Can great BB leagues see an improvement of the FB side, with time? (2024)

Post: #21

(09-18-2013 10:39 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:

(09-18-2013 05:56 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote: I would argue that successful football programs lead to successful basketball programs far more often than successful basketball programs leading to successful football programs. Actually I'd say the same for all sports. Football drives the bus in more ways than just money.

Arizona? Michigan State? North Carolina??

syracuse, ucla, pitt, bc, wvu, smu to name a few

(This post was last modified: 09-18-2013 10:46 PM by john01992.)

Post: #22

(09-18-2013 10:33 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:

(09-18-2013 09:52 PM)ncbeta Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:36 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:26 PM)NJRedMan Wrote: Also the Big East having almost every game on national TV will not fall off.

So under that logic, the AAC with all of its games with television coverage its programs should not fall off (or actually improve too), right?

The AAC is a different beast . For half the league things will be better, for the other half things will be worse.

If you follow recruiting the current Big East teams are bringing in high caliber talent post split. They also will be on FS1 which will be in many more homes than CBSSN or ESPNU.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all of the AAC bball games going to be nationally televised? Most on ESPN? I'm not completely sure.

I do not think the top teams in the AAC will take a recruiting hit once we are established. The bottom half are already recruiting better than in CUSA days.

Few on actual ESPN most on the satellite networks and CBSSN.

I thought that was for like 10% and the rest of the games were to be on ESPN.

Okay edit: I found the article. So 30 basketball games a year. How many conference games does an 11 team league play? I'm not sure. Can 11 teams play a full home and away schedule?

min-max 13-15 football games a year so with 12 members 81 make espn and 15 cbssn +- two games... 82/14....83/13.

(This post was last modified: 09-18-2013 10:57 PM by ncbeta.)

Post: #23

(09-18-2013 10:52 PM)ncbeta Wrote:

(09-18-2013 10:33 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:

(09-18-2013 09:52 PM)ncbeta Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:36 PM)IceJus10 Wrote: So under that logic, the AAC with all of its games with television coverage its programs should not fall off (or actually improve too), right?

The AAC is a different beast . For half the league things will be better, for the other half things will be worse.

If you follow recruiting the current Big East teams are bringing in high caliber talent post split. They also will be on FS1 which will be in many more homes than CBSSN or ESPNU.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all of the AAC bball games going to be nationally televised? Most on ESPN? I'm not completely sure.

I do not think the top teams in the AAC will take a recruiting hit once we are established. The bottom half are already recruiting better than in CUSA days.

Few on actual ESPN most on the satellite networks and CBSSN.

I thought that was for like 10% and the rest of the games were to be on ESPN.

The ESPN family of networks. No way 90% of the AAC games are on ESPN proper. Most this season will be UofL and UConn games. After UofL leaves I see that number dropping even further. Lots of ESPNU and ESPN2 games.

Post: #24

(09-18-2013 10:56 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:

(09-18-2013 10:52 PM)ncbeta Wrote:

(09-18-2013 10:33 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:

(09-18-2013 09:52 PM)ncbeta Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote: The AAC is a different beast . For half the league things will be better, for the other half things will be worse.

If you follow recruiting the current Big East teams are bringing in high caliber talent post split. They also will be on FS1 which will be in many more homes than CBSSN or ESPNU.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all of the AAC bball games going to be nationally televised? Most on ESPN? I'm not completely sure.

I do not think the top teams in the AAC will take a recruiting hit once we are established. The bottom half are already recruiting better than in CUSA days.

Few on actual ESPN most on the satellite networks and CBSSN.

I thought that was for like 10% and the rest of the games were to be on ESPN.

The ESPN family of networks. No way 90% of the AAC games are on ESPN proper. Most this season will be UofL and UConn games. After UofL leaves I see that number dropping even further. Lots of ESPNU and ESPN2 games.

No shame in EspnU/Espn2.... I just care that they are on TV. 30 conf games will be cbssn and the rest on some kind of Espn channel. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see a game on Espn news but the good thing is it's on.

Post: #25

Post: #26

(09-18-2013 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote: espnu > foxsports1 imo

Thank god that doesn't mean much.

Post: #27

(09-18-2013 08:52 PM)john01992 Wrote: yes the SEC has 3 past natty's but that was by the only 2 programs capable of making the tourny on a semi-regular basis.

they are bad BB if anything, i have a hard time calling a 12/14 team league thats put only 3, 4, 5, 4, 3 teams in the tourny the last 5 years

as for the old big east, wvu, pitt, bc, syracuse were all well established football schools before they became established BB schools. if anything FB made their bb programs. as for uconn & the rest thats pretty tough.

uconn basketball probably helped propel uconn football, but uconn football is barely sustainable at this point and umass was able to field an FBS program without having an all star bb program to lean on. the interesting thing about uconn though is that they are the only clear cut top 10 bb program thats not in a power conference

gtown, if anything their bb hurts the fb program as they are too BB orientated imo.

this is a stupid thread if you ask me cuz FB was an established money maker long before basketball ever was. so obviously FB was the sport that defined most of these schools

john, you clearly don't know much about WVU sports. WVU's basketball team won the 1942 NIT, but the post season tournament champion wasn't recognized as a national champion back then. However, if WVU wanted to, we could claim a fictional national championship, like many other schools do. But WWII gave the nation something other than sports to focus upon...

WVU's 1942 NIT championship predates most of the success of the football team. Basketball was WVU's premier sport until the 1960s, when the football team began to take priority, due to the greater revenue stream provided by football, and the lack of success in basketball after Rod Thorn's graduation...

WVU started out as a basketball school, until football took the top spot among Mountaineer fans. So in that respect, West Virginians were way ahead of the national trend, predating it by several decades...

Post: #28

(09-19-2013 08:36 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:52 PM)john01992 Wrote: yes the SEC has 3 past natty's but that was by the only 2 programs capable of making the tourny on a semi-regular basis.

they are bad BB if anything, i have a hard time calling a 12/14 team league thats put only 3, 4, 5, 4, 3 teams in the tourny the last 5 years

as for the old big east, wvu, pitt, bc, syracuse were all well established football schools before they became established BB schools. if anything FB made their bb programs. as for uconn & the rest thats pretty tough.

uconn basketball probably helped propel uconn football, but uconn football is barely sustainable at this point and umass was able to field an FBS program without having an all star bb program to lean on. the interesting thing about uconn though is that they are the only clear cut top 10 bb program thats not in a power conference

gtown, if anything their bb hurts the fb program as they are too BB orientated imo.

this is a stupid thread if you ask me cuz FB was an established money maker long before basketball ever was. so obviously FB was the sport that defined most of these schools

john, you clearly don't know much about WVU sports. WVU's basketball team won the 1942 NIT, but the post season tournament champion wasn't recognized as a national champion back then. However, if WVU wanted to, we could claim a fictional national championship, like many other schools do. But WWII gave the nation something other than sports to focus upon...

WVU's 1942 NIT championship predates most of the success of the football team. Basketball was WVU's premier sport until the 1960s, when the football team began to take priority, due to the greater revenue stream provided by football, and the lack of success in basketball after Rod Thorn's graduation...

WVU started out as a basketball school, until football took the top spot among Mountaineer fans. So in that respect, West Virginians were way ahead of the national trend, predating it by several decades...

dude, syracuse has helms from the 1920s. but yet i still think of syracuse being a FB school first. wvu is like 14th all time wins in football, so obviously football has been around at wvu for some time. plus bowl games & a 38k seat stadium from before 1942 as well

Post: #29

(09-18-2013 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote: espnu > foxsports1 imo

Today, will not be the case soon. FS1 gets MLB next year.

Post: #30

(09-19-2013 09:00 AM)john01992 Wrote:

(09-19-2013 08:36 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:52 PM)john01992 Wrote: yes the SEC has 3 past natty's but that was by the only 2 programs capable of making the tourny on a semi-regular basis.

they are bad BB if anything, i have a hard time calling a 12/14 team league thats put only 3, 4, 5, 4, 3 teams in the tourny the last 5 years

as for the old big east, wvu, pitt, bc, syracuse were all well established football schools before they became established BB schools. if anything FB made their bb programs. as for uconn & the rest thats pretty tough.

uconn basketball probably helped propel uconn football, but uconn football is barely sustainable at this point and umass was able to field an FBS program without having an all star bb program to lean on. the interesting thing about uconn though is that they are the only clear cut top 10 bb program thats not in a power conference

gtown, if anything their bb hurts the fb program as they are too BB orientated imo.

this is a stupid thread if you ask me cuz FB was an established money maker long before basketball ever was. so obviously FB was the sport that defined most of these schools

john, you clearly don't know much about WVU sports. WVU's basketball team won the 1942 NIT, but the post season tournament champion wasn't recognized as a national champion back then. However, if WVU wanted to, we could claim a fictional national championship, like many other schools do. But WWII gave the nation something other than sports to focus upon...

WVU's 1942 NIT championship predates most of the success of the football team. Basketball was WVU's premier sport until the 1960s, when the football team began to take priority, due to the greater revenue stream provided by football, and the lack of success in basketball after Rod Thorn's graduation...

WVU started out as a basketball school, until football took the top spot among Mountaineer fans. So in that respect, West Virginians were way ahead of the national trend, predating it by several decades...

dude, syracuse has helms from the 1920s. but yet i still think of syracuse being a FB school first. wvu is like 14th all time wins in football, so obviously football has been around at wvu for some time. plus bowl games & a 38k seat stadium from before 1942 as well

That does not change the fact that WVU started out as a basketball school...

BTW, calling Syracuse a football school is ludicrous. Syracuse has larger crowds for basketball in the dome than they do for football, and the basketball program at SU generates a ton of income. Syracuse has always been a basketball program, even when the football program was doing well...

cuseroc will back me up on this...

(This post was last modified: 09-19-2013 09:11 AM by bitcruncher.)

Post: #31

(09-18-2013 04:35 PM)SMUfrat Wrote: So I was thinking about this:

I dont know of another FBS league with top notch basketball that doesnt have FBS football that is at least respected. Can the very high quality basketball aspect of a league elevate the football status in the long run?

I think so. But it will need some actual football accomplishments to come with it too.

for reference:

Old Big East - basketball powerhouse - decent football.
ACC - basketball focused - decent football.
Big10 - excells in bball as of lately- respected in football.

Big12 - no bueno bball, respected football.
Pac12 - eh bball - good football.
SEC - decent bball (as a whole) - great football.

side note: does the "big east" now fade away in relevance to an a-10 conference level? I think so. They are not in the conversation as much, and I think the AAC is really stealing some of their thunder. The fox move certainly didn't help.

Even if the MWC is a strong contender for the 6th spot in the BCS line-up, I think the AAC benifits in the long run, and becomes the favorite most years. I'm happy to hear y'alls take on it though! Don't come at me all crazy like though, haha.

In my opinion, that can only happen when the majority of programs in any conference place proper emphasis on the sport. What tore the Big East apart was too many programs (ok, maybe every school outside of WVU, PITT and Louisville) that did not place emphasis on football.

The SEC is great in football beacuse nearly every program throws endless resources at it...same as the B1G. On the other hand, basketball has been down in the SEC for 2 decades as few programs (other than Kentucky and Florida) have invested.

In other words, it won't happen through osmosis...the majority of the conference members have to be engaged at a high level.

Post: #32

(09-19-2013 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:

(09-18-2013 04:35 PM)SMUfrat Wrote: So I was thinking about this:

I dont know of another FBS league with top notch basketball that doesnt have FBS football that is at least respected. Can the very high quality basketball aspect of a league elevate the football status in the long run?

I think so. But it will need some actual football accomplishments to come with it too.

for reference:

Old Big East - basketball powerhouse - decent football.
ACC - basketball focused - decent football.
Big10 - excells in bball as of lately- respected in football.

Big12 - no bueno bball, respected football.
Pac12 - eh bball - good football.
SEC - decent bball (as a whole) - great football.

side note: does the "big east" now fade away in relevance to an a-10 conference level? I think so. They are not in the conversation as much, and I think the AAC is really stealing some of their thunder. The fox move certainly didn't help.

Even if the MWC is a strong contender for the 6th spot in the BCS line-up, I think the AAC benifits in the long run, and becomes the favorite most years. I'm happy to hear y'alls take on it though! Don't come at me all crazy like though, haha.

In my opinion, that can only happen when the majority of programs in any conference place proper emphasis on the sport. What tore the Big East apart was too many programs (ok, maybe every school outside of WVU, PITT and Louisville) that did not place emphasis on football.

The SEC is great in football beacuse nearly every program throws endless resources at it...same as the B1G. On the other hand, basketball has been down in the SEC for 2 decades as few programs (other than Kentucky and Florida) have invested.

In other words, it won't happen through osmosis...the majority of the conference members have to be engaged at a high level.

Good analysis. I agree with you. My personal hope is that schools are serious in the American to do this - invest in football. There will be standouts. Hoping SMU is one of them.

Post: #33

(09-18-2013 04:52 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote: SEC poor b-ball... The SEC has won 3 of the last 8 men's championships and the SEC women have a dynasty in Tennessee.

As a whole the SEC is and has been very poor in basketball. However being poor in basketball does not mean they have not had any good individual teams. And realistically you can almost argue two of the three wins were anomalies since the very next year, the defending champ went to the NIT. It is really weird though that the two teams who played in the 2007 NCAA championship game had a rematch in the 2008 NIT Championship game.

Anyway the great teams Florida and UK had in those years do not prop up the entire league. If those teams mean the entire league is good, then the good Louisville, West Virginia, or Cincinnati teams over the years mean that Big East football was great. And no one will make that argument.

(This post was last modified: 09-19-2013 09:41 AM by adcorbett.)

Post: #34

(09-19-2013 09:32 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:

(09-19-2013 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:

(09-18-2013 04:35 PM)SMUfrat Wrote: So I was thinking about this:

I dont know of another FBS league with top notch basketball that doesnt have FBS football that is at least respected. Can the very high quality basketball aspect of a league elevate the football status in the long run?

I think so. But it will need some actual football accomplishments to come with it too.

for reference:

Old Big East - basketball powerhouse - decent football.
ACC - basketball focused - decent football.
Big10 - excells in bball as of lately- respected in football.

Big12 - no bueno bball, respected football.
Pac12 - eh bball - good football.
SEC - decent bball (as a whole) - great football.

side note: does the "big east" now fade away in relevance to an a-10 conference level? I think so. They are not in the conversation as much, and I think the AAC is really stealing some of their thunder. The fox move certainly didn't help.

Even if the MWC is a strong contender for the 6th spot in the BCS line-up, I think the AAC benifits in the long run, and becomes the favorite most years. I'm happy to hear y'alls take on it though! Don't come at me all crazy like though, haha.

In my opinion, that can only happen when the majority of programs in any conference place proper emphasis on the sport. What tore the Big East apart was too many programs (ok, maybe every school outside of WVU, PITT and Louisville) that did not place emphasis on football.

The SEC is great in football beacuse nearly every program throws endless resources at it...same as the B1G. On the other hand, basketball has been down in the SEC for 2 decades as few programs (other than Kentucky and Florida) have invested.

In other words, it won't happen through osmosis...the majority of the conference members have to be engaged at a high level.

Good analysis. I agree with you. My personal hope is that schools are serious in the American to do this - invest in football. There will be standouts. Hoping SMU is one of them.

sorry its a joke to say only 3 schools didnt place an emphasis on football

SU made some very expensive coaching hires. uconn went fbs, villanova almost went FBS, rutgers still puts ina lot of energy on their FB.

theres a HUGE difference between not being good at football and not placing an emphasis on football.

Post: #35

There's also a huge difference in a sig line and an entire page of moving Colbert captions that take up most of the screen.

dude, get a grip on your sig plz

Post: #36

Post: #37

(09-19-2013 09:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:

(09-18-2013 04:52 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote: SEC poor b-ball... The SEC has won 3 of the last 8 men's championships and the SEC women have a dynasty in Tennessee.

As a whole the SEC is and has been very poor in basketball. However being poor in basketball does not mean they have not had any good individual teams. And realistically you can almost argue two of the three wins were anomalies since the very next year, the defending champ went to the NIT. It is really weird though that the two teams who played in the 2007 NCAA championship game had a rematch in the 2008 NIT Championship game.

Anyway the great teams Florida and UK had in those years do not prop up the entire league. If those teams mean the entire league is good, then the good Louisville, West Virginia, or Cincinnati teams over the years mean that Big East football was great. And no one will make that argument.

Tennessee's women's program has gone downhill since Pat Summit was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. It's not a dynasty any longer...

Post: #38

(09-19-2013 10:31 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:

(09-19-2013 09:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:

(09-18-2013 04:52 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote: SEC poor b-ball... The SEC has won 3 of the last 8 men's championships and the SEC women have a dynasty in Tennessee.

As a whole the SEC is and has been very poor in basketball. However being poor in basketball does not mean they have not had any good individual teams. And realistically you can almost argue two of the three wins were anomalies since the very next year, the defending champ went to the NIT. It is really weird though that the two teams who played in the 2007 NCAA championship game had a rematch in the 2008 NIT Championship game.

Anyway the great teams Florida and UK had in those years do not prop up the entire league. If those teams mean the entire league is good, then the good Louisville, West Virginia, or Cincinnati teams over the years mean that Big East football was great. And no one will make that argument.

Tennessee's women's program has gone downhill since Pat Summit was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. It's not a dynasty any longer...

Yeah it's been the Geno show for the last few years. Stanford and Notre De have made some noise, and we'll see how Baylor is post Griener.

Post: #39

(09-18-2013 08:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:36 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:

(09-18-2013 08:26 PM)NJRedMan Wrote: Also the Big East having almost every game on national TV will not fall off.

So under that logic, the AAC with all of its games with television coverage its programs should not fall off (or actually improve too), right?

The AAC is a different beast . For half the league things will be better, for the other half things will be worse.

If you follow recruiting the current Big East teams are bringing in high caliber talent post split. They also will be on FS1 which will be in many more homes than CBSSN or ESPNU.

Can't the same be said of the "new" BE? That is, 7 of the 10 are undeniably worse off (Trading Uconn, UC, SU, Pitt, ND,Lou., Rut, USF for XU Butler & Creighton)?

Post: #40

(09-19-2013 10:08 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote: There's also a huge difference in a sig line and an entire page of moving Colbert captions that take up most of the screen.

dude, get a grip on your sig plz

i like it cuz i can find my posts easier. a lot of other's sigs annoy me so i just decided "if you cant beat em, join em"