(07-04-2020 11:49 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  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.

Accurate across the board except #14. CUSA/SBELT/IVY round out the top-16. OVC would be 29-30th nearly every year if not for Murray St and Belmont. The lowest-funded D1 programs are a who’s-who of MEAC, SWAC, & OVC, with Chicago St and an NEC program or two sprinkled in.

(07-04-2020 11:49 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  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.

short term and long term potential are different lists imho....for the short term, the socon vs the mvc is very close (quality of the top vs depth of a conference) ..beyond that its probably accurate. the ivy also probably deserves to be listed somewhere

long term..the MWC should probably be 8th..no clue what is happening with west coast basketball but the mwc has the programs/brands and money to be way better than they are..

and c-usa is the most under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds...they are currently the 16-19th conference but should honestly be in the tier right below a10/mwc--
utep, uab, wku, Charlotte, odu, mtsu these are teams with legitimate basketball pedigree, especially for mid major (la tech and Marshall are also generally winning programs despite lack of tournament history due to playing in smaller conferences)
c-usa "on paper" should have been a very good basketball league..the potential to rise might still be there

(07-04-2020 11:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  the term "power" isnt a basketball term..and not used in basketball narrative and is not common...

This is quite true.

Quote: 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

Whether there is a "power 6" in basketball or not, the "Power 5" predates autonomous voting status. And indeed, they got the autonomous voting status because of their power, they didn't get their power because they were lucky enough to be granted the autonomous voting status.

Quote: ..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)

You claim to have no clue where it comes from in the discussion, you siderail where it comes from, which is the "P6" AAC claims, which provokes "if you want to find a Power Six, you need to look at Basketball with the Big East alongside the P5" as a response.

Quote: 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

That is no odder than using media and pundit "perception" as if it establishes the actual competitive standing of a conference:

Quote: 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.

That's just saying you like where some media and pundits draw the line in the sand.

Quote: my guess is its based on money, brand value, and ability to schedule (aac makes 7 mill, a10 makes less than 1 miill)

And you know why "the AAC makes 7mill, the a10 makes less than 1mill", which is because the AAC is a football conference.

Football status isn't supposed to mix into this, at the start of your argument, but then you rest your case on a "line in the sand" with football status entirely mixed together with the competitive standing of the respective conferences.

You can say there is no P5 in Basketball, but in the 2019 Tournament seeding, that's more saying there's a P4, with the conferences with more than two seeds in the top half of the bracket being the ACC with 7, the SEC with 6, the Big Ten with 5, and the Big 12 with 4.

(06-29-2020 09:58 PM)Mav Wrote:  I guess if I had to push them all together, it'd go something like this. Doing them as a ranking doesn't make much sense to me, so I'll do them as tiers.

AAC (yes they're mid-major until proven otherwise)
MWC, WCC, A10
MVC, CAA
Horizon, OVC, MAC, Ivy
MAAC, C-USA, SoCon, Sun Belt
WAC, Big West, Summit, Patriot, Southland
Big Sky, NEC, AEC, Big South
ASUN, MEAC, SWAC

This is as much about basketball prestige as performance. Granted, I might be a little biased from a geographic standpoint, I'll admit.

I agree for the most part though I honestly put the C-USA and Sun Belt higher artificially due to FBS football being attached to those conferences.

(07-05-2020 01:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  the term "power" isnt a basketball term..and not used in basketball narrative and is not common...

This is quite true.

Quote: 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

Whether there is a "power 6" in basketball or not, the "Power 5" predates autonomous voting status. And indeed, they got the autonomous voting status because of their power, they didn't get their power because they were lucky enough to be granted the autonomous voting status.

Quote: ..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)

You claim to have no clue where it comes from in the discussion, you siderail where it comes from, which is the "P6" AAC claims, which provokes "if you want to find a Power Six, you need to look at Basketball with the Big East alongside the P5" as a response.

Quote: 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

That is no odder than using media and pundit "perception" as if it establishes the actual competitive standing of a conference:

Quote: 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.

That's just saying you like where some media and pundits draw the line in the sand.

Quote: my guess is its based on money, brand value, and ability to schedule (aac makes 7 mill, a10 makes less than 1 miill)

And you know why "the AAC makes 7mill, the a10 makes less than 1mill", which is because the AAC is a football conference.

Football status isn't supposed to mix into this, at the start of your argument, but then you rest your case on a "line in the sand" with football status entirely mixed together with the competitive standing of the respective conferences.

You can say there is no P5 in Basketball, but in the 2019 Tournament seeding, that's more saying there's a P4, with the conferences with more than two seeds in the top half of the bracket being the ACC with 7, the SEC with 6, the Big Ten with 5, and the Big 12 with 4.

1) the power 5 did NOT predate the autonomous voting..it was AQ and Non-AQ prior to the rule, and there were 6 AQ conferences..the label "Power 5" was specifically created after the autonomous rule was inacted as a way to label themselves

2) im not siderailing which p6 claim i support, i said power 5 is a football term..it has nothing to do with basketball...the aac is trying to make it a power 6 in football...it makes sense for the aac, not for the big east..."power" is the dividing term for football, and the aac is pushing legislation to hit the markers needed to qualify..(the debate is not whether or not it will happen)

3) the aac basketball payout is rumored to be between 2-3mill for the basketball only members (wichita)..
if you think the payout difference is because of football only you arent knowledgeable about basketball or brand value...since 1968 you can count the amount of times a current a10 member has advanced to the sweet 16 with 2 hands (that is a 50 year time span for 14 members, who were all d1 in that time span)

4) let me make something clear..competitive standing has absolutely nothing to do with mid-major or high major...pac 12 could be the #13 ranked conference next season and would still be a high major...
side note--there also no unified/universal metric that defines how good a conference is...using RPI like it wasnt abolished is pointless..use a different metric someone will note why they dont like it...whatever your metric of choice "personally" is meaningless..there is some metric somewhere that fits whatever narrative you want..this is a perception debate...

5) high major and mid-major is a media term to group conferences...how is saying how the national media groups them odd???
i backed my claim in this thread with atleast 4/5 different articles from espn, mid major sites, cit information..showing that they divided the aac into high major, and a10 into mid-major ..how the media defines a media term is the entire debate

(07-04-2020 09:41 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(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:  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.

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.

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 09:41 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(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:  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.

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.

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 09:41 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(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:  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.

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.

I do remember my Dad mentioning SMU during the Pony Express years. Stories on them were in the papers I can remember that at the time.

But some of things that we know like the weaknesses of SWC in basketball and the ACC in football looking at it from retrospect is not what was felt at the time.

The BYU thing was weird since it was a big team out of Utah and landed top quarterbacks like Steve Young. The WAC was viewed as the growing demographic conference that would someday become one of the top conferences in sports. Fresno and Hawaii additions in 1990 were thought to put them over the top.

So while in many ways while the WAC and ACC produced close to the same quality, the WAC had to prove it belonged where as the ACC was quietly upgrading football in hopes of being more competitive with the SEC.

The pot shots started coming at the Big East because to get to their required 8 FB members they added Temple and Rutgers both of which were national jokes in performance. Then Virginia Tech's rise was said by the media to be completely attributable to getting into a BCS conference.

This is when BCS to non BCS media fodder began the predecessor to the P5/G5 divide which is now discussed in terms of huge resource gap more than recruiting and access.

(07-05-2020 02:07 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 01:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  the term "power" isnt a basketball term..and not used in basketball narrative and is not common...

This is quite true.

Quote: 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

Whether there is a "power 6" in basketball or not, the "Power 5" predates autonomous voting status. And indeed, they got the autonomous voting status because of their power, they didn't get their power because they were lucky enough to be granted the autonomous voting status.

Quote: ..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)

You claim to have no clue where it comes from in the discussion, you siderail where it comes from, which is the "P6" AAC claims, which provokes "if you want to find a Power Six, you need to look at Basketball with the Big East alongside the P5" as a response.

Quote: 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

That is no odder than using media and pundit "perception" as if it establishes the actual competitive standing of a conference:

Quote: 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.

That's just saying you like where some media and pundits draw the line in the sand.

Quote: my guess is its based on money, brand value, and ability to schedule (aac makes 7 mill, a10 makes less than 1 miill)

And you know why "the AAC makes 7mill, the a10 makes less than 1mill", which is because the AAC is a football conference.

Football status isn't supposed to mix into this, at the start of your argument, but then you rest your case on a "line in the sand" with football status entirely mixed together with the competitive standing of the respective conferences.

You can say there is no P5 in Basketball, but in the 2019 Tournament seeding, that's more saying there's a P4, with the conferences with more than two seeds in the top half of the bracket being the ACC with 7, the SEC with 6, the Big Ten with 5, and the Big 12 with 4.

1) the power 5 did NOT predate the autonomous voting..it was AQ and Non-AQ prior to the rule, and there were 6 AQ conferences..the label "Power 5" was specifically created after the autonomous rule was inacted as a way to label themselves

It was around 1997-98 when the SEC, XII, ACC, PAC, B1G to go along with the WAC, CUSA were deemed NCAA equity conferences where they were granted 3 votes on every decision.

At first it made a lot of sense including the WAC 16, a BE which had ND and CUSA with its load of influential basketball schools.

But then something happened, the WAC-16 split so they gave 1.5 votes to each the WAC and MWC side. Later CUSA went through 2 major rounds of realignment becoming a mid major in the process. Finally the Big East split in half with the original BE no longer having FB.

Tennessee president said publicly that he did not like the fact MTSU was going to receive the same representation as his school moving forward. The effort was afoot of recasting the management structure to line up with the new conference changes.

In sum I agree with Bruce because the ACC, SEC, B1G, PAC, XII did recast the voting structure in a power grab as they felt NCAA management council was no longer reflecting the realities of the time.

(07-05-2020 11:12 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  In sum I agree with Bruce because the ACC, SEC, B1G, PAC, XII did recast the voting structure in a power grab as they felt NCAA management council was no longer reflecting the realities of the time.

we are talking the label of power 5..not the divide of power. "power 5" did not exist till the automous rule...
if you want to debate that the aq- non-aq was a different type of similar type of structure that is a completely different debate
also i really dont want o get into that debate but the AQ and power 5 system are drastically different in the aspect that the aq system was merit based ..who received aq status was based on a formula of on the field success that was to be re-evaluated every couple years. the original power5 label has nothing to do with on the field success

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

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 09:41 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 06:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 04:10 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  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.

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.

There wasn't a tradeoff comparison made between FB and BB anytime a team came up.

While we would talk about SMU FB as good there wasn't a contraian return response saying "but the SWC is a joke of a basketball conference" Stats were not easily available to support such a contention.

As conference performance distinctions began to draw more attention was as it pertained to a big boy conference that "conferences run in cycles". Which means that the lull we are seeing in PAC football was acceptable because the thought was they will be back in 5 years.

There wasn't a real fear 25, 35, 45 years ago like there is today on poor performance possibly pulling the rug on a TV deal leading to power conference disoving.

(07-05-2020 11:24 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:12 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  In sum I agree with Bruce because the ACC, SEC, B1G, PAC, XII did recast the voting structure in a power grab as they felt NCAA management council was no longer reflecting the realities of the time.

we are talking the label of power 5..not the divide of power. "power 5" did not exist till the automous rule...
if you want to debate that the aq- non-aq was a different type of similar type of structure that is a completely different debate
also i really dont want o get into that debate but the AQ and power 5 system are drastically different in the aspect that the aq system was merit based ..who received aq status was based on a formula of on the field success that was to be re-evaluated every couple years. the original power5 label has nothing to do with on the field success

Originally the AQ was about aligning top bowl games. The WAC was trying to get in with the Cotton Bowl angle but with a stadium issue there it didnt make the cut for top tier status.

Much later following Utah's success in BCS games did the BCS create relaxed access rules and then after that a formula for a conference to earn its way to that status if they were with in a certain range in performance of the other P5 conferences.

The MWC was about to earn its way in finally with Utah, BYU, TCU plus the addition of Boise State. But then a massive wave of realignment hit with Utah, BYU and TCU all leaving the MWC. The MWC ballooned to 12 football playing members and now has SJSU and Utah St in it so its now like CUSA 2.0.

Both the WAC and MWC at its peak were close but no cigar to joining power club.

(07-05-2020 11:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Originally the AQ was about aligning top bowl games. The WAC was trying to get in with the Cotton Bowl angle but with a stadium issue there it didnt make the cut for top tier status.

Much later following Utah's success in BCS games did the BCS create relaxed access rules and then after that a formula for a conference to earn its way to that status if they were with in a certain range in performance of the other P5 conferences.

The MWC was about to earn its way in finally with Utah, BYU, TCU plus the addition of Boise State. But then a massive wave of realignment hit with Utah, BYU and TCU all leaving the MWC. The MWC ballooned to 12 football playing members and now has SJSU and Utah St in it so its now like CUSA 2.0.

Both the WAC and MWC at its peak were close but no cigar to joining power club.

I agree with most of this except for the first thing - originally, the AQ thing was about trying to ensure a #1 vs #2 matchup in a bowl game, as there had been difficulty doing that in recent previous years.

(07-05-2020 11:12 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 02:07 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 01:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  the term "power" isnt a basketball term..and not used in basketball narrative and is not common...

This is quite true.

Quote: 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

Whether there is a "power 6" in basketball or not, the "Power 5" predates autonomous voting status. And indeed, they got the autonomous voting status because of their power, they didn't get their power because they were lucky enough to be granted the autonomous voting status.

Quote: ..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)

You claim to have no clue where it comes from in the discussion, you siderail where it comes from, which is the "P6" AAC claims, which provokes "if you want to find a Power Six, you need to look at Basketball with the Big East alongside the P5" as a response.

Quote: 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

That is no odder than using media and pundit "perception" as if it establishes the actual competitive standing of a conference:

Quote: 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.

That's just saying you like where some media and pundits draw the line in the sand.

Quote: my guess is its based on money, brand value, and ability to schedule (aac makes 7 mill, a10 makes less than 1 miill)

And you know why "the AAC makes 7mill, the a10 makes less than 1mill", which is because the AAC is a football conference.

Football status isn't supposed to mix into this, at the start of your argument, but then you rest your case on a "line in the sand" with football status entirely mixed together with the competitive standing of the respective conferences.

You can say there is no P5 in Basketball, but in the 2019 Tournament seeding, that's more saying there's a P4, with the conferences with more than two seeds in the top half of the bracket being the ACC with 7, the SEC with 6, the Big Ten with 5, and the Big 12 with 4.

1) the power 5 did NOT predate the autonomous voting..it was AQ and Non-AQ prior to the rule, and there were 6 AQ conferences..the label "Power 5" was specifically created after the autonomous rule was inacted as a way to label themselves

It was around 1997-98 when the SEC, XII, ACC, PAC, B1G to go along with the WAC, CUSA were deemed NCAA equity conferences where they were granted 3 votes on every decision.

At first it made a lot of sense including the WAC 16, a BE which had ND and CUSA with its load of influential basketball schools.

But then something happened, the WAC-16 split so they gave 1.5 votes to each the WAC and MWC side. Later CUSA went through 2 major rounds of realignment becoming a mid major in the process. Finally the Big East split in half with the original BE no longer having FB.

Tennessee president said publicly that he did not like the fact MTSU was going to receive the same representation as his school moving forward. The effort was afoot of recasting the management structure to line up with the new conference changes.

In sum I agree with Bruce because the ACC, SEC, B1G, PAC, XII did recast the voting structure in a power grab as they felt NCAA management council was no longer reflecting the realities of the time.

Football and TV revenues had changed dramatically and they wanted more control. Also, the FBS had expanded dramatically. It went from 108 in 1995 to 110 in 1998 to 115 in 2002 to 130 today. 8 of the 14 CUSA schools, 7 of the 10 Sun Belt schools and 2 of the 6 independents weren't in FBS in 1996. Much of the MWC was in the Big West which was not an "equity" conference. Even 2 of the AAC weren't in FBS then.

(07-05-2020 01:04 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:49 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  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.

short term and long term potential are different lists imho....for the short term, the socon vs the mvc is very close (quality of the top vs depth of a conference) ..beyond that its probably accurate. the ivy also probably deserves to be listed somewhere

long term..the MWC should probably be 8th..no clue what is happening with west coast basketball but the mwc has the programs/brands and money to be way better than they are..

and c-usa is the most under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds...they are currently the 16-19th conference but should honestly be in the tier right below a10/mwc--
utep, uab, wku, Charlotte, odu, mtsu these are teams with legitimate basketball pedigree, especially for mid major (la tech and Marshall are also generally winning programs despite lack of tournament history due to playing in smaller conferences)
c-usa "on paper" should have been a very good basketball league..the potential to rise might still be there

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.

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 01:04 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:49 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  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.

short term and long term potential are different lists imho....for the short term, the socon vs the mvc is very close (quality of the top vs depth of a conference) ..beyond that its probably accurate. the ivy also probably deserves to be listed somewhere

long term..the MWC should probably be 8th..no clue what is happening with west coast basketball but the mwc has the programs/brands and money to be way better than they are..

and c-usa is the most under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds...they are currently the 16-19th conference but should honestly be in the tier right below a10/mwc--
utep, uab, wku, Charlotte, odu, mtsu these are teams with legitimate basketball pedigree, especially for mid major (la tech and Marshall are also generally winning programs despite lack of tournament history due to playing in smaller conferences)
c-usa "on paper" should have been a very good basketball league..the potential to rise might still be there

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.

Where would you (and others) rate SB baseball? App State has been kind of an also-ran in Belt baseball during its tenure in the league so far, so it has been hard to get overly interested. But I hear often it is one of the better leagues. Sometimes it gets multiple bids. Plus there's Coastal Carolina, who won the national championship on its last day as a member of the Big South before entering the SB.

Would this be roughly accurate?
1) SEC
2) ACC
3) Big 12
4) Pac-12
5) AAC
6) B1G
7) Big West
8) Sun Belt
9) C-USA
10) SoCon

I have no frickin idea. Just guessing.

These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

(07-05-2020 09:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

Yes, but baseball is so top heavy - the SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 dominate so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter. The SEC often gets 10 bids.

Yeah I know Coastal won the title a few years ago, but basically you can set your watch by it, the champ is going to come from the SEC, PAC, Big 12, or ACC.

(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.)

(07-05-2020 08:53 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 01:04 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 11:49 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  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.

short term and long term potential are different lists imho....for the short term, the socon vs the mvc is very close (quality of the top vs depth of a conference) ..beyond that its probably accurate. the ivy also probably deserves to be listed somewhere

long term..the MWC should probably be 8th..no clue what is happening with west coast basketball but the mwc has the programs/brands and money to be way better than they are..

and c-usa is the most under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds...they are currently the 16-19th conference but should honestly be in the tier right below a10/mwc--
utep, uab, wku, Charlotte, odu, mtsu these are teams with legitimate basketball pedigree, especially for mid major (la tech and Marshall are also generally winning programs despite lack of tournament history due to playing in smaller conferences)
c-usa "on paper" should have been a very good basketball league..the potential to rise might still be there

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.

Where would you (and others) rate SB baseball? App State has been kind of an also-ran in Belt baseball during its tenure in the league so far, so it has been hard to get overly interested. But I hear often it is one of the better leagues. Sometimes it gets multiple bids. Plus there's Coastal Carolina, who won the national championship on its last day as a member of the Big South before entering the SB.

Would this be roughly accurate?
1) SEC
2) ACC
3) Big 12
4) Pac-12
5) AAC
6) B1G
7) Big West
8) Sun Belt
9) C-USA
10) SoCon

I have no frickin idea. Just guessing.

I mainly follow SEC baseball, MinR, but I do feel the Sun Belt is a very good league, very likely top 10 year in and out. I respect the Belt in baseball and football. Now hoops ... needs some work (just being honest).