On the bright side...

[GMG_Dallas]

When we get to the AAC, we'll likely still only be in a 1 bid conference since Houston will be gone. The only hope is Memphis has a good tournament and SMU comes back strong next year. UH's Final 4 and Penny Hardaway got them 2 bids. Unless UAB can make a deep run, or the AAC can come back stronger next year, I'm wondering how the powers will view the AAC without UH.

[NorthTexasWeLove]

37 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

When we get to the AAC, we'll likely still only be in a 1 bid conference since Houston will be gone. The only hope is Memphis has a good tournament and SMU comes back strong next year. UH's Final 4 and Penny Hardaway got them 2 bids. Unless UAB can make a deep run, or the AAC can come back stronger next year, I'm wondering how the powers will view the AAC without UH.

I really don't see UH leaving a gaping hole in the AAC with their departure. I think Cincy, across all sports, is a bigger loss to the AAC. 

[GMG_Dallas]

5 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

I really don't see UH leaving a gaping hole in the AAC with their departure. I think Cincy, across all sports, is a bigger loss to the AAC. 

Both leaving is a big problem. My concern is the AAC is losing it's shine. I was hoping smu would get in for the sake of the future of the conference but nada. Just like us. If it weren't for the Penny Hardaway love, I'm not sure Memphis would be in either.

[GrandGreen]

Some should consider that if Houston and Cincinnati didn't plan to leave the AAC, NT would have not got the offer.

NT going to the AAC is a positive, why fret over something NT has no control over.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Matt from A700]

The bright side is we get to trade one local conference tournament for another. And I selfishly love it because I live 20 minutes away from Dickies Arena.

[UNTLifer]

Or maybe we come in and properly replace UH or Cincy, or dare I say, exceed what they have accomplished and it remains a two bid league. 

[GMG_Dallas]

13 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Some should consider that if Houston and Cincinnati didn't plan to leave the AAC, NT would have not got the offer.

NT going to the AAC is a positive, why fret over something NT has no control over.  

 

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily fretting just pointing out the bias towards the Big 10 and Big 12 affects others as well and will keep affecting us after c-usa. The AAC will still be an upgrade.

I would have thought Houston being as good as they have been would reflect on all the AAC but it hasn't. The power conferences get the benefit of the doubt when a single member has a deep run but the mid-majors don't. If Memphis keeps pointing upwards and has some strong tournament showings, will it benefit only them or their conference as a whole? Worth asking IMO because the argument is always that a mid-major conference will get respect when they make a deep tournament run but when they do, it's only attributed to that program and not applied to the conference as a whole. They're cast off as one-off seasons.

I'm still excited about the move. Just wondering what it takes for a mid-major conference to be taken seriously.

[untbowler]

look at the WCC now, with Gonzaga at the top the rest of the conference is also getting some notice with St Mary's and other now garnering national attention. Moving to the AAC will be great along with a Memphis team being strong and a strong SMU is good for all. 

[CMJ]

It's taken 20 years for the WCC to get this sort of respect (same for the MWC too for that matter).  It's a long process, but obviously worth it.

[GMG_Dallas]

Yeah I'm not understanding the love for the MWC. If they're still valuing them because of what UNLV did in the early 90s while in a different conference, it might be time to let it go. The MWC has had good teams recently (thinking of New Mexico and Nevada a few years back) but I'm not understanding the 4 bids.

[CMJ]

No, they get no love for UNLV.  The MWC is usually a 2 bid league.  They had a really strong season by the metrics this year, hence the respect.

[NTXCoog]

1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

 

I would have thought Houston being as good as they have been would reflect on all the AAC but it hasn't. The power conferences get the benefit of the doubt when a single member has a deep run but the mid-majors don't. If Memphis keeps pointing upwards and has some strong tournament showings, will it benefit only them or their conference as a whole? Worth asking IMO because the argument is always that a mid-major conference will get respect when they make a deep tournament run but when they do, it's only attributed to that program and not applied to the conference as a whole. They're cast off as one-off seasons.

I'm still excited about the move. Just wondering what it takes for a mid-major conference to be taken seriously.

If Memphis dominates the AAC like they did CUSA, it actually makes the conference look worse.  I don't think that happens though.

The biggest problem is the league is being inconsistent at best out of conference.  Memphis had some very good wins but also some bad losses.  The middle of the pack will play horrible schedules and/or lose to bad teams, then they'll get their act together in conference and beat some of the better teams.

Then there are the bottom tier teams that will pick up Q4 losses OOC but still manage to win a few against mid to upper tier teams.

I think the AAC needs Memphis to keep moving up.  It needs Wichita State and Tulsa to improve because those are names that basketball fans know so they could recover their reputations more quickly.  Need at least one ex-CUSA team to be solid to show you're not just losing good teams but also picking up good teams.   Need better OOC performance from all levels. And need the bottom of the league to improve to just bad instead if horrible.

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, NTXCoog said:

If Memphis dominates the AAC like they did CUSA, it actually makes the conference look worse.  I don't think that happens though.

The biggest problem is the league is being inconsistent at best out of conference.  Memphis had some very good wins but also some bad losses.  The middle of the pack will play horrible schedules and/or lose to bad teams, then they'll get their act together in conference and beat some of the better teams.

Then there are the bottom tier teams that will pick up Q4 losses OOC but still manage to win a few against mid to upper tier teams.

I think the AAC needs Memphis to keep moving up.  It needs Wichita State and Tulsa to improve because those are names that basketball fans know so they could recover their reputations more quickly.  Need at least one ex-CUSA team to be solid to show you're not just losing good teams but also picking up good teams.   Need better OOC performance from all levels. And need the bottom of the league to improve to just bad instead if horrible.

I agree Memphis needs to keep this going. I would argue SMU may be more valuable than Tulsa do to recent success but the more the merrier. Wichita State is a big player as well for the same reason SMU is important (recent success). Tulsa may have a good history with Bill Self but I don't find that relevant 20 years later.

I think UAB and UNT will be good replacements for Cincy and UH in the basketball realm. I would have preferred MTSU, WKU, and LaTech than UTSA, Rice, and Charlotte but it is what it is. I just dont see what value Rice brings other than a footprint in the Houston market but I doubt they have much of an following. That would have been a salty basketball conference with Wichita State, Memphis, UNT, WKU, MTSU, UAB, SMU.

[NTXCoog]

32 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Tulsa may have a good history with Bill Self but I don't find that relevant 20 years later.

Tulsa made the NCAA Tournament in 2014 and 2016.  They might have made it in 2020 if it hadn't been cancelled as they tied for 1st in the conference.  

They've made the torunament 4 times since Self left.  They've had good coaches and teams before and after Self.  You might have heard SMU's name locally more because of Larry Brown, but I think Tulsa has been respected much more nationally

[CMJ]

Tulsa is definitely more of a college basketball brand than SMU is.

[GMG_Dallas]

Understood. I wasn't arguing who was a bigger brand; that is tied to history. I was more-so wondering who is bigger today and who presents the bigger opportunity in the near future.