(07-08-2013 09:08 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 02:57 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  they also repeatedly say that Charlotte and ODU will play UTSA alot.

You guys will play each Texas school 1x per year so you'll play in Texas at most twice per season.

That isn't as bad as they make it out to be.

I'm also pretty sure that Charlotte and ODU's best teams in history were during the 1982-1991 seasons when UAB, Charlotte, ODU, WKU et al were all in the same conference. The additions of UTEP and MTSU et al will only improve on what we had back then.

Charlotte's 1977 team went to the Final Four and sent two guys to the NBA. That was easily our best team. 1998 and 2001 were probably our next best seasons. The period you speak of had some success, but not as much as CUSA.

Actually, 82-91 was probably our weakest 9-10 year period (unless you start to look at 2006-2013 which is currently our worst ever 7 year period---roughly equal to 1979-1987). We made only 1 NCAA tourney--1988 and had no NCAA tourney wins. We really began our strongest sustained run in 1992 as we went on to play in 9 NCAA tourneys from 1992-2005 (9 NCAAs in 13 or 14 years and 2 NITs I think). Most NCAAs were at-large bids and we won 1st round games several times.

ESPN's take:

LOSERS

Conference USA: The league, which has always been a bit underrated, lost its most successful program in Memphis. Houston, SMU and UCF (the last two finally experiencing some real momentum) are gone, too. Their replacements? Definitely a step down. Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Charlotte, Middle Tennessee, Louisiana Tech, Old Dominion and Texas-San Antonio join this season -- and starting next year, Western Kentucky enters after the league loses Tulane, East Carolina and Tulsa.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...basketball

The biggest losers basketball wise are UConn and Cincy along with South Florida. They went from the best basketball league in the nation to getting demoted to a C-USA or A-10 level conference. Yes, the AAC has solid basketball teams but if you're UConn, you went from playing Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Villanova, Marquette, etc to Temple, Memphis, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, UCF, etc......not even close.

I don't see C-USA as a winner or loser. Losing Memphis hurts but I think the league got more balanced with the old guard and new additions. So it's an even trade. But just win and prove the doubters wrong.

(07-08-2013 12:44 PM)STexMiner Wrote:  ESPN's take:

LOSERS

Conference USA: The league, which has always been a bit underrated, lost its most successful program in Memphis. Houston, SMU and UCF (the last two finally experiencing some real momentum) are gone, too. Their replacements? Definitely a step down. Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Charlotte, Middle Tennessee, Louisiana Tech, Old Dominion and Texas-San Antonio join this season -- and starting next year, Western Kentucky enters after the league loses Tulane, East Carolina and Tulsa.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...basketball

I think that CUSA got stronger n basketball. MTSU, ODU (last year was a severe aberration) and WKU will more than make up for the basketball losses of Tulsa, ECU, Houston, SMU and UCF. Losing Memphis hurts at the top but Memphis was so far "up top" that no one really challenged them.

I can't wrap my head around Charlotte and ODU being losers in this. I mean, if they are adding football/moving up to FBS their realistic choices were CUSA, SBC, and or MAC. Based on tv money, bowl bids, and competitive factors CUSA was a no brainer when they called them up.

Now I think both will have a tough road to start with in football although ODU might get it figured out faster than Charlotte based on their FCS performance.

Surprised nobody has mentioned this

Quote:Moving into Conference USA to support that decision means that instead of playing solid programs such as VCU, Dayton and Saint Louis in hoops, the 49ers—who had a breakout year under Alan Major in 2012-13—will be competing against Florida Atlantic, North Texas and UT San Antonio.

Basically he is saying that the best A-10 teams are better than the worst C-USA teams. Well of course they are. If you want to compare conferences, then compare them as a whole, or at least compare the top teams to each other. He is shaping the data to his decision rather than the other way around.

(07-08-2013 11:42 PM)PirateTreasureNCb3 Wrote:  I can't wrap my head around Charlotte and ODU being losers in this. I mean, if they are adding football/moving up to FBS their realistic choices were CUSA, SBC, and or MAC. Based on tv money, bowl bids, and competitive factors CUSA was a no brainer when they called them up.

Now I think both will have a tough road to start with in football although ODU might get it figured out faster than Charlotte based on their FCS performance.

The MAC was not a realistic choice for Charlotte. However, the AAC could have been a destination for the 49ers.

(07-08-2013 11:32 AM)919R Wrote:  We really began our strongest sustained run in 1992 as we went on to play in 9 NCAA tourneys from 1992-2005 (9 NCAAs in 13 or 14 years and 2 NITs I think). Most NCAAs were at-large bids and we won 1st round games several times.

Which just happened to coincide exactly to the day you entered the Metro in 1992 and exited CUSA in 2005. A period in which you had national programs like Louisville, Cincy, Memphis, and Marquette to use to recruit players with. The conference situation certainly seemed to be the driving force behind the sustained success of your program at the time. Little more than coincidence that it was exactly the same period sandwiched in between as you said two of your worst periods in conference situations void of real national programs like this to recruit with.

I would like to thank the poster known as stilljonesing for encouraging me to re-familiarize myself with this board's ignore feature (which can be selected at the bottom of the target user's profile page). Before he ruins yet another thread with his nonsensical inane blathering, I would encourage other users to discover the feature as well.

(07-09-2013 01:35 AM)Artifice Wrote:  he ruins yet another thread with his nonsensical inane blathering, I would encourage other users to discover the feature as well.

This is a thread someone else started about schools basketball that has been hurt in conference realignment. It was a completely relevant point to the topic at hand.

I know this rag was garbage but how does wku not come out a clear winner?

(07-09-2013 01:02 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 11:32 AM)919R Wrote:  We really began our strongest sustained run in 1992 as we went on to play in 9 NCAA tourneys from 1992-2005 (9 NCAAs in 13 or 14 years and 2 NITs I think). Most NCAAs were at-large bids and we won 1st round games several times.

Which just happened to coincide exactly to the day you entered the Metro in 1992 and exited CUSA in 2005. A period in which you had national programs like Louisville, Cincy, Memphis, and Marquette to use to recruit players with. The conference situation certainly seemed to be the driving force behind the sustained success of your program at the time. Little more than coincidence that it was exactly the same period sandwiched in between as you said two of your worst periods in conference situations void of real national programs like this to recruit with.

Kinda neat how you just ignored the whole geographical situation but I guess that "stat" didn't fit your narrative.

(07-09-2013 08:33 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Kinda neat how you just ignored the whole geographical situation but I guess that "stat" didn't fit your narrative.

I don't remember any geographical concerns or complaining about having to go to Wisconsin and play a national program like Marquette. Especially when they had players like DWade and were going to the Final 4. I think you are pretty naive if you think those teams didn't positively impact your recruiting especially looking over that stretch.

I suppose it was all coincidence that period was exactly the same period you were in a conf with multiple national programs and that it didn't contribute to any decline when they were absent. I mean you had the same coach during the transition, he didn't exactly forget how to coach or recruit. Pretty clear he wasn't getting the same horses.