The AAC is an absolute train-wreck

[pnow15]

Just what do you think the other schools are saying about our power house football program.
And this conference was all about football. We easily could have join the Big East in basketball and some conference for football. But we're going to out recruit Florida and Alabama for halfbacks and offensive lineman, right? We are the people not holding up the football end of the deal.
We should have made up a conference of Army, Navy, UConn, UMass, Nova , etc.
In other words decent academic schools who play all sports at a fairly high level, an all sport early Big East league.

 

[Edward Sargent]

Sorry if I'm cluttering the board with a redundant topic, but holy hell, if you thought the conference was bad last year, I shudder to think of what the committee is going to think of the conference this season. It's early, but we're already damn near half-way through the non-conference slate, and the results are not promising. At all.

A Temple team that many of us hoped would have a bounce-back season got blown out by Duke and followed that up by losing to a dysfunctional UNLV team. Cincinnati has been an eye-gauging team all season (even relative to the ordinary Cincy teams) and it took all 59 points to comfortably beat a 1-2 N.C. Central team tonight. Memphis is coached by Josh Pastner, managed to lose one of their exhibitions, and got worked by Wichita in their first game. SMU, barring an unforeseen win @ Michigan, has badly flunked their OOC test.

The bottom-half isn't fairing much better. East Carolina has yet to record a win over a D-1 team, Central Florida is unbeaten but yet to play anybody with a pulse, Tulane was slaughtered by a bad Wake Forest team, and Tulsa lost their opener to Oral Roberts (but beat Auburn last night) and is coached by Frank Haith. Houston looked like a silver lining, but then got pasted by a Harvard team tonight that lost to Holy Cross. South Florida might be OK, but even they struggled to beat Hofstra tonight.

It's bad enough to be in a conference with no other top 25 teams. But s***, am I overreacting to say this could be a one or two bid league? I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, I'm genuinely curious to see if others have been cringing at the results some of our other conference mates have been tossing up there.

And what you failed to mention is that one or more of those teams will most likely beat us during the season!!

 

[Antiobserver]

If UCONN takes care of business, there won't be anything to worry about.

 

[tzznandrew]

We won the national title after playing in this league last year. Unless that doesn't count, I don't think you can say no teams from these types of leagues can win national titles. UNLV did it in the 90's. That's two without doing any research at all.

Well, last year's AAC was a 4-bid conference with the defending champions, Louisville, in it. It had 5 tournament quality teams, and at one point had 5 ranked teams.

Memphis came close in 2008. Butler in 2010 and 2011. VCU and Witchita State have made runs. As has George Mason.

But if you're going back to 1990 as your example of a 1-2 bid league team winning a title (because, again, the AAC had 4 bids last year), I think you're proving my point.

 

[tzznandrew]

If UCONN takes care of business, there won't be anything to worry about.

Of course there will. Seeding in the NCAAs matters. UConn was underseeded by about 2 lines last year, in a much stronger iteration of this conference.

What do you think will happen this year if lose another game or two, and run roughshod all over the AAC? Let's say they win against Texas and @Stanford, and lose against Duke and Florida. Drop 2 games in the AAC, and then win the tournament. That's a 25-5 team that will have almost no quality wins. Where do they get seeded? A major conference team that does that is in discussion for a 1 seed, and is no worse than a 2.

 

[CAHUSKY]

Well, last year's AAC was a 4-bid conference with the defending champions, Louisville, in it. It had 5 tournament quality teams, and at one point had 5 ranked teams.

Memphis came close in 2008. Butler in 2010 and 2011. VCU and Witchita State have made runs. As has George Mason.

But if you're going back to 1990 as your example of a 1-2 bid league team winning a title (because, again, the AAC had 4 bids last year), I think you're proving my point.

And the AAC might be a four bid league this year and almost certainly will again in the future. I just think people are overreacting.

 

[CTBasketball]

If UConn wins the AAC Tournament, we might be the only team going to the NCAAT.

 

[tzznandrew]

And the AAC might be a four bid league this year and almost certainly will again in the future. I just think people are overreacting.

It has some potential. As long as Larry Brown stays at SMU, it will remain relevant.

I think Sampson will make Houston relevant.
Memphis will get its act together.
Cincy will as well.

But I don't see how this league gets more than 3 bids this year. I could be wrong. Hell, I frequently am, but without Louisville, I think this league is screwed for this year, and probably the next few until some of the dreck figures out how to schedule and win games.

 

[Inyatkin]

It has some potential. As long as Larry Brown stays at SMU, it will remain relevant.

I think Sampson will make Houston relevant.
Memphis will get its act together.
Cincy will as well.

But I don't see how this league gets more than 3 bids this year. I could be wrong. Hell, I frequently am, but without Louisville, I think this league is screwed for this year, and probably the next few until some of the dreck figures out how to schedule and win games.

Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I like our conference, but the ACC has had three-bid years. The real Big East had some serious dry spells. UConn will go as far as UConn goes, not as far as Tulsa goes.

 

[Gurleyman]

It's certainly not ideal, but we have to make the most of it. Probably the best year in the history of the Big East (regular season), when the league sent 11 to the tourney, we were a 3 and San Diego State was a 2 - they got a better seed by avoiding bad losses and getting a couple good wins when they had a chance while we dropped a few in league. We won the whole shebang, over Butler, but the rest of the battle-tested Big East soiled themselves (including one seed Pitt to the aforementioned Butler), so being tested night in and night out didn't help the other 10 teams much. The PAC was also hideous that year (getting 4 in only because Washington was an upset tournament winner and USC was invited to the play in round to be VCU's first victim), essentially on the level of the AAC this year but with a better brand name. Yet 5-seed Arizona was scary when we faced them in the regional final after taking Duke (with Irving) to the woodshed. If we're a 5, we have to be that sort of 5 (and not the sort that loses to a 12).

I don't really like our situation at all. Hard to get jazzed for East Carolina and Tulsa coming to Gampel. But much like I didn't care that the Big East would have been a national embarrassment without us in 2011, if Lamb doesn't make a couple shots to finish off SDSU, especially (you're welcome Big East, yet again), I'm not going to worry about the AAC being weak, as long as we don't lose to too much of the weak. There's only a single 1 seed in your region - beat them in the a Sweet 16 if that's when you face them.

 

[Deleted member 3149]

Jim Calhoun said it himself... This is all temporary. And for the record, an AAC team is the defending national champion so who cares

 

[aceboon]

Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I like our conference, but the ACC has had three-bid years. The real Big East had some serious dry spells. UConn will go as far as UConn goes, not as far as Tulsa goes.

In 98 when UConn was a 2 seed and could've made a FF if it didn't have to play UNC in Greensboro the Big East had 4 bids total, including UConn. The BE as a whole kind of lived off of a rep for a good deal of the 90s and before the mega expansion.

 

[Wise2]

Jim Calhoun said it himself... This is all temporary. And for the record, an AAC team is the defending national champion so who cares

Actually, the AAC is 2 for 2 after two years in existence. Not too bad.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It's certainly not ideal, but we have to make the most of it. Probably the best year in the history of the Big East (regular season), when the league sent 11 to the tourney, we were a 3 and San Diego State was a 2 - they got a better seed by avoiding bad losses and getting a couple good wins when they had a chance while we dropped a few in league. We won the whole shebang, over Butler, but the rest of the battle-tested Big East soiled themselves (including one seed Pitt to the aforementioned Butler), so being tested night in and night out didn't help the other 10 teams much. The PAC was also hideous that year (getting 4 in only because Washington was an upset tournament winner and USC was invited to the play in round to be VCU's first victim), essentially on the level of the AAC this year but with a better brand name. Yet 5-seed Arizona was scary when we faced them in the regional final after taking Duke (with Irving) to the woodshed. If we're a 5, we have to be that sort of 5 (and not the sort that loses to a 12).

I don't really like our situation at all. Hard to get jazzed for East Carolina and Tulsa coming to Gampel. But much like I didn't care that the Big East would have been a national embarrassment without us in 2011, if Lamb doesn't make a couple shots to finish off SDSU, especially (you're welcome Big East, yet again), I'm not going to worry about the AAC being weak, as long as we don't lose to too much of the weak. There's only a single 1 seed in your region - beat them in the a Sweet 16 if that's when you face them.

The MWC was the #5 RPI conference in 2011. That was how SDSU got a 2 seed. The AAC may not be Top 10 this year.

 

[Gurleyman]

The MWC was the #5 RPI conference in 2011. That was how SDSU got a 2 seed. The AAC may not be Top 10 this year.

Fair point. But there are other counter-arguments. Wichita, Memphis and Gonzaga earned one seeds. Princeton once got a 4 seed, and it wasn't because Brown and Dartmouth brought their RPI up. They won a couple good non-conference games and didn't lose to anyone bad.

It's certainly not good for us that the AAC blows and that I have to dive down to the Ivy League for references, but it doesn't have to be a death knell either. The top seeded big Big East team lost to Butler two years in a row, and the best team they saw in their league was Wisconsin-Milwaukee or Cleveland State. And the top seeded BE team last year was pimp-slapped by the fourth place team from the AAC.

We just have to try to be really good, and maybe more consistent than we have been (no losses at Houston), and not rely on anyone else. And then bring it in the tourney and let the chips fall where they may.

And then get it in a suitable conference someday soon.

 

[BUHusky]

Well, last year's AAC was a 4-bid conference with the defending champions, Louisville, in it. It had 5 tournament quality teams, and at one point had 5 ranked teams.

Memphis came close in 2008. Butler in 2010 and 2011. VCU and Witchita State have made runs. As has George Mason.

But if you're going back to 1990 as your example of a 1-2 bid league team winning a title (because, again, the AAC had 4 bids last year), I think you're proving my point.

Well, if you are going back to 1990, then you can't ignore that the Big 10 has only 1 title since then.

The point being, success in the tournament is all about the team, not the team's conference.

 

[bobbygt]

Not that Uconn wants to aspire to anything Calipari related, either real or hypothetical, but if Uconn can take care of business in conference play, they could be similar to Memphis circa the mid to late 2000s.

Conference USA was basically a one or two bid league at that time and they would get high seeds because they wiped out their conference opponents.

It's just going to be really tough for Uconn to go through the league with only a loss or two, so Uconn must win some of these tough OOC games.

 

[tzznandrew]

Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I like our conference, but the ACC has had three-bid years. The real Big East had some serious dry spells. UConn will go as far as UConn goes, not as far as Tulsa goes.

Indeed, although I can't find a 3-bid year since ACC expanded. As for the Big East being down, yes, they were. But not like this league.

But there generally were actual bubble teams in both the ACC and Big East, and most of the teams weren't so dreadful as we're thinking this year's AAC is. Let's take three case studies: one from a weak ACC year (4/12 teams), one from a weak Old Big East (4/13), and one from the one AAC year (4/10 teams).

In 2011, the ACC had 4 bids and 12 teams. Even though they only had 4/12 in the dance, they had 8/12 in the RPI Top 100, 10/12 RPI Top 150, and 11/12 RPI Top 200.

In 2002, the Big East had 4/13 teams in the NCAAs. 10/13 were RPI Top 100, 11/13 were RPI Top 150, 13/13 were RPI Top 200.

In 2014, with Louisville, the AAC had 4/10 in RPI Top 100, 5/10 RPI Top 150, and 8/10 RPI Top 200.

That's a big difference, and that difference matters. The down years are nothing like what will be one of the AAC's best years.

 

[tzznandrew]

The PAC was also hideous that year (getting 4 in only because Washington was an upset tournament winner and USC was invited to the play in round to be VCU's first victim), essentially on the level of the AAC this year but with a better brand name. Yet 5-seed Arizona was scary when we faced them in the regional final after taking Duke (with Irving) to the woodshed. If we're a 5, we have to be that sort of 5 (and not the sort that loses to a 12).

The Pac-10 in 2011 was dreadful. 6/10 teams were RPI Top 100, 7/10 were RPI Top 150, 9/10 were RPI Top 200.

Compare that to last year's AAC, and then, going forward, this year's.

 

[tzznandrew]

Well, if you are going back to 1990, then you can't ignore that the Big 10 has only 1 title since then.

The point being, success in the tournament is all about the team, not the team's conference.

To be fair, I didn't go back to 1990, another poster did.

But, let's also compare the Final Fours of the Big 10 since 1990 with the Final Fours of all other non BCS conferences. I think they'll have only one more title, but many many more Final Fours. Final Fours keep your school and your conference relevant.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Actually, the AAC is 2 for 2 after two years in existence. Not too bad.

2013 was still the Big East.

 

[Gurleyman]

The Pac-10 in 2011 was dreadful. 6/10 teams were RPI Top 100, 7/10 were RPI Top 150, 9/10 were RPI Top 200.

Compare that to last year's AAC, and then, going forward, this year's.

I mixed up my years. They were truly hideous in 2012 when they became the Pac 12 and only got two teams in (Colorado and "First Four" selection California) and everyone in the league had 10 losses or more. They were just merely breathtakingly mediocre in 2011. I had thought that Washington only got in because they won the tourney, but they were probably in anyway if their final RPI was in the 30s. I did remember that USC had no business being in the First Four when VCU beat them (everyone was bitching about VCU and their RPI was 20 points higher than USC, who nobody complained about).

Anywho, Arizona wasn't really battle tested by a great Pac 10 in 2011, and probably would have won the whole thing if that three went in against us. We were heavily battle tested by a ridiculous Big East and did win the whole thing, but the rest of the ridiculous Big East soiled themselves (I'll give Cincy a pass, and Marquette overachieved and then got punked in the Sweet 16).

 

[David 76]

So, if we don't beat any quality opponents, we won't get quality wins and we would be seeded low.
Sounds right to me.

 

[tzznandrew]

I mixed up my years. They were truly hideous in 2012 when they became the Pac 12 and only got two teams in (Colorado and "First Four" selection California) and everyone in the league had 10 losses or more. They were just merely breathtakingly mediocre in 2011. I had thought that Washington only got in because they won the tourney, but they were probably in anyway if their final RPI was in the 30s. I did remember that USC had no business being in the First Four when VCU beat them (everyone was bitching about VCU and their RPI was 20 points higher than USC, who nobody complained about).

Anywho, Arizona wasn't really battle tested by a great Pac 10 in 2011, and probably would have won the whole thing if that three went in against us. We were heavily battle tested by a ridiculous Big East and did win the whole thing, but the rest of the ridiculous Big East soiled themselves (I'll give Cincy a pass, and Marquette overachieved and then got punked in the Sweet 16).

Good point. 2012 was another terrible year in the Pac.

6/12 in RPI Top 100. 9/12 in RPI Top 150. 3 sub-200 teams.

It's almost a reasonable facsimile of this year's AAC. I'd bet we're going to see fewer than 6 RPI Top 100 AAC teams, but more than the Pac's 1 Top 50 team.

I'm thinking 5/11 Top 100, 7/11 Top 150, 2 sub-200 teams.

 

[David 76]

For 25 years the Big East did not win a basketball championship that was not UCONN's. (Maybe the one from 2003 will not be repealed- so I should give Mello his due)

After Georgetown and Villanova, the Big East was pretty quiet regarding championships. We were the exception. The upset of Syracuse and Louisville's win as (after) the league dissolved. Great league but not always great tourney performances. Except us.