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.

We're not far. But we'll never do it with that distribution in this day and age.

Get the bottom under 200 and 1 or 2 under 150, we'd have had 2 more in this year, even with Memphis and U Conn having off years.

We were good enough to be a 4 bid league this year..

And that's even without Memphis and UCONN in the mix.

Temple and Tulsa are advancing in the NIT. It'd be great to get two to NYC.

That's the scary part. Just wait until the new coaches/recruiting classes get acclimated with the rest of the conference. The work is being done.

(03-22-2015 01:33 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  We were good enough to be a 4 bid league this year..

And that's even without Memphis and UCONN in the mix.

Temple and Tulsa are advancing in the NIT. It'd be great to get two to NYC.

That's the scary part. Just wait until the new coaches/recruiting classes get acclimated with the rest of the conference. The work is being done.

I disagree, to me at least:

SMU, Cincy, Temple are NCAA teams...

Tulsa, UConn, and Memphis are NIT teams...

But what do I know?

(03-22-2015 01:50 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 01:33 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  We were good enough to be a 4 bid league this year..

And that's even without Memphis and UCONN in the mix.

Temple and Tulsa are advancing in the NIT. It'd be great to get two to NYC.

That's the scary part. Just wait until the new coaches/recruiting classes get acclimated with the rest of the conference. The work is being done.

I disagree, to me at least:

SMU, Cincy, Temple are NCAA teams...

Tulsa, UConn, and Memphis are NIT teams...

But what do I know?

After watching the tourney, I think Tulsa would more than hold their own.

That's JMO. They passed my "eye test"

(03-22-2015 01:50 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 01:33 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  We were good enough to be a 4 bid league this year..

And that's even without Memphis and UCONN in the mix.

Temple and Tulsa are advancing in the NIT. It'd be great to get two to NYC.

That's the scary part. Just wait until the new coaches/recruiting classes get acclimated with the rest of the conference. The work is being done.

I disagree, to me at least:

SMU, Cincy, Temple are NCAA teams...

Tulsa, UConn, and Memphis are NIT teams...

But what do I know?

Plenty of talented programs are already in this league and are going to get even better because ESPN exposure, all and while the lower part of this leagues members will eventually at some point increase their status because of too.

I honestly believe 4-5 AAC members dancing and 1-2 in the NIT regularly after 2016.

If the league's teams get better you'll start seeing flat tires on the buses and 3 a.m. wakeup calls to their hotel rooms. The Power 5 won't let the American succeed.

You earn respect and notoriety by consistent winning and beating teams in other conferences. As a whole, the AAC is not quite there yet but I do agree that the league should gradually improve top to bottom. If UConn and Memphis had a "typical year" we would have had 4 bids in the tourney. Temple and Tulsa were right there as well. I don't see why at least four teams can't qualify for the dance next year. Three should be locks.

we could easily get 4 bids next year...and i mean easily....

temple deserved to be in at 3 this year...

and tulsa was a decent OOC schedule from making it aswell,

smu, tulsa, cincy look almost a lock for the tourney next year (if tulsa learned its leasson)....memphis, uconn, temple have reloaded elite level talent..there s easily 4 tourney teams in that bunch

the 6+ bids like some leagues are getting is where we neeed major work to get to.... which will require alot of work in scheduling at the bottom, elite level top 10 teams at the top that have major wins. and some form of committee representation..and that that could all happen within 3 or 4 years is the league is actively pushing for it

I don't have the list here in front of me, but it seems like the various teams in this league suffered about 10-12 really nasty WTF-type of losses in the OOC part of the schedule. If (in some alternate reality) you could take away the 12 worst OOC losses and put them in the W column, I have no doubt this would've been a 4-bid league this year.

I agree that the AAC could easily get 4 many years. The Pac-12 recently only had 2 bids, this year they're undefeated in the tourney and looking like the best conference. These things are somewhat cyclical.

The key, from my perspective, is that AAC teams are showing an institutional commitment to athletics. I feel that MWC schools have significant budget concerns (UNLV and San Jose St come to mind as programs that may cull teams sooner rather than later), the A-10 lacks championships and exposure, and most of the other conferences have been gutted so badly by realignment that I doubt they pose a significant long-term threat to the AAC. In coming years, the AAC could easily be stealing bids from the MWC and A-10, and in many years, the SEC and Pac-12 will likely return to a more typical # of bids. All in all, this means the AAC should be fine in the long run.

Close, it almost happened this year.

(03-22-2015 02:46 PM)mascotswinchampionships Wrote:  If the league's teams get better you'll start seeing flat tires on the buses and 3 a.m. wakeup calls to their hotel rooms. The Power 5 won't let the American succeed.

I understand your disapointment but need I remind you many AAC programs have rich histories and with current great TV exposure (ESPN) now will only help improve the brand and everyone in it nationally.

That said, every conference has bad years so will the AAC.

(03-22-2015 05:20 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  That said, every conference has bad years so will the AAC.

AAC was 86-49 in OOC games in the regular season. About 10-12 of those losses were very fluke-ish and unlikely to recur in the future.

You could argue that Temple, Tulsa, and UConn were one game away from earning a tournament bid. Two NCAA bids and three NIT bids isn't bad in a down year. It would be troubling if that becomes the norm.

For those expecting a big regular season from the Huskies here is a little bit of recent history. UConn has been a great tournament team but an average program during conference play.

Here is UConn's conference record since 2010

2010: Big East 7-11
2011: Big East 9-9 Won Big East tournament and National Championship
2012: Big East 8-10
2013: Big East 10-8
2014: American 12-6 Made the finals of the American tournament and won the National Championship
2015: American: 10-8 Made the finals of the American tournament

UConn has been an elite post-season program but a step or two below that during the regular season. I think our expectations for the Huskies next season should be around 11 or 12 conference wins and 9 to 11 non-conference wins.

(03-22-2015 01:19 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  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.

One year away. We will get four teams in next year. It was a fluke 2 teams this year. Temple shouldve been in and maybe Tulsa. Memphis and Uconn will normally get in most years. We are a 3-5 bid league most years

If you notice, most 4+ bid leagues have a 1 or 2 seed. If you remove Louisville from last year as a #4 seed, the top team would be Cinci at a 5 seed. This year SMU was only a 6th seed while winning both tournament and regular season. I think for the AAC to hope to get more than a 3 bid league, it will require the top teams at least be a 3 seed. I am not sure if the top team is a 5 seed or lower, how many more the committee will let in from that league. It will not be enough to have tournament capable teams, but the league will need to have at least 1 flyer to help it get respect. 4 Team conferences with teams with less than 5 losses, ACC (3), BE (1) B1G (1) P12 (1) SEC (1). Looking at single digit loses ACC (4), B12 (3), B1G (2) P12 (2) SEC (2)

I think the AAC will be a 3 to 5 bid league. This was a bit of a strange year where many teams were remodeling. Even this year we were 1 win from being a 3 bid league. and maybe 2 to 4 wins from being a 4 bid league.

(03-23-2015 12:22 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  If you notice, most 4+ bid leagues have a 1 or 2 seed. If you remove Louisville from last year as a #4 seed, the top team would be Cinci at a 5 seed. This year SMU was only a 6th seed while winning both tournament and regular season. I think for the AAC to hope to get more than a 3 bid league, it will require the top teams at least be a 3 seed. I am not sure if the top team is a 5 seed or lower, how many more the committee will let in from that league. It will not be enough to have tournament capable teams, but the league will need to have at least 1 flyer to help it get respect. 4 Team conferences with teams with less than 5 losses, ACC (3), BE (1) B1G (1) P12 (1) SEC (1). Looking at single digit loses ACC (4), B12 (3), B1G (2) P12 (2) SEC (2)

Having teams seeded 1 - 3 helps increase the odds of getting 4+ bids, but historically it's not a requirement. The A10 has had more years with 4+ bids without a team seeded that high than those with teams in that range. It's an outlier, but the A10 had six teams in last year with two 5 seeds (SLU, VCU) as their highest seeded teams. They had five the year before with their highest seeded team being a #4. The biggest factors in getting multiple bids for non-P5 conferences are always OOC win% and OOC SOS. Once you get the job done OOC the top teams need to win a high percentage of conference games against the bottom teams to create separation.

The BE got six teams in the tournament this year because they performed very well OOC, had a good number of quality OOC wins, and few bad OOC losses. The top also separated themselves in conference play from the bottom. That combination is the only formula for the AAC to have a median of 4 bids on an ongoing basis.