(09-04-2021 10:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So is the new AAC still a multi bid league in men’s basketball? I have to admit, I don’t follow the sport that closely. Wich St, Memphis and Temple are usually pretty good and Tulsa is usually a bubble school. Is that still the case?

I imagine they will at least be solid enough where they will at least have a team on the bubble. They probably get 1-2 bids a year. More often two than one but one bid years will be common, just a guess. A lot will depend on Memphis, Wichita, and Temple.

And schools like Dayton, St Louis, and VCU probably can’t be lured in, can they?

(09-04-2021 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2021 09:26 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  One thing to consider in all this is that "Counting bids" doesn't really work to predict future strength, because conference play is a zero-sum game.

The main thing to look at is the overall win percentages of programs as a group before/after; because if you're winning non-conference games at the same clip before/after, the only thing that changes is WHO gets your conferences' usual average number of bids.

The best example of this was when Xavier, Butler, Temple and Charlotte left the A-10. Everyone counted bids and said the A-10 would become a one-bid league. But Charlotte wasn't great in the A-10, Temple always played a hard OOC schedule, and so VCU, Mason and Davidson could maintain the same OOC win percentage the A-10 always had. With the RPI/NET math the same OOC, the THIRD PLACE A-10 team was in the exact same spot. Someone's going 13-5 and being on the bubble. Instead of Dayton being third to Xavier/Temple, it just became St. Bonaventure/Rhode Island/Davidson being third to Dayton/VCU and the A-10 has been getting 2.9 bids per season, just like they always have. Their NCAA win totals went down a smidge, because Xavier would win a game or two every year and Bona is only 1-2 in their NCAA trips.


In conference play in 2020, the Big XII went 90-90 overall in conference play. Texas and Oklahoma went 18-18 combined.
Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and BYU (in their conferences) went a combined 46-24 that year.

But the New Big XII cannot go a 118-96 in conference play. They HAVE TO GO 108-108.

They'll be about the same in terms of ratio. Maybe one more bid per year by virtue of having 12 teams instead of 10.

The AAC will probably get close to the same number of bids, unless the remaining teams are too close to each other and beat each other up, but they'll lose units from NCAA wins as Houston and Cincy have won more games in the dance than their replacements probably will.

I don’t believe it’s that simple because the A-10 was very purposeful in replacing Xavier et. al with the best basketball programs available to them. The quality drop off didn’t happen because they intentionally looked for basketball quality in replacements. For the AAC, they’re likely thinking football first and, frankly, none of the realistic football options are not great basketball programs to say the least. The AAC is replacing two excellent historical basketball programs (Cincinnati and Houston) and another school that was good enough to make the NCAA Tournament and took Duke and Zion Williamson down to the wire 2 years ago (UCF). That’s a *massive* hit from a hoops standpoint and there simply aren’t any FBS schools that have anywhere close to the basketball programs in place to replace them. The only basketball programs of any value that would conceivably be available are non-FBS schools in the A-10, but the AAC has now become way less attractive to them. I actually have more faith in the AAC doing enough in football to be the #6 league (which would mean a playoff berth in the expanded CFP in most years) than them being a consistent multi-bid basketball league.

They (the AAC) could go after WKU, who is good historically, but has been really bad recently. WKU could serve to bridge some gaps in the AAC, if it's a big concern. The AAC could go after a football project in ODU.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(09-04-2021 12:35 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-04-2021 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2021 09:26 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  One thing to consider in all this is that "Counting bids" doesn't really work to predict future strength, because conference play is a zero-sum game.

The main thing to look at is the overall win percentages of programs as a group before/after; because if you're winning non-conference games at the same clip before/after, the only thing that changes is WHO gets your conferences' usual average number of bids.

The best example of this was when Xavier, Butler, Temple and Charlotte left the A-10. Everyone counted bids and said the A-10 would become a one-bid league. But Charlotte wasn't great in the A-10, Temple always played a hard OOC schedule, and so VCU, Mason and Davidson could maintain the same OOC win percentage the A-10 always had. With the RPI/NET math the same OOC, the THIRD PLACE A-10 team was in the exact same spot. Someone's going 13-5 and being on the bubble. Instead of Dayton being third to Xavier/Temple, it just became St. Bonaventure/Rhode Island/Davidson being third to Dayton/VCU and the A-10 has been getting 2.9 bids per season, just like they always have. Their NCAA win totals went down a smidge, because Xavier would win a game or two every year and Bona is only 1-2 in their NCAA trips.


In conference play in 2020, the Big XII went 90-90 overall in conference play. Texas and Oklahoma went 18-18 combined.
Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and BYU (in their conferences) went a combined 46-24 that year.

But the New Big XII cannot go a 118-96 in conference play. They HAVE TO GO 108-108.

They'll be about the same in terms of ratio. Maybe one more bid per year by virtue of having 12 teams instead of 10.

The AAC will probably get close to the same number of bids, unless the remaining teams are too close to each other and beat each other up, but they'll lose units from NCAA wins as Houston and Cincy have won more games in the dance than their replacements probably will.

I don’t believe it’s that simple because the A-10 was very purposeful in replacing Xavier et. al with the best basketball programs available to them. The quality drop off didn’t happen because they intentionally looked for basketball quality in replacements. For the AAC, they’re likely thinking football first and, frankly, none of the realistic football options are not great basketball programs to say the least. The AAC is replacing two excellent historical basketball programs (Cincinnati and Houston) and another school that was good enough to make the NCAA Tournament and took Duke and Zion Williamson down to the wire 2 years ago (UCF). That’s a *massive* hit from a hoops standpoint and there simply aren’t any FBS schools that have anywhere close to the basketball programs in place to replace them. The only basketball programs of any value that would conceivably be available are non-FBS schools in the A-10, but the AAC has now become way less attractive to them. I actually have more faith in the AAC doing enough in football to be the #6 league (which would mean a playoff berth in the expanded CFP in most years) than them being a consistent multi-bid basketball league.

They (the AAC) could go after WKU, who is good historically, but has been really bad recently. WKU could serve to bridge some gaps in the AAC, if it's a big concern. The AAC could go after a football project in ODU.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

We haven't made the tournament recently, but havent been bad (made last three Conference championship games). Off the top of my head we have beaten Memphis, west Virginia, Purdue, Boston college, usc, Oklahoma state, Wisconsin, Arkansas (twice), Alabama, and more within the past 4-5 seasons.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

The AAC still has five "all-time top 75" hoops programs — Memphis, SMU, Temple, Tulsa and Wichita — around which to build. The challenge (and perhaps "problem" is the better word) is that there is no other program of equal hoops value that would make sense.

The "best" is UAB, which has enjoyed some quality basketball seasons and offers a decent fan base and a degree of national respect.

UMass has a very respectable history but I doubt the university would be interested in joining the AAC at this point.

Western Kentucky has a outstanding history and passionate fan base — and, we would assume, would gladly accept an invite. But I struggle to see the AAC being interested in WKU.

Marshall offers an underrated basketball program.

A program I would be pleased to see join Memphis is Charlotte. Improving football. Big city. A history with Memphis.

The reality is that the AAC additions will be strongly for football and hoops will become, to an extent, an afterthought. As such, I foresee the future of the league as being "two-bid" (if that).

(09-03-2021 04:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  While football drives the realignment bus, the money to be earned from NCAAT units is not insignificant, especially if the per school media payouts are in the range they are projected to be going forward.

Over the last six NCAA tournaments, the B12 earned more units per member than any other conference (9.1 to the ACC's 7.7). If you subtract the units earned by OU and UT (17) and add the units earned by BYU, Houston, Cincy and UCF (22) that average would drop a bit, to 8.0, but still would lead the NCAA.

The AAC earned 29 units during that time, but if you subtract the 22 from the three defectors and the 2 from UConn which left before the last tournament, you only have 5 units (the least a conference could have is 6). Nobody they are likely to backfill with is going to impact hoops very much.

So the remaining schools in the AAC could stand to lose as much or more from their NCAA units (between $6-7 million per year) as they would from a reduced media contract at their next renewal.


EDIT: My faulty logic. The AAC would lose close to $7 million a year, but individual members would lose $700K if they have 10 members. So not nearly as bad as I just said, but not small potatoes if their media payouts drop into the $2-3 million range.

Totally hypothetical as still a lot in play here and the AAC is in name/brand still better than other conferences and probably won't completely drop off the face of the earth, what I would like to see:

If AAC folds:

Wichita State, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU to MVC
Temple A-10
USF, Tulane C-USA
Can't decide where ECU would go

AAC holds on:

Add Georgia State, App State, Western Kentucky, Marshall, ODU and UAB

Big East should've already added St. Louis.

(09-04-2021 04:04 PM)Realignment Wrote:  Big East should've already added St. Louis.

#truth

(09-04-2021 04:04 PM)Realignment Wrote:  Big East should've already added St. Louis.

Why? Not needed. I'd take UMass over St. Louis.

(09-04-2021 08:23 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  You are right. It’s never additive. You can never just say the incoming teams would have performed the same in the new league as they did in their old league. But here are the Top 7 each year in KenPom in terms of strength…

It's going to be a beast of a conference in basketball.

Yeah, but Ken Pom and other metrics like NET/RPI, etc are all SCHEDULE DEPENDENT. You get your numbers based on who you play, and 2/3rds of your schedule is your conference. Every conference goes .500 against itself in those games, so all that "matters" to the strength of the league is your OOC win percentage as a group, and then how conference standings fall relative to "best OOC resume."

(09-04-2021 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t believe it’s that simple because the A-10 was very purposeful in replacing Xavier et. al with the best basketball programs available to them. The quality drop off didn’t happen because they intentionally looked for basketball quality in replacements. For the AAC, they’re likely thinking football first and, frankly, none of the realistic football options are not great basketball programs to say the least. The AAC is replacing two excellent historical basketball programs (Cincinnati and Houston) and another school that was good enough to make the NCAA Tournament and took Duke and Zion Williamson down to the wire 2 years ago (UCF). That’s a *massive* hit from a hoops standpoint and there simply aren’t any FBS schools that have anywhere close to the basketball programs in place to replace them. The only basketball programs of any value that would conceivably be available are non-FBS schools in the A-10, but the AAC has now become way less attractive to them. I actually have more faith in the AAC doing enough in football to be the #6 league (which would mean a playoff berth in the expanded CFP in most years) than them being a consistent multi-bid basketball league.

The quality will definitely drop a bit losing Houston, Cincinnati... but it's offset by ALSO losing UCF, who's only been 131-114 as an AAC member. (Much like the A-10 losing Xavier, Temple AND CHARLOTTE. It was the loss of Charlotte that allowed VCU, Davidson and Mason to easily match the same OOC performance).

Yes, UCF had a couple very good years in the AAC, but on average they've been mid pack in the AAC. They'll get a lot better in the Big 12, I'm sure (talent wise, but could be worse record wise without ECU/Tulane to beat).

Like I said, Wichita State, Memphis, Temple and SMU will perform the same as they usually do OOC, but also be a couple games better. For example, Memphis lost to Houston twice last year and settled for the NIT. So if they bring in someone with good football, mediocre basketball to replace Houston, Memphis becomes two games better and probably lands on the right side of the bubble.

(09-04-2021 10:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So is the new AAC still a multi bid league in men’s basketball? I have to admit, I don’t follow the sport that closely. Wich St, Memphis and Temple are usually pretty good and Tulsa is usually a bubble school. Is that still the case?

Absolutely a multi-bid league. They'll probably average 2.25 to 2.5 bids per year instead of 2.75 or 3.0 like before.

They'll definitely gone from "Bad year 2 bids / Good Year 5 bids" to "Bad year 1 bid, Good year 4 bids."

What makes them able to still be good is the high level status compared to like 20 other conferences. Tulane is using their AAC money to go 8-4 in non-conference play, beating SWAC/Southland teams.

UAB isn't a final four team like Houston was... but UAB's overall basketball record is still very good, as it's always been. They were in a "one bid league" because of the Conference math -- C-USA had too many bad teams for C-USA to get multiple bids even though they have five good teams. The AAC is going to have 6 good programs who can compete for NCAA bids and the top half of those six will be in the mix for NCAA bids.

New Big 12 Final Four Appearances:

Kansas = 15
Okla St, Cincy, Houston = 6

There are only 15 schools with at least 6 Final Fours, and the new Big 12 has four of them. ACC also has four (UNC, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse) as does the Big 10 (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio St, Mich St).

Kansas St = 4
Baylor = 3
West Va = 2
Texas Tech, Iowa St = 1

BYU, TCU and UCF have not made it.

Replaced 8 Final Fours (Texas and OU) with 12 (Houston & Cincy).

**********
Memphis has made 3 (with 2 vacated) while Boise has not made it.

I could see WKU for the American. (I think UAB is a lock.)

Is there really another great football program to add? I don't know. If not, then why not look for basketball help?

WKU basketball is good, and it has fan support. Anything to put another burr under Calipari's saddle is always good. It would keep the pressure up on Louisville and the Cincinnati schools to perform or lose recruits. Kids in that area know the American teams. Do we throw that away or capitalize on it?

The location is really good. As Nashville continues to explode there will be more opportunities in Bowling Green. Sitting between Louisville and Nashville is a great place to be right now.

And besides, a road trip to Bowling Green means driving the Vette to see it's birthplace.

(09-04-2021 03:02 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(09-04-2021 12:35 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-04-2021 10:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2021 09:26 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  One thing to consider in all this is that "Counting bids" doesn't really work to predict future strength, because conference play is a zero-sum game.

The main thing to look at is the overall win percentages of programs as a group before/after; because if you're winning non-conference games at the same clip before/after, the only thing that changes is WHO gets your conferences' usual average number of bids.

The best example of this was when Xavier, Butler, Temple and Charlotte left the A-10. Everyone counted bids and said the A-10 would become a one-bid league. But Charlotte wasn't great in the A-10, Temple always played a hard OOC schedule, and so VCU, Mason and Davidson could maintain the same OOC win percentage the A-10 always had. With the RPI/NET math the same OOC, the THIRD PLACE A-10 team was in the exact same spot. Someone's going 13-5 and being on the bubble. Instead of Dayton being third to Xavier/Temple, it just became St. Bonaventure/Rhode Island/Davidson being third to Dayton/VCU and the A-10 has been getting 2.9 bids per season, just like they always have. Their NCAA win totals went down a smidge, because Xavier would win a game or two every year and Bona is only 1-2 in their NCAA trips.


In conference play in 2020, the Big XII went 90-90 overall in conference play. Texas and Oklahoma went 18-18 combined.
Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and BYU (in their conferences) went a combined 46-24 that year.

But the New Big XII cannot go a 118-96 in conference play. They HAVE TO GO 108-108.

They'll be about the same in terms of ratio. Maybe one more bid per year by virtue of having 12 teams instead of 10.

The AAC will probably get close to the same number of bids, unless the remaining teams are too close to each other and beat each other up, but they'll lose units from NCAA wins as Houston and Cincy have won more games in the dance than their replacements probably will.

I don’t believe it’s that simple because the A-10 was very purposeful in replacing Xavier et. al with the best basketball programs available to them. The quality drop off didn’t happen because they intentionally looked for basketball quality in replacements. For the AAC, they’re likely thinking football first and, frankly, none of the realistic football options are not great basketball programs to say the least. The AAC is replacing two excellent historical basketball programs (Cincinnati and Houston) and another school that was good enough to make the NCAA Tournament and took Duke and Zion Williamson down to the wire 2 years ago (UCF). That’s a *massive* hit from a hoops standpoint and there simply aren’t any FBS schools that have anywhere close to the basketball programs in place to replace them. The only basketball programs of any value that would conceivably be available are non-FBS schools in the A-10, but the AAC has now become way less attractive to them. I actually have more faith in the AAC doing enough in football to be the #6 league (which would mean a playoff berth in the expanded CFP in most years) than them being a consistent multi-bid basketball league.

They (the AAC) could go after WKU, who is good historically, but has been really bad recently. WKU could serve to bridge some gaps in the AAC, if it's a big concern. The AAC could go after a football project in ODU.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

We haven't made the tournament recently, but havent been bad (made last three Conference championship games). Off the top of my head we have beaten Memphis, west Virginia, Purdue, Boston college, usc, Oklahoma state, Wisconsin, Arkansas (twice), Alabama, and more within the past 4-5 seasons.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Define recent and really bad? In addition to the notable recent wins above, WKU's last 4 seasons have been 20 win seasons. Going back the last 10 seasons WKU's worst record was 16-19 in 2011-12.

You are correct that we have been good historically. Below are some highlights of WKU men's bball performance.

-43 conference titles - 3rd in NCAA history (trailing KU & UK)
-47 twenty win seasons - 7th in NCAA history
-66.1% winning percentage - 8th in NCAA history
-1835+ wins - 17th in NCAA history
-23 NCAA Tournament appearances
-7 NCAA Sweet Sixteen appearances ('60 '62 '66 '71 '78 '93 '08)