(03-11-2017 12:12 AM)ClemVegas Wrote: ok so you are making NYC out as this amazing place to play yet you thinik my Knicks point isn't relevant to your silly argument? lol you are terrible at debate. if it is the greatest stage on earth, why can't they land better free agents?
why does a program like UNC need to play in NYC to get good players? don't you think a kid wants to play for a college that wins a lot of games and titles and puts a lot of players in the NBA?
you are shifting the goal posts now, previously you were making it about exposure for the conference, now you are saying it only helps elite teams in the ACC to play in NYC. why is it in the best interest for the lesser teams in the ACC to play in a market to help UNC and Duke recruit players? lol
i look at UNC's team and it loaded with players from NC and southern states. but you acting like players from NYC are a difference maker. i have never heard of NY being a major basketball recruiting area.
why aren't Seton Hall and St. John's top programs in college basketball?
I honestly don't know where you are getting your at. You aren't following and maybe that's my fault. UNC and Duke don't need anything but their own brands to get players. They don't need NYC and they don't need the ACC. There are about 5 to 10 elite basketball programs at their level. Still, particularly Duke, schedules non-conference games in NYC anyway, sometimes multiple games a year. My point was the opposite: schools that aren't elite can get an edge in recruiting NYC by increasing their exposure in the city. And many do that, intentionally, by scheduling as many games there as they can. Recruiting isn't the only reason they schedule games there, but it is
a reason, and they use it their sales pitch to kids in the area if they do it. If a school doesn't want to mine the NY metro, then by all means, don't worry about it, as it is a competitive place to recruit, but it still the largest producer of prep talent. It's like ignoring South Florida in football. You don't have to recruit there to be successful, but if want to send staff to that area, there is more of an opening if you have a regular presence there. And Miami has sucked in football for a while too, and FIU and FAU are terrible, but that doesn't speak at all to the football talent available there. An analogy would be that Ohio State can recruit Florida if it wants since is an elite program that needs no introduction, and they can ignore Florida and still be wildly successful because their local base is solid plus they can recruit nationally. But if Pitt or Louisville is recruiting against Purdue or Maryland in the state, guess who is going to have the advantage all other things being equal. Keeping a presence in Florida was the
only reason USF was added to the Big East when Miami left.
Silly argument? It's not an argument. I'm trying to explain some of the reasons about why things are the way the are and why many college basketball programs still want to get to NYC. The fact that you are trying to debate it doesn't change the reality. Feel free to continue to tilt at windmills. I'm not finding it useful anymore because not even the most brilliant retort is changing the fact of where the ACC Championship is being played tonight, nor will it change the ACC's strategy is about getting into the Northeast, nor will it stop schools from scheduling games in New York. And your Knicks point just shows how much you don't know about New York, and is completely irrelevant to college basketball recruiting in the city (or anywhere else). It's like saying the Dolphins, Bucs, and Jags suckatude reflects on the desirability of prep football players to want to stay in Florida for college.
And you should be aware that St. John's was one of the greatest programs in college basketball history up until it imploded under Jarvis following a team sex scandal and subsequent sanctions in early 2000s. It has struggled ever since Carnesecca has retired and other schools, like Pitt, have taken advantage of the vacuum. Part of its decline coincided with bad coaching hires coupled with the scandals and some institutional decisions that affected its ability to recruit. Another part of it is that it also has fallen way behind in its on-campus facilities. It still is the #8 winningest program in college basketball history by wins and #11 by %. That's better than everyone in the ACC but Carolina, Duke, and Syracuse. For comparison sake, its got a tiny fraction of the athletic money and facilities that Clemson has, and only a shred of the academic reputation, yet unlike Clemson it does have at least two tournament wins this decade, and those are almost exclusively due to the serendipity of its location. However, SJU is not likely to be back in the tourney soon due to the incredible stupidity (at least IMO) of its most recent hire.
CCNY was one of the biggest basketball powers in the first half of the 20th century winning the NIT and NCAA in the same year. They were rocked by a point-shaving scandal in the 1950s and eventually dropped to Division 3. Most of the schools in NYC deemphasized sports after WWII, which is also why you don't see any FBS football teams there.
Seton Hall is a tiny (its got less than 6K total students on lest than 60 acres) Catholic School tucked 40 minutes outside the city and was largely forgettable for most of its history until PJ Carlisemo came to town, and then sucked after he left. The only thing attractive about coaching at that school is that it is near NYC and in the Big East, the latter resulting from the fortuitous circumstance of it having the luck of the Big East's first choices turning it down when the conference formed. The athletic department has even less money than St. John's and it's one of the tougher jobs in high major basketball and is typically a stepping stone if a coach can succeed there. They are just regaining their footing a little under Willard (who, btw, is a Pitt alumnus).
/
Boeheim being Boeheim.....then gets owned by Greensboro
