Louisville 10
Cincinnati 24
Charlotte 36
UAB 45
DePaul 64
TCU 75
Houston 84
Marquette 92
Memphis 99
USF 159
Saint Louis 184
ECU 193
Southern Miss 230
Tulane 244

Avg of top 6: 42.3
Avg of bottom 5: 202
Avg of middle 3: 91.7
Conference avg: 109.9
NCAA Tournament Bids:
Conference Tournament Champion:#4 Louisville (RPI 10)
At Large: #7 Cincinnati (24), #7 Charlotte (36), #11 UAB (45)


SMU 12
Temple 34
Cincinnati 37
Tulsa 46
UConn 77
Memphis 83
Tulane 214
ECU 220
Houston 239
UCF 256
USF 273

Avg of top 6: 48.2
Avg of bottom 5: 240.4
Conference avg: 135.5
Conference avg with "middle 3" added: 126.1
NCAA Tournament Bids:
Conference Tournament Champion: #6 SMU (12)
At Largge: #8 Cincinnati (37)
"Just Missed": Temple (34), Tulsa (46)


Admittedly, I arbitrarily picked the 2004-05 season for the representation of C-USA V1. There were probably better and worse years for C-USA, I honestly don't know as I wasn't really following basketball closely at that time.

In any event the top 6 for this year's AAC and the 2004-05 C-USA are very comparable. The bottom 5 was fairly significantly worse this year, but in any case the bottom 5 averaged 200+ in both years. C-USA had 3 more members that were ranked 84, 92, and 99 in RPI. This year those 3 spots were held by George Washington, Kent St, and South Dakota State for reference.

Obviously it has been well documented on this board that the bottom 5 in this league need improvement. I am sure there is a wide range of opinions on what exactly that means but if those 5 teams averaged an RPI of 202, that would be a fairly significant improvement.

It is worth pointing out that in 2005 C-USA had 4 teams selected to the tournament with RPIs of 10, 24, 36, and 45 and the AAC this year had 2 teams left out with RPIs of 34 and 46.

If the bottom 5 of this conference improved to C-USA 2005 standards would we have gotten 3 or 4 teams in? I know this conference is very skeptical of adding non football members, and for good reason, but would adding George Washington/SD State type members who play FCS football have a positive impact on selection time? I'm not suggesting those 2 specific schools but ones of a similar caliber who don't play FBS football.

The bottom 5 teams in this league have all shown a capability to have much better end of season RPIs, but at the same time, this year isn't exactly a huge statistical outlier for most of them.

I also know that there is more to look at than just a teams RPI, and there are a number of reasons why a 45 might get in one year and a 46 not get in another, but the fact remains that our top 4 compared pretty well to those 4 teams taken in 2005. Perhaps in a different year with the same resumes we would have had as many as 4 teams in.