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?

(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?

Their basketball program needs lots of work but let’s face it, they weren’t added because of their basketball

They better produce consistently in football similar to this season because their basketball program may singlehandedly kill AAC basketball.

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.

(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

(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.

(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

North Texas is good, and Charlotte had a good history before they fired the Porn Stache. And Rice has that storage unit filled with cash. But I had hopes we would be joining a consistent (not sometimes) multi-bid league, and UTSA is just a sea anchor to those hopes.

Rice shows their commitment to athletics:

(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.

(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.

(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

(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.

(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...

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.

(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 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

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

(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.

(01-16-2022 06:16 PM)pesik 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

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.

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

(01-16-2022 06:16 PM)pesik 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

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 shouldn't 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 unavoidable

(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:  

(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

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.

(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 have a 25 win team, that is clearly 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