Syracuse Bubble/NET/ACC Rooting Guide 2/28 to 3/9

[Cuseman78]

I would very much prefer the double bye. Few reasons:

1. Looks like the consensus is five ACC teams in. My gut feeling is that it's pretty rare to see a power conference get its 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th finishing teams in and not its 4th. I feel like fourth in the ACC and pointing to our overall Strength of Schedule is a VERY good argument.

Happened just last year with Clemson - 4th in the ACC, 14-6 in the ACC and got left out.

 

[jncuse]

Regarding 4th place teams in major conferences missing the tournament, and with teams below them in league standings getting in -- it's not that uncommon -- especially if your league is "struggling" 0r "modest" with 40% or less teams getting in and the schedule is unbalanced. The 2024 ACC fits into that criteria of a struggling/modest performance league with an unbalanced schedule, so can't assume our league standing does anything for us optically. The fact is league standings really don't come into play in selection, not a selection consideration. It often works out in good leagues because those teams are the ones that have the best resumes.

1. The 4th place team in the SEC (Vandy), ACC (Clemson), and Pac-10 (Oregon) all missed the tournament last year, with teams lower in the standings

2. Looking back to 2010 its not uncommon for PAC-12 teams and SEC teams in, 3rd, or 4th (or even second)to miss the tournament with a team below them getting in Those leagues had some very dark years (thing of the past for the SEC now). A stunning one was USC missing the tournament one year with a 12-6 record and Arizona St getting in at 8-10 in the Pac-12.

3. In 2016, Louisville was 12-6 in the ACC and in 4th place. 4 teams below them in the standings made it in. Louisville 2016 and Clemson 2023 remain the only 2 ACC teams in 4th or higher that missed the tournament going back to expansion. From 2010 to 2013 in almost every year there was a team tied for 4th that missed... but nobody in the standings got in below them either.

4. The Big 12, Big East seem fairly exempt from all this. Generally since 2010 the Big 12 has been a 50% bid league with a balanced schedule so it makes sense. The Big East shares those same characteristics.

The Big 10 has never had an exception either, but other than 2018, they always tend to be around a 50% bid league as well. 2018 was a really bad year for them and a 13-5 Nebraska team that was tied for 4th missed the tournament. Nobody below them in the league got in either, and the B10 only had 4 teams in -- an anomaly for them,

 

[kingtidge]

Gasaway at ESPN has us in the ACC "work to do" category to get on the bubble, FWIW... Along with Virginia, Pitt, and Wake Forest.

Nothing shocking here, and at least he's acknowledged that we are winning, dropping in NET, and you need to look at our other metrics.

 

[kingtidge]

 

[atlanticuse]

watching Kadary play for Seton Hall.. he's just slow and gave up on a couple defensive plays.
Also goofed on offense.
Saying that the 18-10 Pirates "are in" with a win at UConn is nonsense.

 

[Sherman20]

Happened just last year with Clemson - 4th in the ACC, 14-6 in the ACC and got left out.

They had some bad losses last year. We have none unless you count GT.

 

[rocfan44]

Regarding 4th place teams in major conferences missing the tournament, and with teams below them in league standings getting in -- it's not that uncommon -- especially if your league is "struggling" 0r "modest" with 40% or less teams getting in and the schedule is unbalanced. The 2024 ACC fits into that criteria of a struggling/modest performance league with an unbalanced schedule, so can't assume our league standing does anything for us optically. The fact is league standings really don't come into play in selection, not a selection consideration. It often works out in good leagues because those teams are the ones that have the best resumes.

1. The 4th place team in the SEC (Vandy), ACC (Clemson), and Pac-10 (Oregon) all missed the tournament last year, with teams lower in the standings

2. Looking back to 2010 its not uncommon for PAC-12 teams and SEC teams in, 3rd, or 4th (or even second)to miss the tournament with a team below them getting in Those leagues had some very dark years (thing of the past for the SEC now). A stunning one was USC missing the tournament one year with a 12-6 record and Arizona St getting in at 8-10 in the Pac-12.

3. In 2016, Louisville was 12-6 in the ACC and in 4th place. 4 teams below them in the standings made it in. Louisville 2016 and Clemson 2023 remain the only 2 ACC teams in 4th or higher that missed the tournament going back to expansion. From 2010 to 2013 in almost every year there was a team tied for 4th that missed... but nobody in the standings got in below them either.

4. The Big 12, Big East seem fairly exempt from all this. Generally since 2010 the Big 12 has been a 50% bid league with a balanced schedule so it makes sense. The Big East shares those same characteristics.

The Big 10 has never had an exception either, but other than 2018, they always tend to be around a 50% bid league as well. 2018 was a really bad year for them and a 13-5 Nebraska team that was tied for 4th missed the tournament. Nobody below them in the league got in either, and the B10 only had 4 teams in -- an anomaly for them,

All of this is why I may prefer playing as the 5th or 6th seed instead. If we have to win two anyways and our place in the standings doesn’t matter than I think that gives us the best shot. Plus a loss to Clemson away won’t hurt our place in this valuable NET tool that much.

 

[pokercuse08]

SUNDAY 3/3
12pm UConn vs Seton Hall
3:30 Bradley at Drake
4pm Murray State at Indiana State
9pm Stanford at Colorado

These are all "just" bubble games today. As good as yesterday was for us within the conference, we didn't get much help on the bubble and our efficiency metrics got worse.

Right now, on Bracket Matrix, the four teams we're rooting against are:

Seton Hall - 11 seed, in on 94% of brackets
Drake - Next Four Out, in on 2% of brackets
Indiana State - 11 seed, in on 99% of brackets
Colorado - First Four Out, in on 32% of brackets

We are currently on 0% of brackets, not listed. So we need to start getting some help on top of doing our part. Not sure Seton Hall losing to UConn by less than 20 is going to matter too much, but them winning would be awful.

 

[blust2i3d4]

Happened just last year with Clemson - 4th in the ACC, 14-6 in the ACC and got left out.

Probably because VA Tech won ACC tournament unexpectedly and took Clemson's place.

 

[Cuse House]

I have this terrible feeling that one more win even if it is at Clemson, won’t be enough. I don’t agree with us being left out if we have 21 wins but I think we may need at least 2 wins, maybe 3. It ultimately comes down to how much value the committee puts on the NET. Not even being in the last 4 out at this point seems wrong, but shows we have a decent amount of work to do. Relying heavily on computer generated numbers really takes context out of it.

 

[pokercuse08]

I have this terrible feeling that one more win even if it is at Clemson, won’t be enough. I don’t agree with us being left out if we have 21 wins but I think we may need at least 2 wins, maybe 3. It ultimately comes down to how much value the committee puts on the NET. Not even being in the last 4 out at this point seems wrong, but shows we have a decent amount of work to do. Relying heavily on computer generated numbers really takes context out of it.

We're in a very weird situation. Assuming we win at Clemson, I think we're either in already or need to make, if not win, the ACCT Final. I'm being optimistic and hoping that the win at Clemson punches our ticket. But I don't think there's much in between.

Basically, if the committee decides NET is just one of the metrics and not the end all be all, we should be in with a win at Clemson, simple as that. But if they decide that NET is the end all be all, then we probably need to move up like 20+ spots in NET. A narrow win at Clemson might only move us up four or five spots, maybe we get as high as like 75th, but that's a stretch.

Then say we get the 4-seed in the ACC, we win close against a team like Pitt. Shoot, let's have a ball, let's say we win by 10. I calculate that would move us up another... 3-4 spots. So maybe we're in the low 70s. Now we edge out Carolina, that might only move us up another... 3-4 spots. So now we're in the high 60s, and if we lose the championship game by a reasonable margin, we stay there. Are we in on NET in the high 60s? Probably not.

If my math is right, to move up to 60th in KenPom across four games, we need to beat the efficiency margin by a whopping 76 points. Just beating Clemson on the road or UNC/Duke on a neutral floor is like a 10-point win against the margin, but we need to average like 20 point wins against the margin.

On the other hand, if NET is just one of the metrics, I'd argue most of the online brackets are trash and we just need one more Q1 win to be right on the bubble and two to be a near lock, and it doesn't matter if they come @ Clemson or in the ACCT.

People aren't used to situations where it's one extreme or the other, and totally unknown which. It's like Schrodinger's Bracket.

 

[atlanticuse]

anyone think there are more 20 win teams (PRE-conference tournaments) than there used to be?

 

[blust2i3d4]

We're in a very weird situation. Assuming we win at Clemson, I think we're either in already or need to make, if not win, the ACCT Final. I'm being optimistic and hoping that the win at Clemson punches our ticket. But I don't think there's much in between.

Basically, if the committee decides NET is just one of the metrics and not the end all be all, we should be in with a win at Clemson, simple as that. But if they decide that NET is the end all be all, then we probably need to move up like 20+ spots in NET. A narrow win at Clemson might only move us up four or five spots, maybe we get as high as like 75th, but that's a stretch.

Then say we get the 4-seed in the ACC, we win close against a team like Pitt. Shoot, let's have a ball, let's say we win by 10. I calculate that would move us up another... 3-4 spots. So maybe we're in the low 70s. Now we edge out Carolina, that might only move us up another... 3-4 spots. So now we're in the high 60s, and if we lose the championship game by a reasonable margin, we stay there. Are we in on NET in the high 60s? Probably not.

If my math is right, to move up to 60th in KenPom across four games, we need to beat the efficiency margin by a whopping 76 points. Just beating Clemson on the road or UNC/Duke on a neutral floor is like a 10-point win against the margin, but we need to average like 20 point wins against the margin.

On the other hand, if NET is just one of the metrics, I'd argue most of the online brackets are trash and we just need one more Q1 win to be right on the bubble and two to be a near lock, and it doesn't matter if they come @ Clemson or in the ACCT.

People aren't used to situations where it's one extreme or the other, and totally unknown which. It's like Schrodinger's Bracket.

The win at Clemson will move us up 10 spots. The win over UNC in the ACC tournament will move us up 12 or even 15 spots. So the next three wins will us up about 25 to 28 spots. That is lower 50's in NET rating.

 

[CorduroyG]

Heres how im looking at it

If we win at clemson, 1 win in acc tourny should get us in, 2 would be a lock

If we lose at clemson, 3 wins in acc tourny would give us a legit shot, but may need 4 to win the tourny.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

I don't follow this closely at all. But, is it really so numbers driven? What about intangibles, such as "You know, Syracuse brings a lot of eyes."

 

[AngryOtto]

It’s interesting that people keep saying Pitt is a lock for the tournament but we are on the outside looking in. We beat them twice. Have a better record. Getting into the tournament as an at large bid always seemed upside down but it seems to be getting worse.

 

[pokercuse08]

The win at Clemson will move us up 10 spots. The win over UNC in the ACC tournament will move us up 12 or even 15 spots. So the next three wins will us up about 25 to 28 spots. That is lower 50's in NET rating.

You're going to have to show your work on that, I don't think the math comes close to checking out.

 

[pokercuse08]

It’s interesting that people keep saying Pitt is a lock for the tournament but we are on the outside looking in. We beat them twice. Have a better record. Getting into the tournament as an at large bid always seemed upside down but it seems to be getting worse.

Schrodinger's Bracket applies to them too. If the committee weighs NET heavily, Pitt is in. If not, they're probably on the wrong side of the bubble and we're on the right side of it.

 

[Newhouser]

It’s interesting that people keep saying Pitt is a lock for the tournament but we are on the outside looking in. We beat them twice. Have a better record. Getting into the tournament as an at large bid always seemed upside down but it seems to be getting worse.

They won at Duke. Automatic entry ha.

 

[atlanticuse]

They won at Duke. Automatic entry ha.

i stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

[baggerbob]

Heres how im looking at it

If we win at clemson, 1 win in acc tourny should get us in, 2 would be a lock

If we lose at clemson, 3 wins in acc tourny would give us a legit shot, but may need 4 to win the tourny.

I'm still of the opinion we have to beat Clemson, and win at least 2 games in the ACC tournament to have a chance of getting in the tournament.

 

[Cuse181]

I have this terrible feeling that one more win even if it is at Clemson, won’t be enough. I don’t agree with us being left out if we have 21 wins but I think we may need at least 2 wins, maybe 3. It ultimately comes down to how much value the committee puts on the NET. Not even being in the last 4 out at this point seems wrong, but shows we have a decent amount of work to do. Relying heavily on computer generated numbers really takes context out of it.

Well lucky you, Syracuse won’t have 21 wins on the selection committee team sheet if they only beat Clemson, so 21 requires a ACCT win. They probably need two to actually have a better than 50% chance.

 

[jncuse]

It’s interesting that people keep saying Pitt is a lock for the tournament but we are on the outside looking in. We beat them twice. Have a better record. Getting into the tournament as an at large bid always seemed upside down but it seems to be getting worse.

I don't think many people have Pitt as a lock. They might have 5% of people having them in.
They need to do some work like us and get some quality wins.

 

[pokercuse08]

SUNDAY 3/3
12pm UConn 91 vs Seton Hall 61
3:30 Bradley 66 at Drake 74
4pm Murray State 77 at Indiana State 89
9pm Stanford 71 at Colorado 81

Basically as expected, we didn't catch any upsets which would have been nice, but Seton Hall didn't pull one either, so that's good.

MONDAY 3/4
7pm NC State vs Duke

NC State is sitting at 80th in the NET, and we would absolutely love them to get into the top 75 for us. It gets us a Q1 win. So that'd be a big upset for us.

I removed Baylor/Texas, as Texas is up to the 9 line on Bracket Matrix now and in on 100% of brackets.

 

[pokercuse08]

NC State got smoked and will probably move down a bit in the NET, so that's unfortunate. Looking towards tomorrow...

TUESDAY 3/5
7pm Georgetown vs Providence
7pm Tulane at South Florida
7pm SYRACUSE @ Clemson
8pm Georgia Tech @ Wake Forest
9pm FSU at Pitt
9pm DePaul vs St. John's

Other than our own MASSIVE game, Georgia Tech over Wake is pretty big for us. Georgia Tech is 134th, and we need them to stay above 135th to avoid a bad loss. Wake is ahead of us on the bubble AND can tie us and holds a tiebreaker in the ACC standings.

I removed K State and Cinci, as they're off the Bracket Matrix now. Still would prefer they lose, but not going to be sweating those closely. Also removed Nevada, as they seem safely in now on the 8 line on Bracket Matrix.