(01-15-2016 02:01 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  We aren't comparing sustainability. You are comparing CUSA basketball 1.0 to AAC basketball today. Programs not sustaining themselves have no bearing on the conversation. Football has no place in the conversation. Charlotte and UAB were solid programs in CUSA 1.0.

And to your point about SMU. Yes they are undefeated with Larry Brown, but he is 187 years old and a proven cheater. Can they maintain what they have done? Kelvin Sampson - proven cheater as well. Who is building on sand?

We're comparing basketball conferences then and now.

I'm simply saying that we have the same bottom but that it was bigger back then.

It's more than comparing RPIs. You have to compare the direction of the programs as well. Old CUSA didn't have a National title to its credit. That's a big deal to me. It sets the bar. A conference's outlook is always part of the present.

(01-13-2016 11:31 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:18 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  From 1995-2004, C-USA had 34 NCAA Tournament bids. Schools like Cincinnati, Louisville, and Memphis routinely made the tournament, with several appearances by Marquette (Final Four), Saint Louis, UAB, DePaul and Charlotte. In the last year before C-USA was raided by the Big East (Cincinnati/Louisville/USF/Marquette/DePaul) in 2004, the conference had six bids in the tournament (Memphis, Charlotte, Cincinnati, UAB, Louisville, DePaul).

I miss those days.

College basketball was a lot more fun in the 90's before all the realignment.

Me too. We've pretty much sucked ever since. I think Charlotte had the second highest win total in CUSA 1.0. These days we can't even beat freaking Campbell.

(01-15-2016 02:01 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  We aren't comparing sustainability. You are comparing CUSA basketball 1.0 to AAC basketball today. Programs not sustaining themselves have no bearing on the conversation. Football has no place in the conversation. Charlotte and UAB were solid programs in CUSA 1.0.

And to your point about SMU. Yes they are undefeated with Larry Brown, but he is 187 years old and a proven cheater. Can they maintain what they have done? Kelvin Sampson - proven cheater as well. Who is building on sand?

CUSA1 was a better overall basketball conference without a doubt.

Having UConn and its national title is valuable, just like CUSA having the Cards and Marquette with their national title legacies.

Good to "see" you again MB. Best of luck to the Blazers and yourself.

(01-15-2016 05:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:01 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  We aren't comparing sustainability. You are comparing CUSA basketball 1.0 to AAC basketball today. Programs not sustaining themselves have no bearing on the conversation. Football has no place in the conversation. Charlotte and UAB were solid programs in CUSA 1.0.

And to your point about SMU. Yes they are undefeated with Larry Brown, but he is 187 years old and a proven cheater. Can they maintain what they have done? Kelvin Sampson - proven cheater as well. Who is building on sand?

CUSA1 was a better overall basketball conference without a doubt.

Having UConn and its national title is valuable, just like CUSA having the Cards and Marquette with their national title legacies.

Good to "see" you again MB. Best of luck to the Blazers and yourself.

National title legacies are a lot different than 2 years removed from a National title. Its a significant recruiting arrow to tell a 4 star that he will be playing a team he just saw on the podium.
The same goes for football, when a conference can boast the National Championship.
When a conference has a short lineage like Cusa did, and the AAC has, that adds credibility. Its not the same credibility that comes with bringing in a member that won a title in the 70s/80s.
Former CUSA1 fans understand what a big monkey on our backs that had become. When Memphis choked in the Finals, that made the sting a little hard to bear (especially since that was already CUSA2).
As a CUSA1&2 football fan, watching Utah, TCU, and Boise, win bcs bowls, and not getting one, was similarly frustrating.
Its absurd to imply a legacy title in another conference compares.

The bottoms for AAC/CUSA1 are very similar (aside from spare bball programs like Southern Miss, TCU, etc) but I would take the top of the AAC (and the investments being made in the AAC) anyday. As a Houston fan, CUSA had become a millstone. We are building now like we weren't able to then. Different strokes for different folks.

(01-13-2016 03:12 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 02:34 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  C-USA - more depth.

But how is this possible? USF, Tulane, ECU, DePaul, So. Mississippi. Looks the same at the bottom.

People also have to remember that the teams back then stayed together longer, all across the nation. You had dominant teams. Now kids leaver earlier, transfer, etc. Teams only stick together for one and two years.

So back then, UConn and Temple were stronger, but it wasn't because they had better recruiting. It was because players stuck it out to the end of their college playing days. Temple even had the National Player of the Year, in Jameer Nelson. Emeka Okafor got his degree and was drafted second.

It was a different era.

Look around the college game today. There are no dominant teams.

Jameer Nelson went to St. Joseph's---not Temple.

(01-15-2016 01:29 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:20 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

I wouldn't trade the AAC for the old CUSA. That would be a jacked up roster today.

Too many dissimilar institutions in that roster for my liking. Both conferences have the same bottom (ECU, Tulane, USF). Then you throw in the garbage Charlotte, Southern Miss and UAB on top of that? The catholics (DePaul, St Louis, Marq). Ummmmm... TCU?

I'd much rather have UCONN, (current) SMU, Temple, Memphis, Cinci, Houston, Tulsa, etc, at the top... and cut out the crap we'd be stuck with today.

This is a dumb thread.

You are completely clueless. UAB is not a garbage basketball program. Neither was Charlotte during CUSA 1.0.
[/quote]

(01-15-2016 05:41 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 05:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:01 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  We aren't comparing sustainability. You are comparing CUSA basketball 1.0 to AAC basketball today. Programs not sustaining themselves have no bearing on the conversation. Football has no place in the conversation. Charlotte and UAB were solid programs in CUSA 1.0.

And to your point about SMU. Yes they are undefeated with Larry Brown, but he is 187 years old and a proven cheater. Can they maintain what they have done? Kelvin Sampson - proven cheater as well. Who is building on sand?

CUSA1 was a better overall basketball conference without a doubt.

Having UConn and its national title is valuable, just like CUSA having the Cards and Marquette with their national title legacies.

Good to "see" you again MB. Best of luck to the Blazers and yourself.

National title legacies are a lot different than 2 years removed from a National title. Its a significant recruiting arrow to tell a 4 star that he will be playing a team he just saw on the podium.
The same goes for football, when a conference can boast the National Championship.
When a conference has a short lineage like Cusa did, and the AAC has, that adds credibility. Its not the same credibility that comes with bringing in a member that won a title in the 70s/80s.
Former CUSA1 fans understand what a big monkey on our backs that had become. When Memphis choked in the Finals, that made the sting a little hard to bear (especially since that was already CUSA2).
As a CUSA1&2 football fan, watching Utah, TCU, and Boise, win bcs bowls, and not getting one, was similarly frustrating.
Its absurd to imply a legacy title in another conference compares.

The bottoms for AAC/CUSA1 are very similar (aside from spare bball programs like Southern Miss, TCU, etc) but I would take the top of the AAC (and the investments being made in the AAC) anyday. As a Houston fan, CUSA had become a millstone. We are building now like we weren't able to then. Different strokes for different folks.

enjoy the weekend

C-USA 1.0 might never have the type of year the American had in year one but overall that league always had teams ranked in the top 15. Overall the coaches were a lot better in that league too or at least the upper level coaches.

I think you can blame this conference's basketball failures on the situations at Cincinnati, UConn, Memphis, and Temple. While collectively a solid group none of them in my view are close their full potential. Yes, Ollie has the title but he will likely miss the tournament again. 1 national title with the former coaches players is not that great of a resume when the other three years are just so-so. Cincinnati is not same program it was during the Huggins years, Memphis is falling off the map, and Temple has oddly taken a step back when they joined the league.

(01-15-2016 07:04 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  C-USA 1.0 might never have the type of year the American had in year one but overall that league always had teams ranked in the top 15. Overall the coaches were a lot better in that league too or at least the upper level coaches.

I think you can blame this conference's basketball failures on the situations at Cincinnati, UConn, Memphis, and Temple. While collectively a solid group none of them in my view are close their full potential. Yes, Ollie has the title but he will likely miss the tournament again. 1 national title with the former coaches players is not that great of a resume when the other three years are just so-so. Cincinnati is not same program it was during the Huggins years, Memphis is falling off the map, and Temple has oddly taken a step back when they joined the league.

You are saying it, but the traditional southern basketball schools are all faltering. Hell MTSU is on a better run of late than Memphis and WKU. Charlotte is a nobody, UAB is nothing like they have been before. I was really looking forward to CUSA hoops, but they are dreadful for the most part (WKU is part of the issue, don't get me wrong). Then the AAC schools I expected to dominate the league are just meh. Then you have USC jr of all places ranked and sitting on a single loss. The whole basketball world is flipped upside down.

(01-13-2016 09:43 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  CUSA v1.0 had better hoops than the AAC

CUSA v1.0 got four teams in the ncaa it's first year

charlotte and depaul came on later

it's not even close

Agreed

Yeah, the OLD CUSA was better...

The AAC is working up to that.

Our recruit Tulsa missed out on just scored 30 had 10 rebounds and 10 assists

(01-15-2016 11:54 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Our recruit Tulsa missed out on just scored 30 had 10 rebounds and 10 assists

UAB had some really good teams in Great Midwest/CUSA days. They made an elite 8 run in CUSA beating UK one year (I think your coach was Anderson then).

And they always gave Huggy nightmares when Bartow was there in Great Midwest too.

Perry Clark in his early years at Tulane gave Huggins a run for his money as he did Crum at Louisville in the old Metro Conference. Great rivalries in the Metro. Was a great basketball conference.

(01-15-2016 12:56 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 11:58 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:49 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  C-USA by far. Cincinnati was a top 10 program during most of that period which included an Elite 8 and Sweet 16 and a number of weeks ranked 1. Louisville and Memphis were actually rebuilding but the Cards still managed a Final Four and Memphis was always a post season contender. The big difference between the leagues were the non-football members Marquette, Charlotte, St. Louis, and DePaul. Those schools added depth and usually competed for NCAA and NIT bids. Not to be overlooked was a solid UAB program too.

If the American added VCU, Dayton, and Wichita State then the American would have the upper tier depth needed to send four to six teams every year to the NCAA tournament and handful more to the NIT. The current version of the American needs UConn to become a top 15 program in the regular season and Cincinnati, Memphis, and Temple to maintain their status of tournament contenders. SMU and Houston have to continue to their upward climb as well. Right now UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, and Temple have underachieved as a group since Louisville left the league. Cincy was the only one to make the tournament last year from that group and I would shocked if more than two teams from the traditional powers made it this year. Tulsa has been rock solid in the upper tier.

I like your idea.

ORRRR ECU can finally hire a coach worth a damn.. and the decent recruiting in the conference grows into upper classmen, and the scheduling practices of the newer adds gets overhauled and respectable. There is no excuse to schedule yourself out of the NCAA tournament before you even play a game.

No ******* ****? Look, you're preaching to the choir here but there isn't **** all we can do about this joke of a coach right now.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

CUSA 1.0 was superior. Doesn't mean the AAC is a bad MBB league, but it has a ways to go as a league before it gets that good.

(01-16-2016 09:57 PM)Shrack Wrote:  CUSA 1.0 was superior. Doesn't mean the AAC is a bad MBB league, but it has a ways to go as a league before it gets that good.

Guys, It's water under the bridge ... !!! The AAC is an offspring from what would have been a great overall conference if some member institutions hadn't decided to backstab the former Big East commissioner. This wasn't planned ... !!!

That being said ... "The AAC does have a tremendous amount of potential. It has three straight NCAA WBB Championships. It won the NCAA MBB Championship during its first year of operation. It has earned a slot in a BCS Bowl Game in two of the last three NCAA D1 Football seasons ... !!!

Tell me when the Old C-USA conference accomplished any of those things ... ."

eh...the team that won the national title from the AAC (uconn) was really just AAC in title. That team was recruited and put together in the Big East. If they do it again in a few years you will have a valid point.

(01-21-2016 03:42 PM)TonyTiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 09:57 PM)Shrack Wrote:  CUSA 1.0 was superior. Doesn't mean the AAC is a bad MBB league, but it has a ways to go as a league before it gets that good.

Guys, It's water under the bridge ... !!! The AAC is an offspring from what would have been a great overall conference if some member institutions hadn't decided to backstab the former Big East commissioner. This wasn't planned ... !!!

That being said ... "The AAC does have a tremendous amount of potential. It has three straight NCAA WBB Championships. It won the NCAA MBB Championship during its first year of operation. It has earned a slot in a BCS Bowl Game in two of the last three NCAA D1 Football seasons ... !!!

Tell me when the Old C-USA conference accomplished any of those things ... ."

You make great points that are 100% correct.

I think however, you're answering a question that wasn't asked. The question was which was the best BB conference. You addressed "overall" conference, and with the WBB/UConn NC and UH bowl win, the AAC is better overall.

However, I still think the best BB conference was CUSA I thus far.

a Big East team won the national title in the AAC first year....lets be serious.

that UCONN team was not assembled in the AAC, but the Big East. It was AAC in title only