In the past 9 years they have got 7 teams 6 times and 6 teams 3 times. They also are going from 10 to 12 teams and the other 3 additions are historically good basketball programs. So yes an expectation of 7 teams making the tournament is a reasonable one. Some years it might be 8 or 6 but on average it’s reasonable. I think you missed the point if you are getting hung up on that number though.
My expectation is high ceiling low floor like this year where we beat an elite 8, sweet 16 and round of 32 team. I think if we aren’t dancing ever other year in the Big 12 then we should be looking at the reasons why. One of those being the coach. But in our current league 2 teams dance. One (Houston) pays their coach 3 million a year and one (Memphis) pays 2.5 million and cheats. We pay Dawkins 1.1 million per year and have the second lowest budget in the league. We aren’t going to attract coaches that move the needle paying salaries like that, with little investment in the program and firing coaches who win 60% of their games. The list of coaches that will take that job likely doesn’t contain a coach who will consistently make the NCAA tournament from our current league. I’d be happy to get a better coach than Dawkins. But for what we are putting into the sport currently, he has produced the best returns we have ever seen.
They got 7 last year and 6 of the last 9. One of their teams was ineligible for postseason play this year. Plus there are only 10 teams vs 12 once UCF joins. Even given all that you missed the point entirely. UCF won’t lose to the teams you mention because their conference schedule will be Big 12 teams. That was my entire point. If UCF is beating tournament teams in the Big 12 like they were this year, there aren’t a bunch of dregs at the bottom of the conference to drag our NET down. In the AAC there is no margin for error. In the Big 12 you can have a losing conference record and be a solid tournament team.
UCF also lost to the third worst Big 12 team this year. Had we played in the new B12 our best would have probably been 4-5 wins in conference and there is a possibility we would have had 1-2 wins in conference. Teams like Kansas and Baylor would have curb stomped us.
Possibly. In reality we beat Michigan, Miami, Memphis, Wichita State. Like I said. Expectations jump once we enter Big 12. But I’m willing to actually see what the results are rather than guess what they will be.
If UCF played only the top half of the AAC and not any of the dregs in the the conference their record would have been the same and of course their SOS and NET would be improved?
Thanks for the research. Yes all AAC teams are impacted by the conference overall lower NET and all Big 12 teams benefit from the phenomenon. The point was if UCF had the team to beat teams like Miami, Michigan, and Memphis, assuming that they would only win 1-2 Big 12 games isn’t really based in anything. But if you want to take the St Peters route of losing 5 games to teams outside of the top 250 in NET and avoiding the only semi decent team in the league in the conference tournament (Iona who beat them twice in the regular season), then I guess we should move back to the A-Sun and take our shot once a decade in the tournament. We have progressed beyond that stage in our program. We have gone from lower conferences to a solid conference and gone from the bottom of this conference to the middle. No we won’t be competing for the top of the Big 12 immediately upon joining the conference. Nor should that be the expectation.
UCF is not a top 100 basketball program and will stay there unless more resources are allocated.
How much is Dawkins responsible for bringing in more money to the program? Seems to me that the coaches that complain about lack of funding do not build successful programs.
Correct.
It's all based on conf strength and obviously the Big 12 was ranked #1 or #2 most of this past season....so when you play sooooo many tough games...you get credit (Quad 1 games...especially Quad 1 wins).And this is the problem with college basketball tournaments. No below-average team should be making it into the tournament when there are teams with >75% winning %.
The continual bias has caused talent concentration. Long-standing corruption eventually creates exactly what the bias wanted.
#UCFacts
I think the point he was making is that if the coach puts a winning product on the court, and better yet an exciting winning product, raising money for the program becomes easier. If the coach keeps rolling out boring mediocre teams that lose to USF, Tulane and Tulsa, the AD's job becomes much harder when he asks for money for the program.
18 Teams have a winning % greater than 75% that did not qualify for NCAA tournament. 15 of those teams had better winning % than Memphis and SMU. So then AAC should only get Houston in the tournament.And this is the problem with college basketball tournaments. No below-average team should be making it into the tournament when there are teams with >75% winning %.
The continual bias has caused talent concentration. Long-standing corruption eventually creates exactly what the bias wanted.
#UCFacts
Congrats on the research. His post said that teams with below average (sub 500 records) shouldn’t get in ahead of teams with great record because of a NET rating. Does Memphis have a below average record?
If you are going to throw out the toughness of a conference factor, how do you say AAC is deserving of more bids than WACC and A10 that had 3 teams with high winning %. Honors has also been a huge proponent of disregarding SOS, and focus on winning percentage in both Football and Basketball. Except when you have 330 programs, you now have 40+ teams that could have an .800 winning % in conference with many of them not auto qualifying.
It's more than that, though. The basketball coach is the face of the basketball program that makes people want to donate money. This is whether it is large sums or small sums. The great coaches understand this and are visible and active in the student body and in the booster circles.
I have never argued that UCF basketball program is successful. They are average with below average resources and support. I did mention that playing in the Big 12 will make the path to postseason tournaments easier. Thus, if you are judging Dawkins as a success or failure based on his postseason appearances, the whole game changes in 2023 when we play in the Big 12.
What if you have a bunch of injuries just before conference play kicks off and then get healthy towards the end and don’t go .500 in conference? But you are a world beater when you’re healthy and you’re healthy going into the tournament? Should that team sit out over a team that fattened up on crappy teams?
Historically yes, your stars were injured and you lost games. Your talent points dont make for real L's.
Shirley you must be trolling.I think well revered teams get that attention and benefit of the doubt. Does anyone think a team in the bottom half of conference who hasn't gone to the tournament in years or ever will get that level of analysis?
No. I think people come up with narratives to support their cognitive bias. It's these bias and the power of a few that has corrupted the system.
Honestly I would be more in favor of giving each of the 32 conferences two bid each and calling it a day. Not ideal but better than having loosers in the tournament
#UCFacts
