If St. John’s is elite, then Cincinnati is elite.

(07-04-2020 09:40 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:38 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:05 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 09:29 AM)pesik Wrote:  uconn has been bad in basketball for 6 seasons in a row now, why would losing uconn change anything about any dynamics

also uconn football is completely abysmal and has shown zero signs they will ever be competitive..temple is good in football and regularly in the conversation for the aac title

so you recommend temple sacrifices football, what makes by far the most money in college athletics, to leave a multi-bid basketball league where temple has already made the tourney multiple times, just to go join a slightly better multi-bid conference

Uconn bb may not have been good for the past few years, but now that they are part of the BE, you will see their recruiting increase big time, because recruits are going to be excited about playing against other bonafied big time elite basketball powers like Villanova, Georgetown St Johns, etc... Uconn will be back, and I hate saying that. But really, no one should be selling Uconn short right now.

To term St. John's as a "big time elite basketball power" is a stretch (and some would contend a "huge stretch"), cuseroc. SJU offers a great history and tradition but ... let's be reasonable.

St Johns is still an elite bb school even though they have been more down than good for a bunch of years. Dont forget that St Johns is top 10 in all time wins and still has more all time wins than anyone in the AAC except maybe Temple, possibly. When they start winning big again, you will be surprised at how much media attention they will garner if you dont think they are an elite basketball power. NYC, Big East, MSG, top 10 all time wins...

If St. John's is an "elite" basketball program/power as you note, then what does that make the Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisville, Villanova and North Carolina programs? "Elite times 10?" There are a handful of elite programs and then there is a "next tier" of about 40 programs that are extremely strong. I place St. John's in that tier.

I agree with you St. John's offers a tremendous history and tradition and is very attractive to coaches and recruits. Mike Anderson is a strong addition to the program. I classify SJU as a "major to high-major" program that is a member of a power league. No doubt, it offers some "elite" characteristics. I simply would not call SJU an "elite program" in the comprehensive sense.

I'm not sure why you mentioned Temple, other than perhaps you confused me with somebody who strongly supports the AAC and is less than fully complimentary/respectful (or is even dismissive) of the Big East. I cheer for programs in both leagues and wish both well.

There are Blue Bloods and there are elite programs. The Dukes, Kansas, Kentucky and UNC are Blue Bloods, Indian and UCLA may also fit this category. Then you have programs who are Super Elite, which are near Blue Blood status Louisvillle, Villanova (could make a case for Blue Blood Status), Syracuse, Georgetown, Michigan State, Uconn, maybe cinci, etc...Then there are elites like Providence, Temple, St Johns, Memphis etc..

The reason I mentioned Temple, you will notice, is because Temple is the only other program in the American that has as many or more all time wins as St Johns.

(07-04-2020 11:13 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 09:40 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:38 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:05 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Uconn bb may not have been good for the past few years, but now that they are part of the BE, you will see their recruiting increase big time, because recruits are going to be excited about playing against other bonafied big time elite basketball powers like Villanova, Georgetown St Johns, etc... Uconn will be back, and I hate saying that. But really, no one should be selling Uconn short right now.

To term St. John's as a "big time elite basketball power" is a stretch (and some would contend a "huge stretch"), cuseroc. SJU offers a great history and tradition but ... let's be reasonable.

St Johns is still an elite bb school even though they have been more down than good for a bunch of years. Dont forget that St Johns is top 10 in all time wins and still has more all time wins than anyone in the AAC except maybe Temple, possibly. When they start winning big again, you will be surprised at how much media attention they will garner if you dont think they are an elite basketball power. NYC, Big East, MSG, top 10 all time wins...

If St. John's is an "elite" basketball program/power as you note, then what does that make the Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisville, Villanova and North Carolina programs? "Elite times 10?" There are a handful of elite programs and then there is a "next tier" of about 40 programs that are extremely strong. I place St. John's in that tier.

I agree with you St. John's offers a tremendous history and tradition and is very attractive to coaches and recruits. Mike Anderson is a strong addition to the program. I classify SJU as a "major to high-major" program that is a member of a power league. No doubt, it offers some "elite" characteristics. I simply would not call SJU an "elite program" in the comprehensive sense.

I'm not sure why you mentioned Temple, other than perhaps you confused me with somebody who strongly supports the AAC and is less than fully complimentary/respectful (or is even dismissive) of the Big East. I cheer for programs in both leagues and wish both well.

There are Blue Bloods and there are elite programs. The Dukes, Kansas, Kentucky and UNC are Blue Bloods, Indian and UCLA may also fit this category. Then you have programs who are Super Elite, which are near Blue Blood status Louisvillle, Villanova (could make a case for Blue Blood Status), Syracuse, Georgetown, Michigan State, Uconn, maybe cinci, etc...Then there are elites like Providence, Temple, St Johns, Memphis etc..

The reason I mentioned Temple, you will notice, is because Temple is the only other program in the American that has as many or more all time wins as St Johns.

I like the way you have the tiers. And based on those groupings, I can agree with your definition. Well done. I was looking at it more broadly and you have, to your credit, offered a very specific definition and organization.

(07-03-2020 12:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:55 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 09:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  AAC is clearly below the P5 and Big East. Still don't know that I would call them a "tweener." I think of a tweener as like the ACC and WAC in football in the 80s. It was considered really odd when a Clemson or BYU won an MNC. It would not be considered odd if Cincinnati or Memphis or Houston won a title in basketball. A P5 or BE school wouldn't be embarrassed by losing to an AAC school.

Well, since neither Houston nor Memphis has ever won a hoops national title, and Cincy hasn't in almost 60 years, I think that would be considered very unusual, very surprising.

As for the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s, yes, a "tweener" is a good way to describe their football, and it was an underdog upset when Clemson won the 1981 national title, I remember that well. However, Clemson at that time was clearly above any AAC teams is right now in terms of football history and pedigree. The ACC added FSU precisely to move off the "tweener" bubble and position themselves as a power league.

I would say that Clemson winning the 1981 football title was not regarded then as being as much of an upset as any of the AAC schools you mentioned winning a hoops title would be now.

I typically agree with you, and often strongly, Quo. But I disagree with this somewhat.

You know how close Houston and Memphis came to winning it all (they both likely should have) and that Cincy has been to a Final Four since 1990. These are three programs for which going back to the Final Four in the future would be less surprising or unusual than seeing two thirds of the members of the P6 do so. And I'm not suggesting you would argue, for example, that Houston making a Final Four would be more unusual than, say, Cal or TCU or Northwestern or Boston College or ... doing so. Just being clear on this.

Clemson in 1981 was unusual because, back then, the ACC was — shall we say "modest" — in football. And for a program (even a strong one) from that league to win a national title ... unusual.

An AAC team winning a national title in men's hoops today would not necessarily be a full "upset" if that team were loaded and well coached. Yes, it would be a bit unexpected and beyond the norm. But not "very surprising" as you note. I would probably go with "somewhat surprising."

Eh ... Memphis almost won a title 12 years ago that would have been stripped anyway. They haven't officially been to the Final 4 since the Nixon administration. Cincy hasn't been to a Final 4 since the George HW Bush administration. Houston hasn't since the Reagan administration.

Clemson in the 1970s and leading up to 1981 was an often-ranked team and they had a pedigree going back decades. They were the ACC's football flagship.

So just using my memory, I believe that Clemson winning that title was not as much a shock as any of the three AAC teams you mention would be in hoops. Now BYU in 1984? That's another story.

Clemson's title in 1981 out of the ACC is a paradox recognized by the experts of this board but not something felt as a shock by the public at a whole which of course didn't have the media circus we do today comparing conferences all the time.

BYU was different but not so much because of the WAC which was thought to be on the level of say Big East 2.0 at the time but the heresy of a Mormon football school using Mormon missions in its recruiting strategy. The resource gap bnnetween WAC and PAC was not structurally wide back then. The Oregon schools hadn't developed and were like Washington State.

The traditional tier classification in college basketball no longer applies based on events the past 20 years.

2000:
High Major 1-10 rated
Mid Major 11-20 rated
Low Major 21+ rated

The development of power conferences with superior resources and cloud puts the P5 in a different category.

Also the major vs. mid major debate for programs such as Gonzaga and Butler has shown its possible to build a major D1 conference out of anywhere. Also programs like Belmont have popped up in traditional sub Top 20 conferences.

The way I view it in 2020 is different then.

Power 5
Major
Mid Major

The new P5 classification has shoved all others down but the Big East, AAC ect have big national TV contracts so qualify as major. The WCC TV contract is mainly about giving Gonzaga a national stage and doesn't include $$$ so to me they operate as a major program in a mid major conference.

A10 does get some $$$ although not a lot but its conference wide exposures and they back it up producing at large bids to the tournament so still in the major category.

But again being a "major" conference doesn't mean much when compared to the P5 and its just a way to define the tweener tier in D1 athletics.

(07-04-2020 12:20 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The way I view it in 2020 is different then.

Power 5
Major
Mid Major

The new P5 classification has shoved all others down but the Big East, AAC ect have big national TV contracts so qualify as major.

We are all entitled to our own way of viewing things, but I would say that the general way of viewing things is that with respect to hoops, the Big East is in the same group with the P5 conferences. There is actually a "P6" in hoops from the POV of the general basketball public.

At some point, my OCD will allow me to stop posting about this topic, but until then ...

... it seems almost all of us on this board (and the media) agree that in DI men's hoops there is:

P6 (the P5 plus the Big East)

Majors: AAC and Mountain West certainly, with perhaps A10, WCC and Missouri Valley included. (As noted previously, I strongly feel there are various individual programs in these leagues that are "major" to "high-major" and, thus, on par with the vast bulk of the programs that are members of the P6 — notwithstanding the bluebloods, of course.)

Mid-majors: the OVC is a fine example

Low-major: the Atlantic Sun and MEAC, for example

Alright, if I post about this topic again, somebody please call me out for my redundancy.

Now I have a tasty beer to quaff and a veggie burger to consume.

(07-04-2020 11:48 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 12:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:55 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 09:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  AAC is clearly below the P5 and Big East. Still don't know that I would call them a "tweener." I think of a tweener as like the ACC and WAC in football in the 80s. It was considered really odd when a Clemson or BYU won an MNC. It would not be considered odd if Cincinnati or Memphis or Houston won a title in basketball. A P5 or BE school wouldn't be embarrassed by losing to an AAC school.

Well, since neither Houston nor Memphis has ever won a hoops national title, and Cincy hasn't in almost 60 years, I think that would be considered very unusual, very surprising.

As for the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s, yes, a "tweener" is a good way to describe their football, and it was an underdog upset when Clemson won the 1981 national title, I remember that well. However, Clemson at that time was clearly above any AAC teams is right now in terms of football history and pedigree. The ACC added FSU precisely to move off the "tweener" bubble and position themselves as a power league.

I would say that Clemson winning the 1981 football title was not regarded then as being as much of an upset as any of the AAC schools you mentioned winning a hoops title would be now.

I typically agree with you, and often strongly, Quo. But I disagree with this somewhat.

You know how close Houston and Memphis came to winning it all (they both likely should have) and that Cincy has been to a Final Four since 1990. These are three programs for which going back to the Final Four in the future would be less surprising or unusual than seeing two thirds of the members of the P6 do so. And I'm not suggesting you would argue, for example, that Houston making a Final Four would be more unusual than, say, Cal or TCU or Northwestern or Boston College or ... doing so. Just being clear on this.

Clemson in 1981 was unusual because, back then, the ACC was — shall we say "modest" — in football. And for a program (even a strong one) from that league to win a national title ... unusual.

An AAC team winning a national title in men's hoops today would not necessarily be a full "upset" if that team were loaded and well coached. Yes, it would be a bit unexpected and beyond the norm. But not "very surprising" as you note. I would probably go with "somewhat surprising."

Eh ... Memphis almost won a title 12 years ago that would have been stripped anyway. They haven't officially been to the Final 4 since the Nixon administration. Cincy hasn't been to a Final 4 since the George HW Bush administration. Houston hasn't since the Reagan administration.

Clemson in the 1970s and leading up to 1981 was an often-ranked team and they had a pedigree going back decades. They were the ACC's football flagship.

So just using my memory, I believe that Clemson winning that title was not as much a shock as any of the three AAC teams you mention would be in hoops. Now BYU in 1984? That's another story.

Clemson's title in 1981 out of the ACC is a paradox recognized by the experts of this board but not something felt as a shock by the public at a whole which of course didn't have the media circus we do today comparing conferences all the time.

BYU was different but not so much because of the WAC which was thought to be on the level of say Big East 2.0 at the time but the heresy of a Mormon football school using Mormon missions in its recruiting strategy. The resource gap bnnetween WAC and PAC was not structurally wide back then. The Oregon schools hadn't developed and were like Washington State.

Nobody took the ACC seriously as a football conference at that time. It was viewed as a fluke. Not the team, which everyone recognized as good, but that an ACC team could be that good.

(07-03-2020 06:15 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  If by "mid-major," posters on this board (not you) mean the Memphis and Cincinnati men's hoops programs are on the same level as mid-major programs Belmont and Tennessee State (all four of which, as you likely know by now, I root for) ... then, yes, I am insulted.

I am on full record on this board as noting I do NOT feel the American is a power men's hoops league or ever (realistically) will be. I take a fair and reasonable view of this.

As you correctly note, the AAC needs to recruit better talent and perform better in the NCAA Tournament. Agree fully.

As to the challenge the American has with the SEC in men's basketball ... true, it's a modest arrangement (only four games) but it at least suggests the SEC knows the American is a solid league. So it would not be "beneath" the Pac-12 to have a similar arrangement with the AAC (though I admit it would make zero sense in terms of geography and historical rivalries).

I also feel Pac-12 football and hoops sometimes are unfairly criticized on this board. I wish your league well.

Good post. As you probably know, a mid-major conference is a term primarily used by sportswriters and commentators. There is no clearly defined definition for mid-major conferences in basketball. At the D1 football level, they are separated (P5 conferences, G5 conferences, FCS Conferences). In basketball, they are just 32 D1 conferences. Wikipedia defines mid-major as "a term used in American NCAA Division I college sports, especially men's basketball, to refer to athletic conferences that are not among the so-called "Power Five conferences" (the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC)." But that is just their opinion and as we have seen on this board, very open to debate.

The Big East has established themselves as a 6th power conference for basketball. The AAC has been an official conference for seven seasons. By conference RPI ranking, they have never ranked higher than 6th and that was in 2018-2019, when the Pac-12 slipped to 7th. Every other season they have either been 7th or 8th in RPI conference ranking. The AAC has been a multi-bid conference (2 to 4 teams) every season. But then so has the Atlantic 10, which has had at least three bids every season from 2008 through 2018, until 2019 when they fell to two. Dayton would have been a No.1 seed this season. There is not much separation between the A-10 and the AAC in basketball. The A-10 is considered a mid-major.

But you are right, within a conference, there are power school programs and mid-major programs. Cincinnati probably qualifies as a power program in basketball. As for the challenge series, the Pac-12 played 15 games in non-conference against the MWC this past season. They went 13-2. A challenge series with the Big 12 just makes more sense for them. The A-10 and the MWC have agreed to a challenge series that starts in 2020.

The Pac-12 deserves a lot of the criticism they get, from the incompetence of the way their league is run to the poor leadership at the University level. The criticism is much louder on the west coast. But there has never been a lack of talent and I hope Mick Cronin, who you are familiar with, can turn it around at UCLA. The first season under Cronin turned out well.

(07-04-2020 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:48 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 12:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:55 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, since neither Houston nor Memphis has ever won a hoops national title, and Cincy hasn't in almost 60 years, I think that would be considered very unusual, very surprising.

As for the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s, yes, a "tweener" is a good way to describe their football, and it was an underdog upset when Clemson won the 1981 national title, I remember that well. However, Clemson at that time was clearly above any AAC teams is right now in terms of football history and pedigree. The ACC added FSU precisely to move off the "tweener" bubble and position themselves as a power league.

I would say that Clemson winning the 1981 football title was not regarded then as being as much of an upset as any of the AAC schools you mentioned winning a hoops title would be now.

I typically agree with you, and often strongly, Quo. But I disagree with this somewhat.

You know how close Houston and Memphis came to winning it all (they both likely should have) and that Cincy has been to a Final Four since 1990. These are three programs for which going back to the Final Four in the future would be less surprising or unusual than seeing two thirds of the members of the P6 do so. And I'm not suggesting you would argue, for example, that Houston making a Final Four would be more unusual than, say, Cal or TCU or Northwestern or Boston College or ... doing so. Just being clear on this.

Clemson in 1981 was unusual because, back then, the ACC was — shall we say "modest" — in football. And for a program (even a strong one) from that league to win a national title ... unusual.

An AAC team winning a national title in men's hoops today would not necessarily be a full "upset" if that team were loaded and well coached. Yes, it would be a bit unexpected and beyond the norm. But not "very surprising" as you note. I would probably go with "somewhat surprising."

Eh ... Memphis almost won a title 12 years ago that would have been stripped anyway. They haven't officially been to the Final 4 since the Nixon administration. Cincy hasn't been to a Final 4 since the George HW Bush administration. Houston hasn't since the Reagan administration.

Clemson in the 1970s and leading up to 1981 was an often-ranked team and they had a pedigree going back decades. They were the ACC's football flagship.

So just using my memory, I believe that Clemson winning that title was not as much a shock as any of the three AAC teams you mention would be in hoops. Now BYU in 1984? That's another story.

Clemson's title in 1981 out of the ACC is a paradox recognized by the experts of this board but not something felt as a shock by the public at a whole which of course didn't have the media circus we do today comparing conferences all the time.

BYU was different but not so much because of the WAC which was thought to be on the level of say Big East 2.0 at the time but the heresy of a Mormon football school using Mormon missions in its recruiting strategy. The resource gap bnnetween WAC and PAC was not structurally wide back then. The Oregon schools hadn't developed and were like Washington State.

Nobody took the ACC seriously as a football conference at that time. It was viewed as a fluke. Not the team, which everyone recognized as good, but that an ACC team could be that good.

Nobody took anything that seriously back then. It was 1981.

(07-04-2020 03:48 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  ... The AAC has been a multi-bid conference (2 to 4 teams) every season. But then so has the Atlantic 10, which has had at least three bids every season from 2008 through 2018, until 2019 when they fell to two. Dayton would have been a No.1 seed this season. There is not much separation between the A-10 and the AAC in basketball. The A-10 is considered a mid-major. ...

And this is the gist of it.

If the AAC is a "lower tier high major", then so is the A10.

If the A10 is a "higher tier mid-major", then so is the AAC.

It's entirely arbitrary which term is used, even if for purposes of invidious distinction both might prefer "low major".

Low major was used with pride if it referred to non scholarship ball or the D2 like NEC to say this is a place where basketball just isn't serious.

But if any of these programs could at least in theory become a regular NCAA tournament contender/major team I dont see the point in making the low major distinction.

(07-04-2020 04:10 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:48 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 12:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:55 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I typically agree with you, and often strongly, Quo. But I disagree with this somewhat.

You know how close Houston and Memphis came to winning it all (they both likely should have) and that Cincy has been to a Final Four since 1990. These are three programs for which going back to the Final Four in the future would be less surprising or unusual than seeing two thirds of the members of the P6 do so. And I'm not suggesting you would argue, for example, that Houston making a Final Four would be more unusual than, say, Cal or TCU or Northwestern or Boston College or ... doing so. Just being clear on this.

Clemson in 1981 was unusual because, back then, the ACC was — shall we say "modest" — in football. And for a program (even a strong one) from that league to win a national title ... unusual.

An AAC team winning a national title in men's hoops today would not necessarily be a full "upset" if that team were loaded and well coached. Yes, it would be a bit unexpected and beyond the norm. But not "very surprising" as you note. I would probably go with "somewhat surprising."

Eh ... Memphis almost won a title 12 years ago that would have been stripped anyway. They haven't officially been to the Final 4 since the Nixon administration. Cincy hasn't been to a Final 4 since the George HW Bush administration. Houston hasn't since the Reagan administration.

Clemson in the 1970s and leading up to 1981 was an often-ranked team and they had a pedigree going back decades. They were the ACC's football flagship.

So just using my memory, I believe that Clemson winning that title was not as much a shock as any of the three AAC teams you mention would be in hoops. Now BYU in 1984? That's another story.

Clemson's title in 1981 out of the ACC is a paradox recognized by the experts of this board but not something felt as a shock by the public at a whole which of course didn't have the media circus we do today comparing conferences all the time.

BYU was different but not so much because of the WAC which was thought to be on the level of say Big East 2.0 at the time but the heresy of a Mormon football school using Mormon missions in its recruiting strategy. The resource gap bnnetween WAC and PAC was not structurally wide back then. The Oregon schools hadn't developed and were like Washington State.

Nobody took the ACC seriously as a football conference at that time. It was viewed as a fluke. Not the team, which everyone recognized as good, but that an ACC team could be that good.

Nobody took anything that seriously back then. It was 1981.

So you weren't born then?

With the tourney dominating 21st century basketball, "high major" or "major" for conferences could be abandoned altogether, and Division 1 split into four tiers, the P6, the other multi-bid conferences, the mid-majors and the conferences that will send their champions to Dayton on a fairly regular basis.

I'm too old to hear "major" and think of it as a second tier below "power", but if you kids want to do that, go ahead.

(07-04-2020 06:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 04:10 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:48 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 12:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Eh ... Memphis almost won a title 12 years ago that would have been stripped anyway. They haven't officially been to the Final 4 since the Nixon administration. Cincy hasn't been to a Final 4 since the George HW Bush administration. Houston hasn't since the Reagan administration.

Clemson in the 1970s and leading up to 1981 was an often-ranked team and they had a pedigree going back decades. They were the ACC's football flagship.

So just using my memory, I believe that Clemson winning that title was not as much a shock as any of the three AAC teams you mention would be in hoops. Now BYU in 1984? That's another story.

Clemson's title in 1981 out of the ACC is a paradox recognized by the experts of this board but not something felt as a shock by the public at a whole which of course didn't have the media circus we do today comparing conferences all the time.

BYU was different but not so much because of the WAC which was thought to be on the level of say Big East 2.0 at the time but the heresy of a Mormon football school using Mormon missions in its recruiting strategy. The resource gap bnnetween WAC and PAC was not structurally wide back then. The Oregon schools hadn't developed and were like Washington State.

Nobody took the ACC seriously as a football conference at that time. It was viewed as a fluke. Not the team, which everyone recognized as good, but that an ACC team could be that good.

Nobody took anything that seriously back then. It was 1981.

So you weren't born then?

I was born in 2007.

But what does that have to do with it? The aholes in online media who do nothing but push the narrative of P5 that is everything didnt have a platform nor was cable much of anything at that time.

Another point is the last conferences taking pot shots are the big boys. ACC never had the ridicule when down in football as did the Big East simply because its too important to knock. Same with B1G and SEC.

(07-04-2020 03:48 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 06:15 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  If by "mid-major," posters on this board (not you) mean the Memphis and Cincinnati men's hoops programs are on the same level as mid-major programs Belmont and Tennessee State (all four of which, as you likely know by now, I root for) ... then, yes, I am insulted.

I am on full record on this board as noting I do NOT feel the American is a power men's hoops league or ever (realistically) will be. I take a fair and reasonable view of this.

As you correctly note, the AAC needs to recruit better talent and perform better in the NCAA Tournament. Agree fully.

As to the challenge the American has with the SEC in men's basketball ... true, it's a modest arrangement (only four games) but it at least suggests the SEC knows the American is a solid league. So it would not be "beneath" the Pac-12 to have a similar arrangement with the AAC (though I admit it would make zero sense in terms of geography and historical rivalries).

I also feel Pac-12 football and hoops sometimes are unfairly criticized on this board. I wish your league well.

Good post. As you probably know, a mid-major conference is a term primarily used by sportswriters and commentators. There is no clearly defined definition for mid-major conferences in basketball. At the D1 football level, they are separated (P5 conferences, G5 conferences, FCS Conferences). In basketball, they are just 32 D1 conferences. Wikipedia defines mid-major as "a term used in American NCAA Division I college sports, especially men's basketball, to refer to athletic conferences that are not among the so-called "Power Five conferences" (the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC)." But that is just their opinion and as we have seen on this board, very open to debate.

The Big East has established themselves as a 6th power conference for basketball. The AAC has been an official conference for seven seasons. By conference RPI ranking, they have never ranked higher than 6th and that was in 2018-2019, when the Pac-12 slipped to 7th. Every other season they have either been 7th or 8th in RPI conference ranking. The AAC has been a multi-bid conference (2 to 4 teams) every season. But then so has the Atlantic 10, which has had at least three bids every season from 2008 through 2018, until 2019 when they fell to two. Dayton would have been a No.1 seed this season. There is not much separation between the A-10 and the AAC in basketball. The A-10 is considered a mid-major.

But you are right, within a conference, there are power school programs and mid-major programs. Cincinnati probably qualifies as a power program in basketball. As for the challenge series, the Pac-12 played 15 games in non-conference against the MWC this past season. They went 13-2. A challenge series with the Big 12 just makes more sense for them. The A-10 and the MWC have agreed to a challenge series that starts in 2020.

The Pac-12 deserves a lot of the criticism they get, from the incompetence of the way their league is run to the poor leadership at the University level. The criticism is much louder on the west coast. But there has never been a lack of talent and I hope Mick Cronin, who you are familiar with, can turn it around at UCLA. The first season under Cronin turned out well.

You make lots of good points in this post. There is no "simple" way of looking at this. We all have different perspectives and we should, at least, try to be respectful of others' approaches to the subject. It seems most of the posters on this board are, which is a positive.

My background (having worked in the sports media and living in the "mid-half of the eastern half of the country" is such that I strongly recall the days when various programs of what I consider "major note" were not considered by some folks "of the highest level." These programs included, but were not limited to, Dayton, Memphis, Cincinnati, Louisville, DePaul, Butler, Marquette, Xavier and Saint Louis. I've always considered these programs to be "major" to "high-major." But living in Nashville with lots of SEC homers, I used to hear (and still do a little bit) disrespect toward those programs. As such, I can be a bit sensitive to this topic.

Cronin is a better coach than many Cincinnati fans will admit today. Whether he is the "right coach" for UCLA today ... hard to say. I wish him well. As a fan of the late Gene Bartow (and of Steve Alford from his IU playing days), ... I wish UCLA well.

(07-04-2020 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:48 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 12:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:55 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, since neither Houston nor Memphis has ever won a hoops national title, and Cincy hasn't in almost 60 years, I think that would be considered very unusual, very surprising.

As for the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s, yes, a "tweener" is a good way to describe their football, and it was an underdog upset when Clemson won the 1981 national title, I remember that well. However, Clemson at that time was clearly above any AAC teams is right now in terms of football history and pedigree. The ACC added FSU precisely to move off the "tweener" bubble and position themselves as a power league.

I would say that Clemson winning the 1981 football title was not regarded then as being as much of an upset as any of the AAC schools you mentioned winning a hoops title would be now.

I typically agree with you, and often strongly, Quo. But I disagree with this somewhat.

You know how close Houston and Memphis came to winning it all (they both likely should have) and that Cincy has been to a Final Four since 1990. These are three programs for which going back to the Final Four in the future would be less surprising or unusual than seeing two thirds of the members of the P6 do so. And I'm not suggesting you would argue, for example, that Houston making a Final Four would be more unusual than, say, Cal or TCU or Northwestern or Boston College or ... doing so. Just being clear on this.

Clemson in 1981 was unusual because, back then, the ACC was — shall we say "modest" — in football. And for a program (even a strong one) from that league to win a national title ... unusual.

An AAC team winning a national title in men's hoops today would not necessarily be a full "upset" if that team were loaded and well coached. Yes, it would be a bit unexpected and beyond the norm. But not "very surprising" as you note. I would probably go with "somewhat surprising."

Eh ... Memphis almost won a title 12 years ago that would have been stripped anyway. They haven't officially been to the Final 4 since the Nixon administration. Cincy hasn't been to a Final 4 since the George HW Bush administration. Houston hasn't since the Reagan administration.

Clemson in the 1970s and leading up to 1981 was an often-ranked team and they had a pedigree going back decades. They were the ACC's football flagship.

So just using my memory, I believe that Clemson winning that title was not as much a shock as any of the three AAC teams you mention would be in hoops. Now BYU in 1984? That's another story.

Clemson's title in 1981 out of the ACC is a paradox recognized by the experts of this board but not something felt as a shock by the public at a whole which of course didn't have the media circus we do today comparing conferences all the time.

BYU was different but not so much because of the WAC which was thought to be on the level of say Big East 2.0 at the time but the heresy of a Mormon football school using Mormon missions in its recruiting strategy. The resource gap bnnetween WAC and PAC was not structurally wide back then. The Oregon schools hadn't developed and were like Washington State.

Nobody took the ACC seriously as a football conference at that time. It was viewed as a fluke. Not the team, which everyone recognized as good, but that an ACC team could be that good.

I basically agree with this.

(07-04-2020 11:48 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 12:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 11:55 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 09:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  AAC is clearly below the P5 and Big East. Still don't know that I would call them a "tweener." I think of a tweener as like the ACC and WAC in football in the 80s. It was considered really odd when a Clemson or BYU won an MNC. It would not be considered odd if Cincinnati or Memphis or Houston won a title in basketball. A P5 or BE school wouldn't be embarrassed by losing to an AAC school.

Well, since neither Houston nor Memphis has ever won a hoops national title, and Cincy hasn't in almost 60 years, I think that would be considered very unusual, very surprising.

As for the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s, yes, a "tweener" is a good way to describe their football, and it was an underdog upset when Clemson won the 1981 national title, I remember that well. However, Clemson at that time was clearly above any AAC teams is right now in terms of football history and pedigree. The ACC added FSU precisely to move off the "tweener" bubble and position themselves as a power league.

I would say that Clemson winning the 1981 football title was not regarded then as being as much of an upset as any of the AAC schools you mentioned winning a hoops title would be now.

I typically agree with you, and often strongly, Quo. But I disagree with this somewhat.

You know how close Houston and Memphis came to winning it all (they both likely should have) and that Cincy has been to a Final Four since 1990. These are three programs for which going back to the Final Four in the future would be less surprising or unusual than seeing two thirds of the members of the P6 do so. And I'm not suggesting you would argue, for example, that Houston making a Final Four would be more unusual than, say, Cal or TCU or Northwestern or Boston College or ... doing so. Just being clear on this.

Clemson in 1981 was unusual because, back then, the ACC was — shall we say "modest" — in football. And for a program (even a strong one) from that league to win a national title ... unusual.

An AAC team winning a national title in men's hoops today would not necessarily be a full "upset" if that team were loaded and well coached. Yes, it would be a bit unexpected and beyond the norm. But not "very surprising" as you note. I would probably go with "somewhat surprising."

Eh ... Memphis almost won a title 12 years ago that would have been stripped anyway. They haven't officially been to the Final 4 since the Nixon administration. Cincy hasn't been to a Final 4 since the George HW Bush administration. Houston hasn't since the Reagan administration.

Clemson in the 1970s and leading up to 1981 was an often-ranked team and they had a pedigree going back decades. They were the ACC's football flagship.

So just using my memory, I believe that Clemson winning that title was not as much a shock as any of the three AAC teams you mention would be in hoops. Now BYU in 1984? That's another story.

Clemson's title in 1981 out of the ACC is a paradox recognized by the experts of this board but not something felt as a shock by the public at a whole which of course didn't have the media circus we do today comparing conferences all the time.

BYU was different but not so much because of the WAC which was thought to be on the level of say Big East 2.0 at the time but the heresy of a Mormon football school using Mormon missions in its recruiting strategy. The resource gap bnnetween WAC and PAC was not structurally wide back then. The Oregon schools hadn't developed and were like Washington State.

The old WAC (the one that had the Arizona schools and then the second version when BYU won the NC in 1984) was the Western equivalent of the ACC. The ACC got the upper hand when Florida State joined and the WAC made the stupid decision to expand to 16. It’s one of the reasons why the ACC got a seat at the BCS table and the WAC didn’t.

the term "power" isnt a basketball term..and not used in basketball narrative and is not common...

yet a lot of you are pushing a "power 6" which is non existent ..the big east is not a power conference, the power term is a football term and defined by the autonomous voting status, the big east has no such status..no clue why you are trying to force the big east into a narrative they are not in..(and before anyone notes the aac calling itself power 6 in football..the aac is legally attempting to get autonomous voting rights/guaranteed bowl--lets not debate if you think it will happen or not, thats off topic)

the opinion on this board are odd ...you guys try to use general opinion as proof. "the general college basketball fans thinks"...the average fan has no clue what a power 6 is...that is not a common basketball term

there is a divide in basketball - high major (higher level basketball) and low major (smaller college basketball)...thats the only divide (even if you think there should be others or dont like it) ....there is no defined line where it is but the national media and most pundits have drawn the line in the sand..the line includes the aac as a high major (example: espn includes the aac in high major articles, excludes from mid-major articles )..unfortunately the line has been drawn with the a10 as a mid major---having "your personal reasons" for disagreeing is a meaningless debate, i nor u make that perception.
my guess is its based on money, brand value, and ability to schedule (aac makes 7 mill, a10 makes less than 1 miill)..also talking top to bottom on average for the brand value..everyone in the a10 isnt dayton...on the reverse tulane and ecu arent the only aac teams ..despite what is portrayed on this forum

So, the P5 and Big East shuffle around their order year to year in the top six. The AAC is a solid number 7, capable of pushing into the top 5 or 6 in a really great year.

After that?

Just my gut, blindfold list:

8) A-10
9) MW
10) WCC
11) MVC
12) SoCon
13) MAC?
14) OVC?
...
Sun Belt, C-USA... I don't know.

31) MEAC
32) SWAC

...

Maybe this can shift gears towards the original topic.