2017-18 Stats/Rankings

[waterhead]

I feel like we have to win out until mid Feb when we head to Moody. UCF should be our toughest challenge until then and Taylor I think will be likely to play his first game against us...but should be rusty.

After that point in mid Feb...

SMU away...just a brutal place to play at Moody. Then back it up with @ Houston...not easy. Followed by WSU home...not easy.

Then we get Uconn and Tulsa home...should not be a problem.

Then we get WSU and vastly improved Tulane away both on senior night. WSU has 6 seniors...I don't see us winning that game. How did we get two years in a row of playing away twice on senior night? WTF?

5 of our last 7 games are going to be very difficult. I am marking us down for 1 loss at WSU on senior night. I don't think we can slip up going into those last 7. If we do it's going to be a real challenge to pull off the protected seed. If we can manage to only lose 2 from here on out I think we can get that 3 seed. If we lose 3 I think we are looking at 4 seed and maybe a 5.

 

[justinhub2003]

I have a good feeling Temple won't be an A or B win by seasons end. When they collapse, they collapse hard.


And Im honestly, if UC and Wichita State run through this league like we know they can, its going to be bad for the league overall. UC or WSU has to fall on the grenade against SMU or Houston to ensure they get in.

Look at how the big easy got 7 teams like year, they did it on the collapse of Xavier and Creighton, teams who had good seasons and then got injured and gave every team in the league a top 20 win.

 

[cincrulz11]

Look at how the big easy got 7 teams like year, they did it on the collapse of Xavier and Creighton, teams who had good seasons and then got injured and gave every team in the league a top 20 win.

and honestly neither team deserved to make the tournament by the committees own standards.

Creighton went 7-8 without Watson, so they were an under .500 team for the team that was going to the tournament.


Xavier went 6-7 without Sumner, 3 of the 6 wins coming vs Depaul.


But as we have talked about before, the committee uses whatever they want for each individual case. the mark is always moving.

 

[waterhead]

I have a good feeling Temple won't be an A or B win by seasons end. When they collapse, they collapse hard.


And Im honestly, if UC and Wichita State run through this league like we know they can, its going to be bad for the league overall. UC or WSU has to fall on the grenade against SMU or Houston to ensure they get in.

Look at how the big easy got 7 teams like year, they did it on the collapse of Xavier and Creighton, teams who had good seasons and then got injured and gave every team in the league a top 20 win.

I understand your point but obviously no team is going to fall on any grenades. Every loss we give to these teams is going to hurt...so we need them to take care of business outside of that. It's a double edged sword...I get that.

 

[justinhub2003]

and honestly neither team deserved to make the tournament by the committees own standards.

Creighton went 7-8 without Watson, so they were an under .500 team for the team that was going to the tournament.


Xavier went 6-7 without Sumner, 3 of the 6 wins coming vs Depaul.


But as we have talked about before, the committee uses whatever they want for each individual case. the mark is always moving.

yea. and Im just trying to figure out whats best for this league and getting the respect it deserves. IF UC and WSU dominate the league, then they call it weak except at the top. If we get beat by the teams in the middle they will call it a mediocre league with no elite teams.


I mean, how F'n good would this league if UCONN and Memphis got their shit together? But until they do, they just look at as like were not good even though the top of our league is just as good as the pac12 and Big 10

 

[cincrulz11]

yea. and Im just trying to figure out whats best for this league and getting the respect it deserves. IF UC and WSU dominate the league, then they call it weak except at the top. If we get beat by the teams in the middle they will call it a mediocre league with no elite teams.


I mean, how F'n good would this league if UCONN and Memphis got their shit together? But until they do, they just look at as like were not good even though the top of our league is just as good as the pac12 and Big 10

Pac 12 grades out barely better than us overall on kenpom. Both of us are way behind everybody else in Kenpom conference strength.


and memphis and uconn wouldn't even have to be great. just not freaking awful. no excuse to not be in the top 75 for either of them.

 

[waterhead]

and honestly neither team deserved to make the tournament by the committees own standards.

Creighton went 7-8 without Watson, so they were an under .500 team for the team that was going to the tournament.


Xavier went 6-7 without Sumner, 3 of the 6 wins coming vs Depaul.


But as we have talked about before, the committee uses whatever they want for each individual case. the mark is always moving.

It has been a moving target but we need to make sure whatever arbitrary variable they use we look decent at. They have given us a good look at what they want to see and we can control most of that. Last year we were 3 for 7 in column 1 games...that's not good. You can't just pick one variable and have it magically eliminate our team or conference (and/or other non power conferences) from serious consideration. You get stuck in a catch 22 if you try something like that. They can still play favorites (which the y say they don't) but we can eliminate their ability to do that if we take care of business.

 

[waterhead]

It has been a moving target but we need to make sure whatever arbitrary variable they use we look decent at. They have given us a good look at what they want to see and we can control most of that. Last year we were 3 for 7 in column 1 games...that's not good. You can't just pick one variable and have it magically eliminate our team or conference (and/or other non power conferences) from serious consideration. You get stuck in a catch 22 if you try something like that. They can still play favorites (which the y say they don't) but we can eliminate their ability to do that if we take care of business.

I read from one of the committee members that previous March success is not a factor in determining seeds on a yearly basis. Neither is what coach you have on your team. It would be hard to justify between seed choices if this is how they picked the seeds...it would become apparent.

The power conferences are going to look good because of their SOS or how many quality opponents they have a chance to play against. There is no way around that. The committee made a move this year that would seem to help the lower quality conferences by saying they will use more metrics and changing the variables for quality wins to include top 75 road wins.

We are getting to a point that the mid major conferences are getting a slight bump. We shall see how it plays out. I still like to think we are a power conference even if at the bottom end. Adding WSU is HUGE and getting a couple more teams in the AAC to perform better than last year will also be HUGE in that the committee can't play as many favorites...even if they want to.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

UConn fans seem to be doing a lot of complaining that they're too good for the AAC. I never get that. You're too good? Then kick everyone's ass and prove it.

 

[waterhead]

UConn fans seem to be doing a lot of complaining that they're too good for the AAC. I never get that. You're too good? Then kick everyone's ass and prove it.

If Uconn had to play themselves twice I think they would lose both games somehow.

 

[sedziobs]

Pac 12 grades out barely better than us overall on kenpom. Both of us are way behind everybody else in Kenpom conference strength.

Unfortunately, our conference RPI is closer to the Missouri Valley than it is to the PAC-12. ECU and USF really hurt us.

 

[waterhead]

What are the odds we can hold at home AGAIN? WSU is going to be the only team that should give us a serious run. SHOULD!!

If we can hold at home I like our chances at being a 4 loss team. If we want to be a legit contender for a top 3-4 seed I feel like we have to win out at home. If we lose 1 at home then we have likely wasted our chances at a signature win and we likely lose both against WSU. We need at least 1 signature win to help our seeding IMO.

 

[waterhead]

Unfortunately, our conference RPI is closer to the Missouri Valley than it is to the PAC-12. ECU and USF really hurt us.

How so? We are pretty close to Pac 12 and Big 10 as we are to Missouri Valley and Mountain West.

 

[sedziobs]

What are the odds we can hold at home AGAIN?

According to kenpom, 37.23%

We can afford to lose at home if we we pick up corresponding road wins. Losing to Wichita at home would be about equivalent to beating UCF and Houston away.

 

[waterhead]

According to kenpom, 37.23%

We can afford to lose at home if we we pick up corresponding road wins. Losing to Wichita at home would be about equivalent to beating UCF and Houston away.

Yah....that's what I was afraid of. We need to beat WSU once. It's our only major opportunity left. We can beat some tough teams but we need that signature win IMO. Home or away we have to get one against them.

 

[sedziobs]

How so? We are pretty close to Pac 12 and Big 10 as we are to Missouri Valley and Mountain West.

Hey, I just report the news! The AAC's actual RPI rating (not ranking) is .0112 above MVC, but .0163 below PAC-12. Those don't seem like big numbers, but the top four conferences are separated by only .0052. After playing 18 conference games, these seemingly small numbers will have had a large impact on every team's RPI.

 

[waterhead]

Yah....that's what I was afraid of. We need to beat WSU once. It's our only major opportunity left. We can beat some tough teams but we need that signature win IMO. Home or away we have to get one against them.

Our 3 toughest home remaining games are Houston, UCF and WSU. I only worry about WSU. We must take that game for a huge year!!

 

[waterhead]

Hey, I just report the news! The AAC's actual RPI rating (not ranking) is .0112 above MVC, but .0163 below PAC-12. Those don't seem like big numbers, but the top four conferences are separated by only .0052. After playing 18 conference games, these seemingly small numbers will have had a large impact on every team's RPI.

We aren't talking about the top 4 conferences here so who cares about them. We are talking about 5-9. They are very close. Not sure how it plays out but we can be either 5-9. Probably 5-7 is the best bet. Would you agree?

 

[sedziobs]

We aren't talking about the top 4 conferences here so who cares about them.

The point was simply that a small number around a hundredth can have a large impact. I'm not comparing our conference to the top 4. I'm comparing it to the PAC-12 and MVC. Regardless of how we feel about the AAC, its poor RPI will limit the number of available Group 1 and 2 wins compared to other leagues. We may feel like we're on par with the PAC-12 and even B1G, but we're not statistically.

 

[kskenyon4]

The point was simply that a small number around a hundredth can have a large impact. I'm not comparing our conference to the top 4. I'm comparing it to the PAC-12 and MVC. Regardless of how we feel about the AAC, its poor RPI will limit the number of available Group 1 and 2 wins compared to other leagues. We may feel like we're on par with the PAC-12 and even B1G, but we're not statistically.

Most models have AAC finishing as the 7th ranked conference.

I think that plays way more into UCF/SMU/Houston's world than UC/Wich St's. All that matters for us two lead dogs are column 1 and 2.