(03-17-2019 09:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Why are guys surprised? It’s the P6 and the rest. What? You thought it wasn’t the P5 + Big East? ??

the fact is though that it just doesn't matter. How exactly did the designation help the Big East vs the AAC this year? AAC's top team better than Big East's top team, 2nd place Nova ahead of Cincy, 3rd place UCF ahead of Seton Hall, and Temple ahead of St John's.

This despite all 4 Big East teams winning 1st games in their conference tournaments while 3rd and 4th place teams from AAC lost in theirs....

They're both PIG in Dayton, I wouldn't say one is ahead of another.

The minute I saw that I knew there's be a few people rushing here to post it.



but the debate I had with a few of the people on here was whether the AAC was "mid-major," not with whether we were, in fact, part of a Power 7 vs. a Power 6. And the fact that ESPN was going on and on about how the AAC is a major conference, coupled with the fact that virtually every source that names mid-majors excludes the AAC from that mention, means that this isn't an either/or debate.

(03-17-2019 09:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Why are guys surprised? It’s the P6 and the rest. What? You thought it wasn’t the P5 + Big East? ??

the fact is though that it just doesn't matter. How exactly did the designation help the Big East vs the AAC this year? AAC's top team better than Big East's top team, 2nd place Nova ahead of Cincy, 3rd place UCF ahead of Seton Hall, and Temple ahead of St John's.

This despite all 4 Big East teams winning 1st games in their conference tournaments while 3rd and 4th place teams from AAC lost in theirs....

They're both PIG in Dayton, I wouldn't say one is ahead of another.

The Selection committee did, but don't let facts get in the way...



USFFan

(03-17-2019 10:02 PM)usffan Wrote:  The minute I saw that I knew there's be a few people rushing here to post it.



but the debate I had with a few of the people on here was whether the AAC was "mid-major," not with whether we were, in fact, part of a Power 7 vs. a Power 6. And the fact that ESPN was going on and on about how the AAC is a major conference, coupled with the fact that virtually every source that names mid-majors excludes the AAC from that mention, means that this isn't an either/or debate.

(03-17-2019 09:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Why are guys surprised? It’s the P6 and the rest. What? You thought it wasn’t the P5 + Big East? ??

the fact is though that it just doesn't matter. How exactly did the designation help the Big East vs the AAC this year? AAC's top team better than Big East's top team, 2nd place Nova ahead of Cincy, 3rd place UCF ahead of Seton Hall, and Temple ahead of St John's.

This despite all 4 Big East teams winning 1st games in their conference tournaments while 3rd and 4th place teams from AAC lost in theirs....

They're both PIG in Dayton, I wouldn't say one is ahead of another.

The Selection committee did, but don't let facts get in the way...



USFFan

Cool. Are they both in the last four in and playing in Dayton to get the chance to be in the round of 64?

(03-17-2019 10:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 10:02 PM)usffan Wrote:  The minute I saw that I knew there's be a few people rushing here to post it.



but the debate I had with a few of the people on here was whether the AAC was "mid-major," not with whether we were, in fact, part of a Power 7 vs. a Power 6. And the fact that ESPN was going on and on about how the AAC is a major conference, coupled with the fact that virtually every source that names mid-majors excludes the AAC from that mention, means that this isn't an either/or debate.

(03-17-2019 09:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Why are guys surprised? It’s the P6 and the rest. What? You thought it wasn’t the P5 + Big East? ??

the fact is though that it just doesn't matter. How exactly did the designation help the Big East vs the AAC this year? AAC's top team better than Big East's top team, 2nd place Nova ahead of Cincy, 3rd place UCF ahead of Seton Hall, and Temple ahead of St John's.

This despite all 4 Big East teams winning 1st games in their conference tournaments while 3rd and 4th place teams from AAC lost in theirs....

They're both PIG in Dayton, I wouldn't say one is ahead of another.

The Selection committee did, but don't let facts get in the way...



USFFan

Cool. Are they both in the last four in and playing in Dayton to get the chance to be in the round of 64?

Yes. Was Temple rated ahead of St. John's? Also yes.

USFFan

(03-17-2019 10:54 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 10:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 10:02 PM)usffan Wrote:  The minute I saw that I knew there's be a few people rushing here to post it.



but the debate I had with a few of the people on here was whether the AAC was "mid-major," not with whether we were, in fact, part of a Power 7 vs. a Power 6. And the fact that ESPN was going on and on about how the AAC is a major conference, coupled with the fact that virtually every source that names mid-majors excludes the AAC from that mention, means that this isn't an either/or debate.

(03-17-2019 09:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the fact is though that it just doesn't matter. How exactly did the designation help the Big East vs the AAC this year? AAC's top team better than Big East's top team, 2nd place Nova ahead of Cincy, 3rd place UCF ahead of Seton Hall, and Temple ahead of St John's.

This despite all 4 Big East teams winning 1st games in their conference tournaments while 3rd and 4th place teams from AAC lost in theirs....

They're both PIG in Dayton, I wouldn't say one is ahead of another.

The Selection committee did, but don't let facts get in the way...



USFFan

Cool. Are they both in the last four in and playing in Dayton to get the chance to be in the round of 64?

Yes. Was Temple rated ahead of St. John's? Also yes.

USFFan

Cool brag. I'm sure that will be what gets you that 10 mil per team per year TV deal.

(03-17-2019 06:41 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I got a kick out of the P6 moniker, too. However, I think the American touts “P6” in regards to football and I’ve seen fans here say “P7” for basketball - both of which are unofficially correct.

I put MWC as part of P7 with the Big Least at LB8. LB equals Little Brother not part of the football power group.

(03-17-2019 05:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In discussing conference bids, CBS put up a P6 graphic, and defined the P6 as:

ACC
B1G
SEC
PAC 12
Big 12
Big East

Football - P6
SEC
B1G
Big 12
PAC-12
ACC
AAC

Basketball - P7
ACC
B1G
SEC
Big 12
Big East
AAC
PAC-12
---------
MWC
A-10
WCC

P7 football:
ACC
AAC
Big 10
Big 12
MWC
PAC 12
SEC

P7 men's basketball:
AAC
ACC
Big 10
Big 12
MWC
PAC 12
SEC

1-AA mens basketball P4:
A10
Big Least
Summit
WAC

(03-18-2019 02:35 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 05:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In discussing conference bids, CBS put up a P6 graphic, and defined the P6 as:

ACC
B1G
SEC
PAC 12
Big 12
Big East

Football - P6
SEC
B1G
Big 12
PAC-12
ACC
AAC

Basketball - P7
ACC
B1G
SEC
Big 12
Big East
AAC
PAC-12
---------
MWC
A-10
WCC

Usually, I’d say the MVC is somewhere in the below-the-line, enough-to-be-mentioned mix of conferences

(03-18-2019 06:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  P7 football:
ACC
AAC
Big 10
Big 12
MWC
PAC 12
SEC

P7 men's basketball:
AAC
ACC
Big 10
Big 12
MWC
PAC 12
SEC

1-AA mens basketball P4:
A10
Big Least
Summit
WAC

Only a moron really thinks the MWC is power in basketball... Sorry this isn't 5-10 years ago... MWC has 2 teams playing basketball... out of 11. Meanwhile the Big EAST has 9 of their 10 teams playing in the NCAA or NIT. In a down year.

(03-17-2019 10:02 PM)usffan Wrote:  The minute I saw that I knew there's be a few people rushing here to post it.



but the debate I had with a few of the people on here was whether the AAC was "mid-major," not with whether we were, in fact, part of a Power 7 vs. a Power 6. And the fact that ESPN was going on and on about how the AAC is a major conference, coupled with the fact that virtually every source that names mid-majors excludes the AAC from that mention, means that this isn't an either/or debate.

(03-17-2019 09:51 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Why are guys surprised? It’s the P6 and the rest. What? You thought it wasn’t the P5 + Big East? ??

the fact is though that it just doesn't matter. How exactly did the designation help the Big East vs the AAC this year? AAC's top team better than Big East's top team, 2nd place Nova ahead of Cincy, 3rd place UCF ahead of Seton Hall, and Temple ahead of St John's.

This despite all 4 Big East teams winning 1st games in their conference tournaments while 3rd and 4th place teams from AAC lost in theirs....

They're both PIG in Dayton, I wouldn't say one is ahead of another.

The Selection committee did, but don't let facts get in the way...



USFFan

I've posted this many times on this board, but I'll say it again: anyone who consider UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Wichita State, Temple and Houston mid-major basketball programs are idiots. Those schools have more basketball tradition, more hardware, sell more tickets, allot more money out of their AD budget and have better brands than more than half of the P5.

My alma matter, for example, is the 13th winningest program in CBB history. We're #10 all-time in terms of weeks ranked in the AP Top 25. We have two national titles. We packed 12,000 in our basketball arena.... We don't have a huge media contract.. but we've been doing more with less for 70 years.

(03-17-2019 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what exactly did being a power conference label help the Big East this year?

Irrelevant question. Seriously. "Power" is about prestige, not about entrants in a single tournament, much less seeding.

Seeding, btw, is way overrated. If you're not #1 or #2, you have competitive games from the git-go. The top 8 are the only ones with a real advantage.

I mean, compare Seton Hall to AAC champion Cincinnati. Cincy is a 7 seed, Seton Hall is a 10 seed. Seton Hall plays 7 seed Wofford, Cincy plays 10 seed Iowa. Is Wofford really a significantly tougher game than Iowa?

Iowa has wins over PAC champ Oregon and Big 12 champ Iowa State, and Michigan. Wofford lost to every good A5 team they played. So I'm not sure Wofford is really all that much better than Iowa.

(03-18-2019 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what exactly did being a power conference label help the Big East this year?

Irrelevant question. Seriously. "Power" is about prestige, not about entrants in a single tournament, much less seeding.

Seeding, btw, is way overrated. If you're not #1 or #2, you have competitive games from the git-go.

folks want to keep on saying that, but historically there are huge differences with seeds.... Some seeds aren't much of a difference in rd 1, but in rd 2, it's a huge difference.

Houston as a 3 seed has a far greater shot to go far vs Marquette historically....
rd 1- 3 seeds 115-21 .846 5 seeds 89-47 .654
rd 2- 3 seeds 70-45 5 seeds 46-43
rd 3- 3 seeds 33-36 5 seeds 8-35
rd 4- 3 seets 15-17 5 seeds 6-2

Now Nova has a better shot than Cincy
rd 1- 6 seeds 85-51 .625 7 seeds 84-42 .618
rd 2- 6 seeds 42-43 7 seeds 27-57
rd 3- 6 seeds 14-28 7 seeds 10-17
rd 4- 6 seeds 3-11 7 seeds 3-7

(03-18-2019 09:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what exactly did being a power conference label help the Big East this year?

Irrelevant question. Seriously. "Power" is about prestige, not about entrants in a single tournament, much less seeding.

Seeding, btw, is way overrated. If you're not #1 or #2, you have competitive games from the git-go.

folks want to keep on saying that, but historically there are huge differences with seeds.... Some seeds aren't much of a difference in rd 1, but in rd 2, it's a huge difference.

So you think Wofford is a lot tougher than Iowa?

(03-18-2019 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 09:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what exactly did being a power conference label help the Big East this year?

Irrelevant question. Seriously. "Power" is about prestige, not about entrants in a single tournament, much less seeding.

Seeding, btw, is way overrated. If you're not #1 or #2, you have competitive games from the git-go.

folks want to keep on saying that, but historically there are huge differences with seeds.... Some seeds aren't much of a difference in rd 1, but in rd 2, it's a huge difference.

So you think Wofford is a lot tougher than Iowa?

I think they really could be. For one, almost all the times they've had to play P5 teams, it's been on the road. This will be neutral site. Really evens things out considerably.

For Iowa- January 12 they were 14-3. since then, Iowa is 8-8, with wins over Penn St, Illinois x2, Indiana x2, Northwestern, Rutgers, and 1 good win over Michigan. They lost by 14 to Rutgers at home!

(03-18-2019 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 09:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what exactly did being a power conference label help the Big East this year?

Irrelevant question. Seriously. "Power" is about prestige, not about entrants in a single tournament, much less seeding.

Seeding, btw, is way overrated. If you're not #1 or #2, you have competitive games from the git-go.

folks want to keep on saying that, but historically there are huge differences with seeds.... Some seeds aren't much of a difference in rd 1, but in rd 2, it's a huge difference.

So you think Wofford is a lot tougher than Iowa?

I think its a tougher matchup given that Cincy will be playing in Ohio

(03-18-2019 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what exactly did being a power conference label help the Big East this year?

Irrelevant question. Seriously. "Power" is about prestige, not about entrants in a single tournament, much less seeding.

Seeding, btw, is way overrated. If you're not #1 or #2, you have competitive games from the git-go. The top 8 are the only ones with a real advantage.

I mean, compare Seton Hall to AAC champion Cincinnati. Cincy is a 7 seed, Seton Hall is a 10 seed. Seton Hall plays 7 seed Wofford, Cincy plays 10 seed Iowa. Is Wofford really a significantly tougher game than Iowa?

Iowa has wins over PAC champ Oregon and Big 12 champ Iowa State, and Michigan. Wofford lost to every good A5 team they played. So I'm not sure Wofford is really all that much better than Iowa.

I thought it was about money and control? & the AAC is about to get a major pay raise.

Besides, I think the AAC programs are just as prestigious as Big East programs top to bottom. Admittedly, as an ECU fan I don't have room to be boasting about basketball pedigree, although we are finally channelling our resources appropriately in that regard. That said, notwithstanding our futility, Depaul only has one more NCAA appearance than we do since '92. When ECU was in C-USA 1.0 the Blue Demons were one of the few teams we could compete with and were often at the bottom of the standings with us. Hopefully ECU & Tulane can start to turn things around because we're the anomalies in the AAC. The rest of the conference is more than solid now that USF appears to be out of the cellar. I think my Pirates will show improvement next year when Dooley brings in some of his own players.

Moreover, the history and prestige in the AAC is at least tantamount to the Big East IMO. Just look at the accolades of each respective program. Also, the AAC appears to be on an upward trajectory more so than perhaps any other conference, so perception will continue to sway in the AAC's favor moving forward. This was supposed to be a down year for AAC basketball. Next year will be a big year for the AAC!

I saw this graphic yesterday while watching the bracket release, and while I chuckled when I saw it, I viewed it to be pretty petty on CBS' part. At this point, the whole "power" vs. "non-power" arguments in relation to the Big East/AAC, as well as the MWC/A10, are small potatoes as to the overall enjoyment of college basketball. Villanova (twice) and UConn (once) have won national championships in college basketball since the "Great Divide of 2013". Loyola went to the Final Four last year. Gonzaga went to the championship game two years ago, and is once again a 1-seed this year. I realize there will always be a "competitive" debate with regards to the BE/AAC, since those two leagues formed via an official divorce, but - in the long-run - both are currently positioned to be part of the major grouping, whatever pundits want to call it, of college basketball.

I think that's a big thing. This year the AAC wasn't supposed to be good at all... Preseason I think they had 2 tourney teams projected.

Looking ahead- Memphis has #8 recruiting class so far and UConn is #18 so far. Wichita is #45 so far.

And structurally you can get good seeds out of the AAC. All but 4 teams had top 70 overall SOS this year to include conference games. Even with 2 teams in the bottom 100. What helps is all 10 of the other teams were top 100..... Only Big Ten and SEC had more top 100 teams.

Committee overall seed ranks:

AAC Avg = 28
Houston 9
Cincy 27
UCF 34
Temple 43

Big East Avg = 31
Marquette 17
Villanova 21
Seton Hall 38
St Johns 47

Pac 12 Avg = 42
Washington 33
Arizona St 45
Oregon 48