Wtic Sports Talk AAC Bids | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Wtic Sports Talk AAC Bids

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand how people can put SO much weight on a regular-season title when the league doesn't have a balanced schedule.

UConn, Tulsa and Houston played/plays every single good AAC team twice (the top six teams). Temple, SMU and Cincinnati did not. That's a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
This team lost at home to Temple, Cinn, and Houstona ( a 10 point underdog)
They blew a late Double Digit lead to lose at Temple.
I'm as big a homer as it gets but I couldn't complain if we are overlooked.
You have win those games..
 
AZHuskiePop said:
This team lost at home to Temple, Cinn, and Houstona ( a 10 point underdog)
They blew a late Double Digit lead to lose at Temple.
I'm as big a homer as it gets but I couldn't complain if we are overlooked.
You have win those games..
Expand ...

Fortunately for us, there are a lot of teams with even more embarrassing stuff on their record. This isn't just homer opinions, it is what most bracketologists are saying.
 
Some of the talking heads tonight are predicting only two bids from the AAC, including the auto bid. That would not surprise me. If we don't win the conf tourney, we may be competing with three other AAC teams for one spot. We better be sure we are the prettiest of that group.
 
AZHuskiePop said:
This team lost at home to Temple, Cinn, and Houstona ( a 10 point underdog)
They blew a late Double Digit lead to lose at Temple.
I'm as big a homer as it gets but I couldn't complain if we are overlooked.
You have win those games..
Expand ...
You mean losing to that Top 100 and those two Top 50-ish teams?
While we should have won all those games (except @Cincy), those turds would be near gems on some of these other bubble team's resumes.
 
zls44 said:
I don't understand how people can put SO much weight on a regular-season title when the league doesn't have a balanced schedule.

UConn, Tulsa and Houston played/plays every single good AAC team twice (the top six teams). Temple, SMU and Cincinnati did not. That's a huge difference.
Expand ...

Cincinnati plays all top six teams twice. It's just Temple and SMU that do not. Here's every team's single opponents:

SMU (12-4): Temple, UCF
Temple (12-4): SMU, Tulane
Cincinnati (11-5): UCF, Tulane
Houston (11-6): ECU, Memphis
Tulsa (11-6): USF, Memphis
UConn (10-6): ECU, USF
Memphis (7-9): Houston, Tulsa
UCF (6-11): Cincinnati, SMU
ECU (4-13): Houston, UConn
USF (4-13): UConn, Tulsa
Tulane (3-14): Temple, Cincinnati


Ranking of difficulty of conference schedule (Hardest to Easiest -- single team records - hence worst record harder schedule)

1. UConn (8-26)
2. Cincinnati (9-25)
3. Houston (11-22)
4. Tulsa (11-22)
5. Temple (15-18)
6. SMU (18-15)
7. ECU (21-12)
8. USF (21-12)
9. Memphis (22-12)
10. Tulane (23-9)
11. UCF (23-9)
 
tzznandrew said:
Sorry, that's not the way it works. 2 out of 30 games are not the measure of NCAA worth.

Perspective...
Expand ...

They are not. But if you reversed our position with Temple and we beat them twice, and sat as the conference 1 seed in tourney, and they had better season long numbers I promise you we would be screaming to high heaven that we should be in before them.
 
August_West said:
They are not. But if you reversed our position with Temple and we beat them twice, and sat as the conference 1 seed in tourney, and they had better season long numbers I promise you we would be screaming to high heaven that we should be in before them.
Expand ...
True, because most people on this board are morons.
 
CallMeBruce said:
Maybe, but we'd be wrong.
Expand ...

We would be. No doubt. But we would be convinced we were right. Sports message boards are the most biased places on the planet. Its fine. They should be. That is about rooting for your team and all that. No problem there. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind there would be thread after thread on why we should be in over Temple if the tables were turned. I mean that is easy to see.
 
August_West said:
We would be. No doubt. But we would be convinced we were right. Sports message boards are the most biased places on the planet. Its fine. They should be. That is about rooting for your team and all that. No problem there. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind there would be thread after thread on why we should be in over Temple if the tables were turned. I mean that is easy to see.
Expand ...

Speak for yourself. My math skills don't deteriorate when the answers aren't the ones I want.
 
August_West said:
We would be. No doubt. But we would be convinced we were right. Sports message boards are the most biased places on the planet. Its fine. They should be. That is about rooting for your team and all that. No problem there. But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind there would be thread after thread on why we should be in over Temple if the tables were turned. I mean that is easy to see.
Expand ...
There would be, but there are people on this board who legitimately know nothing about college basketball. Some of the posts in this thread are evidence of that.
 
ucp990411 said:
Why do you guys care about Temple. They beat us twice. They should get in before us. I think the only way we get in is if we win the tournament.
Expand ...

There were years in the old Big East when lower teams beat the top teams twice. Tis shouldn't mean the rest of the season is invalidated because of two games.

If only Temple didn't lose to Memphis and East Carolina (EAST CAROLINA!!) they'd be sitting pretty. In many respects Temple has a UConn-onian type of OOC, having lost games to decent teams in North Carolina, Butler, Villanova, etc. Just like UConn's OOC.

The main difference though is that Temple hasn't beaten a single good OOC team. UConn at least has 3 or 4 such wins (Texas, Michigan, Ohio State and maybe Georgetown). Temple really needed to beat Butler and St. joe's.
 
Last edited:
CallMeBruce said:
Speak for yourself. My math skills don't deteriorate when the answers aren't the ones I want.
Expand ...

It's not just about math though, is it? If it was just about about math the AAC wouldnt have been screwed in seeding the first 2 years of their existence.
 
ucp990411 said:
Why do you guys care about Temple. They beat us twice. They should get in before us. I think the only way we get in is if we win the tournament.
Expand ...
We lost to SMU twice 2 years ago, we went to the tournament, they went to the NIT. I am not calling you stupid, but this post is really stupid.
 
Jerry1714 said:
We lost to SMU twice 2 years ago, we went to the tournament, they went to the NIT. I am not calling you stupid, but this post is really stupid.
Expand ...

We had a 5 seed resume. You arguing we have a 5 seed resume this year?
 
August_West said:
We had a 5 seed resume. You arguing we have a 5 seed resume this year?
Expand ...
No, nor did that post indicate that in anyway.

Our resume and metrics are not comparable to Temple's though. Go look at them. I will give you one example, our Kenpom is 28, theirs is 93. That is 65 spots. Are you saying that is comparable?

Did you read his post? My point was simple, losing to a team twice means nothing in getting into the NCAAT over that team. I provided an example, that should resonate with you, or him, or anyone on this board, that a team that is better than another team who lost to the lesser team twice, still got into the NCAAT and the other team who was on the bubble did not.
 
August_West said:
It's not just about math though, is it? If it was just about about math the AAC wouldnt have been screwed in seeding the first 2 years of their existence.
Expand ...

Yeah, but according to math, the AAC was only screwed once.
 
Jerry1714 said:
No, nor did that post indicate that in anyway.

Our resume and metrics are not comparable to Temple's though. Go look at them. I will give you one example, our Kenpom is 28, theirs is 93. That is 65 spots. Are you saying that is comparable?

Did you read his post? My point was simple, losing to a team twice means nothing in getting into the NCAAT over that team. I provided an example, that should resonate with you, or him, or anyone on this board, that a team that is better than another team who lost to the lesser team twice, still got into the NCAAT and the other team who was on the bubble did not.
Expand ...

Yes, i know you did not. My point being is that it is not an apples to apples comparison. 2 years ago you are comparing two teams, one that was solidly in the tournament with a 5 seed resume by "math" since you like math so much, (why did we get a "7" ) - UConn and one on the Bubble (SMU) to make your point.

This year you are taking a team that is barely in (UConn) and very much on the Bubble depending what happens in the next 3 days and comparing it with another team that is also on the Bubble (but a worse side of the Bubble than UConn) . If your math meant something either UCONN would be solidly in or Temple would be solidly out, except that they are both spoken as Bubble teams in every prognostication I see. So they are much closer in selection eyes then the numbers indicate? Why?
 
CallMeBruce said:
Yeah, but according to math, the AAC was only screwed once.
Expand ...

Depends which math you go by, which is why I get a kick out of the pure math guys.

You using RPI? BPI? KenPom? VBDI (Vitale Bald Dome index)? They vary so wildly that you can just pick and choose which ones you want to use to fit your narrative.
 
August_West said:
Yes, i know you did not. My point being is that it is not an apples to apples comparison. 2 years ago you are comparing two teams, one that was solidly in the tournament with a 5 seed resume by "math" since you like math so much, (why did we get a "7" ) - UConn and one on the Bubble (SMU) to make your point.

This year you are taking a team that is barely in (UConn) and very much on the Bubble depending what happens in the next 3 days and comparing it with another team that is also on the Bubble (but a worse side of the Bubble than UConn) . If your math meant something either UCONN would be solidly in or Temple would be solidly out, except that they are both spoken as Bubble teams in every prognostication I see. So they are much closer in selection eyes then the numbers indicate? Why?
Expand ...
What "math" are you talking about, this post makes no sense you cause you use the word "math" and I have no idea what this means or relates to this conversation.

Also, the original point was simple, you cannot make overarching statements that because you lose to a team twice they are definitely in over you, that is all. I have no idea why you are having trouble grasping this.

Lastly, your point (I think), and his point, only makes any sense if the last two teams up for debate by the committee are Temple and UConn and they use those two games, as opposed to looking at the other 30+ games as their metric on who gets the bid, because EVERY other metric supports UConn's inclusion over Temple.
 
August_West said:
Depends which math you go by, which is why I get a kick out of the pure math guys.

You using RPI? BPI? KenPom? VBDI (Vitale Bald Dome index)? They vary so wildly that you can just pick and choose which ones you want to use to fit your narrative.
Expand ...
No, that is not how it works.

Taken from another poster and under this try to tell me UConn and Temple are comparable:

So I have posted before an article saying that the selection committee looks at 6 rankings:

RPI
KPI
BPI
Pomeroy
Sagarin
LRMC

And I posted some research that if you averaged those six rankings last year, you would have correctly identified every at large team.

Currently, you have to be in the Top 50 of the six-rank average to get an at-large bid. There are 36 at-large bids, 12 conference champs in the Top 50, plus SMU/Louisville.

Here are where the American teams currently rank in the six-rank average:

SMU 13
UConn 31
Cincy 33
Tulsa 47 (among the last 4 in)
-----------------
Houston 61
Temple 77
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
221
Guests online
1,397
Total visitors
1,618
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,025
Messages
4,378,924
Members
10,171
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom