(01-14-2019 11:32 AM)novachap Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 11:04 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 02:30 PM)ShockerFever Wrote:  Anybody hear that sound?

The sound of Creighton swirling towards the drain?

I see why you guys invited them. Nothing but punching bags.

If Creighton is "swirling the drain" at 10-6, what does that make Wichita State at 7-8 (and winless in conference)?

BTW, Creighton also leads the all-time series against WSU at 51-43. If they are a punching bag, what does that make WSU?

Shoot, I thought the sound was that of Gregg Marshall interviewing at UCLA...

Aww, c'mon Shocker... that was funny

I know one thing for sure... folks have Seton Hall comfortably in right now.... I wouldn't be so sure... they're 12-6 after tonight with 12 games left... still have
2 left with Villanova
Home game with Marquette
2 with Creighton
@ Butler
and a game @ St John's that you know St John's will be all over them...

You figure they'd have to in those 7 games win at least 1- and that's if they can sweep- DePaul, Providence, Georgetown, Xavier, @ Georgetown.

Huge game for them on Saturday hosting DePaul. It isn't quite a must win, but man, would make it a lot tougher if they lost that game.

season defining win maybe tonight for Marquette winning with best player out for all but 3 minutes.... They're doing really well- think they'll be a top 3-4 seed and win 14-15 conference games. Not what rest of the conference wants to get more teams in the tourney.

(01-15-2019 11:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  season defining win maybe tonight for Marquette winning with best player out for all but 3 minutes.... They're doing really well- think they'll be a top 3-4 seed and win 14-15 conference games. Not what rest of the conference wants to get more teams in the tourney.

Yeah, it was another well-coached game by Wojo. He has made remarkable strides as a head coach in the five seasons he has been here. No Howard. No Morrow. Used Sam Hauser as a point-forward for much of the game (as well as Anim). Made enough plays to win down the stretch. This and the Creighton game were both HUGE for the program and season outlook.

It boggled my mind that Ewing didn't utilize more full court pressure with Akinjo, McClung and Pickett. We did not have any skilled ball-handlers on the floor (and that includes Chartouney), and were were having trouble creating separation in the half-court. A lot of tough shots were made by the Hausers and John.

Was also really impressed by Bailey. I think he will be a special player for years to come.

so would you admit that I was somewhat right with Chartouny?

I will admit I thought Bailey would take a lot longer to get where he is.

Looking at our OOC SOS debate that we had..... Their NC SOS by NCAA is 126(by RPI it's 118).... So I was correct that it could easily finish outside the top 100.... However, had 5 group 1 games and 1 group 2 game in those games. So while it's not a top 100 SOS, it's definitely good enough. I'd call that debate a push given we were both right.

I will be really interested to see what happens NET rating with Seton Hall today after their loss @ #98 Providence by 9. They were #39 going into the game, I'd guess they'll fall at least to 45, if not lower. They're definitely a team that will get clearly hurt by the NET/RPI change. They even after the loss to Providence #23 in RPI. So most likely will be 20-25 spots worse in the NET than they are the RPI. It'll be really interesting to see teams like them in this process.

and interesting to see how much Providence moves up.

(01-16-2019 09:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  so would you admit that I was somewhat right with Chartouny?

I will admit I thought Bailey would take a lot longer to get where he is.

Looking at our OOC SOS debate that we had..... Their NC SOS by NCAA is 126(by RPI it's 118).... So I was correct that it could easily finish outside the top 100.... However, had 5 group 1 games and 1 group 2 game in those games. So while it's not a top 100 SOS, it's definitely good enough. I'd call that debate a push given we were both right.

I will reserve judgment on Chartouny until the season concludes. If he plays like has been playing, then absolutely - you were right on that call. However, with past grad transfers we have had (Trent Lockett comes to mind), they really struggled early in the season (including start of conference play), but turned it up/finally had confidence near the conclusion of the season and became a regular.

Bailey's length is a huge advantage. If he continues to build confidence, he will be fantastic player for us for years to come.

I was never worried about our schedule. Metrics can also say different, but when our OOC had Kansas, Louisville/Tennessee, Indiana, Buffalo (which was incredibly smart buy-game), Wisconsin and Kansas State all before conference play began, it was apparent that the team would be tested very-well before conference play started. Five of those opponents have been ranked this year (and that doesn't include Villanova or St. John's, either). All in all, I am very pleased with the schedule this year (I think it was Wojo's best yet).

yeah that's the thing with the schedules. You can play 6-7 dog games and still have a good OOC schedule. But where I disagree with you in the importance that you were tested OOC- no, I think the important thing was that you picked up 4 wins out of those 6 games..... It's not good enough to be tested. You have to win some of those games. Great case in point IMO is Creighton. They had 3 tier 1 games and went 0-3. Then lost their best tier 2 game....

It's so funny
Marquette #126 OOC SOS with 5 tier 1 and 1 tier 2 games
Creighton #8 OOC SOS with 3 tier 1 and 3 tier 2 games

am I crazy to think that Marquette had the better OOC schedule? If I were on the committee I wouldn't look at the rating itself, but rather how many tier 1/2 teams you have....

(01-16-2019 09:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I will be really interested to see what happens NET rating with Seton Hall today after their loss @ #98 Providence by 9. They were #39 going into the game, I'd guess they'll fall at least to 45, if not lower. They're definitely a team that will get clearly hurt by the NET/RPI change. They even after the loss to Providence #23 in RPI. So most likely will be 20-25 spots worse in the NET than they are the RPI. It'll be really interesting to see teams like them in this process.

and interesting to see how much Providence moves up.

And got the answer- they're down to #47 after last night, 24 spots lower than in RPI. They're no where near as safe as you would assume, and in fact if they had lost the St John's game like they probably should have, they'd be in some serious trouble right now I'd say.....

Providence moved up 13 spots to #85.

looking more like 4 bids. Especially if Butler loses to DePaul this evening(right now, it's 38-36 DePaul). If Butler loses both them and Creighton would be 10-8. None of the other non top 4 teams are really viable options right now....

Well, Butler heard the wakeup call and rolls DePaul 2nd half 87-69. It'll be interesting to see how much they move up tomorrow and how much this blowout costs DePaul.

So bracketville going into last night....
Marquette 18
Villanova 19
Seton Hall 28
St John's 34
Butler 69
Xavier 80
Creighton 83
Georgetown 84
Providence 85
DePaul 97

With the loss last night, I'm not so sure if the season ended today if Creighton would even make the NIT. Their resume is basically we played a tough schedule. That's great but when you are 9-8 and 0-7 vs quad 1 games, I'm not sure that should get you much....

I lol at folks who use the recruiting ranks to say UConn in the AAC is killing them....

When the period before Ollie became a coach, and the period after he left, they had avg recruiting class of 19.5(including #17 this season so far).
With Ollie as a coach though, their avg recruiting class was 56.5

Sorry but it was Ollie that was the problem and not the AAC. If the AAC sucked so much and is hurting UConn so much, how exactly does Hurley have a top 20 class this year? Better than all but 2 years in the OBE.

(01-17-2019 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I lol at folks who use the recruiting ranks to say UConn in the AAC is killing them....

When the period before Ollie became a coach, and the period after he left, they had avg recruiting class of 19.5(including #17 this season so far).
With Ollie as a coach though, their avg recruiting class was 56.5

Sorry but it was Ollie that was the problem and not the AAC. If the AAC sucked so much and is hurting UConn so much, how exactly does Hurley have a top 20 class this year? Better than all but 2 years in the OBE.

In 1996, when Houston got left behind from the SWC break-up, they were expected to be the top football program in reformed C-USA (due to their history and success within the SWC). Southern Mississippi had only one bowl appearance the previous ten years. Tulane wasn't any good. ECU had some recent momentum. Louisville and Memphis had been up-and-down. UAB was transitioning into D1. Well, Houston struggled mightily the first few years in C-USA - and it gave rise to each of the other programs (especially Louisville and Cincinnati, both of whom would get BE invites). Houston was an outlier in C-USA, geographically, as well (Tulane was only close school) until TCU (2001), SMU (2005) and Rice (2005) were added. While Houston, today, is a prime target for P5 expansion (within the G5), make no mistake - their exclusion from the Big 12 in the 90's and being regulated to an inferior conference affected its program for the long-haul.

I know you are responding to a post on the other site, but I will duplicate the data here as well.

From 247 Rankings:
2008 (BE): 7 (National), 2 (Big East)
2009 (BE): 8 (National), 1 (Big East)
2010 (BE): 23 (National), 2 (Big East)
2011 (BE): 33 (National), 2 (Big East)
2012 (BE): 29 (National), 2 (Big East)
2013 (BE): 37 (National), 5 (Big East)
2014 (AAC): 46 (National), 3 (American)
2015 (AAC): 47 (National), 3 (American)
2016 (AAC): 8 (National), 1 (American)
2017 (AAC): 84 (National), 8 (American)
2018 (AAC): 117 (National), 9 (American)
2019 (AAC) 17 (National), 2 (American)

Last Six Years in Big East Average: 24.5 (National), 2.3 (Big East)
First Six Years in American Avereage: 53.2 (National), 4.3 (American)

The recruiting levels have most definitely changed - the data proves that. Now, if Hurley continually gets top-25 recruiting classes, then yes, it proves Ollie was an exception (and not the new rule).

However, here is where perception can hurt a program: UConn was, without question, the top basketball program when the AAC formed (even with Louisville included). They still have the strongest brand of any AAC program, but other basketball programs have now risen at their expense - Houston and UCF mostly, along with SMU. One could argue their rise is the direct result of UConn's recent downturn; or perhaps UConn's recent downturn is the direct result of those program's rise. We can continue to go and forth on this subject, but I think the optics are definitely there that UConn has lost many advantages by not being in a geographically-centered conference. Now, to be clear, it is what it is, but to say that there hasn't been a dropoff, given the data, is just stubborn. UConn has never finished first in the regular season in the American; they have only won its tournament once. With a 1-4 conference start under Hurley, it looks like a rebuild will take some time - but, in that time, other programs can continue chipping away at the perception that UConn remains the AAC's top basketball program.

Bottom line, when the AAC formed, wins against UConn by AAC teams gave positive perceptions and value to those schools; however, whenever UConn defeated those programs (a majority of whom were called-up from C-USA) it did nothing to improve its own perception being in an inferior league (because they were games they should have won anyway). Long-story short, losses to teams like USF, Tulsa, UCF, Houston, SMU, Wichita State and Memphis not only help elevate those programs in status and perception, but they hurt UConn as well - as unfair as that it is.

I just don't think you can make the conclusive thing saying the AAC is the problem until we see what Hurley does in the next few years.... If Hurley has continuous top 25 classes the next 2-3 years- I think that would pretty much refute the AAC being the problem and it being all on Ollie.

Also, it's not like UConn has dominated in conference play but struggled OOC. UConn is 50-53 in the 6 years of the AAC....

Hurley would have to be a flop for it to be all on the AAC. If Hurley comes in and turns them into a top 25 team consistently, how would it NOT be pretty much 100% on Ollie?

(01-17-2019 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just don't think you can make the conclusive thing saying the AAC is the problem until we see what Hurley does in the next few years.... If Hurley has continuous top 25 classes the next 2-3 years- I think that would pretty much refute the AAC being the problem and it being all on Ollie.

Also, it's not like UConn has dominated in conference play but struggled OOC. UConn is 50-53 in the 6 years of the AAC....

Hurley would have to be a flop for it to be all on the AAC. If Hurley comes in and turns them into a top 25 team consistently, how would it NOT be pretty much 100% on Ollie?

That's the thing though - you argue that Hurley should be given a few years. Well, UConn has already been in the American for 6 seasons. During that time frame, the athletic department for UConn has now fallen behind Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and Memphis in both sports, among others in football and basketball, respectively. In a few years, you are looking at a decade cycle where UConn (for any reason given) has lost ground to new members that were called-up.

Regardless, UConn is in a very unique position. There is only one program that is on an island within the P5 (West Virginia - Big 12). In the G5, UConn is really the only school (other than Hawaii) that does not have any geographic rivals/opponents. That can be a very big issue.

(01-17-2019 03:56 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just don't think you can make the conclusive thing saying the AAC is the problem until we see what Hurley does in the next few years.... If Hurley has continuous top 25 classes the next 2-3 years- I think that would pretty much refute the AAC being the problem and it being all on Ollie.

Also, it's not like UConn has dominated in conference play but struggled OOC. UConn is 50-53 in the 6 years of the AAC....

Hurley would have to be a flop for it to be all on the AAC. If Hurley comes in and turns them into a top 25 team consistently, how would it NOT be pretty much 100% on Ollie?

That's the thing though - you argue that Hurley should be given a few years. Well, UConn has already been in the American for 6 seasons. During that time frame, the athletic department for UConn has now fallen behind Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and Memphis in both sports, among others in football and basketball, respectively. In a few years, you are looking at a decade cycle where UConn (for any reason given) has lost ground to new members that were called-up.

Regardless, UConn is in a very unique position. There is only one program that is on an island within the P5 (West Virginia - Big 12). In the G5, UConn is really the only school (other than Hawaii) that does not have any geographic rivals/opponents. That can be a very big issue.

And if in 4 years Hurley has them winning championships, then what?

I'm sorry but you have this thing to blame the AAC for everything, when it's very possible that the only problem was the coach. you know, almost exactly similar to what happened with Georgetown.... Except Hurley is recruiting way better than Ewing. 17 to 73 so far this year..... We're going to see UConn take a pretty big leap next year I'd expect. Then what?

Nothing like this particular discussion to pull me out of hibernation.

UConn's issues are multi-faceted, it's not all about any one particular thing, but the conference affiliation is one of them. Ollie did a bad job towards the end of his tenure and no matter what conference you're in, a coach not holding up their responsibilities is going to significantly impact a program. Only the most disingenuous of the UConn Football Truthers argue that anyone thinks the Big East patch is magic and that UConn would have been a perennial top-25 team by sewing it on the jersey.

That being said, while UConn being in the AAC doesn't make it impossible for the basketball program to be pretty good on an annual basis, it does make it harder for them to do so and it also makes things less interesting for the fans relative to the Big East. The hard facts are that Villanova is sitting right there as a ready-made rival operating at the highest level to replace Syracuse (which the AAC lacks), the Traveling Southern Roadshow that is the AAC tournament isn't comparable to the Big East Tournament (even without Cuse and Pitt), and trying to really plant your flag on the New England prep school circuit and New York/New Jersey high school scene is easier in a league that actually plays in those areas. Those problems can be managed, to an extent, but that doesn't mean they aren't problems.

The thing that's really killing the athletic department, though, is having to continue to support the football program without the revenue streams that UConn's perceived peers take advantage of. The Courant published UConn's financials for the most recent fiscal year and the school took a $40.5 million bath underwriting the Athletic Department, with the football program being the single biggest money loser without taking into account the whole programs you have to support on the women's side just to open the doors to the Burton complex every summer (who individually lose fewer total dollars but operate a larger deficit percentage-wise). There's no magic bullet to solve that problem that UConn can conjure, because the revenue streams between the AAC and the Big East aren't meaningfully different and it's been pretty definitively demonstrated that neither the B1G nor the ACC will be picking up the phone. However, cutting the football program loose, coupled with the significant trimming of expenses on the women's side of the equation that that would enable, likely lets you cut that enormous deficit in half, and there's no reason for UConn to remain in the AAC if they're not facilitating the football program.

That's almost certainly not happening for at least a half-decade, possibly longer, but I do think it's the most likely financial reality in UConn's future. If they feel they need to play out the string to see what happens with the Big 12 and the mid-2020s media contracts, and I think they do, then so be it, but the writing looks to be on the wall.

https://www.courant.com/sports/hc-sp-uco...story.html

Yep, all is well in UConn-land. Clearly.

Stever, I won't go back-and-forth with you. I know where you stand, and I respect your stats - so I won't continue the debate (it's been argued enough here, there, everywhere). I do think that being in the American is a detriment to UConn Athletics, and I'll just leave it at that. For what it wants/desires, the Big East would not be a fit for them either (thus, the BE should NOT want them in current form either).

UConn is Example A for Victims of Realignment 101. In retrospect, UConn needed to elevate football in the 70's/early 80's to have ever had a shot at the ACC, or not elevate it at all in the early 2000's.

(01-17-2019 09:08 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  (thus, the BE should NOT want them in current form either).

See, this I disagree with, because regardless of what UConn wants, the football program isn't getting the call-up they're hoping for. If the Big East can get UConn under their tent they should get it done before anyone can have second thoughts, and if it takes an additional five to ten years for the football dreams to finally be put to bed then so be it. Whatever lands the conference the biggest remaining (for the BE) potentially-free agent out there.