Yeah, I only counted the last 3 to match the 3 years of the American. That previous year C-USA had Cincinnati (#1 seed), Marquette (#5 seed) and Charlotte (#9 seed).
do you think that the creation of P5 conferences has any impact on the comparison? I guess what I'm asking is it apples and oranges? That is alWays my issue with these types of comparisons. The impact to our ability to recruit is impacted considerably.
do you think that the creation of P5 conferences has any impact on the comparison? I guess what I'm asking is it apples and oranges? That is alWays my issue with these types of comparisons. The impact to our ability to recruit is impacted considerably.
The Big East, PAC 12, Big Ten, ACC, SEC, and the Big 12 all existed. The Big East has weakened since then and the ACC has strengthened in basketball but overall it's a pretty fair comparison IMO. If you ranked conferences back then, cUSA would probably be #7 and the American would rank #7 today.
I'd say the conferences are pretty similar. It's not like C-USA was a power before the "P5" so landscape doesn't really have anything to do with it. Both leagues are/were multi-bid leagues in basketball. But they are/were also both on the outside looking in when it comes to having a seat at the big boy table. Luckily that matters way more in football than basketball.
Yeah, I only counted the last 3 to match the 3 years of the American. That previous year C-USA had Cincinnati (#1 seed), Marquette (#5 seed) and Charlotte (#9 seed).
Better comparison might be the first three years of conference USA, although I imagine the results are probably similar. But who knows what years 8, 9 and 10 of the AAC will look like. I'd like to think (fingers crossed at least) that our conference gets better. UC carried that conference early on and being a perennial top ten team in the early days might be helped the DePauls, Marquette and Charlotte's improve by years 8,9 and 10. Just like having UCONN win a title should help the overall perception of the conference. Sucks they are having down years even if I'm enjoying it personally. The AAC needs UCONN and UC to be great and Temple, Memphis, SMU to that next level good. Then maybe the bottom half can start to improve. One can hope at least. Houston and Tulsa I think have a good recent track record, it's the rest that really leave alot to be desired.
In reality the two conferences aren't that far off. I think the emergence of some other smaller conferences and overall parity in college basketball has spread the wealth more. The mid 90s didn't boast as many mid major regulars as we see today. I'd give the nod to our old conference, but I think we are just as strong at the top and weak at the bottom as that conference was (this down year maybe aside). Louisville back then wasn't Louisville now. Pitino elevated that program. Crum better days were behind him. Marquette jumped up in the DWade Era but weren't that good before since the 70's. Memphis was solid back then but I could argue they are the same team now. It is an interesting debate.
