4th place in the ACC with one to play

[Orangezoo]

The team I’m focused on jumping is Wake. Yes they have the big win over us but have been garbage on the road and are worse in Q1/Q2 with a fake Net ranking due to MOV

 

[Scotch]

I look at some of the teams in front of us in Bracket Matrix and just don’t get it. Without computers we are like a 9 seed.

 

[hoopsupstate]

The team I’m focused on jumping is Wake. Yes they have the big win over us but have been garbage on the road and are worse in Q1/Q2 with a fake Net ranking due to MOV

They still have to play Clemson too.

 

[cali315phan]

I think I repeat this too much but I feel compelled to every time someone mentions these losses. It evens out, we lost to BC and GTech on the road. By the same token we could have easily lost to Colgate, Miami at home, Louisville at home and NC St on the road. We were lucky to win those games. Your record is what your record says you are. No woulda, shoulda, couldas or ifs, and or butts.

It's a message board. it's full of hypotheticals. No we could have lost games we won.

 

[Cuse181]

We'd be 13-6 in ACC, 22-8 overall and have zero bad losses. We would for sure be around 6. They had Wisconsin as a 6 coming into today with a much crappier resume. Speaking of Wisconsin, they're a team I've watched a good amount this year that based on the eye test, they are a way worse team than Cuse. But the Badgers are firmly in the field.

Wisconsin resume is leagues ahead of syracuse

 

[gmoney44]

Where are the folks with the agenda? Awful quiet

Perhaps it’s because they don’t have an agenda like you conjured up. They see these guys improving every game since Red bounced Benny off the team. Before that I saw dysfunction everywhere.

I wanted a clean break from the JB tree as much as anyone but Red has done a terrific job with what he has. Now if he can build a complete roster we may be cooking with gas moving forward.

 

[cali315phan]

Wisc has 6 quad 1 wins
We have 2

Yes, early in the season they ripped off some good wins. The last 2 months they've laid a turd for the most part. Watch them play. They're not a good team, at all. Michigan State is also high in the NET and they're not a good team to the eye. We slap around either one.

 

[Cuse181]

Just look at Michigan State's resume. They have won nothing worth. And projected 8th/9th seed on NCAA tournament. Just because Michigan State and B1G are name brands.

They have 4 quad 1 wins and no Q3 or Q4 losses…

 

[cali315phan]

Wisconsin resume is leagues ahead of syracuse

Yes, they had 4 good early season wins, but they're playing awful the last 2 months. Do we still watch basketball or just have computers watch?

 

[cali315phan]

They have 4 quad 1 wins and no Q3 or Q4 losses…

Against quad 1 and 2 we are 6-8. MSU is 8-11. 43% vs 42% win percentage against the "top half" of college basketball. Their net is 24, ours is 82. Look mom, I can do fun stuff with numbers too.

 

[orangecuse]

Gt and BC from a 3 seed, that would have been amazaing for a team like this.

Things are so cyclical. The ACC is now back to being your father’s Oldsmobile.

 

[blust2i3d4]

Yes, they had 4 good early season wins, but they're playing awful the last 2 months. Do we still watch basketball or just have computers watch?

Nope. Only Baylor and Illinois. I don't see any other team worth Q1.

 

[CuseMan4]

If we win Tuesday. It’s gonna be awfully hard for the committee to keep out an ACC team that went 21-10 (12-8), 4th in the ACC with a double bye on a 5 game winning streak to end the season…..

 

[SURules]

Against quad 1 and 2 we are 6-8. MSU is 8-11. 43% vs 42% win percentage against the "top half" of college basketball. Their net is 24, ours is 82. Look mom, I can do fun stuff with numbers too.

So how does MSU get to a NET of 24? No bad losses and larger scoring per game margins?

 

[Marsh01]

If we win Tuesday. It’s gonna be awfully hard for the committee to keep out an ACC team that went 21-10 (12-8), 4th in the ACC with a double bye on a 5 game winning streak to end the season…..

You have to stop looking at win totals and acc standings. The committee doesnt highly take that into consideration. This isnt 1997 anymore. Criteria (Right or wrong) is there for everyone to see.

im not picking on you but just stating how it works in 2024.

 

[upperdeck]

if the committee is only using the Net then they are also not doing their job. If NET is all that matters, then use PWR like hockey and let that one programmer decide who gets in or out.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

We need this double bye because I think we'll be mince meat on day 3 of playing every day with a 6 man rotation. Remember we could get blown out by 30-40 when you factor in 3rd game in 3 days foul trouble and all that stuff.

Double bye after 9 days off is huge and we likely just need to win that first one to not be sweating Sunday.

 

[SwagSocks]

Yes, early in the season they ripped off some good wins. The last 2 months they've laid a turd for the most part. Watch them play. They're not a good team, at all. Michigan State is also high in the NET and they're not a good team to the eye. We slap around either one.

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

 

[Marsh01]

We need this double bye because I think we'll be mince meat on day 3 of playing every day with a 6 man rotation. Remember we could get blown out by 30-40 when you factor in 3rd game in 3 days foul trouble and all that stuff.

Double bye after 9 days off is huge and we likely just need to win that first one to not be sweating Sunday.

Its a double edge sword. We may need the extra game and get another w. The finals will literally mean nothing. By then if we are fortunate enough to win (and if we beat clemson tuesday) we will have done enough to earn a bid

 

[Red2003]

You have to stop looking at win totals and acc standings. The committee doesnt take that into consideration. This isnt 1997 anymore. Criteria (Right or wrong) is there for everyone to see.

im not picking on you but just stating how it works in 2024.

Yes they 100% do. The Team sheet has a ton of information on it, not just the Net. The committee will see us at at 3 games over 500 in the ACC and other bubble teams that are under or barely 500 in their leagues. They will also quickly be able to see an ACC record of 9-3 over the big12.

We have a bad net and "efficiency", alot of the bubble has a great net and efficiency, but not much else to show. Committee will be put to the test if metrics are more important than strength of schedule.

Fun fact. The Vice Chair of the committee is the UNC AD. Want to know the only team that beat up UNC by more than us this year, UCONN. Guess who was the last team to beat UNC.

 

[Marsh01]

Yes they 100% do. The Team sheet has a ton of information on it, not just the Net. The committee will see us at at 3 games over 500 in the ACC and other bubble teams that are under or barely 500 in their leagues. They will also quickly be able to see an ACC record of 9-3 over the big12.

We have a bad net and "efficiency", alot of the bubble has a great net and efficiency, but not much else to show. Committee will be put to the test if metrics are more important than strength of schedule.

Fun fact. The Vice Chair of the committee is the UNC AD. Want to know the only team that beat up UNC by more than us this year, UCONN. Guess who was the last team to beat UNC.

Agreed. However its just one of many of the criteria. It isnt like 20 years ago when the conference was fantastic where standings and win totals come into play. Plus we technically only have 19 wins that count as chaminade doesnt count.

 

[Cuse181]

Yes, they had 4 good early season wins, but they're playing awful the last 2 months. Do we still watch basketball or just have computers watch?

exactly, they had 4 good wins, it doesn’t matter when they happened, their resume is better.

 

[FireballPhil]

There are three phases to the process:


I. Select the 36 best at-large teams;


II. Seed the field of 68 teams; and


III. Place the teams into the championship bracket

Process Principles for Selection, Seeding and Bracketing​

The Selection, Seeding and Bracketing process for the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship adheres to the following principles:

• The committee selects the 36 best teams not otherwise automatic qualifiers for their conference to fill the at-large berths. There is no limit on the number of at-large teams the committee may select from one conference;
• The committee endeavors to achieve reasonable competitive balance in each region of the bracket;
• A committee member (“member”) shall not be present during any discussion regarding the selection or seeding of a team the individual represents as an athletics director or commissioner;
• A member is permitted to answer only general, factual questions about teams in the conference the individual represents;
• At no point in the process shall a member vote for a team the individual represents as an athletics director or commissioner;
• A member representing a conference office shall not be present during any discussion about, or participate in a vote for, a team that has formally declared their intent to transition to the conference the member represents;
• A committee member shall not be present during any discussion regarding the selection or seeding of a team in which an immediate family member is a student-athlete on the men’s basketball team, is a member of the men’s basketball coaching staff or is a senior athletics administrator at the institution (however upon returning to the room committee members will be updated on relevant discussion by the NCAA’s vice president of men’s basketball);
• At no point in the process shall a member vote for a team in which an immediate family member is a student-athlete on the men’s basketball team, is a member of the men’s basketball coaching staff or is a senior athletics administrator at the institution;
• All votes will be by secret ballot.

• Resources​

  
  Committee members have a wide-range of observation, consultation and data resources available to them throughout the season and during selection week.
  
  
  These resources provide the foundation for a thorough and educated process that is reinforced by the committee member’s discussion and deliberation.
  
  
  Among the resources available to the committee are an extensive season-long evaluation of teams through watching games, conference monitoring calls and NABC regional advisory rankings; complete box scores and results, head-to-head results, results versus common opponents, imbalanced conference schedules and results, overall and non-conference strength of schedule, the quality of wins and losses, road record, player and coach availability and various computer metrics.
  
  
  Each of the 12 committee members uses these various resources to form their own opinions, resulting in the committee’s consensus position on teams’ selection and seeding.
  
  
  

  I. Selecting At-Large Teams​

  
  Initial Ballot
  
  
  1. Prior to the selection meeting, each committee member receives an “initial ballot” comprised of two columns listing all eligible Division I teams in alphabetical order.
  
  
  Each committee member will submit the ballot by a designated time on the first full day of selection meetings:
  
  
  
  a. In the first column, each member shall identify not more than 36 teams that, in that member’s opinion, should be at- large selections (AL) in the tournament based upon play to date, regardless of whether the team could eventually represent its conference as the automatic qualifier.
  
  
  b. In the second column, each member shall identify all teams that should receive consideration (C) for an at- large berth. There is no minimum or maximum limit in the second column; however, only teams meriting serious consideration should receive votes.
  
  
  2. Any team receiving all but three of the eligible votes in Column 1 (AL) is moved into the tournament field as an at-large selection.
  
  
  3. The committee will form an "under consideration” board consisting of an alphabetical listing of teams that:
  
  
  a. Received at least four votes in either of the columns of the initial ballot but did not receive enough votes to be an at- large team; or
  
  
  b. Won or shared the regular-season conference championship, as determined by the conference’s tie-break policy where applicable. This does not include teams that won or shared a division title but were not the regular-season conference champion.
  
  
  4. A team may be removed from the “under consideration” board at any time if it receives all but three eligible votes. When a motion is made to remove multiple teams at once, and one of the schools is represented by a member of the committee, two separate motions shall be made: one inclusive of only the team represented by a member, and another inclusive of all other teams.
  
  
  5. A team may be added to the “under consideration” board at any time provided it receives at least four eligible votes.
  
  
  6. Verbal nominations are permitted.
  
  
  Remaining Ballots
  
  
  
  1. The committee then begins evaluating those teams on the “under consideration” board.
  
  
  2. Each committee member will select the best eight teams from the “under consideration” board, in no particular order, to be added to the at-large field:
  
  
  a. When 20 or more teams are under consideration in “list” ballots, each member shall select eight teams;
  
  
  b. When 14 to 19 teams are under consideration in “list” ballots, each member shall select six or fewer teams;
  
  
  c. When 13 or fewer teams are under consideration in “list” ballots, each member shall select four teams or fewer.
  
  
  3. When 24 or fewer teams remain in the pool of teams (during the selection or seeding process), a member may not participate in “list X teams” votes if a team he or she represents as a commissioner or athletics director is included in the “pool.”
  
  
  4. The eight teams receiving the most votes comprise the next at-large ballot.
  
  
  5. Committee members then rank the eight teams, using a “ranking” scoring system (i.e., the best team is valued at one point).
  
  
  6. The four teams receiving the fewest points shall be added to the at-large field. The other four teams will be held for the next ballot.
  
  
  7. Each committee member then submits a list of the best eight teams remaining on the “under consideration” board to be added to the at-large field. The four teams with the highest vote totals are added to the teams carried over from No. 6 to comprise the next at-large ballot.
  
  
  
  8. Steps No. 5, 6 and 7 will be repeated until all atlarge berths are filled.
  
  
  9. If a team fails to be included among the four teams receiving the fewest points (Step No. 6) for two consecutive ”rank” ballots, it shall be returned to the “under consideration” board, without prejudice.
  
  
  10. At any time during the process, the number of teams eligible to receive votes may be increased or decreased by the chair if circumstances warrant. Further, the chair has the option to revise the number of teams from four to fewer than four to be moved into at- large berths per No. 6.
  
  
  11. A team may be removed from the at-large field by a vote of all but three of the eligible votes. Such a team would be returned to the “under consideration” board, without prejudice.
  
  
  12. After the completion of three rounds of secret voting, if the voting results are still tied, the Chair shall break the tie.
  
  
  13. At any time during the process of selecting the at-large teams, the committee may elect to begin seeding the teams (Section II). This allows the committee to proceed while learning results of games played during selection weekend.
  
  

• NCAA EVALUATION TOOL (NET)​

  
  The NET is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties and other effects of specific games.
  
  
  Each committee member independently evaluates a vast amount of information during the process to make individual decisions. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of various data -- that each individual ultimately will determine their vote on all issues related to selections, seeding and bracketing.
  
  
  The NET has two components: the Team Value Index, which is based on game results and factors the result, the game location and outcome. The other component is net efficiency (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), which is adjusted to account for the strength of the opponent and the location of the game.

 

[MikeSU02]

Agreed. However its just one of many of the criteria. It isnt like 20 years ago when the conference was fantastic where standings and win totals come into play. Plus we technically only have 19 wins that count as chaminade doesnt count.

As long as humans are deciding, you always want to streak later than earlier if you are on the bubble.

They still have administrators on the committee. It’s not data scientists or AI bots… yet.

Beat Clemson, Wake loses one, double bye, win one, then we’re playing for lock status and likely in anyway, which I think is what you said.

 

[Cuse181]

Against quad 1 and 2 we are 6-8. MSU is 8-11. 43% vs 42% win percentage against the "top half" of college basketball. Their net is 24, ours is 82. Look mom, I can do fun stuff with numbers too.

i mean you can cherry pick, I can cherry pick, but at the end of the day their resume is better, pure and simple. You can get upset about it but recognize that Syracuse hasn’t beaten enough good teams.