2017-2018 Season

[justinhub2003]

Ok.

I get what you guys are saying and that I'm taking a minority position. And I truly hope you guys are right. But I'm just going off factual historical evidence to make my case. Its not my opinion. My opinion says we could contend for a 1 or 2 seed because of how good we are.

I mean go back and look at the threads from last year leading up to the selection process. Everyone thought we would get a 4 or 5 seed at minimum and yet the AAC was punished a seed line and we were given a 6 seed.


All I was saying was that we play 4 300+ teams that will account for over 10% of our win total.
1-4 seeds
2017 Tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed)
2016 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams
2015 tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed )
2014 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams


So in the last 4 years, seeds 1-4 have only played this many bad buy games 2x.



I complained about about schedule when it was announced and digging further into it, I feel getting a protected seed is even harder than I had originally thought.

 

[waterhead]

Ok.

I get what you guys are saying and that I'm taking a minority position. And I truly hope you guys are right. But I'm just going off factual historical evidence to make my case. Its not my opinion. My opinion says we could contend for a 1 or 2 seed because of how good we are.

I mean go back and look at the threads from last year leading up to the selection process. Everyone thought we would get a 4 or 5 seed at minimum and yet the AAC was punished a seed line and we were given a 6 seed.


All I was saying was that we play 4 300+ teams that will account for over 10% of our win total.
1-4 seeds
2017 Tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed)
2016 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams
2015 tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed )
2014 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams


So in the last 4 years, seeds 1-4 have only played this many bad buy games 2x.



I complained about about schedule when it was announced and digging further into it, I feel getting a protected seed is even harder than I had originally thought.

My guess would be that the 300+ games did not mean nearly as much as our conference being rated 7th. It sucked. We add WSU x 2 and the conference as as a whole outside WSU should also be better.

The focus is going to be on top 50 RPI (like usual) and we are going to add in some level of metrics this year which nobody knows how much that will change things. I agree with you that our conference is still going to get dicked in the end...but maybe not as bad as last year. I think we can move up 2 seed spots if the conference does what we are thinking it can.

I will take a 4 seed with 4 losses and a 3 seed with 3 losses. I really want that 1-3 seed. I don't think we get in the top 4 seeds with 5 losses.

 

[cincyguy13]

Ok.

I get what you guys are saying and that I'm taking a minority position. And I truly hope you guys are right. But I'm just going off factual historical evidence to make my case. Its not my opinion. My opinion says we could contend for a 1 or 2 seed because of how good we are.

I mean go back and look at the threads from last year leading up to the selection process. Everyone thought we would get a 4 or 5 seed at minimum and yet the AAC was punished a seed line and we were given a 6 seed.


All I was saying was that we play 4 300+ teams that will account for over 10% of our win total.
1-4 seeds
2017 Tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed)
2016 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams
2015 tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed )
2014 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams


So in the last 4 years, seeds 1-4 have only played this many bad buy games 2x.



I complained about about schedule when it was announced and digging further into it, I feel getting a protected seed is even harder than I had originally thought.

AAC teams were punished because they were terrible and didn’t beat anyone. It wasn’t because 300+ teams. It was uc and smu and neither one really proved they were a great team out of conference. The good team we did play in conference beat us 2 out of 3 times. What seed do you want after that? Could we have got a 5? Sure, but it not like they are out to get uc

One again, how many teams that would be top 5 in the country, probably top 1 if they only lost 2 games, haven’t got a 1 or 2 seed? Show me that trend

 

[cincyguy13]

Ok.

I get what you guys are saying and that I'm taking a minority position. And I truly hope you guys are right. But I'm just going off factual historical evidence to make my case. Its not my opinion. My opinion says we could contend for a 1 or 2 seed because of how good we are.

I mean go back and look at the threads from last year leading up to the selection process. Everyone thought we would get a 4 or 5 seed at minimum and yet the AAC was punished a seed line and we were given a 6 seed.


All I was saying was that we play 4 300+ teams that will account for over 10% of our win total.
1-4 seeds
2017 Tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed)
2016 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams
2015 tourney: 1 team played 4 300+ teams (3 seed )
2014 Tourney: 0 teams played 4 300+ teams


So in the last 4 years, seeds 1-4 have only played this many bad buy games 2x.



I complained about about schedule when it was announced and digging further into it, I feel getting a protected seed is even harder than I had originally thought.

You’re looking at the wrong end of the numbers. The reasons those teams get high seed is because they play each other and constantly get top 25-50 wins. The same reason the big east got 10 teams in the year uc was in it. Why would the committee care if you play 4 300+ games if you have also proven you can beat elite level teams?

 

[UCBearcats]

My guess would be that the 300+ games did not mean nearly as much as our conference being rated 7th. It sucked. We add WSU x 2 and the conference as as a whole outside WSU should also be better.

The focus is going to be on top 50 RPI (like usual) and we are going to add in some level of metrics this year which nobody knows how much that will change things. I agree with you that our conference is still going to get dicked in the end...but maybe not as bad as last year. I think we can move up 2 seed spots if the conference does what we are thinking it can.

I will take a 4 seed with 4 losses and a 3 seed with 3 losses. I really want that 1-3 seed. I don't think we get in the top 4 seeds with 5 losses.

I don't understand why anyone would think our conference is getting "dicked" or "screwed" by the committee. Our conference stinks, it's been bad since it's inception. UConn did win a national championship the first year but they've fallen off a cliff since then. Memphis has been awful, Temple has underachieved, and the rest of the schools have been consistently awful.
Outside of UC and SMU this conference has been horrible and that's why they haven't earned any respect from the committee. Now we have Wichita State, a few of our programs appear to be on the upswing, and I think the AAC will be a much better conference in the next 5 years that it has been since it's inception.

I don't think our conference gets disrespected, I think it gets the exact amount of respect it deserves. It'll probably take a few strong years for the perception of the conference to change and that's okay. I don't think that a selection committee is going to look at a 2 loss UC team or Wichita State team with a high number of impressive Top 100 wins and say they're not a top 3 seed just because they play in the AAC. If there were a host of other deserving 1 and 2 seeds out of other conferences then we probably take a back seat and that's understantable. If you wind up with a bunch of P5 schools in the 7-9 loss range and UC or Wichita with 2 or 3 losses then I think our resumes would be rewarded accordingly.

Last year we lost 3 games but our schedule was horrible, we didn't have very many good wins. This year our opportunity to rack up good wins is much better, good wins will weight much heavier in the minds of the selection committee come March if we finish with a similar record as last season. This is the reality of our current situation, the AAC will never get higher consideration than the P5 conferences and it shouldn't, but it doesn't mean we can't still get a great seed if we win at an exceptionally high level. To act like there is some sort of conspiracy out there against UC or our conference is completely ludicrous, if we earn a Top 3 seed with our play then we'll get it. If we lose in the 5-8 range then we're probably looking at taking a back seat to some P5 schools in the same range and that's fine, that's what should happen.

 

[waterhead]

We can "game the rpi" by scheduling the 200+ teams rather than the 300+ teams but in the end we aren't going to "game it" that much. We maybe could end up a few spots higher in rpi but that is not going to constitute 2 seed lines. Top 50 rpi wins is a bigger deal. 3 points in metrics is not a big deal. Could it mean 1 seed line? maybe.

The committee will be looking at high end wins and conference strength more so than if we beat 300+ teams as opposed to 200+ teams. That is a minimal calculation in the end.

 

[cincyguy13]

I don't understand why anyone would think our conference is getting "dicked" or "screwed" by the committee. Our conference stinks, it's been bad since it's inception. UConn did win a national championship the first year but they've fallen off a cliff since then. Memphis has been awful, Temple has underachieved, and the rest of the schools have been consistently awful.
Outside of UC and SMU this conference has been horrible and that's why they haven't earned any respect from the committee. Now we have Wichita State, a few of our programs appear to be on the upswing, and I think the AAC will be a much better conference in the next 5 years that it has been since it's inception.

I don't think our conference gets disrespected, I think it gets the exact amount of respect it deserves. It'll probably take a few strong years for the perception of the conference to change and that's okay. I don't think that a selection committee is going to look at a 2 loss UC team or Wichita State team with a high number of impressive Top 100 wins and say they're not a top 3 seed just because they play in the AAC. If there were a host of other deserving 1 and 2 seeds out of other conferences then we probably take a back seat and that's understantable. If you wind up with a bunch of P5 schools in the 7-9 loss range and UC or Wichita with 2 or 3 losses then I think our resumes would be rewarded accordingly.

Last year we lost 3 games but our schedule was horrible, we didn't have very many good wins. This year our opportunity to rack up good wins is much better, good wins will weight much heavier in the minds of the selection committee come March if we finish with a similar record as last season. This is the reality of our current situation, the AAC will never get higher consideration than the P5 conferences and it shouldn't, but it doesn't mean we can't still get a great seed if we win at an exceptionally high level. To act like there is some sort of conspiracy out there against UC or our conference is completely ludicrous, if we earn a Top 3 seed with our play then we'll get it. If we lose in the 5-8 range then we're probably looking at taking a back seat to some P5 schools in the same range and that's fine, that's what should happen.

My thoughts exactly. No one cares about uc enough to create a conspiracy against them.

 

[cincyguy13]

We can "game the rpi" by scheduling the 200+ teams rather than the 300+ teams but in the end we aren't going to "game it" that much. We maybe could end up a few spots higher in rpi but that is not going to constitute 2 seed lines. Top 50 rpi wins is a bigger deal. 3 points in metrics is not a big deal. Could it mean 1 seed line? maybe.

The committee will be looking at high end wins and conference strength more so than if we beat 300+ teams as opposed to 200+ teams. That is a minimal calculation in the end.

Yes, you want to avoid the 300+ games if you can. We all agree on that. They don’t help anything and aren’t fun to watch.

 

[waterhead]

I don't understand why anyone would think our conference is getting "dicked" or "screwed" by the committee. Our conference stinks, it's been bad since it's inception. UConn did win a national championship the first year but they've fallen off a cliff since then. Memphis has been awful, Temple has underachieved, and the rest of the schools have been consistently awful.
Outside of UC and SMU this conference has been horrible and that's why they haven't earned any respect from the committee. Now we have Wichita State, a few of our programs appear to be on the upswing, and I think the AAC will be a much better conference in the next 5 years that it has been since it's inception.

I don't think our conference gets disrespected, I think it gets the exact amount of respect it deserves. It'll probably take a few strong years for the perception of the conference to change and that's okay. I don't think that a selection committee is going to look at a 2 loss UC team or Wichita State team with a high number of impressive Top 100 wins and say they're not a top 3 seed just because they play in the AAC. If there were a host of other deserving 1 and 2 seeds out of other conferences then we probably take a back seat and that's understantable. If you wind up with a bunch of P5 schools in the 7-9 loss range and UC or Wichita with 2 or 3 losses then I think our resumes would be rewarded accordingly.

Last year we lost 3 games but our schedule was horrible, we didn't have very many good wins. This year our opportunity to rack up good wins is much better, good wins will weight much heavier in the minds of the selection committee come March if we finish with a similar record as last season. This is the reality of our current situation, the AAC will never get higher consideration than the P5 conferences and it shouldn't, but it doesn't mean we can't still get a great seed if we win at an exceptionally high level. To act like there is some sort of conspiracy out there against UC or our conference is completely ludicrous, if we earn a Top 3 seed with our play then we'll get it. If we lose in the 5-8 range then we're probably looking at taking a back seat to some P5 schools in the same range and that's fine, that's what should happen.

Well if you look at rankings at the time of seeding it doesn't match up. In other words the committee doesn't see things like the poll voters otherwise we would have been a 4 or 5 seed. Not only did we get a lower seed but we were matched up with UCLA who was also under seeded and we were moved out west to boot.

Ahem!!

 

[waterhead]

Well if you look at rankings at the time of seeding it doesn't match up. In other words the committee doesn't see things like the poll voters otherwise we would have been a 4 or 5 seed. Not only did we get a lower seed but we were matched up with UCLA who was also under seeded and we were moved out west to boot.

Ahem!!

WSU would have been a 6 seed but got a 10 seed and had to face KY and gave them a run. A 10 seed giving a 2 seed a run! That is what I call being set up for failure. I am not sure that is fair really. I get KY had to play in a tougher conference but it doesn't mean weaker conference teams should get jobbed for good measure IMO.

 

[waterhead]

WSU would have been a 6 seed but got a 10 seed and had to face KY and gave them a run. A 10 seed giving a 2 seed a run! That is what I call being set up for failure. I am not sure that is fair really. I get KY had to play in a tougher conference but it doesn't mean weaker conference teams should get jobbed for good measure IMO.

It's like here...let me give you the hardest possible conditions to succeed, and if you do MAYBE we will reward you next year. If you don't then we must have got it right...lol!

 

[justinhub2003]

You’re looking at the wrong end of the numbers. The reasons those teams get high seed is because they play each other and constantly get top 25-50 wins. The same reason the big east got 10 teams in the year uc was in it. Why would the committee care if you play 4 300+ games if you have also proven you can beat elite level teams?

Im not saying they care or they don't care. I just know in the last 4 years out of 64 combined possible 1-4 seeds just 2 of those teams played 4 300+ teams.

Maybe the committee doesn't care at all. But I do see a trend that top seeded teams don't play this many junk games. Keep in mind, a great portion of those 64 teams i mentioned come from power conferences with deep conference schedules. They could in theory play 300+ games and get away it; Yet they didn't. They chose not to play those kind of games.

 

[waterhead]

Im not saying they care or they don't care. I just know in the last 4 years out of 64 combined possible 1-4 seeds just 2 of those teams played 4 300+ teams.

Maybe the committee doesn't care at all. But I do see a trend that top seeded teams don't play this many junk games. Keep in mind, a great portion of those 64 teams i mentioned come from power conferences with deep conference schedules. They could in theory play 300+ games and get away it; Yet they didn't. They chose not to play those kind of games.

Instead of looking at this from a "junk game" perspective why not look at it from a top 50 rpi game perspective. I am guessing you might find a similar trend. The teams in the top 4 seeds generally have to play more top 50 games. I think you might be missing the boat on the 300+ games.

The P5 conferences have enough money to pay buy teams to game rpi and UC does not. That's about as much as I would read into it.

 

[cincyguy13]

Im not saying they care or they don't care. I just know in the last 4 years out of 64 combined possible 1-4 seeds just 2 of those teams played 4 300+ teams.

Maybe the committee doesn't care at all. But I do see a trend that top seeded teams don't play this many junk games. Keep in mind, a great portion of those 64 teams i mentioned come from power conferences with deep conference schedules. They could in theory play 300+ games and get away it; Yet they didn't. They chose not to play those kind of games.

if you prove you can beat elite level teams, do you think those games matter?

 

[justinhub2003]

I mean you guys are completely ignoring what i am saying.

For us to be a 1-4 seed with 4 300+ teams on the schedule we will need to severely beat the odds. The 2 teams that were exceptions to the rule were from the ACC.

My case is:

1. We didn't game the RPI at all
2. historically you have a absolutely rare chance of a protected seed with 4+ 300 games
3. UC's overall SOS will be WORSE than last years dispite the great games on the schedule
4. Our conference will be much improved but KP still predicts were the 7th best conference by a pretty safe margin.
5. Currently we don't have a ton of top 50 games on our schedule. Hopefully those teams in the 60's can move up. But not all will.

IMO for us to really get respect we need to schedule the top end games like we did this years and next year but sub those 300+ teams with buy games from 150-250. Those are hugely winnable games and they weigh much heavier on SOS. Look at Xavier for example, I hate them, but yea their AD gets and understands gamining the RPI. They dont have 2 games nearly as good as UCLA and Florida and yet, their NON conference SOS will be much better than ours. They understand that those back end teams affect your overall SOS.

 

[cincyguy13]

It's like here...let me give you the hardest possible conditions to succeed, and if you do MAYBE we will reward you next year. If you don't then we must have got it right...lol!

do you really think they see uc or Wichita and say, "we have to make it hard on those teams"? if so why? what have we done in the last 20 years, that the committee would have to make it extra hard on us?

 

[waterhead]

Im not saying they care or they don't care. I just know in the last 4 years out of 64 combined possible 1-4 seeds just 2 of those teams played 4 300+ teams.

Maybe the committee doesn't care at all. But I do see a trend that top seeded teams don't play this many junk games. Keep in mind, a great portion of those 64 teams i mentioned come from power conferences with deep conference schedules. They could in theory play 300+ games and get away it; Yet they didn't. They chose not to play those kind of games.

The top seeded teams are from power conferences. They have the money to pay for better buy games. Not only do they have the benefit of better conference games but they don't have scheduling issues.

You don't think Cronin would like to schedule more 200+ games? Do you not think he hasn't asked? I am happy we can get the top 25 games home and away...our administration is not paying high dollar buy games.

 

[justinhub2003]

if you prove you can beat elite level teams, do you think those games matter?

wow dude. I AM NOT SAYING ITS A REFLECTION OF THE TALENT ON THE TEAM OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. I am saying that FACTUALLY us getting a top 4 seed with 4 300+ teams is almost unprecedented.

I'm also saying that that we really need to go 4-1 against our top teams. Other wise if we go 3-2 or god forbid 2-3 then it will mean between 35 and 40% of our non conference wins came against teams Bellarmine would beat.


My only hope is that the selection committee recognizes that we are sharing an arena and that we had a pretty tough time getting high quality buy games. if they give us that benefit we might be fine.


There is no other good reason in the world for us to be playing 4 300+ teams when we are this good. And if this continues next year, someone needs fired because they don't understand basketball scheduling in the slightest

 

[cincyguy13]

I mean you guys are completely ignoring what i am saying.

For us to be a 1-4 seed with 4 300+ teams on the schedule we will need to severely beat the odds. The 2 teams that were exceptions to the rule were from the ACC.

My case is:

1. We didn't game the RPI at all
2. historically you have a absolutely rare chance of a protected seed with 4+ 300 games
3. UC's overall SOS will be WORSE than last years dispite the great games on the schedule
4. Our conference will be much improved but KP still predicts were the 7th best conference by a pretty safe margin.
5. Currently we don't have a ton of top 50 games on our schedule. Hopefully those teams in the 60's can move up. But not all will.

IMO for us to really get respect we need to schedule the top end games like we did this years and next year but sub those 300+ teams with buy games from 150-250. Those are hugely winnable games and they weigh much heavier on SOS. Look at Xavier for example, I hate them, but yea their AD gets and understands gamining the RPI. They dont have 2 games nearly as good as UCLA and Florida and yet, their NON conference SOS will be much better than ours. They understand that those back end teams affect your overall SOS.

I get it.Our conference is not as good as the big boys. we need all the help we can get. We need to do everything we can to avoid low seeds. these 300+ dont help at all. I understand all of that. My solution is to just win and it will take care of itself. The same thing UC did in the 90s. The same thing Wichita did when they got a 1 seed. Gonzaga has done for years. Is it likely, no. But you are saying it's impossible, when clearly it is not.

 

[waterhead]

do you really think they see uc or Wichita and say, "we have to make it hard on those teams"? if so why? what have we done in the last 20 years, that the committee would have to make it extra hard on us?

I just gave you examples. I can go back more years and give you more examples. The committee loves the power conferences...that doesn't mean they hate UC in particular. They want to see blue bloods. It's good for TV etc.

I also think we could do a better job of becoming known as a tourney team and that would help our chances with future seeding but it's hard to do when you get under seeded and face other under seeded teams. We also have to break that trend.