(07-29-2019 12:24 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 09:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is you want to act like the AAC hasn't taken a major step up in these last few years- even with UConn being mediocre. I get that you want to only focus on the title which was great of course. But while the AAC has by anyone's standards improved a lot, UConn hasn't done much at all. Thus if the AAC were to replace UConn with someone say like a VCU- it would stand to reason that the AAC as a whole would see their numbers improve even more from where they've been the last few years.

I've said it repeatedly. This move I think can help the Big East far more than it hurts the AAC. The thing that I think is stupid though is they're insisting they're going to keep the double round robin. Has the committee shown ANY indication they're ready to start taking teams that finish like 17-15? I sure don't think so. They've taken exactly 1 team in the last 25 years with a record of worse than 4 games over. 500. That was Georgia in 2000 at 16-14. Until that changes, I think going to 20 conference games may be the most idiotic thing these conferences are doing.

What makes you think VCU wouldn’t struggle in the AAC? The AAC > A-10.

Didn’t Wichita State have a mediocre 2018-19 season? Didn’t they just join in 2017 from the MVC?

Let’s say VCU starts winning right away. It’ll be at the expense of two or three programs like Temple, Tulsa and Cincinnati. The bottom would still lose to them.

Until recent, didn’t you use UConn (and Memphis) as an example of how the AAC is improving but now that they’re leaving is a gain and not a loss? I’m confused.

So, using that logic, you're also saying that UConn winning in the Big East will hurt the Big East because those UConn wins will come at the expense of the middling bubble teams in the league. I dont think your take makes a lot of sense either way. The real key is if UConn and VCU win their big OOC games. Thats where the NET and RPI are really built. Once they get into conference play--its a zero sum game for every conference--but if your conference is made up of mostly schools that have built a strong RPI/NET ranking in OOC, then beating up on each other doesnt hurt as much.

I'm not saying 18-14 teams won't make the tourney- because as you showed they do. It's teams that are 18-15 or 17-15 that aren't making the tourney. And my point still holds. Only 1 team that is fewer than 4 games over .500 has made the tourney in the last 25+ years. Georgia in 2000 at 16-14. teams like 17-15 Indiana don't make the tourney.... Maybe that will change, but I don't think it's a guarantee in the least. The committee has shown absolutely no interest in taking teams that are only 2-3 games over .500.

and yeah, you want to include all 6 years- which includes UConns 2014 year where their OOC SOS was abnormally high. Take last 5 years...
UConn- 38-24 .613 avg SOS 68
VCU- 45-20 .692 avg SOS 76

the minimal SOS difference doesn't mitigate at all the much stronger record for VCU.

what blows me away is that folks here have such a black and white thing that it absolutely hurts the AAC. When a guy like Rob Dauster(who hasn't been all that complimentary of the AAC thru the years) can say that it won't impact much what the AAC has been- his quote- "Losing UConn is a blow for what the American’s ceiling can be. But with UCF, Temple, Tulsa and SMU all having proven capable of playing their way into an at-large bid, the conference will effectively be what it was with UConn there – a safe-bet to get three bids with four programs at the top that are annually in the at-large mix.
It’s not the ACC and it will never be, but it’s not the Mountain West, either."

To me that's absolutely a fair statement. The move has the potential to help the Big East out if UConn can get back to being UConn, but the AAC isn't going to because UConn is gone drop much at all. It's still going to be better than the A10, and MWC, and all the other non p7 conferences. Big East fans want to make it seem like the AAC is going to take a huge drop because of UConn leaving. And that's just not reality.

(07-29-2019 10:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm not saying 18-14 teams won't make the tourney- because as you showed they do. It's teams that are 18-15 or 17-15 that aren't making the tourney. And my point still holds. Only 1 team that is fewer than 4 games over .500 has made the tourney in the last 25+ years. Georgia in 2000 at 16-14. teams like 17-15 Indiana don't make the tourney.... Maybe that will change, but I don't think it's a guarantee in the least. The committee has shown absolutely no interest in taking teams that are only 2-3 games over .500.

and yeah, you want to include all 6 years- which includes UConns 2014 year where their OOC SOS was abnormally high. Take last 5 years...
UConn- 38-24 .613 avg SOS 68
VCU- 45-20 .692 avg SOS 76

the minimal SOS difference doesn't mitigate at all the much stronger record for VCU.

Ha. Alright, fine - remove the data from the inaugural season of UConn's membership in the AAC (the 2014 National Championship), so that it better frames the position of your argument for VCU. Even then, UConn was higher than VCU, but ok.

(07-29-2019 10:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  what blows me away is that folks here have such a black and white thing that it absolutely hurts the AAC. When a guy like Rob Dauster(who hasn't been all that complimentary of the AAC thru the years) can say that it won't impact much what the AAC has been- his quote- "Losing UConn is a blow for what the American’s ceiling can be. But with UCF, Temple, Tulsa and SMU all having proven capable of playing their way into an at-large bid, the conference will effectively be what it was with UConn there – a safe-bet to get three bids with four programs at the top that are annually in the at-large mix.
It’s not the ACC and it will never be, but it’s not the Mountain West, either."

To me that's absolutely a fair statement. The move has the potential to help the Big East out if UConn can get back to being UConn, but the AAC isn't going to because UConn is gone drop much at all. It's still going to be better than the A10, and MWC, and all the other non p7 conferences. Big East fans want to make it seem like the AAC is going to take a huge drop because of UConn leaving. And that's just not reality.

The statement you agree with from Dauster is not what you said. You said UConn leaving will not hurt the AAC; Dauster comes out and says it absolutely hurts their ceiling, but will probably continue getting three bids. The AAC has under-performed (UConn included, the past three seasons) in terms of bids and postseason success (UConn excluded); removing UConn probably won't affect the bid numbers, but it eliminates the one program that could consistently compete for a national championship.

I agree with Dauster, for sure. But, once again, those that say UConn will not be a loss to the AAC are either uninformed or blindly passionate. UConn is a loss to the AAC.

(07-29-2019 11:07 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm not saying 18-14 teams won't make the tourney- because as you showed they do. It's teams that are 18-15 or 17-15 that aren't making the tourney. And my point still holds. Only 1 team that is fewer than 4 games over .500 has made the tourney in the last 25+ years. Georgia in 2000 at 16-14. teams like 17-15 Indiana don't make the tourney.... Maybe that will change, but I don't think it's a guarantee in the least. The committee has shown absolutely no interest in taking teams that are only 2-3 games over .500.

and yeah, you want to include all 6 years- which includes UConns 2014 year where their OOC SOS was abnormally high. Take last 5 years...
UConn- 38-24 .613 avg SOS 68
VCU- 45-20 .692 avg SOS 76

the minimal SOS difference doesn't mitigate at all the much stronger record for VCU.

Ha. Alright, fine - remove the data from the inaugural season of UConn's membership in the AAC (the 2014 National Championship), so that it better frames the position of your argument for VCU. Even then, UConn was higher than VCU, but ok.

(07-29-2019 10:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  what blows me away is that folks here have such a black and white thing that it absolutely hurts the AAC. When a guy like Rob Dauster(who hasn't been all that complimentary of the AAC thru the years) can say that it won't impact much what the AAC has been- his quote- "Losing UConn is a blow for what the American’s ceiling can be. But with UCF, Temple, Tulsa and SMU all having proven capable of playing their way into an at-large bid, the conference will effectively be what it was with UConn there – a safe-bet to get three bids with four programs at the top that are annually in the at-large mix.
It’s not the ACC and it will never be, but it’s not the Mountain West, either."

To me that's absolutely a fair statement. The move has the potential to help the Big East out if UConn can get back to being UConn, but the AAC isn't going to because UConn is gone drop much at all. It's still going to be better than the A10, and MWC, and all the other non p7 conferences. Big East fans want to make it seem like the AAC is going to take a huge drop because of UConn leaving. And that's just not reality.

The statement you agree with from Dauster is not what you said. You said UConn leaving will not hurt the AAC; Dauster comes out and says it absolutely hurts their ceiling, but will probably continue getting three bids. The AAC has under-performed (UConn included, the past three seasons) in terms of bids and postseason success (UConn excluded); removing UConn probably won't affect the bid numbers, but it eliminates the one program that could consistently compete for a national championship.

I agree with Dauster, for sure. But, once again, those that say UConn will not be a loss to the AAC are either uninformed or blindly passionate. UConn is a loss to the AAC.

He says it hurts what the ceiling can be, but not what the conference has been. 2 completely different animals. UConn leaving is not a loss to what the AAC has been the last few years. It's not going to change what they've been the last 3 years- which is a clear cut 6th or 7th best conference.

Also, you do understand the difference between 68 and 76 in SOS is minimal at best. Doesn't overcome being 9-4 vs being 7.6-4.8.

(07-29-2019 10:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  what blows me away is that folks here have such a black and white thing that it absolutely hurts the AAC. When a guy like Rob Dauster(who hasn't been all that complimentary of the AAC thru the years) can say that it won't impact much what the AAC has been- his quote- "Losing UConn is a blow for what the American’s ceiling can be. But with UCF, Temple, Tulsa and SMU all having proven capable of playing their way into an at-large bid, the conference will effectively be what it was with UConn there – a safe-bet to get three bids with four programs at the top that are annually in the at-large mix.
It’s not the ACC and it will never be, but it’s not the Mountain West, either."

To me that's absolutely a fair statement. The move has the potential to help the Big East out if UConn can get back to being UConn, but the AAC isn't going to because UConn is gone drop much at all. It's still going to be better than the A10, and MWC, and all the other non p7 conferences. Big East fans want to make it seem like the AAC is going to take a huge drop because of UConn leaving. And that's just not reality.

And of those, only SMU has had more than 1.

No, it won't be a huge drop, but it will be a drop.

Any way you slice it, UConn is a marque program - the best recognized program in the AAC.

(07-29-2019 10:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  what blows me away is that folks here have such a black and white thing that it absolutely hurts the AAC. When a guy like Rob Dauster(who hasn't been all that complimentary of the AAC thru the years) can say that it won't impact much what the AAC has been- his quote- "Losing UConn is a blow for what the American’s ceiling can be. But with UCF, Temple, Tulsa and SMU all having proven capable of playing their way into an at-large bid, the conference will effectively be what it was with UConn there – a safe-bet to get three bids with four programs at the top that are annually in the at-large mix.
It’s not the ACC and it will never be, but it’s not the Mountain West, either."

To me that's absolutely a fair statement. The move has the potential to help the Big East out if UConn can get back to being UConn, but the AAC isn't going to because UConn is gone drop much at all. It's still going to be better than the A10, and MWC, and all the other non p7 conferences. Big East fans want to make it seem like the AAC is going to take a huge drop because of UConn leaving. And that's just not reality.

Stever at his computer blown away at these black and white opinions

(07-29-2019 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  what blows me away is that folks here have such a black and white thing that it absolutely hurts the AAC. When a guy like Rob Dauster(who hasn't been all that complimentary of the AAC thru the years) can say that it won't impact much what the AAC has been- his quote- "Losing UConn is a blow for what the American’s ceiling can be. But with UCF, Temple, Tulsa and SMU all having proven capable of playing their way into an at-large bid, the conference will effectively be what it was with UConn there – a safe-bet to get three bids with four programs at the top that are annually in the at-large mix.
It’s not the ACC and it will never be, but it’s not the Mountain West, either."

To me that's absolutely a fair statement. The move has the potential to help the Big East out if UConn can get back to being UConn, but the AAC isn't going to because UConn is gone drop much at all. It's still going to be better than the A10, and MWC, and all the other non p7 conferences. Big East fans want to make it seem like the AAC is going to take a huge drop because of UConn leaving. And that's just not reality.

And of those, only SMU has had more than 1.

No, it won't be a huge drop, but it will be a drop.

Any way you slice it, UConn is a marque program - the best recognized program in the AAC.

who has clearly slipped... And yet the AAC is a clear cut top 7 conference. It has totally passed the A10 and MWC....

(07-29-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 12:24 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 09:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is you want to act like the AAC hasn't taken a major step up in these last few years- even with UConn being mediocre. I get that you want to only focus on the title which was great of course. But while the AAC has by anyone's standards improved a lot, UConn hasn't done much at all. Thus if the AAC were to replace UConn with someone say like a VCU- it would stand to reason that the AAC as a whole would see their numbers improve even more from where they've been the last few years.

I've said it repeatedly. This move I think can help the Big East far more than it hurts the AAC. The thing that I think is stupid though is they're insisting they're going to keep the double round robin. Has the committee shown ANY indication they're ready to start taking teams that finish like 17-15? I sure don't think so. They've taken exactly 1 team in the last 25 years with a record of worse than 4 games over. 500. That was Georgia in 2000 at 16-14. Until that changes, I think going to 20 conference games may be the most idiotic thing these conferences are doing.

What makes you think VCU wouldn’t struggle in the AAC? The AAC > A-10.

Didn’t Wichita State have a mediocre 2018-19 season? Didn’t they just join in 2017 from the MVC?

Let’s say VCU starts winning right away. It’ll be at the expense of two or three programs like Temple, Tulsa and Cincinnati. The bottom would still lose to them.

Until recent, didn’t you use UConn (and Memphis) as an example of how the AAC is improving but now that they’re leaving is a gain and not a loss? I’m confused.

So, using that logic, you're also saying that UConn winning in the Big East will hurt the Big East because those UConn wins will come at the expense of the middling bubble teams in the league. I dont think your take makes a lot of sense either way. The real key is if UConn and VCU win their big OOC games. Thats where the NET and RPI are really built. Once they get into conference play--its a zero sum game for every conference--but if your conference is made up of mostly schools that have built a strong RPI/NET ranking in OOC, then beating up on each other doesnt hurt as much.

I’m just trying to understand Stevers logic here. A year ago he was using UConn and Memphis hiring new coaches as a way of the AAC trending upwards. Now he’s saying it’s not a big deal because UConn didn’t do much the last three seasons. This type of homer logic might work on the AAC board but to those outside the AAC we just see it as it is, as a major hit perception wise. The AAC just lost its biggest basketball brand and the one school that still had ties to the old Big East. Now the AAC is C-USA 1.0. The Big East just solidified its place as a P6 conference.

Stever’s logic equals to one where the Big XII losing Texas is not a big deal because the Longhorns have been mediocre this decade. But adding UCF would be better because the Knights have a better record and more BCS/NY6 bowls in the same span. UCF might help the Big XII a bit but they would never replace Texas on a historical and perception standpoint. That’s the same when he uses VCU as a better replacement for UConn and its four NCs since 1999. The only AAC school with a NC is Cincinnati and we have to go back all the way back when Eisenhower was the POTUS.

(07-29-2019 01:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 11:53 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  what blows me away is that folks here have such a black and white thing that it absolutely hurts the AAC. When a guy like Rob Dauster(who hasn't been all that complimentary of the AAC thru the years) can say that it won't impact much what the AAC has been- his quote- "Losing UConn is a blow for what the American’s ceiling can be. But with UCF, Temple, Tulsa and SMU all having proven capable of playing their way into an at-large bid, the conference will effectively be what it was with UConn there – a safe-bet to get three bids with four programs at the top that are annually in the at-large mix.
It’s not the ACC and it will never be, but it’s not the Mountain West, either."

To me that's absolutely a fair statement. The move has the potential to help the Big East out if UConn can get back to being UConn, but the AAC isn't going to because UConn is gone drop much at all. It's still going to be better than the A10, and MWC, and all the other non p7 conferences. Big East fans want to make it seem like the AAC is going to take a huge drop because of UConn leaving. And that's just not reality.

And of those, only SMU has had more than 1.

No, it won't be a huge drop, but it will be a drop.

Any way you slice it, UConn is a marque program - the best recognized program in the AAC.

who has clearly slipped... And yet the AAC is a clear cut top 7 conference. It has totally passed the A10 and MWC....

Nobody would argue that.....it’s the best basketball conference outside the P6. The A-10 and MWC are not even close......not to mention C-USA and the Valley. UNLV and New Mexico are not living up to the expectations and Nevada and Utah State are carrying the conference in basketball. It looks like SDSU is going back to its pre Fisher years. It’s a shame because they should capitalize all that potential with the Pac-12 being down.

(07-29-2019 01:44 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 12:24 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 09:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is you want to act like the AAC hasn't taken a major step up in these last few years- even with UConn being mediocre. I get that you want to only focus on the title which was great of course. But while the AAC has by anyone's standards improved a lot, UConn hasn't done much at all. Thus if the AAC were to replace UConn with someone say like a VCU- it would stand to reason that the AAC as a whole would see their numbers improve even more from where they've been the last few years.

I've said it repeatedly. This move I think can help the Big East far more than it hurts the AAC. The thing that I think is stupid though is they're insisting they're going to keep the double round robin. Has the committee shown ANY indication they're ready to start taking teams that finish like 17-15? I sure don't think so. They've taken exactly 1 team in the last 25 years with a record of worse than 4 games over. 500. That was Georgia in 2000 at 16-14. Until that changes, I think going to 20 conference games may be the most idiotic thing these conferences are doing.

What makes you think VCU wouldn’t struggle in the AAC? The AAC > A-10.

Didn’t Wichita State have a mediocre 2018-19 season? Didn’t they just join in 2017 from the MVC?

Let’s say VCU starts winning right away. It’ll be at the expense of two or three programs like Temple, Tulsa and Cincinnati. The bottom would still lose to them.

Until recent, didn’t you use UConn (and Memphis) as an example of how the AAC is improving but now that they’re leaving is a gain and not a loss? I’m confused.

So, using that logic, you're also saying that UConn winning in the Big East will hurt the Big East because those UConn wins will come at the expense of the middling bubble teams in the league. I dont think your take makes a lot of sense either way. The real key is if UConn and VCU win their big OOC games. Thats where the NET and RPI are really built. Once they get into conference play--its a zero sum game for every conference--but if your conference is made up of mostly schools that have built a strong RPI/NET ranking in OOC, then beating up on each other doesnt hurt as much.

I’m just trying to understand Stevers logic here. A year ago he was using UConn and Memphis hiring new coaches as a way of the AAC trending upwards. Now he’s saying it’s not a big deal because UConn didn’t do much the last three seasons. This type of homer logic might work on the AAC board but to those outside the AAC we just see it as it is, as a major hit perception wise. The AAC just lost its biggest basketball brand and the one school that still had ties to the old Big East. Now the AAC is C-USA 1.0. The Big East just solidified its place as a P6 conference.

Stever’s logic equals to one where the Big XII losing Texas is not a big deal because the Longhorns have been mediocre this decade. But adding UCF would be better because the Knights have a better record and more BCS/NY6 bowls in the same span. UCF might help the Big XII a bit but they would never replace Texas on a historical and perception standpoint. That’s the same when he uses VCU as a better replacement for UConn and its four NCs since 1999. The only AAC school with a NC is Cincinnati and we have to go back all the way back when Eisenhower was the POTUS.

(07-29-2019 01:44 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I’m just trying to understand Stevers logic here. A year ago he was using UConn and Memphis hiring new coaches as a way of the AAC trending upwards. Now he’s saying it’s not a big deal because UConn didn’t do much the last three seasons. This type of homer logic might work on the AAC board but to those outside the AAC we just see it as it is, as a major hit perception wise. The AAC just lost its biggest basketball brand and the one school that still had ties to the old Big East. Now the AAC is C-USA 1.0. The Big East just solidified its place as a P6 conference.

Stever’s logic equals to one where the Big XII losing Texas is not a big deal because the Longhorns have been mediocre this decade. But adding UCF would be better because the Knights have a better record and more BCS/NY6 bowls in the same span. UCF might help the Big XII a bit but they would never replace Texas on a historical and perception standpoint. That’s the same when he uses VCU as a better replacement for UConn and its four NCs since 1999. The only AAC school with a NC is Cincinnati and we have to go back all the way back when Eisenhower was the POTUS.

It's incredible that this can't just be accepted as obviously true. The spin doctors have to come out and now this is the 15th thread discussing it.

(07-23-2019 02:04 PM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  https://www.middletownpress.com/sports/a...114552.php

“I don’t like it. It’s gonna really hurt us,” Hardaway told Hearst Connecticut Media by phone on Monday. “UConn is a great university, certainly with sports. To lose a school of that magnitude is tough. It’s gonna be tough to replace because of their history. I’m not fond of them leaving at all.”

Impossible!! Everyone around this forum has said that UConn leaving is a positive. Penny doesn't know what he is talking about.

Did they also interview the softball and lacrosse coaches? Don't want to leave out any more sports that don't matter.

(07-29-2019 01:44 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 12:24 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(07-28-2019 09:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is you want to act like the AAC hasn't taken a major step up in these last few years- even with UConn being mediocre. I get that you want to only focus on the title which was great of course. But while the AAC has by anyone's standards improved a lot, UConn hasn't done much at all. Thus if the AAC were to replace UConn with someone say like a VCU- it would stand to reason that the AAC as a whole would see their numbers improve even more from where they've been the last few years.

I've said it repeatedly. This move I think can help the Big East far more than it hurts the AAC. The thing that I think is stupid though is they're insisting they're going to keep the double round robin. Has the committee shown ANY indication they're ready to start taking teams that finish like 17-15? I sure don't think so. They've taken exactly 1 team in the last 25 years with a record of worse than 4 games over. 500. That was Georgia in 2000 at 16-14. Until that changes, I think going to 20 conference games may be the most idiotic thing these conferences are doing.

What makes you think VCU wouldn’t struggle in the AAC? The AAC > A-10.

Didn’t Wichita State have a mediocre 2018-19 season? Didn’t they just join in 2017 from the MVC?

Let’s say VCU starts winning right away. It’ll be at the expense of two or three programs like Temple, Tulsa and Cincinnati. The bottom would still lose to them.

Until recent, didn’t you use UConn (and Memphis) as an example of how the AAC is improving but now that they’re leaving is a gain and not a loss? I’m confused.

So, using that logic, you're also saying that UConn winning in the Big East will hurt the Big East because those UConn wins will come at the expense of the middling bubble teams in the league. I dont think your take makes a lot of sense either way. The real key is if UConn and VCU win their big OOC games. Thats where the NET and RPI are really built. Once they get into conference play--its a zero sum game for every conference--but if your conference is made up of mostly schools that have built a strong RPI/NET ranking in OOC, then beating up on each other doesnt hurt as much.

I’m just trying to understand Stevers logic here. A year ago he was using UConn and Memphis hiring new coaches as a way of the AAC trending upwards. Now he’s saying it’s not a big deal because UConn didn’t do much the last three seasons. This type of homer logic might work on the AAC board but to those outside the AAC we just see it as it is, as a major hit perception wise. The AAC just lost its biggest basketball brand and the one school that still had ties to the old Big East. Now the AAC is C-USA 1.0. The Big East just solidified its place as a P6 conference.

Stever’s logic equals to one where the Big XII losing Texas is not a big deal because the Longhorns have been mediocre this decade. But adding UCF would be better because the Knights have a better record and more BCS/NY6 bowls in the same span. UCF might help the Big XII a bit but they would never replace Texas on a historical and perception standpoint. That’s the same when he uses VCU as a better replacement for UConn and its four NCs since 1999. The only AAC school with a NC is Cincinnati and we have to go back all the way back when Eisenhower was the POTUS.

Clearly---UConn is a loss on a prestige and brand awareness level. However, in Steves defense---he' s correct that UConn was not the "UConn" most people would associate with that brand over most of their tenure in the AAC. Obviously, I'd rather keep UConn---but if the AAC is able to bring in VCU---I think the conference will probably suffer minimal downside damage. The AAC just needs to keep sending 3 or more annually to the tourney and actually do something when they get there. Do that--and nobody is really going to penalize the conference because UConn opted to return to its long time rivals in the Big East.

(07-29-2019 01:44 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I’m just trying to understand Stevers logic here. A year ago he was using UConn and Memphis hiring new coaches as a way of the AAC trending upwards. Now he’s saying it’s not a big deal because UConn didn’t do much the last three seasons. This type of homer logic might work on the AAC board but to those outside the AAC we just see it as it is, as a major hit perception wise.

What you are missing is that Stever isn't an "AAC homer", he's a "Big East hater". There is a difference, and it explains why you are struggling with the seeming contradiction.

The only reason Stever often touts the AAC, or minimizes its setbacks (such as UConn leaving), is because he thinks he is needling Big East fans by doing so. Either way the AAC is just a tool for him to push his true passion, which is denigrating the Big East.

Why he dislikes the Big East, I don't know.

dude I don't hate the Big East. They're a good conference. I don't think they're on the same level right now as the ACC or Big Ten, and I think going forward with the money, that difference is just going to grow more and more. You can't be brining in only 5-6 million dollars while the Big Ten is bringing in 50 million- and keep up. AAC is in the exact same boat.

I think UConn move helps the Big East more than it hurts the AAC. I think UConn gets going pretty good. While yes, it hurts the AAC that rebound won't happen for the AAC, given what UConn has been recently(no matter what folks want to say, UConn has been clearly down)- for on the court purposes it won't hurt the AAC much- as long as they replace UConn with someone like a VCU. Now, if they don't replace UConn with VCU- that's where I think it could hurt the AAC quite a bit- but that would be more on the AAC than it would UConn leaving quite frankly.

(07-30-2019 10:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  dude I don't hate the Big East. They're a good conference. I don't think they're on the same level right now as the ACC or Big Ten, and I think going forward with the money, that difference is just going to grow more and more. You can't be brining in only 5-6 million dollars while the Big Ten is bringing in 50 million- and keep up. AAC is in the exact same boat.

I think UConn move helps the Big East more than it hurts the AAC. I think UConn gets going pretty good. While yes, it hurts the AAC that rebound won't happen for the AAC, given what UConn has been recently(no matter what folks want to say, UConn has been clearly down)- for on the court purposes it won't hurt the AAC much- as long as they replace UConn with someone like a VCU. Now, if they don't replace UConn with VCU- that's where I think it could hurt the AAC quite a bit- but that would be more on the AAC than it would UConn leaving quite frankly.

Agree---and it appears thats the direction the conference is heading. I think that is an error.

(07-30-2019 10:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think UConn move helps the Big East more than it hurts the AAC. I think UConn gets going pretty good. While yes, it hurts the AAC that rebound won't happen for the AAC, given what UConn has been recently(no matter what folks want to say, UConn has been clearly down)- for on the court purposes it won't hurt the AAC much- as long as they replace UConn with someone like a VCU. Now, if they don't replace UConn with VCU- that's where I think it could hurt the AAC quite a bit- but that would be more on the AAC than it would UConn leaving quite frankly.

The proof is going to be in the non-conference metrics; the haul a team brought in that not only propped up the school itself, but those in the conference who played and beat them, too. UConn of last season makes it look like a relief for the AAC, but most of those seasons, they were pulling down a respectable schedule and numbers. The composite sketch of the AAC benefited from UConn being there (most years).

The AAC will be fine in basketball, but it does need its lesser parts in the sport to step up and contribute. Without a replacement, the rest of the conference suffers for the terrible work ECU, Tulane, and USF may perform. And someone like Cincinnati can't be playing nobodies in the non-conference if thinks a strong showing is enough to save them. The selection committee still considers work against other good teams, and I've always taken that meaning "good" equals "other tournament-bound teams." It won't matter if there's a lot of top 100 AAC schools if only one or two of them are in the top 50 or 60. Those outside of that pole may as well be irrelevant.

Stever, congrats on Georgetown landing 4* ESPN Top-100 PF Terrance Williams last night, who chose the Hoyas over Notre Dame and Michigan. You must be really excited, as it is a fun time to be a Georgetown fan.

(07-30-2019 09:59 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Did they also interview the softball and lacrosse coaches? Don't want to leave out any more sports that don't matter.

Gee I can't imagine why UConn would want to get out of the AAC