Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ivrytontusker, post: 2511304, member: 6648"] Yes, if all the teams in the AAC were good, then all of the teams in the AAC would be good. The only program in the AAC to have any recent sustained success (i.e. multiple FF appearances) is UConn. The fact that Cincinnati was great in the 1950s is not especially relevant to current conference discussions. Memphis was good under Calipari. So was UMass. So what? The ACC has four "blue-blood" type programs with 5+ FF appearances (UNC, Duke, Louisville, and Syracuse). It has four others with either multiple FF appearances or a high historical winning % (UVA, NC State, ND, and Georgia Tech). The AAC has a bunch of schools which are 'that other program' in their state. WSU is not Kansas; Tulsa is not OU; ECU is not UNC or Duke; USF or UCF is not UF. The only program that is "the school" in state is UConn. The record of AAC schools other than UConn in the tournament since 2014 is 5-10. The ACC's record in that period is 53-26. As for winning a title in this league, we won a title with players who were recruited here on the assumption that they'd be playing in the Big East. Most top recruits aren't excited to play Tulsa. [/QUOTE]