conference has been in existence.
Winning percentage
How many teams were in the preseason top 25.
Then final top 25.
Then last year a team was ranked at the end of the year.
These are raw numbers but tends to show that CUSA basketball has outperformed football. especially in the early days of the league. Has football overtaken basketball, or rather has basketball slipped below football? Just threw the numbers out there.
I just used your own words.
Last three full seasons ODU is a combined 10-26, UTEP 2-34 and Rice 6-31 in football. Can they or have they consistently competed in football?
I think CUSA has evolved into a conference for schools that have no where else to go, kind of like the Island of Misfit Toys.
Since its inception CUSA has always been a sprawling conference. However in its early days it had a primary focus on basketball. Off the top of my head I can think of three member schools that didn't have football teams - DePaul. Marquette and St.Louis. Same recently with UAB, Charlotte and ODU.
I throw out points to ponder and some facts and statistics, that's all. I will say it appears CUSA is a weak conference in both sports. Over the last few years with limited exceptions it has been dead last in football in both winning percentage and strength of schedule among all conferences. Following some apparent thought processes in this thread, we should be dominating football as well. But since 2005 both sports have the exact same number of championships- 1.
MU competed in Southern Conference for 20 years. 1977 - 1996. 3 football titles, 3 regular season and 3 tournament basketball titles.
MAC for 8 years on the last go around. 1997 - 2004. 4 football titles. 0 basketball titles.
CUSA for 16 years. 2005 - current. 1 football title and one tournament title in basketball.
Looks like only during the MAC years did football significantly outperform basketball.
MAC for 8 years on the last go around. 1997 - 2004. 4 football titles. 0 basketball titles.
CUSA for 16 years. 2005 - current. 1 football title and one tournament title in basketball.
Looks like only during the MAC years did football significantly outperform basketball.
I don't want to throw a wrench in the meat grinder but I think Rice was very competitive in early November, 2020, if you know what I mean.
I was thinking the same thing as I posted this and was wondering when someone would mention it.
Would it have mattered if the Herd had showed up?
CUSA football went winless in bowl season. One of the worst ever bowl seasons by a conference. Going winless by a conference has only happened one time ever before this yr. Currently, CUSA football is really bad.
I fully explained why MU, or one of the other 5 to 6 teams that actually can and do try, should dominate in basketball. Please explain why MU should "dominate" at the conference's core sport, where all the teams are attempting to be on the same level.
I'd say basketball but not by much.
I'd also say the conference saw itself as a basketball conference considering the teams they brought in when others departed, who have had better histories with basketball than football.
Agreed. Plus I believe three of the conference's charter members didn't even field football teams.
MU jumped from 1-AA to the MAC in 1997 and dominated football, winning 4 championships in 8 years. Basketball didn't realize the same results in the MAC. Wouldn't it be logical to think that football's success would continue in CUSA? Especially since CUSA appears to be a weaker football conference with lower winning %'s and strength of schedule than the MAC? And wouldn't it also be logical that basketball would not necessarily be winning conference titles in CUSA when it couldn't or didn't while in the MAC?
Thank you for the ancient history lesson.
And the basketball coach was a MU alumni and ex-player, with no particular HC background at the DI level, from Wyoming County's Mullens HS, who was a dynamic public speaker?
Well no. One because the idiot, KO Marcum hired an incompetent as compliance director, lied to the fan base, and lied to the greatest coach we ever had who had to leave as a matter of honor, who was then replaced by another incompetent KO crony, taking 5 years to fire a guy who obviously was over his head after 5 games.
With all that had been built destroyed, the next coach had to start from zero. And, with CUSA being light years ahead of the lowly MAC, which was and remains a sort of I-A and a half league, nothing you say is logical.
No, because the MAC is a long term stable, geographically logical conference made up of schools that are all on basically the same page in every sport. While CUSA, this version (please no more ancient history about UC or Memphis), was 100% made for football. Every other sport was brought along, all at various levels. A third simply do not care if the basketball team is playing or not. Another third have no fanbases. Which should equal AUTOMATIC wins, every time, every year. Leaving this sorry league wide open to be settled among the remaining third. There is no reason, with all the de facto bye weeks this league provides, our best in the league basketball fan base (by far) and our level of commitment to the sport, we should not grab it by the throat.
I think the problem some people have is the definition of a "solid coach."
Both Doc and Dan, are basically the same, but Dan will be praised for wanting to stay for so long as a true Son of Marshall, while Doc gets criticism for wanting to stay so long at MU because nobody else would hire him.
CUSA is more competitive in basketball but not by much and dare say, Dan has had better teams, and at least he has had more coaching experience but still can't win more than one.
Doc brings in better athletes and recruits, generally better than most of the pack, and still can't win more than one.
Dan's approaching the same amount of time Doc has and we can't confidently say he's going to do any better at this point.
So where is the cristicism?
Do you realize Greg White has had the highest winning percentage of any MU coach since Huck?
Which is the MAC? Sort of a 1-A and a half league or is it a long term stable conference? Sounds like you want it both ways while seeming to enjoy calling me illogical?
You also should consider the time when MU went to CUSA. It was not a good time to do so since Pruett up and quit/retired and MU was about to be slammed with NCAA violations, and the next guy, Snyder, was anything but a head coach.
All of that, combined with CUSA schools that decided to tap into their resources (which far, far exceeded MU's) and create competitive, winning products on the field did not help MU's cause.
Also, MU was cursed with having quite possibly the world's most inept AD in the history of the school.
What's worse is that MU probably would've found itself in better position had it at least been competitive in football and not being as terrible as it was and an AD who could market "We Are...Marshall" beyond just the damn state as a major recruiting tool (yeah, Kopp also dropped the ball on this, but at least he got MU several professional degree programs to help it grow academically) MU could have found itself as a lucrative asset to the conference on its brand as opposed to on-field competition...but no, MU found a way to be the worst at the worst things that could happen to it.
It sucks.
Understand what you're saying but Doc and Dan aren't necessarily the same person. One enjoys building a relationship with and connecting with the fans, the other not so much.
I get that, but "being a good guy" shouldn't be as much of an excuse as to why you aren't winning more, as MU fans are giving him.
A sloth on Valium would have more conversational personality than Doc but thats Doc. Lots of people are more focused on doing their job than talking about their job.
Does this mean if Coach Huff underachieved and won at most, 8 games the next 3 seasons, we'd be fine with it because of his personality?
Understand and agree completely with much of what you have stated. All of these are complex issues and in no way can a quick 2 minute response adequately address every aspect of them. Many here seem to take such a literal approach to things that they assume, project and then attack the poster.
We have made some bad hires, we have had some bad Presidents and AD's that apparently have made some egregious errors. I've had a long-time older friend that always said Huck got fired because he received more applause than the either the President or AD at the time. A lot of egos have been involved over the years.
For a relatively new member to start an thread with a somewhat innocent question this sure has devolved quickly...
That's a bit of a stretch. Coach Dan has brought an exciting brand of basketball back to the Cam, has fielded competitive teams that generally improve as the season progresses, which I think is a sign of a good coach, has a solid rapport with the media and fans, went to the NCAA for the first time in 30 years plus won the first tournament game ever. I don't think he lost control of his players either. Not so sure you can say that obout the other.
With all respect let me assure you that’s NOT what got Huck fired.
I understand. It wasn't said or intended to be presented as fact, either by my friend or me and apologize if it was taken as such. Just said to illustrate that there have been a lot of egos, personalities and turf battles as long as I can remember. I remember hearing the story of Joe McMullen letting Coach Tacy walk for something like $5k a year.
That is almost true. I believe it was actually 8k.
But, 8k was a significant dollar amount in 1970. My dad built a nice 3 BD brick home for $30k
Tacy was presented the opportunity to coach in the Atlantic Coast Comference. Eight thousand dollars wasn’t a main consideration. Marshall had a joke of a budget, the whole athletic dept was on less than a shoestring and MU was struggling as an independent with no short term conference prospects. He had to go, it made his career.
Are you sure about this or is it just conjecture on your part? College basketball was a different animal back in the day. With no real TV contracts in place there wasn't as much emphasis on or benefit to conference affiliation. There definitely wasn't the level of disparity then between conferences such as say the ACC and the Southern Comference as today. For example in Coach Tacy's year at Marshall, Davidson of the Southern Conference was 3-1 against ACC opponents. Think that could or would happen today?
During that year at Marshall his team was ranked as high as #8 nationally and had the #2 team in the Nation on the ropes at home until some late "fouls", including multiple ones on a single possession, resulted in a 2 point Herd loss. Coach Tacy, the Herd and members of the WV media contingent were treated abhorrently by a future NCAA winning coach. A considerable part of that team would be returning while WF was 8-18, its fifth losing season in 8 years.
By all accounts Coach Tacy was a fine man of integrity. I believe one of the reasons he retired at a relatively early age was because of what college basketball had become, arguably because of emerging and increasing TV revenues. He also had WV roots. Just not sure he wouldn't have liked to stay in Huntington to coach at MU. He did tell the AD what it would take to keep him...
I know all about that era, I was a college bb player at that time. I knew Ellis Johnson, Stewart Way, and Carl Tacy on a recruit/ recruiter basis. Davidson had some terrific teams in the 60’s and early 70’s with several All American players and Lefty as their coach. The ACC was born out of the SC in 1953 just as the SEC had been years earlier. Regardless of Davidson’s record vs the ACC during one season or the fact Marshall had their best regular season as a D1 team the ACC was far superior to the SC from the get go. Heck Duke alone went to three FF’s in the 60’s.
I didn't say the ACC wasn't better back in the 60's, just that today's disparity wasn't as great. Just look at the some of the teams that made the Final Fours of the 60's and early 70's - Drake, NYU, St. Joe's, WKU and Princeton. It has been a rare exception for a Cinderella make it as far recently (I know - Butler, George Mason, VCU). It's just that then every team felt like they could.
Conference alignment seemed to take greater relevance as TV contracts exploded during the 1980's (think Big East) creating a wider gulf between the haves and the haves not. A similar occurrence happened later with NCAA football resulting in the P5 (haves) and the G5 (have nots). Fifty years ago I felt like the Herd could compete with anyone in basketball. Twenty years ago I felt the same about football. Sadly those days appear lost forever for various reasons.
You were obviously closer to the Coach Tacy situation than I was so I defer to much of what you say. I just see so many times people applying today's standards to the past before they were even born. I just try to keep things in perspective and let people know that there is often more to a situation than their current perspective.
No titles though...doesn't count. Mediocre. Terrible. Marshall should be winning championships in this terrible conference almost every year. Fire him. Right?
I thought the same thing. I couldn’t figure out what in tarnation was going on.. so I just stopped commenting after his gibberish
there is also a difference in being a nice guy and playing the political games. A small ESPN story came out after Doc was let go discussing internal differences of opinion inside the athletic department is what cost Doc his job. I had also heard Doc lost the political game within the University. Question is did Hamrick as well?
im trying to figure out if the anti Marshall hoops guys posting are really Docs friends or if they really don’t like Dan. I have a feeling if Doc had been more fan friendly and played the political games better he would still have a job. Did Doc and Dan get along? Did Dan and Hamrick get along? Interesting
Last edited:
From what I know Doc and Dan got along. Granted they only were together in the spring/summer for the BG coaches tour.
Danny and Hamrick have never gotten along
Banners?
ZERO.
LOSER.
Loser at Pikeville.
Loser at Harvey High.
Loser at Marshall..
Went back to Harvey High. Lost there too.
Nope. Reading comprehension not your strong suit? One quote was where I fully debunked your basketball theories, explaining that the MACers are all more or less on the same level in basketball, due to the long stability of the conference, contrasted to CUSA where the basketball teams are all at different levels. The other quote explains fully and totally where the MAC is, and always will be. In football. Kind of I-A and a half. Not quite I-AA, not quite really I-A.
