American Athletic Conference

[Shock Top]

I would also love to know why we should stay in the Valley.

Just guessing that it would be along the lines of staying the big fish in the small pond. And thinking that moving to a better conference would diminish our beloved mid major Cinderella persona.

I also wouldn't doubt that a lot of critics still believe we couldn't go .500 in a 'real' conference and that our NCAA success, albeit fairly consistent is more of a fluke, feeding on middle tier power conference opponents, not the big guys...

No need to refute my statement with facts. I'm just trying to think like them, this is not my opinion.

I guess I can at least entertain the Gonzaga argument, but doesn't it get old having to go 16-2, losing in the "city that shall not be named", then having to sweat out Selection Sunday every year?

Hell, they almost didn't give WSU a 1-seed after going 34-0, and only did so by matching them up against the most underseed 8-seed in tournament history.

I, myself, would actually like to see some entertaining games against teams Cinci, UCONN, Memphis. *gasp* I'll even give up two UNI games a year to make that happen (though, I am confident WSU could work out a H/H series with UNI if Gregg wanted to)

[Stickboy46]

I would also love to know why we should stay in the Valley.

Just guessing that it would be along the lines of staying the big fish in the small pond. And thinking that moving to a better conference would diminish our beloved mid major Cinderella persona.

I also wouldn't doubt that a lot of critics still believe we couldn't go .500 in a 'real' conference and that our NCAA success, albeit fairly consistent is more of a fluke, feeding on middle tier power conference opponents, not the big guys...

No need to refute my statement with facts. I'm just trying to think like them, this is not my opinion.

Haven't we realistically gotten rid of the "mid-major Cinderella persona" anyways. I don't see anyone referring to us as that anymore. Most of the time, we aren't the underdog. We are the targeted, one of the biggest games on peoples schedules.

just another opinion, not trying to refute your non-opinion :)

[ShockerPrez]

Haven't we realistically gotten rid of the "mid-major Cinderella persona" anyways. I don't see anyone referring to us as that anymore. Most of the time, we aren't the underdog. We are the targeted, one of the biggest games on peoples schedules.

just another opinion, not trying to refute your non-opinion :)

There are a lot of talking heads that give this lip service, but I would bet that a blind ballot of these same people would show that they still consider WSU as firmly entrenched as a mid major.

And I think that the proof is that Marshall's name is still thrown out as a candidate for every P5 vacancy, regardless of who that program is.

[WuShock16]

I guess I can at least entertain the Gonzaga argument, but doesn't it get old having to go 16-2, losing in the "city that shall not be named", then having to sweat out Selection Sunday every year?

Hell, they almost didn't give WSU a 1-seed after going 34-0, and only did so by matching them up against the most underseed 8-seed in tournament history.

I, myself, would actually like to see some entertaining games against teams Cinci, UCONN, Memphis. *gasp* I'll even give up two UNI games a year to make that happen (though, I am confident WSU could work out a H/H series with UNI if Gregg wanted to)

It's off-topic but this is somewhat of a pet peeve for me. What should Kentucky have been seeded in 2014? They were talented enough to be seeded better, yes, but Kentucky's performance that year was not good. I am sure I could find proof that the consensus here was that Kentucky should not have been a Top 25 team, as they lost 3 of 4 and 4 of 7 going into the SEC Tournament. If that is the case, that knocks them at least to a 7. That Kentucky team was simply one that finally decided to live up to its potential. Doc and I talked before that game, and he said that our A game would beat their A game. We didn't realize that Kentucky had an A+ game.

[ShockTalk]

Let's say UConn and Cincy were to leave the AAC. Here's a comparison of the remaining 9 AAC teams vs the 9 MVC teams WSU currently enjoys.

Last 5 = Average Pomeroy rank from 2012-2016
Last 10 = Average Pomeroy rank from 2007-2016

Team	Last 5			Team	Last 10
Memphis	49			Memphis	40
UNI	64			UNI	73
Temple	80			Temple	80
SMU	92			Tulsa	94
Illinois St	97			Illinois St	102
Tulsa	102			Houston	132
Evansville	119			Indiana St	139
Indiana St	135			Missouri St	140
Houston	155			SMU	142
UCF	171			Evansville	145
South Florida	179			South Florida	150
East Carolina	183			Southern Ill	150
Southern Ill	185			UCF	152
Missouri St	187			Drake	162
Drake	196			Bradley	177
Loyola	204			Loyola	188
Tulane	210			Tulane	194
Bradley	242			East Carolina	204

With UConn and Cincy, the AAC is a HUGE upgrade.
Without them, the AAC is still a small upgrade.
Some have commented that the bottom of the AAC is better than the bottom of the MVC. That doesn't appear to be true over the last 10 years, and is only marginally true over the last 5.
The top half of the AAC is where it gains a significant advantage over the MVC.

Conclusion: Let's do this!

Trends: From the 10 year column to the 5 year column, who and how much have teams dropped in that ranking of those that dropped more than 10 spots.

AAC: Houston 23 spots, S Florida 29, UCF 27, and Tulane 16. 95 total.

MVC: MSU 47 spots, SIU 35, Drake 34, Bradley 65, and Loyola 16. 197 total.

Who has increased more than 10 spots.

ACC: SMU 50, ECU 21. 71 total.

MVC: EU 26. 26 total.

Of the 3 teams left that have remained nearly the same: Memphis has ranked consistently higher than UNI, Temple consistently higher than ISUr, and Tulsa consistently higher than ISUb.

[ShockTalk]

Great research, JH4P!

I want to play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that a few of the MVC dregs right now, ie. Bradley, SIU and even MSU, I believe have the potential, due to previous success, to rise to the top of the league again. Conversely, many of the lower-tier AAC schools (Tulane, ECU, UCF, USF) have very little historical success or reason to believe sustained success is on their horizons. Yes, we have DU, LU and UE. But it's not unreasonable to project a conference without UConn and Cinci could be largely indistinguishable from the MVC with an improved BU, SIU and MSU.

Butler was at it's highest point while dominating the Horizon. Time will tell if they even sniff that kind of success again in the bigeast. Gonzaga continues to be nationally relevant while mostly dominating the WCC with some help from St. Mary's (our UNI). I would even put Creighton in there. Yes, they are having a good year, but they aren't going to go to the NCAA's nearly every year like WSU can, as well as be a factor once into the field.

I'm personally in favor of making the move, but I also understand the logic behind staying.

Don't forget BYU.

[WheatShock]

Trends: From the 10 year column to the 5 year column, who and how much have teams dropped in that ranking of those that dropped more than 10 spots.

AAC: Houston 23 spots, S Florida 29, UCF 27, and Tulane 16. 95 total.

MVC: MSU 47 spots, SIU 35, Drake 34, Bradley 65, and Loyola 16. 197 total.

Who has increased more than 10 spots.

ACC: SMU 50, ECU 21. 71 total.

MVC: EU 26. 26 total.

Of the 3 teams left that have remained nearly the same: Memphis has ranked consistently higher than UNI, Temple consistently higher than ISUr, and Tulsa consistently higher than ISUb.

Unlike the Valley some of the AAC bottom feeders are making legitimate efforts to improve their programs. Example: Tulane hiring Mike Dunleavy to be their head coach this year.

[RoyalShock]

Don't forget BYU.

Thanks, I did forget BYU. That does alter the comparison a bit. If ISU would perform to expectations, maybe they could be the MVC's BYU. But . . . . Muller.

[Shocker-maniac]

The Fallacious and Myopic Argument Against the AAC

I am having a hard time understanding the argument by Michael DeCourcy, Seth Davis, and even some members of the local media that are opposed to WSU moving to the AAC, because it is seen as unstable while the MVC is viewed as safe and stable. The argument goes that nearly every member of the AAC applied for membership in the Big 12 when it was considering expansion. Because of this they say that the AAC is destined to become the next Conference USA and all of its members will abandon it over time. Their reasoning is that the MVC is far more stable than the AAC so WSU should stay put. The whole argument is flawed and extremely short-sighted. The whole basis is that WSU should settle for the safety of mediocrity, because with the opportunity that the AAC offers there is risk. Here are a few points that I think these experts are not realizing in their argument.

1. What stable conferences are available as viable options for WSU?

Outside of the P-5 conferences, what conferences that would be viewed as higher profile than the MVC are stable? I consider the following conferences as higher profile than the MVC: A-10, AAC, Big East, and MWC. Of these conferences, I would say only the Big East would be stable. How many A-10 members would bolt for the Big East, if given the opportunity? How many MWC conference members would bolt for the PAC 12 or the Big 12, if given the opportunity? I think in both cases a majority of the schools in both conferences would break for a move to a higher profile conference. The only reason that I consider the BE as stable is that the only move up is to a P-5 conference, and it seems highly unlikely that a P-5 would add a basketball only member to their conference.

Even the Big 12 is not that stable as a few years ago we saw the near collapse of that conference with Texas A&M and Nebraska leaving, and Texas and Oklahoma (and perhaps other schools) coming very close to leaving. Even to this day there is speculation that the Big 12 will be poached to form four 16-member super conferences.

As of this time there is no indication that the Big East will add public institutions so it does not appear as an option to WSU. So in all reality for WSU there is some risk of instability to whichever potential higher profile conference option is realistically available to us (A-10, AAC, or MWC). If we listen to those that are pushing stability we are doomed to the MVC unless the Big East changes it's philosophy and invites WSU. At this point that seems to be a long shot at best.

2. The risk of stability.

Why is the MVC considered stable? I would argue that the reason for this perceived stability is that there is an overall pervasiveness of mediocrity among the members of the MVC. Whether it's a lack of resources and/or lack of commitment by their administrators, the Valley does not seem to have a vision of excellence and improvement. So the MVC is considered stable because of mediocrity, because these programs are not viable options for conference upgrades. There are huge risks and costs associated with mediocrity. Let's face it, outside of WSU and UNI, the trend line for the MVC in the past decade or so has been to mediocrity.

There is a lot of truth in the old sports adage that "you're only as good as your competition." No I'm not suggesting that WSU plays down to the level of their MVC competitors in games. But there are costs associated to being in the MVC that are far greater. Perhaps there is no greater impact than what we see on Selection Sunday when we see the drag that the MVC has on our RPI, SOS, and just overall credibility we have with the Committee because of our MVC affiliation. But there are other costs as well. How much would our recruiting profile be increased with the additional TV exposure of the AAC? How much more visibility would we have playing in markets like Houston, Cincinnati, and Memphis versus Cedar Falls, Carbondale and Normal? The benefits go beyond the basketball court to the academic profile for our school, as well. In sports and academics, you are known by the company you keep. There is a cost to the stability (and mediocrity) of the MVC.

3. The benefit of association.

What's wrong with associating with programs that are ambitious and desire to better themselves by moving up to a better conference? Who do you want to associate with? The ambitious and upwardly mobile members of the AAC? Or the stagnation and mediocrity of the MVC institutions? Competing at the level of the AAC programs will make WSU better.

4. Assessing the risk.

Just how risky is the AAC? How likely would it be that in a few years after we join that it becomes like CUSA? I would argue that in some ways there is actually more safety in the AAC than the MVC, because of the relative strength of the AAC. As the analysis by JH4P shows even if the AAC lost two members it would still be a stronger conference than the MVC. Just how likely is it that the Big 12 considers expansion again after just deciding against it? Even if it were to decide on expansion in the future, would more than 2 AAC schools go to the Big 12? And could the AAC recruit strong programs to replace those that leave? I would argue that the AAC is better positioned to bring strong programs into its conference than the MVC was able to replace Creighton. Could those that are against the move to the AAC be over exaggerating the risk of membership in the AAC? I think so.

In conclusion, there are risks to every conference. Whether it's the MVC, the AAC, or another conferences there are risks associated to moving to a new conference or staying in our current conference.

Consider the path of former MVC member, the University of Louisville, that is now a member of the ACC. Did Louisville take risks to get to that level? Absolutely. Did Louisville have to make several conference changes before they reached the level of the ACC? Yes, many. I'm not suggesting that WSU will attain the level of the ACC. However, to achieve our highest level of success and prestige that we are capable of reaching, we must take risks.

It's a fact of life, with opportunity comes risk. If WSU is ever to rise to the level it aspires to we must take risk. Otherwise we risk stagnation and being mired in a pit of complacency and mediocrity called the MVC. There are just as many risks staying in the "safety" of the MVC as there are with moving to the AAC.
I

[MoValley John]

I am having a hard time understanding the argument by Michael DeCourcy, Seth Davis, and even some members of the local media that are opposed to WSU moving to the AAC, because it is seen as unstable while the MVC is viewed as safe and stable. The argument goes that nearly every member of the AAC applied for membership in the Big 12 when it was considering expansion. Because of this they say that the AAC is destined to become the next Conference USA and all of its members will abandon it over time. Their reasoning is that the MVC is far more stable than the AAC so WSU should stay put. The whole argument is flawed and extremely short-sighted. The whole basis is that WSU should settle for the safety of mediocrity, because with the opportunity that the AAC offers there is risk. Here are a few points that I think these experts are not realizing in their argument.

1. What stable conferences are available as viable options for WSU?

Outside of the P-5 conferences, what conferences that would be viewed as higher profile than the MVC are stable? I consider the following conferences as higher profile than the MVC: A-10, AAC, Big East, and MWC. Of these conferences, I would say only the Big East would be stable. How many A-10 members would bolt for the Big East, if given the opportunity? How many MWC conference members would bolt for the PAC 12 or the Big 12, if given the opportunity? I think in both cases a majority of the schools in both conferences would break for a move to a higher profile conference. The only reason that I consider the BE as stable is that the only move up is to a P-5 conference, and it seems highly unlikely that a P-5 would add a basketball only member to their conference.

Even the Big 12 is not that stable as a few years ago we saw the near collapse of that conference with Texas A&M and Nebraska leaving, and Texas and Oklahoma (and perhaps other schools) coming very close to leaving. Even to this day there is speculation that the Big 12 will be poached to form four 16-member super conferences.

As of this time there is no indication that the Big East will add public institutions so it does not appear as an option to WSU. So in all reality for WSU there is some risk of instability to whichever potential higher profile conference option is realistically available to us (A-10, AAC, or MWC). If we listen to those that are pushing stability we are doomed to the MVC unless the Big East changes it's philosophy and invites WSU. At this point that seems to be a long shot at best.

2. The risk of stability.

Why is the MVC considered stable? I would argue that the reason for this perceived stability is that there is an overall pervasiveness of mediocrity among the members of the MVC. Whether it's a lack of resources and/or lack of commitment by their administrators, the Valley does not seem to have a vision of excellence and improvement. So the MVC is considered stable because of mediocrity, because these programs are not viable options for conference upgrades. There are huge risks and costs associated with mediocrity. Let's face it, outside of WSU and UNI, the trend line for the MVC in the past decade or so has been to mediocrity.

There is a lot of truth in the old sports adage that "you're only as good as your competition." No I'm not suggesting that WSU plays down to the level of their MVC competitors in games. But there are costs associated to being in the MVC that are far greater. Perhaps there is no greater impact than what we see on Selection Sunday when we see the drag that the MVC has on our RPI, SOS, and just overall credibility we have with the Committee because of our MVC affiliation. But there are other costs as well. How much would our recruiting profile be increased with the additional TV exposure of the AAC? How much more visibility would we have playing in markets like Houston, Cincinnati, and Memphis versus Cedar Falls, Carbondale and Normal? The benefits go beyond the basketball court to the academic profile for our school, as well. In sports and academics, you are known by the company you keep. There is a cost to the stability (and mediocrity) of the MVC.

3. The benefit of association.

What's wrong with associating with programs that are ambitious and desire to better themselves by moving up to a better conference? Who do you want to associate with? The ambitious and upwardly mobile members of the AAC? Or the stagnation and mediocrity of the MVC institutions? Competing at the level of the AAC programs will make WSU better.

4. Assessing the risk.

Just how risky is the AAC? How likely would it be that in a few years after we join that it becomes like CUSA? I would argue that in some ways there is actually more safety in the AAC than the MVC, because of the relative strength of the AAC. As the analysis by JH4P shows even if the AAC lost two members it would still be a stronger conference than the MVC. Just how likely is it that the Big 12 considers expansion again after just deciding against it? Even if it were to decide on expansion in the future, would more than 2 AAC schools go to the Big 12? And could the AAC recruit strong programs to replace those that leave? I would argue that the AAC is better positioned to bring strong programs into its conference than the MVC was able to replace Creighton. Could those that are against the move to the AAC be over exaggerating the risk of membership in the AAC? I think so.

In conclusion, there are risks to every conference. Whether it's the MVC, the AAC, or another conferences there are risks associated to moving to a new conference or staying in our current conference.

Consider the path of former MVC member, the University of Louisville, that is now a member of the ACC. Did Louisville take risks to get to that level? Absolutely. Did Louisville have to make several conference changes before they reached the level of the ACC? Yes, many. I'm not suggesting that WSU will attain the level of the ACC. However, to achieve our highest level of success and prestige that we are capable of reaching, we must take risks.

It's a fact of life, with opportunity comes risk. If WSU is ever to rise to the level it aspires to we must take risk. Otherwise we risk stagnation and being mired in a pit of complacency and mediocrity called the MVC. There are just as many risks staying in the "safety" of the MVC as there are with moving to the AAC.
I

Pretty well written. I would love to have the Shockers in the Big East. At this point, it's a long shot, but if the Big East does decide to expand and they decide to take on two publics, I think Wichita State has a great shot. And if the Big East expands and takes a couple of public schools, there is no reason Wichita State couldn't join shortly after joining the AAC.

The instability of the AAC, with regard to the Big 12 is a non-issue. In my opinion, following the debacle this last Fall, the Big 12 is dead, they just don't know it yet. Texas will leave, Oklahoma will leave, Kansas will beg the B1G. The remainder of the Big 12 will try like hell to get in the AAC. Better for Wichita State to already be a member.

[Aargh]

The B12 just went through an evaluation period and apparently concluded they could not improve their revenue stream by adding schools from the AAC. There's little reason to believe another conference could significantly improve their revenues by adding an AAC team.

The AAC has more games that get consideration for an at-large invite and fewer games that cause elimination as an NCAA invite. What would you rather have - a 3rd -place finish in league play and an invitation to the NCAA's, or a 1st-place finish in a league and an invitation to the NIT?

[Heinro]

Butler was at it's highest point while dominating the Horizon. Time will tell if they even sniff that kind of success again in the bigeast. Gonzaga continues to be nationally relevant while mostly dominating the WCC with some help from St. Mary's (our UNI). I would even put Creighton in there. Yes, they are having a good year, but they aren't going to go to the NCAA's nearly every year like WSU can, as well as be a factor once into the field.

I'm personally in favor of making the move, but I also understand the logic behind staying.

+1. I am all for the move. I think it increases our long-term ceiling. However, that is the risk. It is arguably easier to still make it into the tourney in a down year in a MVC or lower tier conference. Creighton, post Doug, would have still finished top half and been a good MVC tourney away from dancing. Instead, they were playing on Thursday night in the Big East.

[Mike]

When a team is in a better conference, there is greater likelihood to make the NCAA Tournament with less than a stellar record.
In 2016, the 3 AAC teams that received at-large bids all had 10 or more losses during the season.
In 2016, 2 of the 4 Big East teams that received at-large bids had 10 losses.
It is far less likely that a 10-loss team from the MVC makes the NCAA Tournament

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The counterpoint to the "weak MVC makes dancing easier" argument is last year. Fred's injury early nearly kept a really good Shocker team from dancing because the Selection Committee is too stupid to give credit for 30+ pt wins night after night. The Shox had almost zero opportunity to redeem themselves from their November woes even though they played excellent basketball in January and February.

Imagine last year's team in the AAC. After losing some games in non-con, they would have competed for an AAC regular season title. The excellent play in January and February would have actually been rewarded. Instead of the committee ignoring 30+ pt beatdowns of bad MVC teams, they would have been impressed by some quality wins in conference. Even with the inevitable 2-3 extra losses due to the tougher SOS, I bet WSU gets an 8-9 seed rather than playing in as an 11.

#JamarSaysPositiveThingsAboutTheShox

[MoValley John]

+1. I am all for the move. I think it increases our long-term ceiling. However, that is the risk. It is arguably easier to still make it into the tourney in a down year in a MVC or lower tier conference. Creighton, post Doug, would have still finished top half and been a good MVC tourney away from dancing. Instead, they were playing on Thursday night in the Big East.

Two years ago Creighton probably would have been a six seed in the Valley tourney, maybe even a seven playing on Thursday, they were that bad. Last year, Creighton was a good Valley tourney from the dance.