Dear AAC and it's fans

[aceboon]

I love how this guy is talking about he wishes we had an intelligent fanbase, yet I can't recall a single thread, post, reply, or response from him actually discussing basketball. There's plenty of us that do that and do it well, you should trying partaking in those conversations, instead of making "you guys do this" threads.

 

[itgoeslike]

The AAC had tough first round match ups, which wasn't completely tied to seeding. St. Joe's won the championship of a conference that put six teams in the tourney. Harvard is a 26 win team that UConn didn't put away until the fourth quarter, at home. The AAC's highest seed, Louisville had to play a 25-win team coached by a longtime Louisville assistant. That's a terrible matchup for a team with an AP rank of 5. At the end of the day, no AAC teams were blown out, while other higher seeded P5 teams were upset. So, why would you (Whaler) crap on your own team like that? Especially after a game that required an incredible amount of poise and last minute precision to pull out.

 

[pj]

Cincy's style, like Pitt's, of physical defensive basketball often underperforms in the tourney. Harvard is an excellent team, Cincy had a down day. It is unfortunate for the AAC but it happens.

All I can say is - I hope Memphis and UConn make the Sweet Sixteen. That would be awesome for the AAC.

 

[Yonick]

St. Joes played a perfect game in the 1st half. The team that showed up last night would beat most Big East schools. Yeah, I know they got clobbered by Villanova. They also lost to AAC bottom feeder Temple. But, since that Villanova game, they turned their season completely around.
For UConn to hang in there, and eventually over take St . Joes, and not be another tourney upset, says volumes for UConn.

Bring on Nova.

 

[Taco]

Don't feed trolls

 

[whaler11]

The AAC had tough first round match ups, which wasn't completely tied to seeding. St. Joe's won the championship of a conference that put six teams in the tourney. Harvard is a 26 win team that UConn didn't put away until the fourth quarter, at home. The AAC's highest seed, Louisville had to play a 25-win team coached by a longtime Louisville assistant. That's a terrible matchup for a team with an AP rank of 5. At the end of the day, no AAC teams were blown out, while other higher seeded P5 teams were upset. So, why would you (Whaler) crap on your own team like that? Especially after a game that required an incredible amount of poise and last minute precision to pull out.

I didn't crap on UConn once in this thread.

I'm pointing out that the crying about the aeeding was silly becuase it was overblown and the AAC teams were underwhelming yesterday.

But as usual anything that isn't crowning UConn king around here is met with the same response.

You'd think three National Championships would keep a fanbase from having such an inferiority complex.

 

[tzznandrew]

So because I think all the crying and whining about the seeding was stupid I should go like another team?

Really I'd prefer that the fanbase had more intelligence and confidence and didn't cry like babies everytime someone on TV picks against UConn or says something negative - but that's how you guys roll.

Whaler. Indeed, it does get annoying when people think that picking against UConn, ever, is part of some vast conspiracy.

But this thread...this is one where you're wrong. The seeding was crappy, regardless of how the teams performed. Nobody thinks Oklahoma was overseeded because they lost to ND State. And Texas needed a last-second shot to beat Arizona State...is the Big XII overrated?

No.

But by judging strictly by the metrics the NCAA put out, the AAC was screwed. You know as well as I do that trading St. Joe's and Villanova for Harvard and Michigan State is a trade no one would make. But those are two different discussions that have been conflated (appropriate seedings vs. favorable matchups). This is an argument I think you're totally on the wrong end of, and the timing (2-1 from the conference) was weak.

 

[UConnDad]

Well I never claimed to be smart. But I am dumb enough to comment on occasion. If being a die hard bleed blue guy makes me a homer I embrace it. One observation. I am rooting for Memphis. With the AAC's struggles so far, considering we beat them 3 times, any indicator there?

 

[caw]

I didn't crap on UConn once in this thread.

I'm pointing out that the crying about the aeeding was silly becuase it was overblown and the AAC teams were underwhelming yesterday.

But as usual anything that isn't crowning UConn king around here is met with the same response.

You'd think three National Championships would keep a fanbase from having such an inferiority complex.

I'm not going to question your fandom but you do realize the inherent flaw in your argument, right?

Under seeded teams play higher, than they should, teams. So the chances of close games or losses are higher. UL feels it should be a 2 or 3, playing a 14-15 seed. A 13 should be better. Same with Cinci (though I thought they were seeded fairly. UConn should have been playing a 11-12 seed, which should be worse than a 10. It's almost a self fulfilling prophesy by the committee that an under seeded team would do worse than if they were seeded fairly/higher. By under seeding the entire conference they built in tougher games for the entire conference, theoretically.

For example, Cuse blew out the team they played but if they were under seeded and flipped with Cinci or UL I bet the game would be a ton closer.

Overall, Harvard was probably also under seeded based on how good they actually are (though not record). St Joes was fair. Manhattan was an interesting team that probably could have played spoiler if facing a team not named UL.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

LOL at this thread. This is the typical contrarian, self admitted whaler thread.

You either love him or hate him. I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

[Inyatkin]

"I didn't crap on UConn once in this thread." Hours after a UConn NCAA tournament win, you called the play of the conference, and therefore UConn, "embarrassing."
You're presumably sober by now, maybe best to just stop posting.

 

[intlzncster]

we have such a weird fanbase, after a win like that to get the juices pumping the last thing I would do is run to the board and post nonsense like this. it seems like some of ya'll don't even get joy out of following UConn basketball, go bake a cake or do something else more productive with your time.

Omar Calhoun should never play a minute of organized basketball again in his life. We nearly lost the game because of his single minute of playing time. Everything other takeaway from from this game is secondary.

/s (it's sad I have to put this caveat here, but I do...)

 

[tzznandrew]

Omar Calhoun should never play a minute of organized basketball again in his life. We nearly lost the game because of his minutes of playing time. Everything other takeaway from from this game is secondary.

/s (it's sad I have to put this caveat here, but I do...)

I like that the kid got some time. I hope he gets vhis confidence back, because he can be dynamite. But on a personal level...he deserved it! He came to UConn despite not being able to play in the NCAAs his freshman year. The kid has heart and devotion to the team. You get him minutes when you can, and hope he can come through. He's shown he's not afraid of the big moments.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I like that the kid got some time. I hope he gets vhis confidence back, because he can be dynamite. But on a personal level...he deserved it! He came to UConn despite not being able to play in the NCAAs his freshman year. The kid has heart and devotion to the team. You get him minutes when you can, and hope he can come through. He's shown he's not afraid of the big moments.

Yes, I agree. But he was brutal while in.

 

[intlzncster]

Yes, I agree. But he was brutal while in.

But he only played one minute.

 

[whaler11]

Whaler. Indeed, it does get annoying when people think that picking against UConn, ever, is part of some vast conspiracy.

But this thread...this is one where you're wrong. The seeding was crappy, regardless of how the teams performed. Nobody thinks Oklahoma was overseeded because they lost to ND State. And Texas needed a last-second shot to beat Arizona State...is the Big XII overrated?

No.

But by judging strictly by the metrics the NCAA put out, the AAC was screwed. You know as well as I do that trading St. Joe's and Villanova for Harvard and Michigan State is a trade no one would make. But those are two different discussions that have been conflated (appropriate seedings vs. favorable matchups). This is an argument I think you're totally on the wrong end of, and the timing (2-1 from the conference) was weak.

I disagree that the qualtative prerformance of the league yesterday doesn't take some of the argument away from the seeding complaints.

Half the point is that seeding isn't as important as it's made to be anyway.

If you don't like your league or team's seeding? Guess what you get the chance to play the games and prove them wrong. The league went 2-1 yesterday, but it's tough to still complain about seeding when they did it in an ugly fashion.

But thanks for a reasonable response you make some solid points.

 

[intlzncster]

I disagree that the qualtative prerformance of the league yesterday doesn't take some of the argument away from the seeding complaints.

Half the point is that seeding isn't as important as it's made to be anyway.

If you don't like your league or team's seeding? Guess what you get the chance to play the games and prove them wrong. The league went 2-1 yesterday, but it's tough to still complain about seeding when they did it in an ugly fashion.

But thanks for a reasonable response you make some solid points.

I'd say that early rounds don't really reflect quality of the league as much as later (elite 8 and above). When the Big East got 9(11?) teams in a few years ago, most lost early, but having 3 in the Final Eight and 2 in the Final Four spoke to the quality of the league.

 

[whaler11]

I'm not going to question your fandom but you do realize the inherent flaw in your argument, right?

Under seeded teams play higher, than they should, teams. So the chances of close games or losses are higher. UL feels it should be a 2 or 3, playing a 14-15 seed. A 13 should be better. Same with Cinci (though I thought they were seeded fairly. UConn should have been playing a 11-12 seed, which should be worse than a 10. It's almost a self fulfilling prophesy by the committee that an under seeded team would do worse than if they were seeded fairly/higher. By under seeding the entire conference they built in tougher games for the entire conference, theoretically.

For example, Cuse blew out the team they played but if they were under seeded and flipped with Cinci or UL I bet the game would be a ton closer.

Overall, Harvard was probably also under seeded based on how good they actually are (though not record). St Joes was fair. Manhattan was an interesting team that probably could have played spoiler if facing a team not named UL.

Really we are talking about two teams being underseeded and it's really by one line. Cinci and Memphis are right where they should be. UConn and Louisville should gave been a line higher.

The amount of crying over two total seed lines given they got easier roads was insane.

Is Manhattan so much better than the average 14 seed that it would impact how Louisville played? If UConn played NC State rather than St Joes you think they would have been more impressive?

Cincinnati played like a team that would have lost to anyone who could field a team. It was only Harvard's ineptitude at the line that kept them in the game.

 

[UCHuskies08]

When you cry for a week about seeding and the three teams play like that, it's embarassing by definition. The league was a Brimah rebound and a Hancock three from being swept out the door today.

Yah, and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle....

 

[caw]

Really we are talking about two teams being underseeded and it's really by one line. Cinci and Memphis are right where they should be. UConn and Louisville should gave been a line higher.

The amount of crying over two total seed lines given they got easier roads was insane.

Is Manhattan so much better than the average 14 seed that it would impact how Louisville played? If UConn played NC State rather than St Joes you think they would have been more impressive?

Cincinnati played like a team that would have lost to anyone who could field a team. It was only Harvard's ineptitude at the line that kept them in the game.

NCSt is a dumb dumb team, so yes. Manhattan I don't think anyone has seen them play enough to say. Memphis is probably also under seeded. So three of four.

I still don't get why Cronin stuck with his press. It was obvious they were breaking it to score and Cincy has a fantastic half court defense. That was a horrible call by him.

 

[tzznandrew]

Really we are talking about two teams being underseeded and it's really by one line. Cinci and Memphis are right where they should be. UConn and Louisville should gave been a line higher.

The amount of crying over two total seed lines given they got easier roads was insane.

Is Manhattan so much better than the average 14 seed that it would impact how Louisville played? If UConn played NC State rather than St Joes you think they would have been more impressive?

Cincinnati played like a team that would have lost to anyone who could field a team. It was only Harvard's ineptitude at the line that kept them in the game.

Eh. I think UConn merited at least a 5. They had more Top 25 RPI wins than a number of teams seeded higher than them.

Seeding is on previous body of work, and the concern that many expressed with regards to the seeding was more for the future. The league was pretty good this year, yet two teams got underseeded. Maybe it doesn't matter. But what happens when the league is similarly good RPI wise (not as hard as you think, given Louisville's woeful RPI relative to their ability), and a team looks like they could be a 1 seed. The difference between a 1 and a 3 seed is pretty large. Performance in the tournament is irrelevant in this scenario...and I think that was most of the complaining.

Most people said something like: I wouldnt' trade our path for Cincy's, but damn if I don't hate the fact that the league was treated like garbage.

 

[whaler11]

Eh. I think UConn merited at least a 5. They had more Top 25 RPI wins than a number of teams seeded higher than them.

Seeding is on previous body of work, and the concern that many expressed with regards to the seeding was more for the future. The league was pretty good this year, yet two teams got underseeded. Maybe it doesn't matter. But what happens when the league is similarly good RPI wise (not as hard as you think, given Louisville's woeful RPI relative to their ability), and a team looks like they could be a 1 seed. The difference between a 1 and a 3 seed is pretty large. Performance in the tournament is irrelevant in this scenario...and I think that was most of the complaining.

Most people said something like: I wouldnt' trade our path for Cincy's, but damn if I don't hate the fact that the league was treated like garbage.

A 1 and a 3 are a huge difference. A 5 and a 7 are nothing in today's game.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

LOL at this thread. This is the typical contrarian, self admitted whaler thread.

You either love him or hate him. I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

When you cry for a week about seeding and the three teams play like that, it's embarassing by definition. The league was a Brimah rebound and a Hancock three from being swept out the door today.

"If , ifs and buts were candy and nut what fine Christmas we would have"
The late Dandy Don Meredith.
Your anger has really clouded your logic. The NCAA tourny is filled with IF 's they are the lament of losers. In our history I could name a few notables.
If Tate George just deflected that inbounds pass in 1990 we would have gone to the FF. If The UCLA kid doesn't make that last lay up we would have been NC in 1995.
Fodder for fans. Meaningless in reality.
Two
Under seeding a team gives them an tougher first round game.
We ended up playing the hottest team in the A10 a 6 team league.
Cinny plays the tourney darlings
Louisville plays the MAAC champs instead of someone like American.
MAAC teams have usually been tough outs .
Whaler will you please get help. Your posts are starting to scare me.
There is a fine line between acerbic and venomous. You have crossed that line.
Why don't you just walk away from the BY for a few months. This place can challenge your sanity.

 

[itgoeslike]

I didn't crap on UConn once in this thread.

I'm pointing out that the crying about the aeeding was silly becuase it was overblown and the AAC teams were underwhelming yesterday.

But as usual anything that isn't crowning UConn king around here is met with the same response.

You'd think three National Championships would keep a fanbase from having such an inferiority complex.

Sure you did. As the first round was closing out you started a thread that implies AAC teams (including UConn) were all playing really bad (underwhelming), were overrated, and that their lower seeds were justified, which is silly because lower seedings typically means tougher 1st round games. Furthermore, the implication appears to be an attempt to marginalize the value of conference wins. I don't see how that doesn't hurt UConn in the short term. If the ACC went 0-3 and were blown out, your comments would have merit. The reality is that the conference went 2-1 and three tough match ups, so it looks like you have an agenda. What that is, I have no idea.