AP #14!

(01-08-2018 11:51 AM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 11:00 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The American just can't see to get over the hump in basketball the past couple of seasons. The collapse of UCONN and Memphis has been a crushing blow. Temple continues to perplex by alternately beating good teams out of conference and losing to poor ones--no formula for an NCAA bid.

It's conceivable to me it could be a two bid league. Here's hoping some teams emerge to push it to four or five bids.

Barring a collapse on their part, SMU is going to be in.

I thought so too but another loss or two like to Tulane and they are solidly a NIT team. Tulane is overvalued by hopeful fans which happens. They have not beaten a soul and likely won't even finish in the top 100 in RPI. Their SMU and Temple wins are fools gold.

This is a 3 bid (maybe even 2) league after conference season attrition.

(01-08-2018 12:06 PM)InspectorHound Wrote:  AP #14!

Nice.

i was kinda hoping the game would be more close

(01-08-2018 12:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 11:51 AM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 11:00 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  The American just can't see to get over the hump in basketball the past couple of seasons. The collapse of UCONN and Memphis has been a crushing blow. Temple continues to perplex by alternately beating good teams out of conference and losing to poor ones--no formula for an NCAA bid.

It's conceivable to me it could be a two bid league. Here's hoping some teams emerge to push it to four or five bids.

Barring a collapse on their part, SMU is going to be in.

I thought so too but another loss or two like to Tulane and they are solidly a NIT team. Tulane is overvalued by hopeful fans which happens. They have not beaten a soul and likely won't even finish in the top 100 in RPI. Their SMU and Temple wins are fools gold.

This is a 3 bid (maybe even 2) league after conference season attrition.

Tulane was a road game though. Remember, we lost in freaking Greenville 2-3 years ago. But you're right, they've had their allotment of those.

Adding Wichita State to this conference was EPIC as far as our numbers go, and is a (+1) as far as tourney bids goes in most years. The trouble remains (A) that the bottom of the conference is so bad, they drag on the top; (B) there is a paucity of "name" BB programs, so "Central Florida" (just to pick one), if they have a great year remains uninspiring; and © when a lower program like Tulane comes up, it's at the expense of a "name" program like UConn, or Memphis. Conference play is a "closed system"; so you can't find a program rising (in conference play, at least) without a program(s) also sinking.
[/quote]

This is a good post. Everyone often says it is a positive when a UCF, a Tulsa or a Houston improves and challenges for a NCAA tourney bid. It helps, I suppose, if they beat OOC teams, but it does nothing if Tulsa beats UCONN or UC or SMU or Memphis or Temple. Everybody in the league can't be top tier, and when a traditional college basketball bottom feeder has a one-off successful year, it just makes the overall conference look weak. As noted, the fact that UCONN, Temple and Memphis will also be on the outside looking in for tourney consideration this year makes the American look weaker than it should. The mistake this conference made was bringing in ECU, Tulsa and Tulane in the first place. They are basketball ciphers. Don't see much that any of them bring from a national fan interest standpoint and their attendance and basketball tradition is pretty much irrelevant. Tulsa has historically done decently with little resources but the "Golden Hurricane" hardly strike a mention on anybody's radar screen.

Without WSU being added we might walk thru AAC 18-0

(01-08-2018 10:39 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 10:03 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 09:59 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Bearcats played their best game of the year yesterday. I think we figured how the point guards are going to be used the rest of the season. Jenifer starts the game and will be used near the end of the game to take of the ball while Broome is an instant offense creator off the bench to give the team energy to make a run.

Game at Moody won't be easy but I am not as high on SMU as I was a few weeks ago. Not the five or six seed I thought they could be but more like a bottom of the bracket tournament team. SMU needs 12 league wins to make the tournament as wins over Arizona, USC, and Boise State will be good enough to make the tournament as long as they pick a few quality wins in conference play. I still believe the American can be a four or five bid league with Houston, UCF, and SMU filling in those spots. Temple is done at this point and everyone else isn't good to win the 11 or 12 conference games needed to get a look.

This is a three bid league.

I think that this conference is likely in the range between 2 NCAA Tournament bids (1 bid is conceivable in a "perfect storm" type scenario, but should be unlikely) and 4 bids (5 is possible, but again, that would be an outstanding year). So... yeah... "3 bid" is that "average" but probably not wholly accurate. This season, I think the AAC could well be 4 bids (Wichita State, UC, and some combination of SMU-Houston-Tulane-and maybe UCF (if they turn a corner)).

Yes, I said "Tulane." They look like they are for real. Memphis and Temple seem to be crumpling. I think Tulsa's numbers were inflated and the conference schedule will expose them.

Adding Wichita State to this conference was EPIC as far as our numbers go, and is a (+1) as far as tourney bids goes in most years. The trouble remains (A) that the bottom of the conference is so bad, they drag on the top; (B) there is a paucity of "name" BB programs, so "Central Florida" (just to pick one), if they have a great year remains uninspiring; and © when a lower program like Tulane comes up, it's at the expense of a "name" program like UConn, or Memphis. Conference play is a "closed system"; so you can't find a program rising (in conference play, at least) without a program(s) also sinking.

Paucity of name basketball programs? I can't tell if you're joking. The problems with UConn and Memphis have absolutely nothing to do with a relative rise from Tulsa, UCF or Tulane. In most years, Wichita State, UC, UConn, Memphis, SMU, and Temple are in the conversation for bids. That's a full one-half of our conference with teams that more often than not make it to the tourney. Add Houston's history and potential, and there's only a few schools who don't have national names.

It's icing on the cake (and a boost to resumes) to have UCF, Tulsa, and Tulane simply relevant.

I love reading through these threads after a big runaway win. Hilarious.

The atmosphere at the game was not good. Whether it was the arena, that it was Sunday night, the weather, or what, it was so quiet. With about 4 minutes left in the game it seemed like 3/4 of the fans left, trying to beat the traffic. Pretty funny. UC played so well on defense, maybe they took even the home fans out of it a little bit.

Hopefully Cumberland turned the corner a little bit. Although he still missed a bunch of shots, even a layup, had a few bad turnovers, and got another charge (amusingly, he almost got a charge on a last-second, half-court heave before the half, which I don't think I've ever seen before), he started to show a bit more confidence on offense, and he played really tough on-ball defense.

Post game comments from Coach, Clark and Evans...

(01-08-2018 01:35 PM)levydl Wrote:  I love reading through these threads after a big runaway win. Hilarious.

The atmosphere at the game was not good. Whether it was the arena, that it was Sunday night, the weather, or what, it was so quiet. With about 4 minutes left in the game it seemed like 3/4 of the fans left, trying to beat the traffic. Pretty funny. UC played so well on defense, maybe they took even the home fans out of it a little bit.

Hopefully Cumberland turned the corner a little bit. Although he still missed a bunch of shots, even a layup, had a few bad turnovers, and got another charge (amusingly, he almost got a charge on a last-second, half-court heave before the half, which I don't think I've ever seen before), he started to show a bit more confidence on offense, and he played really tough on-ball defense.

Really? I thought it was a pretty good atmosphere. Fans cheered hard at the great defensive effort. I loved the huge ovation fans gave Evans when Cronin rested him for the first time (in the second half). It was Sunday night and fans did leave near the last tv timeout, but UC was up 20+ and the game was well in hand. Obviously it wasn't the kind of atmosphere we've had for some of the biggest games, but I felt like it was solid throughout.

(01-08-2018 01:06 PM)geef Wrote:  Paucity of name basketball programs? I can't tell if you're joking. The problems with UConn and Memphis have absolutely nothing to do with a relative rise from Tulsa, UCF or Tulane. In most years, Wichita State, UC, UConn, Memphis, SMU, and Temple are in the conversation for bids. That's a full one-half of our conference with teams that more often than not make it to the tourney. Add Houston's history and potential, and there's only a few schools who don't have national names.

It's icing on the cake (and a boost to resumes) to have UCF, Tulsa, and Tulane simply relevant.

I'd agree that the Uconn/Memphis problems are not due to parity. But he's right in saying that their success is more important than that of an upstart.

The closest thing to blue blood teams that the conference has would be Uconn, Cincy, and Memphis - probably in that order. And Memphis is falling fast - they have absolutely not made the tourney more often than not since Cal left. Did they even make one under Pastner? Already I'd bet that if we asked the average P5 fan who is in the AAC, they might be able to name UC and UConn, and then they'd go uhhhhh. Maybe they'd remember UCF if they follow football. If you told them the Shockers were, they'd probably say "really? are you sure?"

Wichita is on a nice run and is certainly gaining respect, but they're not yet a true program. VCU was becoming a force year in and year out - until Shaka left. The same thing might happen to the Shockers if they lose their coach.

SMU was on a similar trajectory to Wichita under Brown, now it's time to find out if they can keep it going, as Butler or Gonzaga did after losing their coaches. I tend to think they can. But like UC, SMU has had a hard time getting out of the first weekend (their seeding respect is worse than ours, and that hasn't helped). Their lack of tourney success represents a lot of missed opportunities to cement them as a top program in peoples minds.

The point remains, perception of the AAC is dependent upon how good UC, Uconn, Memphis, SMU, and WSU are. The occasional at large for Temple, UCF, or a Tulane isn't going to do anything for that perception. Uconn winning a title out of the AAC didn't even do much for it. Having a handful of "name" teams doing well would work wonders - look at the new Big East for evidence of that.

(01-08-2018 05:27 PM)EffinBJ Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 01:06 PM)geef Wrote:  Paucity of name basketball programs? I can't tell if you're joking. The problems with UConn and Memphis have absolutely nothing to do with a relative rise from Tulsa, UCF or Tulane. In most years, Wichita State, UC, UConn, Memphis, SMU, and Temple are in the conversation for bids. That's a full one-half of our conference with teams that more often than not make it to the tourney. Add Houston's history and potential, and there's only a few schools who don't have national names.

It's icing on the cake (and a boost to resumes) to have UCF, Tulsa, and Tulane simply relevant.

I'd agree that the Uconn/Memphis problems are not due to parity. But he's right in saying that their success is more important than that of an upstart.

The closest thing to blue blood teams that the conference has would be Uconn, Cincy, and Memphis - probably in that order. And Memphis is falling fast - they have absolutely not made the tourney more often than not since Cal left. Did they even make one under Pastner? Already I'd bet that if we asked the average P5 fan who is in the AAC, they might be able to name UC and UConn, and then they'd go uhhhhh. Maybe they'd remember UCF if they follow football. If you told them the Shockers were, they'd probably say "really? are you sure?"

Wichita is on a nice run and is certainly gaining respect, but they're not yet a true program. VCU was becoming a force year in and year out - until Shaka left. The same thing might happen to the Shockers if they lose their coach.

SMU was on a similar trajectory to Wichita under Brown, now it's time to find out if they can keep it going, as Butler or Gonzaga did after losing their coaches. I tend to think they can. But like UC, SMU has had a hard time getting out of the first weekend (their seeding respect is worse than ours, and that hasn't helped). Their lack of tourney success represents a lot of missed opportunities to cement them as a top program in peoples minds.

The point remains, perception of the AAC is dependent upon how good UC, Uconn, Memphis, SMU, and WSU are. The occasional at large for Temple, UCF, or a Tulane isn't going to do anything for that perception. Uconn winning a title out of the AAC didn't even do much for it. Having a handful of "name" teams doing well would work wonders - look at the new Big East for evidence of that.

The bolded was pretty much what I was thinking. And, in non UC/AAC forums, the perception of Memphis as a "brand" is pretty well...well...forgotten. People who remember Derrick Rose view that as an aberration and the success of that period as a result of Memphis cheating. Very, very few (in my experience) connect the "Memphis" of today with the classic "Memphis State" teams of CUSA, the Metro, and Great Midwest.

SMU simply isn't a "Basketball Brand" right now. That's not to say that they're not good, but SMU is simply not followed by "Basketball School" in people's thinking. Maybe if Larry Brown had stayed around and won some championships, that perception would change. But right now, it still isn't a "brand."

I'd add one name to the list, though... Wichita State. Especially for younger people, they now equate "Wichita State" with "Basketball Power." Again, adding WSU was an epic move for this conference and brought an instant boost to image and morale.

(01-08-2018 09:47 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 09:18 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 11:15 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Without details that is a rather useless comment for the rest of us.

Brucie baby, such anger. Most are very tired with my comments regarding realignment. In fact, rath makes it line item C in his post.

My point is that I don't just complain on here. I've spoke one on one with all Presidents going back to Williams regarding realignment as well as members of the BOT. I'm hopeful after my conversation with Dr. Pinto.

BB&T does a nice job with the catering in the private suites.

Ragpicker, I always respect your comments because it's clear to me you care deeply for UC and the Bearcat teams. I claim no inside information. But I remain cautiously optimistic that P5 membership remains a strategic priority for our institution. My takeaway from your comment is that Dr. Pinto gets that. Unlike his predecessor, I will suggest he is working quietly toward that end.

You are correct. Not just him, but a team.

(01-08-2018 12:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Tulane is overvalued by hopeful fans which happens. They have not beaten a soul and likely won't even finish in the top 100 in RPI. Their SMU and Temple wins are fools gold.

Not so sure about that after watching them play. Dunleavy has them playing like a NBA team with three shooters, one slasher, and one really good low post player. They spread the floor and swing the ball with an extra pass to get an open shot. The big man has tough finishing skills.

(01-08-2018 05:08 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 01:35 PM)levydl Wrote:  I love reading through these threads after a big runaway win. Hilarious.

The atmosphere at the game was not good. Whether it was the arena, that it was Sunday night, the weather, or what, it was so quiet. With about 4 minutes left in the game it seemed like 3/4 of the fans left, trying to beat the traffic. Pretty funny. UC played so well on defense, maybe they took even the home fans out of it a little bit.

Hopefully Cumberland turned the corner a little bit. Although he still missed a bunch of shots, even a layup, had a few bad turnovers, and got another charge (amusingly, he almost got a charge on a last-second, half-court heave before the half, which I don't think I've ever seen before), he started to show a bit more confidence on offense, and he played really tough on-ball defense.

Really? I thought it was a pretty good atmosphere. Fans cheered hard at the great defensive effort. I loved the huge ovation fans gave Evans when Cronin rested him for the first time (in the second half). It was Sunday night and fans did leave near the last tv timeout, but UC was up 20+ and the game was well in hand. Obviously it wasn't the kind of atmosphere we've had for some of the biggest games, but I felt like it was solid throughout.

I agree, Mark, the crowd seemed enthused and really got on the refs early with no travel calls on SMU and bad foul calls on us. Best atmosphere I've seen this year - not going to all the games.

(01-08-2018 05:50 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 12:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Tulane is overvalued by hopeful fans which happens. They have not beaten a soul and likely won't even finish in the top 100 in RPI. Their SMU and Temple wins are fools gold.

Not so sure about that after watching them play. Dunleavy has them playing like a NBA team with three shooters, one slasher, and one really good low post player. They spread the floor and swing the ball with an extra pass to get an open shot. The big man has tough finishing skills.

They are 88 RPI now. A lot of games to go but I love what Dunleavy is doing down there.

I'm not sure what game he was watching. People were into that one with good reason.

(01-08-2018 05:42 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 05:27 PM)EffinBJ Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 01:06 PM)geef Wrote:  Paucity of name basketball programs? I can't tell if you're joking. The problems with UConn and Memphis have absolutely nothing to do with a relative rise from Tulsa, UCF or Tulane. In most years, Wichita State, UC, UConn, Memphis, SMU, and Temple are in the conversation for bids. That's a full one-half of our conference with teams that more often than not make it to the tourney. Add Houston's history and potential, and there's only a few schools who don't have national names.

It's icing on the cake (and a boost to resumes) to have UCF, Tulsa, and Tulane simply relevant.

I'd agree that the Uconn/Memphis problems are not due to parity. But he's right in saying that their success is more important than that of an upstart.

The closest thing to blue blood teams that the conference has would be Uconn, Cincy, and Memphis - probably in that order. And Memphis is falling fast - they have absolutely not made the tourney more often than not since Cal left. Did they even make one under Pastner? Already I'd bet that if we asked the average P5 fan who is in the AAC, they might be able to name UC and UConn, and then they'd go uhhhhh. Maybe they'd remember UCF if they follow football. If you told them the Shockers were, they'd probably say "really? are you sure?"

Wichita is on a nice run and is certainly gaining respect, but they're not yet a true program. VCU was becoming a force year in and year out - until Shaka left. The same thing might happen to the Shockers if they lose their coach.

SMU was on a similar trajectory to Wichita under Brown, now it's time to find out if they can keep it going, as Butler or Gonzaga did after losing their coaches. I tend to think they can. But like UC, SMU has had a hard time getting out of the first weekend (their seeding respect is worse than ours, and that hasn't helped). Their lack of tourney success represents a lot of missed opportunities to cement them as a top program in peoples minds.

The point remains, perception of the AAC is dependent upon how good UC, Uconn, Memphis, SMU, and WSU are. The occasional at large for Temple, UCF, or a Tulane isn't going to do anything for that perception. Uconn winning a title out of the AAC didn't even do much for it. Having a handful of "name" teams doing well would work wonders - look at the new Big East for evidence of that.

The bolded was pretty much what I was thinking. And, in non UC/AAC forums, the perception of Memphis as a "brand" is pretty well...well...forgotten. People who remember Derrick Rose view that as an aberration and the success of that period as a result of Memphis cheating. Very, very few (in my experience) connect the "Memphis" of today with the classic "Memphis State" teams of CUSA, the Metro, and Great Midwest.

SMU simply isn't a "Basketball Brand" right now. That's not to say that they're not good, but SMU is simply not followed by "Basketball School" in people's thinking. Maybe if Larry Brown had stayed around and won some championships, that perception would change. But right now, it still isn't a "brand."

I'd add one name to the list, though... Wichita State. Especially for younger people, they now equate "Wichita State" with "Basketball Power." Again, adding WSU was an epic move for this conference and brought an instant boost to image and morale.

I have to admit you guys have me confused. Why do we not want our lower tier teams to get better? I don't believe we have the luxury to hope or wait for the UConns' or the Memphis' to regain "blueblood" or "name recognition" status. All I know is we take a tremendous hit on our national perception more for our bottom feeders than we do for the fact that UConn and Memphis are struggling right now. SMU may not be known as a "basketball school" but they've been one of the few AAC teams to consistently make the tourney of late. We need our conference to be stronger collectively and ramp up success period, any way we can get it, IMO.

(01-08-2018 05:47 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 09:47 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 09:18 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 11:15 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Without details that is a rather useless comment for the rest of us.

Brucie baby, such anger. Most are very tired with my comments regarding realignment. In fact, rath makes it line item C in his post.

My point is that I don't just complain on here. I've spoke one on one with all Presidents going back to Williams regarding realignment as well as members of the BOT. I'm hopeful after my conversation with Dr. Pinto.

BB&T does a nice job with the catering in the private suites.

Ragpicker, I always respect your comments because it's clear to me you care deeply for UC and the Bearcat teams. I claim no inside information. But I remain cautiously optimistic that P5 membership remains a strategic priority for our institution. My takeaway from your comment is that Dr. Pinto gets that. Unlike his predecessor, I will suggest he is working quietly toward that end.

You are correct. Not just him, but a team.

There. Now that is useful information to post.