"They do a very good job of trying to screw anybody who's not in those Power 5 conferences,"

[Palatine]

"They do a very good job of trying to screw anybody who's not in those Power 5 conferences," Auriemma said. "... They're really good at it. And they're very successful at it because that's one way to make yourself look even better than you are, is make everybody else look like they suck — and they are very, very good at that."

I wish the AAC Commish would say what Geno did.

And we better get used to it. Because the P5 is going to do their best to squash UConn.

 

[uconndogs]

And we better get used to it. Because the P5 is going to do their best to squash UConn.

Some small number of members of the P5 conferences maybe. Geno and Calhoun would be best to let the University speak imho. We're a victim of a lot of circumstances, but I don't much believe in being a victim.

 

[uconnell]

Doesn't seem like the commish has much to say about anything g, lately. How about no AaC rep on the committee? Men'and women's? Speak up Mr. commish. Don't want to see the same agenda next year?. Do something.

 

[UConnJim]

The AAC has been around 2 years, so they shouldn't expect much representation on important committees. This will probably change in the future.

As for the AAC and the NCAA Tournament, the AAC men's teams had a down year with few good OOC wins and the bottom part of the conference was really bad, which crushed the better teams' SOS. The AAC did not deserve more than 2 bids. Look at the Sagarin ratings of the AAC:

29 SMU
50 Cincinnati
66 Tulsa
68 Temple
71 UConn
84 Memphis
209 Tulane
219 Houston
220 ECU
255 UCF
260 USF

Based on the Sagarin's, only 2 schools deserved a bid and you could argue Cinci was a bubble team due to auto bids. For the AAC to be more than a 2 or 3 bid conference, the schools have to improve their OOC schedules and win more of the games, and the bottom 5 schools need to improve significantly. The AAC should not have any schools with a Sagarin > 200.

Look at the P5 and Big East conferences. No schools with Sagarin's below 200. That's the bar for the AAC. Look at some other conferences:

Schools with Sagarin rating > 200
7 CUSA, Sun Belt
5 AAC, Colonial, Metro Atlantic
4 A10, MVC, Horizon
3 MAC, Big West, Ivy
2 MWC, WCC

 

[mikedog10]

Curious because AAC Women put 6 teams in Tourney.

Seems like even Geno admits that it's football that drives the CR bus. Don't let the folks on the BB forums get word of this...

 

[BlueMAB]

Tulsa was always iffy. SMU and Cincy deserved it. SMU as a 6 seed though seems low. They were already top 20, and they won the conference title on the road.

Temple got screwed. There's no arguing that. RPI around mid 30s, beat the brakes of Kansas. Lost in the semis of the conference tourney to a ranked team (eventual champs). We should have had 3 teams in. If UCLA was good enough, there's literally no logical argument to be made against Temple.

 

[SubbaBub]

The AAC has been around 2 years, so they shouldn't expect much representation on important committees. This will probably change in the future.

As for the AAC and the NCAA Tournament, the AAC men's teams had a down year with few good OOC wins and the bottom part of the conference was really bad, which crushed the better teams' SOS. The AAC did not deserve more than 2 bids. Look at the Sagarin ratings of the AAC:

29 SMU
50 Cincinnati
66 Tulsa
68 Temple
71 UConn
84 Memphis
209 Tulane
219 Houston
220 ECU
255 UCF
260 USF

Based on the Sagarin's, only 2 schools deserved a bid and you could argue Cinci was a bubble team due to auto bids. For the AAC to be more than a 2 or 3 bid conference, the schools have to improve their OOC schedules and win more of the games, and the bottom 5 schools need to improve significantly. The AAC should not have any schools with a Sagarin > 200.

Look at the P5 and Big East conferences. No schools with Sagarin's below 200. That's the bar for the AAC. Look at some other conferences:

Schools with Sagarin rating > 200
7 CUSA, Sun Belt
5 AAC, Colonial, Metro Atlantic
4 A10, MVC, Horizon
3 MAC, Big West, Ivy
2 MWC, WCC

What was UCLA'S rating?

 

[huskymedic]

Seems like even Geno admits that it's football that drives the CR bus. Don't let the folks on the BB forums get word of this...

I got that wrong... it's only three that are going NCAA. 3 are going to WNIT.

 

[Excalibur]

Some small number of members of the P5 conferences maybe. Geno and Calhoun would be best to let the University speak imho. We're a victim of a lot of circumstances, but I don't much believe in being a victim.

They shouldn't have to say anything, but Aresco's silence is baffling. If you're being taken advantage of and don't have much leverage, your best course of action is to publicly eviscerate those taking advantage of you. He needs to be out personally insulting anyone remotely connected to the selection committee to anyone willing to listen.

 

[UConnJim]

Tulsa was always iffy. SMU and Cincy deserved it. SMU as a 6 seed though seems low. They were already top 20, and they won the conference title on the road.

Temple got screwed. There's no arguing that. RPI around mid 30s, beat the brakes of Kansas. Lost in the semis of the conference tourney to a ranked team (eventual champs). We should have had 3 teams in. If UCLA was good enough, there's literally no logical argument to be made against Temple.

According to the Sagarins, SMU was 0-2 against the Top 25 and 0-5 against Top 50 and this is the AAC champ? Think about that. The AAC champ played 5 games against Top 50 opponents! Cinci played no Top 25 teams. Temple was 1-2 against the Top 25 (Kansas) and 2-6 against the Top 50 and they were the first team out. Look, these are not good NCAA resumes.

 

[Nostical]

Aresco needs to be out personally insulting anyone remotely connected to the selection committee to anyone willing to listen.

I disagree. This is a lick your wounds year. Each AAC school must improve its standing. There was not an egregous enough snub by the Basketball Committee. When there is--you scream and folks listen. When there isn't, you're labeled a whining loser.

 

[UConnJim]

What was UCLA'S rating?

According to the Sagarins:

47 UCLA 20-13, 4-8 against Top 50, SOS = 48
68 Temple 23-10, 2-6 against Top 50, SOS = 100

Neither team looks great, but you have to give the nod to UCLA over Temple based on the numbers although UCLA got smoked by a number of top teams this year. Bottom line is that the bottom of the AAC was so bad this year, it impacted ratings of the better teams in the AAC.

 

[Stainmaster]

Seems like even Geno admits that it's football that drives the CR bus. Don't let the folks on the BB forums get word of this...

Just so you guys know, most of us recognize that football is what will get us out. The chorus of numbskulls you saw only come out once in a blue moon when something bad happens. The last time it happened was the Houston loss. Ignore them.

 

[BlueMAB]

Tulsa was always iffy. SMU and Cincy deserved it. SMU as a 6 seed though seems low. They were already top 20, and they won the conference title on the road.

Temple got screwed. There's no arguing that. RPI around mid 30s, beat the brakes of Kansas. Lost in the semis of the conference tourney to a ranked team (eventual champs). We should have had 3 teams in. If UCLA was good enough, there's literally no logical argument to be made against Temple

According to the Sagarins, SMU was 0-2 against the Top 25 and 0-5 against Top 50 and this is the AAC champ? Think about that. The AAC champ played 5 games against Top 50 opponents! Cinci played no Top 25 teams. Temple was 1-2 against the Top 25 (Kansas) and 2-6 against the Top 50 and they were the first team out. Look, these are not good NCAA resumes.

take a look at UCLA's road record and get back to me.

 

[huskyblooz]

Sagarin ratings are moronic!!!!
How can a computer give us a strength of schedule before the season begins???
Does a computer know who will improve, get worse, have major injuries, suspensions, teams that overachieve, not gel?
What's more asinine are the people who put stock in computers?

 

[SubbaBub]

According to the Sagarins:

47 UCLA 20-13, 4-8 against Top 50, SOS = 48
68 Temple 23-10, 2-6 against Top 50, SOS = 100

Neither team looks great, but you have to give the nod to UCLA over Temple based on the numbers although UCLA got smoked by a number of top teams this year. Bottom line is that the bottom of the AAC was so bad this year, it impacted ratings of the better teams in the AAC.

I prefer top 100 wins for at large bids and top 50/25 for seeding. Not everyone can schedule top 25 teams, but everyone has a good sample of top 100 games.

 

[UConnJim]

Sagarin ratings are moronic!!!!
How can a computer give us a strength of schedule before the season begins???
Does a computer know who will improve, get worse, have major injuries, suspensions, teams that overachieve, not gel?
What's more asinine are the people who put stock in computers?

You choose your ranking of the bubble teams then:

UCLA RPI 48, KenPom 41, BPI 44, Sagarin 47

Colorado St. RPI 29, KenPom 68, BPI 57, Sagarin 57

Temple RPI 34, KenPom 56, BPI 66, Sagarin 68

So, if you used RPI, CSU was in and UCLA and Temple were out. If you used KenPom, BPI, or Sagarin, UCLA was in and CSU and Temple were out. Under none of the 4 key quant measures was Temple in the NCAA tournament. In fact, CSU and UCLA both beat out Temple on 3 out of the 4 quant measures.

People may think there was a conspiracy out there, but the AAC was just not that good this year with the bottom 5 teams and the poor OOC performance dragging down the league.

 

[huskymedic]

It was reported (and confirmed by Barnes ) that Temple got hosed by Wyoming winning instead of SDSU.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/03/march_madness_2015_temple_ucla_ncaa_tournament.html

>>Barnes, the athletics director at Utah State, was asked specifically about Temple. He said the Owls were the very first team that did not make the field and that Wyoming's 45-43 win in the Mountain West tournament final stole that bid. Barnes rationalized the Owls' snubbing this way: "A difficult, obviously, decision for the committee. And anytime we see a team that had the season that Temple had, obviously, it is tough. And we feel bad for that. Wyoming's win in stealing a bid did take that bid away from Temple.<<

 

[whaler11]

This might come as a shock, but Mike Aresco is looking out for Mike Aresco.

 

[Pudge]

"They do a very good job of trying to screw anybody who's not in those Power 5 conferences," Auriemma said. "... They're really good at it. And they're very successful at it because that's one way to make yourself look even better than you are, is make everybody else look like they suck — and they are very, very good at that."

I wish the AAC Commish would say what Geno did.

And we better get used to it. Because the P5 is going to do their best to squash UConn.

Auriemma's voice is unassailable. He's on the Mountain. What's anyone going to say ... He's not really even leveraging UConn as much as his stature as the top Coach in Women's Sport. And he can speak the Truth to Power.

It's unfair to think Aresco has that bully pulpit. He still needs stuff to happen for this conference. Bowl games. TV partnership. Special games & series. Etc

 

[uconnfan68]

Some small number of members of the P5 conferences maybe. Geno and Calhoun would be best to let the University speak imho. We're a victim of a lot of circumstances, but I don't much believe in being a victim.

At least Geno speaks the truth.

 

[SubbaBub]

You choose your ranking of the bubble teams then:

UCLA RPI 48, KenPom 41, BPI 44, Sagarin 47

Colorado St. RPI 29, KenPom 68, BPI 57, Sagarin 57

Temple RPI 34, KenPom 56, BPI 66, Sagarin 68

So, if you used RPI, CSU was in and UCLA and Temple were out. If you used KenPom, BPI, or Sagarin, UCLA was in and CSU and Temple were out. Under none of the 4 key quant measures was Temple in the NCAA tournament. In fact, CSU and UCLA both beat out Temple on 3 out of the 4 quant measures.

People may think there was a conspiracy out there, but the AAC was just not that good this year with the bottom 5 teams and the poor OOC performance dragging down the league.

UCLA had 5 top 100 wins and only 1 of those on the road. The rankings are worthless, all of them.

BYU had 3 top 100 wins.

Temple had 8 top 100 wins.

UConn had 7 top 100 wins, and 5 top 50 wins.

 

[itgoeslike]

The only metric that can be trusted is the one that has UConn ranked the highest.

 

[SubbaBub]

The only metric that can be trusted is the one that has UConn ranked the highest.

Well obviously, but looking at the data, they all seem to put a lot more weight into wins against teams ranked 100-150 than sub-150 wins. To me there is no difference when discussing bid worthiness. Most bubble teams don't have more than 1 or 2 sub 150 losses, so what's the point other than tie breakers.

I have the same problem with NASCAR, the parse points between the guys who finishes 40th and 43rd, as if that makes any difference. IMV, if you outside the top 30 you are competing. I'd love to see anyone not on the lead lap at the finish get nothing.

Same for the NCAA, UConn's ranking was killed by the fact they played zero, that's zero, teams ranked between 101-150.

I'd much rather see a system where wins against the top 25, 50, 100 and losses against the sub 150 are over weighted and losses against the top 25, 50 are under weighted. Wins against the 101+ are neutral or valueless and losses are neutral.

 

[noeynox]

Geno also said he was done discussing conference realignment. I'm with Jim, the bottom of this league needs to improve from atrocious to bad in a hurry. Temple probably did get screwed but it happens to a team or two every year.