(03-19-2024 07:12 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 02:16 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 02:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 09:40 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 07:47 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  Anyone remember where the AAC ranked last year for comparison? The only thing I could find where it still shows last year’s also was the Warren Nolan Net Rankings. And I thought it was interesting that Warren Nolan has the AAC 9th this year, but also had the AAC 9th last year. I know their metric is different and that their Net isn’t the official one though.

Before the NCAA Tourney, the AAC's (including SMU) NET ranked:
2023: 9th
2024: 9th

As most people have pointed out we need our historically strong programs to get back to being top teams. Tulsa has been crap the last two years with high 100s and 300s thats a giant anchor from a school that has no excuse to be that low two years in a row. I'm sure Temple alumni feel similarly and WSU supporters can be lumped in with us.

The following isnt out of question next season. We all just need to win the games we need to OOC

Top 50
Memphis
FAU

Top 75
USF
UNT
UAB

Top 100
Charlotte
Wichita State

Top 125
Tulane

Top 150
ECU
Temple
Tulsa

Top 250
Rice
UTSA

This is entirely reasonable and I could see one of the 150 group making 125 and Tulane could push a top 100.

I was being a bit conservative too. I love USFs coach. I think he could get them into the top 50 next season. They might replace FAU if the program drops some after Dusty May leaves. UNT and UAB could push up in the 40-60 range.

It all depends on just not losing the bad games OOC. Other than Memphis, everyone lost an OOC game they shouldnt have...multiple games in most instances. Win those games and we go from 9th in the NET and KenPOM to pushing the MWC for 6th. The MWC wont get 6 teams in next season and their wont be 4 bid thiefs. If we can just improve marginally to get more Q1 and Q2 opportunities in conference we could look at 3-4 bids next season.

(03-19-2024 05:12 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 12:23 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  UAB is getting a pass for making the dance, everyone else listed needs to pull their weight.

I wouldn't argue that, hell, UAB certainly needs to improve its OOC as well. That said, three of the CUSA-6 earned double byes in the AAC tournament. The conference as a whole needs to do better.

UAB needs to find a way to avoid bad losses OOC. The schedule was there this year, we just lost 2 games we absolutely should not have lost.(and one of those was a thrashing)

It feels like this was the same story we had every year in CUSA as well. We always had good teams, but if anybody did anything OOC, they took a beating in conference. UAB should be a top 75 team yearly, this year ended okay because we won three games in three days, but we weren't even sniffing the NIT if we didn't pull it off.

(03-20-2024 08:00 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 05:12 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 12:23 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  UAB is getting a pass for making the dance, everyone else listed needs to pull their weight.

I wouldn't argue that, hell, UAB certainly needs to improve its OOC as well. That said, three of the CUSA-6 earned double byes in the AAC tournament. The conference as a whole needs to do better.

UAB needs to find a way to avoid bad losses OOC. The schedule was there this year, we just lost 2 games we absolutely should not have lost.(and one of those was a thrashing)

It feels like this was the same story we had every year in CUSA as well. We always had good teams, but if anybody did anything OOC, they took a beating in conference. UAB should be a top 75 team yearly, this year ended okay because we won three games in three days, but we weren't even sniffing the NIT if we didn't pull it off.

I think the advent of the portal is going to make is more difficult to be good early. Takes a while for all the new players each season to gel, and then you have to be lucky and avoid injuries and "bad" losses. Continuity is king, but retaining coaches and players require money, and it is hard to outspend the big boys.

(03-20-2024 07:05 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 07:12 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 02:16 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 02:09 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 09:40 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Before the NCAA Tourney, the AAC's (including SMU) NET ranked:
2023: 9th
2024: 9th

As most people have pointed out we need our historically strong programs to get back to being top teams. Tulsa has been crap the last two years with high 100s and 300s thats a giant anchor from a school that has no excuse to be that low two years in a row. I'm sure Temple alumni feel similarly and WSU supporters can be lumped in with us.

The following isnt out of question next season. We all just need to win the games we need to OOC

Top 50
Memphis
FAU

Top 75
USF
UNT
UAB

Top 100
Charlotte
Wichita State

Top 125
Tulane

Top 150
ECU
Temple
Tulsa

Top 250
Rice
UTSA

This is entirely reasonable and I could see one of the 150 group making 125 and Tulane could push a top 100.

I was being a bit conservative too. I love USFs coach. I think he could get them into the top 50 next season. They might replace FAU if the program drops some after Dusty May leaves. UNT and UAB could push up in the 40-60 range.
It all depends on just not losing the bad games OOC. Other than Memphis, everyone lost an OOC game they shouldnt have...multiple games in most instances. Win those games and we go from 9th in the NET and KenPOM to pushing the MWC for 6th. The MWC wont get 6 teams in next season and their wont be 4 bid thiefs. If we can just improve marginally to get more Q1 and Q2 opportunities in conference we could look at 3-4 bids next season.

UNT was a Top 75ish team most of this season, and the Mean Green were plagued with injuries under a 1st year coach. I have no doubt UNT will field a Top 50ish team next year, if we can avoid key injuries. Hodge knows basketball, and how to and players that can win.

MWC 1-3 after Day 1
SEC 1-3
Big12 3-2 Kansas got a gift

In NIT
MWC 1-0
SEC 1-1
Big12 1-2

(03-22-2024 09:52 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  MWC 1-3 after Day 1
SEC 1-3
Big12 3-2 Kansas got a gift

In NIT
MWC 1-0
SEC 1-1
Big12 1-2

Its almost like how good a basketball team is has nothing to do with them being in a named conference and these bad records are irrelevant because its just about certain conferences getting paid instead of deserving teams earning their shot at a championship.

The Mountain West is single-handedly, proving how flawed the NET system is.

(03-24-2024 11:00 PM)PirateJP Wrote:  The Mountain West is single-handedly, proving how flawed the NET system is.

The MWC cracked the NET code. The NCAA will almost certainly change the NET formula to prevent a reoccurrence. There is nothing to prevent it. The NET formula is a closely guarded secret like the Manhattan Project and no one publically holds the NCAA accountable.

(03-24-2024 11:00 PM)PirateJP Wrote:  The Mountain West is single-handedly, proving how flawed the NET system is.

Eh, the MW does have a team in the SW16, and IIRC, all of their teams played to their seedings, which for the most part weren't good. I don't think they suffered any upset losses.

Also, RPI had the MW as the #4 conference as well, so it wasn't just NET that had them highly rated.

(03-24-2024 11:00 PM)PirateJP Wrote:  The Mountain West is single-handedly, proving how flawed the NET system is.

Maybe a little. At the end of the day, here are the NET ranks of the teams still alive:
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,17,20,35,63

I get these teams likely had favorable locations and higher seeds, but they largely took care of business.

The biggest thing I'd like to see the NET get rid of is the efficiency numbers. Kenpom and similar sites already do that, let's have something a little different. The RPI did not do enough to take into account who you actually played, the NET also doesn't do this now because you get a boost for beating a 300+ team by 50.

I compared the last school in (Virginia) with the last school out (Indiana St). Although Indiana St had the better NET, Massey Composite, and record; Virginia had more quality Quad 1 games and wins and no Q 4 defeats (Indiana State had one Q4 defeat). Virginia achieved their Q 1 mark through a better OOC schedule and results and participation in a stronger league (ACC #5 vs MVC #10 Massey rank).

Indiana St had only two strong OOC opponents - Michigan St and Alabama and lost to both by double digits. Once conference play started they were doomed for an at large unless they had a nearly flawless conference record due to lack of Q1 game opportunities. They finished 17-3 in conference but it still was insufficient in the eyes of the Selection Committee.

What is the lesson learned for the AAC?

We need 5/6 teams to pick up quality wins OOC, and we need our bad teams to be no worse than quad 2 road games. There’s nothing complicated about what we need to do. The complicated part is how do we do it?

(03-25-2024 01:23 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I compared the last school in (Virginia) with the last school out (Indiana St). Although Indiana St had the better NET, Massey Composite, and record; Virginia had more quality Quad 1 games and wins and no Q 4 defeats (Indiana State had one Q4 defeat). Virginia achieved their Q 1 mark through a better OOC schedule and results and participation in a stronger league (ACC #5 vs MVC #10 Massey rank).

Indiana St had only two strong OOC opponents - Michigan St and Alabama and lost to both by double digits. Once conference play started they were doomed for an at large unless they had a nearly flawless conference record due to lack of Q1 game opportunities. They finished 17-3 in conference but it still was insufficient in the eyes of the Selection Committee.

What is the lesson learned for the AAC?

Add more state flagships?