(03-09-2020 09:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 09:13 AM)Nameless Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 09:39 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 09:07 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  he left out the option "Improve the level of play of our programs" in his poll

On this theme (and on a positive note), some fans of AAC programs did note this within the thread. They are realistic.

Yea, all of the sensible fans on that board have noted most of the conference tanked the non-con, and had they not they'd be looking at 4-5 bids

Yeah without a doubt. I mean league finished with 6 winning teams in conference play and a 7th at .500.

Tulsa went 8-5 OOC with 2 losses by 2 and 3 points, and a 3 OT loss. Win all of those, and they're sitting right now at 24-7 and probably close to a lock . UConn had yes the ugly loss vs St Joe's- but also 2 real close losses to Indiana and Xavier. (not to mention the 6 point loss to Nova). Those 2 could easily be in right now. Even Memphis- they win the game vs Georgia they lost by 3 points, they're at 22-9.

Always the difference between a bid and not for bubble teams comes down to 1-2 games.

What really kills Tulsa is the bad losses. Losing to UTA, Arky State and a KSU team that has lost like 10+ more games than they've won just isn't going to cut it in the non con. As you noted, win those 3 games and they're probably in the field. Agree on Memphis beating Georgia as well.

You can go down the list and find a knock on every team in the league though. Houston didn't have a great ooc performance, losing 3 games to good teams that would have boosted their resume. Wichita State played well, but some of their wins that would have been good in years past weren't as good this year. UConn lost a bunch of close games and had the terrible St Joe's loss. SMU played nobody of note ooc except Georgetown and Georgia, both of whom they lost to. Etc, etc.

I think the league still ultimately gets 3 bids though, which makes Jed's thread even more head scratching.

The notion that Cincinnati was some sort of linchpin of what I'll call the 2nd middle big east is as laughable as the notion that 2005-12 represented something called the Old Big East. Cincy did just a bit more than jack s*** in their tenure in the BE.

OBE teams for peoples' memories:

Georgetown
Syracuse
ST Johns
Providence
Seton Hall
Villanova
UCONN
Boston College

Pitt

The first 8 formed the conference. Nova joined a year later, but was a founding member. Pitt was invited a year or two after the formation.

Rutgers, ND, West Virginia, Va Tech, Miami aren't old Big East.

Cincy, Marquette, Depaul, Louisville and USF certainly aren't OBE.

Our current version certainly looks a lot more like the original than anything since.

(03-09-2020 10:23 PM)VCE Wrote:  The notion that Cincinnati was some sort of linchpin of what I'll call the 2nd middle big east is as laughable as the notion that 2005-12 represented something called the Old Big East. Cincy did just a bit more than jack s*** in their tenure in the BE.

OBE teams for peoples' memories:

Georgetown
Syracuse
ST Johns
Providence
Seton Hall
Villanova
UCONN
Boston College

Pitt

The first 8 formed the conference. Nova joined a year later, but was a founding member. Pitt was invited a year or two after the formation.

Rutgers, ND, West Virginia, Va Tech, Miami aren't old Big East.

Cincy, Marquette, Depaul, Louisville and USF certainly aren't OBE.

Our current version certainly looks a lot more like the original than anything since.

Cincy would have absolutely based on where they had been performing would have been counted on as a key program. Think about it- outside of Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, UConn, Memphis, and Temple- they would have been clearly the next team(and remember they had just been to the sweet 16 in 2012- and Nova had actually struggled some in 2012 and 2013- 2012 they missed the tourney, and 2013 they were only a 9 seed).

It's really remarkable how so many of those programs have struggled. And allowed programs like Providence, Seton Hall on the Big East side, and on the AAC side Houston to ascend. In some ways, it's made it worse on mid-major conferences, as instead of having like 16-17 teams- got 22 between the 2 conferences, and more teams able to do well between the 2 conferences.

(03-10-2020 01:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:23 PM)VCE Wrote:  The notion that Cincinnati was some sort of linchpin of what I'll call the 2nd middle big east is as laughable as the notion that 2005-12 represented something called the Old Big East. Cincy did just a bit more than jack s*** in their tenure in the BE.

OBE teams for peoples' memories:

Georgetown
Syracuse
ST Johns
Providence
Seton Hall
Villanova
UCONN
Boston College

Pitt

The first 8 formed the conference. Nova joined a year later, but was a founding member. Pitt was invited a year or two after the formation.

Rutgers, ND, West Virginia, Va Tech, Miami aren't old Big East.

Cincy, Marquette, Depaul, Louisville and USF certainly aren't OBE.

Our current version certainly looks a lot more like the original than anything since.

Cincy would have absolutely based on where they had been performing would have been counted on as a key program. Think about it- outside of Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, UConn, Memphis, and Temple- they would have been clearly the next team(and remember they had just been to the sweet 16 in 2012- and Nova had actually struggled some in 2012 and 2013- 2012 they missed the tourney, and 2013 they were only a 9 seed).

It's really remarkable how so many of those programs have struggled. And allowed programs like Providence, Seton Hall on the Big East side, and on the AAC side Houston to ascend. In some ways, it's made it worse on mid-major conferences, as instead of having like 16-17 teams- got 22 between the 2 conferences, and more teams able to do well between the 2 conferences.

One of many reasons why a football/non-football split was necessary and essential to both sides' pursuit of survival/success within the athletic landscape moving forward.

If you are going to have a program struggle, endure the lack of success among peers and like-minded institutions with similar visions and athletic goals. It makes it much easier to align objectives and athletic pursuits when all members are on the same page, not to mention eliminate big brother/little brother mindsets within a larger conference.

So the leagues in the 6 years have averaged 8.5 bids per season. with never fewer than 8(or never more than 9). Don't know in a 16-17 team situation the league would have gotten that many bids... And that's with 3 NIT 1 seeds and 4 NIT 2 seeds- so really a lot closer to being a lot more.. And this year could easily see 10 between the 2 leagues- and another 1-2 top NIT 1-2 seeds...

(03-10-2020 09:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So the leagues in the 6 years have averaged 8.5 bids per season. with never fewer than 8(or never more than 9). Don't know in a 16-17 team situation the league would have gotten that many bids... And that's with 3 NIT 1 seeds and 4 NIT 2 seeds- so really a lot closer to being a lot more.. And this year could easily see 10 between the 2 leagues- and another 1-2 top NIT 1-2 seeds...

The only way the hybrid model could have been continued (and optimized) in basketball was via the following:

C7 (DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova)
UConn
Cincinnati
Memphis
Butler
Creighton
Wichita State
VCU

*No invites to Xavier or Temple (duplicate market)
*No invites to Houston, SMU, Tulane, ECU, UCF, USF, Tulsa

Now, there's no way it could have been successful since there would be four football programs with nowhere to go, and the league would have essentially been run by the eight Catholic schools. However, you would have a nice East/West split (E - UConn, GT, PC, SH, SJ, VCU, VU; W - BU, UC, CU, DU, MEM, MU, WSU).

From 2013-2020, that combination would have had 49 NCAA Tournament appearances (averaging 7 bids annually), 6 S16s, 4 E8s, 4 FFs and 3 NCs. Elite league right there. That combination would have had immensely strong attendance and fan support, not to mention majority basketball-first programs.

(03-10-2020 10:17 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 09:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So the leagues in the 6 years have averaged 8.5 bids per season. with never fewer than 8(or never more than 9). Don't know in a 16-17 team situation the league would have gotten that many bids... And that's with 3 NIT 1 seeds and 4 NIT 2 seeds- so really a lot closer to being a lot more.. And this year could easily see 10 between the 2 leagues- and another 1-2 top NIT 1-2 seeds...

The only way the hybrid model could have been continued (and optimized) in basketball was via the following:

C7 (DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova)
UConn
Cincinnati
Memphis
Butler
Creighton
Wichita State
VCU

*No invites to Xavier or Temple (duplicate market)
*No invites to Houston, SMU, Tulane, ECU, UCF, USF, Tulsa

Now, there's no way it could have been successful since there would be four football programs with nowhere to go, and the league would have essentially been run by the eight Catholic schools. However, you would have a nice East/West split (E - UConn, GT, PC, SH, SJ, VCU, VU; W - BU, UC, CU, DU, MEM, MU, WSU).

From 2013-2020, that combination would have had 49 NCAA Tournament appearances (averaging 7 bids annually), 6 S16s, 4 E8s, 4 FFs and 3 NCs. Elite league right there. That combination would have had immensely strong attendance and fan support, not to mention majority basketball-first programs.

Small problem. Only 3 football programs in there. 4 if you include Villanova.

But my point remains- with what's happened- it's made things much tougher on the mid-major leagues. Elevated teams like Houston, UCF, SMU, Tulsa far higher than they used to be... Allowed programs like Seton Hall and Providence to get out of the shadows.

And what's amazing- the leagues could have been better had Marquette, Georgetown, Memphis, and Temple(and 2nd half of the period UConn) been stronger...

(03-10-2020 10:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 10:17 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 09:10 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So the leagues in the 6 years have averaged 8.5 bids per season. with never fewer than 8(or never more than 9). Don't know in a 16-17 team situation the league would have gotten that many bids... And that's with 3 NIT 1 seeds and 4 NIT 2 seeds- so really a lot closer to being a lot more.. And this year could easily see 10 between the 2 leagues- and another 1-2 top NIT 1-2 seeds...

The only way the hybrid model could have been continued (and optimized) in basketball was via the following:

C7 (DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova)
UConn
Cincinnati
Memphis
Butler
Creighton
Wichita State
VCU

*No invites to Xavier or Temple (duplicate market)
*No invites to Houston, SMU, Tulane, ECU, UCF, USF, Tulsa

Now, there's no way it could have been successful since there would be four football programs with nowhere to go, and the league would have essentially been run by the eight Catholic schools. However, you would have a nice East/West split (E - UConn, GT, PC, SH, SJ, VCU, VU; W - BU, UC, CU, DU, MEM, MU, WSU).

From 2013-2020, that combination would have had 49 NCAA Tournament appearances (averaging 7 bids annually), 6 S16s, 4 E8s, 4 FFs and 3 NCs. Elite league right there. That combination would have had immensely strong attendance and fan support, not to mention majority basketball-first programs.

Small problem. Only 3 football programs in there. 4 if you include Villanova.

But my point remains- with what's happened- it's made things much tougher on the mid-major leagues. Elevated teams like Houston, UCF, SMU, Tulsa far higher than they used to be... Allowed programs like Seton Hall and Providence to get out of the shadows.

And what's amazing- the leagues could have been better had Marquette, Georgetown, Memphis, and Temple(and 2nd half of the period UConn) been stronger...

I miscounted, but yes three football programs with no football associations. Major reason why it would have never worked.

I think there is significant cause/effect with realignment (and larger conferences in general). For example, if you took a program like BC for men's basketball - and put them in the BE - would they have an easier time building/creating a sustainable program? Looking at PC/SH, it'd be hard to argue with that. In addition, would a program like Mizzouri be more able to compete for tournament bids in the Big 12?

Once of the drawbacks of bigger conferences is that any addition is essentially being made to create additional value to the top-level programs; there are too many teams for all of the programs to be competitive concurrently and consistently. For as spread-out as many of the P leagues have become, it becomes harder and harder for the mid-level teams to annually play at the highest levels, thus creating more and more parity.

Smaller, more compact, leagues allowed for more elite teams nationally. The consolidation limits the amount of top-level conferences, which inevitably each have a top-level team.

Conversely, these larger leagues have created/provided more value to each of the members - hence the cause/effect. Many Presidents/ADs aren't complaining about the higher revenues being brought in; coaches are probably complaining more about the tougher games they need to play in, or the amount of additional conference travel they need to endure.

I'm very pleased with how things have turned out overall for the Big East, the American and the Atlantic Coast. I do want the Big East and the AAC to both add (at least) a 12th program (for various reasons). And that is very important for the American due to the football title game consideration.

Athletic programs that sponsor DI football need to be in comprehensive/conventional all-sports leagues. Obviously, there are some exceptions (Army is a fine one). UConn should be fine with football but a drop to I-AA in the long-term future is not out of the question. Still, UConn made the correct move to leave the AAC for the BE and it's not even a question.

I've grown to enjoy following both the American and this version of the Big East more so than I anticipated when they were created. There are lots of positives with both leagues.

(03-10-2020 01:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:23 PM)VCE Wrote:  The notion that Cincinnati was some sort of linchpin of what I'll call the 2nd middle big east is as laughable as the notion that 2005-12 represented something called the Old Big East. Cincy did just a bit more than jack s*** in their tenure in the BE.

OBE teams for peoples' memories:

Georgetown
Syracuse
ST Johns
Providence
Seton Hall
Villanova
UCONN
Boston College

Pitt

The first 8 formed the conference. Nova joined a year later, but was a founding member. Pitt was invited a year or two after the formation.

Rutgers, ND, West Virginia, Va Tech, Miami aren't old Big East.

Cincy, Marquette, Depaul, Louisville and USF certainly aren't OBE.

Our current version certainly looks a lot more like the original than anything since.

Cincy would have absolutely based on where they had been performing would have been counted on as a key program. Think about it- outside of Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, UConn, Memphis, and Temple- they would have been clearly the next team(and remember they had just been to the sweet 16 in 2012- and Nova had actually struggled some in 2012 and 2013- 2012 they missed the tourney, and 2013 they were only a 9 seed).

It's really remarkable how so many of those programs have struggled. And allowed programs like Providence, Seton Hall on the Big East side, and on the AAC side Houston to ascend. In some ways, it's made it worse on mid-major conferences, as instead of having like 16-17 teams- got 22 between the 2 conferences, and more teams able to do well between the 2 conferences.

Cincy went something like 65-75 in BE play during their tenure. But my point is mostly against the "NBE" people who like to claim Cincy as some sort of super program that made the 2005-12 Big East the "real" Big East. They were very much a middling program throughout that period, much as my Hoyas have been for the past several years.

The difference is that GU, Nova, 'Cuse, Seton Hall, SJU, and UCONN made this conference, and with the sole exception of 'Cuse, we're all back together.

(03-10-2020 10:04 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 01:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:23 PM)VCE Wrote:  The notion that Cincinnati was some sort of linchpin of what I'll call the 2nd middle big east is as laughable as the notion that 2005-12 represented something called the Old Big East. Cincy did just a bit more than jack s*** in their tenure in the BE.

OBE teams for peoples' memories:

Georgetown
Syracuse
ST Johns
Providence
Seton Hall
Villanova
UCONN
Boston College

Pitt

The first 8 formed the conference. Nova joined a year later, but was a founding member. Pitt was invited a year or two after the formation.

Rutgers, ND, West Virginia, Va Tech, Miami aren't old Big East.

Cincy, Marquette, Depaul, Louisville and USF certainly aren't OBE.

Our current version certainly looks a lot more like the original than anything since.

Cincy would have absolutely based on where they had been performing would have been counted on as a key program. Think about it- outside of Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, UConn, Memphis, and Temple- they would have been clearly the next team(and remember they had just been to the sweet 16 in 2012- and Nova had actually struggled some in 2012 and 2013- 2012 they missed the tourney, and 2013 they were only a 9 seed).

It's really remarkable how so many of those programs have struggled. And allowed programs like Providence, Seton Hall on the Big East side, and on the AAC side Houston to ascend. In some ways, it's made it worse on mid-major conferences, as instead of having like 16-17 teams- got 22 between the 2 conferences, and more teams able to do well between the 2 conferences.

Cincy went something like 65-75 in BE play during their tenure. But my point is mostly against the "NBE" people who like to claim Cincy as some sort of super program that made the 2005-12 Big East the "real" Big East. They were very much a middling program throughout that period, much as my Hoyas have been for the past several years.

The difference is that GU, Nova, 'Cuse, Seton Hall, SJU, and UCONN made this conference, and with the sole exception of 'Cuse, we're all back together.

As someone who has rooted for DePaul since 1987 and Cincy since 1998, I fully understand and agree with your point. Those two programs were not part of the original Big East.

My point about the Big East during the time period you reference is not that the league was at its most "true" or "authentic" state (as that was the original BE as you correctly note). Rather, the BE during that period had the single most power programs of any other league in the nation. When it added Louisville, Cincy, DePaul and Marquette to what it already had ... off the charts impressive.

So, I'm with you overall.

(03-10-2020 10:04 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 01:08 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:23 PM)VCE Wrote:  The notion that Cincinnati was some sort of linchpin of what I'll call the 2nd middle big east is as laughable as the notion that 2005-12 represented something called the Old Big East. Cincy did just a bit more than jack s*** in their tenure in the BE.

OBE teams for peoples' memories:

Georgetown
Syracuse
ST Johns
Providence
Seton Hall
Villanova
UCONN
Boston College

Pitt

The first 8 formed the conference. Nova joined a year later, but was a founding member. Pitt was invited a year or two after the formation.

Rutgers, ND, West Virginia, Va Tech, Miami aren't old Big East.

Cincy, Marquette, Depaul, Louisville and USF certainly aren't OBE.

Our current version certainly looks a lot more like the original than anything since.

Cincy would have absolutely based on where they had been performing would have been counted on as a key program. Think about it- outside of Villanova, Marquette, Georgetown, UConn, Memphis, and Temple- they would have been clearly the next team(and remember they had just been to the sweet 16 in 2012- and Nova had actually struggled some in 2012 and 2013- 2012 they missed the tourney, and 2013 they were only a 9 seed).

It's really remarkable how so many of those programs have struggled. And allowed programs like Providence, Seton Hall on the Big East side, and on the AAC side Houston to ascend. In some ways, it's made it worse on mid-major conferences, as instead of having like 16-17 teams- got 22 between the 2 conferences, and more teams able to do well between the 2 conferences.

Cincy went something like 65-75 in BE play during their tenure. But my point is mostly against the "NBE" people who like to claim Cincy as some sort of super program that made the 2005-12 Big East the "real" Big East. They were very much a middling program throughout that period, much as my Hoyas have been for the past several years.

The difference is that GU, Nova, 'Cuse, Seton Hall, SJU, and UCONN made this conference, and with the sole exception of 'Cuse, we're all back together.

The point is that if the Big East had stuck together- with where the programs were at the time- Cincy would have absolutely been a program that would have been counted on as a top program. 2012 they had just made a sweet 16, and 4 straight tourney appearances.

The programs that would have been counted on-
UConn
Villanova
Marquette
Georgetown
Cincy
Memphis
Temple

Nova and Cincy really only 2 programs that have done consistently well out of that 7.