(12-24-2017 09:58 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:55 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:41 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Jerry is spot on. We need to routinely put 5-6 in the tourney

And you actually need at least one of those teams to make it to the second weekend...

Third time is the charm for SMU - knock on wood

You seem to match up well against the PAC this year so that's a good sign...

(12-24-2017 10:02 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:58 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:55 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:41 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Jerry is spot on. We need to routinely put 5-6 in the tourney

And you actually need at least one of those teams to make it to the second weekend...

Third time is the charm for SMU - knock on wood

You seem to match up well against the PAC this year so that's a good sign...

Maybe the AAC will send us to the PAC conference tournament

(12-24-2017 10:05 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 10:02 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:58 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:55 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:41 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Jerry is spot on. We need to routinely put 5-6 in the tourney

And you actually need at least one of those teams to make it to the second weekend...

Third time is the charm for SMU - knock on wood

You seem to match up well against the PAC this year so that's a good sign...

Maybe the AAC will send us to the PAC conference tournament

But then I don't think you can get a PAC team in the First Round again. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

(12-24-2017 09:15 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Someone up-thread asked the question, "What would the criteria be" for a "Power," or even "High-Major" conference standing in basketball is? I'll first note that the designation of "Power" conferences in football has to do with (a) autonomy in terms of decision making, (b) media compensation deals in excess of $16MM/school, and © some sort of "contract" Bowl among one of the "New Year's Day" major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and now Cotton).

For Basketball, I think one of the things that has to be taken into account is the proportion of NCAA bids to the conference membership. The "High Major" conferences tend to send < 50% of their members to the NCAA. So, for the old, 16 member Big East, we once sent 11 of 16 teams to the NCAA. The Big XII has routinely sent 7-8 of 10 members to the tournament. If you can't get bids for half...or more...of your membership, you are something less than "high major."

The AAC has sent 20% to 30% of it's members to the tournament. Even this year, we probably get 4 bids...which would be 33%. It's akin to the sticker controversy. You can "say" you are "Power" and "High Major" all you want, but the proof is in the pudding at the end of the day. If we get 6 or more bids to the NCAA, I'll agree that we're a "Power" or "High Major" conference. Until that point... Nope.

The conference is still in its infancy. There are many conferences that have years where they get less than 50% in the tournament. The AAC just added another perennial tournament team in Wichita State. Everybody that knows anything about basketball understands that the AAC is capable of averaging 5 bids a year. That would stack up well against any major conference in the country expect for maybe the ACC. Maybe even the ACC, I didn't run the numbers. Somebody else can.

*Added* I think the ACC usually gets around 7. We would be fairly close considering we don't have automatic qualifiers like Dook and UNC-Cheat.

We definitely can't have any more 2 bid years. That destroys credibility like no other. It's got to be 4 minimum from here on out with 5 the norm and 6 during exceptional periods.


T


...

The PAC-12 and SEC have both had years where they are 2-3 bid leagues and have always been considered a power conference. I think we need minimum 3 bids every year and what really elevates us to power status is the TV exposure ESPN has given us. Now we just need UCONN, Memphis, and Temple to live up to their reputations while SMU, Houston, and Tulane continue their ascent. That would give us several potential bids and hopefully more money in the next tv deal.

The days of multiple bids for a bunch of mid-major conferences that use to get them is over...

So the American potentially getting 4 is a power conference

(12-24-2017 11:31 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The days of multiple bids for a bunch of mid-major conferences that use to get them is over...

So the American potentially getting 4 is a power conference

I think this is true. A10 lost Temple and Xavier, and post-Shaka VCU is treading water. They'll probably hoover in the 1-2 bid range for a while.

(12-24-2017 01:43 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 11:31 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The days of multiple bids for a bunch of mid-major conferences that use to get them is over...

So the American potentially getting 4 is a power conference

I think this is true. A10 lost Temple and Xavier, and post-Shaka VCU is treading water. They'll probably hoover in the 1-2 bid range for a while.

Dayton losing Archie Miller is going to hurt too. And Butler was in the A-10 for all of what, one season? I've always liked the A-10, but at some point all the attrition from members and coaches leaving catches up. Currently they have no teams inside the Kenpom top 50 and only 3 teams with less than 5 losses going into conference play.

(12-24-2017 09:55 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:41 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Jerry is spot on. We need to routinely put 5-6 in the tourney

And you actually need at least one of those teams to make it to the second weekend...

We do need to get to 5 or 6. We do need more and deeper runs. And yes, SMU needs to win one freakin game. All of those should happen this year and or next.

Just for the hell of it, here is a list of the top ten conferences by tournament bids since the AAC was founded. The number that really matters is the adjusted average, which I calculated to show how many bids each school would average yearly if they had 10 members such as the Big 12, Big East, and WCC. And for the American, I included in parentheses what our number would be with current membership, which adds 4 bids from Wichita State and subtracts a bid from Louisville in year 1.

(12-24-2017 09:15 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Someone up-thread asked the question, "What would the criteria be" for a "Power," or even "High-Major" conference standing in basketball is? I'll first note that the designation of "Power" conferences in football has to do with (a) autonomy in terms of decision making, (b) media compensation deals in excess of $16MM/school, and © some sort of "contract" Bowl among one of the "New Year's Day" major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and now Cotton).

For Basketball, I think one of the things that has to be taken into account is the proportion of NCAA bids to the conference membership. The "High Major" conferences tend to send < 50% of their members to the NCAA. So, for the old, 16 member Big East, we once sent 11 of 16 teams to the NCAA. The Big XII has routinely sent 7-8 of 10 members to the tournament. If you can't get bids for half...or more...of your membership, you are something less than "high major."

The AAC has sent 20% to 30% of it's members to the tournament. Even this year, we probably get 4 bids...which would be 33%. It's akin to the sticker controversy. You can "say" you are "Power" and "High Major" all you want, but the proof is in the pudding at the end of the day. If we get 6 or more bids to the NCAA, I'll agree that we're a "Power" or "High Major" conference. Until that point... Nope.

I think 50% is a great number to aim for, but if we aren't a power conference neither is the SEC. They send less than 30% of their teams to the tournament as well. The only two conferences that are sending more than half on average since the AAC was founded are the Big 12 and the Big East. The ACC and Big Ten's overall numbers are inflated by their larger membership. We don't need to average 6 bids per year to be a power conference, but we do need to average 4-5 and have 1-2 teams make it past the first weekend of the tournament on an annual basis to truly be respected on the same level as the other 6 power conferences. I think we likely get 4 bids this year and if one of our teams can make a Final Four run, it will go a long way.

For a while I think we were doomed to be lumped in with the Atlantic 10 as a tweener conference, but I think those days are over with Wichita State in the fold and the downswing of the A-10. As was discussed earlier, they have been hit hard by defections. There is a very real chance they will be a 1-bid league this year.

(12-24-2017 05:32 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Just for the hell of it, here is a list of the top ten conferences by tournament bids since the AAC was founded. The number that really matters is the adjusted average, which I calculated to show how many bids each school would average yearly if they had 10 members such as the Big 12, Big East, and WCC. And for the American, I included in parentheses what our number would be with current membership, which adds 4 bids from Wichita State and subtracts a bid from Louisville in year 1.

That can't be right. You said you adjusted to remove Louisville, and add Wichita State yet you list 2 bids for 2017 when in fact SMU, Cincinnati, and Wichita State all made the NCAA tournament.

(12-24-2017 11:00 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 05:32 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Just for the hell of it, here is a list of the top ten conferences by tournament bids since the AAC was founded. The number that really matters is the adjusted average, which I calculated to show how many bids each school would average yearly if they had 10 members such as the Big 12, Big East, and WCC. And for the American, I included in parentheses what our number would be with current membership, which adds 4 bids from Wichita State and subtracts a bid from Louisville in year 1.

That can't be right. You said you adjusted to remove Louisville, and add Wichita State yet you list 2 bids for 2017 when in fact SMU, Cincinnati, and Wichita State all made the NCAA tournament.

The numbers in the columns do not include Wichita State. The only number on the chart that includes Wichita State is the adjusted average in parentheses.

(12-24-2017 05:32 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Just for the hell of it, here is a list of the top ten conferences by tournament bids since the AAC was founded. The number that really matters is the adjusted average, which I calculated to show how many bids each school would average yearly if they had 10 members such as the Big 12, Big East, and WCC. And for the American, I included in parentheses what our number would be with current membership, which adds 4 bids from Wichita State and subtracts a bid from Louisville in year 1.

wouldnt we have had 1 more barring the smu psotseason ban

and weren't temple and smu on consecutive years first out

(12-25-2017 10:33 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 05:32 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Just for the hell of it, here is a list of the top ten conferences by tournament bids since the AAC was founded. The number that really matters is the adjusted average, which I calculated to show how many bids each school would average yearly if they had 10 members such as the Big 12, Big East, and WCC. And for the American, I included in parentheses what our number would be with current membership, which adds 4 bids from Wichita State and subtracts a bid from Louisville in year 1.

wouldnt we have had 1 more barring the smu psotseason ban

and weren't temple and smu on consecutive years first out

Temple and SMU were first four out in consecutive seasons. However, the year of the SMU ban a very marginal Tulsa team made it in the last four in so if SMU had been eligible it is likely that Tulsa would have been in the first four out.

Yeah, I remember SMU really getting screwed the year they were ranked in the top 25 and got left out.

(12-25-2017 10:59 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Yeah, I remember SMU really getting screwed the year they were ranked in the top 25 and got left out.

Actually making the run in the NIT helped us build a fan base

(12-24-2017 09:15 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Someone up-thread asked the question, "What would the criteria be" for a "Power," or even "High-Major" conference standing in basketball is? I'll first note that the designation of "Power" conferences in football has to do with (a) autonomy in terms of decision making, (b) media compensation deals in excess of $16MM/school, and © some sort of "contract" Bowl among one of the "New Year's Day" major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and now Cotton).

For Basketball, I think one of the things that has to be taken into account is the proportion of NCAA bids to the conference membership. The "High Major" conferences tend to send < 50% of their members to the NCAA. So, for the old, 16 member Big East, we once sent 11 of 16 teams to the NCAA. The Big XII has routinely sent 7-8 of 10 members to the tournament. If you can't get bids for half...or more...of your membership, you are something less than "high major."

The AAC has sent 20% to 30% of it's members to the tournament. Even this year, we probably get 4 bids...which would be 33%. It's akin to the sticker controversy. You can "say" you are "Power" and "High Major" all you want, but the proof is in the pudding at the end of the day. If we get 6 or more bids to the NCAA, I'll agree that we're a "Power" or "High Major" conference. Until that point... Nope.

The Cotton Bowl is not, I repeat not, a contract bowl.

(12-25-2017 11:41 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:15 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Someone up-thread asked the question, "What would the criteria be" for a "Power," or even "High-Major" conference standing in basketball is? I'll first note that the designation of "Power" conferences in football has to do with (a) autonomy in terms of decision making, (b) media compensation deals in excess of $16MM/school, and © some sort of "contract" Bowl among one of the "New Year's Day" major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and now Cotton).

For Basketball, I think one of the things that has to be taken into account is the proportion of NCAA bids to the conference membership. The "High Major" conferences tend to send < 50% of their members to the NCAA. So, for the old, 16 member Big East, we once sent 11 of 16 teams to the NCAA. The Big XII has routinely sent 7-8 of 10 members to the tournament. If you can't get bids for half...or more...of your membership, you are something less than "high major."

The AAC has sent 20% to 30% of it's members to the tournament. Even this year, we probably get 4 bids...which would be 33%. It's akin to the sticker controversy. You can "say" you are "Power" and "High Major" all you want, but the proof is in the pudding at the end of the day. If we get 6 or more bids to the NCAA, I'll agree that we're a "Power" or "High Major" conference. Until that point... Nope.

The Cotton Bowl is not, I repeat not, a contract bowl.

It doesn't have a conference tie-in, but it's still a New Year's 6 bowl that is in the CFP rotation and pays out a lot of money. Even if the opponent is at-large and was usually the 2nd- or 3rd-best team in the ACC, SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten, it would still be a huge boon for the conference to have a tie-in with the Cotton or Peach Bowl.

(12-26-2017 08:55 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 11:41 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:15 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Someone up-thread asked the question, "What would the criteria be" for a "Power," or even "High-Major" conference standing in basketball is? I'll first note that the designation of "Power" conferences in football has to do with (a) autonomy in terms of decision making, (b) media compensation deals in excess of $16MM/school, and © some sort of "contract" Bowl among one of the "New Year's Day" major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and now Cotton).

For Basketball, I think one of the things that has to be taken into account is the proportion of NCAA bids to the conference membership. The "High Major" conferences tend to send < 50% of their members to the NCAA. So, for the old, 16 member Big East, we once sent 11 of 16 teams to the NCAA. The Big XII has routinely sent 7-8 of 10 members to the tournament. If you can't get bids for half...or more...of your membership, you are something less than "high major."

The AAC has sent 20% to 30% of it's members to the tournament. Even this year, we probably get 4 bids...which would be 33%. It's akin to the sticker controversy. You can "say" you are "Power" and "High Major" all you want, but the proof is in the pudding at the end of the day. If we get 6 or more bids to the NCAA, I'll agree that we're a "Power" or "High Major" conference. Until that point... Nope.

The Cotton Bowl is not, I repeat not, a contract bowl.

It doesn't have a conference tie-in, but it's still a New Year's 6 bowl that is in the CFP rotation and pays out a lot of money. Even if the opponent is at-large and was usually the 2nd- or 3rd-best team in the ACC, SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten, it would still be a huge boon for the conference to have a tie-in with the Cotton or Peach Bowl.

We should take a page from the ACC playbook and offer to take a reduced payout short-term to secure a Cotton/Peach tie-in for our Champ/#2.