C-USA vs. The Big East

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

How about giving a break to the people who actually look forward to the future of UC basketball?

I'm not sure what insight or knowledge was given by stating that "UC has been in the hunt against top competition for recruits (until 2006)". It is just another attempt to defend a past that was never attacked in the first place.

I look forward to the return of 20 W, 25 W, even 30 W seasons.

I don't want any more 11 W and 19 L seasons. UC is better than that.

[Mick's Da Man]

I look forward to the return of 20 W, 25 W, even 30 W seasons.

I don't want any more 11 W and 19 L seasons. UC is better than that.

An 18 win season in the Big East is worth 100 times more than a 25 win season in the pathetic Conference USA, Metro, or Great Midwest.

But some people don't get that. :D

[nachoman91]

An 18 win season in the Big East is worth 100 times more than a 25 win season in the pathetic Conference USA, Metro, or Great Midwest.

But some people don't get that. :D

Are you serious? An 18 win season in the Big East gets you a marginal chance at the NCAA tourney. A 25 win season in CUSA gets you a 2-4 seed. Isn't that they key.

[London 'Cat]

An 18 win season in the Big East gets you a marginal chance at the NCAA tourney. A 25 win season in CUSA gets you a 2-4 seed.

. . . . . and a second round exit from the tournament at the hands of a lower seeded team. The key is advancing in the tournament not getting a high seed.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

An 18 win season in the Big East is worth 100 times more than a 25 win season in the pathetic Conference USA, Metro, or Great Midwest.

But some people don't get that. :D

Yeah, it's nice to know that those #1 rankings during KMart's senior year were meaningless.

[nachoman91]

. . . . . and a second round exit from the tournament at the hands of a lower seeded team. The key is advancing in the tournament not getting a high seed.

In 15 years UC had 15 straight NCAA tourney invites, 1 Final Four and 2 Elites 8's. I'll take that over an 18 win season where you only have a possibility of getting an invite and even if you do make it in you get a 7-10 seed where you're more than likely to get bounced in the second round anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad UC is in the Big East. But I sure don't prefer an 18 win season and no tourney invite over a 25 win season and a 2 seed. Once you're in the tournament, anything can happen. If you're not in the tournament, nothing can happen.

The payoff of the Big East occurs when you can have both. The Big East affiliation allows you get the better talent that will allows you to win 22-25 games, a high tourney seed, and a deep run in the tournament.

[juckerrules]

In 15 years UC had 15 straight NCAA tourney invites, 1 Final Four and 2 Elites 8's. I'll take that over an 18 win season where you only have a possibility of getting an invite and even if you do make it in you get a 7-10 seed where you're more than likely to get bounced in the second round anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad UC is in the Big East. But I sure don't prefer an 18 win season and no tourney invite over a 25 win season and a 2 seed. Once you're in the tournament, anything can happen. If you're not in the tournament, nothing can happen.

The payoff of the Big East occurs when you can have both. The Big East affiliation allows you get the better talent that will allows you to win 22-25 games, a high tourney seed, and a deep run in the tournament.

You know the saying....
"If you want to run with the big dogs, you need to learn how to p**s in the tall grass" :)

[CincyBearcat95]

Nachoman91 - you're speaking like a true fan! However, from what I've heard, most coaches and AD's do not assign success to a coach year in and year out based on whether they win an National Championship. There can be only 1 each year. No, my understanding from what past coaches like BH and many AD's is that winning your conference is a huge win for a coach. Don't get me wrong, I want a NCAA championship as bad as the next guy, but you have to look at coaching from a job perspective. This is the same arguement for NFL coaches who do a great job, but don't get to the SuperBowl. That type of comment always comes from fans, but not from those in the business.

[CincyBearcat95]

That said - moving to the Big East is one of the best things thats happened to us. Even if we are lower in the league, we're not always going to be there. Every dog has his day and eventually teams in the bottom get to the top. When that happens, we'll really be primed for a run at the championship. Did you ever think that maybe the reason we never went to the title game is because we weren't seasoned enough by playing the big dogs?

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

UC will do fine. It took 29 years (1963 to 1992) to get back to FF. It's been 15 years since then. I don't think it will take 14 more.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Yeah, it's nice to know that those #1 rankings during KMart's senior year were meaningless.

FF in 1992, worthless. Elite 8 in 1993 and 96, who cares? #1 AP in 2000, so what? 31 W and #1 seed in 2002, big deal.

UC accomplished a helluva lot in Great Midwest, C-USA, etc.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

. . . . . and a second round exit from the tournament at the hands of a lower seeded team. The key is advancing in the tournament not getting a high seed.

UC advanced beyond the 2nd round in 1992, 1993, and 1996. It hadn't done that since 1963.

[Mick's Da Man]

Too bad the recruiting sucked by about 2004 and the program was in shambles.

Anyway. I sure do miss watching some of those pathetic CUSA teams come to town and dread the likes of UConn, Syracuse, G'town, 'Nova, etc......coming to town to watch. They're so boring. Bring on Southern Miss!!!!!

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

Too bad the recruiting sucked by about 2004 and the program was in shambles.

Anyway. I sure do miss watching some of those pathetic CUSA teams come to town and dread the likes of UConn, Syracuse, G'town, 'Nova, etc......coming to town to watch. They're so boring. Bring on Southern Miss!!!!!

It didn't suck, they just all ended up in jail.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Too bad the recruiting sucked by about 2004 and the program was in shambles.

Anyway. I sure do miss watching some of those pathetic CUSA teams come to town and dread the likes of UConn, Syracuse, G'town, 'Nova, etc......coming to town to watch. They're so boring. Bring on Southern Miss!!!!!

UC won 25 games in 2004 and again in 2005. Even with the abrupt coaching change, UC won 21 games in 2006. I don't remember anything like "in shambles" at all.

420 W and only 140 L between 1990 and 2006. Not even close to a shambles.

[Mick's Da Man]

UC won 25 games in 2004 and again in 2005. Even with the abrupt coaching change, UC won 21 games in 2006. I don't remember anything like "in shambles" at all.

420 W and only 140 L between 1990 and 2006. Not even close to a shambles.

Wow. And Conference USA wasn't even a top 6 conference. I think they hovered between 7 and 10 most of the time. Shows how really powerful they were. And it sure helped us get past the first or second round in Huggs later years.

It was fun dominating a weak conference, but we paid for in the tournament as we were unprepared for GOOD TEAMS.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

Wow. And Conference USA wasn't even a top 6 conference. I think they hovered between 7 and 10 most of the time. Shows how really powerful they were. And it sure helped us get past the first or second round in Huggs later years.

It was fun dominating a weak conference, but we paid for in the tournament as we were unprepared for GOOD TEAMS.

It was better than 6th or 7th, in my opinion. Some of the bigger confrerences get a lot of hype......ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, etc. How many Big East teams got past the 2nd round last year? How many Big 10? Big 12?

[richard k.]

Only 16 teams "get by the second round." Figure the BEast, Big 10/11, Big 12, ACC, & the PAC 10 as high majors, and with the A-10. Mo Valley, WAC, C-USA, etc., plus the odd cinderella low major, the high majors should each have, at most, 2 teams in the final 16. I think the problem some have looking back at UC's failures to get beyond the first weekend later in the Huggins era was due to the fact that the teams were often "ranked" highly and lost to teams "ranked" lower than we were. I understand there were a myriad of reasons for this, but the fact remains we often lost to lower "ranked" teams during that first weekend.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Wow. And Conference USA wasn't even a top 6 conference. I think they hovered between 7 and 10 most of the time. Shows how really powerful they were. And it sure helped us get past the first or second round in Huggs later years.

It was fun dominating a weak conference, but we paid for in the tournament as we were unprepared for GOOD TEAMS.

Interesting that C-USA beat overall #1 seed Kentucky in 2004 and sent Louisville to FF in 2005 then.

Hmmm.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Interesting....but the bottom 2/3 of that conference was completely unwatchable year in and year out.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Interesting....but the bottom 2/3 of that conference was completely unwatchable year in and year out.

True of many conferences. But C-USA had UC, Memphis, Louisville, Marquette, UAB, Charlotte (all good teams) in their upper half.

The "bottom 2/3" is flat wrong.

[Mick's Da Man]

True of many conferences. But C-USA had UC, Memphis, Louisville, Marquette, UAB, Charlotte (all good teams) in their upper half.

The "bottom 2/3" is flat wrong.

Why don't you go watch Conference USA then, since you're such a big fan and think they're awesome.

We'll all watch a real conference - the Big East.

Amazes me you continue to defend that piss poor conference we use to be in. It was terrible.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Why don't you go watch Conference USA then, since you're such a big fan and think they're awesome.

We'll all watch a real conference - the Big East.

Amazes me you continue to defend that piss poor conference we use to be in. It was terrible.

The C-USA of today no longer has most of those (high quality) teams.

Please re-read and try to comprehend the difference.

In 2006 and 2007, the average RPI for C-USA was 12th (best conference) by www.kenpom.com Ken Pomeroy ratings.

From 1999 through 2005, the average RPI for C-USA was 7th (best conference) with UC, Louisville, DePaul, Marquette (etc) in it.

From 1999 through 2005, the average RPI for BEast was 4th (best conference).

In 2006 and 2007, the average RPI for BEast was 3rd (best conference) with addition of UC, Louisville, Marquette, DePaul, etc.

[Bearcat Cafe]

You are right. C-USA was awesome.


j/k: that conference was painful to watch if UC wasn't playing. Sometimes painful even if UC was playing. Al's at it again.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

You are right. C-USA was awesome.


j/k: that conference was painful to watch if UC wasn't playing. Sometimes painful even if UC was playing. Al's at it again.

UC, Louisville, Marquette, DePaul, Charlotte, Memphis, UAB were all C-USA and pretty good teams.

[Mick's Da Man]

UC, Louisville, Marquette, DePaul, Charlotte, Memphis, UAB were all C-USA and pretty good teams.

You're kidding, right?

UAB is a far better team now than they ever were when we were in CUSA. Charlotte was only good when they played us. They always choked against everyone else.

UC, L'ville, Marquette (under Crean, but not the early days) were good teams. Depaul was a joke under Fat Kennedy. Memphis was a joke at times too, especially under Finch.

Honestly, until Pitino got to L'ville, the Crum teams were declining. Memphis was okay......had some really good years but seeing how they were our whipping boy for most years before Calipari, I don't have much respect for them either.

I mean, seriously, Huggs had it easy with some of the crappy coaches in the conference - a declining Crum, Larry Finch, Fat Kennedy, the Marquette coach before Crean, and that pathetic coach at UAB who stuck around too long. It was a weak coaching league. Nothing like the Big East.

It just wasn't as strong as you want to think. And there is a huge difference between the top 6 conferences and the next 6 conferences, no matter what you say. But spin it however you want.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

No - those are good basketball teams.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I mean, seriously, Huggs had it easy with some of the crappy coaches in the conference - a declining Crum, Larry Finch, Fat Kennedy, the Marquette coach before Crean, and that pathetic coach at UAB who stuck around too long. It was a weak coaching league. Nothing like the Big East.

Ah, the Huggins Hatred.

I enjoyed winning 3 out of every 4 games UC played from 1990 through 2006.

(420-140)

[SLMadiCat]

No - those are good basketball teams.

Sorry, those blanket statements with no supporting facts don't work.

DePaul finished in dead last place in their division for the first three years of CUSA. Those records: 11-18, 3-23, and 7-23, respectively. They were 12-18 in 2000-01, 9-19 in 2001-02. Hardly a good teams. They had maybe one or two good years in CUSA.

Marquette was 14-15 in 98-99, 15-14 in 99-00, and 00-01 and 19-12 in 03-04. Mix that in with some good years and that makes an okay team in CUSA. Not great, not bad. Better in their later years under Crean.

UAB was 16-14 in 95-96, 18-14 in 96-97, 14-14 in 99-00, 17-14 in 00-01, 13-17 in 01-02 with a few good years (not great) mixed in.

Charlotte 14-15 in 95-96, 17-15 in 99-00, 18-12 in 01-02, 13-16 in 02-03 with some good years mixed in. Decent program overall for CUSA, nothing special.

I'll give you Louisville and Memphis, although both teams had some bad years (UL was 12-20 in 97-98 and 12-19 in 00-01, mix that in with some 18-19 win seasons; Memphis had two losing seasons back to back from 98-00). Louisville and Memphis have become very good teams of late under Pintino and Calipari.

And as a final note, all records mentioned above come against such teams as Southern Miss, USF, Houston and Tulane. Sorry for the long post but someone needed a fact-check about the strength of CUSA. There is a reason why being in the Big East should help in recruiting: it is a much better conference.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

http://kenpom.com/rpi.php

At the link are RPI by team or conference going back to 1999.

UC, Louisville, Memphis, Marquette, DePaul, Charlotte, UAB were good teams in C-USA.

[SLMadiCat]

http://kenpom.com/rpi.php

At the link are RPI by team or conference going back to 1999.

UC, Louisville, Memphis, Marquette, DePaul, Charlotte, UAB were good teams in C-USA.

You must have posted that thinking nobody would look at it.

Year - Ranking
99 - 6th
00 - 5th
01 - 10th
02 - 8th
03 - 8th
04 - 5th

Not very good considering the best years they were only the 5th best conference. That doesn't even include the earlier years. I've now made my point twice. Should be pretty clear to you by now.

Edit: Is there any way these posts can be moved to a separate thread. They have nothing to do with Morgan. Then again, I've made my point and I'm done arguing about this. It's pretty clear.

[jkwuc89]

The RPI is just one of many tools used by the NCAA tournament selection committee to select and seed teams. But, I don't think it can be used as a clear barometer for measuring teams against each other. That is one of the great things about college basketball. Rankings put together by people or by computers or both are not used to select the champion. Champions are determined on the court.

Getting back to UC's record over the past 15 or so years, while it is certainly true that there were some competitive teams in the GMW and C-USA (more so in the GMW), the bottom half of C-USA often times was complete rubbish. I seem to remember a long stretch when C-USA was in two divisions where UC simply did not lose to teams in the National division of C-USA. Back in the days of the e-mail forums, we used to refer to this division as the Sun Belt division (and that was NOT a complement).

[james jr]

Ah, the Huggins Hatred.

I enjoyed winning 3 out of every 4 games UC played from 1990 through 2006.

(420-140)

We had a great era 1990-2006 which due to multiple circumstances was comimg to an end. Now we should be looking forward to a great new era!

[Mick's Da Man]

The RPI is just one of many tools used by the NCAA tournament selection committee to select and seed teams. But, I don't think it can be used as a clear barometer for measuring teams against each other. That is one of the great things about college basketball. Rankings put together by people or by computers or both are not used to select the champion. Champions are determined on the court.

Getting back to UC's record over the past 15 or so years, while it is certainly true that there were some competitive teams in the GMW and C-USA (more so in the GMW), the bottom half of C-USA often times was complete rubbish. I seem to remember a long stretch when C-USA was in two divisions where UC simply did not lose to teams in the National division of C-USA. Back in the days of the e-mail forums, we used to refer to this division as the Sun Belt division (and that was NOT a complement).

To paraphrase, Huggs was beating crap teams.

Let's move on.

[Mick's Da Man]

Sorry, those blanket statements with no supporting facts don't work.

DePaul finished in dead last place in their division for the first three years of CUSA. Those records: 11-18, 3-23, and 7-23, respectively. They were 12-18 in 2000-01, 9-19 in 2001-02. Hardly a good teams. They had maybe one or two good years in CUSA.

Marquette was 14-15 in 98-99, 15-14 in 99-00, and 00-01 and 19-12 in 03-04. Mix that in with some good years and that makes an okay team in CUSA. Not great, not bad. Better in their later years under Crean.

UAB was 16-14 in 95-96, 18-14 in 96-97, 14-14 in 99-00, 17-14 in 00-01, 13-17 in 01-02 with a few good years (not great) mixed in.

Charlotte 14-15 in 95-96, 17-15 in 99-00, 18-12 in 01-02, 13-16 in 02-03 with some good years mixed in. Decent program overall for CUSA, nothing special.

I'll give you Louisville and Memphis, although both teams had some bad years (UL was 12-20 in 97-98 and 12-19 in 00-01, mix that in with some 18-19 win seasons; Memphis had two losing seasons back to back from 98-00). Louisville and Memphis have become very good teams of late under Pintino and Calipari.

And as a final note, all records mentioned above come against such teams as Southern Miss, USF, Houston and Tulane. Sorry for the long post but someone needed a fact-check about the strength of CUSA. There is a reason why being in the Big East should help in recruiting: it is a much better conference.

Great post that should end all debate except for the people losing their minds. ;)

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

The RPI is just one of many tools used by the NCAA tournament selection committee to select and seed teams. But, I don't think it can be used as a clear barometer for measuring teams against each other. That is one of the great things about college basketball. Rankings put together by people or by computers or both are not used to select the champion. Champions are determined on the court.

Getting back to UC's record over the past 15 or so years, while it is certainly true that there were some competitive teams in the GMW and C-USA (more so in the GMW), the bottom half of C-USA often times was complete rubbish. I seem to remember a long stretch when C-USA was in two divisions where UC simply did not lose to teams in the National division of C-USA. Back in the days of the e-mail forums, we used to refer to this division as the Sun Belt division (and that was NOT a complement).

http://kenpom.com/rate.php Here is link to ratings (not RPI) going back through 1999. SOS also listed.

The bottom half of the Big East is nothing to write home about, either.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

To paraphrase, Huggs was beating crap teams.

Let's move on.

http://kenpom.com/rate.php Link has SOS each year going back to 1999. You'll find interesting SOS numbers through 2006.

Enjoy reading it, Al.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

We had a great era 1990-2006 which due to multiple circumstances was comimg to an end. Now we should be looking forward to a great new era!

Sure hope so. I remember the enthusiam of the mid 1970's and mid 1980's but no great new era was forthcoming.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Sorry, those blanket statements with no supporting facts don't work.

DePaul finished in dead last place in their division for the first three years of CUSA. Those records: 11-18, 3-23, and 7-23, respectively. They were 12-18 in 2000-01, 9-19 in 2001-02. Hardly a good teams. They had maybe one or two good years in CUSA.

Marquette was 14-15 in 98-99, 15-14 in 99-00, and 00-01 and 19-12 in 03-04. Mix that in with some good years and that makes an okay team in CUSA. Not great, not bad. Better in their later years under Crean.

UAB was 16-14 in 95-96, 18-14 in 96-97, 14-14 in 99-00, 17-14 in 00-01, 13-17 in 01-02 with a few good years (not great) mixed in.

Charlotte 14-15 in 95-96, 17-15 in 99-00, 18-12 in 01-02, 13-16 in 02-03 with some good years mixed in. Decent program overall for CUSA, nothing special.

I'll give you Louisville and Memphis, although both teams had some bad years (UL was 12-20 in 97-98 and 12-19 in 00-01, mix that in with some 18-19 win seasons; Memphis had two losing seasons back to back from 98-00). Louisville and Memphis have become very good teams of late under Pintino and Calipari.

And as a final note, all records mentioned above come against such teams as Southern Miss, USF, Houston and Tulane. Sorry for the long post but someone needed a fact-check about the strength of CUSA. There is a reason why being in the Big East should help in recruiting: it is a much better conference.


Facts? 58 don't need no stinking facts. :D

That was a very average conference with one team that consistantly put up good numbers. The south end of that conference was dreadful year in and year out. Complete patsies.

[SLMadiCat]

Sure hope so. I remember the enthusiam of the mid 1970's and mid 1980's but no great new era was forthcoming.

Were you a killjoy then too, talking about how great the 50's and 60's were and reminding everyone that Jucker is no longer the coach?

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Were you a killjoy then too, talking about how great the 50's and 60's were and reminding everyone that Jucker is no longer the coach?

Nope. There was enthusiasm with Baker, Catlett, and Yates but nothing came of it. Never was much enthusiasm with Badger.

Little expected under Huggins at first. But then...

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Facts? 58 don't need no stinking facts. :D

That was a very average conference with one team that consistantly put up good numbers. The south end of that conference was dreadful year in and year out. Complete patsies.

I gave the conference RPI numbers from 1999 through 2005. C-USA averaged 6th best conference those 7 years. Big East averaged 4th best conference those years.

Those ARE facts. C-USA was better than many think in those years.

[jkwuc89]

The somewhat decent RPI ranking for C-USA does not hide the fact that the bottom half of this conference contained a lot of pansies like East Carolina, Southern Miss and South Florida.

[jeffto]

This is a "waste of time" thread.

[Bearcat Cafe]

I gave the conference RPI numbers from 1999 through 2005. C-USA averaged 6th best conference those 7 years. Big East averaged 4th best conference those years.

Those ARE facts. C-USA was better than many think in those years.

You need to change your name to Subjective Fan Since 1958.

[Bearcat_DF]

I gave the conference RPI numbers from 1999 through 2005. C-USA averaged 6th best conference those 7 years. Big East averaged 4th best conference those years.

Those ARE facts. C-USA was better than many think in those years.

First - your facts. I am at a loss where you get your facts. Here are the facts I found at www.kenpom.com.

99 BE - 5; CUSA 6 (looking good for your argument)
00 BE - 4; CUSA 5
01 BE - 4; CUSA 10 (ouch)
02 BE - 4; CUSA 8
03 BE - 4; CUSA 8
04 BE - 3; CUSA 5
05 BE - 2; CUSA 9 (ouch)

avg BE - 3.7; CUSA 7.3

So, your facts do not appear to be correct.

Second, even with your facts, you just proved the BE was a better conference than C-USA from 1999-2005.
I thought that is what you were arguing against?????

And now, the BE has four of the most competitive teams from the C-USA (of that period) which I think would make it even better than what C-USA was then.

So, I think that you just cited the facts for the argument that the BE (current) is a much better conference than C-USA (1999-2005).

Finally, I think your facts prove what most of us think - C-USA was the 7th best conference, just outside of the BCS conferences. It was a good conference; it wasn't a great conference. The BE was and is a great conference.

Go Cats!
DF

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

This is a "waste of time" thread.

I agree wholeheartedly. Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's past history.

[richard k.]

Nothing wrong with a little look back at history, after all he who disregards it is doomed to repeat it, and it's fun to remember the good, and not so good times, but too much is too much, and not everything that happened in the past is automatically a harbinger of the future. What I don't understand about this whole thread is no one is arguing that the BEast isn't better than C-USA (now or when UC was a member) - what seems to be the jist of what is going on is some people are arguing over just how much better. One conference is, and has been, a BCS - high major conference and the other one isn't and wasn't. Isn't that enough to say?

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

First - your facts. I am at a loss where you get your facts. Here are the facts I found at www.kenpom.com.

99 BE - 5; CUSA 6 (looking good for your argument)
00 BE - 4; CUSA 5
01 BE - 4; CUSA 10 (ouch)
02 BE - 4; CUSA 8
03 BE - 4; CUSA 8
04 BE - 3; CUSA 5
05 BE - 2; CUSA 9 (ouch)

avg BE - 3.7; CUSA 7.3

So, your facts do not appear to be correct.

Second, even with your facts, you just proved the BE was a better conference than C-USA from 1999-2005.
I thought that is what you were arguing against?????

And now, the BE has four of the most competitive teams from the C-USA (of that period) which I think would make it even better than what C-USA was then.

So, I think that you just cited the facts for the argument that the BE (current) is a much better conference than C-USA (1999-2005).

Finally, I think your facts prove what most of us think - C-USA was the 7th best conference, just outside of the BCS conferences. It was a good conference; it wasn't a great conference. The BE was and is a great conference.

Go Cats!
DF

My point (a long time ago) was and still is the C-USA was better than some here remember. And B-East not as good as some here think.

Actually you proved my point. There are numerous (about 20) conferences listed. BE is about #4. C-USA about #7 (I thought #6). Most folks that 6 and 7 are pretty close.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

The somewhat decent RPI ranking for C-USA does not hide the fact that the bottom half of this conference contained a lot of pansies like East Carolina, Southern Miss and South Florida.

Check the year-by-year RPI ratings by conference. It lists the worst (bottom feeders) in each. You'll find bottom feeders in both conferences.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Nothing wrong with a little look back at history, after all he who disregards it is doomed to repeat it, and it's fun to remember the good, and not so good times, but too much is too much, and not everything that happened in the past is automatically a harbinger of the future. What I don't understand about this whole thread is no one is arguing that the BEast isn't better than C-USA (now or when UC was a member) - what seems to be the jist of what is going on is some people are arguing over just how much better. One conference is, and has been, a BCS - high major conference and the other one isn't and wasn't. Isn't that enough to say?

Read some of the old News Record issues from the 1960's (that Dr Jon B linked).

Some UC fans then were bemoaning the MVC and hankering for a switch to the MAC.

[waterhead]

First - your facts. I am at a loss where you get your facts. Here are the facts I found at www.kenpom.com.

99 BE - 5; CUSA 6 (looking good for your argument)
00 BE - 4; CUSA 5
01 BE - 4; CUSA 10 (ouch)
02 BE - 4; CUSA 8
03 BE - 4; CUSA 8
04 BE - 3; CUSA 5
05 BE - 2; CUSA 9 (ouch)

avg BE - 3.7; CUSA 7.3

So, your facts do not appear to be correct.

Second, even with your facts, you just proved the BE was a better conference than C-USA from 1999-2005.
I thought that is what you were arguing against?????

And now, the BE has four of the most competitive teams from the C-USA (of that period) which I think would make it even better than what C-USA was then.

So, I think that you just cited the facts for the argument that the BE (current) is a much better conference than C-USA (1999-2005).

Finally, I think your facts prove what most of us think - C-USA was the 7th best conference, just outside of the BCS conferences. It was a good conference; it wasn't a great conference. The BE was and is a great conference.

Go Cats!
DF

Good break down! There is no doubt today's BEAST is light years ahead of the old CUSA. There is such a large gap I would say they are incomparable. Now the old BEAST and the old CUSA are comparable. The BEAST would still win by a pretty good margin but CUSA was the best conference outside of the Big 6 back then "on average". I think we all would have argued that point when we were in that conference...no? Now I think we can all argue that the BEAST has enough fire power to be the #1 conference in the land and that is light years ahead of #7 conference.

I think the only difference between the bottom feeders in each league is that some teams in CUSA were always bottom feeders and the teams in the bottom of the BEAST change more often and there are less of the permanent bottom feeders.

[jeffto]

According to Mike DeCourcy (9/28): "The expanded Big East is such a beast that gaining traction and breaking into the upper echelon may be more difficult than in any other league."

I doubt anyone ever wrote that about the CUSA.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I'll forget the 60's -- another era making comparisons difficult. But this schedule is much more difficult than those of other periods. No UC team has had to play 18 games in a conference comparable to the BE. And the pre-conference portion is also difficult with 5 tough games in a row, 4 of them on the road.

The 2000 UC schedule was rated 5th toughest in the nation.

http://kenpom.com/rpi.php?y=2000

[tophat]

The 2000 UC schedule was rated 5th toughest in the nation.

http://kenpom.com/rpi.php?y=2000

Based on the flawed RPI index. I'll give Huggs credit, he knew how to game the RPI better than anybody.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Based on the flawed RPI index. I'll give Huggs credit, he knew how to game the RPI better than anybody.

http://kenpom.com/sked.php?&y=2000&team=Cincinnati It was a tough schedule.

[tophat]

http://kenpom.com/sked.php?&y=2000&team=Cincinnati It was a tough schedule.

Right. And what was CUSA's power rating that year?

[bearcatmark]

The Bearcats played an excellent schedule that year. They beat dominated Marcus Fizer's Iowa State squad that was widely regarded as the 2nd best team in the country at seasons end(behind Michigan State). They dominate Okahoma. They beat an NCAA tourney bound St Louis team by 44 when healthy. They completely dominated conference USA...yea it was no big east but their side of the league was very tough.

Not giving that team credit for the schedule they played is pretty disgraceful.

But lets not hijack this thread with that load of BS. Lets continue to talk about the team we have now.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Right. And what was CUSA's power rating that year?

2000 College Basketball RPI by Conference


Average Avg Non-Conf Average Rankings of Members
Rnk Conference W-L Pct Overall RPI SOS (Rank) Non-Conf RPI Hi Lo Avg Median
1 Southeastern Conference 115-35 .767 .5739 .5038 (14) .5704 ( 2) 4 164 57 42
2 Big Ten Conference 90-39 .698 .5635 .5290 ( 2) .5727 ( 1) 13 251 67 32
3 Big XII Conference 100-40 .714 .5614 .5144 ( 6) .5646 ( 5) 6 194 78 55
4 Big East Conference 114-46 .713 .5603 .5083 ( 9) .5600 ( 6) 5 175 72 64
5 Conference USA 100-46 .685 .5583 .5264 ( 3) .5654 ( 4) 1 182 74 64

[qsilvr2531]

2000 College Basketball Sagarin Rankings by Conference

1 ATLANTIC COAST = 85.44 85.06 ( 1) 9
2 BIG TEN = 84.23 84.04 ( 2) 11
3 SOUTHEASTERN = 83.76 83.87 ( 3) 12
4 PACIFIC-10 = 82.53 82.76 ( 4) 10
5 BIG 12 = 80.31 80.11 ( 5) 12
6 BIG EAST = 80.01 79.83 ( 6) 14
7 WESTERN ATHLETIC = 78.52 78.44 ( 7) 9
8 CONFERENCE USA = 78.36 77.93 ( 8) 12


Cincinnati's schedule ranked 46th that year in the Sagarin rankings.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkc0001.htm

[tophat]

The Bearcats played an excellent schedule that year. They beat dominated Marcus Fizer's Iowa State squad that was widely regarded as the 2nd best team in the country at seasons end(behind Michigan State). They dominate Okahoma. They beat an NCAA tourney bound St Louis team by 44 when healthy. They completely dominated conference USA...yea it was no big east but their side of the league was very tough.

Not giving that team credit for the schedule they played is pretty disgraceful.

But lets not hijack this thread with that load of BS. Lets continue to talk about the team we have now.

It's not about the 2000 team. It's about the schedules. CUSA in 2000 had a UL team in the dying days of Crum, Marquette before Crean, Memphis before Calipari, Depaul in its typical underperforming mode, etc. Prior to the Dwayne Wade Marquette team, no CUSA team did anything in the NCAA (not recalling if we were in CUSA in 96), and even his team got blown out when it finally reached the FF. No one in his right mind would compare a CUSA schedule to a BE schedule in difficulty.

[Bp4thebest]

Are you serious? An 18 win season in the Big East gets you a marginal chance at the NCAA tourney. A 25 win season in CUSA gets you a 2-4 seed. Isn't that they key.

u r right but like he said.. ppl dont understand that including the committee.. for example stokes senior year the team won 18 games... got in as an 8 seed.. that team would be lucky to have 15 in this con... and as for those 25 win teams we had.. they maybe would win 20 here.. they were real good but never played these teams... there is maybe 2 easy games a year in this con maybe we use to play teams like tulane... **** so miss was sorta a big game and depaul was a huge game.. not so much anymore... makes you wounder how good the team hicks was on winning 19 games.. they had no bench and still competed in this con

[Mick's Da Man]

One CUSA ranking of 5th or 6th every 5 years does not make a good conference. It was a wannabe conference that the good teams could trounce the bottom 2/3's year in and out and pad their win totals.

The fact is, since about 1996 or 1997, UC hasn't done squat in the tournament, even with a school record 31-4 season.

Most people with intelligence realize that they didn't play much competition during the season to prepare them for the tournament. Also, they had good enough players to trounce a 6th rated to 10th rated conference, but not good enough for the big dawgs in the Big Dance. Heck, last year's team probably would have been .500 in CUSA.

Bearcat Fan since 1958, it's your opinion CUSA was better than people give it credit for. But obviously there are many on this board that don't miss it at all.

I'll take 21-25 wins in the Big East over 25-30 wins in CUSA any day of the week. The team will be better prepared and obviously would have far better talent than we're used to in comparison to the Huggins years. No way most of Huggins teams do that well in the Big East except for a few of them. And in 15 seasons, that's not saying much.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

One CUSA ranking of 5th or 6th every 5 years does not make a good conference. It was a wannabe conference that the good teams could trounce the bottom 2/3's year in and out and pad their win totals.

The fact is, since about 1996 or 1997, UC hasn't done squat in the tournament, even with a school record 31-4 season.

Most people with intelligence realize that they didn't play much competition during the season to prepare them for the tournament. Also, they had good enough players to trounce a 6th rated to 10th rated conference, but not good enough for the big dawgs in the Big Dance. Heck, last year's team probably would have been .500 in CUSA.

Bearcat Fan since 1958, it's your opinion CUSA was better than people give it credit for. But obviously there are many on this board that don't miss it at all.

I'll take 21-25 wins in the Big East over 25-30 wins in CUSA any day of the week. The team will be better prepared and obviously would have far better talent than we're used to in comparison to the Huggins years. No way most of Huggins teams do that well in the Big East except for a few of them. And in 15 seasons, that's not saying much.

I agree - Andy Kennedy winning 21 games vs BEast schedule with depleted roster in 2006 was amazing.

I don't see any evidence of UC winning 21-25 games in BEast since. Not yet anyway.

Most of the UC teams of those (1990-2005) years would do well in the BEast, too. They had talent (numerous NBA caliber players) and played hard in games.

[SLMadiCat]

I agree - Andy Kennedy winning 21 games vs BEast schedule with depleted roster in 2006 was amazing.


That roster was definately not depleted. It was a dissapointment that they did not make it into the NCAA's. Even more of a dissapointment was the NIT and what happened off the court.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

That roster was definately not depleted. It was a dissapointment that they did not make it into the NCAA's. Even more of a dissapointment was the NIT and what happened off the court.

Depleted in numbers. Certainly some talent. But nowhere near typical for UC.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Depleted in numbers. Certainly some talent. But nowhere near typical for UC.

## Player GP GS Pts Avg FG FGA Pct 3FG FGA Pct FT FTA Pct Off Def Tot Avg PF FO A TO Blk Stl Tot Avg
21 White, James 33 33 537 16.3 177 363 .488 49 131 .374 134 160 .838 42 125 167 5.1 89 1 67 77 28 36 1104 33.5

14 Hicks, Eric 34 34 511 15.0 192 401 .479 13 27 .481 114 173 .659 148 181 329 9.7 78 1 29 53 113 19 1169 34.4

03 Downey, Devan 34 31 403 11.9 147 369 .398 19 67 .284 90 117 .769 20 73 93 2.7 74 0 147 78 7 65 1051 30.9

13 Muhammad, Jihad 33 15 355 10.8 127 329 .386 66 192 .344 35 43 .814 24 69 93 2.8 77 3 72 61 9 36 888 26.9

33 Kirkland, Armein 16 15 155 9.7 51 145 .352 19 62 .306 34 43 .791 17 38 55 3.4 32 1 34 26 10 9 450 28.1

30 McGowan, Cedric 34 33 288 8.5 115 260 .442 11 45 .244 47 68 .691 77 168 245 7.2 71 0 32 30 11 29 963 28.3

01 Moore, Chadd 28 7 104 3.7 37 102 .363 15 57 .263 15 20 .750 8 47 55 2.0 58 2 55 34 5 27 546 19.5

02 Tilford, Domonic 22 0 55 2.5 20 51 .392 6 22 .273 9 13 .692 4 5 9 0.4 14 0 14 12 0 4 158 7.2

23 Allen, Ronald 33 2 80 2.4 28 63 .444 11 27 .407 13 18 .722 29 23 52 1.6 45 0 1 14 4 6 240 7.3

51 Barwin, Connor 18 0 18 1.0 7 18 .389 0 2 .000 4 5 .800 16 24 40 2.2 21 0 4 5 3 2 179 9.9

20 Miller, Branden 12 0 6 0.5 2 5 .400 1 4 .250 1 2 .500 2 4 6 0.5 1 0 0 3 2 0 24

[tophat]

Kennedy did a great job with the 06 team, but he also had excellent talent to work with. Quality is far more important than quantity. Hicks, White and Kirk were all primed to have big senior years; Muhammed was vastly improved and a senior and Downey was the most electric PG we'd had in a long time. As long as they could avoid foul trouble and injuries they were fine without the numbers, as coach K demonstrated with some of his Duke teams. They struggled after Kirk's injury, as one would expect. What Cronin's had to coach can't even begin to compare with that combo of talent and experience.

[SLMadiCat]

## Player GP GS Pts Avg FG FGA Pct 3FG FGA Pct FT FTA Pct Off Def Tot Avg PF FO A TO Blk Stl Tot Avg
21 White, James 33 33 537 16.3 177 363 .488 49 131 .374 134 160 .838 42 125 167 5.1 89 1 67 77 28 36 1104 33.5

14 Hicks, Eric 34 34 511 15.0 192 401 .479 13 27 .481 114 173 .659 148 181 329 9.7 78 1 29 53 113 19 1169 34.4

03 Downey, Devan 34 31 403 11.9 147 369 .398 19 67 .284 90 117 .769 20 73 93 2.7 74 0 147 78 7 65 1051 30.9

13 Muhammad, Jihad 33 15 355 10.8 127 329 .386 66 192 .344 35 43 .814 24 69 93 2.8 77 3 72 61 9 36 888 26.9

33 Kirkland, Armein 16 15 155 9.7 51 145 .352 19 62 .306 34 43 .791 17 38 55 3.4 32 1 34 26 10 9 450 28.1

30 McGowan, Cedric 34 33 288 8.5 115 260 .442 11 45 .244 47 68 .691 77 168 245 7.2 71 0 32 30 11 29 963 28.3

01 Moore, Chadd 28 7 104 3.7 37 102 .363 15 57 .263 15 20 .750 8 47 55 2.0 58 2 55 34 5 27 546 19.5

02 Tilford, Domonic 22 0 55 2.5 20 51 .392 6 22 .273 9 13 .692 4 5 9 0.4 14 0 14 12 0 4 158 7.2

23 Allen, Ronald 33 2 80 2.4 28 63 .444 11 27 .407 13 18 .722 29 23 52 1.6 45 0 1 14 4 6 240 7.3

51 Barwin, Connor 18 0 18 1.0 7 18 .389 0 2 .000 4 5 .800 16 24 40 2.2 21 0 4 5 3 2 179 9.9

20 Miller, Branden 12 0 6 0.5 2 5 .400 1 4 .250 1 2 .500 2 4 6 0.5 1 0 0 3 2 0 24

Not sure what this is and frankly, don't feel like reading through it. Bottom line is, that team had a good amount of talent. Not top-10 talent, but an NCAA tourny talent, which they didn't achieve.

[SLMadiCat]

Depleted in numbers. Certainly some talent. But nowhere near typical for UC.

Maybe not typical, but I wouldn't call a lack of numbers atypical for UC, especially in the past 10 years. However, the argument was depleted, which they were certainly not.

[Bp4thebest]

bottom line.. c usa isnt a fouth of what the big east is and if u can get in with a 6 seed or higher out of the big east it shows u r extremely dangerous.. if uc was a six seed out of c usa i wouldnt be as optimistic!

[Thegreatone]

The BE prepares people for the tourny. We need to get the "basketball" players in, not the atheletes that Huggins was in love with. Atheletes dont get it done in the Tourny. Ask Huggs and John Calipari about that. A balence is preferred but I will take 5 undersized basketball players over 5 atheletes anyday.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Not sure what this is and frankly, don't feel like reading through it. Bottom line is, that team had a good amount of talent. Not top-10 talent, but an NCAA tourny talent, which they didn't achieve.

The 2006 Bearcat team. 11 players, 9 on scholarship and 2 walk-ons.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Maybe not typical, but I wouldn't call a lack of numbers atypical for UC, especially in the past 10 years. However, the argument was depleted, which they were certainly not.

Indeed they absolutely were. 9 players on scholarship. UC typically had 12 or 13 scholarship players up until 2005.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

The BE prepares people for the tourny. We need to get the "basketball" players in, not the atheletes that Huggins was in love with. Atheletes dont get it done in the Tourny. Ask Huggs and John Calipari about that. A balence is preferred but I will take 5 undersized basketball players over 5 atheletes anyday.

UC won 20 NCAA games from 1992 through 2005. Fewer than 10 teams won that many NCAA games in that timeframe. UC has only won 20 NCAA games IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY outside the 1992-2005 era.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Indeed they absolutely were. 9 players on scholarship. UC typically had 12 or 13 scholarship players up until 2005.

Depends on how you count scholarships.

2004 they had 10 because Lucas switched from walk-on status to scholarship. 12 if you actually count the 2 wasted scholarships for Vincent Banks and Mike Pilgrim.

2003 they had 10 (see above with Lucas). 12 with Souley redshirting and Pilgrim failing to make the grade.

2002 they actually had 12..however two were the inexplicabile Derrick Hollman and Jimmy Hubbbard.

2001 they had 11.

2000 they had 11.

[Bearcat_DF]

Maybe not typical, but I wouldn't call a lack of numbers atypical for UC, especially in the past 10 years. However, the argument was depleted, which they were certainly not.

Let's look at the rotation for that year, especially after Kirkland's injury 1 month into the season - the beginning of the BE schedule:

Downey, Jihad, and Moore
James White
McGowan, Hicks, and Barwin

To compare this 7 man rotation to Duke 7-man rotation is ludicrous.
Five of those players (Barwin, Moore, Jihad, Downey and McGowan wouldn't even make the Duke bench . . .)

All I have to do is look at Eric Hicks - supported by McGowan and Barwin and it is obvious, this team was depleted.

It was a common observation that for the big games - UC was showing up to a gun fight with knives.

That team was incredible and most of that is attributed to the senior leadership, but let's not try to re-write history.

In terms of numbers and talent, this team was depleted.

Go Cats!
DF

[SLMadiCat]

Let's look at the rotation for that year, especially after Kirkland's injury 1 month into the season - the beginning of the BE schedule:

Downey, Jihad, and Moore
James White
McGowan, Hicks, and Barwin

To compare this 7 man rotation to Duke 7-man rotation is ludicrous.
Five of those players (Barwin, Moore, Jihad, Downey and McGowan wouldn't even make the Duke bench . . .)

All I have to do is look at Eric Hicks - supported by McGowan and Barwin and it is obvious, this team was depleted.

It was a common observation that for the big games - UC was showing up to a gun fight with knives.

That team was incredible and most of that is attributed to the senior leadership, but let's not try to re-write history.

In terms of numbers and talent, this team was depleted.

Go Cats!
DF

Man am I thoroughly confused by this post. You quote mine and say to compare UC's team to Duke is ludicrous. Who is comparing them to Duke?
And who is re-writing history? I'm re-writing history because I said the team was not depleted?

That team was short on numbers, but not even close to being depleted. Even after they lost Kirkland, they still weren't depleted.

[Thegreatone]

Bearcat Fan are you really going to argue that we did well in the tournament during Huggins reign. One year 1992, besides that we underachieved completely! I know you love Huggs but the man was not a great X and O's coach, he was a great motivater and recruiter. The tournament is when basketball players and coaches carry you through. We have no business losing some of those tournament games.

[Bearcat_DF]

Man am I thoroughly confused by this post. You quote mine and say to compare UC's team to Duke is ludicrous. Who is comparing them to Duke?
And who is re-writing history? I'm re-writing history because I said the team was not depleted?

That team was short on numbers, but not even close to being depleted. Even after they lost Kirkland, they still weren't depleted.


I'm curious of what your definition of deplete would be?

Just look at the front line - Hicks, McGowan and Barwin. The tallest player is what 6'5? 6'6? Hicks is the only legit BE players. McGowan ended not even able to start for last years team that came in last in the BE. Barwin was a football player.

So on the front line - you have one undersized center playing out of position; and two undersized roll players.

Again, what is your definition of depleted?

So yes, I think you are re-writing history by saying they weren't depleted. I think during the season the main story line was how UC was overachieving with an undermanned team.

And though you didn't compare them to Duke, someone else in the thread did. Tophat said -
Kennedy did a great job with the 06 team, but he also had excellent talent to work with. Quality is far more important than quantity. Hicks, White and Kirk were all primed to have big senior years; Muhammed was vastly improved and a senior and Downey was the most electric PG we'd had in a long time. As long as they could avoid foul trouble and injuries they were fine without the numbers, as coach K demonstrated with some of his Duke teams. They struggled after Kirk's injury, as one would expect. What Cronin's had to coach can't even begin to compare with that combo of talent and experience.

Go Cats!
df

[jkwuc89]

Citing the "total games won in the NCAA tournament" in my opinion is an attempt to spin multiple early exits in a positive light.

I am not discounting the long string of consecutive trips to the NCAA. This is certainly a great achievement. But UC's performance in the NCAA tourney can justifiably be qualified as disappointing. Matter of fact, UC's string of early exits led many prognosticators to predict UC to be the first #1 seed to be eliminated in the 2002 tournament. Unfortunately, they were right.

Getting to the NCAA tourney and advancing to the 2nd round may be good enough for mid majors. But, it should not be good enough for an elite team.

I would gladly trade just one national title for every tourney bid that ended in an early exit.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

Why are we arguing about this? Both conferences are part of UC's history, and both have their good points. If not for Conference USA, Metro, Mo Val, etc. etc....we wouldn't be the program we are today. This is a silly argument, and, one which neither side can prove.

[jeffto]

Why are we arguing about this? Both conferences are part of UC's history, and both have their good points. If not for Conference USA, Metro, Mo Val, etc. etc....we wouldn't be the program we are today. This is a silly argument, and, one which neither side can prove.

I agree. We've rehashed this to death (I wish!)

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Citing the "total games won in the NCAA tournament" in my opinion is an attempt to spin multiple early exits in a positive light.

I am not discounting the long string of consecutive trips to the NCAA. This is certainly a great achievement. But UC's performance in the NCAA tourney can justifiably be qualified as disappointing. Matter of fact, UC's string of early exits led many prognosticators to predict UC to be the first #1 seed to be eliminated in the 2002 tournament. Unfortunately, they were right.

Getting to the NCAA tourney and advancing to the 2nd round may be good enough for mid majors. But, it should not be good enough for an elite team.

I would gladly trade just one national title for every tourney bid that ended in an early exit.


UC made 4 NCAA appearances between 1963 and 1992. (2-5 record)

I'd gladly trade a few 2nd round L for such mediocrity over (nearly) 30 years.