4th place in the ACC with one to play

[IthacaMatt]

Syracuse is 40th in SOR and MSU is 45.
Syracuse is 34 in RPI and MSU is 60.
If quad 3 and 4 losses are bad losses, than quad 1 and 2 wins are good wins. Syracuse and MSU matchup similarly there, slight edge to Cuse. And Syracuse also has the edge in the rankings above. I'm not saying we're a great team, I'm saying there's not 68 better teams than Syracuse, and there's certainly not 81 better teams, no matter what the NET rankings say

His point, which you're doing again, is lumping Quad 1 with Quad 2 to make it look closer. Quad 1 is better than Quad 2, so if they are ahead in Quad 1, they are ahead, period. Same thing lumping Quad 3 and 4 together. Quad 3 losses are understandable, to an extent. Quad 4 team are trash; you should never lose to them.

 

[cali315phan]

His point, which you're doing again, is lumping Quad 1 with Quad 2 to make it look closer. Quad 1 is better than Quad 2, so if they are ahead in Quad 1, they are ahead, period. Same thing lumping Quad 3 and 4 together. Quad 3 losses are understandable, to an extent. Quad 4 team are trash; you should never lose to them.

If they're ahead, why is their strength of record worse than ours? Strength of record takes into account all opponents and doesn't separate them into quads. So if we're going off total body of work, than we're ahead. See RPI and SOR. Quad 1 and 2 are pretty fluid as well, atleast 2 of our quad 2 wins may shift to quad 1. Did we all of a sudden get better, of were we always better?

 

[Bayside44]

Cuse had to hold on to dear life to beat ND and Louisville (twice). Don't think they would slap around Mich st and Wisc

Boeheim Slide Rule.

 

[Orangezoo]

Cuse had to hold on to dear life to beat ND and Louisville (twice). Don't think they would slap around Mich st and Wisc

No but would have no doubts we could beat either on a neutral court. Obviously a different point to debate.

 

[blust2i3d4]

10 plus years being in the ACC, I'd take an ACC Semi-Final even, something we still haven't yet attained.

I agree that it's an accomplishment ending up 4th and getting the double bye, etc. That being said, I think it's certainly fair to say that finishing 4th in today's ACC is not some significant feat, certainly not as it would've been not too long ago when the ACC had 5-6 teams in the AP top 25, and possibly more in the "receiving votes" category.

The likely 3 seed in UVA is a bubble team, and most likely will be a double digit seed in the Dance. As will the 4th ACC team, and, if the ACC were to get a 5th team, likely another double digit type, and one likely having to play in the Tuesday/Wednesday 'play-in' game.

There are five ACC teams (UNC, Duke, Clemson, Wake Forest and Virginia) ranked or getting votes on Coach Poll released today (AP poll has no Virginia). It means ACC is very likely to get five teams to NCAA tournament this year. Five the minimal number even ACC has a down year. Our mission is to beat Clemson and get Clemson's place even we have only 11% of the chance to win that game according to computer simulation. It can be done.
Then as 3/4/5/6 seed, we have to win the game against 3/4/5/6. Winning these two crucial games, then we will be in NCAA tournament.

 

[IthacaMatt]

If they're ahead, why is their strength of record worse than ours? Strength of record takes into account all opponents and doesn't separate them into quads. So if we're going off total body of work, than we're ahead. See RPI and SOR. Quad 1 and 2 are pretty fluid as well, atleast 2 of our quad 2 wins may shift to quad 1. Did we all of a sudden get better, of were we always better?

Look, if you want to cherry pick stats, I'm not going to disagree.
I think we deserve more respect in these computer models.
Margin of victory and rebounding rates are not a fair or reasonable basis to pick tournament teams.

Our steals and blocked shots directly offset any perceived lack of defensive rebounding, because all three of them result in possession. I haven't seen any discussion of that, yet, in these articles and posts about NET.

But it's fundamentally dishonest of you to lump different categories to make a point. It's not representative. It's not statistically accurate.

If you want to argue statistics and are going to talk about Quad victories or losses, then compare apples to apples, not apples-plus-bananas to apples-plus-bananas, when really only the apples (Q1) are the thing that matters most. Because bananas (Q2) don't mean shtt in this conversation.