(07-05-2020 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

Yes, but baseball is so top heavy - the SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 dominate so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter. The SEC often gets 10 bids.

Yeah I know Coastal won the title a few years ago, but basically you can set your watch by it, the champ is going to come from the SEC, PAC, Big 12, or ACC.

I thought you were grossly exaggerating, so I looked it up. Not much of an exaggeration.

Going back to 1996 all but 5 of the 48 finalists came from those 4 conferences (or at least are currently members like Miami FL). Michigan lost last year. And the other 4 did win, Coastal Carolina 2016, Fresno St. 2008, CS-Fullerton 2004, Rice 2003.

From 1980-1995 it was pretty much the same except that CS-Fullerton (3 times,2 wins) and Wichita St. (4 times, 1 win) were regulars in the finals.

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

I can assure you that before the 1990 season, if anyone had said Georgia Tech would win a share of the national title, you could have gotten 500 to 1 odds against it. That was stunning. IIRC, they were unranked to start the year and remained so the first few weeks.

They are arguably the softest title winner of the past 30+ years. They didn't face any of the top teams that year and like BYU won a second-tier bowl. Miami, Notre Dame, FSU, and Colorado all would have beaten them up pretty badly. I don't think that Tech team produced any NFL players of any note.

(07-05-2020 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

Yes, but baseball is so top heavy - the SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 dominate so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter. The SEC often gets 10 bids.

Yeah I know Coastal won the title a few years ago, but basically you can set your watch by it, the champ is going to come from the SEC, PAC, Big 12, or ACC.

Quo,

Let me politely correct you, using your own words:

"The SEC dominates so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter."

Since 1990, eight of the 14 current SEC teams have played in the championship series. Since 1947, 10 of the 14 have.

As we arrogant and bombastic SEC fans like to say ... "The SEC. It just means more."

On a serious note, the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 are damn strong. And the AAC has lots of programs with quality histories. The Big West has been rather fine, too, but does seem to have taken a bit of a step back the past few years.

I believe the Pac-12 leads with 27 all-time titles.

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

I have posted many times on this board that AAC football and baseball have done quite well since the league's founding. I like the trajectory.

However, I simply feel men's hoops has been mediocre at best. And many fans of AAC programs agree on the AAC board. Now, I do feel the league can improve in men's hoops. I hope it does.

(07-05-2020 10:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

Yes, but baseball is so top heavy - the SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 dominate so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter. The SEC often gets 10 bids.

Yeah I know Coastal won the title a few years ago, but basically you can set your watch by it, the champ is going to come from the SEC, PAC, Big 12, or ACC.

Quo,

Let me politely correct you, using your own words:

"The SEC dominates so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter."

Since 1990, eight of the 14 current SEC teams have played in the championship series. Since 1947, 10 of the 14 have.

As we arrogant and bombastic SEC fans like to say ... "The SEC. It just means more."

On a serious note, the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 are damn strong. And the AAC has lots of programs with quality histories. The Big West has been rather fine, too, but does seem to have taken a bit of a step back the past few years.

I believe the Pac-12 leads with 27 all-time titles.

I'd say the biggest development the past decade or so has been the decline of the non-PAC California schools. Up until then, schools like Fullerton, Pepperdine, and Fresno often produced national title contenders and the occasional winner. They were a major fly in the Power conference ointment.

But since Fresno won the 2008 title, that just hasn't happened. These schools have fallen from the ranks.

Of course, deep-historically, things were much different. In the early days of the tournament, the 1940s - 1970s, the Big 10 actually produced several champs, and the PAC was utterly dominant. USC is easily the all-time leader with 12 national titles (the PAC has 18 total, not 27), but hasn't won one in 22 years, and that 1998 title is the only one they have won in the past 40 years.

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

The media may not have considered it a tweener football conference but lot of fair-minded and reasonable college sports fans I knew and talked to back in the day did (to an extent). They perceived the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s as "overwhelmingly basketball" with extremely so-so football.

True, the SEC was strongly football during that time. But I seem to recall it had far more success in basketball than the ACC did in football. Maybe I'm wrong.

To be fair, "tweener" might be a bit unfair a word to use. But I recall being a tad surprised myself when GaTech and Clemson won it all back then — as the Big 8, SEC, SWC and Big Ten simply "seemed" so much better.

I'm hoping we see multiple ACC football programs (UNC among them, of course) emerge in the next few years. The league needs that.

(07-05-2020 11:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

Yes, but baseball is so top heavy - the SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 dominate so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter. The SEC often gets 10 bids.

Yeah I know Coastal won the title a few years ago, but basically you can set your watch by it, the champ is going to come from the SEC, PAC, Big 12, or ACC.

Quo,

Let me politely correct you, using your own words:

"The SEC dominates so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter."

Since 1990, eight of the 14 current SEC teams have played in the championship series. Since 1947, 10 of the 14 have.

As we arrogant and bombastic SEC fans like to say ... "The SEC. It just means more."

On a serious note, the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 are damn strong. And the AAC has lots of programs with quality histories. The Big West has been rather fine, too, but does seem to have taken a bit of a step back the past few years.

I believe the Pac-12 leads with 27 all-time titles.

I'd say the biggest development the past decade or so has been the decline of the non-PAC California schools. Up until then, schools like Fullerton, Pepperdine, and Fresno often produced national title contenders and the occasional winner. They were a major fly in the Power conference ointment.

But since Fresno won the 2008 title, that just hasn't happened. These schools have fallen from the ranks.

Of course, deep-historically, things were much different. In the early days of the tournament, the 1940s - 1970s, the Big 10 actually produced several champs, and the PAC was utterly dominant. USC is easily the all-time leader with 12 national titles (the PAC has 18 total, not 27), but hasn't won one in 22 years, and that 1998 title is the only one they have won in the past 40 years.

Helpful info. I stand corrected. Interesting point (and accurately framed) about California schools.

One thing is clear: College baseball continues to be dominated by programs located in "warm states."

But that Michigan team of 2019 was strong. The Big Ten could eventually get a title.

(07-05-2020 11:02 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

The media may not have considered it a tweener football conference but lot of fair-minded and reasonable college sports fans I knew and talked to back in the day did (to an extent). They perceived the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s as "overwhelmingly basketball" with extremely so-so football.

True, the SEC was strongly football during that time. But I seem to recall it had far more success in basketball than the ACC did in football. Maybe I'm wrong.

To be fair, "tweener" might be a bit unfair a word to use. But I recall being a tad surprised myself when GaTech and Clemson won it all back then — as the Big 8, SEC, SWC and Big Ten simply "seemed" so much better.

I'm hoping we see multiple ACC football programs (UNC among them, of course) emerge in the next few years. The league needs that.

Maybe the ACC fans didn't consider it a tweener conference, but it was embarrassing to lose to an ACC team if you were in one of the major conferences.

ACC was still considered FSU and a bunch of WAC like schools in the 90s. In the 80s considering them a tweener was fair. In the 90s, they were a lot better than their reputation.

(07-05-2020 10:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

I have posted many times on this board that AAC football and baseball have done quite well since the league's founding. I like the trajectory.

However, I simply feel men's hoops has been mediocre at best. And many fans of AAC programs agree on the AAC board. Now, I do feel the league can improve in men's hoops. I hope it does.

i am on the aac board more than you..and thats not true at all...
the only team that you can truly say was a disappointment in the aac is UConn..thats it..memphis to lesser extent but they werent a great recruiting team throughout their aac tenure, their expectation werent high till penny came

like i noted there have been some disappointing things, but those had nothing to do with on the court..
smu with a post season ban on a top 25 season (and getting the largest scholarship sanction in ncaa history over a tutor taking 1 test for a bench player)...the wiseman situation, usf losing yetna preseason last year..the seeding and ncaa snubs the aac got from 2014-2017..but all of that is beyond our control..
the aac puts great basketball on the court with the players they had... the aac is regularly praised for its physicality

im literally on the aac forum 24/7..i have never heard the narrative that the aac basketball has disappointed..the aac does need 1 team to make some tourney runs but i think that is a need if we want to improve our standing, not maintain our place at 7th

cincy just maintained its status pre-aac...but 100% of the rest of the current aac has elevated its status from year 1 till now..
the only noteable complaints about the aac basketball is how bad tulane, usf, and ecu have been ..but they were expected to be horrible before joining , so them sucking cannot be a justifiable reason for "disappointment", if you had realistic expectations..and usf and tulane have drastically improved their profile..usf is a projected ncaa bubble team next year

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

(07-05-2020 11:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

I have posted many times on this board that AAC football and baseball have done quite well since the league's founding. I like the trajectory.

However, I simply feel men's hoops has been mediocre at best. And many fans of AAC programs agree on the AAC board. Now, I do feel the league can improve in men's hoops. I hope it does.

i am on the aac board more than you..and thats not true at all...
the only team that you can truly say was a disappointment in the aac is UConn..thats it..memphis to lesser extent but they werent a great recruiting team throughout their aac tenure, their expectation werent high till penny came

like i noted there have been some disappointing things, but those had nothing to do with on the court..
smu with a post season ban on a top 25 season (and getting the largest scholarship sanction in ncaa history over a tutor taking 1 test for a bench player)...the wiseman situation, usf losing yetna preseason last year..the seeding and ncaa snubs the aac got from 2014-2017..but all of that is beyond our control..
the aac puts great basketball on the court with the players they had... the aac is regularly praised for its physicality

im literally on the aac forum 24/7..i have never heard the narrative that the aac basketball has disappointed..the aac does need 1 team to make some tourney runs but i think that is a need if we want to improve our standing, not maintain our place at 7th

cincy just maintained its status pre-aac...but 100% of the rest of the current aac has elevated its status from year 1 till now..
the only noteable complaints about the aac basketball is how bad tulane, usf, and ecu have been ..but they were expected to be horrible before joining , so them sucking cannot be a justifiable reason for "disappointment", if you had realistic expectations..and usf and tulane have drastically improved their profile..usf is a projected ncaa bubble team next year

I'll give you credit, pesik. You definitely know AAC hoops better than I do. I'm impressed with your knowledge of recruiting.

GCoastGal puts it well in a previous post and regarding Memphis hoops. Our Tigers have underachieved on the hardwood since the AAC was founded and done, in contrast, quite well in football.

As to AAC hoops in general, has there been an Elite Eight finish (notwithstanding UConn's)? Has there been a post-season ranking with more than two AAC teams included? I just feel the league has been a disappointment. And there are some folks on the AAC board who agree. Likely far more side with you but it seems that some of them are somewhat blinded by their optimism.

Yes, LOTS of progress being made with AAC hoops. But I still consider it a disappointment to date.

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

"It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball)."

Some nice wordsmithing. Well done.

(07-05-2020 11:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

Yes, but baseball is so top heavy - the SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 dominate so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter. The SEC often gets 10 bids.

Yeah I know Coastal won the title a few years ago, but basically you can set your watch by it, the champ is going to come from the SEC, PAC, Big 12, or ACC.

Quo,

Let me politely correct you, using your own words:

"The SEC dominates so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter."

Since 1990, eight of the 14 current SEC teams have played in the championship series. Since 1947, 10 of the 14 have.

As we arrogant and bombastic SEC fans like to say ... "The SEC. It just means more."

On a serious note, the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 are damn strong. And the AAC has lots of programs with quality histories. The Big West has been rather fine, too, but does seem to have taken a bit of a step back the past few years.

I believe the Pac-12 leads with 27 all-time titles.

I'd say the biggest development the past decade or so has been the decline of the non-PAC California schools. Up until then, schools like Fullerton, Pepperdine, and Fresno often produced national title contenders and the occasional winner. They were a major fly in the Power conference ointment.

But since Fresno won the 2008 title, that just hasn't happened. These schools have fallen from the ranks.

Of course, deep-historically, things were much different. In the early days of the tournament, the 1940s - 1970s, the Big 10 actually produced several champs, and the PAC was utterly dominant. USC is easily the all-time leader with 12 national titles (the PAC has 18 total, not 27), but hasn't won one in 22 years, and that 1998 title is the only one they have won in the past 40 years.

There was a Fullerton-Long Beach Super Regional in 2017 and Fullerton made the CWS again in 2018. The Big West had a bad year in 2019, but I wouldn't count Fullerton or the BWC out just yet.

Pepperdine, Wichita State, and Rice have fallen off pretty hard, though, and you're not seeing any mid-majors take their place except for maybe East Carolina. Even then, they haven't been able to turn hosting regionals into a CWS trip.

(07-05-2020 11:28 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:17 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:29 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would almost argue the AAC, in men's basketball, is the most "under performing conference in the nation by insane leaps and bounds," relatively speaking. Hugely disappointing thus far.

Conversely, AAC football has, to an extent, overachieved. And I remain very pleased with AAC baseball.

how has the aac been disappointing in basketball?? when the aac was formed we were projected as the 7th best basketball conference...we are the 7th best conference ..what has been disappointing about that

honestly the aac has put a basketball product on the floor, things like ncaa sanctions (smu/memphis) injuries (like usf/memphis last year) and committee disrespect (which was bad the 1st 3 years, but has now improved) havent been great...but the actual basketball product has been good.. the sole thing thats been missing is a deep tourney by 1 team..the aac is just missing a vill..but like i noted earlier the committee disrespect the 1st 3years was bad..giving multiple 30 win aac teams 6 or lower seeds (hurting their chances to advance)..also the aac has gotten better every year..every aac has atleast 1 4star on roster, all but ecu have are a top 200 net team

also not getting how football has "over achieved"..aac football has barely scratched the surfac , nowhere near its potential....an example: ucf has been dominating with 3star and transfers..they are located in florida..ucf is a relatively new brand, when the recognition sets in theyll sonn be pulling 4stars from location alone..(similar example can be made for usf, houston, smu etc.)

Not to speak for Bill, but I’m guessing based on expectations. My own line up that way for the conference and specifically Memphis. Never would have guessed they’d be in the NY6 or even in the conversation over multiple years. Conversely, never would have thought the Tigers would be out of tourney contention over multiple years.

BTW, Pesik nice links debunking some wrong assumptions in the thread. To me, an easy example of major/mid, power/non power, have/have nots...whatever you want to label it can be found within the Memphis AD. Budget, fanbase (both donations and attendance), facilities, market penetration, media coverage, scheduling, staff (ability to poach from “power” conferences) are inline with major basketball programs. For football, the Tigers while currently near the top of the mids are clearly G5. One of the most telling and important drivers for the future is how recruits regard programs. While a few football commits use the P6 terminology, most wear it like chips on shoulders to show they’ve been “slept on.” In contrast, bball prospects and commits talk differently in interviews... in the same terms as major programs. Bball regularly generates interest from 5* McD AA type players while the fball team lives off of 3*. As such, it’s no surprise that Memphis has brought in top 5 recruiting classes under multiple coaches in multiple conferences. As long as this continues (not necessarily top 5), the program will keep chugging along. Media driving perception plays a big part by including the Tigers alongside “power” programs in articles, segments, blogs, interviews...and the kids buy in. It‘s much easier to maintain a program with media tailwinds (bball) than build one trying to push through media headwinds (fball).

it would make sense if he was just talking from a memphis perspective..like you noted memphis was horrible in football, so them being good as theyve been is an over achievement...and memphis fans have unrealsitically high basketball expectations (probably more than they should), so theysd consider it a disappointment

but conference wide, i think the aac has been fine in basketball...uconn is the only team that always came in with high expectations (and great recruiting classes) throughout their tenure and constantly ended up horrible ..if you had "realistic" expectations the aac hasnt been a disappointment

and to your last paragragh..yeah the aac is in the have-nots in football..but i think a really interesting landscape change could happen if they expand the playoffs and aac teams have a legitimate chance at a title

(07-05-2020 11:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Of course, deep-historically, things were much different. In the early days of the tournament, the 1940s - 1970s, the Big 10 actually produced several champs, and the PAC was utterly dominant. USC is easily the all-time leader with 12 national titles (the PAC has 18 total, not 27), but hasn't won one in 22 years, and that 1998 title is the only one they have won in the past 40 years.

The PAC-12 claims 29 national championships in baseball, but it has actually won 24 national championships. Arizona State won four and Arizona won one before joining the Pac-8 in 1978, where it became the PAC-10. From 1957 to 1981, the PAC-8, Arizona State and Arizona combined to win 18 national championships in 25 years.

(07-05-2020 11:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  These were Baseball’s RPI Rankings last year
http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2019/conferencerpi
1) SEC
2) XII
3) ACC
4) PAC
5) AAC
6) MVC
7) B1G
8) MWC
9) WCC
10) SBELT

Big Ten wasn’t even the baseball conference in its traditional footprint.

Yes, but baseball is so top heavy - the SEC, PAC, ACC, and Big 12 dominate so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter. The SEC often gets 10 bids.

Yeah I know Coastal won the title a few years ago, but basically you can set your watch by it, the champ is going to come from the SEC, PAC, Big 12, or ACC.

Quo,

Let me politely correct you, using your own words:

"The SEC dominates so strongly, that whoever comes next doesn't really matter."

Since 1990, eight of the 14 current SEC teams have played in the championship series. Since 1947, 10 of the 14 have.

As we arrogant and bombastic SEC fans like to say ... "The SEC. It just means more."

On a serious note, the Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 are damn strong. And the AAC has lots of programs with quality histories. The Big West has been rather fine, too, but does seem to have taken a bit of a step back the past few years.

I believe the Pac-12 leads with 27 all-time titles.

I'd say the biggest development the past decade or so has been the decline of the non-PAC California schools. Up until then, schools like Fullerton, Pepperdine, and Fresno often produced national title contenders and the occasional winner. They were a major fly in the Power conference ointment.

But since Fresno won the 2008 title, that just hasn't happened. These schools have fallen from the ranks.

Of course, deep-historically, things were much different. In the early days of the tournament, the 1940s - 1970s, the Big 10 actually produced several champs, and the PAC was utterly dominant. USC is easily the all-time leader with 12 national titles (the PAC has 18 total, not 27), but hasn't won one in 22 years, and that 1998 title is the only one they have won in the past 40 years.

The Big West sending a representative to the College World Series four straight years from 2014-2017 is considered a decline? UC Irvine also has two CWS appearances in the last 15 years (2007, 2014).

Louisville enjoyed much success in the 2010s. Their only real blemish was Cal State Fullerton and UC Santa Barbara knocking them out in back to back super regionals.

Two years of being a one bid league (and even in 2018, Fullerton was hosting a super regional) does not signify a decline. 2020 was looking like two definite bids and a good chance for three.

(07-05-2020 11:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:02 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

The media may not have considered it a tweener football conference but lot of fair-minded and reasonable college sports fans I knew and talked to back in the day did (to an extent). They perceived the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s as "overwhelmingly basketball" with extremely so-so football.

True, the SEC was strongly football during that time. But I seem to recall it had far more success in basketball than the ACC did in football. Maybe I'm wrong.

To be fair, "tweener" might be a bit unfair a word to use. But I recall being a tad surprised myself when GaTech and Clemson won it all back then — as the Big 8, SEC, SWC and Big Ten simply "seemed" so much better.

I'm hoping we see multiple ACC football programs (UNC among them, of course) emerge in the next few years. The league needs that.

Maybe the ACC fans didn't consider it a tweener conference, but it was embarrassing to lose to an ACC team if you were in one of the major conferences.

ACC was still considered FSU and a bunch of WAC like schools in the 90s. In the 80s considering them a tweener was fair. In the 90s, they were a lot better than their reputation.

Going back to the 80's there wasn't a tweener in the context like we think today.

Division 1-A was set up to be a major division for major schools. The real "tweener" conference was the MAC. It was a 1-A/1-AA tweener. Tweener status was reserved for the borderline 1-A programs.

WAC was like BE 2.0 where they were a major conference but on the margins of that definition. They were regarded to be on a completely different level than the Big West. It wasn't like how things were around 2010 when the MWC and WAC were considered to be basically non-AQ peer conferences out west.

(07-03-2020 09:29 AM)pesik Wrote:  so you recommend temple sacrifices football, what makes by far the most money in college athletics, to leave a multi-bid basketball league where temple has already made the tourney multiple times, just to go join a slightly better multi-bid conference

Good point. It wouldn't be in Temple's best interest to join the Big East. If the Big East were to invite them, Temple would reject the invitation.

The main reason is, as you've pointed out, the AAC is a terrific FB conference, and FB drives the bus in college sports.

In addition, the AAC is quite a good basketball conference - it is classified as one of the Major 7 MBB conferences, and is one of the few conferences to receive multiple NCAA bids every year since its inception.

(07-05-2020 11:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:02 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:16 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  So you don't know what people thought in 1981. The ACC was viewed as perhaps the top basketball conference, but a tweener football conference. So you didn't expect a championship team from there. Up until around 1975 or so, the SWC was viewed as one of the top football conferences but a tweener basketball conference. When Houston joined, they all started taking basketball seriously.

Perfectly put. I recall these days well.

The ACC was not considered a tweener football conference, go back and read publications from the time. However, the WAC was, and BYU winning the title was a shock. Clemson and Georgia Tech winning wasn’t a surprise.

The media may not have considered it a tweener football conference but lot of fair-minded and reasonable college sports fans I knew and talked to back in the day did (to an extent). They perceived the ACC in the 1970s and 1980s as "overwhelmingly basketball" with extremely so-so football.

True, the SEC was strongly football during that time. But I seem to recall it had far more success in basketball than the ACC did in football. Maybe I'm wrong.

To be fair, "tweener" might be a bit unfair a word to use. But I recall being a tad surprised myself when GaTech and Clemson won it all back then — as the Big 8, SEC, SWC and Big Ten simply "seemed" so much better.

I'm hoping we see multiple ACC football programs (UNC among them, of course) emerge in the next few years. The league needs that.

Maybe the ACC fans didn't consider it a tweener conference, but it was embarrassing to lose to an ACC team if you were in one of the major conferences.

ACC was still considered FSU and a bunch of WAC like schools in the 90s. In the 80s considering them a tweener was fair. In the 90s, they were a lot better than their reputation.

Funny you say that, because mighty Alabama’s coach at the time disagrees. I think we can say the conversation stops there.

From 1985:

Coach Ray Perkins, preparing his Alabama team for tonight's Aloha Bowl, said he would like to see the four major New Year's Day bowls serve as first-round games leading to a "College Super Bowl."The eight teams eligible for the national title would include the champions from six major conferences -- Big Ten, Pac-10, Big Eight, Atlantic Coast, Southwest and Southeastern -- and the two highest-ranked independents or "non-major" conference teams.