Q #1: Now that the worst-kept secret since Missouri joined the SEC is official and Wichita State has accepted an invitation to join the AAC as a non-football member, I'm curious how the netizens of this board view AAC basketball compared to, say, Big East basketball? Just by way of reminder...
Top AAC Basketball Brands* for 2017-????
UConn
Cincinnati
Temple*
Memphis
Houston
SMU
Wichita St
* all teams have good and bad years, so I'm trying to focus of long-term brands instead of who was hot this year (e.g. UCF isn't a basketball brand)
Q #2: Does the addition of Wichita State make the possibility of a ACC/AAC Challenge palatable, or are the still just too many bad teams in the AAC?
Wichita State probably elevates the AAC, but it's still not on a par with the Big East IMO. This separates them a bit from the A-10, but several more years of data are needed to really evaluate the AAC. Will UConn be able to return to the level they reached under Calhoun, or will they (have they) revert to their pre-Big East level? Will SMU be more than a flash in the pan? Can Temple come back? We won't really know for a while.
This puts them clearly at the head of the pack of the high mid majors. Add Dayton and VCU also and it would arguably put them at the tail end of the majors.
(04-07-2017 03:03 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Q #1: Now that the worst-kept secret since Missouri joined the SEC is official and Wichita State has accepted an invitation to join the AAC as a non-football member, I'm curious how the netizens of this board view AAC basketball compared to, say, Big East basketball? Just by way of reminder...
Top AAC Basketball Brands* for 2017-????
UConn
Cincinnati
Temple*
Memphis
Houston
SMU
Wichita St
* all teams have good and bad years, so I'm trying to focus of long-term brands instead of who was hot this year (e.g. UCF isn't a basketball brand)
Q #2: Does the addition of Wichita State make the possibility of a ACC/AAC Challenge palatable, or are the still just too many bad teams in the AAC?
Everyone knows about Memphis, Cincy and UConn's success so that's three elite brands.
Temple is the 5th winningest program of all time and has made the tournament 7 out of 10 years so they are certainly a very good program.
SMU and Wichita have obviously had a lot of recent success although I'm not sure SMU is quite there yet as a strong basketball brand. I think they still need 2-3 years more of success to get there.
It's just the bottom is so bad in the AAC. It's even worse than the A-10's bottom so it's hard to say it's at the level of the Big East even with the addition.
I agree with ken and MKPitt - I think there's still too much dead weight in AAC basketball compared to the Big East to declare the AAC is better.
It's also clear that the 3 Big East teams that didn't make the tournament are focused on improving their basketball in tangible ways. St. John's and Georgetown have made substantial commitments to coaches with hopes of turning around lagging programs (though the jury is still out on both), while DePaul is going to open a brand new arena next season in a much more accessible location. Whether that translates to momentum for DePaul, that's a different story.
Then you look at the AAC, which has schools like Tulane & USF that didn't even reach double digit wins. You've also got the likes of ECU, whose out of conference schedule is laughably bad and they got smoked by the three best teams on their OOC (UVA, CofC and UNCW).
Those three schools seem like they barely care about basketball. At least Temple and Tulsa have basketball history, while UCF actually seems to be making an effort.
That's why I don't think an AAC/ACC challenge makes any sense, unless you're taking the top 6 or so from each conference. Once you get past the top 8 of the AAC, you're getting into RPI-killing territory. And if you can't rely on the whole conference to provide games of value, then I'm not sure it's worth it. At least the ACC/B1G challenge will provide reasonable matchups for the bottom half of the conference. The risk/reward playing the bottom half of the AAC could be potential resume-killers come March. Not worth it in my opinion.
Until the AAC can start producing better postseason results, they are still well below the Big East
New poll question: would the AAC be a major mbb conference if ECU and USF both dropped men's basketball?
Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using
CSNbbs mobile app
(04-07-2017 03:23 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]This puts them clearly at the head of the pack of the high mid majors. Add Dayton and VCU also and it would arguably put them at the tail end of the majors.
Dayton and VCU would make considerably less in the AAC unless their upcoming contract can guarantee at least 2 Mil per team to basketball.
We still have work to do but adding Wichita St. is taking another step up. Of the lower end programs keep an eye on Tulane. Yes, I know that sounds like a reach.
They have some transfers eligible next year and Mike Dunleavy will get them going in the right direction. I agree that UCF is a "Johnny Come Lately," but similar to Houston's Kelvin Sampson, Johnny Dawkins is a good coach and they are a program on the rise. Give the AAC a few more years...
I think the top half of the BE & AAC are pretty equal but I think the bottom half gives the BE the advantage. Wichita State is a great add for the AAC, strengthening the conference overall. The AAC would be wise to find a way to add BYU.
by adding one & only ...
a wannabe underscores roundball's importance to brand identity ...
means we're on the right track ...
ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE
Power: ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big XII, PAC 12, SEC (regularly sends the most teams to the dance)
Major: AAC, A10, Mountain West (regularly sends multiple bids of different teams)
Mid-Major: C-USA, Missouri Valley, MAC, Sun Belt, West Coast (one or two bid leagues with usual suspects but weak majority)
Small: all others
Former mid-majors until most recent seismic shake-up in realignment: CAA, Horizon, Southern, WAC.
C-USA used to be a major.
(04-08-2017 11:13 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]Power: ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big XII, PAC 12, SEC (regularly sends the most teams to the dance)
Major: AAC, A10, Mountain West (regularly sends multiple bids of different teams)
Mid-Major: C-USA, Missouri Valley, MAC, Sun Belt, West Coast (one or two bid leagues with usual suspects but weak majority)
Small: all others
Former mid-majors until most recent seismic shake-up in realignment: CAA, Horizon, Southern, WAC.
C-USA used to be a major.
MWC needs to show they can return to respectability. They have had a total of 3 at large bids in the last 4 years, and a total of 3 tournament wins in that period. Is this a slump, or a new reality for them?
CUSA was never really a major.
With Wichita's move, there are now only eight perennial multi-bid leagues, IMO.
I'm giving the MWC the benefit of the doubt, but yes, I see your point.
I would say the C-USA with Memphis and UAB was sort of living off their former glory with Louisville and Cincinnati, but still a step-up from mid-major.
I'm thinking P5 + Big East are the top, followed by AAC + A-10, then not much...
(04-08-2017 02:14 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I'm giving the MWC the benefit of the doubt, but yes, I see your point.
I would say the C-USA with Memphis and UAB was sort of living off their former glory with Louisville and Cincinnati, but still a step-up from mid-major.
Counting only the teams still in C-USA, they have had only 2 at-large teams in the last 7 seasons. Over that span, they won a total of 3 games, all in the first round. So living off their former glory seems to be putting it mildly.
The new reality is that 24 conferences will likely not get more than a handful of at-large bids, and other than Gonzaga no one school can expect to do so with any regularity. And when they do get in, unlike Cinderella's coach they are likely to turn into a pumpkin by 9PM instead of midnight.
(04-08-2017 06:33 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2017 02:14 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I'm giving the MWC the benefit of the doubt, but yes, I see your point.
I would say the C-USA with Memphis and UAB was sort of living off their former glory with Louisville and Cincinnati, but still a step-up from mid-major.
Counting only the teams still in C-USA, they have had only 2 at-large teams in the last 7 seasons. Over that span, they won a total of 3 games, all in the first round. So living off their former glory seems to be putting it mildly.
The new reality is that 24 conferences will likely not get more than a handful of at-large bids, and other than Gonzaga no one school can expect to do so with any regularity. And when they do get in, unlike Cinderella's coach they are likely to turn into a pumpkin by 9PM instead of midnight.
When I say used to, I mean ten years ago before the AAC existed.
(04-09-2017 12:08 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2017 06:33 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2017 02:14 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I'm giving the MWC the benefit of the doubt, but yes, I see your point.
I would say the C-USA with Memphis and UAB was sort of living off their former glory with Louisville and Cincinnati, but still a step-up from mid-major.
Counting only the teams still in C-USA, they have had only 2 at-large teams in the last 7 seasons. Over that span, they won a total of 3 games, all in the first round. So living off their former glory seems to be putting it mildly.
The new reality is that 24 conferences will likely not get more than a handful of at-large bids, and other than Gonzaga no one school can expect to do so with any regularity. And when they do get in, unlike Cinderella's coach they are likely to turn into a pumpkin by 9PM instead of midnight.
When I say used to, I mean ten years ago before the AAC existed.
The original lineup of CUSA, the one with Louisville, Cincy, Memphis, etc. was a major basketball conference.
(04-09-2017 01:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]The original lineup of CUSA, the one with Louisville, Cincy, Memphis, etc. was a major basketball conference.
UNC-Charlotte was pretty good, too.