8-5 rest of the way gets us in

[Cuseball]

Go 2-2 in the next 4 (at UNC, at ND, Wake, FSU)
and then 2-1 (at NC State, UVA, at Clemson)
and 2-1 (at Pitt, Ville at Georgia Tech)
and 2-1 (Duke, at Ville, Georgia Tech)

would put us at 19-12 and 11-7 in the ACC.

Our strength of schedule is 102 right now and 11 of the next 13 games are against RPI Top 50 (and most much higher than 50).

SOS will end up top 25 to 30 and we would have more top 50 wins than most.

The schedule is brutal but 8-5 is not out of reach with the talent we have.

Believe!

 

[SU94]

Go 2-2 in the next 4 (at UNC, at ND, Wake, FSU)
and then 2-1 (at NC State, UVA, at Clemson)
and 2-1 (at Pitt, Ville at Georgia Tech)
and 2-1 (Duke, at Ville, Georgia Tech)

would put us at 19-12 and 11-7 in the ACC.

Our strength of schedule is 102 right now and 11 of the next 13 games are against RPI Top 50 (and most much higher than 50).

SOS will end up top 25 to 30 and we would have more top 50 wins than most.

The schedule is brutal but 8-5 is not out of reach with the talent we have.

Believe!

I hope you'd be right, but almost think we need to go 12-6 in ACC to negate our putrid OOC showing.

A run to the ACC Tourney Final (at 11-7 or better) is also a viable path.

That loss at BC is going to prove costly I am afraid.

 

[Cuse House]

No way we do it without winning either at UNC or at Notre Dame. If all of our best wins are at home coupled with our terrible occ, we won't get in even if we go 9-4.

 

[CaptainJ]

I hope you'd be right, but almost think we need to go 12-6 in ACC to negate our putrid OOC showing.

A run to the ACC Tourney Final (at 11-7 or better) is also a viable path.

That loss at BC is going to prove costly I am afraid.

Either way, Doug Gottleib is getting ready...

 

[Briancuse]

We need to go 12-6 just to be off the bubble, our non conf performance is brutal, we need to win one of the next two to have a chance.

 

[AZcuse77]

We need to go 12-6 just to be off the bubble, our non conf performance is brutal, we need to win one of the next two to have a chance.

I think we have a better shot of sweeping or winning 4 of the following 5 games (Wake, FSU, @NCSU, UVa, Clemson) than we have of winning either of the next two games. The good version of this team could definitely make a run during that stretch so I hope the fans and team do not get too down if we get handled the next two. We will be about 10:1 dogs in both but anything is possible in college BB.

Even if we lost the next two winning 4 of the next 5 puts us back at 7-5 and in contention to go the likely necessary 11-7 with a conference tourney win or two. @UNC and @ND are probably our two toughest games of the year.

For reference on how hard it is to win on the road in the ACC, after getting destroyed by 2015-16 winless BC on the road we were 7:1 favorites today. It happens, but as others said it'd take a minor miracle against 2 top-5 ACC teams.

 

[GoCuse1979]

I think a big step would be winning a road game.

 

[jncuse]

No way we do it without winning either at UNC or at Notre Dame. If all of our best wins are at home coupled with our terrible occ, we won't get in even if we go 9-4.

We don't need to get to 13-5 in the ACC to get in the tourney. There are tools out there to help you track things. Yes our bad losses will be bad. But once we have 11 wins our RPI will be reasonable for the committee to consider some good - and by virtue of getting 11 wins in the ACC by default you will have to have close to 5 top 50 wins. (better than most teams on the bubble)

We also heard from the committee this week that they are looking at other analytics. Those other analytics actually like us quite a bit. Despite our struggles KenPom currently has us at #50. If we go 8-5 in the ACC the rest of the way that number would have to be close to 40 if not better.

Now the tool I help to make projection.

RPI Forecast

A 20-11 (12-6) team would be projected to have an RPI of #50, getting 12 ACC wins would mean we have at least a handful of top 50 wins. We would easily get into the tournament.

11-7 is the good bubble resume (projected RPI low to mid 60's), with potentially handful of top 50 wins. Good bubble doesn't mean lock, it just means that there are decent chances it would be enough. The mix of those 11 victories of course could move probabilities in both directions (# of elite, # of road)... although with 11 wins we would have a decent mix either way.

The easiest way to view where the bubble is tracking is knowing that you can't make a field of 68 without picking some P5+1 teams with RPI's over 50. Look at the forecasted resumes of P5+1 teams with RPI's over 50 on RPI Forecast. Nothing overly impressive.

So to address the question in the opening post, in my opinion.
12-6 for sure gets us in.
11-7 is not a clear in, but it gives us between a fairly good to very good chance (that range sways up or down a bit on the mix of road and top 25 wins)


NOTE - I still don't think this team has a great shot to get to 11-7 or 12-6. BC is just not enough to sway me.

 

[Cuse House]

We don't need to get to 13-5 in the ACC to get in the tourney. There are tools out there to help you track things. Yes our bad losses will be bad. But once we have 11 wins our RPI will be reasonable for the committee to consider some good - and by virtue of getting 11 wins in the ACC by default you will have to have close to 5 top 50 wins. (better than most teams on the bubble)

We also heard from the committee this week that they are looking at other analytics. Those other analytics actually like us quite a bit. Despite our struggles KenPom currently has us at #50. If we go 8-5 in the ACC the rest of the way that number would have to be close to 40 if not better.

Now the tool I help to make projection.

RPI Forecast

View attachment 87087



A 20-11 (12-6) team would be projected to have an RPI of #50, getting 12 ACC wins would mean we have at least a handful of top 50 wins. We would easily get into the tournament.

11-7 is the good bubble resume (projected RPI low to mid 60's), with potentially handful of top 50 wins. Good bubble doesn't mean lock, it just means that there are decent chances it would be enough. The mix of those 11 victories of course could move probabilities in both directions (# of elite, # of road)... although with 11 wins we would have a decent mix either way.

The easiest way to view where the bubble is tracking is knowing that you can't make a field of 68 without picking some P5+1 teams with RPI's over 50. Look at the forecasted resumes of P5+1 teams with RPI's over 50 on RPI Forecast. Nothing overly impressive.


NOTE - I still don't think this team has a great shot to get to 11-7 or 12-6. BC is just not enough to sway me.

We still wouldn't get in imo. RPI is great and all, but if we literally have zero good road wins, the committee won't care with our bad losses what our RPI is. Note my point was focused on road wins.

 

[AZcuse77]

We don't need to get to 13-5 in the ACC to get in the tourney. There are tools out there to help you track things. Yes our bad losses will be bad. But once we have 11 wins our RPI will be reasonable for the committee to consider some good - and by virtue of getting 11 wins in the ACC by default you will have to have close to 5 top 50 wins. (better than most teams on the bubble)

We also heard from the committee this week that they are looking at other analytics. Those other analytics actually like us quite a bit. Despite our struggles KenPom currently has us at #50. If we go 8-5 in the ACC the rest of the way that number would have to be close to 40 if not better.

Now the tool I help to make projection.

RPI Forecast

View attachment 87087



A 20-11 (12-6) team would be projected to have an RPI of #50, getting 12 ACC wins would mean we have at least a handful of top 50 wins. We would easily get into the tournament.

11-7 is the good bubble resume (projected RPI low to mid 60's), with potentially handful of top 50 wins. Good bubble doesn't mean lock, it just means that there are decent chances it would be enough. The mix of those 11 victories of course could move probabilities in both directions (# of elite, # of road)... although with 11 wins we would have a decent mix either way.

The easiest way to view where the bubble is tracking is knowing that you can't make a field of 68 without picking some P5+1 teams with RPI's over 50. Look at the forecasted resumes of P5+1 teams with RPI's over 50 on RPI Forecast. Nothing overly impressive.


NOTE - I still don't think this team has a great shot to get to 11-7 or 12-6. BC is just not enough to sway me.

I don't know how great our shot is to go 12-6 yet but those saying 12-6 is required are being silly. We are already 40-55 in Sagarin and KenPom ratings and RPI means less than those these days so 11-7 with a tournament win or two has strong consideration at minimum despite our OOC. I think if we go 11-7 and lose opening round we'd need a very weak bubble but there's no doubt the ACC is the best conference. Do I think we will get there? I'm skeptical but somewhat hopeful.

 

[Cuse House]

So if we go 11-7 in the ACC and finish 19-12 and let's say we go undefeated at home and our two road wins are at NC state and at Clemson. We getting in? No way in ****. The committee cares about who you beat but also about where you win. Currently we are 0-3 on the road and 0-2 on neutral courts. I'm sorry, but 11-7 without any good road wins does not constitute a "good bubble resume."

 

[jncuse]

SOS will end up top 25 to 30 and we would have more top 50 wins than most.

You are absolutely correct that at that point we would have more top 50 wins than most good bubble teams.

Our expected SOS is 41, and that is a pretty solid number at this point, since we are just playing ACC teams that only play each other. It could move a bit but it will not get into the high 20's.

 

[jncuse]

We still wouldn't get in imo. RPI is great and all, but if we literally have zero good road wins, the committee won't care with our bad losses what our RPI is. Note my point was focused on road wins.

RPI is mentioned so that in falls in range of what is acceptable. If it doesn't get below 70, they will look at warts rather than quality. That's why I ignore everything below 11-7.

You mention very good road wins, but the committee also focuses on top 50 wins more than anything else. And yes those are skewed to home wins, which is of course the major advantage of being in a top P5 conference.

And it will be very hard to get to 11 wins without getting at least 1 quality road win. Sure it's possible -- but if we are getting 11 ACC wins, we likely will have one good road win based on normal probabilities. You mess up some you think you should win, and you take some you didn't think you would win,

 

[jncuse]

So if we go 11-7 in the ACC and finish 19-12 and let's say we go undefeated at home and our two road wins are at NC state and at Clemson. We getting in? No way in ****. The committee cares about who you beat but also about where you win. Currently we are 0-3 on the road and 0-2 on neutral courts. I'm sorry, but 11-7 without any good road wins does not constitute a "good bubble resume."

If Clemson goes 8-10 in the ACC, that would be a top 50 road win. That is a quality road win. This is what I mean when i say that you can't get to 11 wins in the ACC without getting a handful of top 50 wins, no matter how your split it.

If we go 11-7 what are the probability that the split is 9-0 and 2-7. Normal probabilities would mean it should be split a bit.

But let's continue with your narrative that somehow if we get to 11 wins, it has to mean we only get 2 road wins including one at Clemson. That means we beat Florida St, Louisville, Duke and Virginia at home. That's 4 RPI top 25 wins. Sure the 2 true road wins would be a real wart, as would the bad losses, but the 4 top 25 wins, and potentially 1 or 2 other top 50 wins at home. And of course a potential top 50 road win at Clemson. That is the advantage of being in a P5 conference as strong as the ACC this year.

 

[AZcuse77]

If we go 11-7 what are the probability that the split is 9-0 and 2-7. Normal probabilities would mean it should be split a bit.

But let's continue with your narrative that somehow if we get to 11 wins, it has to mean we only get 2 road wins. That means we beat Florida St, Louisville, Duke and Virginia at home. That's 4 RPI top 25 wins. Sure the 2 true road wins would be a real wart, as would the bad losses, but the 4 top 25 wins, and potentially 2 other top 50 wins, even at home would never get overlooked (with an RPI in an acceptable range), That is the advantage of being in a P5 conference.

Im picturing you right now after 3 messages in Zoolander "crazy pills" mode.

 

[jncuse]

Im picturing you right now after 3 messages in Zoolander "crazy pills" mode.

And that is before I realized he gave us a road win over Clemson, who if they get to 8-10 in the ACC would be a quality road win.

 

[iommi]

Oh, no. Not this bubble crap again. Can we get to mid-February before evaluating things this in-depth? We are not a good basketball team. We have the worst non-conference record in our history. Playoffs????!!! Playoffs???!!! Jim Mora was right.

Yes, we have played a little better lately but let's slow down and see where we are in a month.

 

[AZcuse77]

And that is before I realized he gave us a road win over Clemson, who if they get to 8-10 in the ACC would be a quality road win.

Anyone who thinks 9-9 has a chance or 12-6 is required was told there would be no math.

 

[AZcuse77]

Oh, no. Not this bubble crap again. Can we get to mid-February before evaluating things this in-depth? We are not a good basketball team. We have the worst non-conference record in our history. Playoffs????!!! Playoffs???!!! Jim Mora was right.

Yes, we have played a little better lately but let's slow down and see where we are in a month.

I have openly stated such... but I do like math sorry ... so i provide a range and am fairly negative we even get to that range even if I don't believe there is more than a 25% chance we get to that range.

 

[jncuse]

Oh, no. Not this bubble crap again. Can we get to mid-February before evaluating things this in-depth? We are not a good basketball team. We have the worst non-conference record in our history. Playoffs????!!! Playoffs???!!! Jim Mora was right.

Yes, we have played a little better lately but let's slow down and see where we are in a month.

Assessing whether we get to 11 wins, or whether 11, 12 or 13 wins is enough are two totally different assessments. We are only doing the latter here.

I am not saying that I think this team will get to 11 wins - actually the BC game did nothing to convince me. But if someone is going to state for sure 11-7 will get us in (as the OP did), or we don't get in unless we get 13-5, I will discuss if those targets make sense.

I did say the other day that I would avoid these type of threads until I believed 11 was more realistic, but I can't.

 

[AZcuse77]

Anyone who thinks 9-9 has a chance or 12-6 is required was told there would be no math.

I also think this crap about we got deeper in the tourney is dumb... sweet 16 .. elite 8... final 4. Titles matter. We have no shot this year so everything we do is to look less bad for growing players, recruits, and winning future titles.

 

[Cuse House]

If Clemson goes 8-10 in the ACC, that would be a top 50 road win. That is a quality road win. This is what I mean when i say that you can't get to 11 wins in the ACC without getting a handful of top 50 wins, no matter how your split it.

If we go 11-7 what are the probability that the split is 9-0 and 2-7. Normal probabilities would mean it should be split a bit.

But let's continue with your narrative that somehow if we get to 11 wins, it has to mean we only get 2 road wins including one at Clemson. That means we beat Florida St, Louisville, Duke and Virginia at home. That's 4 RPI top 25 wins. Sure the 2 true road wins would be a real wart, as would the bad losses, but the 4 top 25 wins, and potentially 1 or 2 other top 50 wins at home. And of course a potential top 50 road win at Clemson. That is the advantage of being in a P5 conference as strong as the ACC this year.

It's is much more likely that we win 4 road games against the bottom feeders than going undefeated at home. I think we win 1 or 2 out of the 4 you mentioned and probably win at Georgia Tech and again at Pitt. Something along those lines. My narrative is that we need at least one quality road win.

 

[iommi]

Assessing whether we get to 11 wins, or whether 11, 12 or 13 wins is enough are two totally different assessments. We are only doing the latter here.

I am not saying that I think this team will get to 11 wins - actually the BC game did nothing to convince me. But if someone is going to state for sure 11-7 will get us in (as the OP did), or we don't get in unless we get 13-5, I will discuss if those targets make sense.

I did say the other day that I would avoid these type of threads until I believed 11 was more realistic, but I can't.

Hey man. No problem. You and a few others did great work last year. My point is: can we wait until we even have a chance to be in the discussion before we figure out how many wins we need? We are not even close to that yet. But carry on.

 

[jncuse]

It's is much more likely that we win 4 road games against the bottom feeders than going undefeated at home. I think we win 1 or 2 out of the 4 you mentioned and probably win at Georgia Tech and again at Pitt. Something along those lines. My narrative is that we need at least one quality road win.

I do agree that the 1 quality road win will be a factor in moving our probability around if we get to 11 wins. It's fairly decent without it, but if we got to 11 but we probably run into one.

 

[Cuse House]

I do agree that the 1 quality road win will be a factor in moving our probability around if we get to 11 wins. It's fairly decent without it, but if we got to 11 but we probably run into one.

Monday night would be a good start.