Wichita St. to AAC Next Year (Officially Official)

[tzznandrew]

They've had a good run. Before this recent tournament run, they went 5 years without making the tournament (where they got to Sweet 16). Before that, they went 17 (!!!) years without making the tournament.

Let's break it down for you. The old conference, 1 team out of 10 made the tournament. On average, you make the tournament 10% of the time, maybe slightly more often because you have a good program, you devote slightly more funds than most towards the sports, and hopefully you can keep your coach. But guess what, you make money in that conference, so you can't pay the coach as much as a better school in a better conference can. So you're going to lose him eventually. If he hits a down recruiting year or two, or god forbid the Celtics come calling, your coach is gone. Then you go another 10 years before you make the tournament.

Do you think it might be easier to up-conference and get to a place where 3/12 members make it, instead of 1/10?

For every Gonzaga, there is a Southern Illinois, a Davidson, a Belmont, a FGCU, or a UNCW.

The AAC had 4 out of 10 teams who could make it last year. And SMU was in if they weren't banned, so we had 5/11 who were tournament quality. The year before 2/11, and the year before that 5/10, including the national champion. The conference isn't what we want it to be, and this year it wasn't great. But if Temple and Memphis get their act together, Houston and UCF keep their upward trend, and SMU stays strong, that's 7/11 solid to very good programs when you throw in Cincy and UConn. Hell, Tulsa made an at-large appearance. That's more difficult for WSU, but also offers the chance to have a down year and still get in the tourney.

 

[king conn]

Let's put it this way: if Memphis kept Calipari, would they prefer CUSA or the AAC? If we were in our mid-2000s heydey, would you prefer the Big East, or the MVC?

For Wichita State, this is a pretty easy answer. This is a team that, in a real conference (and though a down year, the AAC still qualified as one) would have gotten a 4-5 seed, and thus likely a S16 rather than R32. And, if they got there, perhaps could have broken through to the E8, given they got paired with the best 2-seed.

Dominating bad conferences alone isn't a proposition most schools want. They want to sell tickets, get higher seeds, and make deeper tournament runs. The MVC doesn't do that.

Methinks you are over rating the AAC way too much. A Big East comparison? The AAC is alot closer to cusa than the big east.

What makes you feel Wich st would have had a 4-5 seed when smu and cinncy had a 6 with the years they had? They easily could have had a 7, which is the seed they took over immediately when they disposed of Dayton. In which case they still would have played Kentucky in the 2nd round. So again, where is the big advantage?
Also, they already sell all their tickets. Could be that traditional rival thing.

Look I am very hopeful they come. I just can see reasons if they don't.

 

[BY06518]

Men's basketball is what put UConn on the map and we are all concerned with the state of our program right now, one of those reasons being we are stuck in a dreadful conference and don't have enough good people to play. We add a school who has been to 6 straight tournaments including a final 4, is ranked in the top 10 heading into next season, pays their coach more than any other school in our conference and has more people come out to watch their games than anyone else in the conference and people are mad. This board defies all logic sometimes.

Agree with this. What also defies logic is why we try to chase Football glory, I think it's time the University realized that the Football program is secondary and its time to head back to the Big East and just kill the Football program.

 

[tzznandrew]

What makes you feel Wich st would have had a 4-5 seed when smu and cinncy had a 6 with the years they had?

First, the AAC had a down year, but in its 4 years has put in 5, 2, 4*, 2 teams in. MVC put in 1, 2, 2, 1.

In the NIT, the AAC had 1, 3, 1, 2; MVC: 0, 1, o, 1

So the difference in the leagues is obvious.

Second, you're taking my BE comparison out of context. The basic point--and why I used Memphis--is do you want to play a bunch of bad teams and compile a gaudy record, or do you want to play a bunch of good to mediocre teams (and with the AAC, some bad too, though the BE had DePaul) and have a slightly less great record, but one that might translate to better chances of success.

Further, SMU and Cincy had 4 Top 25 and 5 Top 50 wins combined. And 3 of those Top 50 wins were vs. each other. So, that's why they got 6 seeds. The AAC wasn't great, but they only had 4 sub-150 teams. That helped SMU to an RPI of 15 and Cincy to an RPI of 12. Temple, UConn, and Memphis were in down years, too, otherwise those are much better RPI boosters.

Wichita State had a great record, but was only RPI 31 because of an SOS of 138. They had 0 Top 25 wins (3 games) and only 2 Top 50 wins. Hell, they only had 6 Top 100 wins...and 23 sub-150 wins! 16 in conference. That's 7 sub-150 teams. It's a freaking disaster of a conference. By RPI this UConn team--the worst we had in 30 years--would have been the third best team. And not just by the crappy RPI, by KenPom.

So, this is a long way of saying that people who think the AAC get hosed don't look closely at their resume, and conveniently forget that a less-than-mediocre Tulsa team got in last year. If Gonzaga can get a 1-seed, an AAC team can. The conference can get a series of good seeds just like the peak CUSA did (not that this is what I wish UConn were in), but it needs a variety of good teams. If you add last years WSU in, the RPI's of all the teams rise because you're replacing a bad game with at least one good one.

For instance, I replaced one game against USF and one against ECU for Cincy (RPI 12 mind you) with two against WSU. Even though they won both the original games and I had them split with WSU, their RPI went up from 12 to 10. And there isn't a lot of room to improve.

UConn's RPI goes from 118 to 101 with replacing our ECU loss and an USF loss with two Wichita State losses.

So imagine that effect spread throughout the conference? It's how some conferences (ACC) get overrated, but a team like WSU can help a good way to at least get the AAC RPI closer to its advanced metrics (where the conference looked better).
_________________
*SMU was in if they weren't banned.

 

[Fishy]

Yeah...what he said.

 

[jibsey]

You can't get top 25 wins unless you play them, and having a team in conference that is and will likely be future rated is good for everyone. The ACC has 6-8 teams or more. The conference schedule problem is why we front load our OOC. If we get 4 or more top 25 teams consistently it will help everything including recruiting. It's a start.

 

[auror]

If Gonzaga can get a 1-seed, an AAC team can.

I'm on your side for sure, but this isn't the argument to make. Wichita St. got a #1 seed in '13-'14 in their crappy conference. The benefits of a better conference are about odds of selection by compiling top x wins in a moderately down year, not peak seeding in your best year.

 

[king conn]

Totally different argument.
Im not arguing which league is better, never did.
You can say their conference is worse than the NEC if it makes you happy, they seem to be thriving in it, bad opponents and all.

Some people believe if it isn't broke don't fix it. And a sidebar to that is you are fixing it with the AAC ( take out that 5 pick transition year in 14 to get the accurate picture) Yes it's better, but enough to say they will improve their situation? It still seems to me they are helping us more than we are helping them. But hey, like I've said I'm all for it.

 

[Fishy]

Wichita is opting for significantly more money, more exposure and a bigger profile. Right now, they almost have to run through the Missouri Valley undefeated to get a bid. They went 30-4 and ended up as a ten seed. If they lost in the first round of the MVC Tournament, they would have been 28-5 and a two seed in the NIT.

There is exactly zero downside risk for them.

It would be like UConn turning down the Big Ten because it's easier in the AAC.

 

[Coach J]

First, the AAC had a down year, but in its 4 years has put in 5, 2, 4*, 2 teams in. MVC put in 1, 2, 2, 1.

In the NIT, the AAC had 1, 3, 1, 2; MVC: 0, 1, o, 1

So the difference in the leagues is obvious.

Second, you're taking my BE comparison out of context. The basic point--and why I used Memphis--is do you want to play a bunch of bad teams and compile a gaudy record, or do you want to play a bunch of good to mediocre teams (and with the AAC, some bad too, though the BE had DePaul) and have a slightly less great record, but one that might translate to better chances of success.

Further, SMU and Cincy had 4 Top 25 and 5 Top 50 wins combined. And 3 of those Top 50 wins were vs. each other. So, that's why they got 6 seeds. The AAC wasn't great, but they only had 4 sub-150 teams. That helped SMU to an RPI of 15 and Cincy to an RPI of 12. Temple, UConn, and Memphis were in down years, too, otherwise those are much better RPI boosters.

Wichita State had a great record, but was only RPI 31 because of an SOS of 138. They had 0 Top 25 wins (3 games) and only 2 Top 50 wins. Hell, they only had 6 Top 100 wins...and 23 sub-150 wins! 16 in conference. That's 7 sub-150 teams. It's a freaking disaster of a conference. By RPI this UConn team--the worst we had in 30 years--would have been the third best team. And not just by the crappy RPI, by KenPom.

So, this is a long way of saying that people who think the AAC get hosed don't look closely at their resume, and conveniently forget that a less-than-mediocre Tulsa team got in last year. If Gonzaga can get a 1-seed, an AAC team can. The conference can get a series of good seeds just like the peak CUSA did (not that this is what I wish UConn were in), but it needs a variety of good teams. If you add last years WSU in, the RPI's of all the teams rise because you're replacing a bad game with at least one good one.

For instance, I replaced one game against USF and one against ECU for Cincy (RPI 12 mind you) with two against WSU. Even though they won both the original games and I had them split with WSU, their RPI went up from 12 to 10. And there isn't a lot of room to improve.

UConn's RPI goes from 118 to 101 with replacing our ECU loss and an USF loss with two Wichita State losses.

So imagine that effect spread throughout the conference? It's how some conferences (ACC) get overrated, but a team like WSU can help a good way to at least get the AAC RPI closer to its advanced metrics (where the conference looked better).
_________________
*SMU was in if they weren't banned.

Yeah, well it's obvious there are some people on this board that just want to complain about everything and nothing is good enough for them. This is a masterful move by the conference that will help all - even travel as they will probably have UConn pair up WSU and Tulsa back to back on a road trip to reduce travel like they do with SMU and Houston sometimes. I don't see ANY downside to this move in regards to UConn at all.

 

[king conn]

Wichita is opting for significantly more money, more exposure and a bigger profile. Right now, they almost have to run through the Missouri Valley undefeated to get a bid. They went 30-4 and ended up as a ten seed. If they lost in the first round of the MVC Tournament, they would have been 28-5 and a two seed in the NIT.

There is exactly zero downside risk for them.

It would be like UConn turning down the Big Ten because it's easier in the AAC.

Well we don't even know what the financial payouts and differences are right now so there is that. I'm going to assume there will not be close to a full payout without football, and if they do get close to a full payout you know what? That would kind of prove my point and would help explain why they would do it. The AAC would be saying your basketball is as good as our other teams football/ basketball.

As we have seen now they have such a hard time qualifying for the tournament. Yikes.

Wichita St to aac = UConn to Big? Cmon you're better than that.

 

[A10 fan]

Creighton has worked out well for the BE, and Creighton is not nearly as good as Wichita St. has been, but the fans understand that they've brought value to the league. It's funny, over on the Big East board, they're dying to add Gonzaga, which is way worse of a fit geographically than WSU.

 

[djct1999]

I still don't understand why people are against/upset about this. It doesn't hurt UConn.

Because it actually does hurt UConn. Wichita States total revenue is 26 mil, 3x less than UConn's. In other words, this is a fine addition for a men's basketball opponent. For realignment, new tv contract, and anything else that matters, this is another nail in the coffin. Time is running out. Tick tock.

 

[noeynox]

Because it actually does hurt UConn. Wichita States total revenue is 26 mil, 3x less than UConn's. In other words, this is a fine addition for a men's basketball opponent. For realignment, new tv contract, and anything else that matters, this is another nail in the coffin. Time is running out. Tick tock.

Does nothing for realignment purposes that hates us, for tv purposes it's a brand I'm guessing draws decent ratings when the contract is coming up for renegotiation.

There is no reason to HATE this. The quality basketball in our conference just went up. We already go to Oklahoma and Texas in this conference, what's wrong with Kansas?

People complain Aresco does nothing, then he does probably the best move he CAN make and people complain. This league isn't poaching from the P5.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Someone said it earlier. Frankenstein conference.
More mouths to feed.
We will be ODU womens hoop in a few years. A nice memory.
F this. And F Suzy

We become ODU women's hoop much faster if we don't do this. That's what it is all about. Upgrading our league schedule.

I honestly think that this move is made mostly for UConn, to give us less of a reason to bolt to the Big East. It's astonishing that people view it negatively. I bet most of those people would be happy to go to the Big East and play teams like Creighton, who was in the MVC with WSU recently. How does WSU make a league with the schools we have any more of a Frankenstein conference than it already is?

 

[The Funster]

Put me wth the ambivalent bunch on this. This will help our SOS as tzznandrew points out so I hope we get to play them 2 a year instead of one of the other scrubs. I'm just so freaking depressed about our overall situation that its hard to get excited about anything.

 

[djct1999]

Does nothing for realignment purposes that hates us, for tv purposes it's a brand I'm guessing draws decent ratings when the contract is coming up for renegotiation.

There is no reason to HATE this. The quality basketball in our conference just went up. We already go to Oklahoma and Texas in this conference, what's wrong with Kansas?

People complain Aresco does nothing, then he does probably the best move he CAN make and people complain. This league isn't poaching from the P5.

Aresco needs to focus on getting us a better tv contract. How does this help? By adding another mid-major, UConn is slowly becoming one. Pretty remarkable when you think about how strong our brand was 5 years ago.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

I understand people are just upset that adding another team would lower the density of Tulsa games on our schedule.

 

[djct1999]

If Wichita State is such a valuable add, UConn would be better suited signing a 6 year home and home series. Not add them to the conference.

 

[TRest]

I hope you guys realize there are a lot of sad Shocker fans who have been wounded by your reaction to this news. This is a nice move for them, and does further solidify our new identity in CUSA 2.0. Still, I would rather have Tier 3 schools with great basketball than without it.

 

[uconnric]

Agree with this. What also defies logic is why we try to chase Football glory, I think it's time the University realized that the Football program is secondary and its time to head back to the Big East and just kill the Football program.

The new Big East is not the old Big East, not even close. Killing football (which is not going to happen) and hitching our wagon to that train will surely doom us. Guess you just want to give up.

 

[UConNation]

If Wichita State is such a valuable add, UConn would be better suited signing a 6 year home and home series. Not add them to the conference.

No. Those 2 things are not equal. First, by having them in the conference, you get them twice a year instead of once. Second, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, having them in the conference boosts the RPI of every other team in the conference - even if they lose to WSU. That also benefits UConn... because now when we play ECU/Tulsa/USF et al the RPI is much higher. So in summary, no, you're wrong, UConn would not be better suited signing a 6 year home and home.

 

[HuskyAlum012]

Creighton has worked out well for the BE, and Creighton is not nearly as good as Wichita St. has been, but the fans understand that they've brought value to the league. It's funny, over on the Big East board, they're dying to add Gonzaga, which is way worse of a fit geographically than WSU.

Why didn't the Big East just go after Wichita st? I guess that would have made too much sense?

 

[spudzj6]

The complaining on this board shows how out of touch and the lack of perspective in today's society.

UConn fans - "We want into the Big East"
Big East fan base - "You guys will drag us down, and just be another mouth to feed"
UConn fans - "We have a great fan base and history of success - we will bring money to your conference, get better ratings for your TV deals and put more butts in seats"

WSU fans - "We want into the AAC"
UConn fans - "You guys will drag us down, and just be another mouth to feed"
WSU fans - "We have a great fan base and history of success - we will bring money to your conference, get better ratings for your TV deals and put more butts in seats"

people on the board using the excuse about more mouths to feed, yet complain when big east fans give us the same reasoning to keep us out of the big east...bottom line, WSU will be a top 25 team consistently, which will sell more tickets, get the casual fan to turn on the tv, and if we put another team in the NCAA tournament, the conference will make more money. And if Marshall leaves in 5 years and WSU is not the same powerhouse it came in as, we will be right back in the same situation we are in right now. There will be no negative outcome to UConn's relevance.

 

[TRest]

No. Those 2 things are not equal. First, by having them in the conference, you get them twice a year instead of once. Second, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, having them in the conference boosts the RPI of every other team in the conference - even if they lose to WSU. That also benefits UConn... because now when we play ECU/Tulsa/USF et al the RPI is much higher. So in summary, no, you're wrong, UConn would not be better suited signing a 6 year home and home.

they can also earn tournament credits = $ for the conference once they get here.