(03-23-2015 09:35 AM)goofus Wrote: In hindsight, Wichita was seeded too low. Gonzaga so far seems about right with more to come.
The ACC and PAC have overachieved.
Big Ten and Big 12 did not bomb out completely but Big Ten got 2 teams in the sweet 16, about what was expected, but 3 would have been more of a statement.
Big 12 appears to have been over-rated, with a #2 and two #3 seeds out. Still it got the same number of teams to sweet 16 as the Big Ten, and more than SEC, Big East, American, MVC, or A-10.
Big East and the American both seem to be slowly dwindling away since the split. I know SMU lost on a controversial call, but they are still out and they were the American's only hope.
One year is way too small a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusions about relative conference strength and trajectory. Louisville came out of the American two years ago to win it all; ditto UCONN last year. Cincy won a bid (and a game against a B10 opponent) this year with 5 new starters and an interim coach. As you noted, SMU lost on a controversial play. Temple barely missed the NCAA cutoff and Memphis and UCONN just had down years. I'll be surprised if the American doesn't have at least four bids next season. These are traditionally strong programs with solid pedigrees.
This is absolutely true. And it's equally true for those who would write off the AAC teams as it is for those who assume that their marquee hoops programs will surely stay at the top of the heap. We won't know what trajectory they will take for at least a few more years.
In Cincy's favor is the fact that they have been successful over at least 60 years and in multiple conferences. Working against them is the fact that, while they achieved heights as great as UConn has, they did it more than 50 years ago.
UConn has had a great 20 year run, and that may result in continued recruiting success. But the fact remains that the Huskies were a mid-major before they got their Big East invite. They still have to show that they can do it on their own without the notoriety of being what was arguably the best hoops conference ever. Will those top recruits still want to sign on to a team that is likely to have a very weak conference schedule every year? Will the other top national brands continue to schedule them OOC to make up for that?
Right now, of these two programs, I believe UConn is the one with more to prove going forward. Will they be a NC contender or revert to being a mid-major? Only time will tell.
come on now. very weak conference schedule? UConn played this year Temple 2x, Cincy 2x, Tulsa 2x, SMU 2x, and Memphis 2x. Yes they had 8 games vs the others. 2 years ago, last year of the big east, they had 7 games vs sub 100 teams.
And you are acting like the other 5 won't improve. I know UCF has gotten a top 100 recruit. The others are getting better as well. For one, I don't think you realize how awful the TV exposure was for CUSA.
Yes. I said they were likely to be playing a weak conference schedule in the future, and to challenge that you presented a schedule that was pretty weak this year. As for the other schools in the AAC, why would I assume they will improve significantly in the future? This isn't Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average. Basketball is a zero sum game. Everybody can't be a winner.
What I said, in essence, was not that the AAC is weak now or will be in the future. Just that the jury is still out, and will be for at least several more years. You're welcome to disagree with that assessment.
(03-24-2015 02:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: So, apparently ECU can only be a good basketball team if it's on television? Makes me wonder how Old Dominion and VCU were able to get by when they were all slumming it in the Colonial...
I'll never understand this television and media revenue as panaceas mindset, probably because, as an A10 fan, it wasn't like they were easy to find, either. Yet, some really healthy and robust programs in there.
I want to see the AAC succeed. As a Philly area native, and Big 5 worshipper, I want to see Temple achieve success (as much as Villanova, St. Joe's, UPenn, and La Salle). But, let's be realistic. When television wasn't the only motivator, it was about being equals with certain programs. That, clearly, didn't change things at some of these schools. Now, more television will?
there are programs though that do succeed because of TV. One that comes to mind pretty quickly is Boise St. I don't think w/o ESPN Boise would be Boise right now.
(03-24-2015 04:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: there are programs though that do succeed because of TV. One that comes to mind pretty quickly is Boise St. I don't think w/o ESPN Boise would be Boise right now.
Absolutely, and to their credit, they fight hard for their visibility and want to be a recognized contributor, as their arena has hosted NCAA tournament games, and their football field a bowl venue. But, Boise is relatively new to the FBS scene, upgrading their program to that level in the BCS era. Gonzaga has also enjoyed some attention from ESPN that, I'm sure, has helped raise that program's profile.
I just don't have much sympathy for the majority of CUSA and the AAC. Considering the origins of CUSA, it was so basketball-centered, and where those schools wound up going, some are still active contributors (even if elsewhere), while others just take up space. When Memphis was basically the only thing coming out of CUSA for the NCAA tournament, I couldn't help but wonder how conferences like the MVC, A10, and even the CAA were having these great years as a group, despite being tiny schools, while these CUSA institutions (some of whom were once majors, like Houston, Rice, SMU, and Tulane) weren't doing anything collectively. I can understand losing television exposure would sting a bit for these programs, but for schools like Memphis, that wasn't stopping them. It makes the others come off as disingenuous, if they operate/feel that way.
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2015 09:40 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
(03-24-2015 04:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: there are programs though that do succeed because of TV. One that comes to mind pretty quickly is Boise St. I don't think w/o ESPN Boise would be Boise right now.
Absolutely, and to their credit, they fight hard for their visibility and want to be a recognized contributor, as their arena has hosted NCAA tournament games, and their football field a bowl venue. But, Boise is relatively new to the FBS scene, upgrading their program to that level in the BCS era. Gonzaga has also enjoyed some attention from ESPN that, I'm sure, has helped raise that program's profile.
I just don't have much sympathy for the majority of CUSA and the AAC. Considering the origins of CUSA, it was so basketball-centered, and where those schools wound up going, some are still active contributors (even if elsewhere), while others just take up space. When Memphis was basically the only thing coming out of CUSA for the NCAA tournament, I couldn't help but wonder how conferences like the MVC, A10, and even the CAA were having these great years as a group, despite being tiny schools, while these CUSA institutions (some of whom were once majors, like Houston, Rice, SMU, and Tulane) weren't doing anything collectively. I can understand losing television exposure would sting a bit for these programs, but for schools like Memphis, that wasn't stopping them. It makes the others come off as disingenuous, if they operate/feel that way.
My point is simple. Any program, no matter the history, that gets a sudden burst in exposure like what the C-USA AAC teams are getting, could spring up pretty quickly. Just looking- UCF got a ESPN Top 100 player. That wouldn't happen if UCF wasn't in the AAC. It wouldn't be a shock at all to see any of those teams sprout.
(03-24-2015 04:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: there are programs though that do succeed because of TV. One that comes to mind pretty quickly is Boise St. I don't think w/o ESPN Boise would be Boise right now.
Absolutely, and to their credit, they fight hard for their visibility and want to be a recognized contributor, as their arena has hosted NCAA tournament games, and their football field a bowl venue. But, Boise is relatively new to the FBS scene, upgrading their program to that level in the BCS era. Gonzaga has also enjoyed some attention from ESPN that, I'm sure, has helped raise that program's profile.
I just don't have much sympathy for the majority of CUSA and the AAC. Considering the origins of CUSA, it was so basketball-centered, and where those schools wound up going, some are still active contributors (even if elsewhere), while others just take up space. When Memphis was basically the only thing coming out of CUSA for the NCAA tournament, I couldn't help but wonder how conferences like the MVC, A10, and even the CAA were having these great years as a group, despite being tiny schools, while these CUSA institutions (some of whom were once majors, like Houston, Rice, SMU, and Tulane) weren't doing anything collectively. I can understand losing television exposure would sting a bit for these programs, but for schools like Memphis, that wasn't stopping them. It makes the others come off as disingenuous, if they operate/feel that way.
The visibility has helped but Gonzaga and Boise are a product of their own successes. No one would have cared about seeing them on ESPN if Gonzaga hadn't gone to the Sweet 16 three straight years and kept winning thereafter.
Boise is a combination of their success, winning major bowl games (especially over OU) and to a lesser extent, their turf.
/
Gonzaga to the Sweet 16 again
