Go look at 2010-2011. We had 8 of 12 teams in the top 100. Granted, the rest were all 187-239, but that is way better than the mess we had last year. 5/16 teams in the top 100, 7 outside the top 200, 11 outside the top 150. We have the potential to be around a top ten basketball conference, but we can't have rice, Marshall, utsa, fiu, FAU, and north Texas being bottom feeders year after year. We have to have some of those teams become respectable, because that is almost half the league. The potential is there as a conference, but the top needs to rise a little(hard to do), and the bottom needs to rise a lot.(not so hard to do).

And for what it's worth SMU didn't get in last year because they played nobody. That's all that boiled down to.

(11-04-2014 03:10 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:51 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:47 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  CUSA will only get 1 bid year in and year out unless someone wins the tournament unexpectedly like Houston a couple if years ago. When Memphis was in CUSA, we would basically get the only bid and then they would give us a crappy seed. CUSA was better then too.

When was that?

When Memphis was in the conference.

Disagree.. Sure Memphis is a great program BUT.. From top to bottom the conference is stronger now than it was say 3 years ago.

I would disagree but CUSA wasn't good top to bottom 3 years ago. Back then it was basically us, UTEP, and Southern Miss. Tulsa, UCF, and Houston had moments.

I guess I don't know much about the newer teams except WKU is always solid. How are MTSU, USM, UAB, La Tech, and UTEP suppose to be this year?

I personally want CUSA to have multiple bids because I feel like it always got screwed come tournament time.

(11-04-2014 03:28 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:10 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:51 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:47 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  CUSA will only get 1 bid year in and year out unless someone wins the tournament unexpectedly like Houston a couple if years ago. When Memphis was in CUSA, we would basically get the only bid and then they would give us a crappy seed. CUSA was better then too.

When was that?

When Memphis was in the conference.

Disagree.. Sure Memphis is a great program BUT.. From top to bottom the conference is stronger now than it was say 3 years ago.

I would disagree but CUSA wasn't good top to bottom 3 years ago. Back then it was basically us, UTEP, and Southern Miss. Tulsa, UCF, and Houston had moments.

I guess I don't know much about the newer teams except WKU is always solid. How are MTSU, USM, UAB, La Tech, and UTEP suppose to be this year?

3 years ago Marshall had a good team as well.. but WKU is always solid, ODU and Charlotte have good history and MTSU is usually pretty tough on the hardwood.

That original linked article is kind of flawed in that CUSA is a mid-major, but Florida Gulf Coast has a decent transfer from Rice - and as a transfer destination, we're considered a high major.

(11-04-2014 03:30 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:28 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:10 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:51 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  When was that?

When Memphis was in the conference.

Disagree.. Sure Memphis is a great program BUT.. From top to bottom the conference is stronger now than it was say 3 years ago.

I would disagree but CUSA wasn't good top to bottom 3 years ago. Back then it was basically us, UTEP, and Southern Miss. Tulsa, UCF, and Houston had moments.

I guess I don't know much about the newer teams except WKU is always solid. How are MTSU, USM, UAB, La Tech, and UTEP suppose to be this year?

3 years ago Marshall had a good team as well.. but WKU is always solid, ODU and Charlotte have good history and MTSU is usually pretty tough on the hardwood.

You're right. Sorry, I knew I was leaving someone out. I used to enjoy playing Charlotte back in the day.....they were tough. Are they any good this year? It seems like MTSU has stepped it up the last couple of years.

(11-04-2014 03:28 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:10 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:51 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:47 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  CUSA will only get 1 bid year in and year out unless someone wins the tournament unexpectedly like Houston a couple if years ago. When Memphis was in CUSA, we would basically get the only bid and then they would give us a crappy seed. CUSA was better then too.

When was that?

When Memphis was in the conference.

Disagree.. Sure Memphis is a great program BUT.. From top to bottom the conference is stronger now than it was say 3 years ago.

I would disagree but CUSA wasn't good top to bottom 3 years ago. Back then it was basically us, UTEP, and Southern Miss. Tulsa, UCF, and Houston had moments.

I guess I don't know much about the newer teams except WKU is always solid. How are MTSU, USM, UAB, La Tech, and UTEP suppose to be this year?

You do know three years ago UAB made the Field of 68 right?

And was in the top 50 in the rpi pretty much yearly before that.

(11-04-2014 03:14 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  And for what it's worth SMU didn't get in last year because they played nobody. That's all that boiled down to.

I wouldn't say SMU played nobody--they played UConn twice and beat the future national champs both times, split with Cincy, split with Temple, and lost to Memphis and Louisville twice.

Their OOC wasn't good but not as terrible as most folks think--they played Arkansas and Virginia, then a bunch of scrubs including Texas AM, TCU, and schools nobody heard of.

I think they didn't get in because they lost their last 3 games against Louisville, Memphis, and Houston, and the talk about their schedule being too lousy to get a bid was in that context. If they had played a better schedule they would have gotten in despite those 3 losses. If they had won one of those three they would have gotten in as well.

(11-04-2014 06:02 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:28 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:10 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:51 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  When was that?

When Memphis was in the conference.

Disagree.. Sure Memphis is a great program BUT.. From top to bottom the conference is stronger now than it was say 3 years ago.

I would disagree but CUSA wasn't good top to bottom 3 years ago. Back then it was basically us, UTEP, and Southern Miss. Tulsa, UCF, and Houston had moments.

I guess I don't know much about the newer teams except WKU is always solid. How are MTSU, USM, UAB, La Tech, and UTEP suppose to be this year?

You do know three years ago UAB made the Field of 68 right?

My bad again, I forgot the Blazers. Don't you guys have a pretty good young coach?

(11-04-2014 07:01 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:14 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  And for what it's worth SMU didn't get in last year because they played nobody. That's all that boiled down to.

I wouldn't say SMU played nobody--they played UConn twice and beat the future national champs both times, split with Cincy, split with Temple, and lost to Memphis and Louisville twice.

Their OOC wasn't good but not as terrible as most folks think--they played Arkansas and Virginia, then a bunch of scrubs including Texas AM, TCU, and schools nobody heard of.

I think they didn't get in because they lost their last 3 games against Louisville, Memphis, and Houston, and the talk about their schedule being too lousy to get a bid was in that context. If they had played a better schedule they would have gotten in despite those 3 losses. If they had won one of those three they would have gotten in as well.

The loss to Houston was the final nail in the coffin.

The difference between AAC and CUSA is that you can't take games off......or at least fewer games off. While in CUSA we did that at times and won only because of our athletes. Also for the most part we play in front of rowdy crowds.....except for Houston but Sampson could change that shortly.

(11-04-2014 03:14 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Go look at 2010-2011. We had 8 of 12 teams in the top 100. Granted, the rest were all 187-239, but that is way better than the mess we had last year. 5/16 teams in the top 100, 7 outside the top 200, 11 outside the top 150. We have the potential to be around a top ten basketball conference, but we can't have rice, Marshall, utsa, fiu, FAU, and north Texas being bottom feeders year after year. We have to have some of those teams become respectable, because that is almost half the league. The potential is there as a conference, but the top needs to rise a little(hard to do), and the bottom needs to rise a lot.(not so hard to do).

And for what it's worth SMU didn't get in last year because they played nobody. That's all that boiled down to.

It's too early to determine whether CUSA is better off or not. W/O looking it up, CUSA2 was @ a top 10 conference...sometimes just outside looking in. By the end of last year, CUSA3 was gaining ground quickly up to @ 13 or so. Considering the Big East/AAC now takes up 2 top 10 spots instead one 1, I'd call it a wash. Sadly, the talking heads/media have now "officially" deemed CUSA mid major (wrongly IMO). Good thing bball allows for a more level playing field. No reason CUSA3 can't get there with on the court performance. SMTTT!

(11-04-2014 10:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:14 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Go look at 2010-2011. We had 8 of 12 teams in the top 100. Granted, the rest were all 187-239, but that is way better than the mess we had last year. 5/16 teams in the top 100, 7 outside the top 200, 11 outside the top 150. We have the potential to be around a top ten basketball conference, but we can't have rice, Marshall, utsa, fiu, FAU, and north Texas being bottom feeders year after year. We have to have some of those teams become respectable, because that is almost half the league. The potential is there as a conference, but the top needs to rise a little(hard to do), and the bottom needs to rise a lot.(not so hard to do).

And for what it's worth SMU didn't get in last year because they played nobody. That's all that boiled down to.

It's too early to determine whether CUSA is better off or not. W/O looking it up, CUSA2 was @ a top 10 conference...sometimes just outside looking in. By the end of last year, CUSA3 was gaining ground quickly up to @ 13 or so. Considering the Big East/AAC now takes up 2 top 10 spots instead one 1, I'd call it a wash. Sadly, the talking heads/media have now "officially" deemed CUSA mid major (wrongly IMO). Good thing bball allows for a more level playing field. No reason CUSA3 can't get there with on the court performance. SMTTT!

I think they consider everyone outside the P5 mid major, which is a joke. I'm pulling for CUSA, and I have a soft spot in my heart for Southern Miss. I have always respected them and for football they were our most played rival.....aka Black and Blue game.

(11-04-2014 03:28 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:10 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:51 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:47 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  CUSA will only get 1 bid year in and year out unless someone wins the tournament unexpectedly like Houston a couple if years ago. When Memphis was in CUSA, we would basically get the only bid and then they would give us a crappy seed. CUSA was better then too.

When was that?

When Memphis was in the conference.

Disagree.. Sure Memphis is a great program BUT.. From top to bottom the conference is stronger now than it was say 3 years ago.

I would disagree but CUSA wasn't good top to bottom 3 years ago. Back then it was basically us, UTEP, and Southern Miss. Tulsa, UCF, and Houston had moments.

I guess I don't know much about the newer teams except WKU is always solid. How are MTSU, USM, UAB, La Tech, and UTEP suppose to be this year?

I don't know about Houston and UCF having moments. Houston did win a conference tournament one year, but they finished with a losing record in conference play. During that time period UAB and Marshal were a lot better than Houston and UCF.

(11-04-2014 07:02 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 06:02 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:28 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 03:10 PM)HerdAlum83 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 02:51 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  When Memphis was in the conference.

Disagree.. Sure Memphis is a great program BUT.. From top to bottom the conference is stronger now than it was say 3 years ago.

I would disagree but CUSA wasn't good top to bottom 3 years ago. Back then it was basically us, UTEP, and Southern Miss. Tulsa, UCF, and Houston had moments.

I guess I don't know much about the newer teams except WKU is always solid. How are MTSU, USM, UAB, La Tech, and UTEP suppose to be this year?

You do know three years ago UAB made the Field of 68 right?

My bad again, I forgot the Blazers. Don't you guys have a pretty good young coach?

UAB also won the regular season title outright in CUSA in 2011. We have a young coach. IMO, the jury is still out as to whether or not he is a good coach.

I agree with that. He is a pretty good recruiter. The next two years will determine how good of a coach he is.

As far as SMU, I should have said the played nobody OOC. That bit them in the ass.