Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
robertfoshizzle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,270
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Columbus
Post: #11
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
So now it's all conference regular season champions who didn't win their tournament or get an at-large NCAA bid, then however many slots are left are filled with the next-best teams that missed the NCAA tournament.
02-09-2018 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shockem Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 84
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 6
I Root For: WSU
Location: Houston
Post: #12
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on the conference tournament. It appears Cincy will the heavy favorite, but are there any teams that historically flop or thrive in this tournament? Coming from the MVC, WSU was the notorious flopper (no matter how much we dominated league play) while Northern Iowa tended to always perform over their heads. The MVC tourney always seemed to open the door for another team from the valley to squeak in.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2018 01:08 PM by Shockem.)
02-09-2018 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geef Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,609
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 59
I Root For: Snow
Location: Cascadia
Post: #13
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:05 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 12:58 PM)geef Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 12:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 12:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 11:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wouldn't be so sure about the NIT for a team like a Tulsa(and frankly maybe even UCF and SMU). There's going to be a lot of NIT bid thieves. Right now did a quick check and there are 11 conferences where champion is only bid(smaller conferences)- where the gap between 1st and 2nd is 1 game or less. So we could see 10-12 NIT bid thieves real easily- taking the number of true NIT teams down to only 20.

That would still mean any team in the top 80 would have a good shot.

Not really. You have top 45 or so making the tourney, then another 23 teams with at least 15 or so from 80 or beyond. So 53 of the top 80 are gone. If you have 12 NIT bid thieves, that leaves 20 spots. Realistically I think you need to be at least top 75 to make the NIT.

Also, not really sure where person got that Tulsa was in the top 80 in RPI. Just looked and they are 89. They really need a lot of help to just make the NIT. Looking at RPI forecast, they to finish with even a top 80 RPI would need to go 5-1 and finish at 19-11(RPI of 70). Even going 4-2 and finishing at 18-12 only has them at a RPI of 86. They really have their work cut out for them.

Naive question here. Obviously, the NIT looks at the best of the rest, but is it fully based on the 32 next best teams? Isn't there some sort of geographic component as well?

It was the next-best 32 teams until the auto-bid regular season conference champions were added. I am glad they made the change though. I would rather see a low-major team that won its conference be rewarded than some 17-14 under-achieving high-major team.

That's right. I forgot about that. Is that the regular conference champion for all conferences? And I agree - a bid to the NIT is much more meaningful to the winner of the Horizon, for example, who didn't happen to win their conference tourney.
02-09-2018 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geef Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,609
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 59
I Root For: Snow
Location: Cascadia
Post: #14
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:07 PM)Shockem Wrote:  I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on the conference tournament. It appears Cincy will the heavy favorite, but are there any teams that historically flop or thrive in this tournament? Coming from the MVC, WSU was the notorious flopper (no matter how much we dominated league play) while Northern Iowa tended to always perform over their heads. The MVC tourney always seemed to open the door for another team from the valley to squeak in.

I think UC will be favored, but I don't think heavy favorite is quite accurate. With the number of teams this year that have upped their game, and a few that appear to be getting on a role (Temple), it's going to be a fun tourney.

That said, I fully expect UConn to win, and save Ollie's job.
02-09-2018 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,974
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 272
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #15
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:16 PM)geef Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 01:05 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 12:58 PM)geef Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 12:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 12:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  That would still mean any team in the top 80 would have a good shot.

Not really. You have top 45 or so making the tourney, then another 23 teams with at least 15 or so from 80 or beyond. So 53 of the top 80 are gone. If you have 12 NIT bid thieves, that leaves 20 spots. Realistically I think you need to be at least top 75 to make the NIT.

Also, not really sure where person got that Tulsa was in the top 80 in RPI. Just looked and they are 89. They really need a lot of help to just make the NIT. Looking at RPI forecast, they to finish with even a top 80 RPI would need to go 5-1 and finish at 19-11(RPI of 70). Even going 4-2 and finishing at 18-12 only has them at a RPI of 86. They really have their work cut out for them.

Naive question here. Obviously, the NIT looks at the best of the rest, but is it fully based on the 32 next best teams? Isn't there some sort of geographic component as well?

It was the next-best 32 teams until the auto-bid regular season conference champions were added. I am glad they made the change though. I would rather see a low-major team that won its conference be rewarded than some 17-14 under-achieving high-major team.

That's right. I forgot about that. Is that the regular conference champion for all conferences? And I agree - a bid to the NIT is much more meaningful to the winner of the Horizon, for example, who didn't happen to win their conference tourney.
That's correct. So say in the Horizon that #1 seed Wright St loses in title game to #2 seed Northern Kentucky. Wright St would be NIT bound.
02-09-2018 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,337
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #16
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:07 PM)Shockem Wrote:  I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on the conference tournament. It appears Cincy will the heavy favorite, but are there any teams that historically flop or thrive in this tournament? Coming from the MVC, WSU was the notorious flopper (no matter how much we dominated league play) while Northern Iowa tended to always perform over their heads. The MVC tourney always seemed to open the door for another team from the valley to squeak in.

Based off the cuff, I would have said Houston always chokes. I was curious, so I quickly did a completely arbitrary calculation of conf tournament performance. Scoring was +2 for an upset win (defined as at least 3 seed lines), +1 for a win, 0 for an expected loss, -2 for an upset loss, with an extra +1 to the tourney winner.

Here are the results:

UConn: 14
SMU: 7
Tulane: 4
Memphis: 3
ECU: 2
USF: 1
UCF: 0
Temple: 0
Houston: 0
Cincinnati: -1
Tulsa: -2

Worth noting that UConn hosted the tourney twice, but even so, surprising to almost noone, UConn's tourney reputation is back again. Also worth noting that UC has been UConn's victim almost every time, until we finally vanquished some demons last year.

So basically, I would answer your question as:

Tourney overachievers: UConn
Tourney underachievers: Tulsa, Cincinnati, Houston
02-09-2018 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nevadanatural Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,470
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Tulsa
Location: Reno, Nevada
Post: #17
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:07 PM)Shockem Wrote:  I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on the conference tournament. It appears Cincy will the heavy favorite, but are there any teams that historically flop or thrive in this tournament? Coming from the MVC, WSU was the notorious flopper (no matter how much we dominated league play) while Northern Iowa tended to always perform over their heads. The MVC tourney always seemed to open the door for another team from the valley to squeak in.

In the short time I’ve watched the conference I think UCONN seems to be the team that gets up for the tourney and plays above their regular season results. Tulsa has historically been a flopper, often dominating conference play (in previous conferences before Cincinnati and UCONN fans get chippy) and then falling in the tourney.
02-09-2018 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 11,539
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #18
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:54 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 01:07 PM)Shockem Wrote:  I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on the conference tournament. It appears Cincy will the heavy favorite, but are there any teams that historically flop or thrive in this tournament? Coming from the MVC, WSU was the notorious flopper (no matter how much we dominated league play) while Northern Iowa tended to always perform over their heads. The MVC tourney always seemed to open the door for another team from the valley to squeak in.

Based off the cuff, I would have said Houston always chokes. I was curious, so I quickly did a completely arbitrary calculation of conf tournament performance. Scoring was +2 for an upset win (defined as at least 3 seed lines), +1 for a win, 0 for an expected loss, -2 for an upset loss, with an extra +1 to the tourney winner.

Here are the results:

UConn: 14
SMU: 7
Tulane: 4
Memphis: 3
ECU: 2
USF: 1
UCF: 0
Temple: 0
Houston: 0
Cincinnati: -1
Tulsa: -2

Worth noting that UConn hosted the tourney twice, but even so, surprising to almost noone, UConn's tourney reputation is back again. Also worth noting that UC has been UConn's victim almost every time, until we finally vanquished some demons last year.

So basically, I would answer your question as:

Tourney overachievers: UConn
Tourney underachievers: Tulsa, Cincinnati, Houston

I don't think there's a heavenly sword strong enough to vanquish that 92 foot buzzer beater demon from a few years back...
02-09-2018 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sfink16 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,534
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 55
I Root For: Temple
Location: Harrisburg, Pa
Post: #19
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:07 PM)Shockem Wrote:  I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on the conference tournament. It appears Cincy will the heavy favorite, but are there any teams that historically flop or thrive in this tournament? Coming from the MVC, WSU was the notorious flopper (no matter how much we dominated league play) while Northern Iowa tended to always perform over their heads. The MVC tourney always seemed to open the door for another team from the valley to squeak in.

Under John Chaney, Temple, used to typically thrive/overachieve in the Atlantic 10 tourney, mostly because of their tough pre-conference schedules. That pattern has not followed since Fran Dunphy took over unfortunately.
02-09-2018 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SadderBudweiser Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 517
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 36
I Root For: SMU
Location:
Post: #20
RE: 7 AAC teams in line for postseason play
(02-09-2018 01:54 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(02-09-2018 01:07 PM)Shockem Wrote:  I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on the conference tournament. It appears Cincy will the heavy favorite, but are there any teams that historically flop or thrive in this tournament? Coming from the MVC, WSU was the notorious flopper (no matter how much we dominated league play) while Northern Iowa tended to always perform over their heads. The MVC tourney always seemed to open the door for another team from the valley to squeak in.

Based off the cuff, I would have said Houston always chokes. I was curious, so I quickly did a completely arbitrary calculation of conf tournament performance. Scoring was +2 for an upset win (defined as at least 3 seed lines), +1 for a win, 0 for an expected loss, -2 for an upset loss, with an extra +1 to the tourney winner.

Here are the results:

UConn: 14
SMU: 7
Tulane: 4
Memphis: 3
ECU: 2
USF: 1
UCF: 0
Temple: 0
Houston: 0
Cincinnati: -1
Tulsa: -2

Worth noting that UConn hosted the tourney twice, but even so, surprising to almost noone, UConn's tourney reputation is back again. Also worth noting that UC has been UConn's victim almost every time, until we finally vanquished some demons last year.

So basically, I would answer your question as:

Tourney overachievers: UConn
Tourney underachievers: Tulsa, Cincinnati, Houston



Give the Ponies some credit. After a quarterfinal exit four years ago under LB, leading to an NCAA snub, they’ve won 2 out of three. It’s entirely possible they might have won all three years but for that probation thingee. Not participating that year makes your score for them lower. They may not have been over achieving but they most certainly have been winning.
02-09-2018 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.