(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.