4th place in the ACC with one to play

[Marsh01]

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.

beating clemson is the only way we can get a bid aside from winning the acc tourney. Lose that and the path is very clear.

assuming we do i think one win in the tourney gives us a coin flip chance. Two would get us in.

 

[cali315phan]

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.

How is that cherry picking? The last two months we have been better. Against the top half of the NCAA, we've been the slightest bit better.

 

[Marsh01]

How is that cherry picking? The last two months we have been better. Against the top half of the NCAA, we've been the slightest bit better.

The top half of the ncaa? We beat unc. Thats basically it.

 

[Red2003]

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.

Honestly I almost like our chances more if we lose to Clemson and then the stars align for us as a 6 seed. Ga Tech --> then Virginia --> then winner of Pitt/Duke. I don't think Duke wants to catch Pitt their opening round. We want more upsets everywhere.

 

[81South]

The team has really become enjoyable to watch over the past month. The coaching staff has grown as well. All arrows are pointing up!

 

[Red2003]

The top half of the ncaa? We beat unc. Thats basically it.

You're ranking the top half of the NCAA based on the Net correct? What if the Net is flawed and gamed it by playing 300+ Strength of Schedules?

 

[Cuse181]

How is that cherry picking? The last two months we have been better. Against the top half of the NCAA, we've been the slightest bit better.

Because you’re ignoring their superior quad 1 record in favor picking a stat that places Syracuse closer to Michigan state. If you are 1% off in Quad 1-2 win% then it’s statistically irrelevant, meaning you need to dive deeper. They have a better quad 1 record, so they now have the edge. They’ve beaten two teams safely in the tournament, Syracuse has beaten 1. They have a superior kenpom, have a top 15 SOS, 45th in SOR, 19 in KPI. By all the metrics on the team sheet, they’re, all together, better.

We just need to stay slightly realistic, Syracuse hasn’t done anything special to push others OFF the bubble, they are just trying to push their way on.

 

[cali315phan]

Because you’re ignoring their superior quad 1 record in favor picking a stat that places Syracuse closer to Michigan state. If you are 1% off in Quad 1-2 win% then it’s statistically irrelevant, meaning you need to dive deeper. They have a better quad 1 record, so they now have the edge. They’ve beaten two teams safely in the tournament, Syracuse has beaten 1. They have a superior kenpom, have a top 15 SOS, 45th in SOR, 19 in KPI. By all the metrics on the team sheet, they’re, all together, better.

We just need to stay slightly realistic, Syracuse hasn’t done anything special to push others OFF the bubble, they are just trying to push their way on.

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

 

[cali315phan]

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

The same ND team that just beat good Wake and Clemson teams? Notre Dame that is 5-1 in their last 6 with their lone loss being to Cuse?

 

[IthacaMatt]

Wisc has 6 quad 1 wins
We have 2

We have 2 wins that could improve to Quad 1s if those teams finish strong, plus one more Quad 1 opportunity at Clemson.

 

[Cuse181]

We have 2 wins that could improve to Quad 1s if those teams finish strong, plus one more Quad 1 opportunity at Clemson.

So when they do, the conversation changes but until then…

 

[richmondcuse03]

The same ND team that just beat good Wake and Clemson teams? Notre Dame that is 5-1 in their last 6 with their lone loss being to Cuse?

ND is going to be a good team next year. They're starting to put it together with a young team and young coach.

 

[Orangezoo]

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

Their seeding is based on the very flawed Net ranking boosted by MOV though too. Should be siting more along the 10-12 line

 

[Cusefan0307]

ND is going to be a good team next year. They're starting to put it together with a young team and young coach.

The question is will they keep Burton. I’d have to think some school will try to tamper with him. Purdue or Indiana maybe?

 

[Trueblue25]

Just win the rest of the games we play and things will be fine

 

[jncuse]

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.

We would be a consensus 10 seed, 9 at best (and this is ignoring our standalone NET which they should) And that is based on our quality wins assessment which would still be very limited - the system does no help ACC teams this year. And who knows if some drop us down a line because of the standalone NET - so 11 would certainly still be in play.

And to claim we would have a much better resume than Wisconsin with 2 Q1 Wins vs 6, and 7 Q1+Q2 wins vs 12 is total nonsense, especially when they have no bad losses (and we have one) I get it - we hate the BIG and think the system is bad - but you can't led it lead us to making silly biased comments.

1) Proof of us as a a likely 10 seed -- Compare us to Virginia in this scenario - and Virginia is currently a 10 seed on the matrix.

Virginia vs Syracuse
Record: 21-9 (12-7) vs 22-8 (13-6).
Q1: 2-6 vs 2-7
Q1+Q2: 8-9 vs 7-7
Bad Losses: 0 vs 1
And the NET, although typically significantly relegated vs quality win metrics, will do us no favours -- at best it gets ignored.

If your claim is "positive trends" or "hot at the end", the committee has shown over and over that they don't select or seed in that manner...its all your games "full body of work" and the end ones are given no additional emphasis.

 

[littlereg]

We would be a consensus 10 seed, 9 at best (and this is ignoring our standalone NET which they should) And that is based on our quality wins assessment which would still be very limited - the system does no help ACC teams this year. And who knows if some drop us down a line because of the standalone NET - so 11 would certainly still be in play.

And to claim we would have a much better resume than Wisconsin with 2 Q1 Wins vs 6, and 7 Q1+Q2 wins vs 12 is total nonsense, especially when they have no bad losses (and we have one) I get it - we hate the BIG and think the system is bad - but you can't led it lead us to making silly biased comments.

1) Proof of us as a a likely 10 seed -- Compare us to Virginia in this scenario - and Virginia is currently a 10 seed on the matrix.

Virginia vs Syracuse
Record: 21-9 (12-7) vs 22-8 (13-6).
Q1: 2-6 vs 2-7
Q1+Q2: 8-9 vs 7-7
Bad Losses: 0 vs 1
And the NET, although typically significantly relegated vs quality win metrics, will do us no favours -- at best it gets ignored.

If your claim is "positive trends" or "hot at the end", the committee has shown over and over that they don't select or seed in that manner...its all your games "full body of work" and the end ones are given no additional emphasis.

This board really needs to stop giving likes to flawed takes just because it’s what they want to hear. Reason should still be relevant.

First let me surface this by saying i agree with a LARGE percentage of what you say and really appreciate a lot of the insight and deep dives but…….nooffense man but you coming in acting like you’re the god of bracketology and net and can’t be wrong no matter what while simultaneously sounding like Siri the AI describing the net process to everyone in every single thread is just as annoying as the orange juice color Rec specs some people are wearing. This is a fanbaord, people are fanatics they’re going to root for their team and have bias in their team.

 

[OptimusOtto]

I think our magic number is 2 at the moment. Come out ready and play a full 40 on Tuesday.

 

[jncuse]

First let me surface this by saying i agree with a LARGE percentage of what you say and really appreciate a lot of the insight and deep dives but…….nooffense man but you coming in acting like you’re the god of bracketology and net and can’t be wrong no matter what while simultaneously sounding like Siri the AI describing the net process to everyone in every single thread is just as annoying as the orange juice color Rec specs some people are wearing. This is a fanbaord, people are fanatics they’re going to root for their team and have bias in their team.

I compared our resume to Virginia - they were very comparable in the same conference.
I compared our resume to Wisconsin - we weren't close in quality wins.

There was nothing particularly "god like" about my comments.

 

[Sherman20]

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…..

The ACC and its coaches need to keep up the attacks on the NET/poking holes in it in the media. The committee needs to hear that it’s not the be all and end all and won’t rely on it too heavily. We’re highly ranked in both ESPN’s SOR (strength of record) and the KPI metric.

 

[jncuse]

The ACC and its coaches need to keep up the attacks on the NET/poking holes in it in the media. The committee needs to hear that it’s not the be all and end all and won’t rely on it too heavily. We’re highly ranked in both ESPN’s SOR (strength of record) and the KPI metric.

Only problem with that is they would then be sabotaging the resume of Wake which is made stronger by its #31 net. And even Pitt at #44 is propped up by NET.

So I don't think they will get involved during the season.

 

[Sherman20]

Only problem with that is they would then be sabotaging the resume of Wake which is made stronger by its #31 net. And even Pitt at #44 is propped up by NET.

So I don't think they will get involved during the season.

Both Capel and Brownell have been speaking out about how the system has been gamed and manipulated by the Big 12 and the other issues with the NET.

 

[CardiacCuse]

Where are the folks with the agenda? Awful quiet

my only agenda is that the team returns to the 1 seed, perennial top 10 tier

 

[jncuse]

Both Capel and Brownell have been speaking out about how the system has been gamed and manipulated by the Big 12 and the other issues with the NET.

Pitt played 6 Q4 games including 4 sub 270 teams. They won those 4 games by a total of 164 points (or an average of 41 points), and that is why their NET is where it is.

Not sure what Pitt is criticizing. They seem to have the Big12 formula down pretty well.

 

[OrangeinDC]

You're ranking the top half of the NCAA based on the Net correct? What if the Net is flawed and gamed it by playing 300+ Strength of Schedules?

JB broke it down last night... Very very flawed system.