(07-05-2020 10:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

I can assure you that before the 1990 season, if anyone had said Georgia Tech would win a share of the national title, you could have gotten 500 to 1 odds against it. That was stunning. IIRC, they were unranked to start the year and remained so the first few weeks.

They are arguably the softest title winner of the past 30+ years. They didn't face any of the top teams that year and like BYU won a second-tier bowl. Miami, Notre Dame, FSU, and Colorado all would have beaten them up pretty badly. I don't think that Tech team produced any NFL players of any note.

Fair points about being unranked going into the season, but of course, nobody knows what could have happened in a game that wasn’t played. GaTech, as the ACC champ, was contractually obligated to appear in the Citrus Bowl on New Year’s Day unless they were invited to a “national championship game”. They weren’t for some reason, but they did beat three top 25 teams during the season—including the #1—and crushed a ranked Nebraska in the bowl.

Notes from that season: BYU beat Miami, Stanford beat ND, Miami dispatched FSU, and Colorado needed the illegal “5th down” to beat Mizzou. It’s actually somewhat unfair GaTech wasn’t undisputed national champs.

Their schedule was only marred by a tie...

(07-05-2020 11:06 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  But that Michigan team of 2019 was strong. The Big Ten could eventually get a title.

Yes they were. The B1G is clearly interested in competing for titles in baseball, that's why some of their schools are in the vanguard of the push to get the schedule shifted to be more friendly to northern schools. But Michigan proved the B1G can field title-winning teams even under the current situation.

The B1G has the cash to really invest in baseball success, and I think that is coming.

(07-06-2020 12:03 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Of course, deep-historically, things were much different. In the early days of the tournament, the 1940s - 1970s, the Big 10 actually produced several champs, and the PAC was utterly dominant. USC is easily the all-time leader with 12 national titles (the PAC has 18 total, not 27), but hasn't won one in 22 years, and that 1998 title is the only one they have won in the past 40 years.

The PAC-12 claims 29 national championships in baseball, but it has actually won 24 national championships. Arizona State won four and Arizona won one before joining the Pac-8 in 1978, where it became the PAC-10. From 1957 to 1981, the PAC-8, Arizona State and Arizona combined to win 18 national championships in 25 years.

Thanks for the correction.

(07-06-2020 06:32 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

I can assure you that before the 1990 season, if anyone had said Georgia Tech would win a share of the national title, you could have gotten 500 to 1 odds against it. That was stunning. IIRC, they were unranked to start the year and remained so the first few weeks.

They are arguably the softest title winner of the past 30+ years. They didn't face any of the top teams that year and like BYU won a second-tier bowl. Miami, Notre Dame, FSU, and Colorado all would have beaten them up pretty badly. I don't think that Tech team produced any NFL players of any note.

Fair points about being unranked going into the season, but of course, nobody knows what could have happened in a game that wasn’t played. GaTech, as the ACC champ, was contractually obligated to appear in the Citrus Bowl on New Year’s Day unless they were invited to a “national championship game”. They weren’t for some reason, but they did beat three top 25 teams during the season—including the #1—and crushed a ranked Nebraska in the bowl.

Notes from that season: BYU beat Miami, Stanford beat ND, Miami dispatched FSU, and Colorado needed the illegal “5th down” to beat Mizzou. It’s actually somewhat unfair GaTech wasn’t undisputed national champs.

Their schedule was only marred by a tie...

Congratulations to UNC. But 1990 was a screwy year, kind of like 2007, when you had almost all the top teams with two or more losses. As you say, Colorado should have as well, they were gifted a win in the "5th down" game and should have been out of the national title race.

But the GT team that year just was not strong. They were like the 2007 Kansas team that had the best record, just one loss, among the P5 teams. But Kansas finished only at #6. GT only played three teams ranked in the final poll, #23 Virginia (collapsed late in season), #24 Nebraska, and #9 Clemson. Clemson was easily the best team they played, and they were very lucky to win. IIRC, Clemson dominated the game statistically and lost by a couple of points.

In contrast, a team like Notre Dame, a powerful team that lost 3 games, played a hellacious schedule.

I bet GT would have been an underdog against any of the other teams that finished in the top 5-6 of the AP poll that year. They just were not considered to be in the same class with Miami, FSU, Colorado, Notre Dame, Michigan, Washington, and Tennessee. They skated by the wreckage of top teams beating each other up without facing any top teams.

(07-05-2020 11:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

it would make sense if he was just talking from a memphis perspective..like you noted memphis was horrible in football, so them being good as theyve been is an over achievement...and memphis fans have unrealsitically high basketball expectations (probably more than they should), so theysd consider it a disappointment

but conference wide, i think the aac has been fine in basketball...uconn is the only team that always came in with high expectations (and great recruiting classes) throughout their tenure and constantly ended up horrible ..if you had "realistic" expectations the aac hasnt been a disappointment

and to your last paragragh..yeah the aac is in the have-nots in football..but i think a really interesting landscape change could happen if they expand the playoffs and aac teams have a legitimate chance at a title

Maybe the best way to note it is that the AAC has been fine in terms of recruiting, offering generally competitive teams, luring some good coaches, seeing the "lower third" of its membership improve a bit, etc.

But it just seems (I'm too lazy to look it up) the league has been so-so (if not bad) in terms of NCAA/NIT results, putting players in the NBA, post-season rankings, attendance and winning noteworthy non-conference games.

Agree fully that we Tiger fans have unreasonably high expectations. For some Memphis fans to think Penny would come in and immediately be a top-tier-type coach ... absurd.

Again, some folks let their excitement cloud their better judgement.

In my mind, the Big East and college football’s P5 are #1-6.

The AAC is 7th and A10 is 8th. This is a real gray area. I tend to think of the AAC as the bottom of the top and the A10 as the top of the middle.

Beyond that you have to ask of the rest of the conferences these 2 questions:

In the past 20 yrs are you averaging more than 1.20 bids per year? If yes, you are a mid major.

If, no what is the average seed you’ve received in that 20 yr span? These are your low majors and you can rank them based on their average seed.

I’d like to point out that I think there is a differentiation between a major program and a major conference. You have outliers like Gonzaga and BYU who operate major programs within the confines of a mid major conference but since that level of performance can not be said of the whole league I don’t think you can confer that status on the whole conference.

(07-06-2020 09:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In my mind, the Big East and college football’s P5 are #1-6.

The AAC is 7th and A10 is 8th. This is a real gray area. I tend to think of the AAC as the bottom of the top and the A10 as the top of the middle.

Yes, that's basically what adding Wichita State to beef up flagging basketball has gotten the AAC - before the addition, they were #8 and the A10 was #7, and since WS arrived they have switched positions.

The MWC has the programs to pass the AAC or A10 any given year. It seems they haven’t replaced any of the great coaches that populated the conference a decade ago.

(07-06-2020 09:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In my mind, the Big East and college football’s P5 are #1-6.

The AAC is 7th and A10 is 8th. This is a real gray area. I tend to think of the AAC as the bottom of the top and the A10 as the top of the middle.

Beyond that you have to ask of the rest of the conferences these 2 questions:

In the past 20 yrs are you averaging more than 1.20 bids per year? If yes, you are a mid major.

If, no what is the average seed you’ve received in that 20 yr span? These are your low majors and you can rank them based on their average seed.

I’d like to point out that I think there is a differentiation between a major program and a major conference. You have outliers like Gonzaga and BYU who operate major programs within the confines of a mid major conference but since that level of performance can not be said of the whole league I don’t think you can confer that status on the whole conference.

A fair assessment.

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

With the top college basketball coaches making close to 10 million dollars I don't see how Memphis is gaining ground.

It was probably relatively its most strong 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean you can't have some nice recruits and appear in a final four but the P5 resource advantage is making things happen like Texas Tech playing in the final four so the competition level the AAC is up against as a whole is different.

Then competition from below with mid-major to major type programs; Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St ect. Its not like the AAC is the last stop on the conference train if you desire to build a major program. Even schools like Grand Canyon are stepping up pay to try to become major programs.

(07-06-2020 10:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

With the top college basketball coaches making close to 10 million dollars I don't see how Memphis is gaining ground.

It was probably relatively its most strong 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean you can't have some nice recruits and appear in a final four but the P5 resource advantage is making things happen like Texas Tech playing in the final four so the competition level the AAC is up against as a whole is different.

Then competition from below with mid-major to major type programs; Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St ect. Its not like the AAC is the last stop on the conference train if you desire to build a major program. Even schools like Grand Canyon are stepping up pay to try to become major programs.

Memphis paid Tubby Smith $10M to leave after two years. Penny came in at a reduced rate knowing the school was shelling out $10M. His initial contract is up soon. It'll be interesting to see how it shapes up in the current landscape. The money's there to pay him mid or even upper "major/power money" if the powers that be feel it's warranted.

ETA: There's a whole lot of room between paying at the highest level of major programs and below major programs. Memphis isn't an elite program, but has paid and has the resources to pay salaries within major program parameters.

(07-06-2020 07:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 06:32 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

I can assure you that before the 1990 season, if anyone had said Georgia Tech would win a share of the national title, you could have gotten 500 to 1 odds against it. That was stunning. IIRC, they were unranked to start the year and remained so the first few weeks.

They are arguably the softest title winner of the past 30+ years. They didn't face any of the top teams that year and like BYU won a second-tier bowl. Miami, Notre Dame, FSU, and Colorado all would have beaten them up pretty badly. I don't think that Tech team produced any NFL players of any note.

Fair points about being unranked going into the season, but of course, nobody knows what could have happened in a game that wasn’t played. GaTech, as the ACC champ, was contractually obligated to appear in the Citrus Bowl on New Year’s Day unless they were invited to a “national championship game”. They weren’t for some reason, but they did beat three top 25 teams during the season—including the #1—and crushed a ranked Nebraska in the bowl.

Notes from that season: BYU beat Miami, Stanford beat ND, Miami dispatched FSU, and Colorado needed the illegal “5th down” to beat Mizzou. It’s actually somewhat unfair GaTech wasn’t undisputed national champs.

Their schedule was only marred by a tie...

Congratulations to UNC. But 1990 was a screwy year, kind of like 2007, when you had almost all the top teams with two or more losses. As you say, Colorado should have as well, they were gifted a win in the "5th down" game and should have been out of the national title race.

But the GT team that year just was not strong. They were like the 2007 Kansas team that had the best record, just one loss, among the P5 teams. But Kansas finished only at #6. GT only played three teams ranked in the final poll, #23 Virginia (collapsed late in season), #24 Nebraska, and #9 Clemson. Clemson was easily the best team they played, and they were very lucky to win. IIRC, Clemson dominated the game statistically and lost by a couple of points.

In contrast, a team like Notre Dame, a powerful team that lost 3 games, played a hellacious schedule.

I bet GT would have been an underdog against any of the other teams that finished in the top 5-6 of the AP poll that year. They just were not considered to be in the same class with Miami, FSU, Colorado, Notre Dame, Michigan, Washington, and Tennessee. They skated by the wreckage of top teams beating each other up without facing any top teams.

Colorado had the type of schedule you don't see much anymore. Below are the final AP rankings:
They beat #5 Washington at home
They beat #6 Notre Dame in a bowl
They tied #8 Tennessee in a neutral site opener
They beat #12 Texas on the road (UT's only loss prior to bowl,#3 before bowl loss)
They beat #17 Oklahoma at home
They beat #23 Nebraska on the road
They lost to #25 Illinois by 1 on the road in their 3rd game

(07-06-2020 10:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

With the top college basketball coaches making close to 10 million dollars I don't see how Memphis is gaining ground.

It was probably relatively its most strong 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean you can't have some nice recruits and appear in a final four but the P5 resource advantage is making things happen like Texas Tech playing in the final four so the competition level the AAC is up against as a whole is different.

Then competition from below with mid-major to major type programs; Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St ect. Its not like the AAC is the last stop on the conference train if you desire to build a major program. Even schools like Grand Canyon are stepping up pay to try to become major programs.

Memphis is more than capable of paying a men's basketball coach the same salary as those of most coaches of major programs (but not at Coach K level, obviously).

Memphis is a "major" program on par with all but the bluebloods (Duke, UK, UNC, Nova, Kansas, etc.), in part, because it has something that many other major programs don't: an enthusiastic hoops culture that is driven by history and ethnic considerations. Many folks (particularly Blacks) who live in the city mainly like the Tigers and pro sports. It is a "we are in this together" mindset stemming from the Civil Rights movement, Memphis' trip to the NIT title in 1957 (sadly a loss but when the NIT was as big a deal as the NCAA) and later, to an extent, the arrival of the Grizzlies.

You hear this often but it's true: Memphis truly is one of America's "great basketball cities." The sports is like a religion in the city.

(07-06-2020 12:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

With the top college basketball coaches making close to 10 million dollars I don't see how Memphis is gaining ground.

It was probably relatively its most strong 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean you can't have some nice recruits and appear in a final four but the P5 resource advantage is making things happen like Texas Tech playing in the final four so the competition level the AAC is up against as a whole is different.

Then competition from below with mid-major to major type programs; Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St ect. Its not like the AAC is the last stop on the conference train if you desire to build a major program. Even schools like Grand Canyon are stepping up pay to try to become major programs.

Memphis is more than capable of paying a men's basketball coach the same salary as those of most coaches of major programs (but not at Coach K level, obviously).

Memphis is a "major" program on par with all but the bluebloods (Duke, UK, UNC, Nova, Kansas, etc.), in part, because it has something that many other major programs don't: an enthusiastic hoops culture that is driven by history and ethnic considerations. Many folks (particularly Blacks) who live in the city mainly like the Tigers and pro sports. It is a "we are in this together" mindset stemming from the Civil Rights movement, Memphis' trip to the NIT title in 1957 (sadly a loss but when the NIT was as big a deal as the NCAA) and later, to an extent, the arrival of the Grizzlies.

You hear this often but it's true: Memphis truly is one of America's "great basketball cities." The sports is like a religion in the city.

The problem is salaries have become so high in Division I basketball that its created five or six levels in the sport.

5 million to 10 million
2.5 million to 5 million
1.25 million to 2.5 million
625,000 to 1.25 million
312,500 to 625,000
Below 312,000

Very few coaches are being paid 10 million however the high number is forcing other big time programs to pay around 5 million to stay within a standard deviation of what the very top ones are playing. Likewise as you move down the chain. Coaches are being paid 2.5 million in the Top 40 to stay reasonably competitive with the guys making 5 million.

The A10 as we know is a solid Top 10 basketball conference their coaches are essentially all in that 625,000 to 1.25 million range. They are like 4 levels down from the elite so if a P5 comes calling they are done.

https://www.basketballforum.com/threads/...es.622409/

AD's for years now are trying to pump the breaks on escalating salaries and by doing so it forces programs down into a lower tier. The income steams are just not there to push forward to salaries of 5, 6, 7 million dollars.

The flip side is that any D1 head coach has to have quality credentials and a conference like the A10 will be hire in coaches for 600k-700k that are the very best from smaller conferences.

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

(07-06-2020 02:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

With the top college basketball coaches making close to 10 million dollars I don't see how Memphis is gaining ground.

It was probably relatively its most strong 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean you can't have some nice recruits and appear in a final four but the P5 resource advantage is making things happen like Texas Tech playing in the final four so the competition level the AAC is up against as a whole is different.

Then competition from below with mid-major to major type programs; Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St ect. Its not like the AAC is the last stop on the conference train if you desire to build a major program. Even schools like Grand Canyon are stepping up pay to try to become major programs.

Memphis is more than capable of paying a men's basketball coach the same salary as those of most coaches of major programs (but not at Coach K level, obviously).

Memphis is a "major" program on par with all but the bluebloods (Duke, UK, UNC, Nova, Kansas, etc.), in part, because it has something that many other major programs don't: an enthusiastic hoops culture that is driven by history and ethnic considerations. Many folks (particularly Blacks) who live in the city mainly like the Tigers and pro sports. It is a "we are in this together" mindset stemming from the Civil Rights movement, Memphis' trip to the NIT title in 1957 (sadly a loss but when the NIT was as big a deal as the NCAA) and later, to an extent, the arrival of the Grizzlies.

You hear this often but it's true: Memphis truly is one of America's "great basketball cities." The sports is like a religion in the city.

The problem is salaries have become so high in Division I basketball that its created five or six levels in the sport.

5 million to 10 million
2.5 million to 5 million
1.25 million to 2.5 million
625,000 to 1.25 million
312,500 to 625,000
Below 312,000

Very few coaches are being paid 10 million however the high number is forcing other big time programs to pay around 5 million to stay within a standard deviation of what the very top ones are playing. Likewise as you move down the chain. Coaches are being paid 2.5 million in the Top 40 to stay reasonably competitive with the guys making 5 million.

The A10 as we know is a solid Top 10 basketball conference their coaches are essentially all in that 625,000 to 1.25 million range. They are like 4 levels down from the elite so if a P5 comes calling they are done.

https://www.basketballforum.com/threads/...es.622409/

AD's for years now are trying to pump the breaks on escalating salaries and by doing so it forces programs down into a lower tier. The income steams are just not there to push forward to salaries of 5, 6, 7 million dollars.

The flip side is that any D1 head coach has to have quality credentials and a conference like the A10 will be hire in coaches for 600k-700k that are the very best from smaller conferences.

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

Now this seems a very fair point you make:

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

And your salary tiers seem accurate at quick glance.

Memphis is different animal regarding AAC hoops. The school has shown a willingness and ability to pay coaches. Obviously, UofM can't pay $5 million or more per year. But the school has paid $3M annually for a football coach and could likely pay $4 million for the right hoops coach.

That's not "elite" coaches pay, I admit. But it ain't peanuts either.

(07-06-2020 03:23 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

With the top college basketball coaches making close to 10 million dollars I don't see how Memphis is gaining ground.

It was probably relatively its most strong 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean you can't have some nice recruits and appear in a final four but the P5 resource advantage is making things happen like Texas Tech playing in the final four so the competition level the AAC is up against as a whole is different.

Then competition from below with mid-major to major type programs; Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St ect. Its not like the AAC is the last stop on the conference train if you desire to build a major program. Even schools like Grand Canyon are stepping up pay to try to become major programs.

Memphis is more than capable of paying a men's basketball coach the same salary as those of most coaches of major programs (but not at Coach K level, obviously).

Memphis is a "major" program on par with all but the bluebloods (Duke, UK, UNC, Nova, Kansas, etc.), in part, because it has something that many other major programs don't: an enthusiastic hoops culture that is driven by history and ethnic considerations. Many folks (particularly Blacks) who live in the city mainly like the Tigers and pro sports. It is a "we are in this together" mindset stemming from the Civil Rights movement, Memphis' trip to the NIT title in 1957 (sadly a loss but when the NIT was as big a deal as the NCAA) and later, to an extent, the arrival of the Grizzlies.

You hear this often but it's true: Memphis truly is one of America's "great basketball cities." The sports is like a religion in the city.

The problem is salaries have become so high in Division I basketball that its created five or six levels in the sport.

5 million to 10 million
2.5 million to 5 million
1.25 million to 2.5 million
625,000 to 1.25 million
312,500 to 625,000
Below 312,000

Very few coaches are being paid 10 million however the high number is forcing other big time programs to pay around 5 million to stay within a standard deviation of what the very top ones are playing. Likewise as you move down the chain. Coaches are being paid 2.5 million in the Top 40 to stay reasonably competitive with the guys making 5 million.

The A10 as we know is a solid Top 10 basketball conference their coaches are essentially all in that 625,000 to 1.25 million range. They are like 4 levels down from the elite so if a P5 comes calling they are done.

https://www.basketballforum.com/threads/...es.622409/

AD's for years now are trying to pump the breaks on escalating salaries and by doing so it forces programs down into a lower tier. The income steams are just not there to push forward to salaries of 5, 6, 7 million dollars.

The flip side is that any D1 head coach has to have quality credentials and a conference like the A10 will be hire in coaches for 600k-700k that are the very best from smaller conferences.

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

Now this seems a very fair point you make:

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

And your salary tiers seem accurate at quick glance.

Memphis is different animal regarding AAC hoops. The school has shown a willingness and ability to pay coaches. Obviously, UofM can't pay $5 million or more per year. But the school has paid $3M annually for a football coach and could likely pay $4 million for the right hoops coach.

That's not "elite" coaches pay, I admit. But it ain't peanuts either.

You can still get an experienced D1 coach or big time recruiter for 600k-700k so I don't see the point of eating into revenues with a 3 million a year kind of guy.

Salaries are important and also where a program ranks within its conference. Memphis as one of the top programs in the AAC helps to attract better players because they know they are going to win there.

So its not sometimes about competing in the strongest possible basketball conference on average but finding a conference fit that will keep you in the Top 2 or 3 programs every year. How competitive would Memphis basketball be in a conference like the ACC for example?

(07-06-2020 07:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:06 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  But that Michigan team of 2019 was strong. The Big Ten could eventually get a title.

Yes they were. The B1G is clearly interested in competing for titles in baseball, that's why some of their schools are in the vanguard of the push to get the schedule shifted to be more friendly to northern schools. But Michigan proved the B1G can field title-winning teams even under the current situation.

The B1G has the cash to really invest in baseball success, and I think that is coming.

I do feel the B1G can improve (and perhaps significantly) in baseball. But I'm not sure we will see a league school emerge as a consistent and annual power. It would be helpful to the B1G, no doubt.

The history of the league:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bi..._champions

(07-07-2020 07:57 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:23 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:44 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  With the top college basketball coaches making close to 10 million dollars I don't see how Memphis is gaining ground.

It was probably relatively its most strong 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean you can't have some nice recruits and appear in a final four but the P5 resource advantage is making things happen like Texas Tech playing in the final four so the competition level the AAC is up against as a whole is different.

Then competition from below with mid-major to major type programs; Gonzaga, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St ect. Its not like the AAC is the last stop on the conference train if you desire to build a major program. Even schools like Grand Canyon are stepping up pay to try to become major programs.

Memphis is more than capable of paying a men's basketball coach the same salary as those of most coaches of major programs (but not at Coach K level, obviously).

Memphis is a "major" program on par with all but the bluebloods (Duke, UK, UNC, Nova, Kansas, etc.), in part, because it has something that many other major programs don't: an enthusiastic hoops culture that is driven by history and ethnic considerations. Many folks (particularly Blacks) who live in the city mainly like the Tigers and pro sports. It is a "we are in this together" mindset stemming from the Civil Rights movement, Memphis' trip to the NIT title in 1957 (sadly a loss but when the NIT was as big a deal as the NCAA) and later, to an extent, the arrival of the Grizzlies.

You hear this often but it's true: Memphis truly is one of America's "great basketball cities." The sports is like a religion in the city.

The problem is salaries have become so high in Division I basketball that its created five or six levels in the sport.

5 million to 10 million
2.5 million to 5 million
1.25 million to 2.5 million
625,000 to 1.25 million
312,500 to 625,000
Below 312,000

Very few coaches are being paid 10 million however the high number is forcing other big time programs to pay around 5 million to stay within a standard deviation of what the very top ones are playing. Likewise as you move down the chain. Coaches are being paid 2.5 million in the Top 40 to stay reasonably competitive with the guys making 5 million.

The A10 as we know is a solid Top 10 basketball conference their coaches are essentially all in that 625,000 to 1.25 million range. They are like 4 levels down from the elite so if a P5 comes calling they are done.

https://www.basketballforum.com/threads/...es.622409/

AD's for years now are trying to pump the breaks on escalating salaries and by doing so it forces programs down into a lower tier. The income steams are just not there to push forward to salaries of 5, 6, 7 million dollars.

The flip side is that any D1 head coach has to have quality credentials and a conference like the A10 will be hire in coaches for 600k-700k that are the very best from smaller conferences.

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

Now this seems a very fair point you make:

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

And your salary tiers seem accurate at quick glance.

Memphis is different animal regarding AAC hoops. The school has shown a willingness and ability to pay coaches. Obviously, UofM can't pay $5 million or more per year. But the school has paid $3M annually for a football coach and could likely pay $4 million for the right hoops coach.

That's not "elite" coaches pay, I admit. But it ain't peanuts either.

You can still get an experienced D1 coach or big time recruiter for 600k-700k so I don't see the point of eating into revenues with a 3 million a year kind of guy.

Salaries are important and also where a program ranks within its conference. Memphis as one of the top programs in the AAC helps to attract better players because they know they are going to win there.

So its not sometimes about competing in the strongest possible basketball conference on average but finding a conference fit that will keep you in the Top 2 or 3 programs every year. How competitive would Memphis basketball be in a conference like the ACC for example?

Memphis likely would struggle a bit in the ACC. The program would be fortunate to finish in the top five, say, one of every three years.

I agree with you regarding the "finding a conference fit that will keep you in the Top 2 or 3 programs every year" comment. Memphis (and Cincy, too) is in a conference for which it is well suited to be competitive. The problem is that the AAC has so underachieved in men's hoops, thus casting a somewhat negative net collectively on the seven major to high-major programs in the league (UC, UM, Houston, Temple, Wichita, Tulsa and SMU).

You make some good points.

(07-07-2020 08:28 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 07:57 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:23 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:55 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:54 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Memphis is more than capable of paying a men's basketball coach the same salary as those of most coaches of major programs (but not at Coach K level, obviously).

Memphis is a "major" program on par with all but the bluebloods (Duke, UK, UNC, Nova, Kansas, etc.), in part, because it has something that many other major programs don't: an enthusiastic hoops culture that is driven by history and ethnic considerations. Many folks (particularly Blacks) who live in the city mainly like the Tigers and pro sports. It is a "we are in this together" mindset stemming from the Civil Rights movement, Memphis' trip to the NIT title in 1957 (sadly a loss but when the NIT was as big a deal as the NCAA) and later, to an extent, the arrival of the Grizzlies.

You hear this often but it's true: Memphis truly is one of America's "great basketball cities." The sports is like a religion in the city.

The problem is salaries have become so high in Division I basketball that its created five or six levels in the sport.

5 million to 10 million
2.5 million to 5 million
1.25 million to 2.5 million
625,000 to 1.25 million
312,500 to 625,000
Below 312,000

Very few coaches are being paid 10 million however the high number is forcing other big time programs to pay around 5 million to stay within a standard deviation of what the very top ones are playing. Likewise as you move down the chain. Coaches are being paid 2.5 million in the Top 40 to stay reasonably competitive with the guys making 5 million.

The A10 as we know is a solid Top 10 basketball conference their coaches are essentially all in that 625,000 to 1.25 million range. They are like 4 levels down from the elite so if a P5 comes calling they are done.

https://www.basketballforum.com/threads/...es.622409/

AD's for years now are trying to pump the breaks on escalating salaries and by doing so it forces programs down into a lower tier. The income steams are just not there to push forward to salaries of 5, 6, 7 million dollars.

The flip side is that any D1 head coach has to have quality credentials and a conference like the A10 will be hire in coaches for 600k-700k that are the very best from smaller conferences.

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

Now this seems a very fair point you make:

That is why I think there is big drop off in NBA talent within the AAC; they don't pay enough to have the best recruiters in the country. Assistant pay is accordingly also lower.

And your salary tiers seem accurate at quick glance.

Memphis is different animal regarding AAC hoops. The school has shown a willingness and ability to pay coaches. Obviously, UofM can't pay $5 million or more per year. But the school has paid $3M annually for a football coach and could likely pay $4 million for the right hoops coach.

That's not "elite" coaches pay, I admit. But it ain't peanuts either.

You can still get an experienced D1 coach or big time recruiter for 600k-700k so I don't see the point of eating into revenues with a 3 million a year kind of guy.

Salaries are important and also where a program ranks within its conference. Memphis as one of the top programs in the AAC helps to attract better players because they know they are going to win there.

So its not sometimes about competing in the strongest possible basketball conference on average but finding a conference fit that will keep you in the Top 2 or 3 programs every year. How competitive would Memphis basketball be in a conference like the ACC for example?

Memphis likely would struggle a bit in the ACC. The program would be fortunate to finish in the top five, say, one of every three years.

I agree with you regarding the "finding a conference fit that will keep you in the Top 2 or 3 programs every year" comment. Memphis (and Cincy, too) is in a conference for which it is well suited to be competitive. The problem is that the AAC has so underachieved in men's hoops, thus casting a somewhat negative net collectively on the seven major to high-major programs in the league (UC, UM, Houston, Temple, Wichita, Tulsa and SMU).

You make some good points.

Always an interesting discussion...what should be weighted more potential vs. achievement? Arguments can be made for both sides. It would be a sign of hard times if Memphis regressed 15 years (ball parking) paying less than $1M for a head coach. That would be inarguably mid major territory and a situation where boosters have fallen off the face of the earth. Neither seems likely...the ACC or Memphis having to skimp on salaries. Had Tubby worked out out, he’d have been in the top 15 pay for 2020...Penny’s new contract should be within ballpark. Hard to imagine Memphis not keeping up given current metrics...though we are admittedly in unprecedented times.

(06-29-2020 09:07 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 07:22 PM)dirtyjersey Wrote:  Much has been made about the pecking order of the P5 schools but what about the low to mid major conferences?

Obviously, the MEAC, WAC, and ASUN are at or near the bottom, CAA and MVC make up the middle and the WCC, MWC and American are at the top but where do all the other conferences fit in? What factors go into determining this? Is it purely performance based?

It’s region/sport-dependent. It can also be academics-dependent (IVY, Patriot, America East, Big West).

For midwestern football, the MAC’s on top because it’s the only conference with FBS access.

For midwestern basketball, everyone has equal access and there’s no academic-oriented leagues, so it comes down more to performance.

MVC > MAC > Horizon > OVC > Summit

Now, the Summit may outperform the Horizon, but the Horizon’s higher in the pecking order because it’s poached 3 teams recently (Oakland/IUPUI/Ft Wayne) from the Summit, thereby establishing a higher position of leverage.

In the Midwest the Summit is clearly on the upswing. Once Murray goes to the MVC I would rate them MVC>MAC>Horizon>Summit>OVC