(01-14-2024 10:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The biggest surprise is the MAC being all the way down at #24. There's a certain member who's posted hundreds of times how the MAC can take A-10/MVC schools willy-nilly.

Stick the top 3 of the A10/MVC from this week and place them in the MAC.

17 Dayton
30 Indiana St
64 Drake
72 Bradley
76 George Mason
78 St. Bonaventure

There you go....

(01-15-2024 10:00 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Southern Conference #13. Very underrated conference with solid hoops. Had an opportunity last year to attend the SoCon Tournament in Asheville - just a few hours drive my house. Very impressed with the quality hoops they play. Good for them.

They usually play some good ball in the SoCon. I need to go check out Samford this season, they're having a pretty good year. Western Carolina is another team that's surprised this year.

(01-15-2024 08:48 PM)Mid-Major Hoops Enthusiast Wrote:  

(01-15-2024 06:31 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  A10's season is interesting - they have Dayton at 17 in the NET, then the 2nd highest school is George Mason at 76th. Then you have a bunch of other teams in the 70s/80s/90s. A lot of solid teams, but if Dayton wins the A10 tournament, there's a good shot it's a one bid league.

Shows how broken the current system is.

NCAA Committee has consistently found a way to move the goal posts away from the mid majors by tweeking the selection formula.

(01-15-2024 10:04 PM)Frank Grimes Wrote:  

(01-15-2024 10:00 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Southern Conference #13. Very underrated conference with solid hoops. Had an opportunity last year to attend the SoCon Tournament in Asheville - just a few hours drive from my house. Very impressed with the quality hoops they play. Good for them.

They usually play some good ball in the SoCon. I need to go check out Samford this season, they're having a pretty good year. Western Carolina is another team that's surprised this year.

The arena in Asheville was around 7,000 capacity and the attendance was solid each session - the chip game was the best of course. Not a bad seat anywhere you sat. Furman won it last year.

(01-15-2024 10:04 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 10:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The biggest surprise is the MAC being all the way down at #24. There's a certain member who's posted hundreds of times how the MAC can take A-10/MVC schools willy-nilly.

Stick the top 3 of the A10/MVC from this week and place them in the MAC.

17 Dayton
30 Indiana St
64 Drake
72 Bradley
76 George Mason
78 St. Bonaventure

There you go....

Their NET all drop because they are now playing a MAC schedule.

Indeed, that is why they would fight tooth and nail against being forced to join the MAC

For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

(01-16-2024 08:08 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-15-2024 10:04 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 10:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The biggest surprise is the MAC being all the way down at #24. There's a certain member who's posted hundreds of times how the MAC can take A-10/MVC schools willy-nilly.

Stick the top 3 of the A10/MVC from this week and place them in the MAC.

17 Dayton
30 Indiana St
64 Drake
72 Bradley
76 George Mason
78 St. Bonaventure

There you go....

Their NET all drop because they are now playing a MAC schedule.

Indeed, that is why they would fight tooth and nail against being forced to join the MAC

They'll take the TV money anyways.

(01-16-2024 08:08 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-15-2024 10:04 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 10:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The biggest surprise is the MAC being all the way down at #24. There's a certain member who's posted hundreds of times how the MAC can take A-10/MVC schools willy-nilly.

Stick the top 3 of the A10/MVC from this week and place them in the MAC.

17 Dayton
30 Indiana St
64 Drake
72 Bradley
76 George Mason
78 St. Bonaventure

There you go....

Their NET all drop because they are now playing a MAC schedule.

Indeed, that is why they would fight tooth and nail against being forced to join the MAC

Bonaventure's NET is so low because they've played 3 MAC teams.

(01-16-2024 10:02 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

I agree with all this. I just remember that, 10 - 11 years ago when the split happened, many AAC fans around here (I'm not referring to you, btw) thought that the AAC had gotten at least as much of the hoops power as had the new Big East, and there were predictions from some that the AAC would be the stronger hoops conference.

(01-16-2024 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 10:02 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

I agree with all this. I just remember that, 10 - 11 years ago when the split happened, many AAC fans around here (I'm not referring to you, btw) thought that the AAC had gotten at least as much of the hoops power as had the new Big East, and there were predictions from some that the AAC would be the stronger hoops conference.

I recall those posts, too (I started reading this board in about 2011 or so). That mindset was likely spurred by many pro-AAC posters thinking that the "upper half" of the then-new AAC (lets say, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis and Temple) would be as strong as the upper half of the then-newly-constituted Big East (say, Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova and Creighton). And though not a bad prediction (and even understandable), the posters with that mindset failed to take into account the advantages the reinvented Big East would have in relation to the AAC: 1. "institutional chemistry/fit/cohesion"; 2. a much stronger bottom half; 3. not having to worry about football.

In addition, many of those posters failed to consider the potential for UConn to falter due to a loss of its long-time rivals and a bad geographic fit. They simply, and wrongly, assumed UConn would stay powerful.

Lastly, that pro-AAC mindset also was likely the result of some insecurity, particularly from some posters who are fans of AAC programs that have not had lots of national success in men's hoops. In short, those fans contended on this board that the AAC would be as good, if not better, than the BE because they wanted that to be the case rather than because (had that actually given it unbiased and reasonable consideration) they sincerely thought that would be the case.

On this theme, I continue to take note (10 years into this) of the following:

1. How strong the Big East has remained despite long-standing problems with St. John's and your Hoya program (problems that are now both seemingly fixed with strong coaching hires).

2. How Temple, Wichita and Tulsa men's hoops have been harmed — seemingly due, in large part, to AAC membership.

3. How some posters (and clearly not you, QV) either fail to recognize or choose not to acknowledge the long-times ties and similarities with the AAC and the Big East (i.e., some programs in both leagues having previously shared conference homes, both leagues offering universities locate primarily in large cities and neither conference being considered a true "big boy" by the all-sports P4 types while, still, commanding a solid level of all-round respect). There truly is some overlap between the two leagues.

4. (and related to Point No. 2) How Memphis hoops could be hurt (and I fear possible gravely so) by AAC affiliation (though the league is great, in many respects, for Tiger football).

(01-15-2024 01:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 11:27 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-14-2024 10:21 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The biggest surprise is the MAC being all the way down at #24. There's a certain member who's posted hundreds of times how the MAC can take A-10/MVC schools willy-nilly.

The second biggest surprise is the Big South all the way up at #17. That's likely their highest ranking ever.

Six MAC teams are below 250 in NET presently. Buffalo being the surprising shocker of an anchor in the bottom 20. I feel bad for the better MAC teams that they can never seemingly get a good sniff of the at-large pool, remote as it tends to be. The bottom of the conference, though…and this year, it’s half the teams?

Half the teams, similar to the final NET from last year (NIU 252 down to WMU 353). Perhaps some of the MAC schools are putting all of their limited NIL into Football, and nothing into Basketball.

Back in 2021-22, MAC had seven teams with a NET ranking below 250, but none between 150-250. So, it was either ok/good, or just bad. This year, it’s six below 250, four in that 150-250 range, and then Akron and Toledo at the top.

BG could be okay, but that non-conference schedule is an anchor.

(01-16-2024 04:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 10:02 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

I agree with all this. I just remember that, 10 - 11 years ago when the split happened, many AAC fans around here (I'm not referring to you, btw) thought that the AAC had gotten at least as much of the hoops power as had the new Big East, and there were predictions from some that the AAC would be the stronger hoops conference.

I recall those posts, too (I started reading this board in about 2011 or so). That mindset was likely spurred by many pro-AAC posters thinking that the "upper half" of the then-new AAC (lets say, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis and Temple) would be as strong as the upper half of the then-newly-constituted Big East (say, Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova and Creighton). And though not a bad prediction (and even understandable), the posters with that mindset failed to take into account the advantages the reinvented Big East would have in relation to the AAC: 1. "institutional chemistry/fit/cohesion"; 2. a much stronger bottom half; 3. not having to worry about football.

In addition, many of those posters failed to consider the potential for UConn to falter due to a loss of its long-time rivals and a bad geographic fit. They simply, and wrongly, assumed UConn would stay powerful.

Lastly, that pro-AAC mindset also was likely the result of some insecurity, particularly from some posters who are fans of AAC programs that have not had lots of national success in men's hoops. In short, those fans contended on this board that the AAC would be as good, if not better, than the BE because they wanted that to be the case rather than because (had that actually given it unbiased and reasonable consideration) they sincerely thought that would be the case.

On this theme, I continue to take note (10 years into this) of the following:

1. How strong the Big East has remained despite long-standing problems with St. John's and your Hoya program (problems that are now both seemingly fixed with strong coaching hires).

2. How Temple, Wichita and Tulsa men's hoops have been harmed — seemingly due, in large part, to AAC membership.

3. How some posters (and clearly not you, QV) either fail to recognize or choose not to acknowledge the long-times ties and similarities with the AAC and the Big East (i.e., some programs in both leagues having previously shared conference homes, both leagues offering universities locate primarily in large cities and neither conference being considered a true "big boy" by the all-sports P4 types while, still, commanding a solid level of all-round respect). There truly is some overlap between the two leagues.

4. (and related to Point No. 2) How Memphis hoops could be hurt (and I fear possible gravely so) by AAC affiliation (though the league is great, in many respects, for Tiger football).

FWIW, I don't think conferences hurt hoops very much. E.g., in the 1970s and 1980s, UNLV was in a minor conference but was a major power. Memphis has themselves been in relatively weak leagues in the past (2000s, I believe) but has had significant hoops success. Gonzaga has had major success the past 20 years despite being in a weak league.

IMO Memphis will remain fine hoops-wise. The AAC though seems to be going from mediocre to just plain bad.

The Big West season did hurt UNLV one season, iirc. Being ranked and still not getting the bid. That was a different era for the Big West, though, and it tended to be good for more than just UNLV bid-wise. Most seasons. Before WAC ballooning.

Memphis post-Big East raid of CUSA, though…I do remember questions about Memphis when they wouldn’t necessarily destroy the tournament. There definitely were criticisms about that conference hurting their potential legitimacy.

(01-17-2024 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... FWIW, I don't think conferences hurt hoops very much. E.g., in the 1970s and 1980s, UNLV was in a minor conference but was a major power. ...

Isn't that why they changed the formula from RPI to NET, because for those who were effective at gaming RPI, conferences didn't hurt hoops "enough" from the perspective of the "power" conferences?

One thing about hoops, though, has been that a conference that adopts an "eat what you kill" distribution approach for NCAA tourney units can end up with the top few schools getting a good share of the NCAA units revenue they generate for the conference -- which is why, for instance, the schools that would look at a 20%-30% share of the MAC distribution as an upgrade are exactly the schools that the MAC would not want from the A10 or MVC (which is kind of why KitCat's aka Garden_KC's MAC raiding MBB conferences fantasies have nothing to them).

It may be that NIL money undermines the effectiveness of that approach.

(01-17-2024 12:07 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-17-2024 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... FWIW, I don't think conferences hurt hoops very much. E.g., in the 1970s and 1980s, UNLV was in a minor conference but was a major power. ...

Isn't that why they changed the formula from RPI to NET, because for those who were effective at gaming RPI, conferences didn't hurt hoops "enough" from the perspective of the "power" conferences?

One thing about hoops, though, has been that a conference that adopts an "eat what you kill" distribution approach for NCAA tourney units can end up with the top few schools getting a good share of the NCAA units revenue they generate for the conference -- which is why, for instance, the schools that would look at a 20%-30% share of the MAC distribution as an upgrade are exactly the schools that the MAC would not want from the A10 or MVC (which is kind of why KitCat's aka Garden_KC's MAC raiding MBB conferences fantasies have nothing to them).

It may be that NIL money undermines the effectiveness of that approach.

This is a good point, and one I agree with. I think a school like UMass would benefit more from a CFP conference distribution and MAC membership vs eat-what-you kill hoops in the A10 and an Indy CFP paycheck. UMass has not killed nor eaten on the hardwood in a decade.


*To add to this, now that UDel is off the table perhaps Stony Brook should be looked at as a partner. Hofstra studied an FBS jump years ago, but instead opted to shutter their program. Hofstra would have been a better option than Stony Brook because they’d have brought a more competitive basketball program, but both of them get the MAC into the NYC area.

(01-17-2024 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 04:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 10:02 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

I agree with all this. I just remember that, 10 - 11 years ago when the split happened, many AAC fans around here (I'm not referring to you, btw) thought that the AAC had gotten at least as much of the hoops power as had the new Big East, and there were predictions from some that the AAC would be the stronger hoops conference.

I recall those posts, too (I started reading this board in about 2011 or so). That mindset was likely spurred by many pro-AAC posters thinking that the "upper half" of the then-new AAC (lets say, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis and Temple) would be as strong as the upper half of the then-newly-constituted Big East (say, Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova and Creighton). And though not a bad prediction (and even understandable), the posters with that mindset failed to take into account the advantages the reinvented Big East would have in relation to the AAC: 1. "institutional chemistry/fit/cohesion"; 2. a much stronger bottom half; 3. not having to worry about football.

In addition, many of those posters failed to consider the potential for UConn to falter due to a loss of its long-time rivals and a bad geographic fit. They simply, and wrongly, assumed UConn would stay powerful.

Lastly, that pro-AAC mindset also was likely the result of some insecurity, particularly from some posters who are fans of AAC programs that have not had lots of national success in men's hoops. In short, those fans contended on this board that the AAC would be as good, if not better, than the BE because they wanted that to be the case rather than because (had that actually given it unbiased and reasonable consideration) they sincerely thought that would be the case.

On this theme, I continue to take note (10 years into this) of the following:

1. How strong the Big East has remained despite long-standing problems with St. John's and your Hoya program (problems that are now both seemingly fixed with strong coaching hires).

2. How Temple, Wichita and Tulsa men's hoops have been harmed — seemingly due, in large part, to AAC membership.

3. How some posters (and clearly not you, QV) either fail to recognize or choose not to acknowledge the long-times ties and similarities with the AAC and the Big East (i.e., some programs in both leagues having previously shared conference homes, both leagues offering universities locate primarily in large cities and neither conference being considered a true "big boy" by the all-sports P4 types while, still, commanding a solid level of all-round respect). There truly is some overlap between the two leagues.

4. (and related to Point No. 2) How Memphis hoops could be hurt (and I fear possible gravely so) by AAC affiliation (though the league is great, in many respects, for Tiger football).

FWIW, I don't think conferences hurt hoops very much. E.g., in the 1970s and 1980s, UNLV was in a minor conference but was a major power. Memphis has themselves been in relatively weak leagues in the past (2000s, I believe) but has had significant hoops success. Gonzaga has had major success the past 20 years despite being in a weak league.

IMO Memphis will remain fine hoops-wise. The AAC though seems to be going from mediocre to just plain bad.

My concern is that, five to seven years from now, AAC men's basketball has transitioned from mediocre to downright bad. If that happens, Memphis hoops could easily be harmed — whether by a negative perception driven by the school's association with the league or self-inflicted wounds stemming from, in part, having to overcompensate for a bad AAC. Or both.

If, hypothetically, Memphis joined the Big East and simultaneously either dropped football or deemphasized it ala UConn, the Tiger hoops program would face a much more stable (and exciting) future.

So many folks on this board often praise Gonzaga for its great hoops program, noting the Zags have done well despite not being in a "power men's basketball league." And I give props. But Memphis (and San Diego State, for that matter) is trying to be "nationally relevant" (and I use that term loosely) in both football and men's basketball. That is extremely difficult to do when you are not a member of one of the four all-sports power leagues (though Louisville did it back during its C-USA days). Gonzaga has it easy compared to Memphis and SDSU (at least in some respects as, I admit, Gonzaga also has its challenges).

As to UNLV , when that school was nationally powerful in men's hoops, it put essentially nothing into football.

What Memphis is attempting to do now in both sports (i.e., trying to be "nationally relevant" with the hiring of Penny Hardaway and the $220 million football stadium upgrade) is a tough task. And very risky in that it might never yield a power league invite.

But at least my Tigers are associated with your fighting Bulls, QV. I like that.

(01-16-2024 04:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 10:02 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

I agree with all this. I just remember that, 10 - 11 years ago when the split happened, many AAC fans around here (I'm not referring to you, btw) thought that the AAC had gotten at least as much of the hoops power as had the new Big East, and there were predictions from some that the AAC would be the stronger hoops conference.

I recall those posts, too (I started reading this board in about 2011 or so). That mindset was likely spurred by many pro-AAC posters thinking that the "upper half" of the then-new AAC (lets say, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis and Temple) would be as strong as the upper half of the then-newly-constituted Big East (say, Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova and Creighton). And though not a bad prediction (and even understandable), the posters with that mindset failed to take into account the advantages the reinvented Big East would have in relation to the AAC: 1. "institutional chemistry/fit/cohesion"; 2. a much stronger bottom half; 3. not having to worry about football.

In addition, many of those posters failed to consider the potential for UConn to falter due to a loss of its long-time rivals and a bad geographic fit. They simply, and wrongly, assumed UConn would stay powerful.

Lastly, that pro-AAC mindset also was likely the result of some insecurity, particularly from some posters who are fans of AAC programs that have not had lots of national success in men's hoops. In short, those fans contended on this board that the AAC would be as good, if not better, than the BE because they wanted that to be the case rather than because (had that actually given it unbiased and reasonable consideration) they sincerely thought that would be the case.

On this theme, I continue to take note (10 years into this) of the following:

1. How strong the Big East has remained despite long-standing problems with St. John's and your Hoya program (problems that are now both seemingly fixed with strong coaching hires).

2. How Temple, Wichita and Tulsa men's hoops have been harmed — seemingly due, in large part, to AAC membership.

3. How some posters (and clearly not you, QV) either fail to recognize or choose not to acknowledge the long-times ties and similarities with the AAC and the Big East (i.e., some programs in both leagues having previously shared conference homes, both leagues offering universities locate primarily in large cities and neither conference being considered a true "big boy" by the all-sports P4 types while, still, commanding a solid level of all-round respect). There truly is some overlap between the two leagues.

4. (and related to Point No. 2) How Memphis hoops could be hurt (and I fear possible gravely so) by AAC affiliation (though the league is great, in many respects, for Tiger football).

all of this was a great read.

I think the easiest way to sum it up is the biblical "You can't serve two masters" thing. It's really hard to be very good at football AND basketball without insane resources.

When you're not a huge school with a huge budget, it's difficult to pay a football coach and a basketball coach the multi-millions each that's required to be competitive.

Butler was paying their last coach $1.6 million (total comp, not base) and he was 10th out of 11 Big East coaches.

The only AAC coaches making $1.6 million were Houston, SMU and Memphis.

(Hell, SIX coaches in the A-10 are about that much, the A-10 average is $1.4 million. The A-10 and American were vying for the position of next best conference behind the P5/BE, and the only reason the AAC is a tiny bit ahead was Kelvin Sampson and the NCAA committee just screwing over three A-10 teams for AAC teams with ridiculous choices. Go look at Tulsa over St. Bona in 2016 for example).


But I think it's not quite right to say that schools like Temple, Wichita St and Tulsa have been HARMED by the AAC. . It's not the AMERICAN affiliation that's doing any damage whatsoever. It's merely the circumstance they're in, which happens to take place in the American.

It's increasing their spending in football at the expense of basketball for some; and the conference being tougher/deeper that their previous conferences for others; and the stupid NCAA changes that effect everyone with conference affiliation (consolidating power).

Those things aren't unique to the American. The A-10 is in the exact boat on the "tougher/deeper" and NCAA changes front; and someone like UMass has fallen off in basketball as they emphasize football more.

(01-17-2024 02:54 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 04:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 10:02 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

I agree with all this. I just remember that, 10 - 11 years ago when the split happened, many AAC fans around here (I'm not referring to you, btw) thought that the AAC had gotten at least as much of the hoops power as had the new Big East, and there were predictions from some that the AAC would be the stronger hoops conference.

I recall those posts, too (I started reading this board in about 2011 or so). That mindset was likely spurred by many pro-AAC posters thinking that the "upper half" of the then-new AAC (lets say, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis and Temple) would be as strong as the upper half of the then-newly-constituted Big East (say, Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova and Creighton). And though not a bad prediction (and even understandable), the posters with that mindset failed to take into account the advantages the reinvented Big East would have in relation to the AAC: 1. "institutional chemistry/fit/cohesion"; 2. a much stronger bottom half; 3. not having to worry about football.

In addition, many of those posters failed to consider the potential for UConn to falter due to a loss of its long-time rivals and a bad geographic fit. They simply, and wrongly, assumed UConn would stay powerful.

Lastly, that pro-AAC mindset also was likely the result of some insecurity, particularly from some posters who are fans of AAC programs that have not had lots of national success in men's hoops. In short, those fans contended on this board that the AAC would be as good, if not better, than the BE because they wanted that to be the case rather than because (had that actually given it unbiased and reasonable consideration) they sincerely thought that would be the case.

On this theme, I continue to take note (10 years into this) of the following:

1. How strong the Big East has remained despite long-standing problems with St. John's and your Hoya program (problems that are now both seemingly fixed with strong coaching hires).

2. How Temple, Wichita and Tulsa men's hoops have been harmed — seemingly due, in large part, to AAC membership.

3. How some posters (and clearly not you, QV) either fail to recognize or choose not to acknowledge the long-times ties and similarities with the AAC and the Big East (i.e., some programs in both leagues having previously shared conference homes, both leagues offering universities locate primarily in large cities and neither conference being considered a true "big boy" by the all-sports P4 types while, still, commanding a solid level of all-round respect). There truly is some overlap between the two leagues.

4. (and related to Point No. 2) How Memphis hoops could be hurt (and I fear possible gravely so) by AAC affiliation (though the league is great, in many respects, for Tiger football).

all of this was a great read.

I think the easiest way to sum it up is the biblical "You can't serve two masters" thing. It's really hard to be very good at football AND basketball without insane resources.

When you're not a huge school with a huge budget, it's difficult to pay a football coach and a basketball coach the multi-millions each that's required to be competitive.

Butler was paying their last coach $1.6 million (total comp, not base) and he was 10th out of 11 Big East coaches.

The only AAC coaches making $1.6 million were Houston, SMU and Memphis.

(Hell, SIX coaches in the A-10 are about that much, the A-10 average is $1.4 million. The A-10 and American were vying for the position of next best conference behind the P5/BE, and the only reason the AAC is a tiny bit ahead was Kelvin Sampson and the NCAA committee just screwing over three A-10 teams for AAC teams with ridiculous choices. Go look at Tulsa over St. Bona in 2016 for example).


But I think it's not quite right to say that schools like Temple, Wichita St and Tulsa have been HARMED by the AAC. . It's not the AMERICAN affiliation that's doing any damage whatsoever. It's merely the circumstance they're in, which happens to take place in the American.

It's increasing their spending in football at the expense of basketball for some; and the conference being tougher/deeper that their previous conferences for others; and the stupid NCAA changes that effect everyone with conference affiliation (consolidating power).

Those things aren't unique to the American. The A-10 is in the exact boat on the "tougher/deeper" and NCAA changes front; and someone like UMass has fallen off in basketball as they emphasize football more.

We fell off in everything because we stopped emphasizing everything and thought programs could be run on the cheap, only recently realizing that's not the case (with the first sport that got proper support being hockey).

Basketball didn't get worse because we focused on football. Basketball got worse because Coach Cal left and we decided we didn't need to hire coaches with experience and tried to find multiple needles in haystacks.

(01-17-2024 02:54 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 04:44 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 10:02 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  For some reason, I always look to see where the Big East and AAC are relative to each other, even though the Big East is always well ahead, literally always, because I think the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East over the past 10 years, in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

I'm almost certain the AAC has never ranked ahead of the Big East during the past 10 years in either the final NET or the final conference RPI.

Big East men's hoops collectively is "power" while AAC men's hoops collectively is now bordering on (and perhaps is) "mid-major" after all the membership losses (though it had been a "major" men's hoops league previously).

Regardless, comparing Big East and AAC basketball is very difficult to do (as you know, Quo). They are two almost radically different leagues with very different goals, agendas, approaches, memberships, etc.

As I've noted before, the Big East benefits from a cohesive membership (no member other than UConn wants to leave) that can focus on basketball and not worry about football. The AAC offers neither of those luxuries.

I agree with all this. I just remember that, 10 - 11 years ago when the split happened, many AAC fans around here (I'm not referring to you, btw) thought that the AAC had gotten at least as much of the hoops power as had the new Big East, and there were predictions from some that the AAC would be the stronger hoops conference.

I recall those posts, too (I started reading this board in about 2011 or so). That mindset was likely spurred by many pro-AAC posters thinking that the "upper half" of the then-new AAC (lets say, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, Memphis and Temple) would be as strong as the upper half of the then-newly-constituted Big East (say, Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova and Creighton). And though not a bad prediction (and even understandable), the posters with that mindset failed to take into account the advantages the reinvented Big East would have in relation to the AAC: 1. "institutional chemistry/fit/cohesion"; 2. a much stronger bottom half; 3. not having to worry about football.

In addition, many of those posters failed to consider the potential for UConn to falter due to a loss of its long-time rivals and a bad geographic fit. They simply, and wrongly, assumed UConn would stay powerful.

Lastly, that pro-AAC mindset also was likely the result of some insecurity, particularly from some posters who are fans of AAC programs that have not had lots of national success in men's hoops. In short, those fans contended on this board that the AAC would be as good, if not better, than the BE because they wanted that to be the case rather than because (had that actually given it unbiased and reasonable consideration) they sincerely thought that would be the case.

On this theme, I continue to take note (10 years into this) of the following:

1. How strong the Big East has remained despite long-standing problems with St. John's and your Hoya program (problems that are now both seemingly fixed with strong coaching hires).

2. How Temple, Wichita and Tulsa men's hoops have been harmed — seemingly due, in large part, to AAC membership.

3. How some posters (and clearly not you, QV) either fail to recognize or choose not to acknowledge the long-times ties and similarities with the AAC and the Big East (i.e., some programs in both leagues having previously shared conference homes, both leagues offering universities locate primarily in large cities and neither conference being considered a true "big boy" by the all-sports P4 types while, still, commanding a solid level of all-round respect). There truly is some overlap between the two leagues.

4. (and related to Point No. 2) How Memphis hoops could be hurt (and I fear possible gravely so) by AAC affiliation (though the league is great, in many respects, for Tiger football).

all of this was a great read.

I think the easiest way to sum it up is the biblical "You can't serve two masters" thing. It's really hard to be very good at football AND basketball without insane resources.

When you're not a huge school with a huge budget, it's difficult to pay a football coach and a basketball coach the multi-millions each that's required to be competitive.

Butler was paying their last coach $1.6 million (total comp, not base) and he was 10th out of 11 Big East coaches.

The only AAC coaches making $1.6 million were Houston, SMU and Memphis.

(Hell, SIX coaches in the A-10 are about that much, the A-10 average is $1.4 million. The A-10 and American were vying for the position of next best conference behind the P5/BE, and the only reason the AAC is a tiny bit ahead was Kelvin Sampson and the NCAA committee just screwing over three A-10 teams for AAC teams with ridiculous choices. Go look at Tulsa over St. Bona in 2016 for example).


But I think it's not quite right to say that schools like Temple, Wichita St and Tulsa have been HARMED by the AAC. . It's not the AMERICAN affiliation that's doing any damage whatsoever. It's merely the circumstance they're in, which happens to take place in the American.

It's increasing their spending in football at the expense of basketball for some; and the conference being tougher/deeper that their previous conferences for others; and the stupid NCAA changes that effect everyone with conference affiliation (consolidating power).

Those things aren't unique to the American. The A-10 is in the exact boat on the "tougher/deeper" and NCAA changes front; and someone like UMass has fallen off in basketball as they emphasize football more.

Thanks for the kind works, JSchmack.

I wish a bit harsh regarding the AAC and Temple, Wichita and Tulsa. No doubt, you make valid points. But could you not argue that "circumstances" (as you note) and AAC affiliation, to an extent, overlap?

I have posted many times that I've been pleased from Day 1 with AAC football and baseball. But the future of the league's men's basketball has me very concerned (and not just for Memphis, as Temple, Wichita and Tulsa have a proud history, collectively).

I've always admired and respected the A10. As you might know, I was hoping Belmont could have landed an invite from that league. But I'm pleased with the Bruin programs being affiliated with the Missouri Valley.