Aresco went on some financial shows in the days right after selection Sunday, and before the tournament started. He mentioned that SMU should have been in. He mentioned that our seeds were too low. But then he stated that the conference would be judged on our RESULTS in the tournament.

That was a bold statement. He was right, of course. It wouldnt matter that the league had half of the members ranked in the top 25. It didn't matter that the AAC was the conference with the most or nearly the most ranked teams all year long. Those were good talking points, but they would have been diminished with poor results in the tournament.

It would have been easy not to talk about results BEFORE the tournament. After all, most of the AAC teams were clearly under-seeded, meaning that they would have to go up against better teams sooner. Based upon the seeding, we should have had 1 team (Louisville) in the S16, and then no teams in the tournament after that.

So it took some stones to say that this conference would be judged by the results of the tournament.

And now, we enter the final weekend of the tournament, with UConn and SMU in the final four of both tournaments. Which does nothing but to bolster our claims; SMU deserved to be in, and we were under-seeded.

The results speak for themselves.