(05-02-2018 12:21 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:19 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-02-2018 12:41 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:27 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 10:23 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Yikes

...well, people wouldn't be talking about improving AAC hoops if the bottom programs were actual basketball schools.

You really think that a top A10 team would be an AAC bottomfeeder?

Last year's rpi's [/color]
Bottom of AAC
USF ~278
ECU ~274
Tulane ~175

Bottom A10
Richmond ~176
St. Louis ~148
St. Joe's ~147
Dayton ~146
VCU ~135

Middle of the AAC
UConn ~123
SMU ~113
Memphis ~113
Tulsa ~89
UCF ~84
Temple ~52

Top of the A10
Davidson ~47
St. Bonnie ~24
URI ~19

Best of AAC
Houston ~18
Wichita ~16
Cincy ~6

I would say he is accurate.

You do understand that winning is only a small part of the expansion process. Adding those schools would do next to nothing for the AAC TV deal, hell it may actually dilute it to the point that it is a net negative.

First I should know better than to trust the board when it comes to forming conclusions from presented data.

The list shows that the only people who would be competitive on the court are URI (who lost their coach), St Bon's (a solid program), and Davidson (entirely too small for AAC interests especially with no football).

As a fan the only schools who match up and belong/fit given our current desires are VCU (large alumni base, good market, geography) and Dayton (solid size, facilities) who have both had solid programs. Dayton is too close to Cincy and too good a target for the big east in my opinion (as is St. Louis).

Also the amount of inventory added by a b-ball program is significant and definitely adds revenue. When taking into account that they only get 30% of a full share and add NCAA tournament credits it's hard not to see how they add a lot of value.