(05-11-2020 02:20 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:37 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  What are your thoughts on a division-only AAC schedule for BYU...or limited cross-division games? If BYU could play 6 or 7 AAC games, that we leave room on the schedule to continue to play its regional rivals and a handful of other P5 opponents. Perhaps AAC championship game qualification could be based on divisional record...and if there is a tie among division leaders, BYU we need at least one loss fewer than the other division leaders. Ie, in a 3-way tie, 5-1 BYU beats out 6-2 Houston, but not 7-1 Navy. Thoughts?

If the AAC adds BYU, Boise, and SDSU, then it would be a 14-team conference. BYU would play SDSU, Boise, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, and Navy annually, and 2 games against the AAC East.

That's pretty limited - they would only have to visit each AAC East school once every 7 years.

As a Cincinnati fan, I would be in favor of that scenario. I would also love to add Gonzaga and Dayton at the same time - it would make us a Power conference in basketball again.

Absolutely. If Byu went to the AAC or ESPN and said they would come only if Boise and SDSU or AFA/GONZAGA are also invited, the deal would be signed sealed and delivered as soon soon as lawyers could write it up. Heck that would even cause ESPN to reopen and renegotiate its current contract. I'll guarantee you that this scenario is on the table and BYU is the lone holdout.

I'm curious on why Gonzaga would want to go to the AAC? The only recruiting area they would want is Texas. The revenue may increase but the costs would increase across the board. The only 2 conferences Gonzaga would think about going to would be the MWC or PAC 12. Gonzaga turned down the MWC because the amount of tourney revenue left to the WCC. The PAC 12 isn't going to call. Right now the WCC gives honey 4 Marquee matches late season and limits their bad games. Though I think they may need to eventually go back to 18 games. They only need 2 decent programs to schedule and a non conference tournament. It seems that the second tier teams are getting better that only helps the conference.

Any train of thought that Gonzaga would go to the AAC is delusional. The non-FB additions within the AAC’s scope of reality are VCU, Dayton, & SLU.

(05-11-2020 05:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 02:20 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:37 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  What are your thoughts on a division-only AAC schedule for BYU...or limited cross-division games? If BYU could play 6 or 7 AAC games, that we leave room on the schedule to continue to play its regional rivals and a handful of other P5 opponents. Perhaps AAC championship game qualification could be based on divisional record...and if there is a tie among division leaders, BYU we need at least one loss fewer than the other division leaders. Ie, in a 3-way tie, 5-1 BYU beats out 6-2 Houston, but not 7-1 Navy. Thoughts?

If the AAC adds BYU, Boise, and SDSU, then it would be a 14-team conference. BYU would play SDSU, Boise, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, and Navy annually, and 2 games against the AAC East.

That's pretty limited - they would only have to visit each AAC East school once every 7 years.

As a Cincinnati fan, I would be in favor of that scenario. I would also love to add Gonzaga and Dayton at the same time - it would make us a Power conference in basketball again.

Absolutely. If Byu went to the AAC or ESPN and said they would come only if Boise and SDSU or AFA/GONZAGA are also invited, the deal would be signed sealed and delivered as soon soon as lawyers could write it up. Heck that would even cause ESPN to reopen and renegotiate its current contract. I'll guarantee you that this scenario is on the table and BYU is the lone holdout.

I'm curious on why Gonzaga would want to go to the AAC? The only recruiting area they would want is Texas. The revenue may increase but the costs would increase across the board. The only 2 conferences Gonzaga would think about going to would be the MWC or PAC 12. Gonzaga turned down the MWC because the amount of tourney revenue left to the WCC. The PAC 12 isn't going to call. Right now the WCC gives honey 4 Marquee matches late season and limits their bad games. Though I think they may need to eventually go back to 18 games. They only need 2 decent programs to schedule and a non conference tournament. It seems that the second tier teams are getting better that only helps the conference.

Any train of thought that Gonzaga would go to the AAC is delusional. The non-FB additions within the AAC’s scope of reality are VCU, Dayton, & SLU.

I agree with this fully.

Not that SLU, VCU and/or Dayton would join if invited. But each of the three shares a history with some AAC programs and all three are located within a "geographically reasonable area" related to some of the AAC schools.

But as I've noted in multiple posts, I don't foresee the American inviting any of the three.

I do wonder how interested the Big East might be in SLU and Dayton, in particular (given the Catholic consideration).

I strongly feel each of the three would be worthy of an invite from either the BE or the American were it to happen. Those are three quality hoops programs that have a good bit of respect on a national level.

(05-11-2020 04:45 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  What are your thoughts on a division-only AAC schedule for BYU...or limited cross-division games? If BYU could play 6 or 7 AAC games, that we leave room on the schedule to continue to play its regional rivals and a handful of other P5 opponents. Perhaps AAC championship game qualification could be based on divisional record...and if there is a tie among division leaders, BYU we need at least one loss fewer than the other division leaders. Ie, in a 3-way tie, 5-1 BYU beats out 6-2 Houston, but not 7-1 Navy. Thoughts?

If the AAC adds BYU, Boise, and SDSU, then it would be a 14-team conference. BYU would play SDSU, Boise, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, and Navy annually, and 2 games against the AAC East.

That's pretty limited - they would only have to visit each AAC East school once every 7 years.

As a Cincinnati fan, I would be in favor of that scenario. I would also love to add Gonzaga and Dayton at the same time - it would make us a Power conference in basketball again.

IF the AAC expansion included Boise, SDSU, and Gonzaga AND included ALL sports, BYU would be all over that. BYU would get to keep regional rivals in both football and basketball while significantly upgrading the basketball schedule and bringing meaning to the back-half of the football schedule with strong and competitive programs.

But, I don't think the AAC is really interested in the all-sports angle. It just doesn't makes sense to have a Coast-to-Coast Olympic sports conference....which is why this isn't happening.

And, while the move to the AAC with BYU could be a blockbuster football move, Boise and SDSU don't have a good answer for their Olympic sports.

You make it all sports. Football would play in easteast-west divisions-----6 west division games and 2east crossover games. Men's basketball you'd play everyone once for 13 games then work with tv to decide the other 5 matchups that'll bring the highest ratings. All other sports only play a divisional schedule with the two divisional champions playing for a conference championship. ,,,,, oh yea then you play your regional rivals ooc

(05-11-2020 05:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 02:20 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:37 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  What are your thoughts on a division-only AAC schedule for BYU...or limited cross-division games? If BYU could play 6 or 7 AAC games, that we leave room on the schedule to continue to play its regional rivals and a handful of other P5 opponents. Perhaps AAC championship game qualification could be based on divisional record...and if there is a tie among division leaders, BYU we need at least one loss fewer than the other division leaders. Ie, in a 3-way tie, 5-1 BYU beats out 6-2 Houston, but not 7-1 Navy. Thoughts?

If the AAC adds BYU, Boise, and SDSU, then it would be a 14-team conference. BYU would play SDSU, Boise, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, and Navy annually, and 2 games against the AAC East.

That's pretty limited - they would only have to visit each AAC East school once every 7 years.

As a Cincinnati fan, I would be in favor of that scenario. I would also love to add Gonzaga and Dayton at the same time - it would make us a Power conference in basketball again.

Absolutely. If Byu went to the AAC or ESPN and said they would come only if Boise and SDSU or AFA/GONZAGA are also invited, the deal would be signed sealed and delivered as soon soon as lawyers could write it up. Heck that would even cause ESPN to reopen and renegotiate its current contract. I'll guarantee you that this scenario is on the table and BYU is the lone holdout.

I'm curious on why Gonzaga would want to go to the AAC? The only recruiting area they would want is Texas. The revenue may increase but the costs would increase across the board. The only 2 conferences Gonzaga would think about going to would be the MWC or PAC 12. Gonzaga turned down the MWC because the amount of tourney revenue left to the WCC. The PAC 12 isn't going to call. Right now the WCC gives honey 4 Marquee matches late season and limits their bad games. Though I think they may need to eventually go back to 18 games. They only need 2 decent programs to schedule and a non conference tournament. It seems that the second tier teams are getting better that only helps the conference.

Any train of thought that Gonzaga would go to the AAC is delusional. The non-FB additions within the AAC’s scope of reality are VCU, Dayton, & SLU.

If Gonzaga was going to join a non-western conference, they'd just be #BigEast12

Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. This pandemic illustrates how stupid it would be to do something like that in college athletics. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

(05-11-2020 08:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. This pandemic illustrates how stupid it would be to do something like that in college athletics. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

I'm not so sure Gonzaga will slide back to irrelevancy once Few leaves. t's possible. But even if so, Few is only 57 and very fit. I would not be surprised if he coached up into his mid-70s. In other words, the college basketball world could have 15 to 18 more years of Gonzaga being a Top 15-type program.

I strongly agree with you that Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference.

(05-11-2020 08:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. This pandemic illustrates how stupid it would be to do something like that in college athletics. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

Nah. They won 170 games the 8 years before Few. Spokane is the perfect market (no sports options, big enough) to keep that machine going.

(05-11-2020 09:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. This pandemic illustrates how stupid it would be to do something like that in college athletics. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

Nah. They won 170 games the 8 years before Few. Spokane is the perfect market (no sports options, big enough) to keep that machine going.

Just like USF did, right? Loyola Marymount?

Gonzaga averaged 21 wins over an 8-year period. I wonder how many other mid-majors did that as well? Monson was a great coach there and so is Few, but the fact is nobody can predict how a program will do without an elite coach, especially one in a mid-major conference. I'm erring on the side of history here.

BYU stays independent unless their FB gets picked up by a P5 conference.

New Independent Big - 3:

BYU in the West.
ND in the Midwest
UConn in the East

They can all schedule each other to help their independent FB schedules.

(05-12-2020 12:05 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 09:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. This pandemic illustrates how stupid it would be to do something like that in college athletics. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

Nah. They won 170 games the 8 years before Few. Spokane is the perfect market (no sports options, big enough) to keep that machine going.

Just like USF did, right? Loyola Marymount?

Gonzaga averaged 21 wins over an 8-year period. I wonder how many other mid-majors did that as well? Monson was a great coach there and so is Few, but the fact is nobody can predict how a program will do without an elite coach, especially one in a mid-major conference. I'm erring on the side of history here.

Two.

How many mid-majors (teams in a sub-AAC league today) won more than Gonzaga's 170?
UMass
New Mexico

Monson only coached 2 of those 8 years preceding Few.

Gonzaga was the 3rd best mid-major program in the country back when they were working with no history in the 8 years before Mark Few ran the program.

(05-12-2020 01:09 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 12:05 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 09:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. This pandemic illustrates how stupid it would be to do something like that in college athletics. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

Nah. They won 170 games the 8 years before Few. Spokane is the perfect market (no sports options, big enough) to keep that machine going.

Just like USF did, right? Loyola Marymount?

Gonzaga averaged 21 wins over an 8-year period. I wonder how many other mid-majors did that as well? Monson was a great coach there and so is Few, but the fact is nobody can predict how a program will do without an elite coach, especially one in a mid-major conference. I'm erring on the side of history here.

Two.

How many mid-majors (teams in a sub-AAC league today) won more than Gonzaga's 170?
UMass
New Mexico

Monson only coached 2 of those 8 years preceding Few.

Gonzaga was the 3rd best mid-major program in the country back when they were working with no history in the 8 years before Mark Few ran the program.

No. They were not.

You cannot seriously be trying to compare them to UMass. Gonzaga made ONE tournament in their HISTORY before Monson (and he only made one) and got torched as a 14 seed. Monson had winning seasons of 28 and 24 (inflating your numbers), before that their highest win total was 22. In their HISTORY.

This is maybe one of the most absurd arguments I've ever read here. Somebody calling Gonzaga an elite mid-major before Monson/Few.

Just to illustrate: the 8 year win average before Monson was 17.5

Sorry, nothing elite about them before Monson/Few.

esayem's ability to shift goalposts and misconstrue what others posted is quite the exercise in mental gymnastics.

Here's esayem's original quote:

esayem Wrote:Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

The reply to disprove Gonzaga wasn't "irrelevant":

(05-11-2020 09:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

Nah. They won 170 games the 8 years before Few.

When faced with evidence Gonzaga wasn't "irrelevant", esayem makes this rebuttal to discount that fact:

esayem Wrote:I wonder how many other mid-majors did that as well?

The answer:

IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:Two.

How many mid-majors (teams in a sub-AAC league today) won more than Gonzaga's 170?
UMass
New Mexico

Now, esayem twists this post into:

esayem Wrote:You cannot seriously be trying to compare them to UMass.

(This comparison was never made -- UMass was only mentioned as 1 of 2 mid-majors who exceeded Gonzaga's win total during this time)

as well as...

esayem Wrote:This is maybe one of the most absurd arguments I've ever read here. Somebody calling Gonzaga an elite mid-major before Monson/Few.

esayem Wrote:Sorry, nothing elite about them before Monson/Few.

...an argument that was never made. No one called Gonzaga "elite" before Few. All that was stated was that Gonzaga wasn't "irrelevant" pre-Few as esayem claimed, by stating the fact Gonzaga had the 3rd most wins of modern mid-major programs in those 8 years, and therefore the 3rd best mid-major program by that measurement.

If claiming the mid-major program with the 3rd most wins over an 8-year timeframe was the 3rd best mid-major program is "absurd", then I don't want to be whatever calling that program "irrelevant" is.

At this point in the debate, it's worth noting that Gonzaga is "mid-major" in conference affiliation only. By just about every other metric, it is a major (and perhaps even high-major) program.

Let's put it this way, saying both Gonzaga and Belmont (one of the programs I strongly cheer for and am intimately familiar with) are on the same "mid-major" level is, well, absurd.

If Gonzaga men's basketball is "mid-major" then so is Northwestern men's basketball.

(05-12-2020 03:11 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  esayem's ability to shift goalposts and misconstrue what others posted is quite the exercise in mental gymnastics.

Here's esayem's original quote:

esayem Wrote:Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

The reply to disprove Gonzaga wasn't "irrelevant":

(05-11-2020 09:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 08:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga isn’t joining a non-western conference. Period. Once Few retires they’ll be irrelevant again anyway.

Nah. They won 170 games the 8 years before Few.

When faced with evidence Gonzaga wasn't "irrelevant", esayem makes this rebuttal to discount that fact:

esayem Wrote:I wonder how many other mid-majors did that as well?

The answer:

IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:Two.

How many mid-majors (teams in a sub-AAC league today) won more than Gonzaga's 170?
UMass
New Mexico

Now, esayem twists this post into:

esayem Wrote:You cannot seriously be trying to compare them to UMass.

(This comparison was never made -- UMass was only mentioned as 1 of 2 mid-majors who exceeded Gonzaga's win total during this time)

as well as...

esayem Wrote:This is maybe one of the most absurd arguments I've ever read here. Somebody calling Gonzaga an elite mid-major before Monson/Few.

esayem Wrote:Sorry, nothing elite about them before Monson/Few.

...an argument that was never made. No one called Gonzaga "elite" before Few. All that was stated was that Gonzaga wasn't "irrelevant" pre-Few as esayem claimed, by stating the fact Gonzaga had the 3rd most wins of modern mid-major programs in those 8 years, and therefore the 3rd best mid-major program by that measurement.

If claiming the mid-major program with the 3rd most wins over an 8-year timeframe was the 3rd best mid-major program is "absurd", then I don't want to be whatever calling that program "irrelevant" is.

Goalposts? Let’s stick to relevant sport here haha.

I could say Gonzaga made two tournaments in their entire history before Few and end this ridiculous “argument”, but....

Gonzaga was irrelevant before Monson/Few. NOBODY talked about Gonzaga before Monson got them the Cinderella slipper. You know it, but you’re trying to stretch two great Monson years into eight, which is absurd.

Those six years you’re slapping on there is what separates reality from fiction.

(05-12-2020 03:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  At this point in the debate, it's worth noting that Gonzaga is "mid-major" in conference affiliation only. By just about every other metric, it is a major (and perhaps even high-major) program.

Let's put it this way, saying both Gonzaga and Belmont (one of the programs I strongly cheer for and am intimately familiar with) are on the same "mid-major" level is, well, absurd.

If Gonzaga men's basketball is "mid-major" then so is Northwestern men's basketball.

It’s a mid-major conference. UNLV was a powerhouse in a mid-major league. As was USF back in the day, and many others.

(05-12-2020 05:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga was irrelevant before Monson/Few. NOBODY talked about Gonzaga before Monson got them the Cinderella slipper. You know it, but you’re trying to stretch two great Monson years into eight, which is absurd.

Your original quote was Few. You later amended it to Monson.

If it’s your original quote of Few, Gonzaga was 3rd among mid-majors for 8 years. That’s not “irrelevant”.

If it’s your amended argument of Monson, Gonzaga won 70% of its games for 5 years (1 NCAA/2 NIT) then had 1 mediocre year then Monson took over. That isn’t great but it isn’t irrelevant either. There’s a lot of space between great and irrelevant. Those years were the genesis to building Gonzaga’s program.

They were decent leading up to Monson. Monson took them from decent to good. Few took them from good to great to elite.

You keep creating strawmen with “great”, “elite”, & the UMass comparison when those words didn’t come out of my mouth. I challenged that Gonzaga was “irrelevant” because they posted the 3rd best mid-major win total in an 8-year span. Apparently you didn’t like that factoid because you created a bunch of arguments I didn’t make.

(05-12-2020 05:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 03:25 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  At this point in the debate, it's worth noting that Gonzaga is "mid-major" in conference affiliation only. By just about every other metric, it is a major (and perhaps even high-major) program.

Let's put it this way, saying both Gonzaga and Belmont (one of the programs I strongly cheer for and am intimately familiar with) are on the same "mid-major" level is, well, absurd.

If Gonzaga men's basketball is "mid-major" then so is Northwestern men's basketball.

It’s a mid-major conference. UNLV was a powerhouse in a mid-major league. As was USF back in the day, and many others.

Correct. A program can be a member of mid-major conference yet be a major or high-major program. That is an important distinction to make.

Gonzaga is a "major to high-major program" in a "mid-major league."

As for some programs I like (and on this theme):

I consider Memphis a "major to high-major program" in a "major to high-major league."

DePaul is a "major to high-major program" in a power league.

And North Carolina is a blueblood in a power league.

It's all relative.

As a member of the media, I try to speak and write with precision.

(05-12-2020 08:02 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 05:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga was irrelevant before Monson/Few. NOBODY talked about Gonzaga before Monson got them the Cinderella slipper. You know it, but you’re trying to stretch two great Monson years into eight, which is absurd.

Your original quote was Few. You later amended it to Monson.

If it’s your original quote of Few, Gonzaga was 3rd among mid-majors for 8 years. That’s not “irrelevant”.

If it’s your amended argument of Monson, Gonzaga won 70% of its games for 5 years (1 NCAA/2 NIT) then had 1 mediocre year then Monson took over. That isn’t great but it isn’t irrelevant either. There’s a lot of space between great and irrelevant. Those years were the genesis to building Gonzaga’s program.

They were decent leading up to Monson. Monson took them from decent to good. Few took them from good to great to elite.

You keep creating strawmen with “great”, “elite”, & the UMass comparison when those words didn’t come out of my mouth. I challenged that Gonzaga was “irrelevant” because they posted the 3rd best mid-major win total in an 8-year span. Apparently you didn’t like that factoid because you created a bunch of arguments I didn’t make.

In this debate between you and esayem, it seems the truth might "rest somewhere in the middle."

(05-12-2020 08:02 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-12-2020 05:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  Gonzaga was irrelevant before Monson/Few. NOBODY talked about Gonzaga before Monson got them the Cinderella slipper. You know it, but you’re trying to stretch two great Monson years into eight, which is absurd.

Your original quote was Few. You later amended it to Monson.

If it’s your original quote of Few, Gonzaga was 3rd among mid-majors for 8 years. That’s not “irrelevant”.

If it’s your amended argument of Monson, Gonzaga won 70% of its games for 5 years (1 NCAA/2 NIT) then had 1 mediocre year then Monson took over. That isn’t great but it isn’t irrelevant either. There’s a lot of space between great and irrelevant. Those years were the genesis to building Gonzaga’s program.

They were decent leading up to Monson. Monson took them from decent to good. Few took them from good to great to elite.

You keep creating strawmen with “great”, “elite”, & the UMass comparison when those words didn’t come out of my mouth. I challenged that Gonzaga was “irrelevant” because they posted the 3rd best mid-major win total in an 8-year span. Apparently you didn’t like that factoid because you created a bunch of arguments I didn’t make.

I said after Few they will be irrelevant again, and they were irrelevant for their entire basketball history, save the two seasons with Monson. Before him they were best known for John Stockton, and even he didn’t go dancing.

At first I was surprised they were up there with UNM and UMass, but I looked into your argument and they clearly don’t belong because their conference and schedules were absolute trash and they still only made two dances. Their win total was padded by Monson’s two seasons. They were not regarded on a national level, therefore they were irrelevant to the national scene in college hoops, and that’s why they were a Cinderella with Monson in the first place!

You are arbitrarily selecting the win total for 8 years to define their entire existence before Few with total disregard to their opponents and tournament appearances. Almost a third of those wins were in the two seasons with Monson and his protégée.

Gonzaga shouldn’t fall off like USF and Loyola Marymount did, but who thought UNLV would fall off with all their resources? Wake? DePaul? St. John’s? College hoops is ALL about the coach, so unless they replace Few with a home run hire, odds are they will go the way of the Blue Demon.