Put simply, this is some ol' bull****.

My issues are with UMass being a 6 seed in the same regional that Kentucky is an 8. So you're gonna tell me that Wichita State is a 1 but probably gets Kentucky in the round of 32 yet Duke is a 3 and gets matched with UMass?

The committee sure loved the A-10 and the PAC 12. Colorado, Stanford, Arizona St ? And BYU is in and SMU is not?

Head scratcher

Shocked SMU is not in, and there are several head scratchers. UMass a #6? The winner of Iowa/UT will be the LV favorite in that game.

Louisville a #4 is practically criminal. Again, Vegas will probably list them as the favorite to make the Elite 8 out of that grouping.

Creighton a #3 ... give Wisconsin a bye practically. Wisconsin will shut Dougie down and blow out Creighton, if the Bluejays even get there.

UConn a #7? I'm not sure I wouldn't pick them straight up over Villanova in the second round.

I actually like Louisville and UConn's draws. I can't see the Tigers beating UVa (if they were to get past GW) or Cinci getting past the Spartans.

What you all have to realize is that the AAC is basically viewed as CUSA was in 2005. We're not a member of the Big Boy Club. Get used to it. It's only going to get worse moving forward.

(03-16-2014 06:22 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Look at the comparative OOC schedules of the teams from the A10 vs the AAC. Memphis played mighty Austin Peay, Nichols St, Siena, UALR, SEMO, NW St, Jackson St & LO plus the bottom half of the AAC - that's 18 cupcakes - several of which played us competitively & it cost us in seeding.

I think you somehow forgot OK State (twice), Gonzaga, overall #1 seed Florida, LSU, and several others.

I don't know how that could've happened. Certainly you weren't cherry-picking information to paint the most unfavorable possible picture of YOUR favorite team's and their conference's scheduling. Because why would anyone do that?

Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

No doubt we got the shaft with three out of four teams in one region I thought they had some kind of provision against that Really we get our own region ? No way this was by accident they do not want to risk royalty credits with our league Collusion big time against our league and just more evidence of the corruption in college sports Really a great example of the greed behind the big six Its a private club and Memphis aint in it

How many single digit seeded teams did the entire AAC beat out of Conference...

Injured Florida, OSU, Gonzaga and Pitt...

That is all I can come up with and all but one of those are 8+

(03-16-2014 07:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:22 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Look at the comparative OOC schedules of the teams from the A10 vs the AAC. Memphis played mighty Austin Peay, Nichols St, Siena, UALR, SEMO, NW St, Jackson St & LO plus the bottom half of the AAC - that's 18 cupcakes - several of which played us competitively & it cost us in seeding.

I think you somehow forgot OK State (twice), Gonzaga, overall #1 seed Florida, LSU, and several others.

I don't know how that could've happened. Certainly you weren't cherry-picking information to paint the most unfavorable possible picture of YOUR favorite team's and their conference's scheduling. Because why would anyone do that?

Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

Hogwash.

What the committee just said is that it's better to schedule crappy rpi 80-150 teams that most decent teams will beat more than 90% of the time, rather than schedule top 25 powerhouses that you can easily lose to. It makes your manipulated computer number look better, and that's all they care about. It's not about actually playing good teams. You have to fill your schedule with crappy teams you can beat that have a good win loss record.

We had started seeing some really good OOC matchups. That's about to go the way of the dodo bird. And no one needs to ***** at Pastner when the marquee OOC games disappear from our schedule. The committee has said that we need to fill our schedule with UAB's and Southern Misses. Not Ok St. twice Not Florida. Not Gonzaga.

33% of our schedule this year was filled with top 25 teams. 50% of our conference games were filled with top 25 teams. But that doesn't matter. It's what the crappy rpi says. The committee president is full of sh*t, and is about to destroy the really good OOC ball we've been seeing.

(03-17-2014 08:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:22 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Look at the comparative OOC schedules of the teams from the A10 vs the AAC. Memphis played mighty Austin Peay, Nichols St, Siena, UALR, SEMO, NW St, Jackson St & LO plus the bottom half of the AAC - that's 18 cupcakes - several of which played us competitively & it cost us in seeding.

I think you somehow forgot OK State (twice), Gonzaga, overall #1 seed Florida, LSU, and several others.

I don't know how that could've happened. Certainly you weren't cherry-picking information to paint the most unfavorable possible picture of YOUR favorite team's and their conference's scheduling. Because why would anyone do that?

Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

Hogwash.

What the committee just said is that it's better to schedule crappy rpi 80-150 teams that most decent teams will beat more than 90% of the time, rather than schedule top 25 powerhouses that you can easily lose to. It makes your manipulated computer number look better, and that's all they care about. It's not about actually playing good teams. You have to fill your schedule with crappy teams you can beat that have a good win loss record.

We had started seeing some really good OOC matchups. That's about to go the way of the dodo bird. And no one needs to ***** at Pastner when the marquee OOC games disappear from our schedule. The committee has said that we need to fill our schedule with UAB's and Southern Misses. Not Ok St. twice Not Florida. Not Gonzaga.

33% of our schedule this year was filled with top 25 teams. 50% of our conference games were filled with top 25 teams. But that doesn't matter. It's what the crappy rpi says. The committee president is full of sh*t, and is about to destroy the really good OOC ball we've been seeing.

Top 25 teams...That doesn't matter...

We had a bunch of top 25 teams in our conference because we kept losing to each other...At the start of the conference Season Louisville didn't deserve to be ranked but they were.

UConn and Memphis got SMU ranked...
Memphis got Cincy ranked...

and they all both stayed there because most didn't lose to any unranked teams...

(03-17-2014 08:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:22 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Look at the comparative OOC schedules of the teams from the A10 vs the AAC. Memphis played mighty Austin Peay, Nichols St, Siena, UALR, SEMO, NW St, Jackson St & LO plus the bottom half of the AAC - that's 18 cupcakes - several of which played us competitively & it cost us in seeding.

I think you somehow forgot OK State (twice), Gonzaga, overall #1 seed Florida, LSU, and several others.

I don't know how that could've happened. Certainly you weren't cherry-picking information to paint the most unfavorable possible picture of YOUR favorite team's and their conference's scheduling. Because why would anyone do that?

Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

Hogwash.

What the committee just said is that it's better to schedule crappy rpi 80-150 teams that most decent teams will beat more than 90% of the time, rather than schedule top 25 powerhouses that you can easily lose to. It makes your manipulated computer number look better, and that's all they care about. It's not about actually playing good teams. You have to fill your schedule with crappy teams you can beat that have a good win loss record.

We had started seeing some really good OOC matchups. That's about to go the way of the dodo bird. And no one needs to ***** at Pastner when the marquee OOC games disappear from our schedule. The committee has said that we need to fill our schedule with UAB's and Southern Misses. Not Ok St. twice Not Florida. Not Gonzaga.

33% of our schedule this year was filled with top 25 teams. 50% of our conference games were filled with top 25 teams. But that doesn't matter. It's what the crappy rpi says. The committee president is full of sh*t, and is about to destroy the really good OOC ball we've been seeing.

Wrong. The only two scheduled top 25 OOC teams were Gonzaga & OKSt. The others were from tournaments. Gonzaga was the only OOC top 25 team we scheduled at home, the rest were awful cupcakes to go with the bottom half of our league that is also light-weight. So yes, I say we should schedule top 100 teams OOC rather than Austin Peay, Nichols St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson ST, & LO. Including the lower 5 in conference, that is 16 light-weights on the schedule, over 1/2 of the total schedule. That won't get it done even with 3-4 top 25 wins. Doesn't have to be UAB or SMiss. It can be lower half schools from the B10, SEC or one of the other preferred conferences, even the A10. I don't agree with the election committee, but we need to understand their process & take away any excuses for giving us less than we deserve.

I understand the power-5 get preference, JP & our AD should realize it too & schedule appropriately. And it might help motivate players who take games off, and help the coaches find the players who want to bring it every night.

(03-17-2014 08:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:22 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Look at the comparative OOC schedules of the teams from the A10 vs the AAC. Memphis played mighty Austin Peay, Nichols St, Siena, UALR, SEMO, NW St, Jackson St & LO plus the bottom half of the AAC - that's 18 cupcakes - several of which played us competitively & it cost us in seeding.

I think you somehow forgot OK State (twice), Gonzaga, overall #1 seed Florida, LSU, and several others.

I don't know how that could've happened. Certainly you weren't cherry-picking information to paint the most unfavorable possible picture of YOUR favorite team's and their conference's scheduling. Because why would anyone do that?

Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

Hogwash.

What the committee just said is that it's better to schedule crappy rpi 80-150 teams that most decent teams will beat more than 90% of the time, rather than schedule top 25 powerhouses that you can easily lose to. It makes your manipulated computer number look better, and that's all they care about. It's not about actually playing good teams. You have to fill your schedule with crappy teams you can beat that have a good win loss record.

We had started seeing some really good OOC matchups. That's about to go the way of the dodo bird. And no one needs to ***** at Pastner when the marquee OOC games disappear from our schedule. The committee has said that we need to fill our schedule with UAB's and Southern Misses. Not Ok St. twice Not Florida. Not Gonzaga.

33% of our schedule this year was filled with top 25 teams. 50% of our conference games were filled with top 25 teams. But that doesn't matter. It's what the crappy rpi says. The committee president is full of sh*t, and is about to destroy the really good OOC ball we've been seeing.

Wrong. The only two scheduled top 25 OOC teams were Gonzaga & OKSt. The others were from tournaments. Gonzaga was the only OOC top 25 team we scheduled at home, the rest were awful cupcakes to go with the bottom half of our league that is also light-weight. So yes, I say we should schedule top 100 teams OOC rather than Austin Peay, Nichols St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson ST, & LO. Including the lower 5 in conference, that is 16 light-weights on the schedule, over 1/2 of the total schedule. That won't get it done even with 3-4 top 25 wins. Doesn't have to be UAB or SMiss. It can be lower half schools from the B10, SEC or one of the other preferred conferences, even the A10. I don't agree with the election committee, but we need to understand their process & take away any excuses for giving us less than we deserve.

I understand the power-5 get preference, JP & our AD should realize it too & schedule appropriately. And it might help motivate players who take games off, and help the coaches find the players who want to bring it every night.

Florida was scheduled. It was just scheduled as a game in NYC. We didn't have to beat or lose to someone to get to them.

(03-17-2014 09:39 AM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 08:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 07:37 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 06:22 PM)NJ1 Wrote:  I think you somehow forgot OK State (twice), Gonzaga, overall #1 seed Florida, LSU, and several others.

I don't know how that could've happened. Certainly you weren't cherry-picking information to paint the most unfavorable possible picture of YOUR favorite team's and their conference's scheduling. Because why would anyone do that?

Didn't forget them, we had some quality wins but our SOS kept us from getting a better seed. Same for the other AAC teams & kept SMU out of the tourney. The thread contends the AAC got screwed, my opinion is the conference got what our collective AAC schedules produced. The chairman of the selection committee just said as much. The bottom 5 teams in the conference were relative light-weights & combine that with the scheduled OOC cupcakes & it produced low seeds. And those low seeds will likely produce early outs given the match ups.

The shame of it is not that the AAC got screwed, it's that the poor seeds could have been much higher if the AAC schools had scheduled top 150 schools rather than the collective cupcakes that made up a large percentage of the collective AAC OOC schedules - notwithstanding that there were some quality wins.

Hogwash.

What the committee just said is that it's better to schedule crappy rpi 80-150 teams that most decent teams will beat more than 90% of the time, rather than schedule top 25 powerhouses that you can easily lose to. It makes your manipulated computer number look better, and that's all they care about. It's not about actually playing good teams. You have to fill your schedule with crappy teams you can beat that have a good win loss record.

We had started seeing some really good OOC matchups. That's about to go the way of the dodo bird. And no one needs to ***** at Pastner when the marquee OOC games disappear from our schedule. The committee has said that we need to fill our schedule with UAB's and Southern Misses. Not Ok St. twice Not Florida. Not Gonzaga.

33% of our schedule this year was filled with top 25 teams. 50% of our conference games were filled with top 25 teams. But that doesn't matter. It's what the crappy rpi says. The committee president is full of sh*t, and is about to destroy the really good OOC ball we've been seeing.

Wrong. The only two scheduled top 25 OOC teams were Gonzaga & OKSt. The others were from tournaments. Gonzaga was the only OOC top 25 team we scheduled at home, the rest were awful cupcakes to go with the bottom half of our league that is also light-weight. So yes, I say we should schedule top 100 teams OOC rather than Austin Peay, Nichols St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson ST, & LO. Including the lower 5 in conference, that is 16 light-weights on the schedule, over 1/2 of the total schedule. That won't get it done even with 3-4 top 25 wins. Doesn't have to be UAB or SMiss. It can be lower half schools from the B10, SEC or one of the other preferred conferences, even the A10. I don't agree with the election committee, but we need to understand their process & take away any excuses for giving us less than we deserve.

I understand the power-5 get preference, JP & our AD should realize it too & schedule appropriately. And it might help motivate players who take games off, and help the coaches find the players who want to bring it every night.

Florida was scheduled. It was just scheduled as a game in NYC. We didn't have to beat or lose to someone to get to them.

It was the Jimmy V, not a scheduled contract game between Memphis & FL. Jimmy V contracts for 4 teams to raise money for the Jimmy V Foundation & chooses the match ups, little different than the Old Spice or any other tournament other than the format.

Sometimes you just can't do anything about it. Case in point was Harvard last year. They suspended a bunch of guys. This year they are what? 26-4. SEMO and Austin Peay are usually better.

Look at UK's schedule and wins. Their only big win was at home against Louisville, I believe. They had a couple, if not a few, bad losses. Got the same seed as us, even though we had quality wins against OSU, Louisville twice, Gonzaga, SMU, LSU on the road, played UF very well @ MSG. Why ? Their "buy" games were much, much better - even with weaker conference play.

(03-16-2014 05:53 PM)tigerderek Wrote:  I thought Louisville should have been the last 3rd seed.

yep
not a four seed but CERTAINLY not HIGHER than that.

Pitino is such a geek.
saying he's not politicking but saying they should be a one seed in the same breath. Good thing his fan base is so dumb.

(03-17-2014 09:44 AM)Downtown Tiger Wrote:  Sometimes you just can't do anything about it. Case in point was Harvard last year. They suspended a bunch of guys. This year they are what? 26-4. SEMO and Austin Peay are usually better.

Please, Austin Peay, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO were all scheduled by JP & the AD at home. At best those teams might contend for their conference title in a one-bid league but rarely sniff a top 150 RPI (excepting LO can't even do that). Relative to Harvard, they turned out to be one of our top OOC games notwithstanding, along with Ohio U previously. that just shows how marginal our OOC home schedule is.

Austin Peay, UALR, SEMP, Jackson St are regional teams. It's probably easy to get them here because they can don't have to fly.
I'm not sure why we don't play L-O as an exhibition game.

Agreed that Josh needs to be smarter when scheduling these OOC buy-games, but that's not usually as easy as it seems.

And...considering our finish this year, best case - we're a 7 seed if we have a stronger OOC schedule. I don't think that replacing these guys with Deleware, Wofford, East KY & ULL would have gotten us any higher than that. Beating Florida & Ok State the first time may have helped.

If Memphis doesn't win....I hope Louisville goes on to trounce everyone in its path to win the National Championship and I can't stand Louisville.

If not them...I'm on the Cal Poly bandwagon.

I'm curious if any of our former C-USA conference mates would agree to a "buy-game"? I'd love to see us play USM & UAB again, but I don't think we need to play in Hattiesburg or Birmingham, though. I doubt that those guys will agree to come here without a return trip.

I'm pretty sure that we asked MTSU, and they wanted a return game. Heck, I think that Arkansas State wanted a return basketball game.

(03-17-2014 10:52 AM)CKMcDan Wrote:  I'm curious if any of our former C-USA conference mates would agree to a "buy-game"? I'd love to see us play USM & UAB again, but I don't think we need to play in Hattiesburg or Birmingham, though. I doubt that those guys will agree to come here without a return trip.

I'm pretty sure that we asked MTSU, and they wanted a return game. Heck, I think that Arkansas State wanted a return basketball game.

Wichita State claims that no one will play them. We could play them next year.