Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just watched George Mason beat UNC. UNCW gave GW all they could handle. Actually GW was lucky to win that game. I saw a thread where some posters on the A10 board thought the A10 was better than the Missouri Valley , which isn’t even close the Valley is definitely better. The A10 has some real dead wood at the bottom in Duquesne and St Bonaventure and how good can the league be if Fordham had a winning record in that league. At any rate you can make a very good case that the CAA has passed the A10
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
I would consider the fact the CAA/A-10 thing to be a one year blip, similar to the AE having a better year than the MAAC last year.

That said, while I am making comparisons, the A-10 does not really function as a league and in the long run that will hurt and drag their performance down (as will the 'dead wood' that Tony pointed out). How in the hell, for example, did Georgia State get in the league? Conversely, the CAA makes sense as a league. It is homogonous, with the member schools having much in common, with similiar resources and fan bases. The CAA went to a 12 team league and it makes sense, and the result may be a multiple bid conference; the A-10 went to a 14 team league that makes no sense and it might hurt in the long run

but to directly answer Tony's question, too many better 'programs' in the A-10, and other programs have more upside potential than any CAA school. Sorry, but Temple, St. Joes, UMass, GW, Xavier and Dayton is much much better in the long run than Hofstra and UNCW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
SienaTony said:
Just watched George Mason beat UNC. UNCW gave GW all they could handle. Actually GW was lucky to win that game. I saw a thread where some posters on the A10 board thought the A10 was better than the Missouri Valley , which isn’t even close the Valley is definitely better. The A10 has some real dead wood at the bottom in Duquesne and St Bonaventure and how good can the league be if Fordham had a winning record in that league. At any rate you can make a very good case that the CAA has passed the A10
I think it's reasonable to say that the CAA and A10 are peers in terms of strength, but if you try to take one year in isolation you become like the UAlbany fans who say that they've left Siena in the dust. I don't think of either of them as power conferences, but all three you cite are among the best middie conferences in the country.

SaintlySaint said:
I would consider the fact the CAA/A-10 thing to be a one year blip, similar to the AE having a better year than the MAAC last year.

That said, while I am making comparisons, the A-10 does not really function as a league and in the long run that will hurt and drag their performance down (as will the 'dead wood' that Tony pointed out). How in the hell, for example, did Georgia State get in the league? Conversely, the CAA makes sense as a league. It is homogonous, with the member schools having much in common, with similiar resources and fan bases. The CAA went to a 12 team league and it makes sense, and the result may be a multiple bid conference; the A-10 went to a 14 team league that makes no sense and it might hurt in the long run

but to directly answer Tony's question, too many better 'programs' in the A-10, and other programs have more upside potential than any CAA school. Sorry, but Temple, St. Joes, UMass, GW, Xavier and Dayton is much much better in the long run than Hofstra and UNCW.
I agree a lot with your second point. The A10 and the Big East are to me just big basketball whorehouses whose johns have little or no common threads. Now that geography doesn't even appear to be the common thread (how about Dayton, Xavier and St. Louis being in the "Atlantic" 10 I mean 14)?

On your last point you should be careful. I think that the swings in the strengths of the programs you mention have been notable. I'm not sure if you even graphed the power ratings of the best CAA programs and A10 programs you'd find they were all that dissimilar. I could be wrong about that, but watching Mason out there today I felt like I was watching a Big East club.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
No doubt the top of the CAA is very strong, George Mason, UNCW, Hofstra and VCU are all top-notch programs. Delaware is down right now, but that program is a power house, with a new coach they will be back in no time. The A10 on the other hand seems to be trending downwards. Temple or Umass has not been nationally competitive in quite some time. Maybe a new coach puts Temple back on the map, Duquense and St Bonaventure both have major problems competing at that level. Dukies have gone years without a winning team, SBU has had what 5 winning seasons in the last 20? Fordham and LaSalle both had their first winning seasons in what 10 years? Richmond is down, and Xavier has had a lot of coaching turnover that seems to be catching up with them. GW has a lot of seniors and who knows what Hobbs future is there, I have to imagine he will be in demand. I’m not convinced it’s a one-year aberration for the CAA. We shall see it certainly looks like the CAA is trending up while the A10 is trending down, although I agree it could change. But the A10 is a mishmash of schools with a greatly varying degree of commitment. And sorry after seeing Fordham this year hard to believe they had a winning season in the A10, at least 5 MAAC schools were better IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
SienaTony said:
No doubt the top of the CAA is very strong, George Mason, UNCW, Hofstra and VCU are all top-notch programs. Delaware is down right now, but that program is a power house, with a new coach they will be back in no time. The A10 on the other hand seems to be trending downwards. Temple or Umass has not been nationally competitive in quite some time. Maybe a new coach puts Temple back on the map, Duquense and St Bonaventure both have major problems competing at that level. Dukies have gone years without a winning team, SBU has had what 5 winning seasons in the last 20? Fordham and LaSalle both had their first winning seasons in what 10 years? Richmond is down, and Xavier has had a lot of coaching turnover that seems to be catching up with them. GW has a lot of seniors and who knows what Hobbs future is there, I have to imagine he will be in demand. I’m not convinced it’s a one-year aberration for the CAA. We shall see it certainly looks like the CAA is trending up while the A10 is trending down, although I agree it could change. But the A10 is a mishmash of schools with a greatly varying degree of commitment. And sorry after seeing Fordham this year hard to believe they had a winning season in the A10, at least 5 MAAC schools were better IMO
Don't forget URI, who has had some of the league's biggest accomplishments. Fordham and LaSalle should give up and try to rejoin the MAAC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
Tony, you're take on Delaware is WAY, WAY off. Except for the Mike Brey years, Delaware's basketball program has been mediocre at best. Delaware's focus is on football. That was also true 21 years ago when Delaware tried to hire John Griffin away from Siena. I remember Griffin saying to me that it was a football school and basketball not that important.

There is no basis in history for your view of Delaware basketball.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
SienaTony said:
Just watched George Mason beat UNC. UNCW gave GW all they could handle. Actually GW was lucky to win that game. I saw a thread where some posters on the A10 board thought the A10 was better than the Missouri Valley , which isn’t even close the Valley is definitely better. The A10 has some real dead wood at the bottom in Duquesne and St Bonaventure and how good can the league be if Fordham had a winning record in that league. At any rate you can make a very good case that the CAA has passed the A10
Further proving my point that the committee made the right selection in picking George Mason for the at-large over Hofstra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
ARCRat said:
Don't forget URI, who has had some of the league's biggest accomplishments. Fordham and LaSalle should give up and try to rejoin the MAAC.
The CAA was a better league than the A10 this year. Temple, Xavier and St. Joe's all had down years and George Washington was somewhat overrated. The A10 will be a stronger league over time because there is likely to be more coaching turnover in the CAA. Charlotte was also a great addition to the A10, it is a strong program with a new arena and a strong alumni following. The 49ers will thrive in the A10, they had a young team this year and still made some noise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
The CAA has not passed the A-10. They were very top-heavy this year, but the bottom of that league would have finished at the bottom of the MAAC. While the bottom of the A-10, would be at least competitive in the MAAC. So quality depth is one reason why the A-10 is still superior to the CAA. The other reason is sustainability at the top. The A-10 has more or less kept itself a top 10 league even in down years. The CAA, like the MAAC tends to be up and down. Consider the fact that the MAC and Horizon are often ranked near where the CAA finishes this season, but fell to the lower mid teens this season (below even the MAAC). I think the CAA will do the same. I do not believe the CAA will stay a top 10 league. It will fall back to the pack and rise again at times, but will not sustain top 10 status.

The bigger question is whether the MAAC will do what it needs to keep pace with leagues that have historically been its peers but have passed it: the WCC, CAA, MAC, Horizon etc. I have noticed that these leagues are starting to win NCAA games with regularity and each has put a team in the Sweet 16 and beyond. Many of their schools that had poor arenas have replaced their high school gyms with state of the art arenas. Also many of these leagues are starting to really pay their coaches. It was humiliating on national TV for the country to hear one MAAC school only pays it's coach $60K.

The MAAC has largely done none of the aforementioned things to keep up. Combine the inadequate NCAA performance and smaller budgets, with the poor facilites of most MAAC schools as compared to the aforementioned leagues and I'd say that the MAAC is edging closer to low-major status. I think the 14th finish in the RPI was an anomally that we will not sustain. Siena and Fairfield appear to be the only schools with both the financial ability AND facilities to keep up. I hope Fairfield makes a good hire. They are the only other MAAC school with a decent facility. They need to start filling it and make this conference seem less bush league. Iona and Manhattan have both made financial commitments, continue to make a splash in the OOC and seem to want to keep up, but they both need to do something with their substandard facilities. Mulcahy and Draddy are just dreadful. The other 6 MAAC schools seem content with were they are and that's fine as long as the aforementioned 4 step it up to become the flagship schools and keep the MAAC among the upper echelon mid-major leagues. The alternative is that the MAAC will become no more than a glorified America East.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
Sienafan said:
The CAA has not passed the A-10. They were very top-heavy this year, but the bottom of that league would have finished at the bottom of the MAAC. While the bottom of the A-10, would be at least competitive in the MAAC. So quality depth is one reason why the A-10 is still superior to the CAA. The other reason is sustainability at the top. The A-10 has more or less kept itself a top 10 league even in down years. The CAA, like the MAAC tends to be up and down. Consider the fact that the MAC and Horizon are often ranked near where the CAA finishes this season, but fell to the lower mid teens this season (below even the MAAC). I think the CAA will do the same. I do not believe the CAA will stay a top 10 league. It will fall back to the pack and rise again at times, but will not sustain top 10 status.

The bigger question is whether the MAAC will do what it needs to keep pace with leagues that have historically been its peers but have passed it: the WCC, CAA, MAC, Horizon etc. I have noticed that these leagues are starting to win NCAA games with regularity and each has put a team in the Sweet 16 and beyond. Many of their schools that had poor arenas have replaced their high school gyms with state of the art arenas. Also many of these leagues are starting to really pay their coaches. It was humiliating on national TV for the country to hear one MAAC school only pays it's coach $60K.

The MAAC has largely done none of the aforementioned things to keep up. Combine the inadequate NCAA performance and smaller budgets, with the poor facilites of most MAAC schools as compared to the aforementioned leagues and I'd say that the MAAC is edging closer to low-major status. I think the 14th finish in the RPI was an anomally that we will not sustain. Siena and Fairfield appear to be the only schools with both the financial ability AND facilities to keep up. I hope Fairfield makes a good hire. They are the only other MAAC school with a decent facility. They need to start filling it and make this conference seem less bush league. Iona and Manhattan have both made financial commitments, continue to make a splash in the OOC and seem to want to keep up, but they both need to do something with their substandard facilities. Mulcahy and Draddy are just dreadful. The other 6 MAAC schools seem content with were they are and that's fine as long as the aforementioned 4 step it up to become the flagship schools and keep the MAAC among the upper echelon mid-major leagues. The alternative is that the MAAC will become no more than a glorified America East.
Rider is the only school spending substantial sums of money on its athletic program and campus facilities. However, the biggest difference is coaching. The other leagues have better coaches, larger alumni bases (larger schools) , better facilities and for the most part exist in areas that are not saturated - unlike the MAAC. The MAAC fights against major, major programs, the Ivies, etc for recruits, it is difficult to land the talent you need to and even more difficult to get the coaches that you need. Money drives the car in NCAA sports. MAAC schools don't spend enough and don't have enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
RiderRaver said:
Rider is the only school spending substantial sums of money on its athletic program and campus facilities. However, the biggest difference is coaching. The other leagues have better coaches, larger alumni bases (larger schools) , better facilities and for the most part exist in areas that are not saturated - unlike the MAAC. The MAAC fights against major, major programs, the Ivies, etc for recruits, it is difficult to land the talent you need to and even more difficult to get the coaches that you need. Money drives the car in NCAA sports. MAAC schools don't spend enough and don't have enough.
Your points make sense for all the leagues mentioned except the WCC. They are all mirror images of MAAC schools in size and budget (except maybe Gonzaga). Additionally, the WCC schools mostly play in major west coast markets in the shadow of the PAC-10. Yet they all seem to be doing just fine and at least half of them have found the money to build new arenas.

Lastly, the MAAC is improving its coaching. Patsos, McCaffery, and Brady have all been excellent hires. It's time for Rider (if Donnie gets the A.D. job he curiously seems to want more), Canisius, Fairfield, and perhaps SPC to make a splash in that area as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
RiderRaver said:
The CAA was a better league than the A10 this year. Temple, Xavier and St. Joe's all had down years and George Washington was somewhat overrated. The A10 will be a stronger league over time because there is likely to be more coaching turnover in the CAA. Charlotte was also a great addition to the A10, it is a strong program with a new arena and a strong alumni following. The 49ers will thrive in the A10, they had a young team this year and still made some noise.
I disagree. I think that coaching turnover in the A10 is likewise going to be a problem. The A10 is also not a destination for head coaches on the rise. The ACC, SEC, Big Ten, PAC-10, are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
Sienafan said:
Your points make sense for all the leagues mentioned except the WCC. They are all mirror images of MAAC schools in size and budget (except maybe Gonzaga). Additionally, the WCC schools mostly play in major west coast markets in the shadow of the PAC-10. Yet they all seem to be doing just fine and at least half of them have found the money to build new arenas.
But the PAC-10 sucks. Those markets have relatively few DI schools in the area. I'd have to see the budgets to be sure they are on par with the MAAC. The MAAC exists in BE country, a far cry from the PAC 10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
Sienafan said:
The bigger question is whether the MAAC will do what it needs to keep pace with leagues that have historically been its peers but have passed it: the WCC, CAA, MAC, Horizon etc...

The alternative is that the MAAC will become no more than a glorified America East.
I don't know if I agree with you that those are peer conferences to the MAAC. I believe that America East is much more of a peer to the MAAC. The only one I might agree with you on is Horizon. MAC even competes in D-IA football. It is not having some of the same glory it did a few years back, with multiple bids and one year I believe between the NCAA and NIT over 5 postseason teams. CAA has been in A-10's realm since it restructured (not to say I agree with Tony it has surpassed A-10). MAAC is simply not at the top middie level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
ARCRat said:
I disagree. I think that coaching turnover in the A10 is likewise going to be a problem. The A10 is also not a destination for head coaches on the rise. The ACC, SEC, Big Ten, PAC-10, are.
I think the A10 has historically more coaching stability than the CAA. A lot of good coaches can live with the A10, it is a happy medium between semi-major conference, notoriety and respect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
RiderRaver said:
But the PAC-10 sucks. Those markets have relatively few DI schools in the area. I'd have to see the budgets to be sure they are on par with the MAAC. The MAAC exists in BE country, a far cry from the PAC 10.
Before I jump down your throat again, you realize I'm talking about the Pacific Ten right? Stanford, UCLA, USC, Cal-Berkeley... not some other conference? The only thing that I can possibly discern as an explanation for this post is that you are again in error.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
RiderRaver said:
I think the A10 has historically more coaching stability than the CAA. A lot of good coaches can live with the A10, it is a happy medium between semi-major conference, notoriety and respect.
I thought the point was where stuff was headed, not where it's been. Most people that I know tend to view their careers looking forward and not backward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
ARCRat said:
Before I jump down your throat again, you realize I'm talking about the Pacific Ten right? Stanford, UCLA, USC, Cal-Berkeley... not some other conference? The only thing that I can possibly discern as an explanation for this post is that you are again in error.
The PAC 10 is not the BE but 'sucks' might have been a little strong. The BE is almost always in the Top 4 RPI, this year 2nd, the PAC 10 is almost always 5-10, this year 7th.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
RiderRaver said:
But the PAC-10 sucks. Those markets have relatively few DI schools in the area. I'd have to see the budgets to be sure they are on par with the MAAC. The MAAC exists in BE country, a far cry from the PAC 10.
You're right, the MAAC faces even tougher competition. All the more reason to raise the commitment level to compete. Siena has recently decided it wants to compete. They already have the arena. They have just ripped up McCaffery's year old contract and are about to give him a 6 figure raise and more years on the deal. I'd like to see the rest of the league make a move. I'm hoping Fairfield has decided to compete too and is going to be the next to step up to the plate .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
ARCRat said:
Before I jump down your throat again, you realize I'm talking about the Pacific Ten right? Stanford, UCLA, USC, Cal-Berkeley... not some other conference? The only thing that I can possibly discern as an explanation for this post is that you are again in error.
raver must be drinking today if he thinks the PAC-10 is not a major player... they spend just as much as ACC, BE, Big 10 etc... They are a BCS league

And Arc I'm not saying the CAA has passed the A10(although for at least this year you could make that case.) My point is the CAA seems to be trending upwards since they restructured , while the A10 is trending downwards
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top