It should really be ACC/B1G in group 1, the rest in group 2, and then the unmentioned in group 3.

(10-22-2013 05:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:52 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

There's no such thing as P5 and G5 in basketball. But they'll continue to use the terminology much like the "BCS" label bled over into basketball announcers vocabulary.

I think in basketball there will be two distinct groups going forward.

1. ACC, Big East, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC
2. A-10, American, MWC, WCC

This season, with Louisville, the American is in group 1, but without them, along with adding in mediocre programs, I think they slide into group 2.
Big East gets the benefit of the doubt for now, but could slide into group 2.
C-USA could move into group 2 depending on performance.

MVC has to be in group 2, if you are including WCC. Better success than the WCC, even with losing Creighton.

The MVC will likely be a 1 bid league. The past 3 seasons - Indiana State got in in 2011. In 2012 and 2013 both Creighton and Wichita State got in.

The other leagues listed will likely have 2 or more every season.

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:52 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

There's no such thing as P5 and G5 in basketball. But they'll continue to use the terminology much like the "BCS" label bled over into basketball announcers vocabulary.

I think in basketball there will be two distinct groups going forward.

1. ACC, Big East, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC
2. A-10, American, MWC, WCC

This season, with Louisville, the American is in group 1, but without them, along with adding in mediocre programs, I think they slide into group 2.
Big East gets the benefit of the doubt for now, but could slide into group 2.
C-USA could move into group 2 depending on performance.

In what dimension are the P12/SEC equal to the ACC /B10 in basketball? I'd group things more like this understanding there will be some fluctuation from year to year.

1. ACC / B10
2. MWC / AAC / nBE / SEC / P12
3. A10
4. WCC / MVC
5. MAC / CUSA / SBC / (other non-FBS conferences)

I don't get the perception that the MWC is better than the A-10. A-10 is worlds better than the MWC.

In fact, the champions met last season (both won conference and tournament). Ask any MWC fan how that turned out.

If you put the Mountain West in Tier 2, the A-10 belongs there too.

(10-22-2013 05:29 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 05:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:52 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

There's no such thing as P5 and G5 in basketball. But they'll continue to use the terminology much like the "BCS" label bled over into basketball announcers vocabulary.

I think in basketball there will be two distinct groups going forward.

1. ACC, Big East, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC
2. A-10, American, MWC, WCC

This season, with Louisville, the American is in group 1, but without them, along with adding in mediocre programs, I think they slide into group 2.
Big East gets the benefit of the doubt for now, but could slide into group 2.
C-USA could move into group 2 depending on performance.

MVC has to be in group 2, if you are including WCC. Better success than the WCC, even with losing Creighton.

The MVC will likely be a 1 bid league. The past 3 seasons - Indiana State got in in 2011. In 2012 and 2013 both Creighton and Wichita State got in.

The other leagues listed will likely have 2 or more every season.

I wouldn't write off the MVC so quickly. Some people think that Indiana State will be a tournament team this year. They have 4 starters back from an NIT team that had wins last year over Miami, Ole Miss, Wichita State, and Creighton and took New Mexico into OT.

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:47 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

At least half :)

Houston/Cinci/UConn/Memphis/Temple have good pedigrees

I'm not even sure about the half. It's almost 30 years since Houston's made it to a Final Four and over 50 years since Temple's been there. Cincy's been there once in the past 50 years and not at all in the past 20. Memphis has had their only 2 Final Four appearances in the past 40 years both vacated. UConn is the only program that resembles what power basketball conferences are built around and no one can put the words "power" and "conference" together in the same phrase based on the accomplishments of one program.

I was trying to be generous. :)

All six do have name recognition when it comes to college basketball

Okay. Got it.

(10-22-2013 06:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:52 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

There's no such thing as P5 and G5 in basketball. But they'll continue to use the terminology much like the "BCS" label bled over into basketball announcers vocabulary.

I think in basketball there will be two distinct groups going forward.

1. ACC, Big East, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC
2. A-10, American, MWC, WCC

This season, with Louisville, the American is in group 1, but without them, along with adding in mediocre programs, I think they slide into group 2.
Big East gets the benefit of the doubt for now, but could slide into group 2.
C-USA could move into group 2 depending on performance.

In what dimension are the P12/SEC equal to the ACC /B10 in basketball? I'd group things more like this understanding there will be some fluctuation from year to year.

1. ACC / B10
2. MWC / AAC / nBE / SEC / P12
3. A10
4. WCC / MVC
5. MAC / CUSA / SBC / (other non-FBS conferences)

This isn't too far off, if you're looking at top-to-bottom strength. However, the A-10 and WCC are very top-heavy. There's a lot of deadweight, particularly in the WCC. The bottom 2/3 of the MVC would probably go 7-0 against the bottom 2/3 of the WCC in most years.

Also, I'd tend to put the nBE ahead of the rest of group 2, and the PAC slightly behind. Call it groups 2a, 2b, and 2c.

(10-22-2013 04:47 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

At least half :)

Houston/Cinci/UConn/Memphis/Temple have good pedigrees

I'm not even sure about the half. It's almost 30 years since Houston's made it to a Final Four and over 50 years since Temple's been there. Cincy's been there once in the past 50 years and not at all in the past 20. Memphis has had their only 2 Final Four appearances in the past 40 years both vacated. UConn is the only program that resembles what power basketball conferences are built around and no one can put the words "power" and "conference" together in the same phrase based on the accomplishments of one program.

Is Gonzaga a power team? How about Wisconsin, Illinois, NC State, Pitt, or Michigan? Or for that matter, any PAC, Big 12, or SEC team outside of UCLA, KU, Florida, and UK?

If you think ANY of those schools have "good pedigrees," then you have to include UC in the list.

6 Final Fours, 2 national titles, and we spent all but 3 weeks of 2000 at number 1 before losing the POY to a broken leg in the conference championship game (yes, that's the last time I cried). But on top of this, our recent accomplishments over the past 25 years can match up with every one of the teams I mentioned.

I give Mick Cronin a lot of credit. He took a program that was dismantled by the president so badly that it made Tom Crean's job at Indiana look easy by comparison. He's done an outstanding job at rebuilding the roster, and it's getting stronger every year.

Pacific coming back to the WCC will only bolster the conference's depth. They were just outside the top-100 in RPI and made the NCAA's as Big West champs.

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Scholarships are less in basketball but the difference in talent between a Top 40 program and an average D1 basketball team is a lot greater than it is in football. There is a height differential between the ACC and Southern conference that you don't see in football. The difference between the top teams in football is mainly speed but in basketball its size and speed.

What it really boils down to is basketball schools in metro markets that can get on TV while your residential mid major small town football school that populates much of the MAC, SBC, MWC and CUSA doesn't have the market for it. That is beginning to change as those leagues improve their conference wide TV deals, IMO.

I would disagree. There is talent out there and with lower scholarship limits you can build a strong program if you are not also pouring money into football.

Look at the difference in height between schools at the P5 level and other Division 1 leagues. At many positions its significant.

There is not a lot of extra NBA caliber talent out there beyond the major basketball programs. After that its a steep drop off.

And for the third time, it has nothing to do with pouring money into football. Most G5 programs have basketball budgets on the A10/MVC level. The problem is recruiting, they can't get the players without a significant TV deal which the metro basketball schools have been able to develop over time.

It also benefits you if your state has less in the way of D1 competition like Gonzaga so they can easily justify downstate broadcast of their regional networks.

You get into a state like Ohio....obviously UC and OSU are big dogs and then you have Xavier in the Big East, Dayton in the A10, 6 MAC schools and 3 more in the Horizon League. That is a lot of competition for viewing basketball with some very strong competition. Its not the same as carving out your niche in the state of Washington.

(10-23-2013 12:05 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:47 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

At least half :)

Houston/Cinci/UConn/Memphis/Temple have good pedigrees

I'm not even sure about the half. It's almost 30 years since Houston's made it to a Final Four and over 50 years since Temple's been there. Cincy's been there once in the past 50 years and not at all in the past 20. Memphis has had their only 2 Final Four appearances in the past 40 years both vacated. UConn is the only program that resembles what power basketball conferences are built around and no one can put the words "power" and "conference" together in the same phrase based on the accomplishments of one program.

Is Gonzaga a power team? How about Wisconsin, Illinois, NC State, Pitt, or Michigan? Or for that matter, any PAC, Big 12, or SEC team outside of UCLA, KU, Florida, and UK?

If you think ANY of those schools have "good pedigrees," then you have to include UC in the list.

6 Final Fours, 2 national titles, and we spent all but 3 weeks of 2000 at number 1 before losing the POY to a broken leg in the conference championship game (yes, that's the last time I cried). But on top of this, our recent accomplishments over the past 25 years can match up with every one of the teams I mentioned.

I give Mick Cronin a lot of credit. He took a program that was dismantled by the president so badly that it made Tom Crean's job at Indiana look easy by comparison. He's done an outstanding job at rebuilding the roster, and it's getting stronger every year.

Martin got hurt in the first round of the conference tournament. I should know that one.

(10-23-2013 03:05 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Scholarships are less in basketball but the difference in talent between a Top 40 program and an average D1 basketball team is a lot greater than it is in football. There is a height differential between the ACC and Southern conference that you don't see in football. The difference between the top teams in football is mainly speed but in basketball its size and speed.

What it really boils down to is basketball schools in metro markets that can get on TV while your residential mid major small town football school that populates much of the MAC, SBC, MWC and CUSA doesn't have the market for it. That is beginning to change as those leagues improve their conference wide TV deals, IMO.

I would disagree. There is talent out there and with lower scholarship limits you can build a strong program if you are not also pouring money into football.

Look at the difference in height between schools at the P5 level and other Division 1 leagues. At many positions its significant.

There is not a lot of extra NBA caliber talent out there beyond the major basketball programs. After that its a steep drop off.

And for the third time, it has nothing to do with pouring money into football. Most G5 programs have basketball budgets on the A10/MVC level. The problem is recruiting, they can't get the players without a significant TV deal which the metro basketball schools have been able to develop over time.

It also benefits you if your state has less in the way of D1 competition like Gonzaga so they can easily justify downstate broadcast of their regional networks.

You get into a state like Ohio....obviously UC and OSU are big dogs and then you have Xavier in the Big East, Dayton in the A10, 6 MAC schools and 3 more in the Horizon League. That is a lot of competition for viewing basketball with some very strong competition. Its not the same as carving out your niche in the state of Washington.

Calm down yes Tv is "A" factor but not the factor. Programs like Butler were not on TV from day one. They built a program that became worth watching then they got on TV.

And as for height there are 342 schools that sponsor mens basketball. With 13 players on scholarship lets say you are recruiting 4-5 players a year. That is 1710 athletes you need to find in the USA if we are just looking stateside which we know isn't the only place that is looked at.

Current popluation stats list the USA as having just under 314 million people. Of those just under 74 million are under 18. Lets just ballpark and say 1% of that number are college age athletes now we are at about 737k. Of that number lets say .01% meet your height and talent requirments each year. That is over 7k worth of talent each year battling for 1710 spots each year.

Of course that was me just ballparking this but my point stands. There is talent out there if schools are not spliting their time and money with a sport that has 6.5 times as many athletes on scholarship they can if commited build a solid basketball program.

(10-22-2013 11:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 06:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:52 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

There's no such thing as P5 and G5 in basketball. But they'll continue to use the terminology much like the "BCS" label bled over into basketball announcers vocabulary.

I think in basketball there will be two distinct groups going forward.

1. ACC, Big East, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC
2. A-10, American, MWC, WCC

This season, with Louisville, the American is in group 1, but without them, along with adding in mediocre programs, I think they slide into group 2.
Big East gets the benefit of the doubt for now, but could slide into group 2.
C-USA could move into group 2 depending on performance.

In what dimension are the P12/SEC equal to the ACC /B10 in basketball? I'd group things more like this understanding there will be some fluctuation from year to year.

1. ACC / B10
2. MWC / AAC / nBE / SEC / P12
3. A10
4. WCC / MVC
5. MAC / CUSA / SBC / (other non-FBS conferences)

This isn't too far off, if you're looking at top-to-bottom strength. However, the A-10 and WCC are very top-heavy. There's a lot of deadweight, particularly in the WCC. The bottom 2/3 of the MVC would probably go 7-0 against the bottom 2/3 of the WCC in most years.

Also, I'd tend to put the nBE ahead of the rest of group 2, and the PAC slightly behind. Call it groups 2a, 2b, and 2c.

Yeah, I tried not to get into that level of granularity thus the note regarding "fluctuation from year to year." I might even say that ACC is 1A and B10 is 1B.

(10-23-2013 12:48 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Pacific coming back to the WCC will only bolster the conference's depth. They were just outside the top-100 in RPI and made the NCAA's as Big West champs.

The big problem in the WCC is that they can't draw flies to their games except for BYU and Gonzaga. Home attendance at their conference games last year averaged 3200 and at their tournament 1800. That's comparable to the MAAC.

(10-23-2013 12:05 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:47 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:39 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wait, how can the AAC be considered the Go5 in basketball? Easily a power conference

At least half :)

Houston/Cinci/UConn/Memphis/Temple have good pedigrees

I'm not even sure about the half. It's almost 30 years since Houston's made it to a Final Four and over 50 years since Temple's been there. Cincy's been there once in the past 50 years and not at all in the past 20. Memphis has had their only 2 Final Four appearances in the past 40 years both vacated. UConn is the only program that resembles what power basketball conferences are built around and no one can put the words "power" and "conference" together in the same phrase based on the accomplishments of one program.

Is Gonzaga a power team? How about Wisconsin, Illinois, NC State, Pitt, or Michigan? Or for that matter, any PAC, Big 12, or SEC team outside of UCLA, KU, Florida, and UK?

If you think ANY of those schools have "good pedigrees," then you have to include UC in the list.

6 Final Fours, 2 national titles, and we spent all but 3 weeks of 2000 at number 1 before losing the POY to a broken leg in the conference championship game (yes, that's the last time I cried). But on top of this, our recent accomplishments over the past 25 years can match up with every one of the teams I mentioned.

I give Mick Cronin a lot of credit. He took a program that was dismantled by the president so badly that it made Tom Crean's job at Indiana look easy by comparison. He's done an outstanding job at rebuilding the roster, and it's getting stronger every year.

Yes, Cincy has 6 Final Fours, but only one of those is in the past 50 years and none have come in the past 20 years. The rest and the 2 titles are ancient history. Do you really think that Cincy is the only school to have been the victim of a bad "break". If your claim to fame is one Final Four in the past 50 years and another that "might have been", then you're really not a power program.

Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan all have trips to the Final Four since 2000, making them relevant at the highest levels in that time frame. Cincy hasn't even been to an Elite 8 in that period.

I really don't think that Pitt and NC State have good pedigrees. Pitt has been a huge disappointment in the postseason and NC State's biggest accomplishment - like Cincy - are pretty much ancient history. Gonzaga has been incredibly consistent in getting to the tournament over the past 15 years, but they are realistically the best of the mid majors, not a power program.

Power conferences tend to have a couple of programs at the top that win championships and get to multiple Final Fours, followed by a collection of programs that combine for Final Fours.

You brought up 3 Big Ten schools, so let's look at that conference. Not so much success at winning championships lately except for Michigan State in 2000, but look at their collective success at getting to Final Fours since then:

Michigan State - NC, 5 Final fours since 2000
Ohio State - 2 Final Fours since 2000
Wiscy, Indy, Illini, Michigan - 4 Final fours combined since 2000

That's what a power conference looks like. It's not how Illinois compares to Cincinnati; it's what the total collection looks like.

You mentioned NC State, but look at the old ACC as a whole since 2000.

North Carolina - 2 NC's, 4 Final Fours
Duke - 2 NC's, 3 Final Fours
Maryland, Georgia Tech - NC, 3 Final Fours combined

The new ACC will lose Maryland but will replace them with:

Syracuse - NC, 2 Final Fours
Louisville - NC, 3 Final fours (arriving in 2014)

Again the conference profile is similar to the B1G both at the top of the conference and what the group does collectively. The AAC doesn't have that. They have one program, UConn, which is typical of what you'd find at the top of a power conference. After that, it's Memphis with 1 vacated Final Four and not a single other program to the Final Four in the past 2 decades. Programs like Cincinnati and Temple are what the true power conferences fill in for depth, which is exactly what Cincy was in the Big East. In the AAC, they're one of the Big 4, a spot they'd never fill in a true power conference.

(10-20-2013 08:57 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I wonder why no one from the GoF except Memphis can develop a top flight basketball program in the years since 2000. Obviously excluding UConn since they've been in a BCS conference for the past 10 years.

Since 2000, we've seen a flurry of teams from outside the power football conferences make it to the Final Four - Butler (twice), Wichita State, VCU, Villanova, Georgetown, George Mason, and Marquette. But no one from the GoF football programs.

Technically, Louisville made it to the FF from CUSA in 2005. If FF is the measuring stick, then that eliminates a good portion of the P5 as well.

(10-23-2013 08:58 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 03:05 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 05:03 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Scholarships are less in basketball but the difference in talent between a Top 40 program and an average D1 basketball team is a lot greater than it is in football. There is a height differential between the ACC and Southern conference that you don't see in football. The difference between the top teams in football is mainly speed but in basketball its size and speed.

What it really boils down to is basketball schools in metro markets that can get on TV while your residential mid major small town football school that populates much of the MAC, SBC, MWC and CUSA doesn't have the market for it. That is beginning to change as those leagues improve their conference wide TV deals, IMO.

I would disagree. There is talent out there and with lower scholarship limits you can build a strong program if you are not also pouring money into football.

Look at the difference in height between schools at the P5 level and other Division 1 leagues. At many positions its significant.

There is not a lot of extra NBA caliber talent out there beyond the major basketball programs. After that its a steep drop off.

And for the third time, it has nothing to do with pouring money into football. Most G5 programs have basketball budgets on the A10/MVC level. The problem is recruiting, they can't get the players without a significant TV deal which the metro basketball schools have been able to develop over time.

It also benefits you if your state has less in the way of D1 competition like Gonzaga so they can easily justify downstate broadcast of their regional networks.

You get into a state like Ohio....obviously UC and OSU are big dogs and then you have Xavier in the Big East, Dayton in the A10, 6 MAC schools and 3 more in the Horizon League. That is a lot of competition for viewing basketball with some very strong competition. Its not the same as carving out your niche in the state of Washington.

Calm down yes Tv is "A" factor but not the factor. Programs like Butler were not on TV from day one. They built a program that became worth watching then they got on TV.

And as for height there are 342 schools that sponsor mens basketball. With 13 players on scholarship lets say you are recruiting 4-5 players a year. That is 1710 athletes you need to find in the USA if we are just looking stateside which we know isn't the only place that is looked at.

Current popluation stats list the USA as having just under 314 million people. Of those just under 74 million are under 18. Lets just ballpark and say 1% of that number are college age athletes now we are at about 737k. Of that number lets say .01% meet your height and talent requirments each year. That is over 7k worth of talent each year battling for 1710 spots each year.

Of course that was me just ballparking this but my point stands. There is talent out there if schools are not spliting their time and money with a sport that has 6.5 times as many athletes on scholarship they can if commited build a solid basketball program.

What you are ignoring is that the top .01% does not have a uniform level of talent within that .01%

College basketball talent is a very steep pyramid....

NBA Caliber (Top 10 Recruits)
High Caliber (Top 100 Recruits)
Mid Major (Top 1000 Recruits)
Low Major (Top 10,000 Recruits)

For a school to compete in the NCAA tournament it needs to have at least 1 high caliber recruit and probably an NBA caliber player to win it.

Most of the low major D1 programs have talent that is equal in quality to what you find in Division II or Division III program. They just can't get the talent that is all there is to it.

Conferences like the WCC, A10 and MVC have their top programs occasionally land high caliber players. Those leagues have substantially more TV coverage than the MAC and SBC in baskeball, in sheer numbers and qualitatively. There is a lot more tradition in the A10, WCC and MVC.

I think if you broadened this out to elite 8 appearances or sweet 16 the MAC and SBC would have at least some visibility here over the last 15.