The AAC is an absolute train-wreck | Page 2 | The Boneyard

The AAC is an absolute train-wreck

Status
Not open for further replies.
tzznandrew said:
Well, last year's AAC was a 4-bid conference with the defending champions, Louisville, in it. It had 5 tournament quality teams, and at one point had 5 ranked teams.

Memphis came close in 2008. Butler in 2010 and 2011. VCU and Witchita State have made runs. As has George Mason.

But if you're going back to 1990 as your example of a 1-2 bid league team winning a title (because, again, the AAC had 4 bids last year), I think you're proving my point.
Expand ...
And the AAC might be a four bid league this year and almost certainly will again in the future. I just think people are overreacting.
 
If UConn wins the AAC Tournament, we might be the only team going to the NCAAT.
 
CAHUSKY said:
And the AAC might be a four bid league this year and almost certainly will again in the future. I just think people are overreacting.
Expand ...
It has some potential. As long as Larry Brown stays at SMU, it will remain relevant.

I think Sampson will make Houston relevant.
Memphis will get its act together.
Cincy will as well.

But I don't see how this league gets more than 3 bids this year. I could be wrong. Hell, I frequently am, but without Louisville, I think this league is screwed for this year, and probably the next few until some of the dreck figures out how to schedule and win games.
 
tzznandrew said:
It has some potential. As long as Larry Brown stays at SMU, it will remain relevant.

I think Sampson will make Houston relevant.
Memphis will get its act together.
Cincy will as well.

But I don't see how this league gets more than 3 bids this year. I could be wrong. Hell, I frequently am, but without Louisville, I think this league is screwed for this year, and probably the next few until some of the dreck figures out how to schedule and win games.
Expand ...
Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I like our conference, but the ACC has had three-bid years. The real Big East had some serious dry spells. UConn will go as far as UConn goes, not as far as Tulsa goes.
 
It's certainly not ideal, but we have to make the most of it. Probably the best year in the history of the Big East (regular season), when the league sent 11 to the tourney, we were a 3 and San Diego State was a 2 - they got a better seed by avoiding bad losses and getting a couple good wins when they had a chance while we dropped a few in league. We won the whole shebang, over Butler, but the rest of the battle-tested Big East soiled themselves (including one seed Pitt to the aforementioned Butler), so being tested night in and night out didn't help the other 10 teams much. The PAC was also hideous that year (getting 4 in only because Washington was an upset tournament winner and USC was invited to the play in round to be VCU's first victim), essentially on the level of the AAC this year but with a better brand name. Yet 5-seed Arizona was scary when we faced them in the regional final after taking Duke (with Irving) to the woodshed. If we're a 5, we have to be that sort of 5 (and not the sort that loses to a 12).

I don't really like our situation at all. Hard to get jazzed for East Carolina and Tulsa coming to Gampel. But much like I didn't care that the Big East would have been a national embarrassment without us in 2011, if Lamb doesn't make a couple shots to finish off SDSU, especially (you're welcome Big East, yet again), I'm not going to worry about the AAC being weak, as long as we don't lose to too much of the weak. There's only a single 1 seed in your region - beat them in the a Sweet 16 if that's when you face them.
 
Jim Calhoun said it himself... This is all temporary. And for the record, an AAC team is the defending national champion so who cares
 
.-.
Inyatkin said:
Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I like our conference, but the ACC has had three-bid years. The real Big East had some serious dry spells. UConn will go as far as UConn goes, not as far as Tulsa goes.
Expand ...

In 98 when UConn was a 2 seed and could've made a FF if it didn't have to play UNC in Greensboro the Big East had 4 bids total, including UConn. The BE as a whole kind of lived off of a rep for a good deal of the 90s and before the mega expansion.
 
Gurleyman said:
It's certainly not ideal, but we have to make the most of it. Probably the best year in the history of the Big East (regular season), when the league sent 11 to the tourney, we were a 3 and San Diego State was a 2 - they got a better seed by avoiding bad losses and getting a couple good wins when they had a chance while we dropped a few in league. We won the whole shebang, over Butler, but the rest of the battle-tested Big East soiled themselves (including one seed Pitt to the aforementioned Butler), so being tested night in and night out didn't help the other 10 teams much. The PAC was also hideous that year (getting 4 in only because Washington was an upset tournament winner and USC was invited to the play in round to be VCU's first victim), essentially on the level of the AAC this year but with a better brand name. Yet 5-seed Arizona was scary when we faced them in the regional final after taking Duke (with Irving) to the woodshed. If we're a 5, we have to be that sort of 5 (and not the sort that loses to a 12).

I don't really like our situation at all. Hard to get jazzed for East Carolina and Tulsa coming to Gampel. But much like I didn't care that the Big East would have been a national embarrassment without us in 2011, if Lamb doesn't make a couple shots to finish off SDSU, especially (you're welcome Big East, yet again), I'm not going to worry about the AAC being weak, as long as we don't lose to too much of the weak. There's only a single 1 seed in your region - beat them in the a Sweet 16 if that's when you face them.
Expand ...

The MWC was the #5 RPI conference in 2011. That was how SDSU got a 2 seed. The AAC may not be Top 10 this year.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The MWC was the #5 RPI conference in 2011. That was how SDSU got a 2 seed. The AAC may not be Top 10 this year.
Expand ...

Fair point. But there are other counter-arguments. Wichita, Memphis and Gonzaga earned one seeds. Princeton once got a 4 seed, and it wasn't because Brown and Dartmouth brought their RPI up. They won a couple good non-conference games and didn't lose to anyone bad.

It's certainly not good for us that the AAC blows and that I have to dive down to the Ivy League for references, but it doesn't have to be a death knell either. The top seeded big Big East team lost to Butler two years in a row, and the best team they saw in their league was Wisconsin-Milwaukee or Cleveland State. And the top seeded BE team last year was pimp-slapped by the fourth place team from the AAC.

We just have to try to be really good, and maybe more consistent than we have been (no losses at Houston), and not rely on anyone else. And then bring it in the tourney and let the chips fall where they may.

And then get it in a suitable conference someday soon.
 
tzznandrew said:
Well, last year's AAC was a 4-bid conference with the defending champions, Louisville, in it. It had 5 tournament quality teams, and at one point had 5 ranked teams.

Memphis came close in 2008. Butler in 2010 and 2011. VCU and Witchita State have made runs. As has George Mason.

But if you're going back to 1990 as your example of a 1-2 bid league team winning a title (because, again, the AAC had 4 bids last year), I think you're proving my point.
Expand ...
Well, if you are going back to 1990, then you can't ignore that the Big 10 has only 1 title since then.

The point being, success in the tournament is all about the team, not the team's conference.
 
Not that Uconn wants to aspire to anything Calipari related, either real or hypothetical, but if Uconn can take care of business in conference play, they could be similar to Memphis circa the mid to late 2000s.

Conference USA was basically a one or two bid league at that time and they would get high seeds because they wiped out their conference opponents.

It's just going to be really tough for Uconn to go through the league with only a loss or two, so Uconn must win some of these tough OOC games.
 
.-.
Inyatkin said:
Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I like our conference, but the ACC has had three-bid years. The real Big East had some serious dry spells. UConn will go as far as UConn goes, not as far as Tulsa goes.
Expand ...
Indeed, although I can't find a 3-bid year since ACC expanded. As for the Big East being down, yes, they were. But not like this league.

But there generally were actual bubble teams in both the ACC and Big East, and most of the teams weren't so dreadful as we're thinking this year's AAC is. Let's take three case studies: one from a weak ACC year (4/12 teams), one from a weak Old Big East (4/13), and one from the one AAC year (4/10 teams).

In 2011, the ACC had 4 bids and 12 teams. Even though they only had 4/12 in the dance, they had 8/12 in the RPI Top 100, 10/12 RPI Top 150, and 11/12 RPI Top 200.

In 2002, the Big East had 4/13 teams in the NCAAs. 10/13 were RPI Top 100, 11/13 were RPI Top 150, 13/13 were RPI Top 200.

In 2014, with Louisville, the AAC had 4/10 in RPI Top 100, 5/10 RPI Top 150, and 8/10 RPI Top 200.

That's a big difference, and that difference matters. The down years are nothing like what will be one of the AAC's best years.
 
Gurleyman said:
The PAC was also hideous that year (getting 4 in only because Washington was an upset tournament winner and USC was invited to the play in round to be VCU's first victim), essentially on the level of the AAC this year but with a better brand name. Yet 5-seed Arizona was scary when we faced them in the regional final after taking Duke (with Irving) to the woodshed. If we're a 5, we have to be that sort of 5 (and not the sort that loses to a 12).
Expand ...
The Pac-10 in 2011 was dreadful. 6/10 teams were RPI Top 100, 7/10 were RPI Top 150, 9/10 were RPI Top 200.

Compare that to last year's AAC, and then, going forward, this year's.
 
BUHusky said:
Well, if you are going back to 1990, then you can't ignore that the Big 10 has only 1 title since then.

The point being, success in the tournament is all about the team, not the team's conference.
Expand ...
To be fair, I didn't go back to 1990, another poster did.

But, let's also compare the Final Fours of the Big 10 since 1990 with the Final Fours of all other non BCS conferences. I think they'll have only one more title, but many many more Final Fours. Final Fours keep your school and your conference relevant.
 
tzznandrew said:
The Pac-10 in 2011 was dreadful. 6/10 teams were RPI Top 100, 7/10 were RPI Top 150, 9/10 were RPI Top 200.

Compare that to last year's AAC, and then, going forward, this year's.
Expand ...

I mixed up my years. They were truly hideous in 2012 when they became the Pac 12 and only got two teams in (Colorado and "First Four" selection California) and everyone in the league had 10 losses or more. They were just merely breathtakingly mediocre in 2011. I had thought that Washington only got in because they won the tourney, but they were probably in anyway if their final RPI was in the 30s. I did remember that USC had no business being in the First Four when VCU beat them (everyone was bitching about VCU and their RPI was 20 points higher than USC, who nobody complained about).

Anywho, Arizona wasn't really battle tested by a great Pac 10 in 2011, and probably would have won the whole thing if that three went in against us. We were heavily battle tested by a ridiculous Big East and did win the whole thing, but the rest of the ridiculous Big East soiled themselves (I'll give Cincy a pass, and Marquette overachieved and then got punked in the Sweet 16).
 
So, if we don't beat any quality opponents, we won't get quality wins and we would be seeded low.
Sounds right to me.
 
.-.
Gurleyman said:
I mixed up my years. They were truly hideous in 2012 when they became the Pac 12 and only got two teams in (Colorado and "First Four" selection California) and everyone in the league had 10 losses or more. They were just merely breathtakingly mediocre in 2011. I had thought that Washington only got in because they won the tourney, but they were probably in anyway if their final RPI was in the 30s. I did remember that USC had no business being in the First Four when VCU beat them (everyone was bitching about VCU and their RPI was 20 points higher than USC, who nobody complained about).

Anywho, Arizona wasn't really battle tested by a great Pac 10 in 2011, and probably would have won the whole thing if that three went in against us. We were heavily battle tested by a ridiculous Big East and did win the whole thing, but the rest of the ridiculous Big East soiled themselves (I'll give Cincy a pass, and Marquette overachieved and then got punked in the Sweet 16).
Expand ...
Good point. 2012 was another terrible year in the Pac.

6/12 in RPI Top 100. 9/12 in RPI Top 150. 3 sub-200 teams.

It's almost a reasonable facsimile of this year's AAC. I'd bet we're going to see fewer than 6 RPI Top 100 AAC teams, but more than the Pac's 1 Top 50 team.

I'm thinking 5/11 Top 100, 7/11 Top 150, 2 sub-200 teams.
 
For 25 years the Big East did not win a basketball championship that was not UCONN's. (Maybe the one from 2003 will not be repealed- so I should give Mello his due)

After Georgetown and Villanova, the Big East was pretty quiet regarding championships. We were the exception. The upset of Syracuse and Louisville's win as (after) the league dissolved. Great league but not always great tourney performances. Except us.
 
tzznandrew said:
Of course there will. Seeding in the NCAAs matters. UConn was underseeded by about 2 lines last year, in a much stronger iteration of this conference.

What do you think will happen this year if lose another game or two, and run roughshod all over the AAC? Let's say they win against Texas and @Stanford, and lose against Duke and Florida. Drop 2 games in the AAC, and then win the tournament. That's a 25-5 team that will have almost no quality wins. Where do they get seeded? A major conference team that does that is in discussion for a 1 seed, and is no worse than a 2.
Expand ...
Sign me up for 25-5 right now! It's 3-4 games into the season for most teams and we're pronouncing Memphis, SMU, Cincy, Temple, etc a complete disaster? Granted not pretty so far but let's give it a little longer...I predict 3 bids at least. Also I will take the wins vs TX, Stanford with loses to Duke, Fla...would love to win them all and it's not out of the realm but a split works.
 
Hi-Low said:
Sign me up for 25-5 right now! It's 3-4 games into the season for most teams and we're pronouncing Memphis, SMU, Cincy, Temple, etc a complete disaster? Granted not pretty so far but let's give it a little longer...I predict 3 bids at least. Also I will take the wins vs TX, Stanford with loses to Duke, Fla...would love to win them all and it's not out of the realm but a split works.
Expand ...
I'm not predicting those teams disasters, although I don't think that Temple will be as much better as we'd hope. I was just positing a really good record, and then imagining how that would still hurt us because of the conference.

Ultimately, I think this conference ends up with 3 bids, and 5 Top 100 teams.

I think UConn gets in, and then 2 of SMU, Cincy, Memphis, Tulsa. 3 of those four will be clearly in the Top 50, and one between 50 and 100. Temple has an outside shot at Top 100, but I suspect they'll finish this year right outside it.

I also think that some of the dregs from last year will look a little better (UCF, USF, Houston) in RPI, but Tulane and ECU will be disasters.

All in all, it may look like something in between the 2011 (high end) and 2012 Pac-10/12.
 
We go 25-5 we'll be like a 5-6 seed. The days of 1-3 seeds are over unless we go sub 2 losses.
 
I don't think anybody is projecting the demise of this years UConn team on the basis of the conference being bad. There are plenty of past teams who have thrived despite their conference affiliation. But there is unquestionably going to be some collateral damage felt by UConn, if for no other reason than that the selection committee is incompetent. Everything worked out for last years UConn team, in large part because we drew a beatable Villanova team in Buffalo. That's not to take anything away from them, because they could have easily beaten anybody, anywhere given how well they were playing. But what if we had played Wisconsin in Milwaukee instead? Then we really would have been screwed.

There may or may not be any evidence to support the fact that testing yourself with a good schedule correlates with March success. Somebody would have to research it. But I don't think we win the national championship last season without playing Louisville three times. I don't think we win the championship without playing SMU twice or Cincinnati three times. Those were all extremely good, tough squads, particularly defensively, that exposed some flaws and accelerated the development of guys like Giffey and Daniels. I think surviving the meat grinder of the Big East in 2011 helped, as well.

If you're a great team you're a great team, and I generally agree that UConn will determine their fate rather than other teams. But particularly in seasons like this, where we figure to be much better towards the end of the season than at the beginning, there's not necessarily much reward for taking losses to tough teams OOC. At the very least, it reduces your margin for error.
 
.-.
CTBasketball said:
We go 25-5 we'll be like a 5-6 seed. The days of 1-3 seeds are over unless we go sub 2 losses.
Expand ...

If we go 25-5 with only 2 conference losses and wins over Texas and Stanford, we'd have a better resume than Louisville did last year.
 
HuskyBballFan said:
If we go 25-5 with only 2 conference losses and wins over Texas and Stanford, we'd have a better resume than Louisville did last year.
Expand ...
Loses to West Virginia, Duke, Florida, and like Cincinnati/Temple will not give us a 3/4 seed. We would have 2 or 3 quality wins depending on how Dayton does.
 
HuskyBballFan said:
If we go 25-5 with only 2 conference losses and wins over Texas and Stanford, we'd have a better resume than Louisville did last year.
Expand ...
That depends, doesn't it, on whom you beat in conference. They got Top 50 wins over UConn (3), SMU (2), and Cincy (1), and their losses within conference (Memphis x2 and Cincy) were also Top 50.

Is UConn going to have that same luxury?

And, Louisville got a 4 seed after winning both the regular season and tournament championship. Is that what our peak is? Are we comfortable with that, because that really screws us over long term.
 
CTBasketball said:
Loses to West Virginia, Duke, Florida, and like Cincinnati/Temple will not give us a 3/4 seed. We would have 2 or 3 quality wins depending on how Dayton does.
Expand ...
Some people don't seem to realize yet how we are at the moment (some of the teams can and probably will improve, but they aren't anywhere near where they need to be). We needed SMU to go out and win their OOC games. And Memphis. And our lower tier teams to actually schedule real teams.

Many people seem blinded by the fact that the AAC was actually pretty solid at the top last year, and forget that it over all our teams in the post season. SMU didn't make it. Memphis as an 8 was okay. Cincy as a 5 was too low. Louisville at a 4 was too low. UConn at a 7 was too low. Our run wasn't luck, but a run like that is rare, and as @champs99and04 points out, exceedingly fortunate to be in Buffalo rather than Milwaukee, or some other less "neutral" place.
 
tzznandrew said:
Some people don't seem to realize yet how we are at the moment (some of the teams can and probably will improve, but they aren't anywhere near where they need to be). We needed SMU to go out and win their OOC games. And Memphis. And our lower tier teams to actually schedule real teams.

Many people seem blinded by the fact that the AAC was actually pretty solid at the top last year, and forget that it over all our teams in the post season. SMU didn't make it. Memphis as an 8 was okay. Cincy as a 5 was too low. Louisville at a 4 was too low. UConn at a 7 was too low. Our run wasn't luck, but a run like that is rare, and as @champs99and04 points out, exceedingly fortunate to be in Buffalo rather than Milwaukee, or some other less "neutral" place.
Expand ...
Exactly. We had 3 losses to Louisville last year, who was Top25 RPI. If we lost those same games to teams outside the Top50 or 100 RPI, we aren't in the tournament.

If you look at the current KenPom rankings (or RPI, whatever you want), we play the following:
  • Memphis 35
  • Tulsa 52
  • SMU 57
  • Cincinnati 62
  • Temple 125
  • USF 154
  • Houston 167
  • UCF 184
  • East Carolina 207
  • Tulane 221
I highly doubt Memphis will stay top 50, as they're bad this year. No guard play whatsoever. Tulsa, SMU, and Cincinnati might stick. The rest are garbage. Temple can break top 100 though. If you compare the worst Big East team with our teams, Marquette clocks in at 124. Which is better than almost 2/3 of our league. Obviously these teams all need to pass the eye test, but rankings/SOS/and quality wins play a huge factor in seeding.

If we drop even 3/4 of the games to Duke, Stanford, Texas, or Florida, we're looking at a 7 or 8 seed barring any debacle in conference.
 
tzznandrew said:
That depends, doesn't it, on whom you beat in conference. They got Top 50 wins over UConn (3), SMU (2), and Cincy (1), and their losses within conference (Memphis x2 and Cincy) were also Top 50.

Is UConn going to have that same luxury?

And, Louisville got a 4 seed after winning both the regular season and tournament championship. Is that what our peak is? Are we comfortable with that, because that really screws us over long term.
Expand ...

Louisville also had exactly zero impressive wins out of conference.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,439
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom