BE Games Mon 11/16 - 2g - Umbc-SJU, IUPUI-Marquette...

[DudeAnon]

Yeah, that is nonsense. The tourney is a huge contribution to a program's reputation but it negate everything else. I would put Xavier, Butler and Gonzaga all on similar footings and they all have totally different resumes.

You might, but just realistically, Butler is viewed much differently than Xavier or Gonzaga to most folks because of the tourney.

I simply disagree.

[NovaBall]

Yeah, that is nonsense. The tourney is a huge contribution to a program's reputation but it negate everything else. I would put Xavier, Butler and Gonzaga all on similar footings and they all have totally different resumes.

You might, but just realistically, Butler is viewed much differently than Xavier or Gonzaga to most folks because of the tourney.

Who is we more favorably than the other? I would say it is pretty equal, but perhaps X and Gonzaga have a slight perception edge as longer term sustainability and success through multiple coaches, while Butler is viewed as more isolated success over a shorter period. But I think that is splitting hairs as all three are highly regarded basketball programs.

[stever20]

Yeah, that is nonsense. The tourney is a huge contribution to a program's reputation but it negate everything else. I would put Xavier, Butler and Gonzaga all on similar footings and they all have totally different resumes.

You might, but just realistically, Butler is viewed much differently than Xavier or Gonzaga to most folks because of the tourney.

Who is we more favorably than the other? I would say it is pretty equal, but perhaps X and Gonzaga have a slight perception edge as longer term sustainability and success through multiple coaches, while Butler is viewed as more isolated success over a shorter period. But I think that is splitting hairs as all three are highly regarded basketball programs.

Butler because they made the final 4 twice.

I think most view the 3 in Butler, Xavier, Gonzaga order. Xavier and Gonzaga are closer I think- could see Gonzaga ahead of Xavier. But with both of them- having never made the final 4 is a big plateau they've never been able to clear.

[billyjack]

Yeah, that is nonsense. The tourney is a huge contribution to a program's reputation but it negate everything else. I would put Xavier, Butler and Gonzaga all on similar footings and they all have totally different resumes.

You might, but just realistically, Butler is viewed much differently than Xavier or Gonzaga to most folks because of the tourney.

I put the 3 schools on similar footings also.

But splitting hairs to rank the 3 of them against each other is a pointless, waste of time. Doing that can only lead to insults and negativity because you are specifically pitting schools against each other. But they are so close to each other in elite-ness that whatever the outcome, there can never be a final answer.

It's like the old argument about who's better, Mays, Mantle or Aaron. 3 elite players, and by various measures you can rank them in any order.

Or taking in their prime Grace Kelly, Gina Lollabrigida and Jacqueline Bisset. At the end of the day, we can all agree that none of us would kick them out of the bedroom. What's the point of throwing negativity towards any of them.

[stever20]

Yeah, that is nonsense. The tourney is a huge contribution to a program's reputation but it negate everything else. I would put Xavier, Butler and Gonzaga all on similar footings and they all have totally different resumes.

You might, but just realistically, Butler is viewed much differently than Xavier or Gonzaga to most folks because of the tourney.

I put the 3 schools on similar footings also.

But splitting hairs to rank the 3 of them against each other is a pointless, waste of time. Doing that can only lead to insults and negativity because you are specifically pitting schools against each other. But they are so close to each other in elite-ness that whatever the outcome, there can never be a final answer.

It's like the old argument about who's better, Mays, Mantle or Aaron. 3 elite players, and by various measures you can rank them in any order.

Or taking in their prime Grace Kelly, Gina Lollabrigida and Jacqueline Bisset. At the end of the day, we can all agree that none of us would kick them out of the bedroom. What's the point of throwing negativity towards any of them.

The thing is, a lot of folks DO see Butler as being ahead of Xavier and Gonzaga because they made the final 4 twice(not to mention the final game). People around here for some reason want to totally act like the tourney is meaningless. MUCH more than I think most college basketball fans. What's the #1 achievement of the Old Big East? 1985- and not even close. Why? Because 3 teams made the final 4.

[NJRedman]

Yeah, that is nonsense. The tourney is a huge contribution to a program's reputation but it negate everything else. I would put Xavier, Butler and Gonzaga all on similar footings and they all have totally different resumes.

You might, but just realistically, Butler is viewed much differently than Xavier or Gonzaga to most folks because of the tourney.

I put the 3 schools on similar footings also.

But splitting hairs to rank the 3 of them against each other is a pointless, waste of time. Doing that can only lead to insults and negativity because you are specifically pitting schools against each other. But they are so close to each other in elite-ness that whatever the outcome, there can never be a final answer.

It's like the old argument about who's better, Mays, Mantle or Aaron. 3 elite players, and by various measures you can rank them in any order.

Or taking in their prime Grace Kelly, Gina Lollabrigida and Jacqueline Bisset. At the end of the day, we can all agree that none of us would kick them out of the bedroom. What's the point of throwing negativity towards any of them.

We don't have to rank those 3 because the original argument is that Belmont is like the Butler of old which is not correct.

[milksteak]

There is absolutely no comparison between Belmont and the old Butler. Belmont hasn't even won a tournament game...

[XtoDC]

Stever - Are you making the distinction between program success and tournament success or are you considering them the same thing? If it is just tournament success then I think it would have to be Butler > Xavier > Gonzaga, no question. If it is program success I doubt you would find much of a consensus at all.

Like the other posters have said, it really is splitting hairs so whatever conclusion anyone wants to come to is probably just as correct as anyone else's opinion. The fact that we are having this conversation should show without much doubt that the Belmont - Butler comparison doesn't really work.

[stever20]

Stever - Are you making the distinction between program success and tournament success or are you considering them the same thing? If it is just tournament success then I think it would have to be Butler > Xavier > Gonzaga, no question. If it is program success I doubt you would find much of a consensus at all.

Like the other posters have said, it really is splitting hairs so whatever conclusion anyone wants to come to is probably just as correct as anyone else's opinion. The fact that we are having this conversation should show without much doubt that the Belmont - Butler comparison doesn't really work.

I think program success and tournament success are close to the same thing. Especially when you get to back to back finals like Butler did.

Totally agree about Belmont-Butler comparison being pretty much idiotic. To me, a comp for Belmont would be more someone like Valpo. Butler frankly even before the 2 finals appearances were on a totally different plane than Belmont. Belmont in last 14 years only made the tourney 7 times. Butler had made it in 14 years before final game appearances 8 times, and had won games in 4 tournaments, with 2 sweet 16's. Belmont never won a game.

Even with that, Belmont isn't a bad loss for Marquette in terms of them being a dagger for the NCAA tourney. Only way it's a bad loss for Marquette is that if they don't get the other OOC wins, it's another loss, and those can add up pretty quickly.

[MUBoxer]

Stever - Are you making the distinction between program success and tournament success or are you considering them the same thing? If it is just tournament success then I think it would have to be Butler > Xavier > Gonzaga, no question. If it is program success I doubt you would find much of a consensus at all.

Like the other posters have said, it really is splitting hairs so whatever conclusion anyone wants to come to is probably just as correct as anyone else's opinion. The fact that we are having this conversation should show without much doubt that the Belmont - Butler comparison doesn't really work.

I think program success and tournament success are close to the same thing. Especially when you get to back to back finals like Butler did.

Totally agree about Belmont-Butler comparison being pretty much idiotic. To me, a comp for Belmont would be more someone like Valpo. Butler frankly even before the 2 finals appearances were on a totally different plane than Belmont. Belmont in last 14 years only made the tourney 7 times. Butler had made it in 14 years before final game appearances 8 times, and had won games in 4 tournaments, with 2 sweet 16's. Belmont never won a game.

Even with that, Belmont isn't a bad loss for Marquette in terms of them being a dagger for the NCAA tourney. Only way it's a bad loss for Marquette is that if they don't get the other OOC wins, it's another loss, and those can add up pretty quickly.

Yall are missing out on my original comparison in that they were both low major and consistantly in the NCAA tournament.

Why did you go back 14 years? I could say 7 out of 10 years for belmont and the percentage becomes a heck of a lot better.

I completely disagree about Valpo maybe Valpo from 1996 to 2004 but certainly not anymore. I'll meet you at Creighton in the MVC. Constantly in the NCAAs never goes anywhere. Creighton fans will now attack me claiming bogus seeding etc to which I will once again point to Belmont.