As Rodney King once asked: "Can't we all get along?"

Seriously, and regarding the Big East board, I want it to be productive and positive. The realignment board can get nasty. The SEC board (I sometimes post there because I'm a big Vandy fan) is somewhat lowkey (but cordial). I like this board and enjoy getting info from it.

I don't have a problem with anybody posting on any league- or team-centric board mentioning some other team or league ... IF 1. doing so provides context; and 2. it is done in a respectful manner.

That's my thought on this. I'm not on CSNbbs to trash talk, bash other teams or leagues, be snarky, etc.

So again, let's try to be respectful and cordial.

(12-06-2019 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Of course you spew lies and half truths and refuse to respond. Typical of you.

(12-05-2019 10:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Did I say they were strong? No I didn't and you know it. But I think it's hard to argue the bottom of the conference hasn't improved.

Just seemed weird to cite some schools with SOS's in the 300s, including the to-date worst-in-America, as evidence that future scheduling will be easy.

Ain't nobody gonna take the AAC's scheduling seriously when 1/3 of the conference continues to schedule low major tournaments and away games at low major schools...

(12-05-2019 09:45 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The AAC bottom has clearly improved... OK, maybe not ECU, but Tulane hired Ron Hunter and they are 6-1 right now. USF won the CBI last year. SMU is 8-0 and playing with a full roster for first time in years.

And here is the fundamental and institutional difference between a DePaul and these programs that you mention:

DePaul has a basketball history, and these schools don't. DePaul has played in a Final Four (something none of those programs have done); they have played in ten Sweet 16's, where USF, UCF, ECU and Tulane have a combined zero; DePaul is a basketball-first school, where no one in the AAC (except Wichita State) is. Even in down years, DePaul basketball was averaging 4-5k per home game, where UCF, as an example, struggled to get that as a tournament team last year.

Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple, Wichita State and (until recently) Houston are each high-level and strongly supported programs. The rest are either bottom of the barrel-level programs, or just lack the resources/history/support to be a consistently competitive program. That's why the AAC will never be in the same grouping as the ACC, B1G, Big 12, Big East, PAC or SEC in basketball; there isn't a power program at the top to anchor or support it, and the bottom weighs down the solid programs that do play at the top.

depaul was also a 1 seed a number of times and got upset early. they were a powerhouse for a pretty long time

(12-06-2019 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Notice a pattern? Expecting programs that have historically never been competitive enough achieve sustained success annually is incredible wishful thinking. One cannot just disregard historical norms and standards for a program to suddenly just turn it around or flip a switch. These bottom programs have historically prioritized football, and not put in the resources necessary to create a competitive men's basketball program, in order to create a fan following and/or support long-term. They will just "start" competing, getting better games and begin winning them? Again, no.

losing uconn gives them even less incentive to invest in basketball

(12-06-2019 06:32 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Did I say they were strong? No I didn't and you know it. But I think it's hard to argue the bottom of the conference hasn't improved.

Just seemed weird to cite some schools with SOS's in the 300s, including the to-date worst-in-America, as evidence that future scheduling will be easy.

Did I say that it would make the future scheduling easy? No I didn't. I said that the bottom of the conference has improved.... I haven't even mentioned scheduling in here.... Not once... I did say that the 20 game schedule is going to be a much ado about nothing because the committee isn't going to change the way they select teams for the tourney.

(12-06-2019 09:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Did I say that it would make the future scheduling easy?

.....yes?

(12-05-2019 11:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but I think the AAC is still going to be fine. The AAC can get opponents a whole hell of a lot easier than the MWC can due to location. They have split from the other leagues as well.

LOL!

I think what is stupid is that the OOC schedules aren't over yet..... So can't say these are the final SOS numbers by any stretch.

Take Tulsa. They have left 5 games. 3 of those in the top 110.

Also should note that the SOS in Ken Pom still has last year baked into it.

Lastly the SOS that the NCAA uses, and is on the team sheets is still the RPI type SOS. So 2/3 opponents record and 1/3 opponents opponents record.

Its funny. Everyone complaining on the Seton Hall schedule. Saying it's too tough....

what have they had so far-
Battle 4 Atlantis- exempt tournament
Michigan St- Gavitt Game
Iowa St tonight- Big 12 battle

So everything they've had so far is a regular thing- something that would be around normally.

(12-08-2019 11:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Its funny. Everyone complaining on the Seton Hall schedule. Saying it's too tough....

what have they had so far-
Battle 4 Atlantis- exempt tournament
Michigan St- Gavitt Game
Iowa St tonight- Big 12 battle

So everything they've had so far is a regular thing- something that would be around normally.

They also had game @Saint Louis and still have games against Rutgers and Maryland.

But it wasn't so much number of quality games, but just how elite many opponents were going to be (or projected to be). Gavitt game was MSU, Battle for Atlantis had UNC, Gonzaga, Oregon and Michigan in addition to Iowa State, Southern Miss, and Bama. Rutgers away will be decent game, but bigger than that they still have Maryland staring them in the face.

So extremely high quality competition, not just number of high major opponents which really just had one extra quality opponent.

(12-09-2019 12:16 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(12-08-2019 11:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Its funny. Everyone complaining on the Seton Hall schedule. Saying it's too tough....

what have they had so far-
Battle 4 Atlantis- exempt tournament
Michigan St- Gavitt Game
Iowa St tonight- Big 12 battle

So everything they've had so far is a regular thing- something that would be around normally.

They also had game @Saint Louis and still have games against Rutgers and Maryland.

But it wasn't so much number of quality games, but just how elite many opponents were going to be (or projected to be). Gavitt game was MSU, Battle for Atlantis had UNC, Gonzaga, Oregon and Michigan in addition to Iowa State, Southern Miss, and Bama. Rutgers away will be decent game, but bigger than that they still have Maryland staring them in the face.

So extremely high quality competition, not just number of high major opponents which really just had one extra quality opponent.

If you are going to be a conference #1 projected team- you're going to get the top Gavitt game and you're going to get a top Big 12 team(where was ISU projected?). Rutgers is a rivalry game situation.

Only other 2 games were Maryland and SLU.

Stever, you'd be proud of GW11. He mentioned one of your favorite talking points on the MU board regarding the disadvantages of the round robin.

(01-07-2020 09:23 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  Stever, you'd be proud of GW11. He mentioned one of your favorite talking points on the MU board regarding the disadvantages of the round robin.

What can I say? Stever has made strong points about it.

I'm still in the camp of let's wait and see for a few years how A) the 11 team RR format works for the Big East (does the # of bids change from 10 teams; does the quality of seeds change from 10 teams) and B) the 20-game conference format affects other power conferences and their bids/seeds.

Ultimately, I do think it ends up becoming a power conference issue and not necessarily a Big East issue. Either the power conferences keep the 20-game conference format, or it goes back down to 18 altogether.

Additionally, for me, I like the idea of adding another school down the road that can help with attendance/viewership, that can also be potentially elevated under the Big East brand. That would also add yet another game to the BET at MSG and more content to sell to Fox (which could, in theory, elevate our annual payouts, not to mention potential tournament bids).

I also agree with Stever that 12 teams is the ultimate sweet spot for a college basketball league, especially one for the Big East if you have like-minded membership like it presently has.

The good news is that this incarnation of the Big East continues to have time on its side and can be diligent with any expansion discussions, unlike the reactionary and unstable nature that the former version of itself consistently operated under. Whatever decisions will be made will have been made under strong deliberation and quantifiable data to support it.

(01-07-2020 09:23 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  Stever, you'd be proud of GW11. He mentioned one of your favorite talking points on the MU board regarding the disadvantages of the round robin.

That's my guy...

To me, next year, it's gonna be a killer. I really don't think the committee is gonna change the way they select the tournament. Not going to see 17-15 teams making it. Purdue this year a great example. Not a great OOC but still 7-4. in a 18 game schedule, would have gotten 2 cupcake games. Then go 9-9 in conference play and at 18-13, very likely in the tourney. But now, go 10-10 in conference play and at 17-14 have almost no chance without a huge run in the tourney of making it.

(01-07-2020 09:51 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 09:23 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  Stever, you'd be proud of GW11. He mentioned one of your favorite talking points on the MU board regarding the disadvantages of the round robin.

What can I say? Stever has made strong points about it.

I'm still in the camp of let's wait and see for a few years how A) the 11 team RR format works for the Big East (does the # of bids change from 10 teams; does the quality of seeds change from 10 teams) and B) the 20-game conference format affects other power conferences and their bids/seeds.

Ultimately, I do think it ends up becoming a power conference issue and not necessarily a Big East issue. Either the power conferences keep the 20-game conference format, or it goes back down to 18 altogether.

Additionally, for me, I like the idea of adding another school down the road that can help with attendance/viewership, that can also be potentially elevated under the Big East brand. That would also add yet another game to the BET at MSG and more content to sell to Fox (which could, in theory, elevate our annual payouts, not to mention potential tournament bids).

I also agree with Stever that 12 teams is the ultimate sweet spot for a college basketball league, especially one for the Big East if you have like-minded membership like it presently has.

The good news is that this incarnation of the Big East continues to have time on its side and can be diligent with any expansion discussions, unlike the reactionary and unstable nature that the former version of itself consistently operated under. Whatever decisions will be made will have been made under strong deliberation and quantifiable data to support it.

totally agree with you on it being a power conference issue.

Like I've said, I think the major part of it is the NCAA selection process. If the committee goes back to how they did 30 years ago, with 17-15 type teams making the tourney, then the 20 conference game schedules are a fixture.

But if they continute like they have, I just don't know that they will continue. Conferences losing tourney teams- that's a tough pill to swallow.

1 point as well about going up to 12, that allows for a whole extra session with the BET. Instead of having 3 games all back to back to back 1st day, you have normal format.

(01-07-2020 10:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 point as well about going up to 12, that allows for a whole extra session with the BET. Instead of having 3 games all back to back to back 1st day, you have normal format.

And if you can add a competitive team that fits the institutional profile of the BE that also travels well (in addition to having strong home attendance), you can really help bump up the attendance of the early round games.

The later tournament games have been regular sellouts.

So will the BE still do a round-robin with UConn? That's 20 league games. Not sure I like that. I do like the current 18-game RR model.

Also, and as I have noted many times, I strongly favor the BE adding a 12th program and my top choice is likely Saint Louis.