I thought the new-AAC might struggle to remain a multi-bid conference with the loss of a pair of squads that have consistently chased NCAA bids during the AAC's history. I think the performance of some of the newbies at least gives reason for hope. The key here is having a few teams that consistently field teams that are likely to compete for a NCAA bid every year. Right now---Memphis and Wichita are the only programs that do that fairly consistently left in the AAC. A few more have shown the ability to regularly field solid teams----this is a middle belt of AAC teams that actually compete for bids once every 3 or 4 years or so (SMU, Tulsa, UAB, Temple). The problem was it looked like a lot of the new teams were likely to be programs that rarely compete for NCAA bids. The improvement at ECU and Tulane this year along with the success of some of the incoming teams like FAU and N Texas appears to indicate things could really improve if this group of ECU, Tulane, FAU, UAB, and N Texas can maintain hovering around this higher performance level. Obviously, nobody goes to the final 4 every year---but if these teams are always solid and and often compete for an NCAA bid each year---taken as a whole---thats the kind of league that can win enough big OOC games to manufacture extra "at large" bids every year.

That would give the league a pair of consistent top teams that are almost always good with a solid thick middle belt of 9 teams that often compete for NCAA bids. A thick middle belt like that means there will always be 2 or 3 of those middle belt teams poised to have a really good year capable of maybe scoring an NCAA at large bid. Thats the kind of formula to keep the AAC as a consistent multi-bid conference.

(03-26-2023 01:17 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 07:11 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 08:56 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 08:39 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  My points consistently expressed in this thread: 1. There is a drop off adding the CUSA6, 2. We could have done better by adding different schools, and 3. improvement is required.

The first two points addressed the past and were accurate. The last point is underway, but is it is sustainable? No one roots for it more than me.

Regardless, the future can wait. For now, FAU fans deserve their time of triumph and bask in its warm glow.

Can you share what schools could've been added? Not a wish list mind you but schools that WANTED to be in the American Athletic Conference.

He was pretty consistent with wanting just two: UAB + App St.
About 90% of this board was in agreement that the additions should be “UAB plus something”.
A majority figured adding two or four would be best.

14 will work out fine, because IMO we have the right leadership.

Even before the tournament started the incoming group had well exceeded my expectations in MBB.

It was never realistic to only add two when three programs were leaving the conference. Conferences aren't getting smaller, they're getting bigger in the number of members placed into divisions.

Second, if hoops quality is a concern then why is App St considered? Final NET...

13 FAU
38 UNT
57 UAB
116 Charlotte
197 App St

Appy state.

(03-26-2023 07:02 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 10:59 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(03-25-2023 09:03 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  The CUSA 5 are 15-1 this post season.

Sorry but the CIT doesn't count.....

Hopefully, the AAC will ban any post season tourneys other than the NIT and the NCAA. Nothing screams low-major like the CBI and the deceased CIT/ Basketball Classic.

They know that's what I was getting at of course.

(03-26-2023 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought the new-AAC might struggle to remain a multi-bid conference with the loss of a pair of squads that have consistently chased NCAA bids during the AAC's history. I think the performance of some of the newbies at least gives reason for hope. The key here is having a few teams that consistently field teams that are likely to compete for a NCAA bid every year. Right now---Memphis and Wichita are the only programs that do that fairly consistently left in the AAC. A few more have shown the ability to regularly field solid teams----this is a middle belt of AAC teams that actually compete for bids once every 3 or 4 years or so (SMU, Tulsa, UAB, Temple). The problem was it looked like a lot of the new teams were likely to be programs that rarely compete for NCAA bids. The improvement at ECU and Tulane this year along with the success of some of the incoming teams like FAU and N Texas appears to indicate things could really improve if this group of ECU, Tulane, FAU, UAB, and N Texas can maintain hovering around this higher performance level. Obviously, nobody goes to the final 4 every year---but if these teams are always solid and and often compete for an NCAA bid each year---taken as a whole---thats the kind of league that can win enough big OOC games to manufacture extra "at large" bids every year.

That would give the league a pair of consistent top teams that are almost always good with a solid thick middle belt of 9 teams that often compete for NCAA bids. A thick middle belt like that means there will always be 2 or 3 of those middle belt teams poised to have a really good year capable of maybe scoring an NCAA at large bid. Thats the kind of formula to keep the AAC as a consistent multi-bid conference.

Those are fair points. I would only change Temple to a "tweener" in your upper tier of teams that regularly chase NCAAT bids. Fran Dunphy got Temple to the dance most of the years he coached there. In his 13 seasons at the helm, the Owls reached the dance 8 times and at one point six years in a row. Aaron McKie was a surprise disappointment but going back to John Chaney, Temple has as much tourney cache as either Memphis or WSU. Here's a bids comparison going back 20 seasons...

2023 Memphis
2022 Memphis
2021 WSU
2020 NCAAT Cancelled
2019 Temple
2018 WSU
2017 WSU
2016 Temple, WSU
2015 WSU
2014 Memphis, WSU
2013 Memphis, Temple, WSU
2012 Memphis, Temple, WSU
2011 Memphis, Temple
2010 Temple
2009 Memphis, Temple
2008 Memphis, Temple
2007 Memphis
2006 Memphis, WSU
2005
2004 Memphis

Total Bids
11 Memphis
9 WSU
8 Temple

Total Bids in the AAC
3 Memphis
2 Temple
2 WSU

You can argue that Temple's bids are further back in time overall but it feels like they are still a program that can push in the upper tier competitiveness-wise and for bids.

(03-26-2023 06:44 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I thought the new-AAC might struggle to remain a multi-bid conference with the loss of a pair of squads that have consistently chased NCAA bids during the AAC's history. I think the performance of some of the newbies at least gives reason for hope. The key here is having a few teams that consistently field teams that are likely to compete for a NCAA bid every year. Right now---Memphis and Wichita are the only programs that do that fairly consistently left in the AAC. A few more have shown the ability to regularly field solid teams----this is a middle belt of AAC teams that actually compete for bids once every 3 or 4 years or so (SMU, Tulsa, UAB, Temple). The problem was it looked like a lot of the new teams were likely to be programs that rarely compete for NCAA bids. The improvement at ECU and Tulane this year along with the success of some of the incoming teams like FAU and N Texas appears to indicate things could really improve if this group of ECU, Tulane, FAU, UAB, and N Texas can maintain hovering around this higher performance level. Obviously, nobody goes to the final 4 every year---but if these teams are always solid and and often compete for an NCAA bid each year---taken as a whole---thats the kind of league that can win enough big OOC games to manufacture extra "at large" bids every year.

That would give the league a pair of consistent top teams that are almost always good with a solid thick middle belt of 9 teams that often compete for NCAA bids. A thick middle belt like that means there will always be 2 or 3 of those middle belt teams poised to have a really good year capable of maybe scoring an NCAA at large bid. Thats the kind of formula to keep the AAC as a consistent multi-bid conference.

Those are fair points. I would only change Temple to a "tweener" in your upper tier of teams that regularly chase NCAAT bids. Fran Dunphy got Temple to the dance most of the years he coached there. In his 13 seasons at the helm, the Owls reached the dance 8 times and at one point six years in a row. Aaron McKie was a surprise disappointment but going back to John Chaney, Temple has as much tourney cache as either Memphis or WSU. Here's a bids comparison going back 20 seasons...

2023 Memphis
2022 Memphis
2021 WSU
2020 NCAAT Cancelled
2019 Temple
2018 WSU
2017 WSU
2016 Temple, WSU
2015 WSU
2014 Memphis, WSU
2013 Memphis, Temple, WSU
2012 Memphis, Temple, WSU
2011 Memphis, Temple
2010 Temple
2009 Memphis, Temple
2008 Memphis, Temple
2007 Memphis
2006 Memphis, WSU
2005
2004 Memphis

Total Bids
11 Memphis
9 WSU
8 Temple

Total Bids in the AAC
3 Memphis
2 Temple
2 WSU

You can argue that Temple's bids are further back in time overall but it feels like they are still a program that can push in the upper tier competitiveness-wise and for bids.

The potential is certainly there. Back when the AAC was kicking off action in 2013 I expected Temple to consistently be in the top tier of teams with UConn, Memphis, and Cinci. In fact, back then—I would have placed Houston in that solid middle belt. So—that kinda proves your point that it’s certainly possible for a “middle-belt” team to climb up to the upper core if they can develop consistent performance.

I think the demise of the AAC has been greatly exaggerated. Seems like they backfilled very well...so far at least. The AAC should continue to be the sixth best conference or even 5th depending on what happens to the PAC. The AAC is fun conference to watch.