Meh- I've long maintained there is no such thing as power conferences in basketball, only "major", "mid-major" and "low-major" basketball programs. Based on definitions we've been fed about football, teams were sorted into power conferences based on tradition/history, winning titles, expenses and revenue, attendance, media viewership, etc. By this definition, schools like UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and Tempe are major programs. Several schools that are in power football conferences are "mid-major" (ie. Rutgers, Northwestern, Nebraska, TCU, Texas Tech, Oregon State, Washington State, etc.).

(12-26-2017 11:20 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 08:55 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 11:41 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 09:15 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Someone up-thread asked the question, "What would the criteria be" for a "Power," or even "High-Major" conference standing in basketball is? I'll first note that the designation of "Power" conferences in football has to do with (a) autonomy in terms of decision making, (b) media compensation deals in excess of $16MM/school, and © some sort of "contract" Bowl among one of the "New Year's Day" major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, and now Cotton).

For Basketball, I think one of the things that has to be taken into account is the proportion of NCAA bids to the conference membership. The "High Major" conferences tend to send < 50% of their members to the NCAA. So, for the old, 16 member Big East, we once sent 11 of 16 teams to the NCAA. The Big XII has routinely sent 7-8 of 10 members to the tournament. If you can't get bids for half...or more...of your membership, you are something less than "high major."

The AAC has sent 20% to 30% of it's members to the tournament. Even this year, we probably get 4 bids...which would be 33%. It's akin to the sticker controversy. You can "say" you are "Power" and "High Major" all you want, but the proof is in the pudding at the end of the day. If we get 6 or more bids to the NCAA, I'll agree that we're a "Power" or "High Major" conference. Until that point... Nope.

The Cotton Bowl is not, I repeat not, a contract bowl.

It doesn't have a conference tie-in, but it's still a New Year's 6 bowl that is in the CFP rotation and pays out a lot of money. Even if the opponent is at-large and was usually the 2nd- or 3rd-best team in the ACC, SEC, Big 12, or Big Ten, it would still be a huge boon for the conference to have a tie-in with the Cotton or Peach Bowl.

We should take a page from the ACC playbook and offer to take a reduced payout short-term to secure a Cotton/Peach tie-in for our Champ/#2.

I would totally be down for that. I think we are close to putting ourselves in the position to request something like that and not be immediately shot down. With the run UCF is on and the ratings from the UCF-USF game, AAC Championship game, and Peach Bowl ticket sales, it all points to the AAC champion being a viable option for a major bowl game.