(01-16-2022 06:37 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:31 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  Too bad. Don’t lose.

this is going to be your problem...my team is houston, we'll be fine going forward..this isnt an issue for me to worry about

one day usf will be had 25 win team, that is clealry good enough for the tournament..
that even beat ucf in the noncon....

the 18-12 ucf will make the tournament...the 25-5 will be inthe NIT becuase it lost to fau ..and ill come back and post "Too bad. Don’t lose."

i hope you live to this mantra that usf cant ever take any bad losses ever... as tha wil be the majority of your conference games going forward

And I’ll be fine with it because it would mean most of our 25 wins were garbage and we couldn’t win the conference tournament. Oh and funny that you think that this loss by UCF to USF is the one loss that will keep them out. If they are good enough they should beat others including Houston that would put them in

lies... and denial

you dont want guilt for usf knocking anyone off this year...thats why you spouting this bs (The pro USF side)

youll be spouting the opposite when the pro USF side is the common sense side.

pretending youd be okay with a great usf team missing the tournament becuase of riggid system, is BS...and let's end this convo, youve gone into homer mode and dont feel like dragging this on

(01-16-2022 06:43 PM)pesik Wrote:  lies... and denial

you dont want guilt for usf knocking anyone off this year...thats why you spouting this bs (The pro USF side)

youll be spouting the opposite when the pro USF side is the common sense side.

pretending youd be okay with a great usf team missing the tournament becuase of riggid system, is BS...and let's end this convo, youve gone into homer mode and dont feel like dragging this on

I’m a USF fan first and foremost and I will root for them to win any game they play. If that means that keeps another conference team out of the tournament that’s their problem

(01-16-2022 11:49 AM)legacygt777 Wrote:  Their basketball games look like a ghost town and their team looks like they need a lot of work.

Where'd all their fans go?

Watching re-runs of this past season football games, wondering how life is so unfair that UH ended up ranked ahead of them despite our "poor" attendance.

(01-16-2022 06:45 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:43 PM)pesik Wrote:  lies... and denial

you dont want guilt for usf knocking anyone off this year...thats why you spouting this bs (The pro USF side)

youll be spouting the opposite when the pro USF side is the common sense side.

pretending youd be okay with a great usf team missing the tournament becuase of riggid system, is BS...and let's end this convo, youve gone into homer mode and dont feel like dragging this on

I’m a USF fan first and foremost and I will root for them to win any game they play. If that means that keeps another conference team out of the tournament that’s their problem

thats fine... no one asked you to root against usf

i rooted for houston to ruin cincy playoff chances... all because i rotted for Houston, doesnt mean i dont think its bs that the g5 has to go multiple years of elite, hoping an elite team schedules us, then hope that elite team remains top 10, just to have a shot at the playoffs

what you wont see me do, is pretend that im okay with the system becuase im rooting for my team, "if they arent undefeated 2 years in a row and don't have a sos comparable to the p5 they don't deserve it" like we can control that, when the p5 can take multiple losses as long as they win their conference

upsets are inevitable in basketball, p5 set up a system where their upsets are meaningless, while g5 are season destroying

(01-16-2022 06:54 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:45 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:43 PM)pesik Wrote:  lies... and denial

you dont want guilt for usf knocking anyone off this year...thats why you spouting this bs (The pro USF side)

youll be spouting the opposite when the pro USF side is the common sense side.

pretending youd be okay with a great usf team missing the tournament becuase of riggid system, is BS...and let's end this convo, youve gone into homer mode and dont feel like dragging this on

I’m a USF fan first and foremost and I will root for them to win any game they play. If that means that keeps another conference team out of the tournament that’s their problem

thats fine... no one asked you to root against usf

i rooted for houston to ruin cincy playoff chances... all because i rotted for Houston, doesnt mean i dont think its bs that the g5 has to go multiple years of elite, hoping an elite team schedules us, then hope that elite team remains top 10, just to have a shot at the playoffs

what you wont see me do, is pretend that im okay with the system becuase im rooting for my team, "if they arent undefeated 2 years in a row and don't have a sos comparable to the p5 they don't deserve it" like we can control that, when the p5 can take multiple losses as long as they win their conference

upsets are inevitable in basketball, p5 set up a system where their upsets are meaningless, why g5 are season destroying

And neither you nor I are changing that system. So sadly where we are you must win and not lose to crappy teams. If it happens to USF I can be as mad as I want to be and it won’t change a thing.

(01-16-2022 06:31 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:20 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:16 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:08 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  Who said otherwise? My point was that this the first time that I can remember AAC. Basketball only having one team under 200 and at 217 that’s still better than before

thats the kind of net you need entering conference play from your bottom (and more top 150 than 200).. you dont want to come into conference play with bad net and build your net of conference opponents, you are sinking your opponents as much as you are raising...

223 to 184 is meaningless..... 43 dropping to 67 is season crushing

I understand but if that ranked 43 is losing to that 257 team that’s their problem. Let’s not blame the bad team for not giving up and winning, let’s blame the losing team for crapping it’s bed.

this is where I disagree.... upsets ALWAYS happen in basketball..your "43 lost to 257: is how they justify rigging the system against you... "you shouldnt have lost to that team", ignoring that its almost guaranteed that if you play enough bad teams there will be at least 1 upset .. and if you put a "bad" team with d1 athletes against a bunch of good teams, they will knock off at least 1

there has only been 1 winless aac team in history, and that winless Tulane beat a ncaa tourney team in the noncon

you are spitting the rhetoric that will be used against you going forward, and dont even realize it

upsets are unavoiable

Too bad. Don’t lose.

And this is literally the example of a broken clock being correct 2 times a day.

(01-16-2022 06:58 PM)Coog Engineer Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:31 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:20 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:16 PM)pesik Wrote:  thats the kind of net you need entering conference play from your bottom (and more top 150 than 200).. you dont want to come into conference play with bad net and build your net of conference opponents, you are sinking your opponents as much as you are raising...

223 to 184 is meaningless..... 43 dropping to 67 is season crushing

I understand but if that ranked 43 is losing to that 257 team that’s their problem. Let’s not blame the bad team for not giving up and winning, let’s blame the losing team for crapping it’s bed.

this is where I disagree.... upsets ALWAYS happen in basketball..your "43 lost to 257: is how they justify rigging the system against you... "you shouldnt have lost to that team", ignoring that its almost guaranteed that if you play enough bad teams there will be at least 1 upset .. and if you put a "bad" team with d1 athletes against a bunch of good teams, they will knock off at least 1

there has only been 1 winless aac team in history, and that winless Tulane beat a ncaa tourney team in the noncon

you are spitting the rhetoric that will be used against you going forward, and dont even realize it

upsets are unavoiable

Too bad. Don’t lose.

And this is literally the example of a broken clock being correct 2 times a day.

Only if the broken clock hasn’t lost its hands.

(01-16-2022 04:41 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:28 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 02:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 02:04 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 01:36 PM)58-56 Wrote:  Probably a good thing no one's watching.

I've seen UTSA and the team dead-last in NET, Mississippi Valley (we've played them both).

UTSA has a tall gawky white guy with a nice touch around the basket, and some rec league guys. They look like they'd rather be back in the rec league and play with no enthusiasm. I halfway expected their coach to sign the scorebook at halftime and get on the bus.

MVSU has a guy who can shoot threes, plus the coach's kid who they feed a lot because coach's kid. And a tall fat guy looking for a fight. The other guys wouldn't make a rec league squad but at least they play hard, the coach is animated and trying to set up plays to score and coach defense when they're down 30.

UTSA is the worst basketball "team" I have ever seen. I fear we are bringing our one-bidness with us when we join the AAC.

I don’t think the AAC will be a consistently one bid league in the future nor do I think it will consistently be a multi bid league. I could see a combination of UAB, UNT, SMU, Memphis, Temple, and Witchita all getting in. Maybe some years one bid and some three. None of the new additions except for UTSA are currently in the 200+ NET range. We are dumping 5 or 6 schools in that range with the move. Plenty of top 75 games to play that could propel two or three quality teams into at-large range. Especially with good OOC play

I said early on that AAC basketball would be harder to rebuild than AAC football. While there were some viable reasonably attractive football football targets for the AAC in realignment within the eastern G5's---there virtually no G5 targets that had strong football and consistently strong basketball programs (the kind that consistently compete for NCAA bids). UAB was about it---and even UAB's basketball wasnt what it was back in the day.

The only real way for basketball to stay strong would have to limit the size of the AAC rebuild to a 10 team league---12 max. The second half of the strategy would have been to lure Dayton and St Louis into the league as olympic sports schools. With Dayton, St Louis, and UAB coming in---added to the remaining core of Memphis, Wichita, Tulsa, SMU, and Temple----thats potentially a pretty solid conference that should be capable of consistent multi-bid performance.....but with football being the priority----thats not the route that was taken. AAC basketball still has some good performers---but many of the schools will have to really invest and develop their programs for the league to regain its footing as a top basketball conference. It can be done---but more teams beyond the the existing 5 or 6 team core will have to step up. Tulane seems to be making strides---so that kind of development can happen at schools if the investment in the program is there.

One of the things people don't understand about UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati leaving is how those G5 teams have strong overall football and basketball teams over the years.

SMU and Memphis should have both dual threat teams and I see strides in Tulane. The new G5 basketball teams coming in look really weak. UTSA fans have flexed about their decent football 30K crowds but the last UTSA basketball game looked like a high school turnout. Good schools in the AAC bring it in both basketball and football.

A bit of a stretch to say UCF has had a strong basketball over the years. I think the AAC will be weaker in basketball because Houston has become a top 10 program and it won’t replace by the additions. UC and UCF are not irreplaceable in basketball.

UCF has had a solid program in basketball and football. What teams coming up are as strong combined in football and basketball that are as good if not better than UC, Houston, and/or UCF?

Football and basketball are the cream of the crop of NCAA sports and I don't see anyone coming to the AAC that can replace any of those teams in the combined sports.

Btw, UC basketball looks like this:

2013–14 Mick Cronin 27–7 T–1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2014–15 Mick Cronin 23–11 3rd NCAA Division I Third Round
2015–16 Mick Cronin 22–11 3rd NCAA Division I First Round
2016–17 Mick Cronin 30–6 2nd NCAA Division I Second Round
2017–18 Mick Cronin 31–5 1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2018–19 Mick Cronin 28–7 2nd NCAA Division I First Round
2019–20 John Brannen 20–10 T–1st

Who do you got that is going to replace UC in basketball other than Memphis or SMU?

(01-16-2022 07:36 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:41 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:28 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 02:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 02:04 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  I don’t think the AAC will be a consistently one bid league in the future nor do I think it will consistently be a multi bid league. I could see a combination of UAB, UNT, SMU, Memphis, Temple, and Witchita all getting in. Maybe some years one bid and some three. None of the new additions except for UTSA are currently in the 200+ NET range. We are dumping 5 or 6 schools in that range with the move. Plenty of top 75 games to play that could propel two or three quality teams into at-large range. Especially with good OOC play

I said early on that AAC basketball would be harder to rebuild than AAC football. While there were some viable reasonably attractive football football targets for the AAC in realignment within the eastern G5's---there virtually no G5 targets that had strong football and consistently strong basketball programs (the kind that consistently compete for NCAA bids). UAB was about it---and even UAB's basketball wasnt what it was back in the day.

The only real way for basketball to stay strong would have to limit the size of the AAC rebuild to a 10 team league---12 max. The second half of the strategy would have been to lure Dayton and St Louis into the league as olympic sports schools. With Dayton, St Louis, and UAB coming in---added to the remaining core of Memphis, Wichita, Tulsa, SMU, and Temple----thats potentially a pretty solid conference that should be capable of consistent multi-bid performance.....but with football being the priority----thats not the route that was taken. AAC basketball still has some good performers---but many of the schools will have to really invest and develop their programs for the league to regain its footing as a top basketball conference. It can be done---but more teams beyond the the existing 5 or 6 team core will have to step up. Tulane seems to be making strides---so that kind of development can happen at schools if the investment in the program is there.

One of the things people don't understand about UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati leaving is how those G5 teams have strong overall football and basketball teams over the years.

SMU and Memphis should have both dual threat teams and I see strides in Tulane. The new G5 basketball teams coming in look really weak. UTSA fans have flexed about their decent football 30K crowds but the last UTSA basketball game looked like a high school turnout. Good schools in the AAC bring it in both basketball and football.

A bit of a stretch to say UCF has had a strong basketball over the years. I think the AAC will be weaker in basketball because Houston has become a top 10 program and it won’t replace by the additions. UC and UCF are not irreplaceable in basketball.

UCF has had a solid program in basketball and football. What teams coming up are as strong combined in football and basketball that are as good if not better than UC, Houston, and/or UCF?

Football and basketball are the cream of the crop of NCAA sports and I don't see anyone coming to the AAC that can replace any of those teams in the combined sports.

Btw, UC basketball looks like this:

2013–14 Mick Cronin 27–7 T–1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2014–15 Mick Cronin 23–11 3rd NCAA Division I Third Round
2015–16 Mick Cronin 22–11 3rd NCAA Division I First Round
2016–17 Mick Cronin 30–6 2nd NCAA Division I Second Round
2017–18 Mick Cronin 31–5 1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2018–19 Mick Cronin 28–7 2nd NCAA Division I First Round
2019–20 John Brannen 20–10 T–1st

Who do you got that is going to replace UC in basketball other than Memphis or SMU?

Now do UCF basketball which was what I referred to

(01-16-2022 02:04 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 01:36 PM)58-56 Wrote:  Probably a good thing no one's watching.

I've seen UTSA and the team dead-last in NET, Mississippi Valley (we've played them both).

UTSA has a tall gawky white guy with a nice touch around the basket, and some rec league guys. They look like they'd rather be back in the rec league and play with no enthusiasm. I halfway expected their coach to sign the scorebook at halftime and get on the bus.

MVSU has a guy who can shoot threes, plus the coach's kid who they feed a lot because coach's kid. And a tall fat guy looking for a fight. The other guys wouldn't make a rec league squad but at least they play hard, the coach is animated and trying to set up plays to score and coach defense when they're down 30.

UTSA is the worst basketball "team" I have ever seen. I fear we are bringing our one-bidness with us when we join the AAC.

I don’t think the AAC will be a consistently one bid league in the future nor do I think it will consistently be a multi bid league. I could see a combination of UAB, UNT, SMU, Memphis, Temple, and Witchita all getting in. Maybe some years one bid and some three. None of the new additions except for UTSA are currently in the 200+ NET range. We are dumping 5 or 6 schools in that range with the move. Plenty of top 75 games to play that could propel two or three quality teams into at-large range. Especially with good OOC play

First thing as you come in the conference is learn how to spell the conference mates' names. There are no witches in Wichita. :)

(01-16-2022 07:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 07:36 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:41 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:28 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 02:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I said early on that AAC basketball would be harder to rebuild than AAC football. While there were some viable reasonably attractive football football targets for the AAC in realignment within the eastern G5's---there virtually no G5 targets that had strong football and consistently strong basketball programs (the kind that consistently compete for NCAA bids). UAB was about it---and even UAB's basketball wasnt what it was back in the day.

The only real way for basketball to stay strong would have to limit the size of the AAC rebuild to a 10 team league---12 max. The second half of the strategy would have been to lure Dayton and St Louis into the league as olympic sports schools. With Dayton, St Louis, and UAB coming in---added to the remaining core of Memphis, Wichita, Tulsa, SMU, and Temple----thats potentially a pretty solid conference that should be capable of consistent multi-bid performance.....but with football being the priority----thats not the route that was taken. AAC basketball still has some good performers---but many of the schools will have to really invest and develop their programs for the league to regain its footing as a top basketball conference. It can be done---but more teams beyond the the existing 5 or 6 team core will have to step up. Tulane seems to be making strides---so that kind of development can happen at schools if the investment in the program is there.

One of the things people don't understand about UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati leaving is how those G5 teams have strong overall football and basketball teams over the years.

SMU and Memphis should have both dual threat teams and I see strides in Tulane. The new G5 basketball teams coming in look really weak. UTSA fans have flexed about their decent football 30K crowds but the last UTSA basketball game looked like a high school turnout. Good schools in the AAC bring it in both basketball and football.

A bit of a stretch to say UCF has had a strong basketball over the years. I think the AAC will be weaker in basketball because Houston has become a top 10 program and it won’t replace by the additions. UC and UCF are not irreplaceable in basketball.

UCF has had a solid program in basketball and football. What teams coming up are as strong combined in football and basketball that are as good if not better than UC, Houston, and/or UCF?

Football and basketball are the cream of the crop of NCAA sports and I don't see anyone coming to the AAC that can replace any of those teams in the combined sports.

Btw, UC basketball looks like this:

2013–14 Mick Cronin 27–7 T–1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2014–15 Mick Cronin 23–11 3rd NCAA Division I Third Round
2015–16 Mick Cronin 22–11 3rd NCAA Division I First Round
2016–17 Mick Cronin 30–6 2nd NCAA Division I Second Round
2017–18 Mick Cronin 31–5 1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2018–19 Mick Cronin 28–7 2nd NCAA Division I First Round
2019–20 John Brannen 20–10 T–1st

Who do you got that is going to replace UC in basketball other than Memphis or SMU?

Now do UCF basketball which was what I referred to

My OP was pointing out UTSA and their basketball program and other future programs coming into the AAC that have solid programs in both basketball and football (which I don't see).

You inferred UC was replaceable and I proved that that's not easily the case.

UCF:

2016–17 Johnny Dawkins 24–12 4th NIT Semifinal
2017–18 Johnny Dawkins 19–13 6th
2018–19 Johnny Dawkins 24–9 NCAA Division I Second Round
2019–20 Johnny Dawkins 16–14 No postseason held
2020–21 Johnny Dawkins 11–12
2021-22 10-5 (still going)

In the past 5 years, UCF has had 1 losing season. Like my point earlier, we're looking at a combined basketball and football sports program combined.

Here's USF basketball:

2021-22 6 10
2020-21 9 13 .
2019-20 4 17
2018-19 24 14
2017-18 10 22

Other than the 18-19 season, USF hasn't had a winning season in over a decade.

(01-16-2022 08:05 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 07:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 07:36 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:41 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:28 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  One of the things people don't understand about UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati leaving is how those G5 teams have strong overall football and basketball teams over the years.

SMU and Memphis should have both dual threat teams and I see strides in Tulane. The new G5 basketball teams coming in look really weak. UTSA fans have flexed about their decent football 30K crowds but the last UTSA basketball game looked like a high school turnout. Good schools in the AAC bring it in both basketball and football.

A bit of a stretch to say UCF has had a strong basketball over the years. I think the AAC will be weaker in basketball because Houston has become a top 10 program and it won’t replace by the additions. UC and UCF are not irreplaceable in basketball.

UCF has had a solid program in basketball and football. What teams coming up are as strong combined in football and basketball that are as good if not better than UC, Houston, and/or UCF?

Football and basketball are the cream of the crop of NCAA sports and I don't see anyone coming to the AAC that can replace any of those teams in the combined sports.

Btw, UC basketball looks like this:

2013–14 Mick Cronin 27–7 T–1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2014–15 Mick Cronin 23–11 3rd NCAA Division I Third Round
2015–16 Mick Cronin 22–11 3rd NCAA Division I First Round
2016–17 Mick Cronin 30–6 2nd NCAA Division I Second Round
2017–18 Mick Cronin 31–5 1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2018–19 Mick Cronin 28–7 2nd NCAA Division I First Round
2019–20 John Brannen 20–10 T–1st

Who do you got that is going to replace UC in basketball other than Memphis or SMU?

Now do UCF basketball which was what I referred to

My OP was pointing out UTSA and their basketball program and other future programs coming into the AAC that have solid programs in both basketball and football (which I don't see).

You inferred UC was replaceable and I proved that that's not easily the case.

UCF:

2016–17 Johnny Dawkins 24–12 4th NIT Semifinal
2017–18 Johnny Dawkins 19–13 6th
2018–19 Johnny Dawkins 24–9 NCAA Division I Second Round
2019–20 Johnny Dawkins 16–14 No postseason held
2020–21 Johnny Dawkins 11–12
2021-22 10-5 (still going)

In the past 5 years, UCF has had 1 losing season. Like my point earlier, we're looking at a combined basketball and football sports program combined.

Here's USF basketball:

2021-22 6 10
2020-21 9 13 .
2019-20 4 17
2018-19 24 14
2017-18 10 22

Other than the 18-19 season, USF hasn't had a winning season in over a decade.

And my point was referring to Basketball only. Here is a fact USF has more NCAA tourney wins than UCF. And I’m not sure why you even bring USF into this.

As I stated the league will be weaker and there is no replacement for Houston in basketball.

UAB and NorthTexas have as much basketball succeed as UCF. UC I’ll give you even though they have been down in basketball last couple of years.

No one here is saying that the league will be better with the additions over who is leaving.

(01-16-2022 08:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:05 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 07:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 07:36 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:41 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  A bit of a stretch to say UCF has had a strong basketball over the years. I think the AAC will be weaker in basketball because Houston has become a top 10 program and it won’t replace by the additions. UC and UCF are not irreplaceable in basketball.

UCF has had a solid program in basketball and football. What teams coming up are as strong combined in football and basketball that are as good if not better than UC, Houston, and/or UCF?

Football and basketball are the cream of the crop of NCAA sports and I don't see anyone coming to the AAC that can replace any of those teams in the combined sports.

Btw, UC basketball looks like this:

2013–14 Mick Cronin 27–7 T–1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2014–15 Mick Cronin 23–11 3rd NCAA Division I Third Round
2015–16 Mick Cronin 22–11 3rd NCAA Division I First Round
2016–17 Mick Cronin 30–6 2nd NCAA Division I Second Round
2017–18 Mick Cronin 31–5 1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2018–19 Mick Cronin 28–7 2nd NCAA Division I First Round
2019–20 John Brannen 20–10 T–1st

Who do you got that is going to replace UC in basketball other than Memphis or SMU?

Now do UCF basketball which was what I referred to

My OP was pointing out UTSA and their basketball program and other future programs coming into the AAC that have solid programs in both basketball and football (which I don't see).

You inferred UC was replaceable and I proved that that's not easily the case.

UCF:

2016–17 Johnny Dawkins 24–12 4th NIT Semifinal
2017–18 Johnny Dawkins 19–13 6th
2018–19 Johnny Dawkins 24–9 NCAA Division I Second Round
2019–20 Johnny Dawkins 16–14 No postseason held
2020–21 Johnny Dawkins 11–12
2021-22 10-5 (still going)

In the past 5 years, UCF has had 1 losing season. Like my point earlier, we're looking at a combined basketball and football sports program combined.

Here's USF basketball:

2021-22 6 10
2020-21 9 13 .
2019-20 4 17
2018-19 24 14
2017-18 10 22

Other than the 18-19 season, USF hasn't had a winning season in over a decade.

And my point was referring to Basketball only. Here is a fact USF has more NCAA tourney wins than UCF. And I’m not sure why you even bring USF into this.

As I stated the league will be weaker and there is no replacement for Houston in basketball.

UAB and NorthTexas have as much basketball succeed as UCF. UC I’ll give you even though they have been down in basketball last couple of years.

No one here is saying that the league will be better with the additions over who is leaving.

What decade are you in? USF hasn't done anything in over a decade. Good luck with USF in the tournament when that happens.

(01-16-2022 06:08 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 05:45 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  Don't kid yourself. USF is as bad as it has ever been, no upgrade there. Yesterday was a fluke game that simply killed UCF's tournament chances and complicates it for others as UCF went from being a Quad 2 win for SMU to now a Quad 3 win.

Who said otherwise? My point was that this the first time that I can remember AAC. Basketball only having one team under 200 and at 217 that’s still better than before

(01-16-2022 05:22 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  The deadweight doesn’t affect bids as much. Look at this year, so many have been harping about the AAC needing to upgrade the bottom of league, well guess what when that happens the top gets burned in some game’s .
As I said the league will be weaker but it’s not like UCF was making tourney and winning games.

The bottom of the league didn't upgrade. USF is as bad as ever. Your non-conference record was abysmal and now you practically eliminated UCF from an at-large bid.

(01-16-2022 06:18 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 05:44 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 05:22 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 05:08 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:41 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  A bit of a stretch to say UCF has had a strong basketball over the years. I think the AAC will be weaker in basketball because Houston has become a top 10 program and it won’t replace by the additions. UC and UCF are not irreplaceable in basketball.

uc has been not amazing for like 1.5 years.. and were still respectable in those years... you are underestimating uc's impact

but the top of the league does matter in basketball, its about depth .. the issues is the mass amount of bad games added to the league .. imo the league would have been fine in basketball simply not adding anyone and adding tough non cons

losing houston and uc is big, but adding 4 deadweight teams is worse

The deadweight doesn’t affect bids as much. Look at this year, so many have been harping about the AAC needing to upgrade the bottom of league, well guess what when that happens the top gets burned in some game’s .
As I said the league will be weaker but it’s not like UCF was making tourney and winning games.

1000% disagree.... you missed the entire point

when we said upgrade the bottom we meant "resume wise" not eye test wise... tulane /usf/ecu being terrible in non-con but then being decent in conference play is actually the opposite of what we meant by "upgrading the bottom"

you missed the entire pint there.. when everyone in the bottom is decent "resume wise", no loss is a bad loss...that is how you get bids, that how 18-11 teams get bids... have 4-8 teams that have numerous losses to midmajor, go 4-1 in conference is how you get 25-6 teams missing the tournament

not sure why you think tulane being horrendous in non-con, and then being decent in conference helps your point....

i dont feel like explaining it, but you are wrong, the conference bottom in basketball drastically matters more... its not even close...

If Tulane and the other usual bottom feeders stunk in out of conference and are now beating teams looking to get into tournament. It’s those teams that should be blamed for not winning. Sometimes it takes teams time to develop specially if they haven’t won before. I get. What you are saying that it would be better if Tulane and others had beaten teams in Out of Conference to raise their rankings rather than our own.

Upsets happen in conference play in every league. The key is to eliminate landmines. USF and the bottom are landmines.

Alabama didn’t sink far in the NET after losing to like NET 250 Missouri. UAB tumbled all of 5 spots to 42 after losing to 150ish Rice. Landmines don’t always sink a good team.

(01-17-2022 01:24 AM)mustangxc Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 06:08 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 05:45 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  Don't kid yourself. USF is as bad as it has ever been, no upgrade there. Yesterday was a fluke game that simply killed UCF's tournament chances and complicates it for others as UCF went from being a Quad 2 win for SMU to now a Quad 3 win.

Who said otherwise? My point was that this the first time that I can remember AAC. Basketball only having one team under 200 and at 217 that’s still better than before

(01-16-2022 05:22 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  The deadweight doesn’t affect bids as much. Look at this year, so many have been harping about the AAC needing to upgrade the bottom of league, well guess what when that happens the top gets burned in some game’s .
As I said the league will be weaker but it’s not like UCF was making tourney and winning games.

The bottom of the league didn't upgrade. USF is as bad as ever. Your non-conference record was abysmal and now you practically eliminated UCF from an at-large bid.

And once again if USF is that bad and is a land mine then it’s the job of UCF and any other school NOT to lose to them. Yes our team stinks and NO AAC team should lose to them. Any that do has only itself to blame.

(01-16-2022 09:23 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:14 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:05 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 07:40 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 07:36 PM)legacygt777 Wrote:  UCF has had a solid program in basketball and football. What teams coming up are as strong combined in football and basketball that are as good if not better than UC, Houston, and/or UCF?

Football and basketball are the cream of the crop of NCAA sports and I don't see anyone coming to the AAC that can replace any of those teams in the combined sports.

Btw, UC basketball looks like this:

2013–14 Mick Cronin 27–7 T–1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2014–15 Mick Cronin 23–11 3rd NCAA Division I Third Round
2015–16 Mick Cronin 22–11 3rd NCAA Division I First Round
2016–17 Mick Cronin 30–6 2nd NCAA Division I Second Round
2017–18 Mick Cronin 31–5 1st NCAA Division I Second Round
2018–19 Mick Cronin 28–7 2nd NCAA Division I First Round
2019–20 John Brannen 20–10 T–1st

Who do you got that is going to replace UC in basketball other than Memphis or SMU?

Now do UCF basketball which was what I referred to

My OP was pointing out UTSA and their basketball program and other future programs coming into the AAC that have solid programs in both basketball and football (which I don't see).

You inferred UC was replaceable and I proved that that's not easily the case.

UCF:

2016–17 Johnny Dawkins 24–12 4th NIT Semifinal
2017–18 Johnny Dawkins 19–13 6th
2018–19 Johnny Dawkins 24–9 NCAA Division I Second Round
2019–20 Johnny Dawkins 16–14 No postseason held
2020–21 Johnny Dawkins 11–12
2021-22 10-5 (still going)

In the past 5 years, UCF has had 1 losing season. Like my point earlier, we're looking at a combined basketball and football sports program combined.

Here's USF basketball:

2021-22 6 10
2020-21 9 13 .
2019-20 4 17
2018-19 24 14
2017-18 10 22

Other than the 18-19 season, USF hasn't had a winning season in over a decade.

And my point was referring to Basketball only. Here is a fact USF has more NCAA tourney wins than UCF. And I’m not sure why you even bring USF into this.

As I stated the league will be weaker and there is no replacement for Houston in basketball.

UAB and NorthTexas have as much basketball succeed as UCF. UC I’ll give you even though they have been down in basketball last couple of years.

No one here is saying that the league will be better with the additions over who is leaving.

What decade are you in? USF hasn't done anything in over a decade. Good luck with USF in the tournament when that happens.

I know USF basketball has been horrible so don’t know what your point is or if you think that is hurting me.
Doesn’t change the fact that as bad as USF basketball has been still has more NCAA tournament wins than UCF. Which my point was that UAB and North Texas have had as much success recently in tournament as UCF.

(01-16-2022 05:08 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 04:41 PM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  A bit of a stretch to say UCF has had a strong basketball over the years. I think the AAC will be weaker in basketball because Houston has become a top 10 program and it won’t replace by the additions. UC and UCF are not irreplaceable in basketball.

uc has been not amazing for like 1.5 years.. and were still respectable in those years... you are underestimating uc's impact

but the top of the league does matter in basketball, its about depth .. the issues is the mass amount of bad games added to the league .. imo the league would have been fine in basketball simply not adding anyone and adding tough non cons

losing houston and uc is big, but adding 4 deadweight teams is worse

Yup. Cinci was really the AAC basketball standard bearer for most of the AAC’s history. Up until a year ago—-that was the one AAC program that you could count on to compete for a bid year in and year out. Cinci has a long and illustrious basketball history so I have no doubt that program will get back to competing for NCAA bids again very shortly.