FORBES: AAC May Have Strongest Teams in the Dance

[milwaukeejedi1]

Think you meant both got 5 bids in.

I would agree with you that the tourney will decide a lot. Just because we're 4 and they're 8 doesn't mean much of anything no one remembers much about the basketball season except for the tourney.

I can really see why Aresco would be so positive on his league. I think they've had a lot of sucess their 1st year. UCF making the BCS instead of Louisville(and beating Baylor) was huge. Now they've had a really good basketball season(made in some ways better by SMU being in the top 5).

Before the season, there were several basketball basketball writers (exhibit A, http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/0 ... -the-game/) who thought the Big East split was good for basketball because the new conferences birthed from the old Big East would be good leagues; new conferences capable of sending 4 to 5 times to the NCAA tournament yearly (a sentiment I shared).

This year's results should not surprise anyone.

[stever20]

Think you meant both got 5 bids in.

I would agree with you that the tourney will decide a lot. Just because we're 4 and they're 8 doesn't mean much of anything no one remembers much about the basketball season except for the tourney.

I can really see why Aresco would be so positive on his league. I think they've had a lot of sucess their 1st year. UCF making the BCS instead of Louisville(and beating Baylor) was huge. Now they've had a really good basketball season(made in some ways better by SMU being in the top 5).

Before the season, there were several basketball basketball writers (exhibit A, http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/0 ... -the-game/) who thought the Big East split was good for basketball because the new conferences birthed from the old Big East would be good leagues; new conferences capable of sending 4 to 5 times to the NCAA tournament yearly (a sentiment I shared).

This year's results should not surprise anyone.

I think actually the biggest surpise was in a way the struggles of the Big East. It's been I think kind of close to a worst case type scenario just about. I hope the Big East 3-5 will be closer next year to what the AAC's 3-5 is this year and challenging for the top 25. If it means 6-8 isn't quite as close, I think that's ok. One thing that could happen now with the upset the other day- Houston could wind up being 9-9 and in 6th place. 7-10 not being good isn't the worst thing in the world.

[milwaukeejedi1]

I think actually the biggest surpise was in a way the struggles of the Big East. It's been I think kind of close to a worst case type scenario just about. I hope the Big East 3-5 will be closer next year to what the AAC's 3-5 is this year and challenging for the top 25. If it means 6-8 isn't quite as close, I think that's ok. One thing that could happen now with the upset the other day- Houston could wind up being 9-9 and in 6th place. 7-10 not being good isn't the worst thing in the world.

Jeff Goodman of ESPN, well before the season started, questioned whether any of the Big East teams would end up in the top 25. For now, we have two top 10 teams and the national media has written a lot of flattering articles about Creighton and Villanova, including Jeff Goodman, which have effectively cast a glowing light on the conference. If our teams crash in the tourney, I will see this season as a failure.

[Bill Marsh]

This is such a bad article on so many levels by a really poorly informed writer. Just for fun, I'm going to take it apart piece by piece:

1. ". . . the inaugural AAC . . . will have AT LEAST 5 of its 10 (50%) in the tourney." This is incredibly misleading in that it implies that someone outside the top 5 has a legitimate chance of winning the conference tournament.

2. "One could argue that the AAC has the best group of 5 teams of any conference as 4 . . . are ranked in the top 25 . . ." One could argue that, but in so doing would just be proving themselves to be an ass. Right now the AAC isn't positioned to have a single member seeded in the top 4 in any bracket. If they do get one, it will likely be a 4-seed. He seems to thank that being ranked in the top 25 actually means something. We can see how little when SMU dropped to #37 in RPI after losing to Temple and it took a road win over UConn to keep them that high. Further, last night's loss to Houston is a devastating blow to Memphis, dropping them to #40. Any more losses like those by either SMU or Memphis could quickly see them on the wrong side of the bubble.

3. "The American has performed better than the Big East . . ." He states that as a fact rather than his opinion. It's obviously only his opinion and a bad opinion at that. By any objective measure, the Big East is ranked as one of the 4 top performing conferences in the country. The AAC is somewhere around #8.

4. "The Big East may only get 3 teams this year . . ." Yeah, and they MAY get 6. And the AAC MAY only get 3. What does a statement like that even mean in comparing the 2 conferences. What MIGHT happen isn't a basis for drawing any comparisons.

5. "Aresco . . . is especially proud of having every conference game on an ESPN platform or CBS Sports. . . Conversely the Big East signed with the nascent Fox Sports 1 network without the anchor of the Big Monday stable it enjoyed for years at ESPN. Without that anchor and the support of BCS football, it could be a major challenge for Big East schools to compete in recruiting and on the court with the power conferences in the future." I agree with him that Big Monday is a loss. However, the conference had gotten so big that most teams in the conference weren't benefitting from it any more, compared to when the conference only had 8-10 members. If anything it was increasing the divide between the haves and have-nots of the conference. But more important, he acts lie being on CBS Sports is helpful. Not in my experience. I live in CT and DirecTV is my provider. I added a sports package so I could get Fox Sports 1. In spite of that, for the first time ever, I can't get many UConn games because they are carried on CBS Sports and I would have needed to do a further upgrade to get them. I didn't go for it. Just my experience, but for me, CBS Sports is a worse platform than Fox Sports 1. Finally, he is clearly biased toward football. He seems to think that having football on campus actually matters to basketball recruits. I would suggest that it's just the opposite. Recruits would rather play for a program in which basketball is #1 on campus regardless of whether the campus has football or not. That's why they go to football non-entities like Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, and Duke.

It would be nearly impossible for the AAC to get only 3 now. You say SMU or Memphis could get out. SMU and Memphis both lose out regular season. SMU 22-8 Memphis 21-9. However- They play each other last regular season game and then QF of conference tourney. If they split, BOTH are going to the tourney. If one loses both they could be out, but the other would definitely be in. Also, SMU has 1 possible bad loss left, Memphis 0. So I'm sorry but 3 teams to me seems like a near impossible feat for them now.

Right now Bracketmatrix has Cincy as a 4 seed. Very possible if Cincy or Louisville wins that they get a 3 seed, with an outside shot of a 2 seed. If either of them wins out from here- they have a top 10 RPI.

Lastly, to a lot of people, conference 1 with 5 teams in tourney conference 2 with 4 teams in tourney- conference 1 would be viewed as the stronger conference. May not be right, but it is what it is. And, yes, that is an objective measure.

Steve with regard to Memphis and SMU, my objection to the author was the fact that he was dealing in hypotheticals -and a worse case hypothetical at that - where the Big East was concerned but treating the AAC like they're a lock for 5, which they are not. When I said that the AAC MIGHT get only 3, I was playing the author's game that anything is ossicle no matter how remote. You're right that given the remaining schedule, the chances of that are so remote as to be not worth mentioning, but either SMU or Memphis COULD miss the tournament if they lose out. SMU is in a particularly precarious position. If they lose out, they end the regular season with an RPI of 56. With a SOS of 108, they don't have a good argument for a tournament bid without a win over Memphis in the 4-5 game and even then, they're probably a bubble team, the UCF game is pretty much a "must win" game for them. If all it would take is one upset for the AAC to get only 4 in, then it's well within the realm of possibility and certainly not a lock for 5.

The fact that Bracketmatrix has Cincy as a 4-seed is precisely my point. When your best team is a 4-seed - and a borderline 4-seed, I would contend - it's ridiculous for the author to claim that they have "the best 5 teams of any conference."

As for a 5-bid conference being considered better than a 4-bid conference, that perception would last for about a week until the results started coming in. If the 5 teams from the so-called "stronger" conference were all out in the first round, the "stronger" conference would very quickly become a laughing stock. Tournament results is largely what drives people's lasting impressions more than number of bids. Moreover, Louisville is gone after this season, so in this case in particular, it is an empty argument because the impression won't last more than 15 minutes once the season is over. When we're going into next season and fans are looking at East Carolina, Tulane, and Tulsa replacing Louisville and Rutgers, no one is going to care that they got 5 teams into the tournament the year before.

[Bill Marsh]

Think you meant both got 5 bids in.

I would agree with you that the tourney will decide a lot. Just because we're 4 and they're 8 doesn't mean much of anything no one remembers much about the basketball season except for the tourney.

I can really see why Aresco would be so positive on his league. I think they've had a lot of sucess their 1st year. UCF making the BCS instead of Louisville(and beating Baylor) was huge. Now they've had a really good basketball season(made in some ways better by SMU being in the top 5).

Before the season, there were several basketball basketball writers (exhibit A, http://college-basketball.si.com/2013/0 ... -the-game/) who thought the Big East split was good for basketball because the new conferences birthed from the old Big East would be good leagues; new conferences capable of sending 4 to 5 times to the NCAA tournament yearly (a sentiment I shared).

This year's results should not surprise anyone.

I think actually the biggest surpise was in a way the struggles of the Big East. It's been I think kind of close to a worst case type scenario just about. I hope the Big East 3-5 will be closer next year to what the AAC's 3-5 is this year and challenging for the top 25. If it means 6-8 isn't quite as close, I think that's ok. One thing that could happen now with the upset the other day- Houston could wind up being 9-9 and in 6th place. 7-10 not being good isn't the worst thing in the world.

Being ranked the 4th best conference in the country is the "worst case scenario"? What would finishing as the 5th best conference have been?

[stever20]

This is such a bad article on so many levels by a really poorly informed writer. Just for fun, I'm going to take it apart piece by piece:

1. ". . . the inaugural AAC . . . will have AT LEAST 5 of its 10 (50%) in the tourney." This is incredibly misleading in that it implies that someone outside the top 5 has a legitimate chance of winning the conference tournament.

2. "One could argue that the AAC has the best group of 5 teams of any conference as 4 . . . are ranked in the top 25 . . ." One could argue that, but in so doing would just be proving themselves to be an ass. Right now the AAC isn't positioned to have a single member seeded in the top 4 in any bracket. If they do get one, it will likely be a 4-seed. He seems to thank that being ranked in the top 25 actually means something. We can see how little when SMU dropped to #37 in RPI after losing to Temple and it took a road win over UConn to keep them that high. Further, last night's loss to Houston is a devastating blow to Memphis, dropping them to #40. Any more losses like those by either SMU or Memphis could quickly see them on the wrong side of the bubble.

3. "The American has performed better than the Big East . . ." He states that as a fact rather than his opinion. It's obviously only his opinion and a bad opinion at that. By any objective measure, the Big East is ranked as one of the 4 top performing conferences in the country. The AAC is somewhere around #8.

4. "The Big East may only get 3 teams this year . . ." Yeah, and they MAY get 6. And the AAC MAY only get 3. What does a statement like that even mean in comparing the 2 conferences. What MIGHT happen isn't a basis for drawing any comparisons.

5. "Aresco . . . is especially proud of having every conference game on an ESPN platform or CBS Sports. . . Conversely the Big East signed with the nascent Fox Sports 1 network without the anchor of the Big Monday stable it enjoyed for years at ESPN. Without that anchor and the support of BCS football, it could be a major challenge for Big East schools to compete in recruiting and on the court with the power conferences in the future." I agree with him that Big Monday is a loss. However, the conference had gotten so big that most teams in the conference weren't benefitting from it any more, compared to when the conference only had 8-10 members. If anything it was increasing the divide between the haves and have-nots of the conference. But more important, he acts lie being on CBS Sports is helpful. Not in my experience. I live in CT and DirecTV is my provider. I added a sports package so I could get Fox Sports 1. In spite of that, for the first time ever, I can't get many UConn games because they are carried on CBS Sports and I would have needed to do a further upgrade to get them. I didn't go for it. Just my experience, but for me, CBS Sports is a worse platform than Fox Sports 1. Finally, he is clearly biased toward football. He seems to think that having football on campus actually matters to basketball recruits. I would suggest that it's just the opposite. Recruits would rather play for a program in which basketball is #1 on campus regardless of whether the campus has football or not. That's why they go to football non-entities like Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, and Duke.

It would be nearly impossible for the AAC to get only 3 now. You say SMU or Memphis could get out. SMU and Memphis both lose out regular season. SMU 22-8 Memphis 21-9. However- They play each other last regular season game and then QF of conference tourney. If they split, BOTH are going to the tourney. If one loses both they could be out, but the other would definitely be in. Also, SMU has 1 possible bad loss left, Memphis 0. So I'm sorry but 3 teams to me seems like a near impossible feat for them now.

Right now Bracketmatrix has Cincy as a 4 seed. Very possible if Cincy or Louisville wins that they get a 3 seed, with an outside shot of a 2 seed. If either of them wins out from here- they have a top 10 RPI.

Lastly, to a lot of people, conference 1 with 5 teams in tourney conference 2 with 4 teams in tourney- conference 1 would be viewed as the stronger conference. May not be right, but it is what it is. And, yes, that is an objective measure.

Steve with regard to Memphis and SMU, my objection to the author was the fact that he was dealing in hypotheticals -and a worse case hypothetical at that - where the Big East was concerned but treating the AAC like they're a lock for 5, which they are not. When I said that the AAC MIGHT get only 3, I was playing the author's game that anything is ossicle no matter how remote. You're right that given the remaining schedule, the chances of that are so remote as to be not worth mentioning, but either SMU or Memphis COULD miss the tournament if they lose out. SMU is in a particularly precarious position. If they lose out, they end the regular season with an RPI of 56. With a SOS of 108, they don't have a good argument for a tournament bid without a win over Memphis in the 4-5 game and even then, they're probably a bubble team, the UCF game is pretty much a "must win" game for them. If all it would take is one upset for the AAC to get only 4 in, then it's well within the realm of possibility and certainly not a lock for 5.

The fact that Bracketmatrix has Cincy as a 4-seed is precisely my point. When your best team is a 4-seed - and a borderline 4-seed, I would contend - it's ridiculous for the author to claim that they have "the best 5 teams of any conference."

As for a 5-bid conference being considered better than a 4-bid conference, that perception would last for about a week until the results started coming in. If the 5 teams from the so-called "stronger" conference were all out in the first round, the "stronger" conference would very quickly become a laughing stock. Tournament results is largely what drives people's lasting impressions more than number of bids. Moreover, Louisville is gone after this season, so in this case in particular, it is an empty argument because the impression won't last more than 15 minutes once the season is over. When we're going into next season and fans are looking at East Carolina, Tulane, and Tulsa replacing Louisville and Rutgers, no one is going to care that they got 5 teams into the tournament the year before.

Love how you act like replacing Rutgers is tough. It's not....

AAC is within 1-2 games of being a lock for 5 now. Kind of a big thing is the fact they have back loaded the schedules for the top teams...

The thing with the AAC right now is in all the things like RPI forecast etc.- they have everyone taking losses. Odds are I'd say pretty decent at least 1 team if not 2 wins out regular season and shoots up the ratings. If Louisville or Cincy wins out to include the AAC tourney, they will be in the top 10 RPI. UConn wins out 11.2. SMU 12.8. Memphis 22.7. So I'd expect to see them getting at least 1 top 2-3 seed if not 2 if the right teams play in the conference final.

And going into next year- the AAC would still have 4 tourney teams from this year- which would likely match the Big East.

[Omaha1]

And going into next year- the AAC would still have 4 tourney teams from this year- which would likely match the Big East.

Considering that people can't even predict how many teams the BigEast or AAC will get this year and tomorrow is March 1, how the hell can you even guess how many teams either will get next year?

[stever20]

With the individual teams- yes it's kind of worst case scenario. I mean a year where end of regular season you only have 2 20 win teams possibly? That's not good at all. You are focusing WAY too much on conference rank. I mean- just think right now if Xavier had beaten USC and Georgetown had beaten Northeastern. Right now, things are looking a LOT differently. Xavier would be in right now almost certainly, and Georgetown would just need a split next week to make the tourney. Marquette had 5 games they could have won OOC that if they win just 1 they are in right now. Just about everything OOC wasn't great. I'd rather be the 5th best conference- but have 1-2 more 20 win teams.

[stever20]

And going into next year- the AAC would still have 4 tourney teams from this year- which would likely match the Big East.

Considering that people can't even predict how many teams the BigEast or AAC will get this year and tomorrow is March 1, how the hell can you even guess how many teams either will get next year?

I'm not saying how many tourney teams they would have for next season- I'm just saying if they get 5 this year- the AAC next year would have 4 teams that made the tourney this year(Cincy,Memphis,UConn, and SMU). You can't underestimate the importance of SMU to the AAC.

[Bill Marsh]

It would be nearly impossible for the AAC to get only 3 now. You say SMU or Memphis could get out. SMU and Memphis both lose out regular season. SMU 22-8 Memphis 21-9. However- They play each other last regular season game and then QF of conference tourney. If they split, BOTH are going to the tourney. If one loses both they could be out, but the other would definitely be in. Also, SMU has 1 possible bad loss left, Memphis 0. So I'm sorry but 3 teams to me seems like a near impossible feat for them now.

Right now Bracketmatrix has Cincy as a 4 seed. Very possible if Cincy or Louisville wins that they get a 3 seed, with an outside shot of a 2 seed. If either of them wins out from here- they have a top 10 RPI.

Lastly, to a lot of people, conference 1 with 5 teams in tourney conference 2 with 4 teams in tourney- conference 1 would be viewed as the stronger conference. May not be right, but it is what it is. And, yes, that is an objective measure.

Steve with regard to Memphis and SMU, my objection to the author was the fact that he was dealing in hypotheticals -and a worse case hypothetical at that - where the Big East was concerned but treating the AAC like they're a lock for 5, which they are not. When I said that the AAC MIGHT get only 3, I was playing the author's game that anything is ossicle no matter how remote. You're right that given the remaining schedule, the chances of that are so remote as to be not worth mentioning, but either SMU or Memphis COULD miss the tournament if they lose out. SMU is in a particularly precarious position. If they lose out, they end the regular season with an RPI of 56. With a SOS of 108, they don't have a good argument for a tournament bid without a win over Memphis in the 4-5 game and even then, they're probably a bubble team, the UCF game is pretty much a "must win" game for them. If all it would take is one upset for the AAC to get only 4 in, then it's well within the realm of possibility and certainly not a lock for 5.

The fact that Bracketmatrix has Cincy as a 4-seed is precisely my point. When your best team is a 4-seed - and a borderline 4-seed, I would contend - it's ridiculous for the author to claim that they have "the best 5 teams of any conference."

As for a 5-bid conference being considered better than a 4-bid conference, that perception would last for about a week until the results started coming in. If the 5 teams from the so-called "stronger" conference were all out in the first round, the "stronger" conference would very quickly become a laughing stock. Tournament results is largely what drives people's lasting impressions more than number of bids. Moreover, Louisville is gone after this season, so in this case in particular, it is an empty argument because the impression won't last more than 15 minutes once the season is over. When we're going into next season and fans are looking at East Carolina, Tulane, and Tulsa replacing Louisville and Rutgers, no one is going to care that they got 5 teams into the tournament the year before.

Love how you act like replacing Rutgers is tough. It's not....

AAC is within 1-2 games of being a lock for 5 now. Kind of a big thing is the fact they have back loaded the schedules for the top teams...

The thing with the AAC right now is in all the things like RPI forecast etc.- they have everyone taking losses. Odds are I'd say pretty decent at least 1 team if not 2 wins out regular season and shoots up the ratings. If Louisville or Cincy wins out to include the AAC tourney, they will be in the top 10 RPI. UConn wins out 11.2. SMU 12.8. Memphis 22.7. So I'd expect to see them getting at least 1 top 2-3 seed if not 2 if the right teams play in the conference final.

And going into next year- the AAC would still have 4 tourney teams from this year- which would likely match the Big East.

Yeah, you'd think that Rutgers wouldn't be tough to replace, but when you're replacing them with the likes of East Carolina and Tulane, you're taking a step backwards. This is a football-first conference that for the most part doesn't care about basketball

What these computer systems are telling us is that with the backloaded schedule having all these quality teams playing each other, it's not likely that anyone will win out. So, it's premature to be celebrating something that hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen.

IF . . . the AAC gets 5 in, they will go from 50% tournament teams (5/10) to 36% (4/11). That's a big step back - especially when the other 7 members are absolutly horrible basketball programs.