AAC Tournament Bracket | Page 4 | The Boneyard

AAC Tournament Bracket

Status
Not open for further replies.
True, the difference between winning the tournament while facing Houston and winning the tournament while not facing them could be a whole seed difference.
 
Not sure what you're seeing, but according to RPIForecast/Wizard we can get to the championship and lose to SMU while playing Houston and get a 49 RPI if we win out otherwise. I'm still not sure that would be enough. We're 4-10 against RPI top 100 right now and would be 9-11 against top 100 if the seeds broke as listed.
 
I must have been using different intermediate opponents from Cincy and Tulsa, but it doesn't change the fact that Houston hurts RPI.

There's just no reason to want to play that game, regardless of how it sets up the rest of the schedule. If we had to play SMU earlier, or play Houston in the first game, I'd take playing SMU earlier.
 
As of today there are 28 teams ahead of UConn for an At-Large bid. Time will pass and the situation is very fluid. It is almost like a count down! lol...or up depending.
 
.-.
Leebo said:
True, the difference between winning the tournament while facing Houston and winning the tournament while not facing them could be a whole seed difference.
Expand ...

Don't really think seeding matters. If we win AAC tourney I'd be willing to bet we're in one of the first four games.
 
gwhuskyfan said:
Don't really think seeding matters. If we win AAC tourney I'd be willing to bet we're in one of the first four games.
Expand ...
I thought play-in games were reserved for the last 4 at large bids. We'd clearly not be at large if we won the American tournament.
 
tzznandrew said:
I thought play-in games were reserved for the last 4 at large bids. We'd clearly not be at large if we won the American tournament.
Expand ...

On second thought, you might be right about that. My bad.
 
gwhuskyfan said:
Don't really think seeding matters. If we win AAC tourney I'd be willing to bet we're in one of the first four games.
Expand ...

That's not going to happen. First four game pit the 4 worst at-larges against each other and the 4 worst autobids. The teams playing in the first four will be from the MEACs/SWACs/America Easts of the world. They will be competing for 16 seeds.

Just for reference, the play-in games for 16 seeds featuring the bottom autobids for the last 5 years:
  • 2014: Albany (AE) vs. Mount St. Mary's (NEC), Cal Poly (Big West) vs. Texas Southern (SWAC)
  • 2013: Liberty (Big South) vs. North Carolina A&T (MEAC), James Madison (CAA) vs. Long Island (NEC)
  • 2012: Mississippi Valley State (SWAC) vs. Western Kentucky (Sun Belt), Lamar (Southland) vs. Vermont (AE)
  • 2011: Texas-San Antonio (CUSA) vs. Alabama State (SWAC), UNC Asheville (Big South) vs. Arkansas-Little Rock (Sun Belt)
  • 2010: Arkansas-Pine Bluff (SWAC) vs. Winthrop (Big South)
Much has been made about this team's less-than-satisfactory performance. But I'm confident that we're ahead of where every single one of these programs was. And as much as this conference has been maligned, it's not down to this level either.

If we get the autobid, I see us as a 12/13 seed. Not a 16.
 
gwhuskyfan said:
Don't really think seeding matters. If we win AAC tourney I'd be willing to bet we're in one of the first four games.
Expand ...
Can't be so don't bet on it.

Only 16 seeds qualify for playin game as auto bids.
 
.-.
Honestly, I think playing in the 9 PM slot on Friday night is more important than the opponent. We need an invested crowd.
 
Well if everyone is configuring things for the best outcome relative to how they see things, I'm going to still hope for the best outcome period.

Right now that means I want UConn to win the next three, and then the next four (or three if they get a first round bye) and then the next six. That's my focus no matter how unlikely it is. The other teams and what they do are irrelevant in my myopic world.

All kidding aside I really enjoy the analysis you guys bring to the table. It is decent strategic thinking. A constantly evolving most positive outcome relative to a somewhat less than positive impression of the team.
 
fleudslipcon said:
Well if everyone is configuring things for the best outcome relative to how they see things, I'm going to still hope for the best outcome period.

Right now that means I want UConn to win the next three, and then the next four (or three if they get a first round bye) and then the next six. That's my focus no matter how unlikely it is. The other teams and what they do are irrelevant in my myopic world.

All kidding aside I really enjoy the analysis you guys bring to the table. It is decent strategic thinking. A constantly evolving most positive outcome relative to a somewhat less than positive impression of the team.
Expand ...
YOU are a special UConn brodie...:) Stay healthy.
 
.-.
Jerry1714 said:
There is so many things off on this site, most importantly it lists Syracuse.
Expand ...

The most important thing to do is watch the vid. These guys have been around a while so most here know of them but the info in the vid is a gold mine backed by great historical data.
 
BLUEDOGHOUSE said:
98% is the only thing you need to know. Please share your %. Lets chat...pro.
Expand ...
Getting the field right is not that difficult, there is really only 2 or 3 bubble teams a year so if you get 2 wrong 63 out of 65 if you miss them which is 96%. Hell I think Nelson did it last year.

So the 98% does little for me.

What is this guy's ranking in terms of seeding? Because his seeds in this are quite off, can you find 1 other bracket with OK or Iowa State as 2 seeds? Or how about 1 bracket with either them as 2 seeds.

This is why bracketologists are judged by their seeding projections:

http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html
 
Jerry1714 said:
Getting the field right is not that difficult, there is really only 2 or 3 bubble teams a year so if you get 2 wrong 63 out of 65 if you miss them which is 96%. Hell I think Nelson did it last year.

So the 98% does little for me.

What is this guy's ranking in terms of seeding? Because his seeds in this are quite off, can you find 1 other bracket with OK or Iowa State as 2 seeds? Or how about 1 bracket with either them as 2 seeds.

This is why bracketologists are judged by their seeding projections:

http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html
Expand ...

2 or 3 bubble teams a year???????????? ohhhhhhhhhh boy. Illinois is @ 57. Are they a bubble team? Of course on selection Sunday the bubble may shrink. In layman's terms... I think you are missing the most important point of this particular methodology. That is to gauge in real time the status of each individual team and how it relates to the cut off threshold to make the tournament. As it relates to seeding this matrix is more of a blueprint on present standing. I think you are doing yourself a disservice for not acquiring the information generated by guys with great connections to the system as evidenced by the video. One interesting point or question was "Is your conference commissioner on the selection committee..?" The analytics pointed to a confirmed statistically significant relationship equivalent to a jump of 17 spots in RPI. That was pretty powerful stuff. Agree? Saying there is bias and then attaching actual #'s to it are what make it obvious that the devil is in the details.

From a seeding perspective the Zags will be a #1 or #2 but according to the Dance Card they would be over seeded. I certainly can't argue with that even though I think they could cut down nets with the right draw.
 
BLUEDOGHOUSE said:
2 or 3 bubble teams a year???????????? ohhhhhhhhhh boy. Illinois is @ 57. Are they a bubble team? Of course on selection Sunday the bubble may shrink. In layman's terms... I think you are missing the most important point of this particular methodology. That is to gauge in real time the status of each individual team and how it relates to the cut off threshold to make the tournament. As it relates to seeding this matrix is more of a blueprint on present standing. I think you are doing yourself a disservice for not acquiring the information generated by guys with great connections to the system as evidenced by the video. One interesting point or question was "Is your conference commissioner on the selection committee..?" The analytics pointed to a confirmed statistically significant relationship equivalent to a jump of 17 spots in RPI. That was pretty powerful stuff. Agree? Saying there is bias and then attaching actual #'s to it are what make it obvious that the devil is in the details.

From a seeding perspective the Zags will be a #1 or #2 but according to the Dance Card they would be over seeded. I certainly can't argue with that even though I think they could cut down nets with the right draw.
Expand ...
Yea, last year it came down to about 4 teams for 2 spots on selection Sunday, SMU and Minnesota did not make it, Iowa amd NC State did.

Right now there are probably 20 bubble teams, but come selection Sunday it is just a few. I guess I should have phrased as it comes down to just 2 or 3 last spots, so that is 4-6 actual teams.

As for the rest of the post, I do not know enough to comment or disagree, have not watched the video. I am not knocking these guys I just think their seedings are off.
 
Jerry1714 said:
Yea, last year it came down to about 4 teams for 2 spots on selection Sunday, SMU and Minnesota did not make it, Iowa amd NC State did.

Right now there are probably 20 bubble teams, but come selection Sunday it is just a few. I guess I should have phrased as it comes down to just 2 or 3 last spots, so that is 4-6 actual teams.

As for the rest of the post, I do not know enough to comment or disagree, have not watched the video. I am not knocking these guys I just think their seedings are off.
Expand ...

I think their seeding won't reflect what it probably should be. So you have a good point there.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,585
Messages
4,529,034
Members
10,404
Latest member
RussellHall


Top Bottom