The Boeheim Factor

[Nicknack]

Unless I missed it, none of the national tournament projections are taking into account Boeheim's nine game absence. The committee absolutely should. Unfortunately losing four out of the last five aren't helping. However, there is another way to look at it. We were 6-4 in our last 10 games (in the ACC no less). The four losses at the end were against quality teams, with the sole exception of FSU. That was on the road and senior day - not a bad loss. If you really look at the wins and losses, it looks better than what many are saying.

Let's assume we lose again to Pitt (because if we win, none of this matters). That means with Boeheim we were:

9-7 in the ACC (56.3% winning percentage)
15-7 overall (68.2% winning percentage)
---------------------------------------------------
With Hop, we were:
0-3 (0% winning percentage)
4-5 overall (44.4% winning percentage)

Since the committee has made it clear that they can make an adjustment for Boeheim's absence, I don't understand how one could possibly look at those numbers and not do it. Again, they should and if they did, we would be in regardless of a loss against Pitt. Hell, just give us two more wins. No question in my mind that if Boeheim wasn't missing during those nine games, we would have at LEAST 2 more wins. Think about it, if we were sitting with a 21-12 record right now, there would be little discussion about us not getting in to the tourney and this is only with a two win adjustment.

With that all said, I don't have a very good feeling that the committee is going to make the adjustment for whatever reason. If they did consider it, we would be in the field of 68 regardless of what happens tomorrow. Sooooooo,.. only one thing left to do now, BEAT PITT and make Dixon cry.

 

[two3zone]

If we didn't finish 9-6 I could see them taking it into consideration. All it proved that it really doesn't matter who coaches this team, we're not really that good.

 

[donniesyracuse]

If the suspension was a punishment, then those losses should count against this team.

 

[Nicknack]

The numbers aren't fabulous with Boeheim, but you are either blind or just not looking if you don't see a stark contrast between what Boeheim and Hop did.

As for the suspension, it does NOT matter that it was a punishment. That has been made clear already publicly. It's not that those losses shouldn't count, because we would have had some of them even with Boeheim, but just not quite as many.

 

[Knicks411]

All the committee has said is they would "consider" the suspension. That could mean literally anything.

 

[Ryand877]

All the committee has said is they would "consider" the suspension. That could mean literally anything.

^^^^^^ Agree

 

[orangecuse]

The numbers aren't fabulous with Boeheim, but you are either blind or just not looking if you don't see a stark contrast between what Boeheim and Hop did.

As for the suspension, it does NOT matter that it was a punishment. That has been made clear already publicly. It's not that those losses shouldn't count, because we would have had some of them even with Boeheim, but just not quite as many.

One thing I would certainly agree with is that there's no way with JB we go to MSG and lose that game to SJ's, certainly not in the fashion in which we lost. G'Town was Hop's first game, another game that we have a much better chance in winning with JB at the helm.

 

[Nicknack]

All the committee has said is they would "consider" the suspension. That could mean literally anything.

Correct, that's my point with starting this thread and it doesn't matter that it was a suspension. IF they do consider it, getting into the tourney should be a no-brainer. I'm just not confident however.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Eh, lost 4 of 5.

I don't think it matters.

 

[andyw715]

Seems to me the consideration will be related to seeding (play-in game vs a higher seed), but a loss at Pitt and other teams doing some magic will keep Cuse out regardless.

 

[orangenirvana]

If the suspension was a punishment, then those losses should count against this team.

Was the suspension intended to punish the team or the coach?

 

[Knicks411]

Correct, that's my point with starting this thread and it doesn't matter that it was a suspension. IF they do consider it, getting into the tourney should be a no-brainer. I'm just not confident however.

No. It could mean "we talked about it and decided that the suspension was meant to punish the team, so their resume stands as is" or it could mean "we were going to give them more of the benefit of the doubt but then they struggled so much down the stretch we realized they could have lost those games with Boeheim coaching" or it could mean "we're going to disregard some of those losses when Hopkins was coaching".

 

[Orangeblue2]

The Boeheim effect? As has been said, bubble teams need to finish strong. 1-4 is not what the vaunted committee is looking for. I am thinking that ACC might only get 6 with all the small conference tourney upsets. And even if we beat Pitt, don't laugh, but if VT or Clemson somehow win 2 games, we are not a lock.

 

[Nicknack]

No. It could mean "we talked about it and decided that the suspension was meant to punish the team, so their resume stands as is" or it could mean "we were going to give them more of the benefit of the doubt but then they struggled so much down the stretch we realized they could have lost those games with Boeheim coaching" or it could mean "we're going to disregard some of those losses when Hopkins was coaching".

No, that is incorrect.

Per an article published by the Post Standard on 12/10/15 by Mike Waters...

"The player and coach availability issue is one of the factors that the committee takes into consideration,'' Gavitt said Wednesday. "It's no different than a player who's not available for whatever reason, be it injury or suspension. The committee can judge the impact of losing a player or coach for a game or a group of games.''

Gavitt said it didn't matter that the reason for Boeheim's absence is an NCAA-imposed suspension.

"The reason for the unavailability is considered without prejudice,'' Gavitt said. "It would be the same thing as if a player is unavailable because a coach or the school decided to suspend the player for a certain number of games.''

 

[Knicks411]

No, that is incorrect.

Per an article published by the Post Standard on 12/10/15 by Mike Waters...

"The player and coach availability issue is one of the factors that the committee takes into consideration,'' Gavitt said Wednesday. "It's no different than a player who's not available for whatever reason, be it injury or suspension. The committee can judge the impact of losing a player or coach for a game or a group of games.''

Gavitt said it didn't matter that the reason for Boeheim's absence is an NCAA-imposed suspension.

"The reason for the unavailability is considered without prejudice,'' Gavitt said. "It would be the same thing as if a player is unavailable because a coach or the school decided to suspend the player for a certain number of games.''

Ok then I'm wrong on one example. it definitely doesn't mean they're absolutely going to disregard those games or credit us with additional wins though.

 

[br801]

Eh, lost 4 of 5.

I don't think it matters.

No way Hop loses 4 of the last 5.

 

[NineOneSeven]

No way Hop loses 4 of the last 5.

Without Boeheim we don't win 1 'ing game the last 3 weeks... not 1.

 

[orangecuse]

No way Hop loses 4 of the last 5.

You're right...it would have been 5 of 5.

 

[cuseinseattle]

^^^^^^ Agree

Wait so the NCAA said something very vague and open to interpretation that will most likely piss everyone on this board off. That's weird.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Unless I missed it, none of the national tournament projections are taking into account Boeheim's nine game absence. The committee absolutely should. Unfortunately losing four out of the last five aren't helping. However, there is another way to look at it. We were 6-4 in our last 10 games (in the ACC no less). The four losses at the end were against quality teams, with the sole exception of FSU. That was on the road and senior day - not a bad loss. If you really look at the wins and losses, it looks better than what many are saying.

Let's assume we lose again to Pitt (because if we win, none of this matters). That means with Boeheim we were:

9-7 in the ACC (56.3% winning percentage)
15-7 overall (68.2% winning percentage)
---------------------------------------------------
With Hop, we were:
0-3 (0% winning percentage)
4-5 overall (44.4% winning percentage)

Since the committee has made it clear that they can make an adjustment for Boeheim's absence, I don't understand how one could possibly look at those numbers and not do it. Again, they should and if they did, we would be in regardless of a loss against Pitt. Hell, just give us two more wins. No question in my mind that if Boeheim wasn't missing during those nine games, we would have at LEAST 2 more wins. Think about it, if we were sitting with a 21-12 record right now, there would be little discussion about us not getting in to the tourney and this is only with a two win adjustment.

With that all said, I don't have a very good feeling that the committee is going to make the adjustment for whatever reason. If they did consider it, we would be in the field of 68 regardless of what happens tomorrow. Sooooooo,.. only one thing left to do now, BEAT PITT and make Dixon cry.

I agree with this but I don't think the NCAA selection committee will take this into consideration to get us in.

 

[FrancoPizza]

One thing I would certainly agree with is that there's no way with JB we go to MSG and lose that game to SJ's, certainly not in the fashion in which we lost.

Which is it? JB wouldn't lose or we wouldn't lose by double digits? It's almost like you're backtracking on your statement, which can't be verified anyway. JB has had some horrific and embarrassing losses sprinkled throughout his career, so there is precedent. And it's not like Hop deviated from JB's script and decided to play m2m or something off-the-wall.

When you lose 4 out of the last 5 and look like crap doing so, JB's suspension becomes a virtual non-factor. I would feel the same way if I was on the committee and trying to look at this objectively.

 

[HoustonCuse]

If the suspension was a punishment, then those losses should count against this team.

This doesn't make any sense in terms of the NCAA tournament. The NCAA tournament selection committee's job is to seed the bracket with the best teams available after auto qualifiers. They have to assess how teams are likely to perform with what they are bringing to the dance. We will be bringing JB barring some totally common and expected nuclear bomb dropped on the program on the Monday following selection Sunday.

Of course, all that said - I don't think they'll make any special consideration of the time Boeheim was out. It just has nothing to do with punishment.

 

[Nicknack]

Since I have no bias whatsoever, I would not only punch our ticket but I would also couple that with a 3 seed just as a nice gesture for the NCAA being such a royal pain in the ass.

 

[Orangemen]

Our range of outcomes here goes from the JB suspension does not matter at all to the JB suspension games did not happen. Where things will fall in that spectrum is anyone's guess.

If we go pessimist and say the suspension does not matter, then I think it's clear. We need to beat Pitt, and even that may only get us into Dayton.

If we go optimist, the rpi wizard says our new rpi is 23 with an SOS of 9. That's a definite tourney resume and arguably in line for a top 5 seed. The late slip probably drops us a couple lines to like a 7.

So our range is borderline out if they ignore the suspension to wearing a white jersey in our first game if the suspension eliminates those 9 games.

So where do we end up?

I'm guessing the pessimist view that the suspension is ignored is not true. You can't look at Wichita and talk about their injury but ignore the JB thing.

The total optimist view doesn't seem reasonable either. Those games happened and they shouldn't be completely ignored.

Contrary to what was said by some nationally respected bracket experts, I think you can find cases where injuries were taken into account and seeds were helped. Mich St in 2000 benefitted, and they may again this year. Wichita probably will this year too. I would bet a thorough investigation would show teams benefitting by a line here or there. The flexibility of seed lines in bracketing makes it hard to be sure either way though.

At the end of the day my guess is we benefit by a seed line or two come Sunday. We have really good wins. At duke carries a ton of weight. The Bahamas is hard to ignore too.

I think if we lose we could easily end up in Dayton, or maybe even above that.

Common sense readings of our resume would point to us being borderline out now to out with a loss to Pitt. I'm guessing the committee gives us a small benefit of the doubt due to JB and we move up a bit.

 

[orangecuse]

Which is it? JB wouldn't lose or we wouldn't lose by double digits? It's almost like you're backtracking on your statement, which can't be verified anyway. JB has had some horrific and embarrassing losses sprinkled throughout his career, so there is precedent. And it's not like Hop deviated from JB's script and decided to play m2m or something off-the-wall.

Yeah, I see where it's a bit wishy washy. I don't think we lose that game with JB. And, not only don't we lose with JB, there's absolutely no way in hell we get blown out and look the way we did against that putrid team. Is that better. The no deviation of script argument is myopic on your behalf if you couldn't see from that poor display of effort that Hop commands the team in the way that JB did/does.