American (AAC) conference better than expected

[Confident Carl]

The American Athletic Conference has put forth a better than projected basketball product.

"The American still ranks ahead of the SEC in Ken Pomeroy’s conference power ratings and just off the pace of the Pac-12 and ACC, Louisville’s future league."

“This league is a monster,” Memphis coach Josh Pastner said the day before his Tigers picked off Louisville 73-67 at the KFC Yum! Center.

SMU coach Larry Brown, who coached Kansas to the 1988 national title, echoed Pastner two days before his Mustangs pushed Louisville but lost 71-63.

“This conference is pretty darn good,” Brown said. “I respect every coach. You have a tremendous group of coaches. Some of them don’t get the attention they should.”

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...nce-basketball-surprisingly-good-few-stinkers

 

[nomar]

I guess you can shine a turd

 

[Peacefrog]

I would like to be as sanguine about the situation. Granted, its not a terrible league this year. However, things get much worse next year with the exit of Louisville and the entrance of some really bad programs. Recruiting is going to get more difficult going forward as well. Pastner is used to the days of playing horrible teams every game in CUSA so I can see where he would think this league is a "monster". Coming from the old Big East, we play a lot more patsies. This conference is a death sentence for us and any other team that cannot get out in the next few years. I remain optimistic about that actually.

 

[storrsroars]

fwiw, many Pitt fans are lamenting the poor quality of competition in the ACC.

Not that the AAC doesn't suck. Ollie is going to need to do some Geno-like OOC scheduling going forward, which could backfire as this conference will probably always require 21 wins in addition to a top 50 RPI to get into the Dance.

 

[Inyatkin]

In terms of dregs, it seems like the ACC has a bunch of teams that have been historically good, Georgia Tech, Wake, even Clemson, but are now pretty bad. AAC has a bunch of always-been-bad teams, so it looks a lot worse to a casual observer.

 

[upstater]

In terms of dregs, it seems like the ACC has a bunch of teams that have been historically good, Georgia Tech, Wake, even Clemson, but are now pretty bad. AAC has a bunch of always-been-bad teams, so it looks a lot worse to a casual observer.

Well, I wouldn't say ALWAYS. Houston was good once upon a time, Temple too! USF/UCF were neither good nor bad. They didn't even exist! Memphis and Cincy good. UConn great. SMU is going to do well under Brown, for as long as he's there.

 

[Kitaman]

The one thing about our league is that it should only get better. Can't say the same for the other leagues. There are some good recruiting markets as well (NYC area, philly, texas, florida, etc.. Problem is however it still is a basketball league which will remain its downside.

 

[Pudge]

The three league favorites have somewhat underachieved — Louisville, Connecticut and Memphis all have chinks in their armor. Cincinnati and Southern Methodist have overachieved. The league that was once assumed to be a three-tournament-bid conference with a fourth bubble team in Cincinnati now looks like a potential five-bid league. Aside from Houston and its plucky 3-3 conference record, the rest of the league — Temple, USF, UCF and Rutgers — is on a different planet from the top half. There is no in-between.

Well ... Louisville, if you look at the pre-season annuals, was amongst the top Handful. They HAVE underachieved. In keeping with my latest rant ("Loouisville media is as skewed and as homerific as any I've ever seen."), this bias fits my Program. Memphis? I think they are developing. A lot of parts that never really fit in the past are thrown out on the court ... and they seem disjointed; but, you can see they're talented. OUR UConn Huskies?? I would have to say that we are what we thought we'd be ... without the interior toughness of a beast, we are vulnerable. KO's team plays hard and, I think, well. Some notable good developments by Kromah, Brimah, Giffey more than makes up for the really surprising level that Omar Calhoun has played. I think we will win a share of the tough games going forward. Have at least 7 losses; probably 8. Cincinnati is really good. Mick Cronin has played tight good BE defense and has a long bench of role players. Interior and good playmakers. Over-achieved; but, I think you shouldn't be surprised. They were good at times last year. SMU is going to be a nice Larry Brown legacy. Building in recruiting, fanbase and culture. I think they can withstand the transition to some extent; continue to be good.

Houston? Incredible group of athletes that CAN play well. Dickey is a pretty solid technician. HOWEVER, they often look like they are off the leash and play dumb. I don't know what their future is ... but I can tell you that a good coach can get a solid team all within a 90 minute drive. That's going to be tough if they get the right mix.

Rutgers, at times, looked good last year. They are a MESS. USF and UCF are indistinguishable in my mind. Two programs that can get athletes; but, look like they are going to have a lot of 20 point losses. Compare & Contrast to Seton Hall and DePaul? I believe you can see better ballplayers at USF, UCF and Houston than mid to low Big East. They just seem to not play as a Team nor play smart; for extended portions of the game.

Temple is a mystery. I am hoping to see our game at Liacouras. I think Dunphy is just off. He has been a really good coach & I have no idea why they fell so far so fast. Seems that one kid last year ... was like a Shabazz; carried them a lot.

I don't want to think about Tulane, ECU or Tulsa. Let's just say that we have a good 2013-2014. And Pray.

 

[Husky25]

fwiw, many Pitt fans are lamenting the poor quality of competition in the ACC.

Not that the AAC doesn't suck. Ollie is going to need to do some Geno-like OOC scheduling going forward, which could backfire as this conference will probably always require 21 wins in addition to a top 50 RPI to get into the Dance.

So the AD does the scheduling in Football, but it is up to the coaches to schedule OOC games in basketball? Is that correct?

 

[husky10]

So the AD does the scheduling in Football, but it is up to the coaches to schedule OOC games in basketball? Is that correct?

I don't think so. I think all sport scheduling goes through the athletic director's office but the basketball coaches get more input because scheduling isn't done as far out in advance as football

 

[Husky25]

I don't think so. I think all sport scheduling goes through the athletic director's office but the basketball coaches get more input because scheduling isn't done as far out in advance as football

Thanks