(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

If you think I was making a swipe at your alma mater's conference, that's your paranoia showing. And I simply refuse to enable your paranoia.

(03-12-2019 11:59 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  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.

One or two **** programs doesn't tank a whole conference (especially when one is an academic power house). The American is not the ACC or Big 10, but it isn't a step down from the PAC or BE. The American outperformed the PAC last year, this year, and it will again next year. If that isn't enough to make it a "power" conference then fair enough but then neither is the lowly PAC or BE for that matter.

(03-12-2019 11:59 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  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.

Hahaha... Give it up man before you give yourself a nose bleed.

(03-12-2019 09:02 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:59 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  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.

Hahaha... Give it up man before you give yourself a nose bleed.

Cool story, bro.

(03-12-2019 08:38 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:59 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  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.

One or two **** programs doesn't tank a whole conference (especially when one is an academic power house). The American is not the ACC or Big 10, but it isn't a step down from the PAC or BE. The American outperformed the PAC last year, this year, and it will again next year. If that isn't enough to make it a "power" conference then fair enough but then neither is the lowly PAC or BE for that matter.

Actually it does. Name a P6 conference with a Tulane and ECU like program. They might have one in some seasons but not two on a permanent basis.

With that being said, good luck to you guys in the big dance. I always root for the non P6 during March Madness.

(03-12-2019 10:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:38 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:59 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  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.

One or two **** programs doesn't tank a whole conference (especially when one is an academic power house). The American is not the ACC or Big 10, but it isn't a step down from the PAC or BE. The American outperformed the PAC last year, this year, and it will again next year. If that isn't enough to make it a "power" conference then fair enough but then neither is the lowly PAC or BE for that matter.

Actually it does. Name a P6 conference with a Tulane and ECU like program. They might have one in some seasons but not two on a permanent basis.

With that being said, good luck to you guys in the big dance. I always root for the non P6 during March Madness.

It really doesn't. All conferences are judged by their best teams. If there's an area where the American hasn't done enough to be considered a power conference, it's in the tournament. They need to start consistently making deep runs in order to elevate their perception. Aside from the UConn natty the conference hasn't won when it matters. Again though neither has the Pac or BE (outside of Nova).

Why are we arguing with mid major and G4 fanboys about this nonsense. Its fitting that they would be the ones to immedietely go off topic to try to claim the AAC is not an power bball league. These same lads are the same ones who would claim the AAC is not gonna get much of a bump in their media deal, or even drop, just because all the G4 leagues took a bath.

I'm not exactly sure why we have a selection committee picking teams. Who you beat and where you beat them is already built into the NET rankings as I understand it. The system should be you take the 32 auto-bids and then the 36 at-large bids should go to the 36 highest remaining NET ranked teams. From there if you want to have a committee to intervene with seeding, I'd be okay with that. Having human involved just allows people to manipulate data however they want to get whatever team they feel is deserving in.

(03-13-2019 11:07 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure why we have a selection committee picking teams. Who you beat and where you beat them is already built into the NET rankings as I understand it. The system should be you take the 32 auto-bids and then the 36 at-large bids should go to the 36 highest remaining NET ranked teams. From there is you want to have a committee to intervene with seeding, I'd be okay with that. Having human involves just allows people to manipulate data however they want to get whatever team they feel is deserving in.

And the human element is what I like about the selection committees. Teams will learn how to game the NET like they did with the RPI before. Plus, the NET doesn’t take everything into account, like Quadrants and SOS.

(03-13-2019 05:47 AM)otown Wrote:  Why are we arguing with mid major and G4 fanboys about this nonsense. Its fitting that they would be the ones to immedietely go off topic to try to claim the AAC is not an power bball league. These same lads are the same ones who would claim the AAC is not gonna get much of a bump in their media deal, or even drop, just because all the G4 leagues took a bath.

Don’t be so hard on your school (UCF) which is the true definition of mid major. Wasn’t your last NCAA in the A-Sun? How many trips to the NCAAs? Three? Maybe four? Get at least 15 before you call others “mid-major”.

(03-12-2019 11:22 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 10:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:38 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:59 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  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.

One or two **** programs doesn't tank a whole conference (especially when one is an academic power house). The American is not the ACC or Big 10, but it isn't a step down from the PAC or BE. The American outperformed the PAC last year, this year, and it will again next year. If that isn't enough to make it a "power" conference then fair enough but then neither is the lowly PAC or BE for that matter.

Actually it does. Name a P6 conference with a Tulane and ECU like program. They might have one in some seasons but not two on a permanent basis.

With that being said, good luck to you guys in the big dance. I always root for the non P6 during March Madness.

It really doesn't. All conferences are judged by their best teams. If there's an area where the American hasn't done enough to be considered a power conference, it's in the tournament. They need to start consistently making deep runs in order to elevate their perception. Aside from the UConn natty the conference hasn't won when it matters. Again though neither has the Pac or BE (outside of Nova).

It does but your point is valid as well. You’re judged equally by the postseason and your strength in conference.

The AAC has a good core of basketball schools. It’s the best basketball league outside the P6 and it’s not even close. You just have a Tulane and ECU problem. I’m more optimistic on ECU getting together. Tulane? They’re a lost cause.

(03-12-2019 10:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:38 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:59 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  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.

One or two **** programs doesn't tank a whole conference (especially when one is an academic power house). The American is not the ACC or Big 10, but it isn't a step down from the PAC or BE. The American outperformed the PAC last year, this year, and it will again next year. If that isn't enough to make it a "power" conference then fair enough but then neither is the lowly PAC or BE for that matter.

Actually it does. Name a P6 conference with a Tulane and ECU like program. They might have one in some seasons but not two on a permanent basis.

With that being said, good luck to you guys in the big dance. I always root for the non P6 during March Madness.

OK, I will...

The Big Ten has a Rutgers program that hasn't had any real success in Men's Basketball; I'd compare them to "ECU and Tulane." The Big Ten also has Northwestern, another program with no real success in Men's Basketball, comparable to Tulane and ECU. I guess I could also throw in Penn State for good measure.

In the ACC, when was Wake Forrest's last taste of success in Men's Basketball...more than a decade ago? Boston College? I'd place them in the same conversation.

In the PAC 12? Howabout Washington State? Oregon State? Both of those programs are habitually woeful.

The Big XII is more difficult because Baylor seems to have thrown ethics away and lots of money at their program, but their history before Scott Drew was pitiful.

The point is that EVERY conference has two chronically bad programs and a handful of others that fluctuate back and forth. (Like Kansas State or Purdue or USC, etc...) Yes, The American has Tulane and ECU (hell, I'd throw USF in there as well...), but that's not abnormal.

Every conference has bottom feeders.

(03-13-2019 11:22 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:07 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure why we have a selection committee picking teams. Who you beat and where you beat them is already built into the NET rankings as I understand it. The system should be you take the 32 auto-bids and then the 36 at-large bids should go to the 36 highest remaining NET ranked teams. From there is you want to have a committee to intervene with seeding, I'd be okay with that. Having human involves just allows people to manipulate data however they want to get whatever team they feel is deserving in.

And the human element is what I like about the selection committees. Teams will learn how to game the NET like they did with the RPI before. Plus, the NET doesn’t take everything into account, like Quadrants and SOS.

Sure it does. If you beat Gonzaga by 5 it's going to boost your rating, meanwhile, if you beat Chicago State by 5 it would lower your rating.

If you want to argue that NET is a faulty formula then just have them tweak it so that it's better.

(03-13-2019 06:33 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:22 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:07 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure why we have a selection committee picking teams. Who you beat and where you beat them is already built into the NET rankings as I understand it. The system should be you take the 32 auto-bids and then the 36 at-large bids should go to the 36 highest remaining NET ranked teams. From there is you want to have a committee to intervene with seeding, I'd be okay with that. Having human involves just allows people to manipulate data however they want to get whatever team they feel is deserving in.

And the human element is what I like about the selection committees. Teams will learn how to game the NET like they did with the RPI before. Plus, the NET doesn’t take everything into account, like Quadrants and SOS.

Sure it does. If you beat Gonzaga by 5 it's going to boost your rating, meanwhile, if you beat Chicago State by 5 it would lower your rating.

If you want to argue that NET is a faulty formula then just have them tweak it so that it's better.

It can get better, but it will never be close to perfect. Human element still needs to be a part of the selection process.

I like the distinction of Power, Major, Mid-Major, and Small. Power is pretty obvious, it’s sending over half the league to the Dance. Major conferences have teams like UConn with multiple Final 4’s and National Titles. Mid-Major is more like C-USA, a league with some tradition like Western Kentucky and UAB, etc. UAB helped form the Great Midwest, they’ve fallen hard btw. Mid-Majors like C-USA, the MAC, and the MVC sometimes have great seasons and send multiple teams where Small conferences are routinely one bid leagues and play in small gymnasiums.

(03-13-2019 01:07 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 05:47 AM)otown Wrote:  Why are we arguing with mid major and G4 fanboys about this nonsense. Its fitting that they would be the ones to immedietely go off topic to try to claim the AAC is not an power bball league. These same lads are the same ones who would claim the AAC is not gonna get much of a bump in their media deal, or even drop, just because all the G4 leagues took a bath.

Don’t be so hard on your school (UCF) which is the true definition of mid major. Wasn’t your last NCAA in the A-Sun? How many trips to the NCAAs? Three? Maybe four? Get at least 15 before you call others “mid-major”.

This doesn't matter. What matters is this season. You seem not able to understand it.

(03-13-2019 06:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  I like the distinction of Power, Major, Mid-Major, and Small. Power is pretty obvious, it’s sending over half the league to the Dance. Major conferences have teams like UConn with multiple Final 4’s and National Titles. Mid-Major is more like C-USA, a league with some tradition like Western Kentucky and UAB, etc. UAB helped form the Great Midwest, they’ve fallen hard btw. Mid-Majors like C-USA, the MAC, and the MVC sometimes have great seasons and send multiple teams where Small conferences are routinely one bid leagues and play in small gymnasiums.

Should not matter.

(03-13-2019 11:22 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:07 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure why we have a selection committee picking teams. Who you beat and where you beat them is already built into the NET rankings as I understand it. The system should be you take the 32 auto-bids and then the 36 at-large bids should go to the 36 highest remaining NET ranked teams. From there is you want to have a committee to intervene with seeding, I'd be okay with that. Having human involves just allows people to manipulate data however they want to get whatever team they feel is deserving in.

And the human element is what I like about the selection committees. Teams will learn how to game the NET like they did with the RPI before. Plus, the NET doesn’t take everything into account, like Quadrants and SOS.

$$$

(03-13-2019 06:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  I like the distinction of Power, Major, Mid-Major, and Small. Power is pretty obvious, it’s sending over half the league to the Dance. Major conferences have teams like UConn with multiple Final 4’s and National Titles. Mid-Major is more like C-USA, a league with some tradition like Western Kentucky and UAB, etc. UAB helped form the Great Midwest, they’ve fallen hard btw. Mid-Majors like C-USA, the MAC, and the MVC sometimes have great seasons and send multiple teams where Small conferences are routinely one bid leagues and play in small gymnasiums.

Look... "Power" means only one real thing: $$$$$

The "Power" conferences...even in BB...have something that no other conferences have: HUGE $$$. Like by a magnitude of 10. That's the obvious dividing line. If you're in the "Power" world, you are in a completely different world. You can pay your Head Coach a huge salary; you can hire a gazillion "Analysts" to study the game from a gazillion perspectives; you can afford marble training facilities and fancy arenas, etc...

If you aren't in the "Power" world...well...you aren't. You have to subsidize your athletic department to the tune of +50%, and even then you can't afford a HC salary that won't get poached at the first sign of success. You might have a "Practice Facility," but you're just as likely to be practicing on your home floor and sharing that between the men, the women, and the volleyball team. Your training facilities aren't going to be posh...you can't afford it.

And yeah...when it comes to "Selection Time," your "runner-up" isn't going to be in the Big Dance...because the TV networks want the fancy, splashy "Name" programs with their pricey HC's.

But the "Power" thing is only about one thing: access to huge sums of money. And you're either "In" or you're not.