The WAC is currently sitting higher than the Mountain West, fwiw. At least in the conference RPI rankings.

But this new NET carp is just about designing formula to try to shut out the Mid majors now they are getting to the Final 4 so often and showing up the "big boys."

(03-12-2019 02:49 AM)Todor Wrote:  The WAC is currently sitting higher than the Mountain West, fwiw. At least in the conference RPI rankings.

But this new NET carp is just about designing formula to try to shut out the Mid majors now they are getting to the Final 4 so often and showing up the "big boys."

The NCAA is attempting to kill the popularity of the tournament. It is always about Cinderella and how far she will go. The fewer Cinderellas, the less chance of tourney excitement and drama and the better chance of a stale product, like the NBA. Going to lose a lot of viewers if people feel they are going to watch a predictable selection year after year.

The NCAA credits distribution will feed the already fat.

(03-12-2019 02:09 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 07:19 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 01:18 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  As it should be. It’s the P5 + Big East.

Jesus. The pedantic things that get panties in a twist...

Perhaps he could/should have used the term "high-major," which that well established arbiter of all things accurate (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major) says includes the "ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, Big East, AAC, A-10, and MWC." Does that make you happier? It still screws over many of the "mid-major" schools, which I think we all agree was kind of the point. Thank God we might get to see teams that can't make the semifinals in the ACC tournament or maybe even 18-13 Ohio State get a chance instead of, say, Belmont.

USFFan

Edited because, dopey me, I forgot the Wikipedia link...

It’s not about what makes me happy or not. Perception is everything. The AAC has good basketball programs but you also have terrible ones. Yes, every power conference has a bad team but you guys have multiple ones.

It’s six power conferences and two high majors. There’s a big drop after that.

Power 6
ACC
Big East
Big Ten
Big XII
Pac-12
SEC

High majors:
AAC
MWC

The A-10 could be included in the High Major category.

Anyone referring to the PAC-12 as a "power" conference this year has no clue. The American runs laps around the PAC.

The Pac-12 is a power conference. The AAC is not. One bad season does not make a conference just like a good season does not make the AAC a power conference. That’s the big difference.

I'M SO GLAD THAT MEMPHIS WAS ABLE TO GET OUT OF EVER BEING IN A CONFERENCE WITH YOUR TEAM AGAIN. IT'S THAT KIND OF THINKING FROM PROGRAMS AND FANS LIKE ME THAT WAS HOLDING OTHERWISE GOOD PROGRAMS BACK, ENJOY CUSA WITH THOSE LIKE MINDED INSTITUTIONS. GOOD LUCK.

(03-12-2019 03:35 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:49 AM)Todor Wrote:  The WAC is currently sitting higher than the Mountain West, fwiw. At least in the conference RPI rankings.

But this new NET carp is just about designing formula to try to shut out the Mid majors now they are getting to the Final 4 so often and showing up the "big boys."

The NCAA is attempting to kill the popularity of the tournament. It is always about Cinderella and how far she will go. The fewer Cinderellas, the less chance of tourney excitement and drama and the better chance of a stale product, like the NBA. Going to lose a lot of viewers if people feel they are going to watch a predictable selection year after year.

The NCAA credits distribution will feed the already fat.

In the past couple NCAA Tournaments, the media has tried to shift the focus and make a low seeded P5 a “Cinderella” team. Pay attention this year.

NCAA Bids (2016-18) + projected 2019

American 13
MWC 6

Sorry UTEPDallas, 2 at-large bids in 4 years is not "high major."

Pretty soon, details of the new American media deal will be released, cementing its place in the P7 for basketball.

I'd be curious to see how this same analysis of NET vs RPI compares to Kenpom as well. I would think that Kenpom is probably considered to be the most objective and transparent ranking metric, and therefore, the least bias.

I would like to see that before I subscribe to the whole anti-mid-major conspiracy theory.

(03-12-2019 07:37 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I'd be curious to see how this same analysis of NET vs RPI compares to Kenpom as well. I would think that Kenpom is probably considered to be the most objective and transparent ranking metric, and therefore, the least bias.

I would like to see that before I subscribe to the whole anti-mid-major conspiracy theory.

For the most part, NET and KenPom are pretty closely aligned, as are NET and Massey Composite. Where they tend to differ seems to be that the NET ranking is more favorable to mid-major teams than the other two.

Of the teams in KenPom's Top 50, five are not also in NET Top 50. They are: Indiana (51 NET), Nebraska (52), Creighton (54), Ohio State (55) and Minnesota (56).

The five schools in the NET Top 50 but in KenPom's are: Furman (41NET/55KP), Belmont (45/53), New Mexico St (46/57), Lipscomb (48/52) and Temple (50/69).

The differences are largely bubble teams.

By conference, the KenPom Top 50 includes (highest rank in parentheses):

B1G...11 (4)
ACC....9 (1)
B12....8 (8)
SEC....7 (7)
AAC....3 (13)
BE......3 (26)
WCC...2 (2)
MWC..2 (22)
SOU...1 (18)
MAC...1 (25)
A10....1 (32)
PAC....1 (47)
OVC...1 (50)
.
Of the 11 mid-major schools in the KP Top50, all but one are higher in the NET ranking. St Mary's is listed at #33 by KP and #37 by NET.

The others, with the number of spots higher in the NET in parentheses, are:

Gonzaga (1)
Houston (8)
Wofford (4)
Nevada (3)
Buffalo (5)
VCU (1)
Cincinnati (7)
UCF (8)
Utah State (10)
Murray State (7)

These are listed in order of highest KP rank, so except for Houston, the teams with the greatest disparity are nearer to the bubble, as you might expect.

So IMO, the idea that NET hurts mid-majors is pretty much debunked. I think if we went back in time, what we would find is that the RPI was never taken seriously by the selection committee. We'll soon find out if the NET is.

(03-12-2019 07:37 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I'd be curious to see how this same analysis of NET vs RPI compares to Kenpom as well. I would think that Kenpom is probably considered to be the most objective and transparent ranking metric, and therefore, the least bias.

I would like to see that before I subscribe to the whole anti-mid-major conspiracy theory.

Although it would certainly be consistent with the way the BCS ratings were handled. They set them up to minimize the chance of a non BCS conference member being ranked high enough.

(03-12-2019 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 07:37 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I'd be curious to see how this same analysis of NET vs RPI compares to Kenpom as well. I would think that Kenpom is probably considered to be the most objective and transparent ranking metric, and therefore, the least bias.

I would like to see that before I subscribe to the whole anti-mid-major conspiracy theory.

For the most part, NET and KenPom are pretty closely aligned, as are NET and Massey Composite. Where they tend to differ seems to be that the NET ranking is more favorable to mid-major teams than the other two.

Of the teams in KenPom's Top 50, five are not also in NET Top 50. They are: Indiana (51 NET), Nebraska (52), Creighton (54), Ohio State (55) and Minnesota (56).

The five schools in the NET Top 50 but in KenPom's are: Furman (41NET/55KP), Belmont (45/53), New Mexico St (46/57), Lipscomb (48/52) and Temple (50/69).

The differences are largely bubble teams.

By conference, the KenPom Top 50 includes (highest rank in parentheses):

B1G...11 (4)
ACC....9 (1)
B12....8 (8)
SEC....7 (7)
AAC....3 (13)
BE......3 (26)
WCC...2 (2)
MWC..2 (22)
SOU...1 (18)
MAC...1 (25)
A10....1 (32)
PAC....1 (47)
OVC...1 (50)
.
Of the 11 mid-major schools in the KP Top50, all but one are higher in the NET ranking. St Mary's is listed at #33 by KP and #37 by NET.

The others, with the number of spots higher in the NET in parentheses, are:

Gonzaga (1)
Houston (8)
Wofford (4)
Nevada (3)
Buffalo (5)
VCU (1)
Cincinnati (7)
UCF (8)
Utah State (10)
Murray State (7)

These are listed in order of highest KP rank, so except for Houston, the teams with the greatest disparity are nearer to the bubble, as you might expect.

So IMO, the idea that NET hurts mid-majors is pretty much debunked. I think if we went back in time, what we would find is that the RPI was never taken seriously by the selection committee. We'll soon find out if the NET is.

If you don't know the difference between major and mid-major conference, I can't really take your "objective data " as anything more than trolling. Sorry you wasted so much energy on that troll attempt though.

(03-12-2019 10:58 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 07:37 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I'd be curious to see how this same analysis of NET vs RPI compares to Kenpom as well. I would think that Kenpom is probably considered to be the most objective and transparent ranking metric, and therefore, the least bias.

I would like to see that before I subscribe to the whole anti-mid-major conspiracy theory.

For the most part, NET and KenPom are pretty closely aligned, as are NET and Massey Composite. Where they tend to differ seems to be that the NET ranking is more favorable to mid-major teams than the other two.

Of the teams in KenPom's Top 50, five are not also in NET Top 50. They are: Indiana (51 NET), Nebraska (52), Creighton (54), Ohio State (55) and Minnesota (56).

The five schools in the NET Top 50 but in KenPom's are: Furman (41NET/55KP), Belmont (45/53), New Mexico St (46/57), Lipscomb (48/52) and Temple (50/69).

The differences are largely bubble teams.

By conference, the KenPom Top 50 includes (highest rank in parentheses):

B1G...11 (4)
ACC....9 (1)
B12....8 (8)
SEC....7 (7)
AAC....3 (13)
BE......3 (26)
WCC...2 (2)
MWC..2 (22)
SOU...1 (18)
MAC...1 (25)
A10....1 (32)
PAC....1 (47)
OVC...1 (50)
.
Of the 11 mid-major schools in the KP Top50, all but one are higher in the NET ranking. St Mary's is listed at #33 by KP and #37 by NET.

The others, with the number of spots higher in the NET in parentheses, are:

Gonzaga (1)
Houston (8)
Wofford (4)
Nevada (3)
Buffalo (5)
VCU (1)
Cincinnati (7)
UCF (8)
Utah State (10)
Murray State (7)

These are listed in order of highest KP rank, so except for Houston, the teams with the greatest disparity are nearer to the bubble, as you might expect.

So IMO, the idea that NET hurts mid-majors is pretty much debunked. I think if we went back in time, what we would find is that the RPI was never taken seriously by the selection committee. We'll soon find out if the NET is.

If you don't know the difference between major and mid-major conference, I can't really take your "objective data " as anything more than trolling. Sorry you wasted so much energy on that troll attempt though.

Nice try.

(03-12-2019 06:42 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:09 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 08:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 07:19 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 02:48 PM)usffan Wrote:  Jesus. The pedantic things that get panties in a twist...

Perhaps he could/should have used the term "high-major," which that well established arbiter of all things accurate (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major) says includes the "ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, Big East, AAC, A-10, and MWC." Does that make you happier? It still screws over many of the "mid-major" schools, which I think we all agree was kind of the point. Thank God we might get to see teams that can't make the semifinals in the ACC tournament or maybe even 18-13 Ohio State get a chance instead of, say, Belmont.

USFFan

Edited because, dopey me, I forgot the Wikipedia link...

It’s not about what makes me happy or not. Perception is everything. The AAC has good basketball programs but you also have terrible ones. Yes, every power conference has a bad team but you guys have multiple ones.

It’s six power conferences and two high majors. There’s a big drop after that.

Power 6
ACC
Big East
Big Ten
Big XII
Pac-12
SEC

High majors:
AAC
MWC

The A-10 could be included in the High Major category.

Anyone referring to the PAC-12 as a "power" conference this year has no clue. The American runs laps around the PAC.

The Pac-12 is a power conference. The AAC is not. One bad season does not make a conference just like a good season does not make the AAC a power conference. That’s the big difference.

I'M SO GLAD THAT MEMPHIS WAS ABLE TO GET OUT OF EVER BEING IN A CONFERENCE WITH YOUR TEAM AGAIN. IT'S THAT KIND OF THINKING FROM PROGRAMS AND FANS LIKE ME THAT WAS HOLDING OTHERWISE GOOD PROGRAMS BACK, ENJOY CUSA WITH THOSE LIKE MINDED INSTITUTIONS. GOOD LUCK.

Cool story, bro.

What’s up with all these AAC fans being so sensitive? Sorry, you’re not a power conference and never will be. A power conference doesn’t have Tulane and East Carolina level programs. I actually like the AAC and root for our former conference mates and it’s the best football and basketball league outside the P5/P6, nobody is questioning that. And no, even if the Pac-12 is down this year, their place in the P6 is not in jeopardy. Same with the Big East.

(03-12-2019 11:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:58 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 07:37 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I'd be curious to see how this same analysis of NET vs RPI compares to Kenpom as well. I would think that Kenpom is probably considered to be the most objective and transparent ranking metric, and therefore, the least bias.

I would like to see that before I subscribe to the whole anti-mid-major conspiracy theory.

For the most part, NET and KenPom are pretty closely aligned, as are NET and Massey Composite. Where they tend to differ seems to be that the NET ranking is more favorable to mid-major teams than the other two.

Of the teams in KenPom's Top 50, five are not also in NET Top 50. They are: Indiana (51 NET), Nebraska (52), Creighton (54), Ohio State (55) and Minnesota (56).

The five schools in the NET Top 50 but in KenPom's are: Furman (41NET/55KP), Belmont (45/53), New Mexico St (46/57), Lipscomb (48/52) and Temple (50/69).

The differences are largely bubble teams.

By conference, the KenPom Top 50 includes (highest rank in parentheses):

B1G...11 (4)
ACC....9 (1)
B12....8 (8)
SEC....7 (7)
AAC....3 (13)
BE......3 (26)
WCC...2 (2)
MWC..2 (22)
SOU...1 (18)
MAC...1 (25)
A10....1 (32)
PAC....1 (47)
OVC...1 (50)
.
Of the 11 mid-major schools in the KP Top50, all but one are higher in the NET ranking. St Mary's is listed at #33 by KP and #37 by NET.

The others, with the number of spots higher in the NET in parentheses, are:

Gonzaga (1)
Houston (8)
Wofford (4)
Nevada (3)
Buffalo (5)
VCU (1)
Cincinnati (7)
UCF (8)
Utah State (10)
Murray State (7)

These are listed in order of highest KP rank, so except for Houston, the teams with the greatest disparity are nearer to the bubble, as you might expect.

So IMO, the idea that NET hurts mid-majors is pretty much debunked. I think if we went back in time, what we would find is that the RPI was never taken seriously by the selection committee. We'll soon find out if the NET is.

If you don't know the difference between major and mid-major conference, I can't really take your "objective data " as anything more than trolling. Sorry you wasted so much energy on that troll attempt though.

Nice try.

Nice sidestep. You directly listed "11 mid-majors" and included 3 AAC schools in that list, inferring that the AAC is a mid-major. Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically excludes the AAC from this designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major), as does Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...-chicago), Mid Major Madness (https://www.midmajormadness.com/pages/mi...conference) and essentially Bleacher Report (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2741...n#slide2). Hell, even ESPN includes the American in the 7 conferences it monitors for the Bubble Watch (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...amp-week).

Look, I get it. "High-major" and "Mid-major" isn't an official NCAA designation, so there's not a definitive list of requirements to make the list. And if you go back before 2014, the AAC and the Big East were the same conference, so it's convenient to find older references that refer to the 6 power conferences and use that as a crutch. But there's plenty of evidence that the AAC is not lumped in with the other "mid-majors" from most of the media. So pardon us if we don't just accept ken d's list as the be-all end-all designation of who is and who is not a "mid-major."

USFFan

(03-12-2019 07:12 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:35 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:49 AM)Todor Wrote:  The WAC is currently sitting higher than the Mountain West, fwiw. At least in the conference RPI rankings.

But this new NET carp is just about designing formula to try to shut out the Mid majors now they are getting to the Final 4 so often and showing up the "big boys."

The NCAA is attempting to kill the popularity of the tournament. It is always about Cinderella and how far she will go. The fewer Cinderellas, the less chance of tourney excitement and drama and the better chance of a stale product, like the NBA. Going to lose a lot of viewers if people feel they are going to watch a predictable selection year after year.

The NCAA credits distribution will feed the already fat.

In the past couple NCAA Tournaments, the media has tried to shift the focus and make a low seeded P5 a “Cinderella” team. Pay attention this year.

Don't think that will resonate.

(03-12-2019 12:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:58 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 07:37 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I'd be curious to see how this same analysis of NET vs RPI compares to Kenpom as well. I would think that Kenpom is probably considered to be the most objective and transparent ranking metric, and therefore, the least bias.

I would like to see that before I subscribe to the whole anti-mid-major conspiracy theory.

For the most part, NET and KenPom are pretty closely aligned, as are NET and Massey Composite. Where they tend to differ seems to be that the NET ranking is more favorable to mid-major teams than the other two.

Of the teams in KenPom's Top 50, five are not also in NET Top 50. They are: Indiana (51 NET), Nebraska (52), Creighton (54), Ohio State (55) and Minnesota (56).

The five schools in the NET Top 50 but in KenPom's are: Furman (41NET/55KP), Belmont (45/53), New Mexico St (46/57), Lipscomb (48/52) and Temple (50/69).

The differences are largely bubble teams.

By conference, the KenPom Top 50 includes (highest rank in parentheses):

B1G...11 (4)
ACC....9 (1)
B12....8 (8)
SEC....7 (7)
AAC....3 (13)
BE......3 (26)
WCC...2 (2)
MWC..2 (22)
SOU...1 (18)
MAC...1 (25)
A10....1 (32)
PAC....1 (47)
OVC...1 (50)
.
Of the 11 mid-major schools in the KP Top50, all but one are higher in the NET ranking. St Mary's is listed at #33 by KP and #37 by NET.

The others, with the number of spots higher in the NET in parentheses, are:

Gonzaga (1)
Houston (8)
Wofford (4)
Nevada (3)
Buffalo (5)
VCU (1)
Cincinnati (7)
UCF (8)
Utah State (10)
Murray State (7)

These are listed in order of highest KP rank, so except for Houston, the teams with the greatest disparity are nearer to the bubble, as you might expect.

So IMO, the idea that NET hurts mid-majors is pretty much debunked. I think if we went back in time, what we would find is that the RPI was never taken seriously by the selection committee. We'll soon find out if the NET is.

If you don't know the difference between major and mid-major conference, I can't really take your "objective data " as anything more than trolling. Sorry you wasted so much energy on that troll attempt though.

Nice try.

Nice sidestep. You directly listed "11 mid-majors" and included 3 AAC schools in that list, inferring that the AAC is a mid-major. Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically excludes the AAC from this designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major), as does Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...-chicago), Mid Major Madness (https://www.midmajormadness.com/pages/mi...conference) and essentially Bleacher Report (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2741...n#slide2). Hell, even ESPN includes the American in the 7 conferences it monitors for the Bubble Watch (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...amp-week).

Look, I get it. "High-major" and "Mid-major" isn't an official NCAA designation, so there's not a definitive list of requirements to make the list. And if you go back before 2014, the AAC and the Big East were the same conference, so it's convenient to find older references that refer to the 6 power conferences and use that as a crutch. But there's plenty of evidence that the AAC is not lumped in with the other "mid-majors" from most of the media. So pardon us if we don't just accept ken d's list as the be-all end-all designation of who is and who is not a "mid-major."

USFFan

No sidestep. Wikipedia isn't a "source" for anything. I get that the AAC bristles at being lumped in with a bunch of conferences that don't deserve to be called "mid-major" or any other kind of major. When somebody comes up with something better to call the bottom 20-22 conferences, I'll be all over it. But in a world where the smallest latte is called "tall", I'm not holding my breath.

(03-12-2019 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:58 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  For the most part, NET and KenPom are pretty closely aligned, as are NET and Massey Composite. Where they tend to differ seems to be that the NET ranking is more favorable to mid-major teams than the other two.

Of the teams in KenPom's Top 50, five are not also in NET Top 50. They are: Indiana (51 NET), Nebraska (52), Creighton (54), Ohio State (55) and Minnesota (56).

The five schools in the NET Top 50 but in KenPom's are: Furman (41NET/55KP), Belmont (45/53), New Mexico St (46/57), Lipscomb (48/52) and Temple (50/69).

The differences are largely bubble teams.

By conference, the KenPom Top 50 includes (highest rank in parentheses):

B1G...11 (4)
ACC....9 (1)
B12....8 (8)
SEC....7 (7)
AAC....3 (13)
BE......3 (26)
WCC...2 (2)
MWC..2 (22)
SOU...1 (18)
MAC...1 (25)
A10....1 (32)
PAC....1 (47)
OVC...1 (50)
.
Of the 11 mid-major schools in the KP Top50, all but one are higher in the NET ranking. St Mary's is listed at #33 by KP and #37 by NET.

The others, with the number of spots higher in the NET in parentheses, are:

Gonzaga (1)
Houston (8)
Wofford (4)
Nevada (3)
Buffalo (5)
VCU (1)
Cincinnati (7)
UCF (8)
Utah State (10)
Murray State (7)

These are listed in order of highest KP rank, so except for Houston, the teams with the greatest disparity are nearer to the bubble, as you might expect.

So IMO, the idea that NET hurts mid-majors is pretty much debunked. I think if we went back in time, what we would find is that the RPI was never taken seriously by the selection committee. We'll soon find out if the NET is.

If you don't know the difference between major and mid-major conference, I can't really take your "objective data " as anything more than trolling. Sorry you wasted so much energy on that troll attempt though.

Nice try.

Nice sidestep. You directly listed "11 mid-majors" and included 3 AAC schools in that list, inferring that the AAC is a mid-major. Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically excludes the AAC from this designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major), as does Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...-chicago), Mid Major Madness (https://www.midmajormadness.com/pages/mi...conference) and essentially Bleacher Report (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2741...n#slide2). Hell, even ESPN includes the American in the 7 conferences it monitors for the Bubble Watch (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...amp-week).

Look, I get it. "High-major" and "Mid-major" isn't an official NCAA designation, so there's not a definitive list of requirements to make the list. And if you go back before 2014, the AAC and the Big East were the same conference, so it's convenient to find older references that refer to the 6 power conferences and use that as a crutch. But there's plenty of evidence that the AAC is not lumped in with the other "mid-majors" from most of the media. So pardon us if we don't just accept ken d's list as the be-all end-all designation of who is and who is not a "mid-major."

USFFan

No sidestep. Wikipedia isn't a "source" for anything. I get that the AAC bristles at being lumped in with a bunch of conferences that don't deserve to be called "mid-major" or any other kind of major. When somebody comes up with something better to call the bottom 20-22 conferences, I'll be all over it. But in a world where the smallest latte is called "tall", I'm not holding my breath.

You're right, I only listed Wikipedia as a source...



USFFan

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:58 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  If you don't know the difference between major and mid-major conference, I can't really take your "objective data " as anything more than trolling. Sorry you wasted so much energy on that troll attempt though.

Nice try.

Nice sidestep. You directly listed "11 mid-majors" and included 3 AAC schools in that list, inferring that the AAC is a mid-major. Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically excludes the AAC from this designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major), as does Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...-chicago), Mid Major Madness (https://www.midmajormadness.com/pages/mi...conference) and essentially Bleacher Report (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2741...n#slide2). Hell, even ESPN includes the American in the 7 conferences it monitors for the Bubble Watch (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...amp-week).

Look, I get it. "High-major" and "Mid-major" isn't an official NCAA designation, so there's not a definitive list of requirements to make the list. And if you go back before 2014, the AAC and the Big East were the same conference, so it's convenient to find older references that refer to the 6 power conferences and use that as a crutch. But there's plenty of evidence that the AAC is not lumped in with the other "mid-majors" from most of the media. So pardon us if we don't just accept ken d's list as the be-all end-all designation of who is and who is not a "mid-major."

USFFan

No sidestep. Wikipedia isn't a "source" for anything. I get that the AAC bristles at being lumped in with a bunch of conferences that don't deserve to be called "mid-major" or any other kind of major. When somebody comes up with something better to call the bottom 20-22 conferences, I'll be all over it. But in a world where the smallest latte is called "tall", I'm not holding my breath.

You're right, I only listed Wikipedia as a source...



USFFan

I give up. if you are only here to play the victim card, I don't want to enable you. I posted objective information - not opinion - about multiple ranking systems to make a point that you either missed or chose to ignore. I'm sorry if that hurt your fragile ego. It wasn't my intent.

(03-12-2019 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  When somebody comes up with something better to call the bottom 20-22 conferences, I'll be all over it. But in a world where the smallest latte is called "tall", I'm not holding my breath.

"One-bid leagues." You're welcome.

(03-12-2019 02:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  Nice try.

Nice sidestep. You directly listed "11 mid-majors" and included 3 AAC schools in that list, inferring that the AAC is a mid-major. Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically excludes the AAC from this designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major), as does Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...-chicago), Mid Major Madness (https://www.midmajormadness.com/pages/mi...conference) and essentially Bleacher Report (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2741...n#slide2). Hell, even ESPN includes the American in the 7 conferences it monitors for the Bubble Watch (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...amp-week).

Look, I get it. "High-major" and "Mid-major" isn't an official NCAA designation, so there's not a definitive list of requirements to make the list. And if you go back before 2014, the AAC and the Big East were the same conference, so it's convenient to find older references that refer to the 6 power conferences and use that as a crutch. But there's plenty of evidence that the AAC is not lumped in with the other "mid-majors" from most of the media. So pardon us if we don't just accept ken d's list as the be-all end-all designation of who is and who is not a "mid-major."

USFFan

No sidestep. Wikipedia isn't a "source" for anything. I get that the AAC bristles at being lumped in with a bunch of conferences that don't deserve to be called "mid-major" or any other kind of major. When somebody comes up with something better to call the bottom 20-22 conferences, I'll be all over it. But in a world where the smallest latte is called "tall", I'm not holding my breath.

You're right, I only listed Wikipedia as a source...



USFFan

I give up. if you are only here to play the victim card, I don't want to enable you. I posted objective information - not opinion - about multiple ranking systems to make a point that you either missed or chose to ignore. I'm sorry if that hurt your fragile ego. It wasn't my intent.

I have no issue with your ranking system. I take issue with your insistence on classifying the conference of my alma mater with a designation that even most in the sports media don't use. Trying to conflate the two is completely disingenuous.

If I commented on your post with something akin to "wow, that's some pretty compelling research! Not bad for somebody with only average intelligence," you would be rightfully indignant, and if I refuted your indignation with comments about how I was complimenting your research, and it's not my fault that you're not in Mensa, it would effectively be the same argument. You could have made the argument without the intentional (and, as I think I've adequately made the point of, inaccurate) mid-major swipe, but you chose not to do so.

USFFan

(03-12-2019 03:08 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  Nice sidestep. You directly listed "11 mid-majors" and included 3 AAC schools in that list, inferring that the AAC is a mid-major. Meanwhile, Wikipedia specifically excludes the AAC from this designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major), as does Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...-chicago), Mid Major Madness (https://www.midmajormadness.com/pages/mi...conference) and essentially Bleacher Report (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2741...n#slide2). Hell, even ESPN includes the American in the 7 conferences it monitors for the Bubble Watch (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...amp-week).

Look, I get it. "High-major" and "Mid-major" isn't an official NCAA designation, so there's not a definitive list of requirements to make the list. And if you go back before 2014, the AAC and the Big East were the same conference, so it's convenient to find older references that refer to the 6 power conferences and use that as a crutch. But there's plenty of evidence that the AAC is not lumped in with the other "mid-majors" from most of the media. So pardon us if we don't just accept ken d's list as the be-all end-all designation of who is and who is not a "mid-major."

USFFan

No sidestep. Wikipedia isn't a "source" for anything. I get that the AAC bristles at being lumped in with a bunch of conferences that don't deserve to be called "mid-major" or any other kind of major. When somebody comes up with something better to call the bottom 20-22 conferences, I'll be all over it. But in a world where the smallest latte is called "tall", I'm not holding my breath.

You're right, I only listed Wikipedia as a source...



USFFan

I give up. if you are only here to play the victim card, I don't want to enable you. I posted objective information - not opinion - about multiple ranking systems to make a point that you either missed or chose to ignore. I'm sorry if that hurt your fragile ego. It wasn't my intent.

I have no issue with your ranking system. I take issue with your insistence on classifying the conference of my alma mater with a designation that even most in the sports media don't use. Trying to conflate the two is completely disingenuous.

If I commented on your post with something akin to "wow, that's some pretty compelling research! Not bad for somebody with only average intelligence," you would be rightfully indignant, and if I refuted your indignation with comments about how I was complimenting your research, and it's not my fault that you're not in Mensa, it would effectively be the same argument. You could have made the argument without the intentional (and, as I think I've adequately made the point of, inaccurate) mid-major swipe, but you chose not to do so.

USFFan

Ditto.