(03-21-2017 01:35 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:00 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Included Louisville because we have a good history with them and they are closest geographically outside of Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio State. Of course, there are many P5 programs that we've beaten but we do not have winning records against including the former old Big East now P5 members.

Unfortunately I think Louisville has passed us by. Ever since they opened the Yum Center and won their 3rd national title, they're way above us.

Louisville isn't even a peer of OSU anymore - they're in the elite group with Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and UCLA.

They've passed us in all sports. current conference affiliations make catching us improbable.

Sorry to join in on this conversation, but I've been perusing the AAC boards while dreaming about the potential of a new conference. At the current time, giving only consideration to success over the last 5-10 years, and projecting for expected success in the next few years, I consider the following schools among a couple others to be basically our tier right now, in no particular order, some closer to breaking through to the next tier or falling down a tier:

WSU, Cincy, SMU, Butler, Xavier, Georgetown, Purdue, Maryland, Iowa St., Baylor, West Virginia, Oklahoma St., Miami, Arkansas, Utah, USC, Dayton, VCU, SDSU.

The Blue Bloods, UCONN, Oregon, Zona, Nova, Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan St., Wisconsin, maybe Gonzaga, Michigan and Notre Dame I think are a tier above.

Creighton, St. Mary's, Seton Hall, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Iowa, Colorado, Cal, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, etc. to be close to the middle tier, but not consistently there often enough lately or expected to be there going forward.

As for Xavier, I personally consider Cincy and Xavier to be very comparable programs over the last several years. I know Xavier has had great success in the tourney lately, but who isn't incredibly jealous of the draws Xavier has lucked into the last several years. 2009 - 12 and 13 seeds; 2012 - 7 and 15 seeds; 2015 - 11 and 14 seeds.

Just my opinions. Maybe I am way off base.

I'll add this. UC has been to 1 Final Four in the last 50+years. That's not an elite program or even a "near-elite" program. Until the program can consistently get to the Sweet 16 and make a FF once a decade, we're going to continue to look up at a lot of programs that many here view as inferior.

(03-21-2017 08:10 AM)LetsGoUC Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 04:38 PM)bearcat_df Wrote:  Our peers at this moment are the other teams in the ACC and high majors playing in mid major conferences - Gonzaga, Wichita State, Dayton. As long as we are in the AAC, U of L, Syracuse, Pitt are no longer our peers.

I'd like to think that Xavier and Butler are our peers, but I think their conference puts them one notch above us.

Some people want to minimize the impact of being in a mid-major conference, but I believe it puts a significant ceiling on our program. The primary limit is the level of talent that will be interested in coming to UC. Several people have commented that UConn and Memphis need to get back to a higher level. I think they are indicators of the impact the AAC is having on programs. I give credit to Cronin for getting the talent level that we do have.

Here is a sobering article about the talent required to get to the sweet 16.
http://www.scout.com/college/basketball/...e-sweet-16

Finally, I think Huggins lack of tournament success at the end of his tenure and Cronin's current lack of tournament success are both a function of how hard it is to recruit top level talent to a mid-major conference.

This post is ridiculous. You act like we are in the MEAC and can only hope of winning the MEAC tournament and getting a 15 seed. Enough with calling the conference mid-major. It isn't. Most everyone puts us in the umbrella of somewhere between the Big East and the A-10. We are not P5, but we ARE considered "major". By calling the AAC mid major you are putting UC in the same bag as Grambling or Delaware State. Do you think they are our peers? No of course not. Nobody would.

Do you consider Uconn Temple or Memphis mid-major? No. Nobody does.

The fact is, no one knows just what this league is yet. To the outsiders it looks like a few good teams at the top, under-performers in the middle, and trash at the bottom.

Uconn and Memphis have pulled in top 10 recruiting classes in this league. Oh, and one won a national title for the AAC.

Mick said it best. You recruit to the name of the school, not the name of the conference. The AAC hasn't reached its potential yet. Memphis, Temple, Houston are stuck in neutral. Once the figure it out, I think the league will be just fine and can be justified by the committee to have 3-5 bids per year. Being in a league that gives an at-large team a 6 seed isn't mid major. You think C-USA would ever do that? Come on.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the MEAC is a low major, especially given that they were 16th out of 16 in conference RPI. I'm going to put the SWAC (Grambling) in the low major category too.

I suspect only time will tell. But given the ascension of the P5 and it's impact on BB - I'm going to use this set of criteria.
High Major - P5 schools (yes there are some lousy teams in these conferences that are more like mid and low majors, but they are still playing in a conference with advantages in exposure (TV), money, and competitive conference schedules).
Big East is the exception to all the rules. For now they are High Major - like the P5 - because they have advantages in exposure (TV), money, and competitive conference schedules.
Mid Majors - multi bid conferences outside of the P5 and not the BE. This year those conferences are A-10 (3), American (2), WCC (2)
(Yes there are some programs in these conferences that function more like high majors in terms of facilities and coaching salaries, but they are still in a mid major conference, with mid major dollars and playing a mid major conference schedule).
Low Majors - conferences that only get an automatic bid.

It would be interesting to see how the number of conferences with multiple bids has changed over the last 5-10 years. I suspect there has been an increase in the number of P5 teams in the conference over the last 5 years (Northwestern made the conference for the first time ever!) and fewer conferences with multiple bids. My guess is that the recruiting landscape has changed significantly in the past 5-10 years and most of the top talent is landing at P5 schools.

Time will tell. Perhaps UConn, Temple and Memphis come back. I think some people may be underestimating the job Mick is doing to bring the talent that he has been recruiting, into this conference, at this time.

Quick question - if you are a recruit - at the end of Feb would you rather be playing
A) Mississippi State, UK, Florida
B) SMU, East Carolina, UC
C) Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana

(03-22-2017 11:32 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  I'll add this. UC has been to 1 Final Four in the last 50+years. That's not an elite program or even a "near-elite" program. Until the program can consistently get to the Sweet 16 and make a FF once a decade, we're going to continue to look up at a lot of programs that many here view as inferior.

Does "Elite" or "Near Elite" equate to "Blue Blood". Well one previous poster calls Gonzaga and Oregon Blue Bloods yet the former has no final fours and the later had one in 1939. This discussion is all so subjective.

(03-22-2017 12:21 PM)cincybb51 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 11:32 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  I'll add this. UC has been to 1 Final Four in the last 50+years. That's not an elite program or even a "near-elite" program. Until the program can consistently get to the Sweet 16 and make a FF once a decade, we're going to continue to look up at a lot of programs that many here view as inferior.

Does "Elite" or "Near Elite" equate to "Blue Blood". Well one previous poster calls Gonzaga and Oregon Blue Bloods yet the former has no final fours and the later had one in 1939. This discussion is all so subjective.

Obviously different, but I thought about this from a football perspective. This kind of performance was used to justify Pitt, BYU, and others as legitimate P5 immigrants.

(03-21-2017 01:59 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 01:35 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:00 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Included Louisville because we have a good history with them and they are closest geographically outside of Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio State. Of course, there are many P5 programs that we've beaten but we do not have winning records against including the former old Big East now P5 members.

Unfortunately I think Louisville has passed us by. Ever since they opened the Yum Center and won their 3rd national title, they're way above us.

Louisville isn't even a peer of OSU anymore - they're in the elite group with Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and UCLA.

I would say that Louisville has taken IU's place in that group. IU really hasn't been IU since they fired Knight, and they're about to move onto their 4th coach since then.

Card fan chiming in here ...

First off -- while I am sure we have some a-hole fans who would "look down" on Cincy, I think the vast majority of Card fans still see you as a rival. In both football and basketball. There is a fairly vocal segment that wants to re-establish the series in both sports. So ... take that for what it's worth. In that sense, we'd still see you as a peer. Maybe that's wrong, but I don't know.

Secondly -- there is a fairly large segment of Card fans who would say we've definitely passed Indiana in the "blue bloods" category, but I also think we'd say the TRUE Blue bloods are something we'll never be --- we're way too nouveau riche for that. UNC, Duke, UCLA, Kansas, and yes, those bastards Kentucky are the true blue bloods. BUT ... we finally passed Indiana in all time wins this season, and they've played 12 more years than we have. Plus overall relevance the past 25 - 30 years, IU has kinda disappeared. You know it's bad when their high water mark has turned into Sweet Sixteen finishes.


Anyway .... I know that the conference realignment has put you guys behind the 8 ball .... Keep on keeping on, though. Two things to note -- 1. The facility upgrades you guys have committed too will ONLY help you going forward. And 2. Keep showing up for your teams when they play. Fan support can't be understated. Jurich started investing in our facilities when we were in CUSA, and our fans rallied around those teams. All this positioned us for the change when it arose. You have to believe that this will also happen for you. So keep on keeping on ... and good stuff will happen.

BTW -- love Mick. That guy is a classy coach, and you're lucky to have him. AND congrats on the baseball win last night. Damnit.

Ok ... sorry to intrude on your topic.