Will B12 additions free UCONN to join Big East?

[Bill Marsh]

Tulsa was added I think in large part due to geography. They had for a western division Houston, SMU, Tulane, and Memphis. Navy as a 5th possibly. In the east- they had for sure Temple, ECU, Cincy, and UConn. The 2 Florida schools as well. Tulsa made it easier in splitting the divisions. That's why Tulsa got the slot over UMass. The divisions would have been 1000 times harder with UMass quite frankly. Also the fact that Tulsa football was at the time of getting added MUCH stronger than UMass(who was coming off a 1-11 season, while Tulsa won C-USA). Timing matters in things like this!

Substitute UMass for Tulsa and here are the divisions;

UMass
UConn
Temple
Navy
East Carolina
Cincinnati

Houston
SMU
Memphis
Tulane
South Florida
Central Florida

No problem. Frankly these divisions make more sense than what they come up with now that they have Tulsa in the conference and UMass help out the Northeastern schools who are out on an island after they lost Rutgers.

[stever20]

Tulsa was added I think in large part due to geography. They had for a western division Houston, SMU, Tulane, and Memphis. Navy as a 5th possibly. In the east- they had for sure Temple, ECU, Cincy, and UConn. The 2 Florida schools as well. Tulsa made it easier in splitting the divisions. That's why Tulsa got the slot over UMass. The divisions would have been 1000 times harder with UMass quite frankly. Also the fact that Tulsa football was at the time of getting added MUCH stronger than UMass(who was coming off a 1-11 season, while Tulsa won C-USA). Timing matters in things like this!

Substitute UMass for Tulsa and here are the divisions;

UMass
UConn
Temple
Navy
East Carolina
Cincinnati

Houston
SMU
Memphis
Tulane
South Florida
Central Florida

No problem. Frankly these divisions make more sense than what they have now and help out the Northeastern schools who are out on an island after they lost Rutgers.

I don't think those NE schools wanted to lose Florida as a recruiting base. Now they are guaranteed a game down there every year. Also don't think the rest of the conference wanted a program in NE they didn't want where if UConn leaves the conference, they are stuck with an outpost with no one close at all.

And bottom line- they wanted a program in Tulsa who at the time was C-USA champs over a new FBS program that was 1-11.

[Bill Marsh]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. An Oklahoma kid is not going to play football at Temple because it's in the same conference as Tulsa. On top of that, OU, OK State, and Tulsa are all betting to those kids before Temple has a shot at them. Oklahoma's not that big a state. There's a limit to how many recruits they can pump out. Texas is the real recruiting hot bed and Tulsa does nothing for getting the AAC in there that Houston and SMU haven't already accomplished.

Worse yet, Tulsa is a bad football school because it's enrollment is only 3000 and it's attendance averages only 20,000. That's not what any major football conference is looking for. Given the size of the school and the size of its market, there's little chance for them to do much better than that.

My friend, you need to review the culture of football in the south. Football is life in Oklahoma/Texas/Louisiana. Families buy season tickets to pee wee football, middle school football, freshman football, JV football and HS football. There are ample numbers of high level football players in OK to supply many, many college teams. An Oklahoma kid WILL play in USF because he can come home at least twice. He will play at ECU because he can come home at least twice. He will take the offer from Houston because he is close to home. Memphis, sure his folks and friends can come see him play. OK, OK State, and all the Texas P5 schools take the first tier. The second and third tier are there and some are game changers. Matt Forte from Slidell LA is a prime example. He had Tulane, and basically no one else offer him a scholarship.

The list of players born in Oklahoma that have played in the NFL is too long to count. Tulsa alone has had well over 100 alumni drafted in the NFL (yes many likely weren't from OK).

Tulsa was a great addition to the AAC. It's all about football.

I thought that I'g go to a current recruiting list (ESPN 2015) to see if your theory holds water. Here's what I found:

1. Of the top 40 recruits, not a single one is from Oklahoma.
2. There is only 1 recruit from Oklahoma in the top 75.
3. There are only 2 recruits from Oklahoma in the top 150.
4. There are only 5 in the top 300,
5. Three of those 5 have already committed. Predictably, 2 are going to OU and the other to OK State.
6. None are going to Tulsa nor to any other AAC school.

They AAC needed to bring in Tulsa to get a shot at 5 of the top 300 recruits, only one of whom is even in the top 75? As evidenced by the choices these recruits have made so far, they aspire to play for OU, OK State, the Big XII in that order.

You're ignoring the basic structural elements that make Tulsa a poor choice for any sport, elements that won't change:

1. Their enrollment is only 3000
2. They average only 20,000 fans for football.
3. They average only 4500 fans for basketball.
4. They sit in a small market.
5. They're 3rd in the pecking order in a relatively small state.

Regardless of the football choices the AAC has made, this discussion was about basketball and how good the AAC is with the addition of Tulsa. There is no doubt that regardless of what they do in football, Tulsa does little for the conference in basketball and that UMass would have done a lot more.

[Bill Marsh]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. An Oklahoma kid is not going to play football at Temple because it's in the same conference as Tulsa. On top of that, OU, OK State, and Tulsa are all betting to those kids before Temple has a shot at them. Oklahoma's not that big a state. There's a limit to how many recruits they can pump out. Texas is the real recruiting hot bed and Tulsa does nothing for getting the AAC in there that Houston and SMU haven't already accomplished.

Worse yet, Tulsa is a bad football school because it's enrollment is only 3000 and it's attendance averages only 20,000. That's not what any major football conference is looking for. Given the size of the school and the size of its market, there's little chance for them to do much better than that.

My friend, you need to review the culture of football in the south. Football is life in Oklahoma/Texas/Louisiana. Families buy season tickets to pee wee football, middle school football, freshman football, JV football and HS football. There are ample numbers of high level football players in OK to supply many, many college teams. An Oklahoma kid WILL play in USF because he can come home at least twice. He will play at ECU because he can come home at least twice. He will take the offer from Houston because he is close to home. Memphis, sure his folks and friends can come see him play. OK, OK State, and all the Texas P5 schools take the first tier. The second and third tier are there and some are game changers. Matt Forte from Slidell LA is a prime example. He had Tulane, and basically no one else offer him a scholarship.

The list of players born in Oklahoma that have played in the NFL is too long to count. Tulsa alone has had well over 100 alumni drafted in the NFL (yes many likely weren't from OK).

Tulsa was a great addition to the AAC. It's all about football.

Just thought I'd point out that up in Massachusetts, Holy Cross College has had 76 players drafted by the NFL. Hmm . . . Should the AAC have considered adding them? Nah. They voluntarily dropped down to a non-scholarship level 30 years ago to be like the Ivies. BU (51), Harvard (20), Northeastern (15), Williams (6), and Amherst (5) have all had players drafted as well. BU has been talking about dropping the sport recently. The others all deemphasized their programs years ago. Nonetheless, by this measure there have been a lot of good football players in Massachusetts over the years. Add those 173 to the 25 that UMass has graduated and there have been almost 200 players coming out of colleges in Mass without even trying. There have been over 200 come out of BC, which has been trying. Lot of talent in that state, right? If one school, UMass, could make itself the collegiate focal point for talent in that state to bring all those players previously spread out among various smaller schools together in one place, it certainly seems that there's enough talent there to feed a second program in the state. One at least as strong as Tulsa.

[Professor_Bulldog]

Bill's over here dropping knowledge

[notkirkcameron]

I thought that I'g go to a current recruiting list (ESPN 2015) to see if your theory holds water. Here's what I found:

1. Of the top 40 recruits, not a single one is from Oklahoma.
2. There is only 1 recruit from Oklahoma in the top 75.
3. There are only 2 recruits from Oklahoma in the top 150.
4. There are only 5 in the top 300,
5. Three of those 5 have already committed. Predictably, 2 are going to OU and the other to OK State.
6. None are going to Tulsa nor to any other AAC school.

They AAC needed to bring in Tulsa to get a shot at 5 of the top 300 recruits, only one of whom is even in the top 75? As evidenced by the choices these recruits have made so far, they aspire to play for OU, OK State, the Big XII in that order.

You're ignoring the basic structural elements that make Tulsa a poor choice for any sport, elements that won't change:

1. Their enrollment is only 3000
2. They average only 20,000 fans for football.
3. They average only 4500 fans for basketball.
4. They sit in a small market.
5. They're 3rd in the pecking order in a relatively small state.

Regardless of the football choices the AAC has made, this discussion was about basketball and how good the AAC is with the addition of Tulsa. There is no doubt that regardless of what they do in football, Tulsa does little for the conference in basketball and that UMass would have done a lot more.

I was with you til that last line. Remember, we are talking about UMass. The one in Amherst. The one that has never won a single NCAA Tournament game in their program's history without someone named John Calipari as their coach.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Bill, great research and viewpoints. Great commentary.

Stever, if media markets and exposure is really going to "elevate" new schools to the AAC/OBE, explain to me why Tulsa is ranked DEAD LAST in AAC recruiting for 2015? Isn't the notion of playing more on TV supposed to raise the level of competition for the program? ZERO 5-stars. ZERO 4-stars. ZERO 3-stars. I'm assuming that the 8 recruits they do have are 2-stars and 1-stars, since they don't come up on their rivals recruiting page.

And it's not just Tulsa. The CONFERENCE has ZERO 5-star, and just THREE 4-star recruits in the 2015 class. Let's go back to 2014, and make sure it's not just a one-year exception - yep, ZERO 5-stars and just five 4-stars recruits.

Face it, the conference will not recruit better athletes simply because they are on TV more. The XFL (which similarly had media markets in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles) was on NBC in prime time in the spring of 2001, not facing competition from the NFL or NCAA - and they still failed because the audience did not care about the product. The American Athletic Conference is just a rehash of Conference USA (same colors, same imagery, same schools) - and the casual viewer does not care if they are on TV or not.

[notkirkcameron]

The American Athletic Conference is just a rehash of Conference USA (same colors, same imagery, same schools) - and the casual viewer does not care if they are on TV or not.

The American Athletic Conference: The same old Conference USA you know and love, now with more UConn!

[stever20]

Bill, great research and viewpoints. Great commentary.

Stever, if media markets and exposure is really going to "elevate" new schools to the AAC/OBE, explain to me why Tulsa is ranked DEAD LAST in AAC recruiting for 2015? Isn't the notion of playing more on TV supposed to raise the level of competition for the program? ZERO 5-stars. ZERO 4-stars. ZERO 3-stars. I'm assuming that the 8 recruits they do have are 2-stars and 1-stars, since they don't come up on their rivals recruiting page.

And it's not just Tulsa. The CONFERENCE has ZERO 5-star, and just THREE 4-star recruits in the 2015 class. Let's go back to 2014, and make sure it's not just a one-year exception - yep, ZERO 5-stars and just five 4-stars recruits.

Face it, the conference will not recruit better athletes simply because they are on TV more. The XFL (which similarly had media markets in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles) was on NBC in prime time in the spring of 2001, not facing competition from the NFL or NCAA - and they still failed because the audience did not care about the product. The American Athletic Conference is just a rehash of Conference USA (same colors, same imagery, same schools) - and the casual viewer does not care if they are on TV or not.

If you're talking football- the recruiting date isn't until Feb 1. Still a ways away.

For basketball- the season hasn't started yet. the other CUSA programs haven't gotten the exposure yet. I know UCF just got a good guy- a juco transfer that I think St John's was after. Temple got a top 100 guy. They are recruiting as a conference well. The conference isn't going anywhere- no matter how much folks on here want.

[HoosierPal]

I thought that I'g go to a current recruiting list (ESPN 2015) to see if your theory holds water. Here's what I found:

1. Of the top 40 recruits, not a single one is from Oklahoma.
2. There is only 1 recruit from Oklahoma in the top 75.
3. There are only 2 recruits from Oklahoma in the top 150.
4. There are only 5 in the top 300,
5. Three of those 5 have already committed. Predictably, 2 are going to OU and the other to OK State.
6. None are going to Tulsa nor to any other AAC school.

They AAC needed to bring in Tulsa to get a shot at 5 of the top 300 recruits, only one of whom is even in the top 75? As evidenced by the choices these recruits have made so far, they aspire to play for OU, OK State, the Big XII in that order.

You're ignoring the basic structural elements that make Tulsa a poor choice for any sport, elements that won't change:

1. Their enrollment is only 3000
2. They average only 20,000 fans for football.
3. They average only 4500 fans for basketball.
4. They sit in a small market.
5. They're 3rd in the pecking order in a relatively small state.

Regardless of the football choices the AAC has made, this discussion was about basketball and how good the AAC is with the addition of Tulsa. There is no doubt that regardless of what they do in football, Tulsa does little for the conference in basketball and that UMass would have done a lot more.

Now Bill, you are just getting silly. You said that Tulsa was a bad choice for the AAC. I said they weren't because they were chosen for football. You have continued to disagree.

I'm glad you have quoted your ESPN rankings. You are conveniently ignoring reality. Look at the current rosters for OK, OK State, Texas, Texas A & M, etc. They are HEAVY on OK/TX student athletes. I didn't do the math, but well over 50% of the roster for the Sooners is from the OK/TX recruiting area. To state that this territory is irrelative, well good for you. The facts say otherwise.

Tulsa is a great addition to the AAC.