AAC's Problem: Not Selection Committee, but OOC SOS

[UConnJim]

The AAC's problem was not the selection committee, but the individual team's out of conference schedule strength. Look at these out of conference strength of schedules:

Temple 45
Memphis 54
UConn 78
Cincinnati 95
Rutgers 131
Louisville 149
SMU 296
USF 322
Houston 343
UCF 344

Of course the election committee had issues with the American. Fortunately, this can be rectified by pushing conference schools to improve their OOC schedules.

 

[ASweet3781]

How can you play Florida, Harvard, Stanford, Indiana, Maryland, Washington, and mid major runner ups like Yale and BU and have an OOC of 78? It reveals a flaw in the process doesn't it?

 

[HuskiesAllDay]

We tried to have a decent OOC, but unfortunately Indiana, Maryland, and Washington all decided to stink this year

 

[BlueHen]

I agree that the solution is to strengthen the OOC schedules. But the committee got too hung up on that one metric IMO. Take a step back and apply the eye test and it's easy to see that Louisville should be higher than a 4 seed.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

If you think the Selection Committee would treat UConn differently if the SOS was higher, you are deluded.

 

[BlueHen]

How can you play Florida, Harvard, Stanford, Indiana, Maryland, Washington, and mid major runner ups like Yale and BU and have an OOC of 78? It reveals a flaw in the process doesn't it?

The flaw is relying too much on computer data. Computers are useful as a tool but I have more faith in the "eye test". Better to watch the teams actually play a game than to look at a computer printout.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The flaw is relying too much on computer data. Computers are useful as a tool but I have more faith in the "eye test". Better to watch the teams actually play a game than to look at a computer printout.

The AAC schools did fine with the computers. The problem is that the Committee does not care.

 

[DogMania]

The problem with the OOC Strength is that it is a crap shoot each year. You could try to schedule the very best, but you run the risk of getting your head handed to you. So you try to schedule one or two programs that are always at the top and a few that are often very good. We didn't count on IU and MD s*cking so badly this season. UF turned out to be very good.

What UConn is unfortunately going to have to do is not play as many state and regional cupcakes and replace them with better programs. It's a trade off. You want to rack up those Ws, because the committee likes to see those high Ws and low Ls, but they do put a lot on the RPIs and on who you played.

It was clear that the AAC's OOC hurt them collectively. Now if our teams go deep (no thanks to the committee placing 3 of our 4 in the same region) the might seed us better next year, but with the loss of UL, that's likely not going to happen. I just hope we get 3 to 4 to the S-16 and 3 to the E-8. If UL can make -4, maybe we get 2 to -4 with 3 out of 16 teams having a crack at it in the East. That's the best we can do.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The AAC's OOC hurt it because 5 of the schools sucked and lost to bad teams in the non-conference. There will be 6-7 bad teams out of 11 next year.

 

[UConnJim]

Agree on the eye test, but how can you have teams in your conference have 300 and above OOC schedules? UConn tried to have a good OOC schedule, but, unfortunately, teams like BC, Indiana, Washington, and Maryland ended up not being that good this year. Sure, we played Florida, but is Harvard really that good? And who decided UConn should play Eastern Washington?

 

[babysheep]

Meanwhile, everyone else is fine for just "playing their schedule."

 

[Go_Huskies]

The 9 games against teams ranked > 200 killed us. We have schedule are easy games in the 125-200 range

 

[VAHuskyFan]

The AAC schools did fine with the computers. The problem is that the Committee does not care.

What?? The Committee ranked the AAC teams pretty much exactly on RPI.

The computers have Louisville at #19 in RPI = 5 seed. They are a 4 seed.
The computers have Cincinnati at #20 in RPI = 5 seed. They are a 5 seed.
The computers have UConn at #23 in RPI = 6 seed. We are a 7 seed.
The computers have Memphis at #35 in RPI = 9 seed. They are an 8 seed.

So overall, the AAC teams were actually seeded higher by a net of one than the computers would have us at.

 

[Jimdish255]

How can you play Florida, Harvard, Stanford, Indiana, Maryland, Washington, and mid major runner ups like Yale and BU and have an OOC of 78? It reveals a flaw in the process doesn't it?

Exactly. The SOS has seemingly been "adjusted" this year to favor certain conferences like the A10 and old BE because AAC was assumed to be weak. They're hiding behind a flawed measure to get what they wanted because anyone who's watched any games has to know how strong Louisville is. That bracket is about to find out and so is St Joe's.

 

[upstater]

The AAC's OOC hurt it because 5 of the schools sucked and lost to bad teams in the non-conference. There will be 6-7 bad teams out of 11 next year.

Did you see how bad the ACC OOC losses were? They were worse.

 

[UConnJim]

Did you see how bad the ACC OOC losses were? They were worse.

ACC played an overall OOC schedule that was better than the AAC by far. Look at SMU's OOC schedule: TCU, URI, Arkansas, Texas St, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Sam Houston St, Virginia, Texas A&M, McNeese St, Illinois-Chicago, Hofstra, Texas San Antonio, Wyoming. SMU lost to Arkansas and Virginia. Best OOC win? URI? Anyone see a problem with this?

 

[willie99]

the OOC schedule is part of the RPI and as a conference we were seed below our RPI

it's not our OOC, it's the selection committee making up more as they go along

 

[HuskiesAllDay]

Baylor is a six seed!!! Baylor with 9 conference losses is a six seed and plays in San Antonio! Some of these decisions are truly mind boggling. The committee could never justify some of these decisions if they were pressed in an interview.

According to ESPN, the most overrated team seed-wise is Michigan. According to bpi they should be a six and are a 2 seed. So duke gets a 3 seed. Plays in Raleigh and has Umass as its 6.

Duke is 6-4 against the top 50. Were 7-5. We have lost one game outside the top 50 (Smu is 52, well round down). Duke lost to Clemson and Wake.
Cuse playing at home as a 3 is nuts. The list goes on and on.

A deplorable job by the committee.

Technically we got royally screwed. Nova is the top 2 seed (they really arent) so we are technically the last 7 seed. That is laughable. If Nova was legitimately the top 2 seed, this would be the biggest screw job ever. Thankfully Nova is beatable but still just sickening. Pinkston is exactly the type of guy who kills us tho. Royce White?

 

[Huskies4ever]

The flaw is relying too much on computer data. Computers are useful as a tool but I have more faith in the "eye test". Better to watch the teams actually play a game than to look at a computer printout.

If everyone here gave SMU the "eye test" you would think they would put them in. They swept us, are a good team, and were ranked in the top 25. the computers.

 

[LIUCHusky]

The AAC's OOC hurt it because 5 of the schools sucked and lost to bad teams in the non-conference. There will be 6-7 bad teams out of 11 next year.

The AAC's OOC hurt it because 5 of the schools sucked and lost to bad teams in the non-conference. There will be 6-7 bad teams out of 11 next year.

UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, SMU, Temple, Houston and Tulsa will all be very good basketball teams next season. Don't count out either USF or UCF next season. That leaves Tulane and East Carolina. I will give you that.