Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Conference RPI Rankings
Author Message
WhoseHouse? Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,031
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 109
I Root For: UH
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 01:12 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 02:06 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 08:50 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  Any conference with UCONN, Memphis, cincy, Temple and Houston is not mid-major no matter what arbitrary line you've made up in your mind.

The AAC has been in every way a mid-major conference on the court the past 5 years.

That could be changing right now, this season, because the AAC certainly has the potential to be a 'power' league like the Big East, but so far, that's how it is been. The AAC has just not performed up to its potential. That's why it added Wichita State, to try and shore up the flagging basketball.

Here's a critical fact to bear in mind that your list of teams reminded me of: While schools like UConn and Temple and Memphis have strong basketball pedigrees, they are not blue-bloods, which means their national interest is highly correlated with performance.

Blue bloods like North Carolina and UCLA and Kentucky *always* matter. Their national brands are permanently elite, doesn't matter if they have a Final 4 team or are slogging through a mediocre, disappointing year. That's not true of Memphis/UConn/Cincy type teams. If they are "down", their profiles drop considerably.

So their mere presence doesn't guarantee power status from a brand POV either.

UConn is a blue blood, UCLA is not. Nobody cares about the ghost of John Wooden.

Wow. Any UCLA fan will tell you that they are not happy with the performance of the basketball program, which is one of the reasons Alford was fired. I do have respect for the UConn basketball program. But even in bad times, the UCLA program is still good. In the last five seasons, from 2014 through 2018, UCLA has:

1. Made three Sweet Sixteens
2. Had 11 players drafted into the NBA, seven in the first round.
3. Beat Kentucky three straight seasons (2015-2017).

UConn won the national championship in 2014 and has had three players drafted into the NBA in the last five years, one in the first round.

UCLA clearly has better talent and as their wins over Kentucky show, they can beat anyone. The problem has been, they can lose to anyone, as their loss to Liberty shows. They get the talent that the other top programs get, they just have not been able to get the talent to consistently win. UCLA is not an easy place to coach at and it requires the right fit at head coach.

I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.
01-14-2019 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,727
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 229
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #62
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
I agree that the current college basketball blue bloods are Duke, UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. I think both Indiana and UCLA are in their own tier (UCLA has had more recent success than Indiana has), but UCLA has only made the NCAA Championship game once in the past twenty years. However, they have definitely made the Final Four more (2006, 2007 and 2008) than Indiana has (2002). I also view UConn and Villanova in a similar category - both schools have multiple national championships, albeit in compacted eras (not consistent enough over time to warrant a blue blood label, b). Next tier is Michigan State, Louisville, Florida, Syracuse, Michigan and Arizona (have won at least one, and are always a threat to have a deep tournament run). Then you get into the Georgetown, Ohio State, Maryland, Marquette, Cincinnati and Arkansas tier (have won, but none recent; have had sustained March success).
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2019 03:24 PM by GoldenWarrior11.)
01-14-2019 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,656
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."
01-14-2019 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."

North Carolina had their first in 1957. They didn't have another until 1982. Their 3rd was 1993. That is one title in 35 years, yet UNC was without question a blue blood during that era.
01-14-2019 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."

Goes back to the McDonald's All-Americans. Saw the stats a couple years back and they overwhelmingly went to the 5 schools-UK, Duke, UNC, Kansas and UCLA.
01-14-2019 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

I think you've got the list right, there are about 10 blueblood jobs in college basketball and this is compared to an overall field of 350 in Division 1.

Since there aren't that many openings at Top 10 basketball jobs you can have something happen like Few at Gonzaga where a coach makes it into a Top 25 job and is paid adequately to the power leagues. Also with every conference having access to the NCAA tournament a program can be located anywhere.

In FB its a lot different since there are 25-30 power programs with 70,000 seat stadiums which by default pick up 4 stars even when they are down. Most of the SEC falls under this category. Relative to the whole of FBS its a high percentage and there are always 4-5 big time openings every year which makes it tough for the little guys with great staffs.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2019 08:26 PM by Kittonhead.)
01-14-2019 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,481
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 216
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."

Interesting is the number of NBA players by conference. AAC can stake a claim to being a major using that metric. Yes, they are behind the P5 +BE, but not markedly behind the Big East. Then Gap to MWC + A10. No other conference in double digits.
01-14-2019 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,656
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 08:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."

Interesting is the number of NBA players by conference. AAC can stake a claim to being a major using that metric. Yes, they are behind the P5 +BE, but not markedly behind the Big East. Then Gap to MWC + A10. No other conference in double digits.

I expected the ACC to be top conference, but was surprised to see the Pac-12 at #2. As for the SEC, 30 of the 63 NBA players are from Kentucky. Kentucky is just loaded with talent.

ACC - 82
Pac-12 -69
SEC - 63
Big 12 -41
Big Ten -39
Big East- 31
AAC- 24
Mountain West - 10
A-10 - 10
01-14-2019 09:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,481
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 216
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 09:13 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 08:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."

Interesting is the number of NBA players by conference. AAC can stake a claim to being a major using that metric. Yes, they are behind the P5 +BE, but not markedly behind the Big East. Then Gap to MWC + A10. No other conference in double digits.

I expected the ACC to be top conference, but was surprised to see the Pac-12 at #2. As for the SEC, 30 of the 63 NBA players are from Kentucky. Kentucky is just loaded with talent.

ACC - 82
Pac-12 -69
SEC - 63
Big 12 -41
Big Ten -39
Big East- 31
AAC- 24
Mountain West - 10
A-10 - 10

Without Duke, ACC still has a ton of talent. Without UK, SEC slips way down.
01-14-2019 09:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,303
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 344
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
The AAC has passed the Pac 12 in NET ratings.

AAC 103.08
P12 106.42

So I'd say looking at that, there is definitely a pretty big SOS component in there...
01-15-2019 12:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke4 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,427
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 08:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."

Interesting is the number of NBA players by conference. AAC can stake a claim to being a major using that metric. Yes, they are behind the P5 +BE, but not markedly behind the Big East. Then Gap to MWC + A10. No other conference in double digits.

Actually the AAC has passed the pac12 this year and is the 6th rated M7 conference and rising, and the major brands are only just starting to come back around and won't be at full strength until next season. 07-coffee3
01-15-2019 12:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-15-2019 12:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The AAC has passed the Pac 12 in NET ratings.

AAC 103.08
P12 106.42

So I'd say looking at that, there is definitely a pretty big SOS component in there...

The AAC is doing something in BB they never got close to doing in FB, that is passing a power conference in strength.
01-15-2019 12:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rube Dali Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 588
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UST, BSU, Minn
Location: Maplewood, MN
Post: #73
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-13-2019 02:06 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-13-2019 08:50 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  Any conference with UCONN, Memphis, cincy, Temple and Houston is not mid-major no matter what arbitrary line you've made up in your mind.

The AAC has been in every way a mid-major conference on the court the past 5 years.

That could be changing right now, this season, because the AAC certainly has the potential to be a 'power' league like the Big East, but so far, that's how it is been. The AAC has just not performed up to its potential. That's why it added Wichita State, to try and shore up the flagging basketball.

Here's a critical fact to bear in mind that your list of teams reminded me of: While schools like UConn and Temple and Memphis have strong basketball pedigrees, they are not blue-bloods, which means their national interest is highly correlated with performance.

Blue bloods like North Carolina and UCLA and Kentucky *always* matter. Their national brands are permanently elite, doesn't matter if they have a Final 4 team or are slogging through a mediocre, disappointing year. That's not true of Memphis/UConn/Cincy type teams. If they are "down", their profiles drop considerably.

So their mere presence doesn't guarantee power status from a brand POV either.

UConn is a blue blood, UCLA is not. Nobody cares about the ghost of John Wooden.

This is really stupid.
01-15-2019 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,303
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 344
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-07-2019 09:54 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's incredible that considering how bad the PAC has been this year, they are still only .02 points behind the AAC for the #6 spot.

well, I just looked and 10 days after you posted this, the gap is now .0074 and growing daily. In the next week or so, the gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will be greater than the gap between the Pac 12 and the MAC(currently .0093 and shrinking).

And if Temple can beat Penn on Saturday- that gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will grow even more.
01-17-2019 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,042
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #75
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-17-2019 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-07-2019 09:54 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's incredible that considering how bad the PAC has been this year, they are still only .02 points behind the AAC for the #6 spot.

well, I just looked and 10 days after you posted this, the gap is now .0074 and growing daily. In the next week or so, the gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will be greater than the gap between the Pac 12 and the MAC(currently .0093 and shrinking).

And if Temple can beat Penn on Saturday- that gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will grow even more.

If the AAC does finish ahead of the PAC in RPI this year (and given how bad the PAC has been that's really not saying all that much) this will be the first time the AAC has ever finished ahead of any Power conference in RPI.
01-17-2019 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,303
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 344
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-17-2019 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-17-2019 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-07-2019 09:54 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's incredible that considering how bad the PAC has been this year, they are still only .02 points behind the AAC for the #6 spot.

well, I just looked and 10 days after you posted this, the gap is now .0074 and growing daily. In the next week or so, the gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will be greater than the gap between the Pac 12 and the MAC(currently .0093 and shrinking).

And if Temple can beat Penn on Saturday- that gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will grow even more.

If the AAC does finish ahead of the PAC in RPI this year (and given how bad the PAC has been that's really not saying all that much) this will be the first time the AAC has ever finished ahead of any Power conference in RPI.

There is absolutely no doubt that will happen. Each and every game the AAC plays, they are adding in the 50% pot a .100 difference- difference from .715 and .615- what these teams did OOC.... It's mathmatical now that it'll happen.
01-17-2019 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,042
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #77
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  North Carolina had their first in 1957. They didn't have another until 1982. Their 3rd was 1993. That is one title in 35 years, yet UNC was without question a blue blood during that era.

Yes, the Houston fan just doesn't have any idea about what a college basketball blue-blood is. UConn is nouveau-riche, new money. They aren't a blue blood.

In contrast, as you say, between 1960 and 1980, UNC was definitely a blue blood even though they won zero national titles during that time.
01-17-2019 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,727
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 229
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #78
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
Long-term, for the PAC, they need to follow the model that the SEC had when they hired Mike Tranghese as a basketball-consultant. He encouraged programs to hire name coaches, pump a little bit more resources into the basketball-side of things, and schedule tougher OOC. I believe he was a big reason why so many SEC schools began to hire "proven" name coaches like Avery Johnson (Alabama), Rick Barnes (Tennessee), Ben Howland (MSU), Tom Crean (Georgia) and Cuonzo Martin (Missouri) in recent years. Toss those names in with guys like Calipari, Mike Anderson, Bruce Pearl, Frank Martin and Billy Kennedy, you have a pretty successful collection of conference coaches. The improvements have definitely shown.

No disrespect to the current PAC coaches, but very few have them have had tournament success at their current schools. Sean Miller, Dana Altman and Larry Kryskowiak all have, but the rest have not. Ernie Kent, while successful at Oregon, has not been competitive at WSU. Similarly, Oregon State has been a door-mat for the conference for quite some time. Mike Hopkins appears to be doing good things at Washington, I expect them to continue progressing into the future (unless he gets poached by Syracuse when Boeheim inevitably retires), as has Bobby Hurley at ASU (although I could see him returning to the East Coast in coming years). However, Stanford (Haase), California (Jones) and UCLA (N/A) are all dramatically underachieving. A number of those schools really need to invest in proven-name head coaches to help get PAC Basketball back on track.

It would be pretty cool to see someone like Earl Watson hired at UCLA, or Jason Kidd at California, as that appears to be a growing trend in college basketball these days (Penny - Memphis, Ewing - Georgetown, Mullin - St. John's). Frankly, I think the WCC has some really strong coaches (in addition to Mark Few) that could do well at a number of those programs. The WCC has done a great job at getting fits for their basketball programs (Randy Bennett, Mike Dunlap, Lorenzo Romar, Herb Sendek).
01-17-2019 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,813
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-14-2019 09:13 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 08:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 02:45 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I'm sorry but if a program with 4 nattys (the only metric that matters when talking about blue blood) in the last 20 years, is not considered to be a blue blood, then UCLA simply is not. Neither is Indiana. People need to stop living in the past. The list goes: Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas. Drop off. UConn, UCLA. Wooden's gone. Knights gone. Nova and Sparty have done more to warrant blue blood status than UCLA as of late. Doesn't mean UCLA isn't a good program. Doesn't mean they're not relevant. **** Gonzaga's relevant. Nevada's relevant. But my god, if producing NBA talent is all it takes to be a blue blood, then Texas is a blue blood. I'm good with calling it a short list of 4 real blue bloods (if people really just want to leave off UConn) but UCLA is off that list until they win another one.

Honestly, I don't know how a blueblood is defined. If I just had to pick them off the top of my head, it would be North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and UCLA. But a case could be made for Villanova, UConn, Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Syracuse, Michigan State. Some of this has to be about history and tradition. Some of this has to be about talent.

UCLA has 11 national championships and 18 final fours. They have 33 sweet sixteen appearances, behind only Kentucky. They have the longest winning streak in college basketball history at 88. UCLA had 17 players on opening day NBA rosters, behind only Kentucky at 30 and Duke at 25. Arizona, North Carolina and Kansas were tied for 4th at 12 each.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

If national championships define bluebloods, Kansas only has one in the last 30 years. I think there has to be more than just recent national championships defining "bluebloods."

Interesting is the number of NBA players by conference. AAC can stake a claim to being a major using that metric. Yes, they are behind the P5 +BE, but not markedly behind the Big East. Then Gap to MWC + A10. No other conference in double digits.

I expected the ACC to be top conference, but was surprised to see the Pac-12 at #2. As for the SEC, 30 of the 63 NBA players are from Kentucky. Kentucky is just loaded with talent.

ACC - 82
Pac-12 -69
SEC - 63
Big 12 -41
Big Ten -39
Big East- 31
AAC- 24
Mountain West - 10
A-10 - 10

Well it helps those numbers that UK completely turns over its team at least every other year. Sometimes every year. Gets hard to keep track of who's playing.
01-17-2019 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,303
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 344
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Conference RPI Rankings
(01-17-2019 10:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-07-2019 09:54 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It's incredible that considering how bad the PAC has been this year, they are still only .02 points behind the AAC for the #6 spot.

well, I just looked and 10 days after you posted this, the gap is now .0074 and growing daily. In the next week or so, the gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will be greater than the gap between the Pac 12 and the MAC(currently .0093 and shrinking).

And if Temple can beat Penn on Saturday- that gap between the AAC and Pac 12 will grow even more.

so looking just from yesterday
AAC---P12 .0077
P12-MAC .0082

I think the question may wind up being, will the Pac 12 be able to hold off the MAC for 8th?
01-18-2019 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.