Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
stevers thoughts
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,101
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 96
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #111
RE: stevers thoughts
Preseason rankings mean very little, although it is excellent to once again have Villanova, Xavier, Seton Hall and Butler ranked inside the top-25. The league will once again have a gauntlet for the middle along with Providence, Marquette, Creighton and St. Johns. As of today, I would guess that the league will get 6 teams in the tournament, along with two into the NIT. DePaul is still a year away (at least), and Georgetown will take some time to get things back on track with Ewing.

The new surprises in the top-25 are Northwestern (which is great for college basketball), USC (Enfield has done great job rebuilding program), Missouri (only won 8 games last year, but Cuonzo landed golden ticket in Porter and Tillmon) and Alabama (Avery recruits well, but I always thought he underperformed as a head coach).
05-27-2017 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,116
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #112
RE: stevers thoughts
gotta love folks who think you only are supposed to look at what a conference has done in the past, and not the teams that are currently in the conference. I mean, take the MVC in '17-18. Why should when you are looking at the MVC should you consider Wichita St in the least? Sure they made the final 4. But how does that influence what the MVC will be like this year? At the same time, sure Valpo wasn't in the MVC, but why shouldn't you consider them when looking at the MVC for this year? When you are looking at things, you need to look at how conferences are currently constructed, not at how they used to be constructed.
06-05-2017 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
hoops22 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 226
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 30
I Root For: big east
Location:
Post: #113
RE: stevers thoughts
(06-05-2017 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  gotta love folks who think you only are supposed to look at what a conference has done in the past, and not the teams that are currently in the conference. I mean, take the MVC in '17-18. Why should when you are looking at the MVC should you consider Wichita St in the least? Sure they made the final 4. But how does that influence what the MVC will be like this year? At the same time, sure Valpo wasn't in the MVC, but why shouldn't you consider them when looking at the MVC for this year? When you are looking at things, you need to look at how conferences are currently constructed, not at how they used to be constructed.

Right Stever, and you gotta love folks who keep the blinders on, and insist past performance will translate to future success in their new conference. Let's take a look at former northeastern basketball powers that make their new home in predominantly southern conferences. We'll start with Pitt. Their final few years in the BE, the strongest league in the country, they resided in the top ten for a large part of that time span. Today the program is in shambles, they're struggling to get bodies just to fill the roster. Do you expect them to return to the lofty levels they enjoyed in their BE days? I don't.

How about Temple from your beloved AAC? Look at their record in the 10-15 years before leaving the A10. They were a virtual mainstay in the NCAA tournament year in and year out. That was when they had natural rivalries, in a league Philly people were familiar with. Today, they still have the same coach, but the results are now upside down in their new league. What about UCONN? Do you expect them to return to what they were in their BE heyday? What I see is a lot of people transferring out, lost recruiting battles, and a completely empty arena for the AAC championship game, played on their home floor. So again, the question I'll ask, is the AAC good for UCONN basketball, and should we expect to see them return to what they once were?

I can go on. BC used to compete for BE titles way back when, but their move to a southern league has all but killed what that program used to be. Even Syracuse, take away that unexpected run to the Final Four, due to a surprisingly easy path, and things are trending the wrong way. Despite the opportunity for plenty of playing time and a weak returning cast, next years recruiting class is ranked something like 65th. Not the Syracuse I remember. Plus they're now virtually invisible in the media throughout the northeastern corridor of D.C., Philly and NYC, with the exception of a game or two in December, when people aren't paying that much attention.

Your original post was a thinly veiled criticism of BE fans for not being as infatuated with the AAC as you are. Maybe Witchita will give them a team that goes deep this year. They're a good team, it certainly could happen. But your assumption that the UCONN's and Temples will be what they once were is questionable. Same as it is for Pitt, BC and Syracuse too I suspect. The dynamics of northern teams playing in southern conferences, has not had good results thus far, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that trend continue. Your assumptions don't take those realities into consideration.
06-05-2017 10:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,116
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #114
RE: stevers thoughts
(06-05-2017 10:32 PM)hoops22 Wrote:  
(06-05-2017 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  gotta love folks who think you only are supposed to look at what a conference has done in the past, and not the teams that are currently in the conference. I mean, take the MVC in '17-18. Why should when you are looking at the MVC should you consider Wichita St in the least? Sure they made the final 4. But how does that influence what the MVC will be like this year? At the same time, sure Valpo wasn't in the MVC, but why shouldn't you consider them when looking at the MVC for this year? When you are looking at things, you need to look at how conferences are currently constructed, not at how they used to be constructed.

Right Stever, and you gotta love folks who keep the blinders on, and insist past performance will translate to future success in their new conference. Let's take a look at former northeastern basketball powers that make their new home in predominantly southern conferences. We'll start with Pitt. Their final few years in the BE, the strongest league in the country, they resided in the top ten for a large part of that time span. Today the program is in shambles, they're struggling to get bodies just to fill the roster. Do you expect them to return to the lofty levels they enjoyed in their BE days? I don't.

How about Temple from your beloved AAC? Look at their record in the 10-15 years before leaving the A10. They were a virtual mainstay in the NCAA tournament year in and year out. That was when they had natural rivalries, in a league Philly people were familiar with. Today, they still have the same coach, but the results are now upside down in their new league. What about UCONN? Do you expect them to return to what they were in their BE heyday? What I see is a lot of people transferring out, lost recruiting battles, and a completely empty arena for the AAC championship game, played on their home floor. So again, the question I'll ask, is the AAC good for UCONN basketball, and should we expect to see them return to what they once were?

I can go on. BC used to compete for BE titles way back when, but their move to a southern league has all but killed what that program used to be. Even Syracuse, take away that unexpected run to the Final Four, due to a surprisingly easy path, and things are trending the wrong way. Despite the opportunity for plenty of playing time and a weak returning cast, next years recruiting class is ranked something like 65th. Not the Syracuse I remember. Plus they're now virtually invisible in the media throughout the northeastern corridor of D.C., Philly and NYC, with the exception of a game or two in December, when people aren't paying that much attention.

Your original post was a thinly veiled criticism of BE fans for not being as infatuated with the AAC as you are. Maybe Witchita will give them a team that goes deep this year. They're a good team, it certainly could happen. But your assumption that the UCONN's and Temples will be what they once were is questionable. Same as it is for Pitt, BC and Syracuse too I suspect. The dynamics of northern teams playing in southern conferences, has not had good results thus far, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that trend continue. Your assumptions don't take those realities into consideration.

Pittsburgh- you forget that in 2011-12 season, they went 5-13 in the Big East. In the final 2012-13 season, they were only a 8 seed. So the wheels had started a bit to come off before they left for the ACC. Then Dixon left.

UConn- the conference hasn't hurt UConn. The recruiting hasn't been impacted much(up to this year- I'll admit that). Coaching has hurt them some. They've lost a lot of OOC games that they shouldn't have. But they are still getting good players- and will have a lot of guys back this year. It won't be a surprise at all to see them have a good year.

Temple- Josh Brown will be back next year(medical redshirt). With him- the 2 years before they were 27-9 in conference play. W/o him- they were 7-11. And had 5 games where he didn't play where they lost by 5 points or less. He's there, they win those 5 games, and make the tourney last year. That would be 2 in a row, and a 3rd year they were the 1st team out of the tourney(nabbed by a bid thief in the MWC). The 4th year was a throwaway year, similar to what St John's had 2 years ago.

I'm not infatuated with the AAC, but I don't start going onto message boards creating threads laughing at what they are doing. Calling them a **** conference and saying they're equal to the A10(which they aren't- the AAC even without Wichita has passed them).

Also, you are saying that NE teams have struggled in new conferences. Maybe. But what about Midwestern teams moving to new conferences? I'd say Butler, Xavier, and Creighton have done pretty well for themselves. And where is Wichita located? Oh, that's right, they're Midwestern, not NE.

All I'm saying is if you are looking at the conferences, you look at only the teams in those conferences currently when you are evaluating them. I mean, GoldenWarrior was wanting to use the A10 2013 season in helping his argument that the A10 was equal to the AAC. Even though 2013 A10 had Butler and Temple. That's just stupid. Like I say all the time. Conferences don't get bids. Teams do.

Also, like I've said, the impact of Wichita in the AAC isn't just Wichita joining. It's that now the AAC can rig their schedule some. They have 3 sub 200 teams. Well now, the top teams can only have to play them once. Helping their SOS out a lot. BE fans don't like that because of the revered Round Robin.

even without the RR help, the teams in the AAC are stronger....
AAC avg KP rating-all 12 teams
2015 134.09
2016 99.00
2017 112.08
3 yr 115.06
2 yr 105.54

A10 avg KP rating-all 14 teams
2015 123.07
2016 123.86
2017 130.21
3 yr 125.71
2 yr 127.04

now add in the fact that the A10 top 2 teams just lost their coach.
06-06-2017 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,101
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 96
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #115
RE: stevers thoughts
My point was as follows:

Tournament wins past three years:
A-10 - 5
AAC - 3

Tournament bids past three years:
A-10 - 9
AAC - 8

You then said that you should add Wichita State's tournament records to said numbers, to which I repeated my point that you cannot rewrite history and retroactively add respective teams' success to inflate a conference. I made the point that Louisville's national championship doesn't get added to the ACC, nor does Butler's accomplishment's get added to the Big East. You argued that they, perception-wise, do (which I will agree with). My only point was that has occurred, occurred. The A-10 has won more in March recently, period. If the AAC is better than the A-10, why don't they win more than them in March? Why don't they get fans to their conference tournaments? Why is the bottom consistently awful in basketball every single year? Why do they consistently not get the expected number of bids into the tournament? Why don't they have a marquee scheduling agreement with another top conference?

I get that you like to argue the other side, but simply saying that it is bad luck and/or that figures should be changed due to the addition of Wichita State simply do not change the facts.
06-06-2017 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,116
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #116
RE: stevers thoughts
you can't add teams to the past sure- that's what tourney units measure.

But going forward, when you are comparing the A10 to the AAC, you have got to look at only what teams are in the conference. I mean, by your logic, the MVC has 7 Tournament wins and 5 tournament bids last 3 years- so they should be right there with the 2 of them. But of course, you can't say that, because Wichita isn't in the MVC any more.

Also if you are looking at bottom basketball programs- look at the A10. They had 3 teams sub 200 KP with 4 teams sub 200 RPI(and a 5th at 194). AAC had 2 teams sub 200 kp with 3 sub 200 RPI. But you don't want to mention that about the A10. And the A10 has had the benefit of a 14 team league with only seeing 5 teams twice(meaning they can guarantee that teams like Dayton and VCU play each other twice, rather than playing a dreg twice). AAC hasn't had that benefit anywhere near as much.
06-07-2017 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,101
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 96
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #117
RE: stevers thoughts
Anything can happen in the future. However, a conference that has UConn, Memphis, Temple, Tulsa and Cincinnati should be doing better than they have been doing. The past few years, the AAC has mightily underperformed. Wichita State's addition was in response to that (if it was doing what it was supposed to, it is quite likely that Wichita isn't added). Maybe its a perfect storm of bad luck, maybe it's something else - that's left up to fans to debate and argue. UCF and SMU have clearly capitalized with the rise in the basketball affiliation. Houston still has yet to get to an NCAA, but are on the right track. USF has fallen hard. ECU and Tulane are ECU and Tulane.

A-10 has a bad bottom. The AAC does too. If anything that just shows how similar and close in stature the two conferences have been performing. While the A10 has more teams, the AAC had (and still has) the opportunity to get more teams. They are currently at 12 (which is fine). Arguing that it isn't fair that the A10 has more teams, and thus more likely to be selective in scheduling, is an argument reserved for the AAC, not fans that are debating league strength.

To the casual college basketball fan, there isn't much difference between the A-10 and the AAC. With time, the AAC (or the A10) can change that. It is what it is at this point.
06-07-2017 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,116
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #118
RE: stevers thoughts
But the thing is, the conference the A10 was battling with has in the last 3 years really passed them by, and now they add a top 25 program in Wichita. And now, the AAC has it where their bottom won't impact it as much as before, while the A10 has had that benefit.

AAC- 3 teams sub 140 in RPI
A10- 5 teams sub 190 in RPI, and a 6th at 143.

So only 1/4 of the AAC last year was worse than 140. Meanwhile, 43% of the A10 was, and 36% of that league was sub 190.

The A10's results have been with 14, the AAC's with 11. With AAC at 12 now, top teams will see 2 fewer bottom level teams a 2nd time. That's going to make a difference.

The other thing is if Wichita makes another run in the NCAA tourney, that's going to reflect well on the AAC.
06-07-2017 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.