(12-25-2012 01:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:37 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Yeah Cincy was arguably better before the Big East than they have been since joining.

Clearly there is a good reason for that.

However, right now, we have a team that is potentially the best since 1999-2000. We'll see how better it gets by March though.

I also think that this league is worse in basketball than the C-USA we left. It is pretty much the same, but WITHOUT Louisville and Marquette.

I won't argue that it is better in FB though (provided Boise State stays, of course).

I think people are underestimating the upside potential of the nBE in regard to the new members. Many of the schools are now investing in their BB programs and Memphis and Temple are solid traditional powers. There are also some opportunities out west to add quality to the inventory. I can see this league doing some positive things within a recruiting class or two. Going national is going to provide some penetration into recruiting markets that some of the weaker BB programs have not had access to before. In ECU's situation, it will give us a schedule to sell and along with the improvements in our infrastructure will improve our BB program. It is not going to happen overnight...but..It IS going to happen. Mark it down.

I do like that you gave the 'Heels all they could handle

(12-25-2012 02:40 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:37 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  I assume you are trying to take shot at Cincinnati there? If you are, it should be known that UC was historically rated as a top 10-15 before even getting invited into the Big East.

When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

14 NCAA tournaments in a row, 1 final four, 2 elite eights, and a conference champions for a decade plus in conferences that included Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis equals top 15 program. Maybe not top ten or top five but Cincinnati does pretty well when you look at things all time NCAA tournament wins, conference championships, and all time winning percentage.

I will take Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, and Temple as the backbone of any basketball conference. Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis were the pillars of C-USA and that was a solid league that produce a couple elite eight and final four teams.

The Big East is so much better than the Conference USA days. If you have a top 25 team, there may be four conference games that were at issue in Conference USA. There may be only two or three gimmey games in the Big East conference play

(12-25-2012 04:21 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:37 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Yeah Cincy was arguably better before the Big East than they have been since joining.

Clearly there is a good reason for that.

However, right now, we have a team that is potentially the best since 1999-2000. We'll see how better it gets by March though.

I also think that this league is worse in basketball than the C-USA we left. It is pretty much the same, but WITHOUT Louisville and Marquette.

I won't argue that it is better in FB though (provided Boise State stays, of course).

I think people are underestimating the upside potential of the nBE in regard to the new members. Many of the schools are now investing in their BB programs and Memphis and Temple are solid traditional powers. There are also some opportunities out west to add quality to the inventory. I can see this league doing some positive things within a recruiting class or two. Going national is going to provide some penetration into recruiting markets that some of the weaker BB programs have not had access to before. In ECU's situation, it will give us a schedule to sell and along with the improvements in our infrastructure will improve our BB program. It is not going to happen overnight...but..It IS going to happen. Mark it down.

I do like that you gave the 'Heels all they could handle

I would not take much from that. This team is improved, but we have a long way to go before being able to give UC, Memphis, UCon and Temple any consistent competition. I expect Lebo will be able to bring in some better freshman talent in his next couple of recruiting classes. Guillmette and Richmond may have some potential now. It is going to be a building process. I think Lebo is actually doing a pretty good job. We will see if he can get us to the next level or not. If not...we will have to do what it takes to get there. ECU fans are tired of the bad BB reputation.

(12-25-2012 04:23 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 02:40 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:37 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  I assume you are trying to take shot at Cincinnati there? If you are, it should be known that UC was historically rated as a top 10-15 before even getting invited into the Big East.

When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

14 NCAA tournaments in a row, 1 final four, 2 elite eights, and a conference champions for a decade plus in conferences that included Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis equals top 15 program. Maybe not top ten or top five but Cincinnati does pretty well when you look at things all time NCAA tournament wins, conference championships, and all time winning percentage.

I will take Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, and Temple as the backbone of any basketball conference. Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis were the pillars of C-USA and that was a solid league that produce a couple elite eight and final four teams.

The Big East is so much better than the Conference USA days. If you have a top 25 team, there may be four conference games that were at issue in Conference USA. There may be only two or three gimmey games in the Big East conference play

Big East was too big and too difficult for its own good. 9-9 UConn wins a national title, 10-8 Louisville makes a run to the Final Four. Georgetown, Syracuse, UConn all had years where they missed the tournament after a great season. That would never happen in a smaller league less with less power house teams. If we do have a ten team conference there is a good chance that most schools will have between 6 to 8 difficult games against tournament teams, 4 to 6 games against fringe bubble team/NIT/CBI level squads, and a handful of layups each season. For a coach the weaker league is always better for your job security. Besides the non-conference schedule will be used to fill in the gaps too.

Most fans would rather see their team finish 25-6, 13-5 in a good conference than finish 21-10, 9-9 in the most powerful conference ever created. Why, the first squad is making the NCAA tournament with a good seed, the second squad is hoping they don't blow it in the conference tournament.

How many times does GT itself and its fans have to say "NO, we don't give a rip about playing in Iowa, or Illinois, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Maryland, or New Jersey, or Indiana, or even really Michigan and Ohio .... not now ... not in the past .... not ever" before the GT to the B1G talk dies?

(12-25-2012 06:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  How many times does GT itself and its fans have to say "NO, we don't give a rip about playing in Iowa, or Illinois, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Maryland, or New Jersey, or Indiana, or even really Michigan and Ohio .... not now ... not in the past .... not ever" before the GT to the B1G talk dies?

Really shocking that GT would turn something like that down. Seems youd have a lot more exciting games that way.

(12-25-2012 06:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  How many times does GT itself and its fans have to say "NO, we don't give a rip about playing in Iowa, or Illinois, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Maryland, or New Jersey, or Indiana, or even really Michigan and Ohio .... not now ... not in the past .... not ever" before the GT to the B1G talk dies?

You're right. I mean no one wants to go from being one of the Alpha Dogs to being the runt in a pack. Seriously, it's a bad move. Nice to see that GT understands their place in the sun.

(12-25-2012 05:12 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 04:23 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 02:40 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:37 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  I assume you are trying to take shot at Cincinnati there? If you are, it should be known that UC was historically rated as a top 10-15 before even getting invited into the Big East.

When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

14 NCAA tournaments in a row, 1 final four, 2 elite eights, and a conference champions for a decade plus in conferences that included Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis equals top 15 program. Maybe not top ten or top five but Cincinnati does pretty well when you look at things all time NCAA tournament wins, conference championships, and all time winning percentage.

I will take Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, and Temple as the backbone of any basketball conference. Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis were the pillars of C-USA and that was a solid league that produce a couple elite eight and final four teams.

The Big East is so much better than the Conference USA days. If you have a top 25 team, there may be four conference games that were at issue in Conference USA. There may be only two or three gimmey games in the Big East conference play

Big East was too big and too difficult for its own good. 9-9 UConn wins a national title, 10-8 Louisville makes a run to the Final Four. Georgetown, Syracuse, UConn all had years where they missed the tournament after a great season. That would never happen in a smaller league less with less power house teams. If we do have a ten team conference there is a good chance that most schools will have between 6 to 8 difficult games against tournament teams, 4 to 6 games against fringe bubble team/NIT/CBI level squads, and a handful of layups each season. For a coach the weaker league is always better for your job security. Besides the non-conference schedule will be used to fill in the gaps too.

Most fans would rather see their team finish 25-6, 13-5 in a good conference than finish 21-10, 9-9 in the most powerful conference ever created. Why, the first squad is making the NCAA tournament with a good seed, the second squad is hoping they don't blow it in the conference tournament.

Dang excellent point!!!!

(12-25-2012 05:12 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 04:23 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 02:40 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:37 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  I assume you are trying to take shot at Cincinnati there? If you are, it should be known that UC was historically rated as a top 10-15 before even getting invited into the Big East.

When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

14 NCAA tournaments in a row, 1 final four, 2 elite eights, and a conference champions for a decade plus in conferences that included Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis equals top 15 program. Maybe not top ten or top five but Cincinnati does pretty well when you look at things all time NCAA tournament wins, conference championships, and all time winning percentage.

I will take Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, and Temple as the backbone of any basketball conference. Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis were the pillars of C-USA and that was a solid league that produce a couple elite eight and final four teams.

The Big East is so much better than the Conference USA days. If you have a top 25 team, there may be four conference games that were at issue in Conference USA. There may be only two or three gimmey games in the Big East conference play

Big East was too big and too difficult for its own good. 9-9 UConn wins a national title, 10-8 Louisville makes a run to the Final Four. Georgetown, Syracuse, UConn all had years where they missed the tournament after a great season. That would never happen in a smaller league less with less power house teams. If we do have a ten team conference there is a good chance that most schools will have between 6 to 8 difficult games against tournament teams, 4 to 6 games against fringe bubble team/NIT/CBI level squads, and a handful of layups each season. For a coach the weaker league is always better for your job security. Besides the non-conference schedule will be used to fill in the gaps too.

Most fans would rather see their team finish 25-6, 13-5 in a good conference than finish 21-10, 9-9 in the most powerful conference ever created. Why, the first squad is making the NCAA tournament with a good seed, the second squad is hoping they don't blow it in the conference tournament.

I don't think so. People would rather see competitive basketball against quality teams. I think I can draw this conclusion considering our attendance issues with our abysmal out of conference schedule. NO one wants to watch the Cats beat-up on Arkansas Little Rock no more than Southern Mississippi. In the Confererance USA days, we would go three or four games against non-competitive teams. This seemed fun until we were introduced into the Big East and big time basket ball.

(12-25-2012 11:43 AM)r2pirate Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 09:02 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 08:38 AM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-24-2012 07:45 PM)texasflood Wrote:  If by "debunked" you mean that nBE fans filled with wishful thinking have asserted it, then you are correct. But truth is, TV cares about actual eyeballs on a game, not "potential" viewers. If potential mattered, then C-USA would have been given a massive contract when they had schools like Houston, SMU, Memphis, UCF, UAB, Tulane, etc. in those big cities with all those "potential" viewers. But of course they weren't.

If attendance mattered so much ECU would have been added years ago. Clearly it is at best a secondary consideration.

What matters is actual TV viewership, not potential viewership. Attendance is usually highly correlated with TV viewership (e.g., Alabama and Ohio State are among the leaders in attendance, and they are among the leaders in TV viewers too). ECU is an exception - their attendance is much better than their TV viewership.

The overwhelming evidence is that market size has been the driving force behind BE expansion in the past and realignment today. Boise is the only school that breaks that paradigm. ECU was added simply because they ran out of eastern markets to exploit. If Charlotte and ODU had started thier programs 10 years earlier....ECU would still be in CUSA.

Ten years ago NOBODY wanted BSU and 10 from now after playing a real schedule (ECU record is 1-0 against BSU and we did not win CUSA that year) unless they decide to stay in a weak mwc.

You ecu fans are a hoot. Bsu is 2-0 vs Oregon which means jack chit in the grand order of things

(12-25-2012 07:41 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 05:12 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 04:23 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 02:40 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

14 NCAA tournaments in a row, 1 final four, 2 elite eights, and a conference champions for a decade plus in conferences that included Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis equals top 15 program. Maybe not top ten or top five but Cincinnati does pretty well when you look at things all time NCAA tournament wins, conference championships, and all time winning percentage.

I will take Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, and Temple as the backbone of any basketball conference. Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis were the pillars of C-USA and that was a solid league that produce a couple elite eight and final four teams.

The Big East is so much better than the Conference USA days. If you have a top 25 team, there may be four conference games that were at issue in Conference USA. There may be only two or three gimmey games in the Big East conference play

Big East was too big and too difficult for its own good. 9-9 UConn wins a national title, 10-8 Louisville makes a run to the Final Four. Georgetown, Syracuse, UConn all had years where they missed the tournament after a great season. That would never happen in a smaller league less with less power house teams. If we do have a ten team conference there is a good chance that most schools will have between 6 to 8 difficult games against tournament teams, 4 to 6 games against fringe bubble team/NIT/CBI level squads, and a handful of layups each season. For a coach the weaker league is always better for your job security. Besides the non-conference schedule will be used to fill in the gaps too.

Most fans would rather see their team finish 25-6, 13-5 in a good conference than finish 21-10, 9-9 in the most powerful conference ever created. Why, the first squad is making the NCAA tournament with a good seed, the second squad is hoping they don't blow it in the conference tournament.

I don't think so. People would rather see competitive basketball against quality teams. I think I can draw this conclusion considering our attendance issues with our abysmal out of conference schedule. NO one wants to watch the Cats beat-up on Arkansas Little Rock no more than Southern Mississippi. In the Confererance USA days, we would go three or four games against non-competitive teams. This seemed fun until we were introduced into the Big East and big time basket ball.

That is why you need to play a good non-conference schedule filled with local teams plus a few national games, some of those game may be played during conference season. If your team is working its way to the NCAA tournament a month of home games against Houston, USF, UCF, UConn, and Memphis isn't that much different than a home schedule against Villanova, Pitt, Georgetown, Seton Hall, and Rutgers. Fans want their schools to make the NCAA tournament more than they want them to play against top ranked schools. It does help if the median level teams you are playing are at least NIT/CBI quality, RPI in the top 100.

(12-25-2012 06:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  How many times does GT itself and its fans have to say "NO, we don't give a rip about playing in Iowa, or Illinois, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Maryland, or New Jersey, or Indiana, or even really Michigan and Ohio .... not now ... not in the past .... not ever" before the GT to the B1G talk dies?

You need to look no further than the B1G fans' reaction to the Rutgers/Maryland expansion to conclude that the fans' opinion does not matter.

(12-24-2012 10:19 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  Dont understand why the school presidents cant sit down in one room and sort out all the dead wood and put together a legit best of the rest. These strange devotions to protecting crappy schools like Wyoming or Tulane will ruin us.

The gutted Big East was the best chance to do this. There were 3 schools left, and all 3 are in the top 5 or 6 of the non power 5 schools. Absolutely no dead wood.

East:
UConn
UC
USF
UCF
Temple
Memphis
SMU
Houston

West:
AFA (FB only)
BYU
BSU
SDSU
UNLV
CSUF
UNM
Navy (FB Only)
Gonzaga (Non FB)
St. Marys (Non FB)

No crossover in anything but basketball & football. 2 8 team divisions in basketball & football.

That league will maximize the limited available revenue to non power 5 schools. Too much dead wood floating around.

While we are kicking out dead wood don't forget to get rid of USF. They never should have been invited anyway. Nothing more than young arrogant fans with nothing but a TV market to brag about. "Know your role and shut your mouth"- The Rock

ECU was beating BCS level competition before you even had a team.

(12-25-2012 05:12 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 04:23 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 02:40 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:37 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  I assume you are trying to take shot at Cincinnati there? If you are, it should be known that UC was historically rated as a top 10-15 before even getting invited into the Big East.

When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

14 NCAA tournaments in a row, 1 final four, 2 elite eights, and a conference champions for a decade plus in conferences that included Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis equals top 15 program. Maybe not top ten or top five but Cincinnati does pretty well when you look at things all time NCAA tournament wins, conference championships, and all time winning percentage.

I will take Cincinnati, Memphis, UConn, and Temple as the backbone of any basketball conference. Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, and Memphis were the pillars of C-USA and that was a solid league that produce a couple elite eight and final four teams.

The Big East is so much better than the Conference USA days. If you have a top 25 team, there may be four conference games that were at issue in Conference USA. There may be only two or three gimmey games in the Big East conference play

Big East was too big and too difficult for its own good. 9-9 UConn wins a national title, 10-8 Louisville makes a run to the Final Four. Georgetown, Syracuse, UConn all had years where they missed the tournament after a great season. That would never happen in a smaller league less with less power house teams. If we do have a ten team conference there is a good chance that most schools will have between 6 to 8 difficult games against tournament teams, 4 to 6 games against fringe bubble team/NIT/CBI level squads, and a handful of layups each season. For a coach the weaker league is always better for your job security. Besides the non-conference schedule will be used to fill in the gaps too.

Most fans would rather see their team finish 25-6, 13-5 in a good conference than finish 21-10, 9-9 in the most powerful conference ever created. Why, the first squad is making the NCAA tournament with a good seed, the second squad is hoping they don't blow it in the conference tournament.

You've got that right.

It's one thing to try to build your program when you're in an 8 or 10 team league and only have that many other teams to crawl over. But when you got stuck at or near the bottom of a 16 team league, it's almost impossible to become competitive with the top programs. We saw that not only with some of the Catholic schools but with football programs like Rutgers and USF as well.

(12-25-2012 02:23 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:37 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  I assume you are trying to take shot at Cincinnati there? If you are, it should be known that UC was historically rated as a top 10-15 before even getting invited into the Big East.

When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

Street and Smith's Greatest college basketball programs of all time 2005 edition---- UConn number 9 and UC number 10.

Bu tin the case of UC, a lot of that was based on the great run they had in the late '50's and early '60's. That's great history for a program to have but it isn't really relevant today. That list also included Penn & Princeton in its top 20, which is where I'm coming from when I say "hardly relevant today."

I now see what you meant by "historically rated", so my apologies. I didn't realize that you were referring to all of the history of college basketball but was wrongly assuming recent history.

(12-25-2012 02:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 02:23 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:43 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:37 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  I assume you are trying to take shot at Cincinnati there? If you are, it should be known that UC was historically rated as a top 10-15 before even getting invited into the Big East.

When was that? In the '60's?

How can a school be rated top 10-15 in basketball and only make it to one Final Four in almost 50 years (1964-2012)? Even if you want to throw in the #1 Kenyon Martin broken leg team, that's still only 2 teams in more than 20 years that could be considered Final Four material. There are more than 10-15 programs that have done better than that.

Street and Smith's Greatest college basketball programs of all time 2005 edition---- UConn number 9 and UC number 10.

this...so stick it uconn fan

and show some respect

I actually was around when the great teams of the '50's and the '60's were winning championships and going to Final Fours. I can still name the starting 5 on those teams that beat Ohio State in back-to-back seasons before losing to Loyola of Chicago in their 3rd straight championship game. I have tremendous respect for those teams and for the Big O who led them to prominence. It doesn't mean that I have to treat the program as though they're at that level today. Not to say that they're not a tough, gritty team every year now. but they're simply not a top 10-15 program in the current era. Not really close.

But hey. I have a lot of respect for the program as I do for all of the competition in the Big East. No hard feelings I hope.

Merry Christmas.

(12-23-2012 09:53 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 07:05 PM)Time4Reason Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 06:22 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  Rocko, it's apparent Aresco is having trouble convincing enough presidents of the viability of an all-sports western division in order to get Fresno and UNLV to commit. Will that happen? Tough to say but you have to think UC and UConn are opposed and I frankly can't blame them. Why put out more in travel money to help the long-term health of a conference you have no intention of remaining in for any longer than absolutely necessary?

This can't be repeated enough. If you're talking travel money, your basketball teams, your baseball teams and your soccer teams would make 1-2 trips out west per year and vice-versa. The non-revenue sports generally fly commercial anyway and cost differences are not determined by distance.

If UTEP can survive in a conference where the closest conference member is 600 miles and nearly all of them are over 1,000, it can be done easily.

Is it doable? Sure. However, UTEP fans who have visited the MWC board have said their school's two largest areas of support outside El Armpit are Houston and Dallas. Hence, their desire to be in CUSA rather than the MWC. (That could change now, of course.) So UTEP has really had no choice but to subject its Olympics sports to such travel. Plus, there's a big difference between 600 miles and more than 2000. And UConn and UC do have a choice, at least right now. So maybe I'm wrong but the fact those schools know they're BE part-timers who can hold up sending their Olympics teams cross country for a couple years sure suggests they will do so if they can and that they probably ARE doing so.

UTEP is going to have a lot of long traveling to do no matter what conference they're in. With the exceptions of New Mexico State and New Mexico, all Division 1-A schools that may likely be in a conference with UTEP are over 300 miles away from El Paso. I don't think distance is ever going to be of much concern to UTEP because there's not much they can do about that. They need to concentrate on other factors that they CAN control; for example, the quality of their facilities or (as SleepingGiantsFan said) get into a conference situation where they have rivals as close as possible to where UTEP fans are primarily concentrated outside of El Paso.

(12-25-2012 08:55 PM)First Mate Wrote:  While we are kicking out dead wood don't forget to get rid of USF. They never should have been invited anyway. Nothing more than young arrogant fans with nothing but a TV market to brag about. "Know your role and shut your mouth"- The Rock

ECU was beating BCS level competition before you even had a team.

If you look at the conference history of USF the past 20+ years it is basically an unbroken string of promotions, but based on "potential" not actual performance on football fields, basketball courts, etc.

Probably the most inexplicable aspect of their athletic program is why they have never developed a top-notch baseball team. USF is geographically situated for baseball even moreso for football.

(12-25-2012 10:15 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  It doesn't mean that I have to treat the program as though they're at that level today. Not to say that they're not a tough, gritty team every year now. but they're simply not a top 10-15 program in the current era. Not really close.

Yes, Cincy fans seem to have trouble grasping the idea that while those NCAA titles from the early 60s never lose their lustre and will always count as much as any others, at a certain point they no longer reflect the current state of the program. So if we are doing a historical tally of the all-time most accomplished programs, Cincy is a top-15 program, but if the issue is what their status is today it is well below that, probably around 30 or so.

It's kind of like Houston: Houston has some tremendous legacy accomplishments such as the Elvin Hayes teams that played in the Game of the Century in 1968, and then the Phi Slamma Jamma teams of the early 80s. But those were 30 years ago and their shelf-life has expired in terms of Houston's status as a program TODAY.

Uconn by contrast is definitely top 10 all-time and right now.

(12-26-2012 09:50 AM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 10:15 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  It doesn't mean that I have to treat the program as though they're at that level today. Not to say that they're not a tough, gritty team every year now. but they're simply not a top 10-15 program in the current era. Not really close.

Yes, Cincy fans seem to have trouble grasping the idea that while those NCAA titles from the early 60s never lose their lustre and will always count as much as any others, at a certain point they no longer reflect the current state of the program. So if we are doing a historical tally of the all-time most accomplished programs, Cincy is a top-15 program, but if the issue is what their status is today it is well below that, probably around 30 or so.

It's kind of like Houston: Houston has some tremendous legacy accomplishments such as the Elvin Hayes teams that played in the Game of the Century in 1968, and then the Phi Slamma Jamma teams of the early 80s. But those were 30 years ago and their shelf-life has expired in terms of Houston's status as a program TODAY.

Uconn by contrast is definitely top 10 all-time and right now.

Disagree, Cincinnati basketball has had two losing seasons since 1989. 16 NCAA tournaments-1 Final Four, 2 elite eights, 2 sweet sixteen, and a total of 23 NCAA victories. Conference Champions 1992-2002, 2004. Conference Tournament Champions 1992-1996, 1998, 2002, 2004. 4 NIT bids.

You combine that with final fours in 1950's, the championship in the 1960s. Sprinkle in a few NIT in the 1950's (when the tournament mattered), 3 NCAA and 2 NIT tournament bids in the 1970's.

Starting in the 1920's Cincinnati has won a conference championship or earned an NCAA or NIT bid in every decade.

Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.