(07-01-2020 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 09:27 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  The AAC could be right on par with any conference in the NCAA, but it has come up short in its short history. At the AAC's best, it has been comparable to a P5/Big East league that's having a down year, like the ACC this past season. This is in spite of having what are clearly high, high major individual programs.

Yes, the AAC has under-performed in hoops during its existence. When the split occurred, the consensus was that basketball assets had basically been divided equally between the "new" Big East and new AAC, and that with their respective additions they would be essentially equal basketball leagues. But the Big East has easily out-performed the AAC. These are the AAC's RPI rankings for 2014 - 2020:

2014 .... 8
2015 .... 8
2016 .... 8
2017 .... 7
2018 .... 7
2019 .... 6
2020 .... 7

So those first three years, the AAC finished behind all the P6 leagues and the A10 as well. Since adding Wichita State to boost sagging hoops, they now consistently beat out all the other non-P conferences, and in 2019 beat out a P6 league, the PAC.

So it's fair to say that since adding WS, the AAC has improved to being better than the A10 and it is now the best non-P league. But that's IMO less than what was hoped for when the league was created.

Yeah, it's the best of the rest, but until it can get to be a threat to the big boys then it's stuck with the rest. I went through the RPI ratings and one thing you see among power conferences is they very rarely dip below a .55 RPI rating. The year the AAC passed up the Pac-12, the AAC had a .546 (which is historically good for them) and the Pac-12 had a .531 (which is incredibly bad for a power conference.) The AAC normally hovers around a .525 to .54 for their rankings while the P6 go between .55 and .575.

Oh, and in 2020, the Pac 12 was a .561 while the AAC was .539. A return to form for both conferences. The AAC's much closer to the A-10 than a place among the P6, which considering the football-centered deadweight they keep with them in ECU, Tulane, and USF isn't that bad.

(06-30-2020 05:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  Now ESPN associates major with P5 + Big East. But AAC (especially with UConn) and MWC are majors

Not to me. The numbers tell me that the P6 are categorically superior to the AAC and WM in hoops, so the latter two require different names. Quasi-major? Semi-major? Minor-Major?

Calling conferences major, mid-major etc. is a bit off of the 1980s usage where it was about programs, not conferences ...

But as long as we are using the major term, either the P6 are High Major conference which clears the decks for the AAC without UConn (it's already July) and MWC as Low Majors.

Or if Major is restricted to the P6 with High and Low being used for sh!tposting about how one P6 conference totally rulez and another P6 conference totally suckz, then High Mid-Major for the non-P6 conferences that have more or less regular at-large bids, AAC, MWC, A10, WCC.

With the days of the regular Mid-Major conferences having at-large bids largely passed (and after all, isn't that part of the purpose of the NET ranking?).

With one of my schools being in a comfortably high major conference either way and another being in a conference that doesn't get regular at-large bids to the NIT, I don't really have a dog in the hunt, so feel free to use either.

The term "mid-major" is meaningless and stupid. It's used by P5 pundits that want to further express their own superiority, without actually saying what they mean or defining anything.

Mid-Major Pecking Order, those with shots at multiple bids:

1. Gonzaga

2. ......(nobody) .........

3. ......(nobody) .........

4. American (Wichita State provides that slight separation)

5. Mountain West
6. Atlantic-10
7. West Coast (really BYU and St. Mary's only)

The above conferences are likely to get an at-large bid. NCAA tends to award 4 or 5 to the above group.

8. ......(nobody) .........

collection of conferences with a shot at two bids (one happens every 3rd year), in no particular order:

Conference USA, Ivy League, Missouri Valley, Southern, Ohio Valley, ASUN

// Note: OVC and ASUN are not strong, but they both have two schools recognized as contenders for a bid.

Everyone else has not even a remote chance of a 2nd bid ever. The order doesn't matter, and they get about as many credits as the group above.

SWAC, MEAC, AEC, Big West, Big Sky and SLC Champions are very likely to be in the First Four. That would qualify as the bottom.

Everyone is judging and enthusiastically underestimating the AAC off of its short history. The first year of its existence the conference had 5 top 25 teams yet only 4 made the NCAA tournament go figure,,,and the conference won championship. It's true that the AAC has underperformed since but what a lot of some people conveniently overlook is that the AAC has been obviously going through a cycle of bad coaches. Memphis- Pastner/Tubby, Cincy- Cronin (can't or wouldn't recruit), Temple- Dunphy(once good coach that the game past by, Houston (although they course corrected and are pretty close to being back), SMU (that stupidly let a still great HOF go) and so on. I've always said that the AAC early on wasn't bad but had a Memphis/UCONN problem. The AAC is like a house with "good bones". Anyone that's not on the " I hate the AAC " agenda can see that. Another thing that a lot of people overlook is that at the time the AAC was busy building football because we realized where the money and future of an all sports was at, so yes I think that even my school along with most of the conference kinda were on cruise control as far as basketball was concerned. [/u]All sports are cyclical and the AAC hit a down cycle to soon but the recruiting and overall production is improving. To the many naysayers enjoy ripping this apart because I'm not going to do the back and forth on it today.

It’s silly to consider the aac mid major .. my justification is simple

Anyone who genuinely cares about mid-major basketball and covering them does not include the AAC..the 4 biggest mid-major basketball sites (technically the only 4 I know) don’t count the AAC..the aac gets national coverage, covering them as mid-major would make no sense, as a mid major site is likely to shine smaller programs (Memphis/penny had a espn+ show, Cincy is on 9 straight tourney, Houston is preseason top15, temple is a top 10 historic winning program, Wichita has a recent final 4)

On the reverse if you remove labels, if you have a national bball website/tv show covering major b-ball stories.. you have to cover the AAC. The aac tournament championship over the last 5 years averaged more viewers than the big east and the pac 12

To address a few other points made here: “you don’t have a title contender every year” neither does the pac 12, almost every on the court argument can be used against the pac 12 too
The entire league also isn’t Tulane, ecu and USF..not sure why people try to rationalize them as th entire league
Also some noted USF has no signs of turning around.. USF is a projected NIT/NCAA bubble team

(07-01-2020 04:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The term "mid-major" is meaningless and stupid. It's used by P5 pundits that want to further express their own superiority, without actually saying what they mean or defining anything.

Though it was developed a long time before there was a Power 5 ... indeed, it was developed before there were AQ and non-AQ schools in the BCS, since it predates the BCS.

Do we all remember when Xavier — even as late as 2010 — was considered by many a "mid-major"? That was a joke, as the XU program (before it joined the Big East) had a "major program" feel to it. And I'm a Cincinnati fan and feel that way.

So did Xavier "automatically elevate to major" when it joined the Big East? No. It already was a major program. Butler and Creighton when they joined the BE? No, they already were major.

In college hoops (unlike in football), a program can be major without being in a power league. We know those programs — but some folks refuse to acknowledge.

Here is a take from that era:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1173...-mid-major

women's poll but you get the picture:

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...major-poll

(07-02-2020 08:38 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  In college hoops (unlike in football), a program can be major without being in a power league. We know those programs — but some folks refuse to acknowledge.

Well, I'd say in football Notre Dame is a major football program though not in a Power league. Now, I'd say in football it gets trickier going the other way. For example, we all know that Vanderbilt has a weak football program. It's not in the same category as Alabama or Georgia. Nevertheless, in recent years the "AQ" vs "non-AQ" and now "P5" vs "G5" distinctions at the conference level have become so strong that I think if a school is in a Power league, its program is regarded as "major" or "power" even if it is historically weak.

In hoops, a program can be 'major' but not in a power league as well, which is why it was silly when some AAC fans took umbrage at the notion that the AAC is not a major hoops league by citing the credentials of their favorite school as a major program. Cincy or Memphis might be major programs, but the AAC hoops league is not major, or whatever you want to call the top 6 leagues.

(07-02-2020 08:38 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Do we all remember when Xavier — even as late as 2010 — was considered by many a "mid-major"? That was a joke, as the XU program (before it joined the Big East) had a "major program" feel to it. And I'm a Cincinnati fan and feel that way.

So did Xavier "automatically elevate to major" when it joined the Big East? No. It already was a major program. Butler and Creighton when they joined the BE? No, they already were major.

In college hoops (unlike in football), a program can be major without being in a power league. We know those programs — but some folks refuse to acknowledge.

Here is a take from that era:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1173...-mid-major

women's poll but you get the picture:

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...major-poll

Here in Cincinnati, the so-called Mid-Major UC program preempts coverage of the High Major XU program on radio, TV, etc. Go figure.

(07-02-2020 08:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:38 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Do we all remember when Xavier — even as late as 2010 — was considered by many a "mid-major"? That was a joke, as the XU program (before it joined the Big East) had a "major program" feel to it. And I'm a Cincinnati fan and feel that way.

So did Xavier "automatically elevate to major" when it joined the Big East? No. It already was a major program. Butler and Creighton when they joined the BE? No, they already were major.

In college hoops (unlike in football), a program can be major without being in a power league. We know those programs — but some folks refuse to acknowledge.

Here is a take from that era:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1173...-mid-major

women's poll but you get the picture:

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...major-poll

Here in Cincinnati, the so-called Mid-Major UC program preempts coverage of the High Major XU program on radio, TV, etc. Go figure.

Nicely put, C-Ave.

(07-02-2020 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:38 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  In college hoops (unlike in football), a program can be major without being in a power league. We know those programs — but some folks refuse to acknowledge.

Well, I'd say in football Notre Dame is a major football program though not in a Power league. Now, I'd say in football it gets trickier going the other way. For example, we all know that Vanderbilt has a weak football program. It's not in the same category as Alabama or Georgia. Nevertheless, in recent years the "AQ" vs "non-AQ" and now "P5" vs "G5" distinctions at the conference level have become so strong that I think if a school is in a Power league, its program is regarded as "major" or "power" even if it is historically weak.

In hoops, a program can be 'major' but not in a power league as well, which is why it was silly when some AAC fans took umbrage at the notion that the AAC is not a major hoops league by citing the credentials of their favorite school as a major program. Cincy or Memphis might be major programs, but the AAC hoops league is not major, or whatever you want to call the top 6 leagues.

Quo,

Recall that I posted this (and you agreed) yesterday:

Tier 1: The Power 6 (the P5 plus the Big East)

Tier 2: Major conferences such as the American (among others). The AAC has seven programs that rank in most folks' all-time Top 100: Houston, Cincy, Memphis, Wichita, Temple, Tulsa and SMU. Those are quality "major" to "high-major" programs that are every bit as respected and succesful historically as many programs in the P6. USF, UCF and Tulane have a "mid-major to major" history/feel. And ECU is solidly "mid-major." Thus — and taken as a collective whole — I view the American as a "major" men's hoops conference.

In contrast to the AAC, the OVC (I am a fan of Belmont and Tennessee State) is mid-major.

Again (and as you agreed yesterday), the American is, in fact, a "major men's hoops league." But it not a "power conference."

If the A10 hadn't fallen on its face the last three or four years, they'd have a bone to pick with this talk about the AAC and MWC right underneath the P5 and Big East. And it's not a shot at either conference for not sending six schools like the A10 did in 2014...AFTER it lost Temple, Butler, and Xavier, no less, but, it's hard to take any "major" talk seriously when you aren't routinely placing five or more into a tournament.

All three conferences have some consistent and strong programs within it. AAC is easy to spot, and A10 too. MWC...it's nice to see at least one program pick up prominence while UNM and UNLV are still down.

But, the PAC makes it a very slippery slope. A legacy major in some ways, or "in name only," since they haven't been delivering on good basketball for what seems like ages.

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Again (and as you agreed yesterday), the American is, in fact, a "major men's hoops league." But it not a "power conference."

Right, but that wasn't my point, which was about whether a particular school can have an identity (major, power, whatever) that is different from that of their conference.

BTW, I would modify your statement above slightly, to change the last phrase to "... not a "power hoops league"" and thus be consistent with your phrase about "major". Because "power conference" implies stuff that goes beyond results on the court or field, such as autonomy status, status within the CFP contract, etc. There's no question that the AAC is not "power" in that sense, whereas I at least have been talking just in terms of results on the court and field.

(07-02-2020 08:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:38 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Do we all remember when Xavier — even as late as 2010 — was considered by many a "mid-major"? That was a joke, as the XU program (before it joined the Big East) had a "major program" feel to it. And I'm a Cincinnati fan and feel that way.

So did Xavier "automatically elevate to major" when it joined the Big East? No. It already was a major program. Butler and Creighton when they joined the BE? No, they already were major.

In college hoops (unlike in football), a program can be major without being in a power league. We know those programs — but some folks refuse to acknowledge.

Here is a take from that era:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1173...-mid-major

women's poll but you get the picture:

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...major-poll

Here in Cincinnati, the so-called Mid-Major UC program preempts coverage of the High Major XU program on radio, TV, etc. Go figure.

Again, who is calling Cincinnati mid-major? All that's being said is that the AAC is a notch below the P5/Big East.

(07-02-2020 09:28 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:38 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Do we all remember when Xavier — even as late as 2010 — was considered by many a "mid-major"? That was a joke, as the XU program (before it joined the Big East) had a "major program" feel to it. And I'm a Cincinnati fan and feel that way.

So did Xavier "automatically elevate to major" when it joined the Big East? No. It already was a major program. Butler and Creighton when they joined the BE? No, they already were major.

In college hoops (unlike in football), a program can be major without being in a power league. We know those programs — but some folks refuse to acknowledge.

Here is a take from that era:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1173...-mid-major

women's poll but you get the picture:

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-baske...major-poll

Here in Cincinnati, the so-called Mid-Major UC program preempts coverage of the High Major XU program on radio, TV, etc. Go figure.

Again, who is calling Cincinnati mid-major? All that's being said is that the AAC is a notch below the P5/Big East.

The title of this thread is Mid-Major pecking order and UC was included

(07-01-2020 06:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  It’s silly to consider the aac mid major .. my justification is simple

Anyone who genuinely cares about mid-major basketball and covering them does not include the AAC..the 4 biggest mid-major basketball sites (technically the only 4 I know) don’t count the AAC..the aac gets national coverage, covering them as mid-major would make no sense, as a mid major site is likely to shine smaller programs (Memphis/penny had a espn+ show, Cincy is on 9 straight tourney, Houston is preseason top15, temple is a top 10 historic winning program, Wichita has a recent final 4)

On the reverse if you remove labels, if you have a national bball website/tv show covering major b-ball stories.. you have to cover the AAC. The aac tournament championship over the last 5 years averaged more viewers than the big east and the pac 12

In the 2019-2020 basketball season, this was the final Conference Net Rankings:

1) Big East
2) Big Ten
3) Big 12
4) Pac-12
5) SEC
6) ACC
7) American Athletic
8) Atlantic 10
9) West Coast
10) Mountain West

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...pening-day

ACC 85
Pac-12 67
SEC 66
Big 12 47
Big Ten 42
Big East 27
AAC 20
MWC 15
WCC 9
A-10 8

The top ten conferences in NBA talent are the same top ten conferences in Net Conference Ranking. The power conferences have the best talent and are usually ranked at the top in conference ranking. The AAC has some very good coaches but the talent is not as good and they are not close in revenue. That is why the AAC is a mid-major. I consider them the best mid-major, but a mid-major nonetheless.

(07-01-2020 06:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  It’s silly to consider the aac mid major .. my justification is simple

AAC is what it is, the best basketball conference after the six power-level leagues.

So kind of a tweener, not in the same category with the Big Six, but not in the same category with the MAC either. So kind of like in football - tweener.

(07-02-2020 10:19 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 06:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  It’s silly to consider the aac mid major .. my justification is simple

Anyone who genuinely cares about mid-major basketball and covering them does not include the AAC..the 4 biggest mid-major basketball sites (technically the only 4 I know) don’t count the AAC..the aac gets national coverage, covering them as mid-major would make no sense, as a mid major site is likely to shine smaller programs (Memphis/penny had a espn+ show, Cincy is on 9 straight tourney, Houston is preseason top15, temple is a top 10 historic winning program, Wichita has a recent final 4)

On the reverse if you remove labels, if you have a national bball website/tv show covering major b-ball stories.. you have to cover the AAC. The aac tournament championship over the last 5 years averaged more viewers than the big east and the pac 12

In the 2019-2020 basketball season, this was the final Conference Net Rankings:

1) Big East
2) Big Ten
3) Big 12
4) Pac-12
5) SEC
6) ACC
7) American Athletic
8) Atlantic 10
9) West Coast
10) Mountain West

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...pening-day

ACC 85
Pac-12 67
SEC 66
Big 12 47
Big Ten 42
Big East 27
AAC 20
MWC 15
WCC 9
A-10 8

The top ten conferences in NBA talent are the same top ten conferences in Net Conference Ranking. The power conferences have the best talent and are usually ranked at the top in conference ranking. The AAC has some very good coaches but the talent is not as good and they are not close in revenue. That is why the AAC is a mid-major. I consider them the best mid-major, but a mid-major nonetheless.

You don't understand the AAC at all. The AAC is coming out of a cycle of bad to atrocious coaches. The talent level is quickly rising and as far as your "not close in revenue " comment,,,, you've proven that you don't know hack s!$+ about AAC programs.

(07-02-2020 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Again (and as you agreed yesterday), the American is, in fact, a "major men's hoops league." But it not a "power conference."

Right, but that wasn't my point, which was about whether a particular school can have an identity (major, power, whatever) that is different from that of their conference.

BTW, I would modify your statement above slightly, to change the last phrase to "... not a "power hoops league"" and thus be consistent with your phrase about "major". Because "power conference" implies stuff that goes beyond results on the court or field, such as autonomy status, status within the CFP contract, etc. There's no question that the AAC is not "power" in that sense, whereas I at least have been talking just in terms of results on the court and field.

You and I fully agree on the "power" theme (in football, it's fully about money, resources and affiliations).

I do feel a school can have an identity outside its conference. Gonzaga is a high-major program in a mid-major to major conference, for example. In fact, I always considered Brigham Young football a "power-esque" program (the school is loaded with money and a huge fan base) when it was in the Mountain West.

The "power" element is tricky in hoops in that Big East men's hoops (power by any metric) is part of the broader Big East conference, which is not a true and comprehensive power league.

Similarly, the AAC has "elements/characteristics of P5-esque power" (some strong D-I football, massive enrollments, strong baseball, six medical schools, etc.) while not being a true "power league."

It's all semantics, in many ways.

I've been a fan of Memphis and Cincinnati hoops for many years and I know the difference between those two programs and the programs of, for example, OVC members Belmont and Tennessee State (both of which I also root). As I've noted before on this board, Memphis and Cincy offer NBA-like franchises compared to Belmont and TSU. UC and UM are major to high-major programs and BU and TSU are mid-major. Some posters on this board (not you) lump those four into the same "mid-major" category. They are either clueless or have an agenda.

When you cheer for Vanderbilt, Indiana and North Carolina on the one hand, Memphis, Cincinnati and DePaul on the other, and Belmont on your left foot ... you kind of get an ideal of what this is all about.