State of the Program

[cincyguy13]

at what cost? Is scheduling them l really going to help us?

Yeah, probably. If we are wanting top 50 wins.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

at what cost? Is scheduling them l really going to help us?

It won't hurt. You're the one who obsesses over our conference (which is completely unproductive at this time), so why not add a team like this to our schedule? Playing on their court would be a good challenge. I mean we did a home and home with Bowling Green. This is way better than that. And with Butler and Iowa State home and homes completed, we'll need something like this + other teams of this and higher caliber.

 

[cincrulz11]

at what cost? Is scheduling them l really going to help us?

yes, scheduling anybody that can finish top 50 in rpi will help us. committee making it clear top 50 wins is the only thing that matters. 8-13 vs top 50 is much better than 3-0 vs top 50.


top non power 5 schools need to play other top non power 5 schools. i have no idea if it can work realistically due to $$$, but its the only thing that can save them when it comes to seeding, or just getting in.

 

[cincyguy13]

I don't get the thinking we are above anyone. I get the scheduling thing, you have to have some many home games, ok. I don't know the details, but why do we think we are above teams? We haven't won anything besides a regular season title in about 15 years.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

It won't hurt. You're the one who obsesses over our conference (which is completely unproductive at this time), so why not add a team like this to our schedule? Playing on their court would be a good challenge. I mean we did a home and home with Bowling Green. This is way better than that. And with Butler and Iowa State home and homes completed, we'll need something like this + other teams of this and higher caliber.

I will answer your question after the tournament. How is that. I agree this should be about this season.

 

[cincyguy13]

yes, scheduling anybody that can finish top 50 in rpi will help us. committee making it clear top 50 wins is the only thing that matters. 8-13 vs top 50 is much better than 3-0 vs top 50.


top non power 5 schools need to play other top non power 5 schools. i have no idea if it can work realistically due to $$$, but its the only thing that can save them when it comes to seeding, or just getting in.

Agree, we all realize we aren't getting duke or teams like that in a home and home. This is the only way to get those games. It's this or we can keep waiting on that phone to ring

 

[#BearcatNation]

I really wish more of you understood how difficult it is for UC to get better teams into our building. They cannot financially afford getting very many 100-150 RPI teams at home, unless they want to do a home-and-home and lose money. So, unfortunately, we have to settle for quite a few 200+ RPI teams. And people bitch about this as if UC is turning down 120-ish teams for 270-ish teams. Not sure why some of you have this disconnect.

 

[waterhead]

All we needed this year was for UConn to play like themselves and then Houston to win about 1 more game. Then we could have had 5-6 rpi Top 50's. That's a 4 seed. Houston just outside of the top 50 rpi does not even register as a team any better than USF.

In most years I would expect we are going to have 3 regular teams in the top 50 and then 1 more team having a good year. 3-5 good teams is enough.

AAC just sucked this year. So the committee screwed us as hard as they could by dropping us a seed line or 2, moving us out west, giving us the hardest of the playin games, and then making sure we get easily the toughest 3 seed for good measure if we win.

And fans wonder why we don't get out of the first two games very often...lol! We usually get f-ed in the A by the committee. I don't care about dropping us a seed line...just don't screw us in every possible way you can.

 

[cincrulz11]

I really wish more of you understood how difficult it is for UC to get better teams into our building. They cannot financially afford getting very many 100-150 RPI teams at home, unless they want to do a home-and-home and lose money. So, unfortunately, we have to settle for quite a few 200+ RPI teams. And people bitch about this as if UC is turning down 120-ish teams for 270-ish teams. Not sure why some of you have this disconnect.

yeah I was speaking in more of a general sense for all the better schools that aren't in power 5 but understand the likely reason this stuff doesn't happen is directly related to money.


it just... sucks. we basically have no power and have to be happy with whatever scraps happen to come our way.

 

[UCBearcats]

Correct. So the two options in the AAC seem to be:
1) Be a top 5 team
2) Get seeded anywhere 6 (MAYBE 5) - 8.

I think that's really stupid, but no one in the committee is asking for my opinion.

Yes.....I mean that's life. AAC teams are not taking away high seeds from more established teams unless they meet criteria #1. I think that's fair and I think almost everyone who posts to this board would have agreed with that 1000% when we still played in the Big East.

You can take 75% of our 29 wins and throw them out the window because they mean absolutely nothing. If we went 29-5 in the ACC we'd be a 1 seed, that's the difference between the AAC and the ACC and it's fair IMO.

 

[UCBearcats]

Well if all that was true smu wouldn't be a 6, but they are.

What?? SMU has a worse resume than we do. Literally the only wins they have against tourney teams are their 2 wins against us.

 

[cincyguy13]

I really wish more of you understood how difficult it is for UC to get better teams into our building. They cannot financially afford getting very many 100-150 RPI teams at home, unless they want to do a home-and-home and lose money. So, unfortunately, we have to settle for quite a few 200+ RPI teams. And people bitch about this as if UC is turning down 120-ish teams for 270-ish teams. Not sure why some of you have this disconnect.

I'm a fan. I have zero inside info. I don't know any of the details. I'm simply asking questions. I do understand its hard and don't expect a full schedule of home and homes. But I also understand its important and necessary to add a couple of them if you want to get a high seed and make a run. We have a coach saying he can't get games. I see other coaches saying the same. It makes sense to play each other or others like them

 

[jacobkdoyle]

I really wish more of you understood how difficult it is for UC to get better teams into our building. They cannot financially afford getting very many 100-150 RPI teams at home, unless they want to do a home-and-home and lose money. So, unfortunately, we have to settle for quite a few 200+ RPI teams. And people bitch about this as if UC is turning down 120-ish teams for 270-ish teams. Not sure why some of you have this disconnect.

Let's break it down bc I agree with you...

13 non-conference games

2 preseason tournament games (4 if you include Brown and Albany bc we had no say in those games)
4 home and home
5 buy games - Texas Southern is 207 KenPom and won their conference tournament and they are the worst one. This also could've been 4 if we had Michigan.

Our home and home is really 3 bc of X.

Recently we had BG, IA St, and Butler. Not bad (especially considering Michigan situation). If we can do anything close to that and sub out BG for a mid-major Too 100 RPI, that'd be nice.

So the buy games aren't going to be great. If they could all be about Top half if D1, that's all we can realistically hope for. Other than that, not sure what complaints people could have in the non-con. Some of it comes down to hoping the lower level teams can maintain previous success. It can be a bit of a guessing game at that level bc just a few players on those teams make all the difference for those programs...but it's hard for them to consistently find the diamonds in the rough or group of upperclassmen that pan out.

 

[JasonS]

I'm not mad about the 6 seed, though I do think we deserved a 5 (no way Minnesota is a 5 seed). I'm pissed about being shipped out West AGAIN for the third time in 4 years. 2,000 miles away and 3 time zones. No other top 6 seed is even close to that. Add in the fact that we are playing essentially a home game for UCLA and that sucks. Frankly, I was more pissed when we were the 1 seed and had to play UCLA as the 8 seed out West. That was a bullshit screw job. This is not ideal but it is what it is. I do think the NCAA committee needs to be held accountable. 7 of 10 members of the committee are not "basketball people" and most of the committee members are the same as last year which produced the most egregious and, by all accounts, worst bracket since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. The fact that the committee is pairing mid-majors against each other speaks to trying to minimize the impact mid-majors have on the tourney. That sucks and makes the tourney less interesting. I'll watch because I am a college basketball fan but I'm not filling out a bracket this year. I don't see the point.

 

[JasonS]

Let's break it down bc I agree with you...

13 non-conference games

2 preseason tournament games (4 if you include Brown and Albany bc we had no say in those games)
4 home and home
5 buy games - Texas Southern is 207 KenPom and won their conference tournament and they are the worst one. This also could've been 4 if we had Michigan.

Our home and home is really 3 bc of X.

Recently we had BG, IA St, and Butler. Not bad (especially considering Michigan situation). If we can do anything close to that and sub out BG for a mid-major Too 100 RPI, that'd be nice.

So the buy games aren't going to be great. If they could all be about Top half if D1, that's all we can realistically hope for. Other than that, not sure what complaints people could have in the non-con. Some of it comes down to hoping the lower level teams can maintain previous success. It can be a bit of a guessing game at that level bc just a few players on those teams make all the difference for those programs...but it's hard for them to consistently find the diamonds in the rough or group of upperclassmen that pan out.

The problem is that you are trying to hit a moving target. One year, the committee will decide to hold your OOC strength of schedule against you because it fits their agenda. The next year it will be that your league sucks. The next year it will be that you didn't have enough Top 50 wins according to a metric that they won't use to evaluate you against other teams. It's really hard to hit a moving target, especially when teams in P5 conferences won't play you.

 

[cincrulz11]

I'm not mad about the 6 seed, though I do think we deserved a 5 (no way Minnesota is a 5 seed)

Agreed, the 6 seed isn't what bothers me at all, in fact if we were any of the other 6 seeds I'd be happy. Its the fact that our 1st round game will be vs a top 30 team and then UCLA most likely waits for us in Cali.


And had we not felt slighted in the past it wouldn't feel as bad, but it definitely feels like we get the short end of the stick every year (as well as the other AAC teams since the conference started).

 

[jacobkdoyle]

I'm not mad about the 6 seed, though I do think we deserved a 5 (no way Minnesota is a 5 seed). I'm pissed about being shipped out West AGAIN for the third time in 4 years. 2,000 miles away and 3 time zones. No other top 6 seed is even close to that. Add in the fact that we are playing essentially a home game for UCLA and that sucks. Frankly, I was more pissed when we were the 1 seed and had to play UCLA as the 8 seed out West. That was a bullshit screw job. This is not ideal but it is what it is. I do think the NCAA committee needs to be held accountable. 7 of 10 members of the committee are not "basketball people" and most of the committee members are the same as last year which produced the most egregious and, by all accounts, worst bracket since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. The fact that the committee is pairing mid-majors against each other speaks to trying to minimize the impact mid-majors have on the tourney. That sucks and makes the tourney less interesting. I'll watch because I am a college basketball fan but I'm not filling out a bracket this year. I don't see the point.

I wish the committee operated like the football one does. At the end of the day, they'll still do whatever they want, but at least there's more transparency and it's more understood what goes into the voting. It's not perfect, bc people complain they use something different every year, kind of like basketball, but the coverage buildup leads to less surprises when the actual selection is revealed. The Top 16 exercise they did was a step in that direction, I wish that would become a weekly thing during conference play. The feedback that comes from that lets obvious errors be subconsciously corrected by the National narrative (to an extent).

 

[JasonS]

I wish the committee operated like the football one does. At the end of the day, they'll still do whatever they want, but at least there's more transparency and it's more understood what goes into the voting. It's not perfect, bc people complain they use something different every year, kind of like basketball, but the coverage buildup leads to less surprises when the actual selection is revealed. The Top 16 exercise they did was a step in that direction, I wish that would become a weekly thing during conference play. The feedback that comes from that lets obvious errors be subconsciously corrected by the National narrative (to an extent).

Shoot, even have one conference representative from each conference sit in the room as silent observers to force accountability.

 

[SMU_law]

What?? SMU has a worse resume than we do. Literally the only wins they have against tourney teams are their 2 wins against us.

At the end of the day you can't really make an argument that you are better then a team that went 2-1 against you (with the lot being a 2 point loss with the game winning shot rimming out), and having a better record against common opponents. You guys should be a 5 and we should be a 4.

 

[cincyguy13]

At the end of the day you can't really make an argument that you are better then a team that went 2-1 against you (with the lot being a 2 point loss with the game winning shot rimming out), and having a better record against common opponents. You guys should be a 5 and we should be a 4.

Think he just meant resumes. Don't think he meant we were better