(01-22-2017 07:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 01:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Well no, because once again the power designation isn't about a single season. It's about money you make, respect you demand and consistency.

The new Big East is a key test of this. When they started, it was an open question among many whether they would continue to be considered a power BBall conference. And then they proceeded to be in and amongst the P5 schools in terms of numbers of ranked schools and numbers of high seeds and percentage of the conference getting bids, and any lingering doubts among serious observers were laid to rest.

Some of it was also the smart picking of schools to round out the Big East after the divorce.

Going with Creighton over St. Louis despite a bigger market and going with Butler over Dayton despite better fans has turned out to be good decisions.

(01-22-2017 08:02 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 07:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 01:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Well no, because once again the power designation isn't about a single season. It's about money you make, respect you demand and consistency.

The new Big East is a key test of this. When they started, it was an open question among many whether they would continue to be considered a power BBall conference. And then they proceeded to be in and amongst the P5 schools in terms of numbers of ranked schools and numbers of high seeds and percentage of the conference getting bids, and any lingering doubts among serious observers were laid to rest.

I don't see a conference w/ Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette in it not being a power conference.

The BE makes a killing off of basketball TV money. The conference has multiple teams w/ recent FF's. The conference has a strong footing in the best recruiting areas in the country.

The conference is a power conference, and it has always been a power conference. I don't see a reasonable argument against them.

20 years ago Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette wouldn't have likely been enough but with the development of those programs and Creighton, Butler and Xavier over that time span its turned out to work.

There was some circumstance and magic that originally made the Big East an instant power conference in 1979 and circumstance and magic again played a role in 2013.

Big East is a great brand. 10 schools and all basketball schools. Its also helped by very few blueblood schools in college basketball relative to a field of 350 schools. Unless Duke, UNC, Kentucky or Kansas are open there isn't too much of a fear of losing your coach. One could argue the Big East is a quasi-blueblood conference with the names they have.

(01-22-2017 02:16 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 01:27 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 12:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 09:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 08:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ESPN lists "6 power conferences" guess where the American is? Not in their made up BPI power 6. We are in the "Other conferences" category...********. Why do so many of you AAC fans love VD ESPIN so much? P6?... they won't even include us in their "P6" in basketball. Wow they are evil. Just set on destroying many good programs the past 20 years....I want them to keep losing subscribers and I want them to hurt the way they've hurt schools with the these bullsh!t labels.

Cheers!

Well you aren't in the top 6 so whats your issue? They didn't make it the top 7 just to include you? They can't call it the P5 because the Big East is clearly a top flight league.

Oh, So you are saying that the "power 6" rotates. If the AAC was 4th and the MWC was 5th and the A-10 was 6th, then ESPN WOULD List them as "power conferences" and the 3 conferences that lost their place to them (PAC, SEC, BE) would be rotated into the "other conferences" category???
Not a chance in hell and you know it.
Cheers!

Well no, because once again the power designation isn't about a single season. It's about money you make, respect you demand and consistency. The Power 6 have been the top 6 conferences year in and year out. The AAC has been the 7th best conference the last 3 years. You are just unhappy with your lot in life as a non-power conference.

Of course Im unhappy that the AAC has been deemed a non-power conference. If the AAC was the 4th best conference ESPN wouldn't call us a "power conference" I won't bother using previous years examples of top 5 rpi conference rankings, multiple NCAA bids and a National Championship a few years ago. "Accept my lot as a non-power conference"--Yes Sir. I should have known my place Sir. Apologies Sir.
Cheers!

You can't use previous top five finishes because there aren't any for the AAC. They have finished 7th the last 3 years.

AAC didn't really think basketball strength when expanding.

It was all football support and TV market. East Carolina has massive football fans. Tulane has a massive TV market.

(01-22-2017 08:02 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 07:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='RutgersGuy' pid='14021271' dateline='1485109620'] Well no, because once again the power designation isn't about a single season. It's about money you make, respect you demand and consistency.

The new Big East is a key test of this. When they started, it was an open question among many whether they would continue to be considered a power BBall conference. And then they proceeded to be in and amongst the P5 schools in terms of numbers of ranked schools and numbers of high seeds and percentage of the conference getting bids, and any lingering doubts among serious observers were laid to rest.

I don't see a conference w/ Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette in it not being a power conference.

Do you see a conference w/Uconn, Cincinnati and Memphis in it not being a power conference too?

Cheers!

(01-22-2017 09:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:02 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 07:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='RutgersGuy' pid='14021271' dateline='1485109620'] Well no, because once again the power designation isn't about a single season. It's about money you make, respect you demand and consistency.

The new Big East is a key test of this. When they started, it was an open question among many whether they would continue to be considered a power BBall conference. And then they proceeded to be in and amongst the P5 schools in terms of numbers of ranked schools and numbers of high seeds and percentage of the conference getting bids, and any lingering doubts among serious observers were laid to rest.

I don't see a conference w/ Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette in it not being a power conference.

Do you see a conference w/Uconn, Cincinnati and Memphis in it not being a power conference too?

Cheers!

Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette > Uconn, Cincinnati and Memphis in my mind.

UConn, Cincinnati and Memphis are more "high resource" than any three Big East schools.

(01-22-2017 09:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  AAC didn't really think basketball strength when expanding.

It was all football support and TV market. East Carolina has massive football fans. Tulane has a massive TV market.

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

(01-22-2017 11:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  AAC didn't really think basketball strength when expanding.

It was all football support and TV market. East Carolina has massive football fans. Tulane has a massive TV market.

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

(01-23-2017 12:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  AAC didn't really think basketball strength when expanding.

It was all football support and TV market. East Carolina has massive football fans. Tulane has a massive TV market.

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

TV markets don't make money. Fan interest does, regardless of where the product is located.

Tulane has excellent academics, and incredible potential in football. It's like Miami in the 70's.

(01-23-2017 12:41 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  AAC didn't really think basketball strength when expanding.

It was all football support and TV market. East Carolina has massive football fans. Tulane has a massive TV market.

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

TV markets don't make money. Fan interest does, regardless of where the product is located.

Tulane has excellent academics, and incredible potential in football. It's like Miami in the 70's.

Then why did they build a 15,000 seat on campus stadium like Charlotte?

(01-23-2017 12:45 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:41 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:14 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  AAC didn't really think basketball strength when expanding.

It was all football support and TV market. East Carolina has massive football fans. Tulane has a massive TV market.

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

TV markets don't make money. Fan interest does, regardless of where the product is located.

Tulane has excellent academics, and incredible potential in football. It's like Miami in the 70's.

Then why did they build a 15,000 seat on campus stadium like Charlotte?

Tulane? They built a 30,000 seat stadium and they have access to the 75,000 seat Superdome if they ever got big enough to need a bigger stadium.

But my point about Tulane is that the potential is there, not that it's been realized. Southern Louisiana is arguably the most cfb talent rich area of the country, and east Texas and south Florida aren't too far away.

(01-21-2017 08:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ESPN lists "6 power conferences" guess where the American is? Not in their made up BPI power 6. We are in the "Other conferences" category...********. Why do so many of you AAC fans love VD ESPIN so much? P6?... they won't even include us in their "P6" in basketball. Wow they are evil. Just set on destroying many good programs the past 20 years....I want them to keep losing subscribers and I want them to hurt the way they've hurt schools with the these bullsh!t labels.

Cheers!

When Mr. Trump is done with this whole presidency thing, the AAC should hire him as new commissioner. He could challenge those lying bastards at ESPN about their failure to tell the truth -- that the AAC has the highest conference RPI, the largest attendance, and the biggest TV audiences.

(01-22-2017 09:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:02 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 07:50 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='RutgersGuy' pid='14021271' dateline='1485109620'] Well no, because once again the power designation isn't about a single season. It's about money you make, respect you demand and consistency.

The new Big East is a key test of this. When they started, it was an open question among many whether they would continue to be considered a power BBall conference. And then they proceeded to be in and amongst the P5 schools in terms of numbers of ranked schools and numbers of high seeds and percentage of the conference getting bids, and any lingering doubts among serious observers were laid to rest.

I don't see a conference w/ Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette in it not being a power conference.

Do you see a conference w/Uconn, Cincinnati and Memphis in it not being a power conference too?

Cheers!

Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette > Uconn, Cincinnati and Memphis in my mind.

I'd argue that it's not about Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette vs UConn, Cincy, Memphis. You can make a case there either way.

It's about St Johns, DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence vs USF, UCF, ECU, Tulane, SMU.

The reason the A-10 isn't in this conversation isn't because Dayton and VCU don't measure up to Georgetown and Xavier. It's that George Washington and George Mason and Richmond don't measure up to Villanova and Temple and Butler and UConn.

The reason the AAC and A-10 aren't seen as power leagues in basketball is that there is a lot of "dead weight" at the bottom and in the middle. There's a tipping point between "this is a good league with some stinker programs" and "this is a mediocre league with some good programs."

Before the split, there was a very strong school of thought that said that without the big-state football programs the C7 programs would wither and die, that the C7 was the new A-10. (That school of thought still lives sometimes on the AAC board, convinced that the next TV contracts will see the natural order of FB>>>BB restored, with the AAC getting a raise and the Big East taking a pay cut.)

In basketball, RPI and similar metrics are crucial. That means that if your conference is full of palookas, winning your league games doesn't get you any credit, while losing hurts a lot.

(01-23-2017 12:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:45 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:41 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

TV markets don't make money. Fan interest does, regardless of where the product is located.

Tulane has excellent academics, and incredible potential in football. It's like Miami in the 70's.

Then why did they build a 15,000 seat on campus stadium like Charlotte?

Tulane? They built a 30,000 seat stadium and they have access to the 75,000 seat Superdome if they ever got big enough to need a bigger stadium.

But my point about Tulane is that the potential is there, not that it's been realized. Southern Louisiana is arguably the most cfb talent rich area of the country, and east Texas and south Florida aren't too far away.

Tulane also had a leader who was one of the leading voices for the non-majors/have-not's. I mean, yeah, his stature diminished over time, but, if you were fighting to retain that major conference status, Tulane's guy was a good ally to have. It also didn't hurt that Tulane used to run with the majors, and probably could have again over the years if it really invested itself. Exactly for the reasons above: great school, great location for recruiting, good media market. Potential's been there.

Plus, over on another board, I used to preach about Tulane's expenditures from 2005 onward. Venue renovations, the football stadium, basketball arena, training facilities...I think they're well over $250 million in projects. That's the kind of spending that used to mean you had an interested audience and commitment to athletics spending. Maybe it's different times now (Colorado State spending a mint on a stadium despite no takers or enough donors to sponge the costs is something different than what would have been done just five or six years ago, and Temple trying to do build an OCS despite significant financial woes and no guarantees), but Tulane was clearly showing it would like to be counted among the majors again. Again, who knows about that, now, but when they were tapped...I wasn't surprised.

(01-23-2017 12:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:45 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:41 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  [quote='The Cutter of Bish' pid='14022915' dateline='1485145955']

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

TV markets don't make money. Fan interest does, regardless of where the product is located.

Tulane has excellent academics, and incredible potential in football. It's like Miami in the 70's.

Then why did they build a 15,000 seat on campus stadium like Charlotte?

Tulane? They built a 30,000 seat stadium and they have access to the 75,000 seat Superdome if they ever got big enough to need a bigger stadium.

"Tulane, they built a 30,000 seat stadium"--no they didn't. They built a new OCS that is a low 20,000 seat stadium. Enough standing room area to get a few more thousand people in. But "they did not build a 30,000 seat stadium"
BTW, you should go there sometime and check it out, it's very nice.
Cheers!

(01-23-2017 10:36 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:45 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:41 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  [quote='The Cutter of Bish' pid='14022915' dateline='1485145955']

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

TV markets don't make money. Fan interest does, regardless of where the product is located.

Tulane has excellent academics, and incredible potential in football. It's like Miami in the 70's.

Then why did they build a 15,000 seat on campus stadium like Charlotte?

Tulane? They built a 30,000 seat stadium and they have access to the 75,000 seat Superdome if they ever got big enough to need a bigger stadium.

"Tulane, they built a 30,000 seat stadium"--no they didn't. They built a new OCS that is a low 20,000 seat stadium. Enough standing room area to get a few more thousand people in. But "they did not build a 30,000 seat stadium"
BTW, you should go there sometime and check it out, it's very nice.
Cheers!

The wiki says it's 30K, and expandable to 40-45K. Supposedly.

Not unlike Charlotte...their's can expand to 45K, iirc.

On the note of actual realignment talk...

Looking through these rankings makes me circle back around to say that it would be a really nice move for the Horizon to grab a combo of Belmont/Lipscomb.

There has been talk of Belmont before and they need a proper travel partner. With Lipscomb improving, this would be a nice pairing for the Horizon.

(01-23-2017 10:36 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:45 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:41 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  [quote='The Cutter of Bish' pid='14022915' dateline='1485145955']

Yes and no. The "mega invite" had no basketball value to it at the time (who knew SMU would turn out to be a contributor?), but Memphis and Temple were strong adds.

If they weren't straying from football fielding members, it would still be hard to fill the conference in with consistent contributors. UAB comes to mind, but the AAC looks smart for avoiding that one, even if those guys brought good hoops.

What about comparing Buffalo as an addition to Tulane?

Buffalo has made the tourney 2 straight years and is a solid G5 program. Buffalo football and Tulane football are about the same. Upstate New York and Louisiana TV market are about the same.

ECU could have stayed FB only as well.

TV markets don't make money. Fan interest does, regardless of where the product is located.

Tulane has excellent academics, and incredible potential in football. It's like Miami in the 70's.

Then why did they build a 15,000 seat on campus stadium like Charlotte?

Tulane? They built a 30,000 seat stadium and they have access to the 75,000 seat Superdome if they ever got big enough to need a bigger stadium.

"Tulane, they built a 30,000 seat stadium"--no they didn't. They built a new OCS that is a low 20,000 seat stadium. Enough standing room area to get a few more thousand people in. But "they did not build a 30,000 seat stadium"
BTW, you should go there sometime and check it out, it's very nice.
Cheers!

See the capacity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulman_Stadium