Wichita State

[Veritas5]

TU had a much longer sustained run of excellence than WSU has ever had. WSU may very well turn into a Gonzaga of the midwest. Or, they could have caught lightning in a bottle with Early, VanVleet and Baker and when all those guys are gone they may take a significant step back. I would make them sustain it through more than one generation of talent before the conference commits to them.

Not sure how you calculate your position. Granted, WSU's worse years were during the period of time from mid-80s to 2005 during the NCAA tournament participant expansion when a lot of schools have experienced the bulk of their invitations. However, according to AP polls and NCAA tournament results, WSU has had an overall run of excellence exceeding that of the Univ of Tulsa in nearly all measurable metrics.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/tulsa/polls.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/wichita-state/polls.html

 

[rabidTU]

I think what our fans are speaking of is that we have more total NCAA banners for making the tournament and the 2 NIT championship banners to WSU's 1. A lot of that is apples to oranges, but both schools have done well since the 80's. WSU has certainly done better than AAC members Tulane, USF, UCF, ECU in basketball and has a very good all around athletic program. IMO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_State_Shockers_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golden_Hurricane_men's_basketball

 

[Veritas5]

I think what our fans are speaking of is that we have more total NCAA banners for making the tournament and the 2 NIT championship banners to WSU's 1. A lot of that is apples to oranges, but both schools have done well since the 80's. WSU has certainly done better than AAC members Tulane, USF, UCF, ECU in basketball and has a very good all around athletic program. IMO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_State_Shockers_men's_basketball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golden_Hurricane_men's_basketball

I was responding more to phoggy bottoms who wrote that Tulsa "had a much longer run of excellence than WSU has ever had" which simply is not factual.
Shox have more weeks in top 25 as well as loftier results in the NCAA tournament with 2 FF, 2 EE, and 2 SS. I'm not degrading what Tulsa has done, but simply pointing out inaccuracies with phoggy bottom's post.

Tulsa has certainly made good hires over the years, and your coaching tree (including assistants) is solid.

Would certainly love to see WSU join Tulsa in the same conference.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Phoggy Bottoms barely qualifies as a TU fan. He is actually a KU fan who deigns to give us the benefit of his presence when he gets bored with the Kansas board. There is probably not too many TU fans on this board who would disagree with u on the issue of joining our conference.

 

[astonmartin708]

I was responding more to phoggy bottoms who wrote that Tulsa "had a much longer run of excellence than WSU has ever had" which simply is not factual.
Shox have more weeks in top 25 as well as loftier results in the NCAA tournament with 2 FF, 2 EE, and 2 SS. I'm not degrading what Tulsa has done, but simply pointing out inaccuracies with phoggy bottom's post.

Tulsa has certainly made good hires over the years, and your coaching tree (including assistants) is solid.

Would certainly love to see WSU join Tulsa in the same conference.

I mean, you do have more weeks ranked (in part due to the last 4 years) and you have a couple final fours, but overall Tulsa has been to the tournament more often. I think it would be fair to say that WSU has greater success for short periods of time... but Tulsa has remained more or less perennially relevant where WSU hasn't to the same degree.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

I did not say that Tulsa has had greater single instances of success. I said TU has had a longer run of excellence which I do not think can be disputed. From 1981 to current, TU went to 14 NCAA Tournaments and 7 NITs. The longest stretch of no major postseason tournaments was 5 years (2004-2008). Using the same time period, WSU has 9 NCAAs and 7 NITs. However, the longest stretch with no major postseason appearances was 13 years (1990-2002). During those 13 years they were 151-222. Nobody can dispute that they are on a great run. However, if that run ends and they fall back to where they were (or anywhere close to it) not that long ago, they bring nothing else to the table (no football, no tv). All I am saying is that I would make them prove it a little longer before I bring a small market no football team in to the conference.

I was responding more to phoggy bottoms who wrote that Tulsa "had a much longer run of excellence than WSU has ever had" which simply is not factual.
Shox have more weeks in top 25 as well as loftier results in the NCAA tournament with 2 FF, 2 EE, and 2 SS. I'm not degrading what Tulsa has done, but simply pointing out inaccuracies with phoggy bottom's post.

Tulsa has certainly made good hires over the years, and your coaching tree (including assistants) is solid.

Would certainly love to see WSU join Tulsa in the same conference.

 

[rabidTU]

I don't think the AAC is looking for another FB team at this point, but they are looking for a geographically balanced league 6 east/6 west in every sport. And once again, from a basketball standpoint, ECU, UCF, USF, Tulane can't come close to WSU in MBB. Navy is FB only, WSU needs to replace them in the rest of the sports including the women's sports which Navy won't be able to do. WSU has a very good WBB program and its volleyball program is excellent. Why wouldn't we at least talk about this? A stronger conference is GOOD. The old saying " a rising tide lifts all boats" should apply.

 

[Veritas5]

Phoggy... I disagree with your point.

... And from '55 to '82 Tulsa has 2 NCAA tournament invites with nothing special to write of with a 27 year separation between the two appearances. WSU had 4 tournament appearances including a FF and EE during that same period.
And from 2012 to present, Tulsa has 1 NCAA appearance reaching the R32 and WSU has 4 NCAA appearances with a FF and S16.
See how easy it is?

TV markets are #61 versus #69. Not a heck of a lot of difference.

A recent publication had WSU higher ranked than Tulsa when measuring all time successful programs. There wasn't much difference between the two, but it does negate your position. I think WSU leads the all time series by a paltry 3 games.
Gregg Marshall is a heck of a coach at WSU (8 years) as was Bill Self at Tulsa (3 years), and Danny Manning (2 years).
Again, I'm not degrading the proud Tulsa BB heritage and success. I'm simply disagreeing with your position.

 

[rabidTU]

I think you'll find that there is more support for the WSU invite on this board than about anywhere else in the league. There is also some fan support in Houston, Memphis and Dallas that's pro WSU. We shouldn't be talking about one program being better than the other, but what is best for the AAC.

If a WSU invite is best for the conference, I think it will probably happen at some point, but the AAC is a league still slightly dominated by the eastern teams - the leftovers from the old B E. The problem the eastern side has is that they want their rivals in that neck of the woods to be with them like a UMASS. Everyone wants a team close by, but that may not fit well with the league makeup right now.

We shouldn't get into a "P" contest when discussing this IMO.

 

[Veritas5]

I think you'll find that there is more support for the WSU invite on this board than about anywhere else in the league. There is also some fan support in Houston, Memphis and Dallas that's pro WSU. We shouldn't be talking about one program being better than the other, but what is best for the AAC.

If a WSU invite is best for the conference, I think it will probably happen at some point, but the AAC is a league still slightly dominated by the eastern teams - the leftovers from the old B E. The problem the eastern side has is that they want their rivals in that neck of the woods to be with them like a UMASS. Everyone wants a team close by, but that may not fit well with the league makeup right now.

We shouldn't get into a "P" contest when discussing this IMO.

Agreed. Just couldn't figure out phoggy's chip.
Best of luck this year except Nov 17th which should be a very tough game.

 

[Gold*]

Agreed. Just couldn't figure out phoggy's chip..

That's been an issue on our board for about a decade.

 

[TU_BLA]

I think you'll find that there is more support for the WSU invite on this board than about anywhere else in the league. There is also some fan support in Houston, Memphis and Dallas that's pro WSU. We shouldn't be talking about one program being better than the other, but what is best for the AAC.

If a WSU invite is best for the conference, I think it will probably happen at some point, but the AAC is a league still slightly dominated by the eastern teams - the leftovers from the old B E. The problem the eastern side has is that they want their rivals in that neck of the woods to be with them like a UMASS. Everyone wants a team close by, but that may not fit well with the league makeup right now.

We shouldn't get into a "P" contest when discussing this IMO.

Correct that to read UCONN. UMASS won't go anywhere without a football invite. UCONN considers UMASS a rival like OSU considers us a rival. Wichita State would be the one school this way that might be able to persuade UCONN and Cincinnati because of the recent basketball success. It also helps Houston, Tulane, UCF, USF, and ECU in baseball.

Navy is still a member of the Patriot for all other sports. I don't think they want to get into a conference that has a basketball emphasis, plus they only needed a home (but not really) for their football team. Being in the AAC gives them a little better acccess to the G5 NY bowl invite. BYU will realize this soon and that is when the next shake-up in realignment occurs.

AAC needs to strike while the iron is hot on Wichita St. and I think if that happens, WSU won't have a problem holding on to Marshall or maintaining their high level. It probably helps us recruit and hold coaches as well. It puts the AAC with 6 teams out of 12 that have a realistic shot at the NCAA tournament every year which rivals every other P5 conference.

 

[Tu Geo]

That's been an issue on our board for about a decade.

LOL

 

[lawpoke87]

Getting back to WSU...Fred Van Vleet didn't participate in Saturday's scrimmage against Okla State due to injury. Hearing there are some concerns over his health going forward and the teams performance thus far. Playing them early could be a big advantage for us as it now seems.

 

[astonmartin708]

Getting back to WSU...Fred Van Vleet didn't participate in Saturday's scrimmage against Okla State due to injury. Hearing there are some concerns over his health going forward and the teams performance thus far. Playing them early could be a big advantage for us as it now seems.

Ya, but then our SOS gets even weaker as pundits will argue, 'they played them when he wasn't healthy'

Not a great scenario if we won, and a terrible scenario if we were to lose.

 

[soccrcubs7]

Aston with the typical turd dropping!

Cheer up friend.

 

[astonmartin708]

Aston with the typical turd dropping!

Cheer up friend.

I'd rather just beat the tar out of them at home while they have Van Vleet, Baker, and any other Wheat Sniffers that Marshall puts on the court! I expect us to bring a similar mindset to this game as we did last season at home against UCONN. Let's not try to play with them. Let's try to embarrass them!

 

[mcane]

Phoggy makes good points about WSU's history - there are risks to taking a team on an upswing. The biggest problem for me is that WSU would be the only non-football playing school in the AAC, a league assembled to market a TV football contract. Unlike Navy (which has a national brand for football), there are no other partial members. I don't know Navy's ACC deal, but my guess is Navy gets no NCAA basketball money and gets to keep its Army and Notre Dame revenue. It is the only AAC school with a built-in, home bowl game automatic slot (and probably gets that revenue when it plays in the Military Bowl).

I really don't see any alternative for WSU other than staying in the MVC. As TU knows, the costs and travel difficulties of the MWC are really tough, with two later time zones, mountain elevations, etc. The MWC no longer has BYU or Utah and isn't nearly as strong as the old WAC. And, the Big East is (uniformly?) composed of Catholic institutions (which is one of the reasons Creighton made sense) and has two complete divisions. The Summit and Sunbelt are downgrades. CUSA? No real basketball powers are left and that seems like a lateral move.

If MoState moves to D-1, that would be a shock - where, to the Sunbelt? CUSA? WAC? That might force WSU out of the MWC, but I think that would be a bad move. The MVC even without Creighton and MoState still has tons of tradition and loyal fans. It is almost always a top 13 league, at the top of the so-called "mid majors" (a term I hate).

If the ACC wants to expand, I would suggest patience rather than jumping at a basketball only school, even one as good and respected as WSU. Down the road the ACC could lose members in realignment - the next option in my estimation is UT-San Antonio (due to market and school size). And, then the ACC might really need WSU.

 

[Veritas5]

Phoggy makes good points about WSU's history - there are risks to taking a team on an upswing. The biggest problem for me is that WSU would be the only non-football playing school in the AAC, a league assembled to market a TV football contract. Unlike Navy (which has a national brand for football), there are no other partial members. I don't know Navy's ACC deal, but my guess is Navy gets no NCAA basketball money and gets to keep its Army and Notre Dame revenue. It is the only AAC school with a built-in, home bowl game automatic slot (and probably gets that revenue when it plays in the Military Bowl).

I really don't see any alternative for WSU other than staying in the MVC. As TU knows, the costs and travel difficulties of the MWC are really tough, with two later time zones, mountain elevations, etc. The MWC no longer has BYU or Utah and isn't nearly as strong as the old WAC. And, the Big East is (uniformly?) composed of Catholic institutions (which is one of the reasons Creighton made sense) and has two complete divisions. The Summit and Sunbelt are downgrades. CUSA? No real basketball powers are left and that seems like a lateral move.

If MoState moves to D-1, that would be a shock - where, to the Sunbelt? CUSA? WAC? That might force WSU out of the MWC, but I think that would be a bad move. The MVC even without Creighton and MoState still has tons of tradition and loyal fans. It is almost always a top 13 league, at the top of the so-called "mid majors" (a term I hate).

If the ACC wants to expand, I would suggest patience rather than jumping at a basketball only school, even one as good and respected as WSU. Down the road the ACC could lose members in realignment - the next option in my estimation is UT-San Antonio (due to market and school size). And, then the ACC might really need WSU.

lol... oh yes, definitely better to take a team on the downturn.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

I think the main point is if you are going to take a basketball program that has had only recent success over the past 35 years and that does not come with a football program or a significant television market, you better be damn sure that upswing is going to continue.

 

[Gold*]

Hey guys, Phoggy is having a discussion that doesn't involve TU on our board! Awesome!!!!

 

[rabidTU]

Phoggy makes good points about WSU's history - there are risks to taking a team on an upswing. The biggest problem for me is that WSU would be the only non-football playing school in the AAC, a league assembled to market a TV football contract. Unlike Navy (which has a national brand for football), there are no other partial members. I don't know Navy's ACC deal, but my guess is Navy gets no NCAA basketball money and gets to keep its Army and Notre Dame revenue. It is the only AAC school with a built-in, home bowl game automatic slot (and probably gets that revenue when it plays in the Military Bowl).

I really don't see any alternative for WSU other than staying in the MVC. As TU knows, the costs and travel difficulties of the MWC are really tough, with two later time zones, mountain elevations, etc. The MWC no longer has BYU or Utah and isn't nearly as strong as the old WAC. And, the Big East is (uniformly?) composed of Catholic institutions (which is one of the reasons Creighton made sense) and has two complete divisions. The Summit and Sunbelt are downgrades. CUSA? No real basketball powers are left and that seems like a lateral move.

If MoState moves to D-1, that would be a shock - where, to the Sunbelt? CUSA? WAC? That might force WSU out of the MWC, but I think that would be a bad move. The MVC even without Creighton and MoState still has tons of tradition and loyal fans. It is almost always a top 13 league, at the top of the so-called "mid majors" (a term I hate).

If the ACC wants to expand, I would suggest patience rather than jumping at a basketball only school, even one as good and respected as WSU. Down the road the ACC could lose members in realignment - the next option in my estimation is UT-San Antonio (due to market and school size). And, then the ACC might really need WSU.

My only disagreement with that is I think we need to be proactive in keeping the conference together - from a few others jumping ship - which means we have to strike while the iron IS hot. The success this FB season shows is that we have a little stability right now (that may not last) and the one missing link is probably that one last MBB program to fit into the conference. I can't see a single team in america that would be a better fit right now due to geography, tv market, national respect, financial support, tradition, attendance etc. If there is a better fit for our immediate needs in everything not FB, please name it!

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Again, if you are comfortable that WSU will not fall back to a .500 or worse program like they were throughout the 1990's and early 2000's, then WSU might make sense. If I was the one that was going to have to share my money with WSU, I would probably make them prove it over the next few years once VanVleet and Baker are gone. WSU will still be available in three or four years.

 

[TU_BLA]

Again, if you are comfortable that WSU will not fall back to a .500 or worse program like they were throughout the 1990's and early 2000's, then WSU might make sense. If I was the one that was going to have to share my money with WSU, I would probably make them prove it over the next few years once VanVleet and Baker are gone. WSU will still be available in three or four years.

I get what you're saying, but WSU has invested into its basketball program like at no time ever before (and probably at the expense of the baseball program). Combine that with membership in the AAC and there's no reason to believe they can't maintain long-term success.

 

[rabidTU]

The investment argument is a legitimate one, as well as baseball. Investment is pretty much a certainty long term at WSU because of the huge funds available due to their connection with the Koch's. They are soon going to do a renovation to Koch Arena to add suites there and an increase in capacity. They would also have the biggest and best baseball stadium - about the size of OneOk in the league. They not only draw sellouts for basketaball, but are a leader in baseball attendance in the nation as well as others like women's volleyball. They'd be one of the best WBB teams in the league as well. If you look closely, there aren't too many negatives from a performance, financial, program history standpoint.

Baseball is becoming important in the AAC. There are 5 teams in the AAC east (UC, UCONN, ECU, USF, UCF), but only 3 (UH, Tulane, Memphis), in the west right now - neither TU nor SMU play baseball (and of course Navy). So its obvious they need another (quality) baseball school closer to UH/UM/Tulane. The idea is to keep the league intact with as many schools as possible playing the same sports imo.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

The investment argument is a legitimate one, as well as baseball. Investment is pretty much a certainty long term at WSU because of the huge funds available due to their connection with the Koch's. They are soon going to do a renovation to Koch Arena to add suites there and an increase in capacity. They would also have the biggest and best baseball stadium - about the size of OneOk in the league. They not only draw sellouts for basketaball, but are a leader in baseball attendance in the nation as well as others like women's volleyball. They'd be one of the best WBB teams in the league as well. If you look closely, there aren't too many negatives from a performance, financial, program history standpoint.

Baseball is becoming important in the AAC. There are 5 teams in the AAC east (UC, UCONN, ECU, USF, UCF), but only 3 (UH, Tulane, Memphis), in the west right now - neither TU nor SMU play baseball (and of course Navy). So its obvious they need another (quality) baseball school closer to UH/UM/Tulane. The idea is to keep the league intact with as many schools as possible playing the same sports imo.

No league is going to add a university for baseball, women's basketball, volleyball, etc. They are irrelevant to the discussion. This entirely comes down to basketball. There are definitely signs indicating that the possibility of continued success. I would just make them prove it before asking them to join. Like I said earlier, with no football program and no big tv market, WSU will be available in three or four years if the American wants them.

 

[TU_BLA]

No league is going to add a university for baseball, women's basketball, volleyball, etc. They are irrelevant to the discussion. This entirely comes down to basketball. There are definitely signs indicating that the possibility of continued success. I would just make them prove it before asking them to join. Like I said earlier, with no football program and no big tv market, WSU will be available in three or four years if the American wants them.

You're right that the AAC is not going to invite a school because of solid programs, but based on the quality of men's basketball and supported by an athletic department that supports all of its athletes and programs, WSU would be a solid addition to the league.

Yes TU was invited into the AAC because of its track record in football, but it helps that the athletic dept. as a whole was incredibly successful top to bottom. Shows the needed commitment that a league that wants to be considered one of the best in the country needs.

 

[rabidTU]

No league is going to add a university for baseball, women's basketball, volleyball, etc. They are irrelevant to the discussion. This entirely comes down to basketball. There are definitely signs indicating that the possibility of continued success. I would just make them prove it before asking them to join. Like I said earlier, with no football program and no big tv market, WSU will be available in three or four years if the American wants them.

Baseball (and the other sports you mentioned) means virtually nothing to us since we don't play it, but to Cincy, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, UCF, USF, UCONN, ECU it certainly means something. Those schools with the exception of Tulane are the most apt to jump leagues. Conference stability right now is at the top of the list of problems that we have to address. So yes, the "other sports" do have meaning. IMO

 

[PhoggyBottom]

No team is going to jump leagues because a different league has better baseball. They are going to jump for football money or basketball money or, in most cases, a combination of football and basketball money. The remaining sports have nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[rabidTU]

Its the soup of sports that somewhat matter imo. FB is first, then MBB, then WBB, but all sports matter to some of the schools to a different degree. If the league didn't sponsor baseball, I'm sure some of the schools mentioned would use it as an additional reason to move on and out. If what you are saying is completely correct, no college would play baseball since it is most often a money loser.

 

[Tu Geo]

Phoggy must see little ole WSU as a threat to KU.

Has been singing the same story the last few years. Once they lose that guy then....er, errr,.......once they lose that other guy then....nope wrong again....... they just keep winning.

Bottom line WSU was the best in Kansas last year and probably will be again this year.

AAC isn't expanding.

That said WSU would be a great BB program addition to any conference not just ours.

GO TU!!!!

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Phoggy must see little ole WSU as a threat to KU.

Has been singing the same story the last few years. Once they lose that guy then....er, errr,.......once they lose that other guy then....nope wrong again....... they just keep winning.

Bottom line WSU was the best in Kansas last year and probably will be again this year.

AAC isn't expanding.

That said WSU would be a great BB program addition to any conference not just ours.

GO TU!!!!

Yes. Wichita St. is a threat to KU. You nailed it. Now, if you are talking football, perhaps. KU is only slightly better than whatever intramural team is the best at WSU. If you are talking basketball, I think I will take KU's present and future over WSU's.

 

[Tu Geo]

Now, if you are talking football, perhaps. KU is only slightly better than whatever intramural team is the best at WSU.

LOL good one phoggy

GO TU!!!

 

[texcane1982]

This might be something WSU would consider now that the MVC is weaker after Creighton left and seemingly no one else in the league able to pick up that slack. WSU hasn't been terribly pushed the last 2 seasons in league play. Since Navy is football only, I wonder if AAC would look at WSU for basketball and all other sports except football...would make sense and would result in a little more $$$ and exposure for WSU. Interesting.

Not very likely Wichita State leaves the Valley. The Big East never gave Wichita the time of day because of a combination of factors, non-flagship public university, TV market too small, and little to no recruiting value to the rest of the conference. I would think those factors would not be an issue with the AAC because not playing football is where the phone call doesn't get returned.

No doubt WSU is great on the court and has tremendous fan support, but WSU actually brings very little to the table when it comes to increasing a Conferences revenue distribution, the most important issue for TV Execs and School Presidents when building or expanding the Conference brand. If the Big East ever expands, Richmond, St. Louis, and Dayton are the most logical candidates. All 3 are private, 2 of which are of Catholic, the other Baptist affiliation. My money is on St. Louis and Richmond, both larger markets than Dayton and not too close to an existing Big East market. Proximity to an existing market likely bigger deterrent vs non-Catholic affiliation.

Frankly I think the AAC needs to expand the Conference schedule to a full-round robin, as opposed to adding an associate member for Basketball. With 12 members you have divisions and less marquee games. I believe this season TU only plays Memphis once, in Memphis. Other than the 1 year gap between Memphis and Tulsa joining the AAC, I believe TU and Memphis played 2 regular season games for 8-9 straight years.

I would think every TU fan who attends games would love to see UCONN, Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, and SMU at the DonRey every season.


TX

 

[texcane1982]

Phoggy makes good points about WSU's history - there are risks to taking a team on an upswing. The biggest problem for me is that WSU would be the only non-football playing school in the AAC, a league assembled to market a TV football contract. Unlike Navy (which has a national brand for football), there are no other partial members. I don't know Navy's ACC deal, but my guess is Navy gets no NCAA basketball money and gets to keep its Army and Notre Dame revenue. It is the only AAC school with a built-in, home bowl game automatic slot (and probably gets that revenue when it plays in the Military Bowl).

I really don't see any alternative for WSU other than staying in the MVC. As TU knows, the costs and travel difficulties of the MWC are really tough, with two later time zones, mountain elevations, etc. The MWC no longer has BYU or Utah and isn't nearly as strong as the old WAC. And, the Big East is (uniformly?) composed of Catholic institutions (which is one of the reasons Creighton made sense) and has two complete divisions. The Summit and Sunbelt are downgrades. CUSA? No real basketball powers are left and that seems like a lateral move.

If MoState moves to D-1, that would be a shock - where, to the Sunbelt? CUSA? WAC? That might force WSU out of the MWC, but I think that would be a bad move. The MVC even without Creighton and MoState still has tons of tradition and loyal fans. It is almost always a top 13 league, at the top of the so-called "mid majors" (a term I hate).

If the ACC wants to expand, I would suggest patience rather than jumping at a basketball only school, even one as good and respected as WSU. Down the road the ACC could lose members in realignment - the next option in my estimation is UT-San Antonio (due to market and school size). And, then the ACC might really need WSU.

+1 .............. For as long as the AAC desires to grab a larger share of the lucrative football payouts going to the PAC-12, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and ACC then Football must be the priority. Any changes to membership should only involve upgrading the football landscape. For the little amount of money the 12 AAC football playing members do generate, they sure aren't going to want to share those earnings with a non-football playing member.

It was the football + basketball only model that ultimately lead to the creation of the AAC. I don't think Aresco is going to ever revisit that arrangement with the AAC. I believe the Sun Belt (UALR, UTA), is the only FBS Conference holding basketball only memberships.

The ideal size for a basketball conference is 9-10, but 11 is definately much better than 12. You simply have more games that matter each season with pseudo round robin play, which helps boost TV exposure, and member/conference RPI ratings.


TX

 

[texcane1982]

Its the soup of sports that somewhat matter imo. FB is first, then MBB, then WBB, but all sports matter to some of the schools to a different degree. If the league didn't sponsor baseball, I'm sure some of the schools mentioned would use it as an additional reason to move on and out. If what you are saying is completely correct, no college would play baseball since it is most often a money loser.

If the AAC did not sponsor Baseball, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, UCF, USF, UCONN and Cincinnati would play baseball in another conference, very likely one of the many Conferences their major revenue sports previously participated.

I doubt Kentucky and South Carolina ever considered leaving the SEC because they wanted to play Men's soccer, they placed those programs in C-USA. I believe New Mexico also plays Men's soccer in C-USA.


TX

 

[rabidTU]

A look at the TV market sizes. Some of the cities mentioned in this thread have been Omaha (Creighton), Richmond, Dayton, Tulsa and Wichita. So check out the market sizes and see if it makes much difference. IMO the main difference is the strength of the program we're talking about.

Tulsa - 61
Richmond - 58
Omaha - 76
Wichita - 69
Dayton - 64

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

 

[PhoggyBottom]

A look at the TV market sizes. Some of the cities mentioned in this thread have been Omaha (Creighton), Richmond, Dayton, Tulsa and Wichita. So check out the market sizes and see if it makes much difference. IMO the main difference is the strength of the program we're talking about.

Tulsa - 61
Richmond - 58
Omaha - 76
Wichita - 69
Dayton - 64

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

None of those would be attractive candidates. However, it is not just the metropolitan area market size that matters. It is the geographic footprint of their fanbase. For example, Texas is not just Austin, it is all of Texas. KU gets all of Kansas and all of Missouri. For that reason, Wichita and Creighton are worthless for TV purposes. Dayton could get some play in Ohio and Richmond in Virginia so maybe they would have some value.

 

[astonmartin708]

None of those would be attractive candidates. However, it is not just the metropolitan area market size that matters. It is the geographic footprint of their fanbase. For example, Texas is not just Austin, it is all of Texas. KU gets all of Kansas and all of Missouri. For that reason, Wichita and Creighton are worthless for TV purposes. Dayton could get some play in Ohio and Richmond in Virginia so maybe they would have some value.

KU gets neither all of Kansas nor all of Missouri. They get a lot. But I've never met someone from St Louis who said they were a Jayhawk fan. Kansas also has KState fans and WSU fans in Kansas to compete with.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

KU gets neither all of Kansas nor all of Missouri. They get a lot. But I've never met someone from St Louis who said they were a Jayhawk fan. Kansas also has KState fans and WSU fans in Kansas to compete with.

Did not say that everyone in those areas is a Jayhawk fan. I said Jayhawks have a large fan base in those states so they get good tv ratings throughout. KSU and WSU would get decent ratings in Kansas but not elsewhere.