If the question is "Do we think the AAC is one of the top six in terms of strength" in many years yes they will be.

But there is no such thing as power six, it's just a term people made to make themselves fill better. If we are going by $$$ the Big East is not a power conference either.

No, they are not quite a Power Conference yet...right there on the edge...

(04-12-2017 02:05 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's interesting to draw parallels between the AAC of today and Conference USA of the early 2000's. Conference USA, from 2000-2005, averaged around 5 bids per year - hitting a peak of 6 in 2004 (UC, DePaul, Louisville, UAB, Charlotte and Memphis). I think that 4-6 would be a strong estimate to project what the AAC would be looking at on a yearly basis moving forward. However, looking at their seedings, only Cincinnati, Louisville and Marquette were able to get top-5 seeds within that group. I think the advantage that the American currently has, which C-USA didn't, is having UConn (a national blue blood) assisting in elevating its status.

The AAC of today is better than what CUSA was back then.... In the 6 year period you mentioned they had 23 bids- or not even 4 per year. In fact, 2004 was the only year in the 6 that CUSA got more than 4 spots. In the 4 years of the AAC, the conference has gotten 12 bids. Add to that 4 from Wichita and you have 16 bids or 4.0 per year. And that's w/o the benefit of not having the round robin, so SOS improvements may get more spots... (and before you say that counts Louisville, while true, Tulsa made the tourney in 2014 from CUSA).

Average RPI spot in those 6 years for CUSA was 7.50. With 4 of the 6 years being 8-10.

(04-12-2017 07:12 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 12:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  ... The perception of power in basketball is similar. Conferences don't get multiple tournament bids because they are considered power conferences. Just the opposite.

They are considered by the media to be power conferences because they consistently get multiple bids. Similarly, conferences don't get paid more by the media because someone dubbed them "power worthy". They get paid more because the market says their content is more valuable to the advertisers and consumers who pay the bills.

So what should we be calling the P5/6? A name they used to refer to themselves says it as eloquently and accurately as any I've heard. They are the "high resources group". And by that measure, I'm not sure that the Big East even qualifies. As far as I know, they have no special voting status within the NCAA. They don't have "autonomy", however that term is defined. Like the AAC, their current perceived market value as measured by the size of their media contracts was based on a prospective, rather than retrospective estimate of how strong they are likely to be on the court. ...

Note that the Big East's current perceived market value is not measured only by their current contract ... it's also measured the the other metric for basketball status already mentioned, their number of bids .. an average of 60% of their conference per season over the past three years.

Regarding "high resource", the Big East is high resource relative to their needs ... as the costs of FBS football massively outweigh the costs of any other NCAA sport. They get no special voting rights on decisions on FBS football ... but that is just another way of saying they are the only Basketball Major that is not an FBS football conference.

That's a really long excuse.

The Big East does not have a media contract paying 30 million per team. They are much more close to the AAC than they are to the lowest P5 conference.

The AAC is making like 2 mil per team and the Big East is making like 5 mil per team.

Even if the Big East were making 1 mil per team they would still be a strong basketball conference. It's silly to try and label based on $$$.

(04-12-2017 02:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:05 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's interesting to draw parallels between the AAC of today and Conference USA of the early 2000's. Conference USA, from 2000-2005, averaged around 5 bids per year - hitting a peak of 6 in 2004 (UC, DePaul, Louisville, UAB, Charlotte and Memphis). I think that 4-6 would be a strong estimate to project what the AAC would be looking at on a yearly basis moving forward. However, looking at their seedings, only Cincinnati, Louisville and Marquette were able to get top-5 seeds within that group. I think the advantage that the American currently has, which C-USA didn't, is having UConn (a national blue blood) assisting in elevating its status.

The AAC of today is better than what CUSA was back then.... In the 6 year period you mentioned they had 23 bids- or not even 4 per year. In fact, 2004 was the only year in the 6 that CUSA got more than 4 spots. In the 4 years of the AAC, the conference has gotten 12 bids. Add to that 4 from Wichita and you have 16 bids or 4.0 per year. And that's w/o the benefit of not having the round robin, so SOS improvements may get more spots... (and before you say that counts Louisville, while true, Tulsa made the tourney in 2014 from CUSA).

Average RPI spot in those 6 years for CUSA was 7.50. With 4 of the 6 years being 8-10.

Stever, I don't think you can retroactively add a program's accomplishments to a new conference's and inflate numbers for something that clearly didn't happen. Wichita State's 4 bids from the MVC the past 4 years cannot be changed in history and added to the American. They may increase those numbers moving forward, but you cannot rewrite the past. Butler's Final Four runs were not included in the New Big East's accomplishments, and neither should Wichita State's for the American.

From the math, C-USA averaged 3.83 bids per year from that timeframe. Using the four year period - which, again, isn't the six seasons that we are using for C-USA - the American is only averaging 3 bids. The American would need to get 11 bids in the next two years to equal what C-USA did from 2000-2005. It's certainly doable.

(04-12-2017 02:50 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:05 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's interesting to draw parallels between the AAC of today and Conference USA of the early 2000's. Conference USA, from 2000-2005, averaged around 5 bids per year - hitting a peak of 6 in 2004 (UC, DePaul, Louisville, UAB, Charlotte and Memphis). I think that 4-6 would be a strong estimate to project what the AAC would be looking at on a yearly basis moving forward. However, looking at their seedings, only Cincinnati, Louisville and Marquette were able to get top-5 seeds within that group. I think the advantage that the American currently has, which C-USA didn't, is having UConn (a national blue blood) assisting in elevating its status.

The AAC of today is better than what CUSA was back then.... In the 6 year period you mentioned they had 23 bids- or not even 4 per year. In fact, 2004 was the only year in the 6 that CUSA got more than 4 spots. In the 4 years of the AAC, the conference has gotten 12 bids. Add to that 4 from Wichita and you have 16 bids or 4.0 per year. And that's w/o the benefit of not having the round robin, so SOS improvements may get more spots... (and before you say that counts Louisville, while true, Tulsa made the tourney in 2014 from CUSA).

Average RPI spot in those 6 years for CUSA was 7.50. With 4 of the 6 years being 8-10.

Stever, I don't think you can retroactively add a program's accomplishments to a new conference's and inflate numbers for something that clearly didn't happen. Wichita State's 4 bids from the MVC the past 4 years cannot be changed in history and added to the American. They may increase those numbers moving forward, but you cannot rewrite the past. Butler's Final Four runs were not included in the New Big East's accomplishments, and neither should Wichita State's for the American.

From the math, C-USA averaged 3.83 bids per year from that timeframe. Using the four year period - which, again, isn't the six seasons that we are using for C-USA - the American is only averaging 3 bids. The American would need to get 11 bids in the next two years to equal what C-USA did from 2000-2005. It's certainly doable.

I know you want to diminish the AAC at all costs, but that's just not realistic. The current AAC plus Wichita has gotten 16 spots in the last 4 years. That compares favorably to what CUSA had of 13 spots in the 1st 4 years of the comparison. And compares really well to the max of 17 spots in any 4 years of the comparison. And that's with NO benefit of the increased SOS for the AAC now.

And yes, you better believe folks when Butler, Creighton, and Xavier were brought into the Big East, they were using what they had done recently in thinking what the Big East would look like.

Bottom line the AAC compares very favorably to what C-USA was early 00's. There's going to be a year where the AAC actually gets the breaks for once and wins a lot of the close games. When that happens, they could easily get 6 or 7 teams in the tourney.

(04-12-2017 03:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:50 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:05 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's interesting to draw parallels between the AAC of today and Conference USA of the early 2000's. Conference USA, from 2000-2005, averaged around 5 bids per year - hitting a peak of 6 in 2004 (UC, DePaul, Louisville, UAB, Charlotte and Memphis). I think that 4-6 would be a strong estimate to project what the AAC would be looking at on a yearly basis moving forward. However, looking at their seedings, only Cincinnati, Louisville and Marquette were able to get top-5 seeds within that group. I think the advantage that the American currently has, which C-USA didn't, is having UConn (a national blue blood) assisting in elevating its status.

The AAC of today is better than what CUSA was back then.... In the 6 year period you mentioned they had 23 bids- or not even 4 per year. In fact, 2004 was the only year in the 6 that CUSA got more than 4 spots. In the 4 years of the AAC, the conference has gotten 12 bids. Add to that 4 from Wichita and you have 16 bids or 4.0 per year. And that's w/o the benefit of not having the round robin, so SOS improvements may get more spots... (and before you say that counts Louisville, while true, Tulsa made the tourney in 2014 from CUSA).

Average RPI spot in those 6 years for CUSA was 7.50. With 4 of the 6 years being 8-10.

Stever, I don't think you can retroactively add a program's accomplishments to a new conference's and inflate numbers for something that clearly didn't happen. Wichita State's 4 bids from the MVC the past 4 years cannot be changed in history and added to the American. They may increase those numbers moving forward, but you cannot rewrite the past. Butler's Final Four runs were not included in the New Big East's accomplishments, and neither should Wichita State's for the American.

From the math, C-USA averaged 3.83 bids per year from that timeframe. Using the four year period - which, again, isn't the six seasons that we are using for C-USA - the American is only averaging 3 bids. The American would need to get 11 bids in the next two years to equal what C-USA did from 2000-2005. It's certainly doable.

I know you want to diminish the AAC at all costs, but that's just not realistic. The current AAC plus Wichita has gotten 16 spots in the last 4 years. That compares favorably to what CUSA had of 13 spots in the 1st 4 years of the comparison. And compares really well to the max of 17 spots in any 4 years of the comparison. And that's with NO benefit of the increased SOS for the AAC now.

And yes, you better believe folks when Butler, Creighton, and Xavier were brought into the Big East, they were using what they had done recently in thinking what the Big East would look like.

Bottom line the AAC compares very favorably to what C-USA was early 00's. There's going to be a year where the AAC actually gets the breaks for once and wins a lot of the close games. When that happens, they could easily get 6 or 7 teams in the tourney.

I agree.

I'm not even sure why this is really a discussion. I highly doubt the AAC is going to be churning out national championships on a yearly basis. But between Cincinnati, Uconn, Memphis, Temple, SMU, Wichita, Houston, I would not be shocked to see them get 4-6 bids on average.

I think a better way of phrasing it is we're projecting what the new AAC is going to be looking like for going forward. So looking just last 6 years....
Wichita- 6 appearances
Cincy- 6 appearances
SMU- 2 appearances
UConn- 3 appearances
Temple- 3 appearances
Memphis- 3 appearances
Tulsa- 2 appearances
USF- 1 appearance
so total of 26 appearances by AAC members last 6 years. or average of 4.33 per year. While sure some questions with schools like Memphis, Tulsa, and USF- that's also underrating schools like SMU, Houston, and UCF who are improved considerably.

1 thing that IS clear is that Conference USA from 2000-05 did NOT average 5 teams in the tourney per year. Folks here want to way overrate that conference. looking at the Ken Pom for the last 4 years of the set up- 2002-05- the league was #7,7,8,9. That's right- the year that they got 6 teams in the tourney, they were only the #8 conference that year.

(04-12-2017 02:24 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The Big East does not have a media contract paying 30 million per team. They are much more close to the AAC than they are to the lowest P5 conference.

The AAC is making like 2 mil per team and the Big East is making like 5 mil per team.

You mean, "per school", but actually thinking about it "per team" would start to correct your comparison. The AAC is making that for 23 (soon to be 23) teams, while the Big East is making that for 10 teams.

But the media value to a conference of a FB and BBall team are not equal, since the NCAA tournament takes a big bite of the media value of BBall, while most of the media value of FB goes to the conferences.

So in reality, earning $5m per school for basketball is pretty close to earning $30 for football and basketball. The value of BBall in a P5 school is in the range of 20% to 30% of the total contract, and 20% to 30% of $30m is $6m-$9m. So it's not quite there, but it's a hell of a lot closer than earning $2m for FB & BBall, so something like $0.4m to $0.6m for AAC BBall ... or maybe $0.8m, if the relative value of BBall to the AAC is substantially greater than for a Power conference.

This is the whole point of the argument above saying that the two conference contracts were based on "prospective" values, since the values themselves say that Big East BBall is worth more than AAC BBall and FB combined, and that implies that Big East BBall is worth a bucketload more than AAC BBall. Making the question arguable at all requires an argument that sets aside the implications of the contract values.

(04-13-2017 09:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:24 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The Big East does not have a media contract paying 30 million per team. They are much more close to the AAC than they are to the lowest P5 conference.

The AAC is making like 2 mil per team and the Big East is making like 5 mil per team.

You mean, "per school", but actually thinking about it "per team" would start to correct your comparison. The AAC is making that for 23 (soon to be 23) teams, while the Big East is making that for 10 teams.

But the media value to a conference of a FB and BBall team are not equal, since the NCAA tournament takes a big bite of the media value of BBall, while most of the media value of FB goes to the conferences.

So in reality, earning $5m per school for basketball is pretty close to earning $30 for football and basketball. The value of BBall in a P5 school is in the range of 20% to 30% of the total contract, and 20% to 30% of $30m is $6m-$9m. So it's not quite there, but it's a hell of a lot closer than earning $2m for FB & BBall, so something like $0.4m to $0.6m for AAC BBall ... or maybe $0.8m, if the relative value of BBall to the AAC is substantially greater than for a Power conference.

This is the whole point of the argument above saying that the two conference contracts were based on "prospective" values, since the values themselves say that Big East BBall is worth more than AAC BBall and FB combined, and that implies that Big East BBall is worth a bucketload more than AAC BBall. Making the question arguable at all requires an argument that sets aside the implications of the contract values.

Also what Trojan doesn't understand is that what the Big East gets paid per team is how much the ACC pays Notre Dame. So they are making power conference money.

AAC is a good conference with lots of room to grow but there are only 5 power conferences not because of the teams or what they do on the field or court its because they have the money and power to do what they want

(04-13-2017 09:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 09:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:24 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The Big East does not have a media contract paying 30 million per team. They are much more close to the AAC than they are to the lowest P5 conference.

The AAC is making like 2 mil per team and the Big East is making like 5 mil per team.

You mean, "per school", but actually thinking about it "per team" would start to correct your comparison. The AAC is making that for 23 (soon to be 23) teams, while the Big East is making that for 10 teams.

But the media value to a conference of a FB and BBall team are not equal, since the NCAA tournament takes a big bite of the media value of BBall, while most of the media value of FB goes to the conferences.

So in reality, earning $5m per school for basketball is pretty close to earning $30 for football and basketball. The value of BBall in a P5 school is in the range of 20% to 30% of the total contract, and 20% to 30% of $30m is $6m-$9m. So it's not quite there, but it's a hell of a lot closer than earning $2m for FB & BBall, so something like $0.4m to $0.6m for AAC BBall ... or maybe $0.8m, if the relative value of BBall to the AAC is substantially greater than for a Power conference.

This is the whole point of the argument above saying that the two conference contracts were based on "prospective" values, since the values themselves say that Big East BBall is worth more than AAC BBall and FB combined, and that implies that Big East BBall is worth a bucketload more than AAC BBall. Making the question arguable at all requires an argument that sets aside the implications of the contract values.

Also what Trojan doesn't understand is that what the Big East gets paid per team is how much the ACC pays Notre Dame. So they are making power conference money.

Notre Dame also has a very famous football team as much as I hate to admit it as a Trojan fan and their own TV contract.

What Bruce and you are trying to do is justify what you think, not reality. I think the Big East is doing well as a conference, they are very good at what they want to be good at and 5 mil per team is great.

But it is a contradiction to say "Power conferences are based on money" and then try to argue that the Big East is anywhere near the conferences making the most money. 5 million is no where near 30-33 million end of story.

There are only five power conferences which are ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-12, and the SEC. No other conference is even close to them in terms of overall success and resources.

For basketball, the Big East is a power conference. Not sure how that one is up for debate. Now if they decide to sponsor football, yeah, they would be minnows.

Yes the P5 are in a league of their own with $$ but BB money in BE is competitive with BB money in P5.

(04-13-2017 04:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  What Bruce and you are trying to do is justify what you think, not reality. I think the Big East is doing well as a conference, they are very good at what they want to be good at and 5 mil per team is great.

But it is a contradiction to say "Power conferences are based on money" and then try to argue that the Big East is anywhere near the conferences making the most money. 5 million is no where near 30-33 million end of story.

I'm just not buying it. I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm certainly not a Big East fan. I'm just calling it as I see it as an economist. Judging "money" in terms of gross revenue with no consideration of the cost side is silly. Getting 16% of the revenues for the sport that accounts for about 20% of the P5 media value and less than 20% of the cost of FB+BBall big time sports operation means that in pure basketball terms, they are in the same ballpark.

Getting 7% of the revenues for the two sports that account for all of the P5 media value, carrying all of the cost of FB+BBall big time sports operations means that the AAC is nowhere in the same ball park.

Where the AAC is is nothing to sneeze at. The MAC BBall teams would kill for the MAC to regularly have multiple bids to the big dance and to, as a result, be considered a High Mid-Major like the AAC, A10 or WCC. And if the AAC builds from where it is, it might attain Major status in BBall. It's just not there yet.

Quote: There are only five power conferences which are ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-12, and the SEC. No other conference is even close to them in terms of overall success and resources.

The topic of the thread is whether the AAC is a "power conference, at least in basketball".

"Power conference" is not really used in BBall, but in BBall terms, the P5+BE are the six Majors and the AAC is a high mid-major.

In terms of "high resource" ... it's exactly the same. Resources are relative to obligations: the Big East schools have similar resources to devote to Basketball as the PAC-12 schools, for example. They have more resources to devote to basketball than some SEC schools. So in terms of basketball, the Big East is in amongst the "high resource" conferences. For FB, it's nowhere, which was the whole fracking point of creating the new Big East in the first place ... to attempt to build a Major conference in BBall that was not at risk of being torn apart by FB-driven realignment.

We can both have our on opinions. Even if the AAC were to suddenly start making 8 million a year in 2018 they would still not be a power conference. They would just be the highest paid G5 and a good basketball conference like the Big East is.

Make no mistake, on message boards we love to discuss opinions. But if the P5 conferences were ever to split away from the NCAA the Big East would be on the outside looking in with the rest of the kids at the table.

Again, I think the Big East is great. 5 million to not be playing basketball is absolutely amazing and their success speaks for itself. That success is what I personally think determines power vs non power conference.

But the Big East is not one of the P5.

(04-14-2017 08:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 04:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  What Bruce and you are trying to do is justify what you think, not reality. I think the Big East is doing well as a conference, they are very good at what they want to be good at and 5 mil per team is great.

But it is a contradiction to say "Power conferences are based on money" and then try to argue that the Big East is anywhere near the conferences making the most money. 5 million is no where near 30-33 million end of story.

I'm just not buying it. I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm certainly not a Big East fan. I'm just calling it as I see it as an economist. Judging "money" in terms of gross revenue with no consideration of the cost side is silly. Getting 16% of the revenues for the sport that accounts for about 20% of the P5 media value and less than 20% of the cost of FB+BBall big time sports operation means that in pure basketball terms, they are in the same ballpark.

Getting 7% of the revenues for the two sports that account for all of the P5 media value, carrying all of the cost of FB+BBall big time sports operations means that the AAC is nowhere in the same ball park.

Where the AAC is is nothing to sneeze at. The MAC BBall teams would kill for the MAC to regularly have multiple bids to the big dance and to, as a result, be considered a High Mid-Major like the AAC, A10 or WCC. And if the AAC builds from where it is, it might attain Major status in BBall. It's just not there yet.

Quote: There are only five power conferences which are ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-12, and the SEC. No other conference is even close to them in terms of overall success and resources.

The topic of the thread is whether the AAC is a "power conference, at least in basketball".

"Power conference" is not really used in BBall, but in BBall terms, the P5+BE are the six Majors and the AAC is a high mid-major.

In terms of "high resource" ... it's exactly the same. Resources are relative to obligations: the Big East schools have similar resources to devote to Basketball as the PAC-12 schools, for example. They have more resources to devote to basketball than some SEC schools. So in terms of basketball, the Big East is in amongst the "high resource" conferences. For FB, it's nowhere, which was the whole fracking point of creating the new Big East in the first place ... to attempt to build a Major conference in BBall that was not at risk of being torn apart by FB-driven realignment.

Very well stated but I do not think he gets it. He is committing a Faulty Comparison Fallacy in that he is comparing all 32 conferences like they all have the same merits. If he doesn't understand your explanation then he never will.

(04-14-2017 07:10 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Yes the P5 are in a league of their own with $$ but BB money in BE is competitive with BB money in P5.

It's never been about money. 'Power' is about legislative control.
There is no separate football and basketball money in the "P5". Every autonomy program has substantially more revenue and they spend it how they see fit.

(04-13-2017 04:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 09:59 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 09:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:24 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The Big East does not have a media contract paying 30 million per team. They are much more close to the AAC than they are to the lowest P5 conference.

The AAC is making like 2 mil per team and the Big East is making like 5 mil per team.

You mean, "per school", but actually thinking about it "per team" would start to correct your comparison. The AAC is making that for 23 (soon to be 23) teams, while the Big East is making that for 10 teams.

But the media value to a conference of a FB and BBall team are not equal, since the NCAA tournament takes a big bite of the media value of BBall, while most of the media value of FB goes to the conferences.

So in reality, earning $5m per school for basketball is pretty close to earning $30 for football and basketball. The value of BBall in a P5 school is in the range of 20% to 30% of the total contract, and 20% to 30% of $30m is $6m-$9m. So it's not quite there, but it's a hell of a lot closer than earning $2m for FB & BBall, so something like $0.4m to $0.6m for AAC BBall ... or maybe $0.8m, if the relative value of BBall to the AAC is substantially greater than for a Power conference.

This is the whole point of the argument above saying that the two conference contracts were based on "prospective" values, since the values themselves say that Big East BBall is worth more than AAC BBall and FB combined, and that implies that Big East BBall is worth a bucketload more than AAC BBall. Making the question arguable at all requires an argument that sets aside the implications of the contract values.

Also what Trojan doesn't understand is that what the Big East gets paid per team is how much the ACC pays Notre Dame. So they are making power conference money.

Notre Dame also has a very famous football team as much as I hate to admit it as a Trojan fan and their own TV contract.

What Bruce and you are trying to do is justify what you think, not reality. I think the Big East is doing well as a conference, they are very good at what they want to be good at and 5 mil per team is great.

But it is a contradiction to say "Power conferences are based on money" and then try to argue that the Big East is anywhere near the conferences making the most money. 5 million is no where near 30-33 million end of story.

There are only five power conferences which are ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-12, and the SEC. No other conference is even close to them in terms of overall success and resources.

What does Notre Dames NBC contract have to do with anything? A power conference (The ACC) is paying one of it's members 5 million a year for basketball. That tells you what basketball is worth at a power conference level.

Kind of hard to say the conference who finishes 2nd or 3rd in the conference isn't a power conference.

Reality is everyone but you sees the Big East as a power conference in basketball. Better than the Pac, SEC and the B1G.

(04-14-2017 08:49 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  We can both have our on opinions. Even if the AAC were to suddenly start making 8 million a year in 2018 they would still not be a power conference. They would just be the highest paid G5 and a good basketball conference like the Big East is.

Make no mistake, on message boards we love to discuss opinions. But if the P5 conferences were ever to split away from the NCAA the Big East would be on the outside looking in with the rest of the kids at the table.

Again, I think the Big East is great. 5 million to not be playing basketball is absolutely amazing and their success speaks for itself. That success is what I personally think determines power vs non power conference.

But the Big East is not one of the P5.

No one is saying they are one of the P5, but you clearly have a bias. The BE makes more than any G5 conferences and they don't play FB. They make the same amount of TV money for basketball as the ACC. Thats being high resource.

Tiny Providence College makes as much money if not more from it's basketball program than mighty USC.