(07-13-2018 10:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is just such a weird argument. Power status isn't determined by a year-to-year ranking metric. It is given based on prestige. The SEC and PAC 12 are always going to be power conferences just like the Big East will as long as they have Georgetown, Villanova, and the other catholic schools. The fact that they had a really bad year and still got 4 teams in kind of proves that.

right. But you have to go back to 2014. You had the C7 plus 3 mid majors making the Big East. Georgetown and Nova were both solid entering the Big East, along with Marquette. But the other 4?
St John's- had only 1 NCAA tourney bid from 2003-2013
Seton Hall- had only 2 NCAA tourney bids from 2001-2013
Providence- had only 1 NCAA tourney bid from 2002-2013
DePaul- had no NCAA tourney bids since 2004.

If the Big East 2014 had become the new normal with some years worse than that- it's status as a power conference would be extremely tenuous. Especially with the P5 trying to create as much seperation as possible.

Also- 1 of the 4 teams only got in because they won the BET. So not really much of a proof there.

(07-13-2018 10:05 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:03 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is just such a weird argument. Power status isn't determined by a year-to-year ranking metric. It is given based on prestige. The SEC and PAC 12 are always going to be power conferences just like the Big East will as long as they have Georgetown, Villanova, and the other catholic schools. The fact that they had a really bad year and still got 4 teams in kind of proves that.

I've long made the argument (and have several times on this board) that there are no such things as "Power Conferences" as it relates to college basketball. There are only power teams. UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Gonzaga and a few others have more hoops prestige than half of the schools in a "Power Conference".

You could certainly make that argument. South Carolina for example is in a "power conference" but missed the tournament in 2016 in favor of Tulsa despite having more top 50 wins, a better record, and a win against them head to head. Having Power Conference status didn't really convey any benefit and doesn't to tons of schools.

Tulsa 16 58 RPI, 60 SOS, 106 OOC SOS, 4-5 vs RPI top 50, 8-8 vs RPI top 100.
SC 16 64 RPI, 170 SOS, 296 OOC SOS 1-1 vs RPI top 50, 8-5 vs RPI top 100.

top 50 wins- sorry but nope
better record- sure but that's only due to garbage OOC and overall schedule
win head to head- great- but not enough to make up the other areas.

(07-13-2018 10:07 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is just such a weird argument. Power status isn't determined by a year-to-year ranking metric. It is given based on prestige. The SEC and PAC 12 are always going to be power conferences just like the Big East will as long as they have Georgetown, Villanova, and the other catholic schools. The fact that they had a really bad year and still got 4 teams in kind of proves that.

right. But you have to go back to 2014. You had the C7 plus 3 mid majors making the Big East. Georgetown and Nova were both solid entering the Big East, along with Marquette. But the other 4?
St John's- had only 1 NCAA tourney bid from 2003-2013
Seton Hall- had only 2 NCAA tourney bids from 2001-2013
Providence- had only 1 NCAA tourney bid from 2002-2013
DePaul- had no NCAA tourney bids since 2004.

If the Big East 2014 had become the new normal with some years worse than that- it's status as a power conference would be extremely tenuous. Especially with the P5 trying to create as much seperation as possible.

Also- 1 of the 4 teams only got in because they won the BET. So not really much of a proof there.

This reminds me of a follow up to my earlier post (and yes I am going a bit off topic)...

Are the BE schools you listed above "major" college basketball programs and in turn, are UConn and Cincinnati "mid-majors"? I saw this because back in 2013 all those schools were in the Big East and UConn and Cincinnati had the upper hand on those schools. Did the change of the conference patch on their uniform change the school's labeling-- budget, facilitates, history, championships be damned?

(07-13-2018 10:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This reminds me of a follow up to my earlier post (and yes I am going a bit off topic)...

Are the BE schools you listed above "major" college basketball programs and in turn, are UConn and Cincinnati "mid-majors"? I saw this because back in 2013 all those schools were in the Big East and UConn and Cincinnati had the upper hand on those schools. Did the change of the conference patch on their uniform change the school's labeling-- budget, facilitates, history, championships be damned?

I don't know about major/mid-major labels, but there was/is a substantial impact on the conference branding of all of those schools. The C7 maintained the Big East affiliation with their programs - one that was a power basketball league for many years - which was pivotal in terms of remaining a top basketball conference. Had the C7 not bought the Big East name and MSG Tournament site, and instead gone with a "Catholic Conference", "Metro Conference" or "Big North", I think there would be a real struggle to maintain that perception.

Conversely, UConn, Cincinnati and USF going to the "American" brand I think really hurt their perception. In addition to now being affiliated with a high-number of C-USA call-ups, they not only selected a conference name that is similar to Conference USA (American), they used the same colors and branding affiliations. IMHO, if the league had selected the "Metro Conference", there would be a much stronger reception to their #Power6 campaign. It is tough to fight years of perceptions with an association to a mid-major league, especially when grouped with so many of them.

(07-13-2018 09:50 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:44 AM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I have no problem saying that at all. But to act like Quo does and say that the Big East started off strong and kept on is a joke.

Ken Pom actual ratings
2014- 12.26
2015- 14.24
2016- 13.94
2017- 14.54
2018- 15.33

Sagarin average ratings
2014- 80.75
2015- 82.99
2016- 81.90
2017- 82.89
2018- 84.08

Here's the problem with your analysis. It just proves how poor the 2014 season was. Only 10 instances of basketball power conferences sounds great- but you have to remember that's 6*19 or 114 seasons. The Big East 2014 season was the 19th worst season of those 114.

I think you have to ask what the goal was for the Big East? Was it to just be mentioned as a power conference, or was it to be included as one of the top 2-3 conferences. By all the statements made by Big East personel after the 2014 season, their goal was to be included as one of the best conferences(not just being a simple power conference). They were not happy with the 2014 season by any stretch.

Bwahaha never mind you all are using a 10 year window for a conference that has existed for 5 and football terms in basketball.

Is the big east a power conference? Right now yeah, but they have litterally existed for one recruiting class. This shouldn't even be a discussion till you have more than one class to judge it on. Traditionally the schools in the big east have performed at a top level, it should surprise no one if they continue to do so.

now here i totally disagree given that it's basketball. guys don't stay all 4 years even in great situations. Look at Nova's 2 title teams. Only 3 guys who even played in the 1st title game played in the 2nd title game.

There is absolutely no doubt the Big East is a power conference. None. You can debate where they are on the power conference measuring scale- but they're definitely on there.

That's about right for number of carry overs. Freshman in the 2016 championship would be your Juniors and Sophmores would be Sending. The freshman wouldn't have really played and Sophmores would probably play only a bit part. Every class is generally 3-4 players but are larger from time to time. Meaning if their senior class was big in 2016 say 5, the freshman and sophomore class might only be 4/5 meaning 2 people through attrition which isn't uncommon from injuries, transfer, etc. Meaning that the one and dones have less impact than you think and their really aren't that many anyway. We're judging an entire conference, the big east is not producing 25 - 35 early draftees a class.

The big east has played at a major conference level for one recruiting cycle. We should wait till the second to decide if they are a major conference and where they are overall ranked. Traditionally they have enough programs to be a major conference, it should be expected they still will be.

there's nothing to decide. The Big East is a power conference. These last 4 years have shown that clearly.

(07-13-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This reminds me of a follow up to my earlier post (and yes I am going a bit off topic)...

Are the BE schools you listed above "major" college basketball programs and in turn, are UConn and Cincinnati "mid-majors"? I saw this because back in 2013 all those schools were in the Big East and UConn and Cincinnati had the upper hand on those schools. Did the change of the conference patch on their uniform change the school's labeling-- budget, facilitates, history, championships be damned?

I don't know about major/mid-major labels, but there was/is a substantial impact on the conference branding of all of those schools. The C7 maintained the Big East affiliation with their programs - one that was a power basketball league for many years - which was pivotal in terms of remaining a top basketball conference. Had the C7 not bought the Big East name and MSG Tournament site, and instead gone with a "Catholic Conference", "Metro Conference" or "Big North", I think there would be a real struggle to maintain that perception.

Conversely, UConn, Cincinnati and USF going to the "American" brand I think really hurt their perception. In addition to now being affiliated with a high-number of C-USA call-ups, they not only selected a conference name that is similar to Conference USA (American), they used the same colors and branding affiliations. IMHO, if the league had selected the "Metro Conference", there would be a much stronger reception to their #Power6 campaign. It is tough to fight years of perceptions with an association to a mid-major league, especially when grouped with so many of them.

Yes because Memphis and Tulsa just don't match Creighton and Xavier.

The truth is that the American's biggest issue has been it's top programs under performing which has nothing to do with conference and everything to do with individual program choices. In particular Memphis with Pastner and now the Tubby mess, and a bad hire by UConn, and Temple languishing in meh land. Cincinatti has maintained a high level but not great level. USF was a flash in the pan program in the big east, so their return to earth while bad should have been expected.

Conversely since the split Villanova has been tearing it up. Xavier has really stepped up. Georgetown is down but most of the big east programs have been fulfilling their potential. DePaul is down but meh. Providence, Creighton, Butler and Seaton Hall have had moments and generally played well.

(07-13-2018 12:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  there's nothing to decide. The Big East is a power conference. These last 4 years have shown that clearly.

Where almost every school had kids who were recruited on past reputations built in other conferences. This group of Juniors and Seniors are the classes secured in the new conference, this season and next will show if it has the staying power.

I wonder if anyone owns the right to the name Metro Confence--it would certainly be better than AAC.

(07-13-2018 12:59 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  there's nothing to decide. The Big East is a power conference. These last 4 years have shown that clearly.

Where almost every school had kids who were recruited on past reputations built in other conferences. This group of Juniors and Seniors are the classes secured in the new conference, this season and next will show if it has the staying power.

Most of what's happened in the Big East is due to recruiting starting in the 2014 incoming class. Which was after the split. Seton Hall did what they did due to guys like Delgado and Whitehead. Providence has had a number of recruits.

In some ways, 2014 being slow helped the league brush off the notion that it was all due to being in the OBE.

(07-13-2018 12:56 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This reminds me of a follow up to my earlier post (and yes I am going a bit off topic)...

Are the BE schools you listed above "major" college basketball programs and in turn, are UConn and Cincinnati "mid-majors"? I saw this because back in 2013 all those schools were in the Big East and UConn and Cincinnati had the upper hand on those schools. Did the change of the conference patch on their uniform change the school's labeling-- budget, facilitates, history, championships be damned?

I don't know about major/mid-major labels, but there was/is a substantial impact on the conference branding of all of those schools. The C7 maintained the Big East affiliation with their programs - one that was a power basketball league for many years - which was pivotal in terms of remaining a top basketball conference. Had the C7 not bought the Big East name and MSG Tournament site, and instead gone with a "Catholic Conference", "Metro Conference" or "Big North", I think there would be a real struggle to maintain that perception.

Conversely, UConn, Cincinnati and USF going to the "American" brand I think really hurt their perception. In addition to now being affiliated with a high-number of C-USA call-ups, they not only selected a conference name that is similar to Conference USA (American), they used the same colors and branding affiliations. IMHO, if the league had selected the "Metro Conference", there would be a much stronger reception to their #Power6 campaign. It is tough to fight years of perceptions with an association to a mid-major league, especially when grouped with so many of them.

Yes because Memphis and Tulsa just don't match Creighton and Xavier.

Tulsa’s not in the conversation with those 3.

(07-13-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This reminds me of a follow up to my earlier post (and yes I am going a bit off topic)...

Are the BE schools you listed above "major" college basketball programs and in turn, are UConn and Cincinnati "mid-majors"? I saw this because back in 2013 all those schools were in the Big East and UConn and Cincinnati had the upper hand on those schools. Did the change of the conference patch on their uniform change the school's labeling-- budget, facilitates, history, championships be damned?

I don't know about major/mid-major labels, but there was/is a substantial impact on the conference branding of all of those schools. The C7 maintained the Big East affiliation with their programs - one that was a power basketball league for many years - which was pivotal in terms of remaining a top basketball conference. Had the C7 not bought the Big East name and MSG Tournament site, and instead gone with a "Catholic Conference", "Metro Conference" or "Big North", I think there would be a real struggle to maintain that perception.

Conversely, UConn, Cincinnati and USF going to the "American" brand I think really hurt their perception. In addition to now being affiliated with a high-number of C-USA call-ups, they not only selected a conference name that is similar to Conference USA (American), they used the same colors and branding affiliations. IMHO, if the league had selected the "Metro Conference", there would be a much stronger reception to their #Power6 campaign. It is tough to fight years of perceptions with an association to a mid-major league, especially when grouped with so many of them.

While I agree with you about the name and branding respective to both conferences, there was no name or branding that would have helped the football side. There conference doesn't produce a NC-caliber program every year. No Power campaign or conference name can change that fact.

The C7 desperately needed to purchase the conference name, and it wouldn't have helped the football schools at all to retain the name.

(07-13-2018 10:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:05 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:03 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is just such a weird argument. Power status isn't determined by a year-to-year ranking metric. It is given based on prestige. The SEC and PAC 12 are always going to be power conferences just like the Big East will as long as they have Georgetown, Villanova, and the other catholic schools. The fact that they had a really bad year and still got 4 teams in kind of proves that.

I've long made the argument (and have several times on this board) that there are no such things as "Power Conferences" as it relates to college basketball. There are only power teams. UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Gonzaga and a few others have more hoops prestige than half of the schools in a "Power Conference".

You could certainly make that argument. South Carolina for example is in a "power conference" but missed the tournament in 2016 in favor of Tulsa despite having more top 50 wins, a better record, and a win against them head to head. Having Power Conference status didn't really convey any benefit and doesn't to tons of schools.

Tulsa 16 58 RPI, 60 SOS, 106 OOC SOS, 4-5 vs RPI top 50, 8-8 vs RPI top 100.
SC 16 64 RPI, 170 SOS, 296 OOC SOS 1-1 vs RPI top 50, 8-5 vs RPI top 100.

top 50 wins- sorry but nope
better record- sure but that's only due to garbage OOC and overall schedule
win head to head- great- but not enough to make up the other areas.

Maybe it was better record vs. top 100. IDK and honestly I've forgotten and don't care given the way the following year played out.

My point is no one really cares about "Power Conference Affiliation" in hoops if stupid decisions like that can happen and I know there are tons of other examples.

(07-13-2018 01:50 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:56 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This reminds me of a follow up to my earlier post (and yes I am going a bit off topic)...

Are the BE schools you listed above "major" college basketball programs and in turn, are UConn and Cincinnati "mid-majors"? I saw this because back in 2013 all those schools were in the Big East and UConn and Cincinnati had the upper hand on those schools. Did the change of the conference patch on their uniform change the school's labeling-- budget, facilitates, history, championships be damned?

I don't know about major/mid-major labels, but there was/is a substantial impact on the conference branding of all of those schools. The C7 maintained the Big East affiliation with their programs - one that was a power basketball league for many years - which was pivotal in terms of remaining a top basketball conference. Had the C7 not bought the Big East name and MSG Tournament site, and instead gone with a "Catholic Conference", "Metro Conference" or "Big North", I think there would be a real struggle to maintain that perception.

Conversely, UConn, Cincinnati and USF going to the "American" brand I think really hurt their perception. In addition to now being affiliated with a high-number of C-USA call-ups, they not only selected a conference name that is similar to Conference USA (American), they used the same colors and branding affiliations. IMHO, if the league had selected the "Metro Conference", there would be a much stronger reception to their #Power6 campaign. It is tough to fight years of perceptions with an association to a mid-major league, especially when grouped with so many of them.

Yes because Memphis and Tulsa just don't match Creighton and Xavier.

Tulsa’s not in the conversation with those 3.

Ignornce must be bliss. Tulsa beat down Creighton on a regular in the mvc until the min 90s.

You can just look at their record from the time they were both in the league. Creighton's run starts after Tulsa leaves in 1999.

Creighton 21 NCAA, 3 sweet 16 and 1 elite eight, all before 1975. Since 1990 they have won 6 games and 4 since 2000. Mvc champs from 1934 -1996 eight, mostly in the 30s-40s and 1978, 1989, and 1991.

Tulsa 16 NCAA, 3 sweet sixteen and 1 elite eight, all since 1993. They have won 10 games since 1990 and 2 since 2000. Mvc championships 1934-1996 six, one in the 1950s the others in the 80s-90s.

Considering the difference in appearences almost matches the difference in NCAA births since the conference change (4-1) I would say there is little difference and maybe even weight it a bit towards Tulsa pre-2013

Xavier 28 NCAA 5 sweet sixteen, 3 elite eights all pretty much since 1990.

Memphis 20 (26) NCAA, 2 (5) sweet sixteens, 3 (4) elite eights, 1(3) final four. From the 1970s on. (Number including vacated)

Pretty sure that's an accurate comparison for teams added to each conference matching. Houston and Butler match well too.

Both sides added 3 teams of matching prestige. The AAC suffers from the dead weight (in basketball terms) of Tulane and ECU.

Tulsa hasn’t won an NCAA Tournament game in 15 years. That’s way too long. No one who follows college basketball today thinks of them as a Creighton/Xavier/Memphis. Sure they were 93-03 but too much time has passed.

(07-13-2018 06:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Tulsa hasn’t won an NCAA Tournament game in 15 years. That’s way too long. No one who follows college basketball today thinks of them as a Creighton/Xavier/Memphis. Sure they were 93-03 but too much time has passed.

Lol and winning 3 is a big deal? Creighton hasn't made a sweet sixteen since 1974 and before that it's the 1960s.

As for Creighton, they had significantly less budget and smaller arena before the Qwest Center opened and became top 5-6 in NCAA attendance.

Big difference between a Creighton drawing 50-70% less in an old Omaha Civic Auditorium and 16-17k in a brand new downtown arena surrounded by bars. Tulsa was a mid major power back then, no doubt, but Creighton becomes one regardless of Tulsa.

(07-13-2018 06:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 06:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Tulsa hasn’t won an NCAA Tournament game in 15 years. That’s way too long. No one who follows college basketball today thinks of them as a Creighton/Xavier/Memphis. Sure they were 93-03 but too much time has passed.

Lol and winning 3 is a big deal? Creighton hasn't made a sweet sixteen since 1974 and before that it's the 1960s.

Creighton lacks NCAA Tournament success but they’re still a mainstay in actually making it. They’ve won 20+ games 18 of 20 years.

(07-13-2018 06:39 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 06:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 06:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Tulsa hasn’t won an NCAA Tournament game in 15 years. That’s way too long. No one who follows college basketball today thinks of them as a Creighton/Xavier/Memphis. Sure they were 93-03 but too much time has passed.

Lol and winning 3 is a big deal? Creighton hasn't made a sweet sixteen since 1974 and before that it's the 1960s.

Creighton lacks NCAA Tournament success but they’re still a mainstay in actually making it. They’ve won 20+ games 18 of 20 years.

Tulsa has won 19 games or more 15 of the last 20, including 30+ once, and over 25 wins 5 times. During that same period they have an elite 8 run. They have an NIT championship and more wins in the NCAA tournament than Creighton during that time period. Would you like to try again?

(07-13-2018 05:53 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:50 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:56 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This reminds me of a follow up to my earlier post (and yes I am going a bit off topic)...

Are the BE schools you listed above "major" college basketball programs and in turn, are UConn and Cincinnati "mid-majors"? I saw this because back in 2013 all those schools were in the Big East and UConn and Cincinnati had the upper hand on those schools. Did the change of the conference patch on their uniform change the school's labeling-- budget, facilitates, history, championships be damned?

I don't know about major/mid-major labels, but there was/is a substantial impact on the conference branding of all of those schools. The C7 maintained the Big East affiliation with their programs - one that was a power basketball league for many years - which was pivotal in terms of remaining a top basketball conference. Had the C7 not bought the Big East name and MSG Tournament site, and instead gone with a "Catholic Conference", "Metro Conference" or "Big North", I think there would be a real struggle to maintain that perception.

Conversely, UConn, Cincinnati and USF going to the "American" brand I think really hurt their perception. In addition to now being affiliated with a high-number of C-USA call-ups, they not only selected a conference name that is similar to Conference USA (American), they used the same colors and branding affiliations. IMHO, if the league had selected the "Metro Conference", there would be a much stronger reception to their #Power6 campaign. It is tough to fight years of perceptions with an association to a mid-major league, especially when grouped with so many of them.

Yes because Memphis and Tulsa just don't match Creighton and Xavier.

Tulsa’s not in the conversation with those 3.

Ignornce must be bliss. Tulsa beat down Creighton on a regular in the mvc until the min 90s.

You can just look at their record from the time they were both in the league. Creighton's run starts after Tulsa leaves in 1999.

Creighton 21 NCAA, 3 sweet 16 and 1 elite eight, all before 1975. Since 1990 they have won 6 games and 4 since 2000. Mvc champs from 1934 -1996 eight, mostly in the 30s-40s and 1978, 1989, and 1991.

Tulsa 16 NCAA, 3 sweet sixteen and 1 elite eight, all since 1993. They have won 10 games since 1990 and 2 since 2000. Mvc championships 1934-1996 six, one in the 1950s the others in the 80s-90s.

Considering the difference in appearences almost matches the difference in NCAA births since the conference change (4-1) I would say there is little difference and maybe even weight it a bit towards Tulsa pre-2013

Xavier 28 NCAA 5 sweet sixteen, 3 elite eights all pretty much since 1990.

Memphis 20 (26) NCAA, 2 (5) sweet sixteens, 3 (4) elite eights, 1(3) final four. From the 1970s on. (Number including vacated)

Pretty sure that's an accurate comparison for teams added to each conference matching. Houston and Butler match well too.

Both sides added 3 teams of matching prestige. The AAC suffers from the dead weight (in basketball terms) of Tulane and ECU.

This guy going back to the 90's? Even me a Rutgers fan thinks you're reaching back a bit to far.

Tulsa can't be compared to Creighton.