Sat. March 7th games

[stever20]

the problem with your conference argument is that Tulsa got in via at large 8 times, and 4 other times they got in automatic, but with a seed that they would have been at large regardless. So kind of tough to use that against them...

funny you use the last dozen years for your comparison. why? because years 10, 11, and 12 were the only 3 losing years for Tulsa in the last oh 28 years.

let's look at the 5 years before your gerrymandered look
UMass 70-81
Tulsa 131-43

lets go to 20 years
UMass 360-274 .568
Tulsa 413-242 .631

bottom line, it's really close one way or the other for Tulsa/UMass. So to say that the AAC showed they don't care about basketball because they took Tulsa over UMass just isn't right. UMass just isn't a special program at all. They have floundered for years. The only time they were really good was with Calipari and we know that final 4 appearance isn't counted by the NCAA.

Steve,you are just wrong on this one. No one cares what the Tulsa was doing 20 years ago. Anything much beyond the past decade is irrelevant. It was different. Coaches, different leagues, etc. I don't care if, you pick8 years, 10 years, or 12 years, UMass and Tulsa have been comparable programs in the recent past. Much beyond that is ancient history unless it's part of a continuing pattern, which hasn't been the case for either Tulsa or UMass.

I never said that UMass was a "special program" so I don't know why you're refuting that straw man. I said just the opposite, that they were comparable to Tulsa. Anything else is misrepresenting the facts.

Where the 2 schools have been different is on the gridiron, not on the basketball court. Football is the reason why Tulsa was selected and that's precisely the problem. They gained nothing in basketball by taking Tulsa over UMass and they missed an opportunity to improve basketball by passing on VCU. No surprise since they're a football focused conference.

Tulsa is a small private school with an undergrad enrollment of about 3,000. They draw about 20,000 or so for football and that is probably their ceiling. They are in a state with a population of about 4 million that is dominated by Oklahoma and OK State. There really is no up side for them in terms of enhancing the conference in terms of a TV market or ever having the potential to be a big time program.

In contrast, UMass is the flag ship university with an enrollment of 30,000 In a state with a population of almost 7 million with only BC, a private school, as big time competition for college sports fans. Regardless of their history in college athletics, they have all kinds of potential up side. That's their advantage over Tulsa regardless of what years of basketball history that either of us wants to cherry pick. They bring the potential to penetrate a big market and the resources of a very large university with the potential for a very large fan base.

Moreover, given that the loss of Rutgers created a hole in the Northeast wing of the AAC, UMass would have plugged that hole perfectly. They would have brought the additional benefit of having a long history with UConn, thereby bringing a ready made rivalry.

Tulsa was selected because the southern football schools, who by the time the decision was to be made had the votes, opted for a school they felt comfortable with from their days together in CUSA. The decision did not reflect any forward thinking on their part. It was small minded and mid major.

Regardless of how good they ever become in any sport, would a P5 conference ever want Tulsa? Never. They're too small and will never be a big enough draw for attendance or. TV ratings. They will always be 3rd in a relatively small state. If UMass ever developed big time success in football, they are exactly what a P5 conference would be looking for - a state flagship, land grant university with a large enrollment in a relatively large state where they have the potential to be #1.

Let me ask you again. Why do you defend the AAC so vigorously? Do you see anything about them that deserves to be criticized?

You have all kinds of criticism for the Big East but you don't bring the same critical eye to the AAC. Why not? I don't get it. You're a pretty well informed guy, but you don't seem to see a single thing wrong with the AAC. That conference is a marriage of convenience and was formed under duress. With the benefit of hindsight, there are some results that even they would probably like to change. It's not hard to find things to be critical of. Except for you. Why?

Here's the thing though Bill. You say that UMass could be attractive for the P5. Why would the AAC want to help elevate someone who would pass them up? That makes no sense. Also quite frankly with how much UConn has looked to get out of the AAC, why add the only regional program that could help UConn out if UConn was going to leave within years? UConn leaves UMass would totally be on an island.

The mistake the AAC made was not adding VCU. That is the missed opportunity. They should have added them 2 years ago. The fact they haven't is definitely troubling although you don't know if VCU was broached and they declined. That's possible. I think they made some mistakes back when we were all together. Tulane to me is much more troubling than Tulsa.

[Bill Marsh]

Not saying that the AAC should help elevate UMass. Just making the point that they bring a lot in terms of market, location to fill in the East, and size of school.

The fact that they have many of the characteristics of a P5 school doesn't mean they'll ever get there. But if they even get half way there, they'll bring a lot more to the conference than tiny Tulsa ever will.

We agree on VCU being a missed opportunity. As a public institution, they're a perfect fit for the AAC and an excellent complement to Navy football in the Chesapeake region. Not exactly the same market, but close enough to give AAC fans something to route for year round and close enough for those same fans to get to games. To me the fact that the conference sees a football-only as okay shows their myopic thinking.

[stever20]

Not saying that the AAC should help elevate UMass. Just making the point that they bring a lot in terms of market, location to fill in the East, and size of school.

The fact that they have many of the characteristics of a P5 school doesn't mean they'll ever get there. But if they even get half way there, they'll bring a lot more to the conference than tiny Tulsa ever will.

We agree on VCU being a missed opportunity. As a public institution, they're a perfect fit for the AAC and an excellent complement to Navy football in the Chesapeake region. Not exactly the same market, but close enough to give AAC fans something to route for year round and close enough for those same fans to get to games. To me the fact that the conference sees a football-only as okay shows their myopic thinking.

Only thing I'll say about the football only is that there's such a huge difference in football between 11 and 12 teams compared to basketball. In Football you can have a conference title game. In basketball it means instead of seeing only 2 teams 1x you see 4 teams 1x. Really a huge difference.

[Bill Marsh]

Not saying that the AAC should help elevate UMass. Just making the point that they bring a lot in terms of market, location to fill in the East, and size of school.

The fact that they have many of the characteristics of a P5 school doesn't mean they'll ever get there. But if they even get half way there, they'll bring a lot more to the conference than tiny Tulsa ever will.

We agree on VCU being a missed opportunity. As a public institution, they're a perfect fit for the AAC and an excellent complement to Navy football in the Chesapeake region. Not exactly the same market, but close enough to give AAC fans something to route for year round and close enough for those same fans to get to games. To me the fact that the conference sees a football-only as okay shows their myopic thinking.

Only thing I'll say about the football only is that there's such a huge difference in football between 11 and 12 teams compared to basketball. In Football you can have a conference title game. In basketball it means instead of seeing only 2 teams 1x you see 4 teams 1x. Really a huge difference.

You're right.

Not only that, but an odd number of teams in a football conference is a major problem because it means that one of your teams has no one to play in October and November each week. In the old days when there were a lot of football independents, filling up the schedule wasn't a problem, but today it is.

My criticism of the AAC for not adding VCU hasn't anything to do with the numbers. It has to do with the fact that basketball is a sport in which they can actually compete with the best in the country. As you've mentioned before, UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, and Memphis were a good nucleus to start with. Their problem has been that they have too many schools that have bad basketball programs and it doesn't really seem to matter to them. If they want to be competitive in basketball, the solution would be to add good basketball programs to increase their depth. VCU would be a good step in that direction.

A good second step would be to add Wichita State and UMass. They could bring in Army to balance the numbers for football. In a 14 team conference, the handful of bad basketball programs would be less of a problem than they are in an 11 team conference.

If they can grow the football programs and the lesser basketball programs, then maybe they can negotiate a decent deal with an interested network. I think the reason why they were low balled by ESPN last time is that there were just too many bad match ups which generate zero interest. Who's going to tune in to UConn-ECU in either sport, for example? That was the advantage that the Big East had. They bring very few bad matchups to Fox.

[TheBall]

Is this still a UMass v Tulsa argument?

Here's the answer: both suck. Neither will move the needle. Neither adds anything.

That said, Tulsa is not a terrible program, but that have zero brand recognition. From uconn's perspective, at least UMass has some regional balance and some brand recognition. Dr J and Camby were a while ago, but it's not like UMass is a start up program.

Also, UMass is at least a state flagship school with some respect along the lines of UCONN. Right now, uconn is stuck in a conference where they are the only respectable state flagship school surrounded by a bunch of local commuter colleges with poor reputations. Most of them don't care about hoops, and the few that do have terrible reputations as low graduation rate high crime programs (cincy, memphis, temple).

Also, the conference of americans has a horrible media contract where their distribution partner gets to bury them on espnnews and espnu and tell the viewers that they are burried because they aren't as good as other conferences and they make no money.

In the house of cards, conference of americans will be quick to topple. They are bleeding money, but throwing cash at hoops, meanwhile the schools are facing budget cuts across the board and gaining no traction in football (they are only sliding further away).

I wish no ill will to uconn and hope they find a better home. They were a good partner for our conference for three decades. They had flaws, but overall they were a good partner. Whether their future is back in the big east or they get an invite to the acc or even the big ten, at least they know in five years they will have a better home. Anything is better than conference of americans.

[Bill Marsh]

Well said, Ball.

UConn doesn't have the attendance and accompanying revenue to compete in or draw the interest from the Big Ten. The 50K a year that Rutgers draws in football would seem to be the minimum threshold, which means that UConn would have to build its program to the point that stadium expansion is justified. Unless and until that happens, the conversation doesn't even get started. Even 50K may not be enough in UConn's case because they bring a state of 3.6 million population, not the 9 million that Rutgers brought. 50K may be OK when Rutgers brings a market that big, but UConn may need to get up to 60K with a smaller market.

The ACC would seem to be a good fit if the rumors about ND joining for football are true. But there just may be too much resistance to UConn within the ACC for too many reasons. Strangely enough, UConn may have a better shot at the Big XII if it decides to expand East. That's assuming of course that the Big XII actually survives the next round of expansion.