Memphis Tigers: Powerhouse Program or Product of Relocation?

It all started two years ago.

In 2004, the ACC began pulling high-visibility basketball programs away from the Big East, who then responded by grabbing four of the top teams from Conference USA.

C-USA then lost three more squads to the A-10 and Mountain West and was left scrambling for replacements. They recruited seven teams from the MAC and WAC in an effort to restore their depleted talent pool -- with little success.

In the wake of this conference jumble, C-USA, a once proud basketball conference that many put on par with the Big 10 and SEC, is now left with a group of low-tier mid-major squads -- and Memphis.

Memphis University, currently ranked No. 8 in the AP poll, is the only team left in C-USA worth talking about for longer than it takes Bruce Pearl to take his shirt off. Replacing top-tier programs like Louisville, Cincinnati and DePaul with Central Florida, Rice and Tulsa has made C-USA no more powerful than the Colonial Athletic Association or the Big West Conference -- perennially among the worst conferences in the country. That leaves many wondering whether or not Memphis is worthy of such a lofty No. 8 ranking.

On paper, the 19-3 Tigers look to be a team that can make it deep into the NCCA Tournament. They are 9-0 in C-USA and are beating their conference foes by an average margin of 16.3 points. In addition, they have not lost a game since 2006 and are currently in the hunt for a No. 2 seed in this year's tournament.

However, look closer and you'll see a team made of smoke and mirrors, a team that has everyone fooled, and it all began last season.

Using their No. 1 seed in the 2006 NCAA Tournament, Memphis advanced to the Elite 8 by defeating Oral Roberts, Bucknell and Bradley -- three mid-major squads. When it came time to face an opponent from one of the six major conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Big East, and Pac-10) though, the Tigers crumbled, losing to UCLA 50-45.

Their dreams of a Final Four berth were destroyed by one of the best teams in the country, but look at how Memphis made it to that position in the first place: they beat up on a weak, mid-major conference during the regular season and then beat three more mid-majors in the first rounds of the tournament. Not exactly a "stocked" resume.

That brings us to the current Memphis squad.

In week eight of this season, the Tigers, coming off a road loss to Arizona, were ranked No. 22 in the country. With losses to Tennessee, Georgia Tech, and the aforementioned Wildcats, Memphis' record stood at 8-3.

Since then, the Tigers have won 11 straight, rising steadily up the rankings along the way. But 9 of those 11 wins have come in conference play (the other two wins were against Middle Tennessee State and Lamar) -- thus the conundrum.

After having its member teams mixed up like a cage of bingo balls, C-USA's current average RPI ranking (sans Memphis) is 160.8. In simpler terms, the measurement system employed by the NCAA to determine the merit of all 336 Division I teams states that the 11 other schools of C-USA are better than only half of the programs in the entire country.

To further the point, here is a brief list of teams currently ranked higher than 160 on the RPI scale: San Francisco (8-15), Western Michigan (9-13), Charlotte (9-12), Utah (8-14) and Temple (9-12).

Yet Memphis, a team that is afforded the luxury of beating up on this lack of competition and is only 1-2 versus teams ranked in the top 25, is able to climb 14 spots in the rankings to No. 8.

How is this possible?

Yes, Memphis sits at No. 9 on the RPI scale, but their strength of schedule is ranked 48th in the country -- the worst of any top 10 RPI team. They may be 19-3, but what would their record be if they played in the ACC or Big 12?

Even their coach, the venerable John Calipari, knows his team is far and above the rest of the competition in C-USA. After a 72-59 win against Tulsa, Calipari said, "To get guys to understand to play harder than the guys they are playing against, especially if they think they are better, is a tough challenge. My thing is we need to compete against us and not the other team."

I'm not implying that Memphis is a mediocre squad, but should a top 10 ranking be distributed to a team whose coach openly admits that the competition within the division doesn't stack up -- to the point where he has to challenge his team to get better internally because their opponents are so over-matched?

I say "no."

Everyone was impressed when Seinfeld character Cosmo Kramer bragged of his dominance over his karate class… until they found out he was punching and kicking his way past a group of 10-year-olds.

So why should we take Memphis seriously, when it is clear they are grown men beating up on children?