Eyeball? You really think the committee watches all these games? It’s the numbers that count. And right now Temple is the highest rate team in the AAC...not named UC or WSU.
(01-11-2018 11:24 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be stunned if SMU doesn't do enough to get in to the tournament. I'd be far more surprised if this league is a 2 bid league than if it is a 4 bid league. Houston, Temple, even UCF will have a chance to play their way in.
Yeah... I said earlier, and I still stick by my guns on this one... that I think the AAC is a "4 bid" conference this season. I won't go as far as "locks," but UC and Wichita State are almost certainly "in" and then some combination of SMU-Temple-Houston-and perhaps even Tulane, make up the other two.
I guess that 3 bids is possible, but I think 4 is more likely. It's hard to imagine a scenario this year where it's only 2.
Long way to go and things will sort themselves out.
(Oh, and remember, I'm the pessimist...)
(01-11-2018 11:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:39 AM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:21 AM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Temple has the best wins in the conference.
! They're(Temple) likely to be a .500 team on the year. Temple is a bad loss, regardless of their wins in the OOC slate. Temple is not going to be a tournament team. The committee isn't just going to see the statistical analytics of team schedules, there also going to eyeball things to a great degree. It looks bad on paper. You don't want to lose to Temple at home. It takes away from our win over SMU in terms of perception.
Quote:That win over SMU didn’t hurt UC at all. SMU just needs to bounce back now.
It does when you consider that we could have a win over an SMU team that did not lose that game.
Look, we're better off with a clearly defined upper echelon of teams, who win consistently over the basement dwellers of the conference.
It makes our resume that much more impressive.
Quote: And honestly. I really don’t care if it’s just UC and WSU. Might even be best for both to get high seeds. But whatever Top 100 UC might lose to other than WSU basically punches that teams ticket.
I don't mind if we both are the top of the conference, I mind if that rest of the conference is crap.
I want to be at the top of a decent conference, not the top of a compost heap. It's not rocket science...
Having only two teams make the conference hurts the AAC and UC in the pocket books. There are $$$ from tournament credits for each team in the NCAAAT that are pooled. We want as many teams to make it as possible.
There’s more credits to the teams that make deep runs. And it’s a lot easier from a 1 or a 2 seed.
(01-11-2018 11:24 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be stunned if SMU doesn't do enough to get in to the tournament. I'd be far more surprised if this league is a 2 bid league than if it is a 4 bid league. Houston, Temple, even UCF will have a chance to play their way in.
They are likely about to suffer a 4th straight loss in conference since they play at Wichita St. next. They will rack up wins against the cream puffs but any more than 6 losses in the AAC and they are not getting an at large bid. Their current RPI is in the 90s. They have little room for error going forward.
(01-11-2018 11:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:24 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be stunned if SMU doesn't do enough to get in to the tournament. I'd be far more surprised if this league is a 2 bid league than if it is a 4 bid league. Houston, Temple, even UCF will have a chance to play their way in.
They are likely about to suffer a 4th straight loss in conference since they play at Wichita St. next. They will rack up wins against the cream puffs but any more than 6 losses in the AAC and they are not getting an at large bid. Their current RPI is in the 90s. They have little room for error going forward.
Even 7 losses I think is safely enough. RPI forecast has them projected for just that. RPI would be around 50. They'd still have those wins over USC, Arizona and Boise. They'd likely have enough good wins to put them over the top. People forget how weak the resumes are at the end of the bracket every season.
(01-11-2018 11:46 AM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Eyeball? You really think the committee watches all these games? It’s the numbers that count. And right now Temple is the highest rate team in the AAC...not named UC or WSU.
Rate? You really think the committee watches none of these games? It's the magazine/media buzz and overall perception of the teams that count. And right now, Temple is the lowest rate team in the AAC....right there with all the others who aren't named UC or WSU.
(01-11-2018 11:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:39 AM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:21 AM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Temple has the best wins in the conference.
! They're(Temple) likely to be a .500 team on the year. Temple is a bad loss, regardless of their wins in the OOC slate. Temple is not going to be a tournament team. The committee isn't just going to see the statistical analytics of team schedules, there also going to eyeball things to a great degree. It looks bad on paper. You don't want to lose to Temple at home. It takes away from our win over SMU in terms of perception.
Quote:That win over SMU didn’t hurt UC at all. SMU just needs to bounce back now.
It does when you consider that we could have a win over an SMU team that did not lose that game.
Look, we're better off with a clearly defined upper echelon of teams, who win consistently over the basement dwellers of the conference.
It makes our resume that much more impressive.
Quote: And honestly. I really don’t care if it’s just UC and WSU. Might even be best for both to get high seeds. But whatever Top 100 UC might lose to other than WSU basically punches that teams ticket.
I don't mind if we both are the top of the conference, I mind if that rest of the conference is crap.
I want to be at the top of a decent conference, not the top of a compost heap. It's not rocket science...
Having only two teams make the conference hurts the AAC and UC in the pocket books. There are $$$ from tournament credits for each team in the NCAAAT that are pooled. We want as many teams to make it as possible.
Having two undefeated teams, a few 2-4 loss teams and then a bunch of basement dwellers does better for our hopes this year, than us Wichita State and then nothing but crap below us. That was my point. I'm not advocating for ditching the conference, but if the conference had teams who were consistently good, the conference portion of the schedule would matter more.
I'm not getting why this is such a hard concept to grasp?
(01-11-2018 12:06 PM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:39 AM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:21 AM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Temple has the best wins in the conference.
! They're(Temple) likely to be a .500 team on the year. Temple is a bad loss, regardless of their wins in the OOC slate. Temple is not going to be a tournament team. The committee isn't just going to see the statistical analytics of team schedules, there also going to eyeball things to a great degree. It looks bad on paper. You don't want to lose to Temple at home. It takes away from our win over SMU in terms of perception.
Quote:That win over SMU didn’t hurt UC at all. SMU just needs to bounce back now.
It does when you consider that we could have a win over an SMU team that did not lose that game.
Look, we're better off with a clearly defined upper echelon of teams, who win consistently over the basement dwellers of the conference.
It makes our resume that much more impressive.
Quote: And honestly. I really don’t care if it’s just UC and WSU. Might even be best for both to get high seeds. But whatever Top 100 UC might lose to other than WSU basically punches that teams ticket.
I don't mind if we both are the top of the conference, I mind if that rest of the conference is crap.
I want to be at the top of a decent conference, not the top of a compost heap. It's not rocket science...
Having only two teams make the conference hurts the AAC and UC in the pocket books. There are $$$ from tournament credits for each team in the NCAAAT that are pooled. We want as many teams to make it as possible.
Having two undefeated teams, a few 2-4 loss teams and then a bunch of basement dwellers does better for our hopes this year, than us Wichita State and then nothing but crap below us. That was my point. I'm not advocating for ditching the conference, but if the conference had teams who were consistently good, the conference portion of the schedule would matter more.
I'm not getting why this is such a hard concept to grasp?
I don’t know..but for some reason you just can’t seem to grasp it
Of course in your world, UC can’t even afford one more non WSU loss.
(01-11-2018 12:11 PM)payday Wrote: [ -> ][I don’t know..but for some reason you just can’t seem to grasp it
A win over an SMU that beats Temple is superior to a win over an SMU that lost to Temple.
If you disagree with that, you have no reason to condescend to anyone.
(01-11-2018 12:12 PM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Of course in your world, UC can’t even afford one more non WSU loss.
It's an exaggeration, that doesn't take away from the point, that if all the lower tier teams not named UC and WSU keep beating each other, it will hurt us in the long run.
(01-11-2018 12:06 PM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:39 AM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:21 AM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Temple has the best wins in the conference.
! They're(Temple) likely to be a .500 team on the year. Temple is a bad loss, regardless of their wins in the OOC slate. Temple is not going to be a tournament team. The committee isn't just going to see the statistical analytics of team schedules, there also going to eyeball things to a great degree. It looks bad on paper. You don't want to lose to Temple at home. It takes away from our win over SMU in terms of perception.
Quote:That win over SMU didn’t hurt UC at all. SMU just needs to bounce back now.
It does when you consider that we could have a win over an SMU team that did not lose that game.
Look, we're better off with a clearly defined upper echelon of teams, who win consistently over the basement dwellers of the conference.
It makes our resume that much more impressive.
Quote: And honestly. I really don’t care if it’s just UC and WSU. Might even be best for both to get high seeds. But whatever Top 100 UC might lose to other than WSU basically punches that teams ticket.
I don't mind if we both are the top of the conference, I mind if that rest of the conference is crap.
I want to be at the top of a decent conference, not the top of a compost heap. It's not rocket science...
Having only two teams make the conference hurts the AAC and UC in the pocket books. There are $$$ from tournament credits for each team in the NCAAAT that are pooled. We want as many teams to make it as possible.
Having two undefeated teams, a few 2-4 loss teams and then a bunch of basement dwellers does better for our hopes this year, than us Wichita State and then nothing but crap below us. That was my point. I'm not advocating for ditching the conference, but if the conference had teams who were consistently good, the conference portion of the schedule would matter more.
I'm not getting why this is such a hard concept to grasp?
The problem is that it's highly unlikely that there will be "a few 2-4 loss teams". The conference seems to be trending toward WSU, UC, and then a handful of 5 and 6 loss teams. I still think that SMU or Houston will find a way to get in, due to the relative strength of the AAC. And Temple, for the record, is not a bad loss, despite your claim to the contrary. Their RPI is still 36, despite being a .500 team. That's what playing a brutal nonconference schedule - and winning a few - does for you.
Not only did Temple play a brutal OOC...their conference schedule was the most front loaded of all. I wouldnt be surprised to see them finish strong.
(01-11-2018 12:03 PM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 11:46 AM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Eyeball? You really think the committee watches all these games? It’s the numbers that count. And right now Temple is the highest rate team in the AAC...not named UC or WSU.
Rate? You really think the committee watches none of these games? It's the magazine/media buzz and overall perception of the teams that count. And right now, Temple is the lowest rate team in the AAC....right there with all the others who aren't named UC or WSU.
Sorry... this is just wrong. It's not as simple as ratings, but the eye test is probably the smallest part of the committee's break down and really it's honestly only used as an excuse for either a shaky choice or to do something inconsistent with their normal bracketing procedures.
The reason so many people can effectively predict who gets in and be fairly close on seeds is the formula has always been pretty simple... RPI top 25,50,100 wins and losses with some penalties for bad losses and bad nonconference SOS. That's basically it. 95-99% of what the committee does can be explained by those basic things.
I'm interested to see if the tier1,tier2 wins this year is used like RPI top 25,50,100 wins were used in the past. That's the unknown, but magazine/media buzz is pretty much ignored by the committee and where many of the big complaints have arisen in the past from media members.
(01-11-2018 12:19 PM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Not only did Temple play a brutal OOC...their conference schedule was the most front loaded of all. I wouldnt be surprised to see them finish strong.
That was a huge win for Temple more than a bad loss for SMU. Temple did have a front loaded conference schedule. Their overall SOS will be a huge feather in their cap with the committee if they can do enough in the league to justify their inclusion. Finding a way to get to over .500 in the AAC will put them in good shape. I still wouldn't be shocked if they make the tournament, though my own impression of them is they probably won't get to 10-8 so it won't matter.
(01-11-2018 12:19 PM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Not only did Temple play a brutal OOC...their conference schedule was the most front loaded of all. I wouldnt be surprised to see them finish strong.
If Temple finishes 10-4 or so and wins a couple in the AAC tourney, they're actually not out of the at-large conversation.
(01-11-2018 12:15 PM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that it's highly unlikely that there will be "a few 2-4 loss teams". The conference seems to be trending toward WSU, UC, and then a handful of 5 and 6 loss teams. I still think that SMU or Houston will find a way to get in, due to the relative strength of the AAC. And Temple, for the record, is not a bad loss, despite your claim to the contrary. Their RPI is still 36, despite being a .500 team. That's what playing a brutal nonconference schedule - and winning a few - does for you.
Okay, can you extrapolate the larger point here? The issue is you don't really have a clearly defined 5-6 loss team emerging either. The worst are beating the teams that are supposedly up there with us. What makes you so sure it won't just be UC, WSU and a bunch of .500 teams? That's what I'm trying to get at. The 2-4 loss or whatever hypothetical I made up, was just to illustrate the problem. Parity is not a good thing, it implies there are no teams that are obviously head and shoulders above the others, except the bearcats and the shockers.
That means our wins could end up being irrelevant if things continue and the Memphis/UConn/Temple's end up beating the SMU/UCF/Tulsa's.
Even in the one example everyone is obsessing over, how long do you think the benefit of the Owl's OOC schedule will continue to outweigh their losses in this conference? They're not doing well. Those two wins they had, are going to be outweighed by them losing to Tulane or ECU or God forbid USF at some point and then what? Well, now that win we had over them looks like ****. And the same will hit every other team in conference.
Look I'm just saying, things don't look good. RPI and SOS aside, teams are underperforming. It's a denial of reality, to say the UCF losing to UConn is a positive and if you can't admit that, it's just because you're don't like to look at things for what they are.
(01-11-2018 12:26 PM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 12:15 PM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that it's highly unlikely that there will be "a few 2-4 loss teams". The conference seems to be trending toward WSU, UC, and then a handful of 5 and 6 loss teams. I still think that SMU or Houston will find a way to get in, due to the relative strength of the AAC. And Temple, for the record, is not a bad loss, despite your claim to the contrary. Their RPI is still 36, despite being a .500 team. That's what playing a brutal nonconference schedule - and winning a few - does for you.
Okay, can you extrapolate the larger point here? The issue is you don't really have a clearly defined 5-6 loss team emerging either. The worst are beating the teams that are supposedly up there with us. What makes you so sure it won't just be UC, WSU and a bunch of .500 teams? That's what I'm trying to get at. The 2-4 loss or whatever hypothetical I made up, was just to illustrate the problem. Parity is not a good thing, it implies there are no teams that are obviously head and shoulders above the others, except the bearcats and the shockers.
That means our wins could end up being irrelevant if things continue and the Memphis/UConn/Temple's end up beating the SMU/UCF/Tulsa's.
Even in the one example everyone is obsessing over, how long do you think the benefit of the Owl's OOC schedule will continue to outweigh their losses in this conference? They're not doing well. Those two wins they had, are going to be outweighed by them losing to Tulane or ECU or God forbid USF at some point and then what? Well, not that win we had over them looks like ****. And the same will hit every other team in conference.
Look I'm just saying, things don't look good. RPI and SOS aside, teams are underperforming. It's a denial of reality, to say the UCF losing to UConn is a positive and if you can't admit that, it's just because you're don't like to look at things for what they are.
I wasn't making a larger point. And no one is obsessing over Temple. They're just saying you're wrong.
(01-11-2018 12:26 PM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 12:15 PM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that it's highly unlikely that there will be "a few 2-4 loss teams". The conference seems to be trending toward WSU, UC, and then a handful of 5 and 6 loss teams. I still think that SMU or Houston will find a way to get in, due to the relative strength of the AAC. And Temple, for the record, is not a bad loss, despite your claim to the contrary. Their RPI is still 36, despite being a .500 team. That's what playing a brutal nonconference schedule - and winning a few - does for you.
Okay, can you extrapolate the larger point here? The issue is you don't really have a clearly defined 5-6 loss team emerging either. The worst are beating the teams that are supposedly up there with us. What makes you so sure it won't just be UC, WSU and a bunch of .500 teams? That's what I'm trying to get at. The 2-4 loss or whatever hypothetical I made up, was just to illustrate the problem. Parity is not a good thing, it implies there are no teams that are obviously head and shoulders above the others, except the bearcats and the shockers.
That means our wins could end up being irrelevant if things continue and the Memphis/UConn/Temple's end up beating the SMU/UCF/Tulsa's.
Even in the one example everyone is obsessing over, how long do you think the benefit of the Owl's OOC schedule will continue to outweigh their losses in this conference? They're not doing well. Those two wins they had, are going to be outweighed by them losing to Tulane or ECU or God forbid USF at some point and then what? Well, now that win we had over them looks like ****. And the same will hit every other team in conference.
Look I'm just saying, things don't look good. RPI and SOS aside, teams are underperforming. It's a denial of reality, to say the UCF losing to UConn is a positive and if you can't admit that, it's just because you're don't like to look at things for what they are.
Why are you wasting so much effort trying to over analyze this? We’re only 3-4 games into the conference schedule. Much can happen and none of the top half of the conference is out of it yet.
(01-11-2018 12:30 PM)geef Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 12:26 PM)Recluse1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2018 12:15 PM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that it's highly unlikely that there will be "a few 2-4 loss teams". The conference seems to be trending toward WSU, UC, and then a handful of 5 and 6 loss teams. I still think that SMU or Houston will find a way to get in, due to the relative strength of the AAC. And Temple, for the record, is not a bad loss, despite your claim to the contrary. Their RPI is still 36, despite being a .500 team. That's what playing a brutal nonconference schedule - and winning a few - does for you.
Okay, can you extrapolate the larger point here? The issue is you don't really have a clearly defined 5-6 loss team emerging either. The worst are beating the teams that are supposedly up there with us. What makes you so sure it won't just be UC, WSU and a bunch of .500 teams? That's what I'm trying to get at. The 2-4 loss or whatever hypothetical I made up, was just to illustrate the problem. Parity is not a good thing, it implies there are no teams that are obviously head and shoulders above the others, except the bearcats and the shockers.
That means our wins could end up being irrelevant if things continue and the Memphis/UConn/Temple's end up beating the SMU/UCF/Tulsa's.
Even in the one example everyone is obsessing over, how long do you think the benefit of the Owl's OOC schedule will continue to outweigh their losses in this conference? They're not doing well. Those two wins they had, are going to be outweighed by them losing to Tulane or ECU or God forbid USF at some point and then what? Well, not that win we had over them looks like ****. And the same will hit every other team in conference.
Look I'm just saying, things don't look good. RPI and SOS aside, teams are underperforming. It's a denial of reality, to say the UCF losing to UConn is a positive and if you can't admit that, it's just because you're don't like to look at things for what they are.
I wasn't making a larger point.
I know you weren't...
I was referring to my point:
SMU beating Temple, UCF beating UConn and Tulsa beating Memphis > What actually happened
Why is the opposite of that superior, assuming I am wrong?
(01-11-2018 12:31 PM)payday Wrote: [ -> ]Why are you wasting so much effort trying to over analyze this? We’re only 3-4 games into the conference schedule. Much can happen and none of the top half of the conference is out of it yet.
I WASN'T!!!1
I was making a stupid off-hand remark about how the worse teams beat the supposedly decent ones. Then you had to go off, with crap about analytics and RPI when SOS and RPI aren't going to help if everyone is dropping games left and right to crappy teams come March