(03-14-2017 09:13 AM)EffinBJ Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:13 AM)uccheese Wrote:  People act like this is random. NC and Duke get good draws because they are the best teams in the regular season.

And others act as though they have not been coddled and protected into such a position. UNC's massive and institutionalized academic fraud and recruiting violations were ignored. Coach K (and now Calipari) are given exclusive access to blue chip recruits via USA Basketball. Their Laettners and Graysons can act like thugs in the true sense of the word, without Duke being held at all accountable for their lack of discipline. ESPN promotes them endlessly, to the point that our Crosstown Shootout was often being played on half a screen so that ESPN could remind us of a better game we might want to watch. My point is, if you think this is a meritocracy, then you're ignorant of the special advantages built into this system.

And by the way, Duke was not the best team during the regular season. They lost five of their last six and finished fifth.

lol what in the world? #alternativefacts

Duke actually lost three of their last four regular season games and finished 5th in the ACC standings.

(03-14-2017 08:04 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:45 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:40 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  The concept of "we will build it and they will come" was flat out wrong in both realignment and attendance.

Actually, it has worked that way as far as building of the football program has led to greater student enrollment (bucking the trend of many school in the state of Ohio).

On that I agree. What MD started, BK exploded, and BJ maintained definitely increased enrollment, alumni donations, merchandising revenues, and national cache. And.....and it's a big AND.... we had a seat at the big boy table.

What dreck bowl did the AAC Champ receive? What dreck seed did the AAC Champ get? Too many sit quietly and think it's going to be OK. Luke will save us. The new Arena will bring in McDonald's All-Americans. Remain calm, all is well.

Keep turning a blind eye to the erosion of UC athletics and one day we will be in the MAC, or worse, Independent. Not a matter of opinion but a matter of history.

You bring up a good point. We should really be trying to get into a Power 5 conference IMO. I'll pass this along to President Pinto.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

(03-14-2017 10:51 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 08:04 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 07:45 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:40 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  The concept of "we will build it and they will come" was flat out wrong in both realignment and attendance.

Actually, it has worked that way as far as building of the football program has led to greater student enrollment (bucking the trend of many school in the state of Ohio).

On that I agree. What MD started, BK exploded, and BJ maintained definitely increased enrollment, alumni donations, merchandising revenues, and national cache. And.....and it's a big AND.... we had a seat at the big boy table.

What dreck bowl did the AAC Champ receive? What dreck seed did the AAC Champ get? Too many sit quietly and think it's going to be OK. Luke will save us. The new Arena will bring in McDonald's All-Americans. Remain calm, all is well.

Keep turning a blind eye to the erosion of UC athletics and one day we will be in the MAC, or worse, Independent. Not a matter of opinion but a matter of history.

You bring up a good point. We should really be trying to get into a Power 5 conference IMO. I'll pass this along to President Pinto.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

(03-13-2017 09:17 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  Regarding the Metro/ CUSA/ Great Midwest days - let's be honest, it took a long, long while for anyone other than Memphis & UofL to truly rise to the occasion. UofL in the last years of Crum were not well regarded teams (mid to late 90s). UC's big splash on the scene with its FF & EE teams and successive high performing teams of the 90s aided in lifting the conference's profile...along with Memphis, and UofL, and maybe UAB/SLU/(later Marquette). It took quite some time for the conference to get respected and become more than a 2/3 team bid conference. At that point it was early 2000s.

All i'm saying is.....things ain't really changed enough to justify the angst abt conferences and such in college basketball. Football? Yes. 100%. Absolutely.



mc

You use bad facts; The Great Midwest and Conference USA were never 2/3 bid conferences in the nineties. Always 3-4 (mostly 4) and remember the Great Midwest only had 6 and then 7 teams so half or more of the league went to the NCAA most years. Yes we now need to get into a better league but you demean the nineties a little too much.

One thing to consider now as opposed to the 90s are the Super Conferences and how much harder it is to get P5 games. Since most P5 teams will play 0 or maybe 1 non-P5 team, it does not allow the non-P5s many chances to boost their RPIs, etc. So once conference play begins, the P5 guys have boosted numbers and then only help their numbers in conference play. The non-P5s can't help their cause.

Even many bad P5 teams will see a boost to their numbers once they hit conference since they are playing lots of teams that start high and only get aided. Back in the GMC/C-USA days, most leagues sent 4-6 teams at best. Now we see conferences sending 9-10 teams. The St. Louis, Charlottes of the world likely wouldn't have a big enough RPI nowadays to help. Likely would have been similar to Tulsa are now with a 100-ish RPI, which would hurt the league. While P5 may not matter as much in basketball, you need to be flawless outside the P5. We lost 5 games, 3 to top 13 RPI teams and two other non-bad losses, all on the road. We could do no better than a 6. We may only be able to lose 1 or 2 games a year to get a top 2-3 seed (At least that is how I am starting to feel), which you almost need to make a run. Odds are stacked against us.

True. Schools in the BE often benefitted from playing one another. The MVC used to be this way too. Lots of programs that looked better than they really were because they played one another for 9 straight weeks. If you do not have a bunch of those types of quality teams come conference season, you are toast as a group.

Mix in the fact the P5 will not take on true road games and the finger is on the scale for many programs unless you can get into the top preseason and holiday tournies.

(03-14-2017 02:02 PM)cincybb51 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:17 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  Regarding the Metro/ CUSA/ Great Midwest days - let's be honest, it took a long, long while for anyone other than Memphis & UofL to truly rise to the occasion. UofL in the last years of Crum were not well regarded teams (mid to late 90s). UC's big splash on the scene with its FF & EE teams and successive high performing teams of the 90s aided in lifting the conference's profile...along with Memphis, and UofL, and maybe UAB/SLU/(later Marquette). It took quite some time for the conference to get respected and become more than a 2/3 team bid conference. At that point it was early 2000s.

All i'm saying is.....things ain't really changed enough to justify the angst abt conferences and such in college basketball. Football? Yes. 100%. Absolutely.



mc

You use bad facts; The Great Midwest and Conference USA were never 2/3 bid conferences in the nineties. Always 3-4 (mostly 4) and remember the Great Midwest only had 6 and then 7 teams so half or more of the league went to the NCAA most years. Yes we now need to get into a better league but you demean the nineties a little too much.

With respect to the teams and bids from the great midwest which existed from 90-95:

UC: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
UD: 1990
DePaul: 1991, 1992
UofL: 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
Memphis: 1992, 1993, 1995
Marquette: 1993, 1994
St. Louis: 1994, 1995
UAB: 1990, 1994

1990: 3
1991: 1
1992: 4
1993: 4
1994: 5
1995: 4

avg: 4.2

So I guesstimated 2/3. It's more like 4. you got it closer than i did.

I havent looked at AAC but I would think it's fairly similar....tho it is likely skewed by UofL and SMU being in hot water and missing the tournament 1x each.

Either way, in the end....we all agree. A better conference is what we want. I just don't see how this really changes much other than seeding...at the margins.

Rath's point about traveling...is solid. Other than that....the whole conference tears thing is still overdone in college basketball.


mc

(03-14-2017 04:07 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:02 PM)cincybb51 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:17 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  Regarding the Metro/ CUSA/ Great Midwest days - let's be honest, it took a long, long while for anyone other than Memphis & UofL to truly rise to the occasion. UofL in the last years of Crum were not well regarded teams (mid to late 90s). UC's big splash on the scene with its FF & EE teams and successive high performing teams of the 90s aided in lifting the conference's profile...along with Memphis, and UofL, and maybe UAB/SLU/(later Marquette). It took quite some time for the conference to get respected and become more than a 2/3 team bid conference. At that point it was early 2000s.

All i'm saying is.....things ain't really changed enough to justify the angst abt conferences and such in college basketball. Football? Yes. 100%. Absolutely.



mc

You use bad facts; The Great Midwest and Conference USA were never 2/3 bid conferences in the nineties. Always 3-4 (mostly 4) and remember the Great Midwest only had 6 and then 7 teams so half or more of the league went to the NCAA most years. Yes we now need to get into a better league but you demean the nineties a little too much.

With respect to the teams and bids from the great midwest which existed from 90-95:

UC: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
UD: 1990
DePaul: 1991, 1992
UofL: 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
Memphis: 1992, 1993, 1995
Marquette: 1993, 1994
St. Louis: 1994, 1995
UAB: 1990, 1994

1990: 3
1991: 1
1992: 4
1993: 4
1994: 5
1995: 4

avg: 4.2

So I guesstimated 2/3. It's more like 4. you got it closer than i did.

I havent looked at AAC but I would think it's fairly similar....tho it is likely skewed by UofL and SMU being in hot water and missing the tournament 1x each.

Either way, in the end....we all agree. A better conference is what we want. I just don't see how this really changes much other than seeding...at the margins.

Rath's point about traveling...is solid. Other than that....the whole conference tears thing is still overdone in college basketball.


mc

The biggest issue with American isn't the number of teams earning bids but rather the seeds those teams are earning. The Great Midwest and C-USA were earning seeds usually reserved today for the top six conferences. Top teams when they had great seasons were getting seeded at four or better. Even some of the third or fourth places teams were earning 6, 7, and 8 seeds. Louisville's 4 seed and Cincinnati's 5 seed remain the two best seeds earned by the conference. Right now the American is being treated like a better version of the Mountain West from a decade ago.

I want to get back to this Negative Nancy thing.

Is old fishnets still somewhere in New York?

(03-12-2017 06:10 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Can we just enjoy our 7th straight ncaa?

UC should win the opening round (anything is possible in the ncaa though) and we certainly can beat UCLA, IF they win their opener, if it comes to it in the second round (anything is possible in the ncaa).

The sky isn't falling.

The ncaa committee isn't out to get us.

Neither Ohio State nor XU paid off the ncaa committee to screw UC (lol).


Just smile, enjoy the ride, and GOOOOOO Cats!

Amazing how closely aligned you and Chad Brendel are on this But seriously, great post

When posters start dissecting the seed/draw to the point where they're complaining about drawing the one play-in team that gets the extra day, they're just seeking out another reason for us to lose.