Clearly the AAC was better in 2014 versus 2015 if you look at the links below. The first link is 2014 while the second is this year. Of course this year is incomplete. Losing Louisville certainly was a factor this year, more then offsets losing a bad Rutgers team.
However, the bottom of the conference was a notch or two better last year versus this year. Only the two teams were above 200 RPI last year while 5 teams this year are above 200 RPI. Yes, we went from 10 to 11 in number of schools but that shouldn't have added 3 new 200+ teams. Last year the bottom 5 teams managed 6 wins versus top 50 teams while this year they managed on 2 wins.
More proof that the bottom of the conference needs to pick it up next year.
http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2014/c...20Athletic
http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2015/c...20Athletic
Yes but you must realize that two of the bottom teams went thru coaching changes in which large part of the roster were lost and two others were coming from CUSA so upgrading competition and neither was a power even in CUSA.
I expect all those four to improve next year as well as UCF coming out of their probation period. What must be done is to upgrade nonconference match ups to help increase RPI
(03-15-2015 10:28 AM)Cubanbull Wrote: [ -> ]Yes but you must realize that two of the bottom teams went thru coaching changes in which large part of the roster were lost and two others were coming from CUSA so upgrading competition and neither was a power even in CUSA.
I expect all those four to improve next year as well as UCF coming out of their probation period. What must be done is to upgrade nonconference match ups to help increase RPI
Absolutely! At the time I started this thread I didn't realize that there was another thread with an interview with Aresco. The best thing that could come next year would be a AAC/Big East Challenge.
Even if the AAC loses to the Big East in such a challenge (hopefully wouldn't be the end result) it would help the OOC SOS and let teams know how they need to improve.
Last year, according to the Dance Card:
18 UConn
[19 Louisville]
21 Cincy
36 Memphis
49 SMU
(75 Tulsa)
128 Houston
(175 Tulane)
[185 Rutgers]
198 Temple
217 UCF
(224 East Carolina)
241 USF
This year:
SMU 17
Cincy 34
Temple 38
Tulsa 50
UConn 53
Memphis 73
Tulane 201
East Car 218
Houston 251
UCF 253
USF 279
We miss Louisville at the top. And the bottom of the league is worse this year. Other than that, pretty similar.
Also, in this second year of the AAC, down years by Memphis and UConn are going to be more glaring. Imagine if they were in the at-large mix this year.
Next year, they are both bringing in very good recruiting classes; as are many of our other programs. That's the real difference maker.
Every conference has their up and down years.
I was very impressed with our coverage this year. Our story is getting out and I think we'll see the results sooner than later.
(03-15-2015 10:59 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]Last year, according to the Dance Card:
18 UConn
19 Louisville
21 Cincy
36 Memphis
49 SMU
128 Houston
185 Rutgers
198 Temple
217 UCF
241 USF
This year:
SMU 17
Cincy 34
Temple 38
Tulsa 50
UConn 53
Memphis 73
Tulane 201
East Car 218
Houston 251
UCF 253
USF 279
We miss Louisville at the top. And the bottom of the league is worse this year. Other than that, pretty similar.
Kind of mixing apples and oranges there by including teams last year who were not in the AAC. I adjusted your post to match what really constituted the leagues. Even using Dance Card (which is not used for tourney selection) you still have 5 teams 200+ this year and 2 from last year.
I'm guessing that Dance card stops on selection day while RPI continues throughout the end of the tournaments, hence why UCONN finished much higher on my link from last year compared to Dance Card last year.
I can't speak for other teams--but my guess is that the devil is in the details. Houston lost top scorers Thomas and House to transfer. They also lost their incoming two big men commits (this was on the heels of losing current PAC-12 leading scorer Joe Young the previous year) and the one remaining large, but underperforming, center on the roster. Sampson arrived on the scene with recruiting season virtually over needing to completely reconstruct his roster. He went to war this year without a single player on the roster with a "C" next to his name in the position column. Heck, he didn't even have a true power forward. His biggest guys were stretch fours. He had one D1 point guard (fairly average---but at least serviceable), who was hurt and out of commission for the first and last thirds of the season. Heck--the last part of the season we only had 7 scholarship players available to play. Thats it. Frankly, I don't know how Sampson won any games with that roster.
Next, we have most contributors returning, plus several transfers who sat out this year, plus a couple of recruits who should see the floor immediately. Next year we will have at least 2 legit big men and an upgrade at point guard. We won't be spectacular, but we finally have a roster that can compete. I expect the schedule will be upgraded accordingly.
My guess is all these teams at the bottom have similar issues that are currently being rectified.
(03-15-2015 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]I can't speak for other teams--but my guess is that the devil is in the details. Houston lost top scorers Thomas and House to transfer. They also lost their incoming two big men commits (this was on the heels of losing current PAC-12 leading scorer Joe Young the previous year) and the one remaining large, but underperforming, center on the roster. Sampson arrived on the scene with recruiting season virtually over needing to completely reconstruct his roster. He went to war this year without a single player on the roster with a "C" next to his name in the position column. Heck, he didn't even have a true power forward. His biggest guys were stretch fours. He had one D1 point guard (fairly average---but at least serviceable), who was hurt and out of commission for the first and last thirds of the season. Heck--the last part of the season we only had 7 scholarship players available to play. Thats it. Frankly, I don't know how Sampson won any games with that roster.
Next, we have most contributors returning, plus several transfers who sat out this year, plus a couple of recruits who should see the floor immediately. Next year we will have at least 2 legit big men and an upgrade at point guard. We won't be spectacular, but we finally have a roster that can compete. I expect the schedule will be upgraded accordingly.
My guess is all these teams at the bottom have similar issues that are currently being rectified.
Competing is great but the OOC SOS of 320 is not acceptable. A inter-conference challenge can help that immediately. Houston needs to put either Texas, TCU, and/or Baylor, at least, on their schedule.
There is absolutely no reason why any team in this conference has an RPI below 150. None. You have to work hard at scheduling crappy to pull that off.
Take a look at the Big East and learn how to RPI manipulate like they do. They are ranked #2 among conferences in RPI, but they are nowhere near the #2 conference. Its just that their bottom feeders have rpi's no worse than 150-200. Marquette went 13-19 this year, and has an RPI of 147.
Last year, the AAC was robbed two ways; SMU was left out, and the seeding was terrible. If we want to correct the second part of that, the bottom of the pack has to seriously upgrade their RPI numbers. Otherwise, it affects the teams at the top in a very negative way when it comes to seeding in the tournament.
lol its worse than i thought
the bottom 50% of this league is like, low major bad
(03-15-2015 12:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]lol its worse than i thought
the bottom 50% of this league is like, low major bad
Why do you keep offending the bottom?
(03-15-2015 12:50 PM)Ramen_Tiger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2015 12:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]lol its worse than i thought
the bottom 50% of this league is like, low major bad
Why do you keep offending the bottom?
because the bottom is offensive
(03-15-2015 12:50 PM)Ramen_Tiger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2015 12:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]lol its worse than i thought
the bottom 50% of this league is like, low major bad
Why do you keep offending the bottom?
because the bottom is offensive.....
(03-15-2015 12:53 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2015 12:50 PM)Ramen_Tiger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2015 12:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]lol its worse than i thought
the bottom 50% of this league is like, low major bad
Why do you keep offending the bottom?
because the bottom is offensive.....
Kim kardsahian's bottom is offensive ?
(03-15-2015 12:53 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2015 12:50 PM)Ramen_Tiger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2015 12:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: [ -> ]lol its worse than i thought
the bottom 50% of this league is like, low major bad
Why do you keep offending the bottom?
because the bottom is offensive...