Wtic Sports Talk AAC Bids

[UConnNick]

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.

 

[tzznandrew]

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..

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.

 

[Slasher]

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.

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)

 

[August_West]

Sorry, that's not the way it works. 2 out of 30 games are not the measure of NCAA worth.

Perspective...

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.

 

[CallMeBruce]

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.

Maybe, but we'd be wrong.

 

[7774]

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.

True, because most people on this board are morons.

 

[August_West]

Maybe, but we'd be wrong.

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.

 

[CallMeBruce]

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.

Speak for yourself. My math skills don't deteriorate when the answers aren't the ones I want.

 

[Jerry1714]

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.

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.

 

[upstater]

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.

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.

 

[August_West]

Speak for yourself. My math skills don't deteriorate when the answers aren't the ones I want.

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.

 

[Jerry1714]

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.

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.

 

[August_West]

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.

We had a 5 seed resume. You arguing we have a 5 seed resume this year?

 

[Jerry1714]

We had a 5 seed resume. You arguing we have a 5 seed resume this year?

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.

 

[CallMeBruce]

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.

Yeah, but according to math, the AAC was only screwed once.

 

[August_West]

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.

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?

 

[August_West]

Yeah, but according to math, the AAC was only screwed once.

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.

 

[Jerry1714]

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?

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.

 

[Jerry1714]

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.

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

 

[David 76]

Just win.

 

[tcf15]

I think what we're seeing with Temple being #1 in AAC but outside of the NCAA tournament is two things: importance of non-conference performance and not losing to teams in the bottom half of the AAC.

Temple sh t the bed against all of their top OOC opponents (UNC, Butler, Utah, Wisconsin, St. Joe's and Villanova). Their best OOC win is Minnesota (177 KenPom; 240 RPI). Non conference record is 6-6. In the AAC, while going 7-2 against the likes of UConn, Cincinnati, SMU, Tulsa and Houston, Temple dropped games to Memphis (104 KP; 155 RPI) and East Carolina (191 KP; 189 RPI). Couple that with their awful non-conference record and it's clear why they are on the wrong side of the bubble.

UConn, in comparison, beat some decent teams in non-conference: Michigan (49 KP; 57 RPI), Ohio State (64 KP; 73 RPI), Texas (31 KP; 25 RPI), Georgetown (72 KP; 107 RPI). In the AAC, they've gone 3-6 against Temple, Cincinnati, SMU, Tulsa and Houston, but they have not lost any games to the bottom half of the conference. Zero bad losses (in the committee's eyes) and a solid non-conference record is why UConn is in better shape than Temple.

 

[uconngb]

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

This seems pretty compelling to me based on last year's results.

 

[Milo65]

A win today goes a long way in locking up a bid. I much rather win a bid, then lose and have to hope and pray.

 

[intlzncster]

But we would be convinced we were right. Sports Politics 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.

ftfy

 

[intlzncster]

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.

See PCU.

 

[August_West]

ftfy

true too.

 

[intlzncster]

Just win.

Seriously. Everything else is masturbation.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

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.

I really don't care about other teams .
That UConn is flawed but it's less flawed than some of the competition really doesn't make me happy.
I see a talented team unable to take advantage of its opportunities, it's extremely disappointing. If we managed wins in two of the four games I mentioned we would have a case.

 

[CallMeBruce]

I really don't care about other teams .
That UConn is flawed but it's less flawed than some of the competition really doesn't make me happy.
I see a talented team unable to take advantage of its opportunities, it's extremely disappointing. If we managed wins in two of the four games I mentioned we would have a case.

You do understand that they're going to fill all of the slots for the tournament, right? Even if you find the available teams "disappointing."

 

[Jerry1714]

I really don't care about other teams .
That UConn is flawed but it's less flawed than some of the competition really doesn't make me happy.
I see a talented team unable to take advantage of its opportunities, it's extremely disappointing. If we managed wins in two of the four games I mentioned we would have a case.

I think you may be confused on how the ncaa tournament works........