(02-17-2022 09:25 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I never understand these comparison threads...

You may not understand why researchers attempt to make comparisons with the limited data available to them, even when the limitations of the data make any inferences rather broad or tentative.

However, it's very often the case that researchers only have very limited data, and yet do their best to analyze them - - knowing that they cannot get any definitive answers, and that they will end up with are more questions.

That's what much of exploratory science is. For example sending probes to distant moons even though the data are so limited that the main product is that we learn to ask better questions.

You do the best you can, or you simply throw your hands up in the air and say "it's pointless to even try to hazard a guess."

Most of the time, we'd rather have some idea of what might be coming our way, even though we know that nothing every goes exactly the way that they're predicted to go.

(02-17-2022 09:25 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  It is not apples to apples comparison - those numbers go up and down game by game and if your opponents and outcomes are different, the numbers are different.

That's true, there is certainly some lack of commensurability, but there is one basic fact that is more or less "apples to apples" (the "apples" in this case being Massey Composite Rankings "apples"):

Fact: three top 100 caliber programs will be replaced with two top 100 caliber programs, two #100 to #150 caliber programs and two #170-#330 caliber programs

Fact: The current average Massey composite ranking of UH, UC, & UCF is 61.7

Fact: The current average Massey composite ranking of the 6 newcomers is 152.2

Fact: Replacing 3 schools (average rank=62) with 6 schools (average rank=152) in the computation of the average for the 14 future AAC schools does result in a lower ranking down the current Massey composite ranking (135.44, vs. 106).

As stated above, the AAC would still be a top 8, 9, or 10 conference, so it's not a doomsday scenario by any means, but the conference could certainly be knocked out of 7th place for a period of time. For how long, nobody knows, since it will depend on how things evolve going forward.

The above post also made it clear that there are some positive factors operating that are likely to limit the damage to the conference's rankings. Thus, the AAC might be able to remain more competitive with the MWC than the current rankings data tend to suggest.

.

(02-17-2022 11:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 09:25 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I never understand these comparison threads...

You may not understand why researchers attempt to make comparisons with the limited data available to them, even when the limitations of the data make any inferences rather broad or tentative.

However, it's very often the case that researchers only have very limited data, and yet do their best to analyze them - - knowing that they cannot get any definitive answers, and that they will end up with are more questions.

That's what much of exploratory science is. For example sending probes to distant moons even though the data are so limited that the main product is that we learn to ask better questions.

You do the best you can, or you simply throw your hands up in the air and say "it's pointless to even try to hazard a guess."

Most of the time, we'd rather have some idea of what might be coming our way, even though we know that nothing every goes exactly the way that they're predicted to go.

(02-17-2022 09:25 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  It is not apples to apples comparison - those numbers go up and down game by game and if your opponents and outcomes are different, the numbers are different.

That's true, there is certainly some lack of commensurability, but there is one basic fact that is more or less "apples to apples" (the "apples" in this case being Massey Composite Rankings "apples"):

Fact: three top 100 caliber programs will be replaced with two top 100 caliber programs, two #100 to #150 caliber programs and two #170-#330 caliber programs

Fact: The current average Massey composite ranking of UH, UC, & UCF is 61.7

Fact: The current average Massey composite ranking of the 6 newcomers is 152.2

Fact: Replacing 3 schools (average rank=62) with 6 schools (average rank=152) in the computation of the average for the 14 future AAC schools does result in a lower ranking down the current Massey composite ranking (135.44, vs. 106).

As stated above, the AAC would still be a top 8, 9, or 10 conference, so it's not a doomsday scenario by any means, but the conference could certainly be knocked out of 7th place for a period of time. For how long, nobody knows, since it will depend on how things evolve going forward.

The above post also made it clear that there are some positive factors operating that are likely to limit the damage to the conference's rankings. Thus, the AAC might be able to remain more competitive with the MWC than the current rankings data tend to suggest.

.

The new AAC will drop but will still be in top 10 and depending on how much the improvement of those staying and incoming could go from 7-10 depending on year

(02-17-2022 12:41 AM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 10:08 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 09:34 AM)Engblazr Wrote:  Whoever wins the UAB vs UNT game in Birmingham could get a significant boost in NET depending on how the cards fall. And whoever loses that one probably won’t fall more than a few spots unless it’s total domination.

Also new AAC basketball seems to have plenty of top 50 teams with Memphis, SMU, UAB, UNT and then Wichita in striking distance. Temple and Tulane could be top 100 teams too with a bit of a push. Could possibly propel a few of these up to the 10-30 range just by the algorithm’s nature. I’m pretty excited for basketball, wish we were jumping early instead of the Belt teams

The new AAC is looking better with four schools in the 40s.

I think basketball should stay solid. Obviously a bit of a dip with no Houston and Cincy, even if they’re having a down year this season. Hopefully UNT can hang on to McCasland for awhile, and even some of the “lower tier” schools look like they’re improving, especially FAU and Rice. Now, if we could just get UTSA to get its act together….

I suspect McCasland will get another raise. Since he wins, he gets one at the end of every season. Moving to the American should only mean a larger increase.

UNT has been committed to paying their coaches among the highest salaries in C-USA (Top 3). I believe they intend to keep the same policy in the American. It will be interesting to see if they can do it.

(02-17-2022 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  February 17
Houston #4, Memphis #40, SMU #49

North Texas #41, UAB #48

UNT won their 11th straight tonight. And, are one of only two teams (#1 Gonzaga is the other) that are undefeated on the road this season. Big game with UAB this Saturday. UNT's only conference loss came against UAB earlier in the season.

(02-17-2022 11:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 09:25 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  I never understand these comparison threads...

You may not understand why researchers attempt to make comparisons with the limited data available to them, even when the limitations of the data make any inferences rather broad or tentative.

However, it's very often the case that researchers only have very limited data, and yet do their best to analyze them - - knowing that they cannot get any definitive answers, and that they will end up with are more questions.

That's what much of exploratory science is. For example sending probes to distant moons even though the data are so limited that the main product is that we learn to ask better questions.

You do the best you can, or you simply throw your hands up in the air and say "it's pointless to even try to hazard a guess."

Most of the time, we'd rather have some idea of what might be coming our way, even though we know that nothing every goes exactly the way that they're predicted to go.

(02-17-2022 09:25 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  It is not apples to apples comparison - those numbers go up and down game by game and if your opponents and outcomes are different, the numbers are different.

That's true, there is certainly some lack of commensurability, but there is one basic fact that is more or less "apples to apples" (the "apples" in this case being Massey Composite Rankings "apples"):

Fact: three top 100 caliber programs will be replaced with two top 100 caliber programs, two #100 to #150 caliber programs and two #170-#330 caliber programs

Fact: The current average Massey composite ranking of UH, UC, & UCF is 61.7

Fact: The current average Massey composite ranking of the 6 newcomers is 152.2

Fact: Replacing 3 schools (average rank=62) with 6 schools (average rank=152) in the computation of the average for the 14 future AAC schools does result in a lower ranking down the current Massey composite ranking (135.44, vs. 106).

As stated above, the AAC would still be a top 8, 9, or 10 conference, so it's not a doomsday scenario by any means, but the conference could certainly be knocked out of 7th place for a period of time. For how long, nobody knows, since it will depend on how things evolve going forward.

The above post also made it clear that there are some positive factors operating that are likely to limit the damage to the conference's rankings. Thus, the AAC might be able to remain more competitive with the MWC than the current rankings data tend to suggest.

.

Look, like with mutual funds, past performance is not indicative of future results. When they were in CUSA together, UAB and Charlotte were far superior bball programs to Houston. Except for recently and blip here or there, Houston has been pretty much of a doormat since the SWC folded. Houston's football program has kind of took off in the past 10 years, but even that program was awful in the 90s. Flip side, UC's bball program has been pretty good for 60+ years. Yeah, they had a few down times, but they have been good no matter the conference.

The real question is do the schools have the facilities and commitment in place to be successful? If they do, they will rise to the level of the new conference and succeed. If they don't, they won't. It's pretty simple. I think, over time, UAB and Charlotte will be fine. Rice will suck. They have been bad forever and will continue to be bad. The conference simply added them for the Houston market and the academic reputation of the school. Texas-San Antonio, North Texas and Florida Atlantic are wildcards. All seem to have put resources into football and have some degrees of success.

As for being the 7th best bball conference, I would think that is doubtful. The MWC has more potential and better historical programs. But, I don't think the AAC will drop much below 7th. The A-10 is oversatured with weak programs. The Valley is always deceptively good, but it rare for them to have anything more than 1 Sweet 16 capable team. Plus, they are in a bit of transition and UIC isn't going to bring much to the table but for the Chicago market. The WCC has Gonzaga and some decent programs. But, losing BYU is a kick in the pants. After that, the pickings are pretty slim.

(02-18-2022 11:43 AM)MU88 Wrote:  Look, like with mutual funds, past performance is not indicative of future results. When they were in CUSA together, UAB and Charlotte were far superior bball programs to Houston. Except for recently and blip here or there, Houston has been pretty much of a doormat since the SWC folded. Houston's football program has kind of took off in the past 10 years, but even that program was awful in the 90s. Flip side, UC's bball program has been pretty good for 60+ years. Yeah, they had a few down times, but they have been good no matter the conference.

The real question is do the schools have the facilities and commitment in place to be successful? If they do, they will rise to the level of the new conference and succeed. If they don't, they won't. It's pretty simple. I think, over time, UAB and Charlotte will be fine. Rice will suck. They have been bad forever and will continue to be bad. The conference simply added them for the Houston market and the academic reputation of the school. Texas-San Antonio, North Texas and Florida Atlantic are wildcards. All seem to have put resources into football and have some degrees of success.

As for being the 7th best bball conference, I would think that is doubtful. The MWC has more potential and better historical programs. But, I don't think the AAC will drop much below 7th. The A-10 is oversatured with weak programs. The Valley is always deceptively good, but it rare for them to have anything more than 1 Sweet 16 capable team. Plus, they are in a bit of transition and UIC isn't going to bring much to the table but for the Chicago market. The WCC has Gonzaga and some decent programs. But, losing BYU is a kick in the pants. After that, the pickings are pretty slim.

disagree with your take on rice.. everything you said was said about baylor at one point... and rice has more resources than baylor

rice has elite recruiting grounds and more reasources (money) than everyone in the new aac .. the only ingredient missing is the desire to be great in athletics, and thats easy to get when theyve tasted it

(01-28-2022 11:37 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  January 28

Houston #4

SMU #50
UC #69
Memphis #74
Wichita St #79
UCF #80

Tulane #111
Temple #121
ECU #166

Tulsa #202
USF #221

Upcoming members
UAB #37
NTex #55

FAU #139
Charlotte #160
Rice #178

UTSA #331

North Texas 58
UAB 57

(02-19-2022 10:07 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  North Texas 58
UAB 57

Nice win, UNT!

Your NET will probably support it anyway if you win out, but if you just win your two road games in March (UTSA and UTEP) then being undefeated on the road for the season *ought* to be worth an at-large of its own accord!

February 21
Houston #4
Memphis #44
SMU #46

SMU and Memphis in good position if they can keep winning, specially vs Houston

AAC looks good at getting two in, three being a good possibility

North Texas #39 good spot for an at large if they win out but lose CUSA tournament final
UAB #51 looks like it may need to win CUSA tournament

(02-21-2022 09:40 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  February 21
Houston #4
Memphis #44
SMU #46

SMU and Memphis in good position if they can keep winning, specially vs Houston

AAC looks good at getting two in, three being a good possibility

North Texas #39 good spot for an at large if they win out but lose CUSA tournament final
UAB #51 looks like it may need to win CUSA tournament

I think UNT & UAB have to not only win out, but beat the spread in their remaining games. If they can do that and face each other in the conference tournament finals, both might get into March Madness. Just not enough quality games left on either teams' schedule.

Heading into the AAC Tournament

Houston #5
Memphis #35
Those two look good for the Dance.
SMU # 49. I think SMU will need to win at least two including Memphis and get to Finals

New AAC
North Texas #43
UAB #53
Looks like only the winner of tournament gets in, North Texas a long shot as an at large if it loses to UAB in Finals

(03-07-2022 09:40 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  Heading into the AAC Tournament

Houston #5
Memphis #35
Those two look good for the Dance.
SMU # 49. I think SMU will need to win at least two including Memphis and get to Finals

New AAC
North Texas #43
UAB #53
Looks like only the winner of tournament gets in, North Texas a long shot as an at large if it loses to UAB in Finals

CUSA is a 1 biddie conference no matter how things play out.

UNT shouldn’t have lost at UTEP last week.

They were the only team left in the country to be undefeated on the road.

Before that they had an outside shot at an at large

(03-07-2022 03:20 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  UNT shouldn’t have lost at UTEP last week.

They were the only team left in the country to be undefeated on the road.

Before that they had an outside shot at an at large

UNT and UAB = 1 NCAA, 1 NIT team - good season for each team

UNT's .NET is back up to 39 headed into today against La Tech. I think there is a decent chance for an at-large bid, if UNT beats La Tech today and loses to UAB by a bucket or two in the title game. We have to get by La Tech today though and that is definitely not a given.

(03-11-2022 12:15 PM)ClaudeFunston Wrote:  UNT's .NET is back up to 39 headed into today against La Tech. I think there is a decent chance for an at-large bid, if UNT beats La Tech today and loses to UAB by a bucket or two in the title game. We have to get by La Tech today though and that is definitely not a given.

Ouch. And only 36 points total.

(03-07-2022 10:21 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 09:40 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  Heading into the AAC Tournament

Houston #5
Memphis #35
Those two look good for the Dance.
SMU # 49. I think SMU will need to win at least two including Memphis and get to Finals

New AAC
North Texas #43
UAB #53
Looks like only the winner of tournament gets in, North Texas a long shot as an at large if it loses to UAB in Finals

CUSA is a 1 biddie conference no matter how things play out.

CUSA will be a one NCAA bid conference, but probably a two-bid NIT conference, and that may well be two more NIT bids than the AAC will be getting this year.

(03-12-2022 05:28 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:21 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 09:40 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  Heading into the AAC Tournament

Houston #5
Memphis #35
Those two look good for the Dance.
SMU # 49. I think SMU will need to win at least two including Memphis and get to Finals

New AAC
North Texas #43
UAB #53
Looks like only the winner of tournament gets in, North Texas a long shot as an at large if it loses to UAB in Finals

CUSA is a 1 biddie conference no matter how things play out.

CUSA will be a one NCAA bid conference, but probably a two-bid NIT conference, and that may well be two more NIT bids than the AAC will be getting this year.

I am pleased the Tigers won the NIT last year and it is a title worthy of a banner. Nevertheless, the achievement ranks below WSU's short stint in the NCAA Tourney. In other words, the number of NIT bids won by a conference is not a bragging point.