AAC Conference Basketball Schedule 2019-20
- Thread starter Bill Lowery
- Start date
What is the deal with us only playing SMU once?
Like that we play Memphis at home. They will be dangerous in FedEx and .500ish on the road.
So far all I know about is CSU in BOK and ORU at the Don Rey.
There's a really small number of significant schools who still don't have an early season tournament too. Here are the names on that list:
A 10 (3/14):La Salle Explorers, St. Bonaventure Bonnies, Saint Louis Billikens
ACC (1/15): Boston College Eagles
American (1/12):Tulsa Golden Hurricane
Big East (1/10): DePaul Blue Demons
Big Ten (5/14): Illinois Fighting Illini, Indiana Hoosiers, Minnesota Golden Gophers, Ohio State Buckeyes, Rutgers Scarlet Knights
Pac-12 (1/12): Oregon State Beavers
SEC (3/14):Arkansas Razorbacks, Kentucky Wildcats, Vanderbilt Commodores
We already have an away game @ Vandy scheduled... so It's probably less likely that we'll see them in a tourney too. Some good names still out there though.
Honestly I like that schedule. If we have a good record in a solid OOC schedule this will give us a chance to build a decent conference record, get on the bubble and get a conference tourney seed that gives us a shot in March.
I'm sure we will find a tournament for us to play Illinois State somewhere..
I do have one question.....Are the draws from previous years taken into account or is it blind each year?
I do have one question.....Are the draws from previous years taken into account or is it blind each year?
The best I can tell is Mike gets drunk, looks at the list of schools, guesses who he thinks will be good and matches us up. They aren't using last years standings like they do in women's either. Not sure whose predictions they are using this early. Mind you several schools are still recruiting and some kids are waiting on summer classes to get eligible but hey let's roll with this.
We have yet to have the media or coaches predict the order of finish and I believe only once did they actually pick the conference winner first. We have 8-10 teams inside the top 100 metrics, so it works out all right since we generally know who the two or three worst teams are.
The issue though is some schools get regularly picked to finish low and almost always finish higher, while some teams (smu) get picked higher than they finish nearly every year.
We need to just put it on rotation like football is and leave it alone, but then what would Aresco say he did to earn that 1.9m salary? Or to fill that long 8-5 time period, looking through real estate listings in DFW can only take so long.
I’ve never understood why anyone complains about conference scheduling. Maybe because there’s nothing else happening at this point in the offseason. There’s some marginal benefits to matching the top teams and keeping them away from ECU/Tulane, so I’m fine with that strategy.
The problem is its marginal and they might as well throw darts for the prediction process. Especially given that 10 teams are top 100 net squads the difference in measurables (seed, ranking, or bids) is basically zero.
One of the benefits of the championship game rules for football is the constant consistent schedule that give the opportunity to develop rivalries.
So instead Tulsa is routinely picked well below where they finish and SMU well above and so we don't play home and home against one of our closest opponents and one of the few who we have been playing continuously for like 20+ years.
In the mean time fans bitch because there are no rivalries in the conference, which occurs because there is no consistent scheduling.
Since Tulsa joined the league, there have been 57 total preseason predictions. 33 of those predictions (58%) were correct within 1 spot of the team's final KenPom. Only 5 times has a team ever finished more than 3 spots from their predicted finish. The mean absolute deviation of those predictions was 0.32 spots. The mean absolute percent error is 7.7%.
tl:dr You must be really good at darts.
Don't worry bout him, his posts only contain 58% of the facts. Now let's watch him backpedal through his explanation.
I'm sorry, did you say within one spot? That's not a bullseye. How many of those predictions were on the money?
When did the NCAA start using kenpom?
How many of those within one spot were people voting Tulane, ECU, and USF last?
What was the range of those rankings? Because top 100 is top 100 to the committee as far as how view teams for quality games ( I know it's different for home or away just trying to keep the discussion general).
My point being if teams 1-10 are all ranked 10-85 why are we rearranging an entire schedule to gain nothing?
There are lies, there are damn lies, then there are statistics.
Numbers don't lie, but they will give you the wrong answer if you don't know what questions you should ask.
Common sports example:
Fbs football makes more revenue, so it's better right? Somehow we still have more basketball schools and no schools who have football but not basketball. But the revenue.....
Also for the record I play my best game of darts when throwing randomly, after all my chances of hitting the bullseye or missing the board are the same :sunglasses:
You know it's amazing how often you join in but do little of your own fighting.
Reminds me of someone....
Scott Farkas...has beady little yellow eyes. Yellow eyes!You know it's amazing how often you join in but do little of your own fighting.
Reminds me of someone....
13/57 (22.7%) were exactly correct.
They added KenPom to team sheets in 2017. More importantly, the correlation coefficient between KenPom and NET was 0.985 last year. The NCAA's new pet metric is a dumbed down version of KenPom.
10/33. The most accurate predictions have been Cincinnati, Tulsa, SMU, and ECU. The least accurate have been UConn, UCF, and Houston.
That's incorrect. You chose top 100 as your arbitrary cutoff because there were 4 AAC teams ranked between 76-100 last year, but the actual cutoff for Q1 road wins is top 75 and the lowest ranked team to make the NCAA tournament was St. John's at 73.
Meaningless platitudes.
13/57 (22.7%) were exactly correct.
They added KenPom to team sheets in 2017. More importantly, the correlation coefficient between KenPom and NET was 0.985 last year. The NCAA's new pet metric is a dumbed down version of KenPom.
10/33. The most accurate predictions have been Cincinnati, Tulsa, SMU, and ECU. The least accurate have been UConn, UCF, and Houston.
That's incorrect. You chose top 100 as your arbitrary cutoff because there were 4 AAC teams ranked between 76-100 last year, but the actual cutoff for Q1 road wins is top 75 and the lowest ranked team to make the NCAA tournament was St. John's at 73.
Meaningless platitudes.
So I have a better chance of calling a random coin flip then an accurate prediction.
I picked 100 because the sheets came with the numbers broke down many different ways but 10/12 teams were top 100. 5 were roughly top 50 meaning on a neutral court 5 teams were interchangeable above and below the cut offs. Since the schedule is unbalanced anyway some being home only, road only, and home and home using a comparison like that is not out of line and an accurate reflection of what the final sheet looked like.
NET is the key metric not KenPom.
Take any random AAC team and give them any other AAC's team schedule and it will work out virtually the same. The teams are roughly interchangeable. Your first statistic is all that really matters though, 22%. They just need to make the schedule rotational like football and allow rivalries to develop.
Latest posts
-
-
Brad Carson to be Vice Chairman of the AAC Board of Directors
- Latest: goldenhurricane2
-
-
-