Lol yep that’s the one.

(07-20-2019 02:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are aware that the Big East has twice sent 4 teams to the tourney, with both times a team in Dayton as one of the last 2 teams in the tourney- so real close to only 3 teams in the tourney(and both times team lost in Dayton so only 3 teams in the round of 64).

The money that the P5 is making is starting to really dwarf the other conferences.... I mean the Big East is getting 3-4 million distros. Sounds great. Big Ten teams are getting over 50 million dollars. You say that money can only go so much? I say look at the SEC and the coaches they've brought in for basketball. Look at Nebraska brining in the top guy in the coaching circuit this offseason. That money gap is like it or not a major threat to everyone not in the P5. Big East coaches are going to continue to get looked at over and over again for getting poached by the P5 conferences. I think Seton Hall got really lucky this offseason that Powell was coming back, as if he wasn't, I think very good shot Willard would have left.

Playing in Dayton is still playing while part of the NCAA Tournament, as much as you may want to diminish what the Big East programs have accomplished and earned on the court using hypotheticals and what-ifs. By that same measure, the Big East "almost" had two Final Four teams when Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds; it never happened, thus it is irrelevant in discussion. Bigger picture, the league still averages over 50% in the tournament, which is one of the highest percentages of any major conference. The "down" years are still when the league has 40% if the league in the big dance, and that has only happened in the inaugural year, when many of the programs were in transition, and last season, which was a rebuilding year for most programs). When UConn joins, the average number of bids will increase, as well as the seeds.

(07-20-2019 03:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Yeah like CUSA in the early 00's which got teams in the final 4 and also got 1 seeds in the NCAA tourney.

So how has Butler and Xavier done retaining good coaches since joining the Big East? Yeah. And a lot of that was MONEY. Butler and Xavier just can not and will never compete with P5 schools money wise. Sorry, but that's just the cold hard facts.

Butler and Xavier have lost coaches to an NBA team and elite men's basketball programs, not just any P5 school. Butler lost Brad Stevens to the NBA and Chris Holtmann to Ohio State. Xavier lost Chris Mack to Louisville. Ohio State pursued Greg McDermott and Chris Mack; Virginia Tech pursued both Steve Wojciechowski and Kevin Willard; from accounts, Pittsburgh had pursued Willard last year (before they hired Capel). Michigan pursued Ed Cooley. The reality is that the Big East has done an immensely strong job keeping and retaining coaches, despite the "P5-level" money these programs are financially able to offer. If other teams want or choose to pursue Big East head coaches, then it means our programs are successful, and that is what the schools and fans should want. All of the programs have demonstrated that they can be successful through different coaches and eras.

Despite the exuberant payouts the P5 are currently receiving, Georgetown and Marquette still remain in the top-10 for spending in college basketball. UConn is 17th, Villanova is 19th and St. John's is 22nd. That's five Big East programs in the top-25 for overall spending and men's basketball budgets. The reason for that is that the Big East schools, who have all committed to men's basketball, are able to spend a majority of their revenues on their top sport. Both Butler and Xavier (as well as Creighton) have spent more on facilities and coaching salaries since their move to the Big East, and that will only increase over time. When the league gets its next TV contract extended (and upgraded), and the league continues to get tournament credits via payouts, all of the programs will have even more resources to devote to their men's basketball programs.

(07-20-2019 07:32 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 02:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are aware that the Big East has twice sent 4 teams to the tourney, with both times a team in Dayton as one of the last 2 teams in the tourney- so real close to only 3 teams in the tourney(and both times team lost in Dayton so only 3 teams in the round of 64).

The money that the P5 is making is starting to really dwarf the other conferences.... I mean the Big East is getting 3-4 million distros. Sounds great. Big Ten teams are getting over 50 million dollars. You say that money can only go so much? I say look at the SEC and the coaches they've brought in for basketball. Look at Nebraska brining in the top guy in the coaching circuit this offseason. That money gap is like it or not a major threat to everyone not in the P5. Big East coaches are going to continue to get looked at over and over again for getting poached by the P5 conferences. I think Seton Hall got really lucky this offseason that Powell was coming back, as if he wasn't, I think very good shot Willard would have left.

Playing in Dayton is still playing while part of the NCAA Tournament, as much as you may want to diminish what the Big East programs have accomplished and earned on the court using hypotheticals and what-ifs. By that same measure, the Big East "almost" had two Final Four teams when Villanova and Xavier were both #1 seeds; it never happened, thus it is irrelevant in discussion. Bigger picture, the league still averages over 50% in the tournament, which is one of the highest percentages of any major conference. The "down" years are still when the league has 40% if the league in the big dance, and that has only happened in the inaugural year, when many of the programs were in transition, and last season, which was a rebuilding year for most programs). When UConn joins, the average number of bids will increase, as well as the seeds.

(07-20-2019 03:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Yeah like CUSA in the early 00's which got teams in the final 4 and also got 1 seeds in the NCAA tourney.

So how has Butler and Xavier done retaining good coaches since joining the Big East? Yeah. And a lot of that was MONEY. Butler and Xavier just can not and will never compete with P5 schools money wise. Sorry, but that's just the cold hard facts.

Butler and Xavier have lost coaches to an NBA team and elite men's basketball programs, not just any P5 school. Butler lost Brad Stevens to the NBA and Chris Holtmann to Ohio State. Xavier lost Chris Mack to Louisville. Ohio State pursued Greg McDermott and Chris Mack; Virginia Tech pursued both Steve Wojciechowski and Kevin Willard; from accounts, Pittsburgh had pursued Willard last year (before they hired Capel). Michigan pursued Ed Cooley. The reality is that the Big East has done an immensely strong job keeping and retaining coaches, despite the "P5-level" money these programs are financially able to offer. If other teams want or choose to pursue Big East head coaches, then it means our programs are successful, and that is what the schools and fans should want. All of the programs have demonstrated that they can be successful through different coaches and eras.

Despite the exuberant payouts the P5 are currently receiving, Georgetown and Marquette still remain in the top-10 for spending in college basketball. UConn is 17th, Villanova is 19th and St. John's is 22nd. That's five Big East programs in the top-25 for overall spending and men's basketball budgets. The reason for that is that the Big East schools, who have all committed to men's basketball, are able to spend a majority of their revenues on their top sport. Both Butler and Xavier (as well as Creighton) have spent more on facilities and coaching salaries since their move to the Big East, and that will only increase over time. When the league gets its next TV contract extended (and upgraded), and the league continues to get tournament credits via payouts, all of the programs will have even more resources to devote to their men's basketball programs.

All good points and I agree. But there are some coaches who simply need their egos (and wallets) fueled by being associated with hoops programs affiliated with “full” power conferences. The Big East is a power basketball conference. I have defended the league vs. those who say otherwise. But it is not a true and broad-based power conference (based on considerations involving football, statewide fan bases, athletic budgets, enrollments, endowments, etc.) There are only five full power conferences, as we all know — and their lure is strong for some coaches.

The Big East is doing a fine job with its coaches (as you correctly note) and deserves credit for that. I don’t see the BE losing coaches to P5 leagues as a major concern — but it could be a factor in some cases in the future.

(07-20-2019 03:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 10:36 AM)scoscox Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 02:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  and you are aware that the Big East has twice sent 4 teams to the tourney, with both times a team in Dayton as one of the last 2 teams in the tourney- so real close to only 3 teams in the tourney(and both times team lost in Dayton so only 3 teams in the round of 64).

The money that the P5 is making is starting to really dwarf the other conferences.... I mean the Big East is getting 3-4 million distros. Sounds great. Big Ten teams are getting over 50 million dollars. You say that money can only go so much? I say look at the SEC and the coaches they've brought in for basketball. Look at Nebraska brining in the top guy in the coaching circuit this offseason. That money gap is like it or not a major threat to everyone not in the P5. Big East coaches are going to continue to get looked at over and over again for getting poached by the P5 conferences. I think Seton Hall got really lucky this offseason that Powell was coming back, as if he wasn't, I think very good shot Willard would have left.

What a total straw man of an argument. Stever how rattled are you about the aac officially becoming c-USA 2.0?

Yeah like CUSA in the early 00's which got teams in the final 4 and also got 1 seeds in the NCAA tourney.

So how has Butler and Xavier done retaining good coaches since joining the Big East? Yeah. And a lot of that was MONEY. Butler and Xavier just can not and will never compete with P5 schools money wise. Sorry, but that's just the cold hard facts.

You, uh, trying to use Marquette and Louisville's final fours, and Memphis' vacated appearance, to prove the AAC's bonafides?

Summary of recent Big East news and information, basic knowledge, repeated for 900th time:

Kevin Willard turned down ACC Virginia Tech to stay at Seton Hall.
Ed Cooley turned down B1G Michigan to stay at Providence.

UConn has rejoined the Big East.

Big East attendance is at 10k on average per game, in line with the other 5 major conferences. This is twice the average of all other conferences not in this top group. This doesn't factor in the arrival of UConn, which will easily bump up our league average.

Fanbases of Big East schools go beyond their current student bodies and alums, tapping into fans in our major metro areas. A lot. Each of us draws fans both beyond our student bodies and beyond our alums.

Lol at "fine job" comment.

(07-21-2019 08:57 PM)breinin2 Wrote:  You, uh, trying to use Marquette and Louisville's final fours, and Memphis' vacated appearance, to prove the AAC's bonafides?

Good catch

One great thing about the Big East is that we all want to be here.

Nobody wants to be in the AAC. Actually, ECU/Tulsa/Tulane/SMU/WSU probably realize this is the best they got going for them haha

(07-22-2019 12:27 AM)scoscox Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 08:57 PM)breinin2 Wrote:  You, uh, trying to use Marquette and Louisville's final fours, and Memphis' vacated appearance, to prove the AAC's bonafides?

Good catch

C-USA 1.0 (1995-2005) was a very strong and competitive basketball conference. While Cincinnati, Louisville and Marquette anchored the league between seeds, tournament bids and deep tournament runs at the top, the league was also solidified in the middle, with programs like Charlotte, Memphis, DePaul, UAB and SLU collectively earning multiple bids annually as well.

Cincinnati reached national heights under Huggins, routinely being in the top-10 nationally and earning an Elite Eight in '95 and Sweet 16s in '95 and '01. Louisville reached an Elite Eight in '97 and a Sweet 16 in '96 under Crum, and a Final Four under Pitino in '05. Marquette went to the Final Four in '03. Charlotte was an immensely underrated backbone of C-USA, as they made the tournament EIGHT times between 1995-2005. Memphis, while not reaching the same tournament success as those programs, had gone to a Sweet 16 in '95 and made the tournament four times. UAB and SLU made it to the tournament three times; DePaul made it twice. The bottom of the league was very, very, very poor - USF, Houston, Tulane, Southern Mississippi, ECU and TCU (they had a combined ONE bid as members of C-USA).

C-USA, when it was formed, had multiple teams that had competed-for and/or won national championships in basketball in the previous twenty years: Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette, Memphis (even removing the vacated seasons). The league was had perceived strength not only because of the top, but because of the constant support from the middle (Charlotte, UAB and SLU). Unfortunately, for the AAC, they will have not had a program that has appeared in a national championship in over forty seasons (Memphis was last in 1973), and they will not have had a program win a national championship in over fifty seasons (Cincinnati in 1962). Wichita State is the only program to have a recognized Final Four appearance in the past 25 years. Couple that with the continued and ever-constant non-competitive bottom (regularly includes ECU/Tulane, and at least one other program), and I think it will be incredibly hard for the AAC to reach the same level of success as C-USA 1.0 did. I just don't see multiple different programs getting to the Final Four/Elite Eight as C-USA 1.0 did in their window. Heck, six seasons into the AAC, only one program has advanced to the Sweet 16 (Houston).

(07-22-2019 09:17 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  One great thing about the Big East is that we all want to be here.

Nobody wants to be in the AAC. Actually, ECU/Tulsa/Tulane/SMU/WSU probably realize this is the best they got going for them haha

It could not be quantified into financial figures, but there is immense value from the Big East not being associated with football schools that wish to pursue unrealistic and impossible dreams of big-time college football. The removal of the constant threats and whispers of schools possibly leaving for the ACC/B1G was paid huge dividends to secure continuity and stability for a league that lacked those values since it chose to sponsor D-1 Football.

And that is the harsh reality that has carried over from Big East Football for the AAC. No matter what is said publicly, or even privately at AD meetings, many members would immediately bolt to a power conference if given the opportunity. For the ECU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane/SMU/Temple/WSU group, they have undoubtedly peaked as far as conference affiliation goes, thus they are satisfied with their current arrangement; however, the UC/UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis contingent will always have one foot out the door, so the league will always be threatened by realignment and membership changes. After a while, it gets tiresome and defeating to always question what a league will look like in five years.

(07-22-2019 09:33 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 09:17 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  One great thing about the Big East is that we all want to be here.

Nobody wants to be in the AAC. Actually, ECU/Tulsa/Tulane/SMU/WSU probably realize this is the best they got going for them haha

It could not be quantified into financial figures, but there is immense value from the Big East not being associated with football schools that wish to pursue unrealistic and impossible dreams of big-time college football. The removal of the constant threats and whispers of schools possibly leaving for the ACC/B1G was paid huge dividends to secure continuity and stability for a league that lacked those values since it chose to sponsor D-1 Football.

And that is the harsh reality that has carried over from Big East Football for the AAC. No matter what is said publicly, or even privately at AD meetings, many members would immediately bolt to a power conference if given the opportunity. For the ECU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane/SMU/Temple/WSU group, they have undoubtedly peaked as far as conference affiliation goes, thus they are satisfied with their current arrangement; however, the UC/UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis contingent will always have one foot out the door, so the league will always be threatened by realignment and membership changes. After a while, it gets tiresome and defeating to always question what a league will look like in five years.

For what it's worth, Temple and SMU also at least aspire to further upwards mobility. SMU probably gets squeezed out by the presence of TCU, since the most realistic shake-up remaining is the Big 12 losing some schools and backfilling, but if WVU doesn't find a home I could see them pushing for the creation of a northeastern wing of the rebuilt conference using Cincy and Temple.

(07-22-2019 09:19 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 12:27 AM)scoscox Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 08:57 PM)breinin2 Wrote:  You, uh, trying to use Marquette and Louisville's final fours, and Memphis' vacated appearance, to prove the AAC's bonafides?

Good catch

C-USA 1.0 (1995-2005) was a very strong and competitive basketball conference. While Cincinnati, Louisville and Marquette anchored the league between seeds, tournament bids and deep tournament runs at the top, the league was also solidified in the middle, with programs like Charlotte, Memphis, DePaul, UAB and SLU collectively earning multiple bids annually as well.

Cincinnati reached national heights under Huggins, routinely being in the top-10 nationally and earning an Elite Eight in '95 and Sweet 16s in '95 and '01. Louisville reached an Elite Eight in '97 and a Sweet 16 in '96 under Crum, and a Final Four under Pitino in '05. Marquette went to the Final Four in '03. Charlotte was an immensely underrated backbone of C-USA, as they made the tournament EIGHT times between 1995-2005. Memphis, while not reaching the same tournament success as those programs, had gone to a Sweet 16 in '95 and made the tournament four times. UAB and SLU made it to the tournament three times; DePaul made it twice. The bottom of the league was very, very, very poor - USF, Houston, Tulane, Southern Mississippi, ECU and TCU (they had a combined ONE bid as members of C-USA).

C-USA, when it was formed, had multiple teams that had competed-for and/or won national championships in basketball in the previous twenty years: Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette, Memphis (even removing the vacated seasons). The league was had perceived strength not only because of the top, but because of the constant support from the middle (Charlotte, UAB and SLU). Unfortunately, for the AAC, they will have not had a program that has appeared in a national championship in over forty seasons (Memphis was last in 1973), and they will not have had a program win a national championship in over fifty seasons (Cincinnati in 1962). Wichita State is the only program to have a recognized Final Four appearance in the past 25 years. Couple that with the continued and ever-constant non-competitive bottom (regularly includes ECU/Tulane, and at least one other program), and I think it will be incredibly hard for the AAC to reach the same level of success as C-USA 1.0 did. I just don't see multiple different programs getting to the Final Four/Elite Eight as C-USA 1.0 did in their window. Heck, six seasons into the AAC, only one program has advanced to the Sweet 16 (Houston).

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say CUSA 1.0 was a bad league. I just can't think of any other CUSA final 4 appearances and, if I'm correct on that, I think it's intellectually disingenuous to claim an equivalency between CUSA and the AAC when two of the highest achieving schools are in different leagues, and the only remaining school was caught for cheating. I am not a CUSA expert, I have never been a fan of a CUSA school, so I could be wrong.

(07-22-2019 09:19 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 12:27 AM)scoscox Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 08:57 PM)breinin2 Wrote:  You, uh, trying to use Marquette and Louisville's final fours, and Memphis' vacated appearance, to prove the AAC's bonafides?

Good catch

C-USA 1.0 (1995-2005) was a very strong and competitive basketball conference. While Cincinnati, Louisville and Marquette anchored the league between seeds, tournament bids and deep tournament runs at the top, the league was also solidified in the middle, with programs like Charlotte, Memphis, DePaul, UAB and SLU collectively earning multiple bids annually as well.

Cincinnati reached national heights under Huggins, routinely being in the top-10 nationally and earning an Elite Eight in '95 and Sweet 16s in '95 and '01. Louisville reached an Elite Eight in '97 and a Sweet 16 in '96 under Crum, and a Final Four under Pitino in '05. Marquette went to the Final Four in '03. Charlotte was an immensely underrated backbone of C-USA, as they made the tournament EIGHT times between 1995-2005. Memphis, while not reaching the same tournament success as those programs, had gone to a Sweet 16 in '95 and made the tournament four times. UAB and SLU made it to the tournament three times; DePaul made it twice. The bottom of the league was very, very, very poor - USF, Houston, Tulane, Southern Mississippi, ECU and TCU (they had a combined ONE bid as members of C-USA).

C-USA, when it was formed, had multiple teams that had competed-for and/or won national championships in basketball in the previous twenty years: Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette, Memphis (even removing the vacated seasons). The league was had perceived strength not only because of the top, but because of the constant support from the middle (Charlotte, UAB and SLU). Unfortunately, for the AAC, they will have not had a program that has appeared in a national championship in over forty seasons (Memphis was last in 1973), and they will not have had a program win a national championship in over fifty seasons (Cincinnati in 1962). Wichita State is the only program to have a recognized Final Four appearance in the past 25 years. Couple that with the continued and ever-constant non-competitive bottom (regularly includes ECU/Tulane, and at least one other program), and I think it will be incredibly hard for the AAC to reach the same level of success as C-USA 1.0 did. I just don't see multiple different programs getting to the Final Four/Elite Eight as C-USA 1.0 did in their window. Heck, six seasons into the AAC, only one program has advanced to the Sweet 16 (Houston).

This is a very fair and accurate assessment of comparing C-USA at its strongest to the AAC currently. The three hoops programs of note remaining in the AAC are Cincy, Houston and Memphis (a quality trio, no doubt). They have since been joined post-C-USA by SMU, Temple, Tulsa and Wichita State. That is a very respectable quartet but it does not compare well (and some could reasonably argue it compares poorly) to the six-team C-USA grouping (now gone) of Charlotte, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette, Saint Louis and UAB.

I covered (admittedly, very modestly) The Great Midwest and C-USA for Athlon Sports during the 1990s. C-USA at its peak was a very strong conference and I would always note that to doubters back in the day (true, I was biased as I had some teams in the league I supported for various reasons).

The current AAC does not have that level of depth. It would need its "Big Seven" (would have been eight had UConn stayed) to be joined by at least one of ECU, UCF, USF and Tulane and (ideally) the addition of VCU to mildly flirt with the level of strength of the old C-USA. It's doable — but very unlikely.

(07-22-2019 11:51 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 09:33 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 09:17 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  One great thing about the Big East is that we all want to be here.

Nobody wants to be in the AAC. Actually, ECU/Tulsa/Tulane/SMU/WSU probably realize this is the best they got going for them haha

It could not be quantified into financial figures, but there is immense value from the Big East not being associated with football schools that wish to pursue unrealistic and impossible dreams of big-time college football. The removal of the constant threats and whispers of schools possibly leaving for the ACC/B1G was paid huge dividends to secure continuity and stability for a league that lacked those values since it chose to sponsor D-1 Football.

And that is the harsh reality that has carried over from Big East Football for the AAC. No matter what is said publicly, or even privately at AD meetings, many members would immediately bolt to a power conference if given the opportunity. For the ECU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane/SMU/Temple/WSU group, they have undoubtedly peaked as far as conference affiliation goes, thus they are satisfied with their current arrangement; however, the UC/UCF/USF/Houston/Memphis contingent will always have one foot out the door, so the league will always be threatened by realignment and membership changes. After a while, it gets tiresome and defeating to always question what a league will look like in five years.

For what it's worth, Temple and SMU also at least aspire to further upwards mobility. SMU probably gets squeezed out by the presence of TCU, since the most realistic shake-up remaining is the Big 12 losing some schools and backfilling, but if WVU doesn't find a home I could see them pushing for the creation of a northeastern wing of the rebuilt conference using Cincy and Temple.

Agree fully with this. I'm old enough to recall when SMU was a major player in football. And the Ponies have had some strong basketball teams, too, over the years. Both Temple and SMU aspire to be part of something better than the AAC.