AP poll - SU #11

[Knicks411]

That's the part that is most frustrating. 4 losses, and we would be a three seed if the tournament started today.

For whatever it's worth, and I haven't seen the bracket matrix, but CNN and CBS both have us as a 2 in the East. I know Lunardi has us as a 3. So I'm not sure we'd be a 3 if the tournament was seeded today.

 

[orange79]

For whatever it's worth, and I haven't seen the bracket matrix, but CNN and CBS both have us as a 2 in the East. I know Lunardi has us as a 3. So I'm not sure we'd be a 3 if the tournament was seeded today.

Bracket matrix has us as the first #3 seed.

 

[Knicks411]

Bracket matrix has us as the first #3 seed.

Ok, fair enough. I'll defer to them.

It's probably gonna come down to saturday anyway, right? If we win Friday and lose Saturday, probably to Duke, then I doubt we get a 2. If we lose on Friday, we could probably still hold onto a 3, but it wouldn't be a great loss. And if we win Saturday, then I would feel pretty confident about a 2.

 

[Madbiker]

More like 4 losses to match KU's 8.

They are counting the BC and GT games as double loses...like SU has 6 losses instead of 4. Total double standard. Duke, UNC, KU, Wisconsin lose and they drop like 1 spot while Cuse gets slammed.

 

[Dave85]

They are counting the BC and GT games as double loses...like SU has 6 losses instead of 4. Total double standard. Duke, UNC, KU, Wisconsin lose and they drop like 1 spot while Cuse gets slammed.

All that matters is the team is playing awesome BB again with the return of Grant!

 

[Knicks411]

They are counting the BC and GT games as double loses...like SU has 6 losses instead of 4. Total double standard. Duke, UNC, KU, Wisconsin lose and they drop like 1 spot while Cuse gets slammed.

None of those teams lost to anyone nearly as bad as Ga Tech or BC.

(maybe sconsin with NW at home; how far did they drop that week?)

 

[OttoinGrotto]

More like 4 losses to match KU's 8.

BC counts as 4 losses, and GT counts as 3. Had we not gone to overtime vs BC it would have counted as 6 losses, so really, we're looking good.

 

[RF2044]

They are counting the BC and GT games as double loses...like SU has 6 losses instead of 4. Total double standard. Duke, UNC, KU, Wisconsin lose and they drop like 1 spot while Cuse gets slammed.

Teams that were anointed as being the top teams in the preseason have excuses made for their losses. They get credit for losses against good teams, because of the way that many weigh SOS over wins / losses.

We've had two bad losses. But if either Kansas, MSU, or insert any number of media darling teams here were 27-4, they would be shoo-in #1 seeds.

I said this while we were still undefeated--teams like Kansas / MSU were losing games and getting positive "credit" for the losses, with the media making excuses for them, chalking the losses up to injury, games being on the road, etc.

We were winning ugly games and getting blasted for not winning pretty, while other teams were losing and getting credit. BS, if you ask me.

Granted, we've lost 4 out of 6. Recency / primacy will always be a factor in these subjective ratings. If we'd finished stronger and spaced the losses out more, I contend that we wouldn't be in this position. But evaluated in toto, we aren't nearly as poor of a profile as some would have you believe to rationalize the seedings.

 

[Briancuse]

None of those teams lost to anyone nearly as bad as Ga Tech or BC.

(maybe sconsin with NW at home; how far did they drop that week?)

Those losses are going to wind up haunting us big time, I think the Gt game we will get a small break from the committee, because Grant didn't play, but the Bc one is as bad a loss as you can have.

 

[RF2044]

Those losses are going to wind up haunting us big time, I think the Gt game we will get a small break from the committee, because Grant didn't play, but the Bc one is as bad a loss as you can have.

Okay, its a bad loss. But it is one loss out of four--not like this is a bad loss on top of 11-12 others, with this being the determining factor for us being on the bubble but outside looking in.

Hard for me to reconcile--"yeah, they had four losses, but that BC loss was so bad it counts extra..."

 

[Briancuse]

Okay, its a bad loss. But it is one loss out of four--not like this is a bad loss on top of 11-12 others, with this being the determining factor for us being on the bubble but outside looking in.

Hard for me to reconcile--"yeah, they had four losses, but that BC loss was so bad it counts extra..."

I agree with you, but when our resume is being put up against other teams resumes, its going to be in the discussion.

 

[Knicks411]

Granted, we've lost 4 out of 6. Recency / primacy will always be a factor in these subjective ratings. If we'd finished stronger and spaced the losses out more, I contend that we wouldn't be in this position. But evaluated in toto, we aren't nearly as poor of a profile as some would have you believe to rationalize the seedings.

I think this is true, to an extent. For sure in the polls, the order of the losses plays too large of a role. I think it's less of an issue wth the committee, but could it still play a role? Yeah absolutely. Especially with Lunardi; he didn't even have us as one of the 8 or 9 most likely teams to get a 1, and he had UVA and Duke on the list, which is crazy to me.

It's more the 2 losses we took; they were freaking brutal. If you flip the BC and Ga tech losses for @Pitt and Baylor; give us the same 27-4 record, then I'd be willing to bet we'd be looking at a #1 seed right now.

Is anyone good enough with the RPI to figure out what our RPI would be with the 2 changes I had?

 

[Dave85]

I think this is true, to an extent. For sure in the polls, the order of the losses plays too large of a role. I think it's less of an issue wth the committee, but could it still play a role? Yeah absolutely. Especially with Lunardi; he didn't even have us as one of the 8 or 9 most likely teams to get a 1, and he had UVA and Duke on the list, which is crazy to me.

It's more the 2 losses we took; they were freaking brutal. If you flip the BC and Ga tech losses for @Pitt and Baylor; give us the same 27-4 record, then I'd be willing to bet we'd be looking at a #1 seed right now.

That's probably true.

 

[RF2044]

I think this is true, to an extent. For sure in the polls, the order of the losses plays too large of a role. I think it's less of an issue wth the committee, but could it still play a role? Yeah absolutely. Especially with Lunardi; he didn't even have us as one of the 8 or 9 most likely teams to get a 1, and he had UVA and Duke on the list, which is crazy to me.

It's more the 2 losses we took; they were freaking brutal. If you flip the BC and Ga tech losses for @Pitt and Baylor; give us the same 27-4 record, then I'd be willing to bet we'd be looking at a #1 seed right now.

Which is why many of the formulas used to calculate seeding are badly flawed. I'm sorry--when a loss counts more than a win [due to it being on the road], then said evaluative criteria is weighted incorrectly.

The BC / GT losses WERE bad. But they were also 2 of only 4 losses. If Kansas were 27-4 right now, they'd be ranked #1. If MSU were 27-4, they'd be ranked #1. If Kentucky were 27-4, they'd be ranked #1. If Duke was ranked 27-4, they'd be ranked #1.

Some teams get benefit of the doubt, others do not. For us to be in contention for a #3 seed at 27-4 is a bitter pill. And to subjectively tack extra weight onto certain losses is dumb. How come we don't get a pass for having Grant unavailable, the same way that Kansas or MSU gets excused for losing games when they had starters missing? Because if you afford that same "pass" for us, then we are 27-3 with one asterisk... and still being project as a #3 seed.

But at the end of the day, we can erase some of this with a strong showing in the conference tournament. I like that we can control our own destiny, to a great extent. Time to get it done.

 

[FortyFourCT]

Just for the record, Duke lost to the 11th and 13th teams in the ACC. We lost to the 12th and 14th. Not too much difference. They lost early in the year, we lost late (and at home).

 

[Knicks411]

Which is why many of the formulas used to calculate seeding are badly flawed. I'm sorry--when a loss counts more than a win [due to it being on the road], then said evaluative criteria is weighted incorrectly.

The BC / GT losses WERE bad. But they were also 2 of only 4 losses. If Kansas were 27-4 right now, they'd be ranked #1. If MSU were 27-4, they'd be ranked #1. If Kentucky were 27-4, they'd be ranked #1. If Duke was ranked 27-4, they'd be ranked #1.

Some teams get benefit of the doubt, others do not. For us to be in contention for a #3 seed at 27-4 is a bitter pill. And to subjectively tack extra weight onto certain losses is dumb. How come we don't get a pass for having Grant unavailable, the same way that Kansas or MSU gets excused for losing games when they had starters missing?

But at the end of the day, we can erase some of this with a strong showing in the conference tournament. I like that we can control our own destiny, to a great extent. Time to get it done.

Well one thing I'll say is we don't know how the committee is going to view these things. So if you're talking about the media giving passes; well, I don't know and i don't care either. Doesn't mean anything.

I disagree that Kansas or Mich State would be ranked #1 with 4 losses; no way they'd be ahead of Florida. If you mean a projected #1 seed, then I agree, assuming a normal distribution of the losses. And if we had a normal distribution of losses, then we'd be a projected #1 as well.

But I don't think you can just look at the losses. Kansas, has higher quality wins than we do. And they have more losses. Both are in large part because they played a tougher schedule. (Pomeroy has them with easily the #1 schedule. #2? BC. LOL)

I disagree that tacking on weight to different losses is dumb; you don't think losing to a bad team is worse than losing to a good team and should be treated as such? Just like beating a good team is better than beating a bad team.

Despite what Lunardi seems to think, i think if we win the tournament this weekend we'll have a very strong case for a 1. The resume is still very strong; my bigger fear was with how we were playing more than how we stacked up; our performance with a healthy Grant made me feel a lot better about the team going forward.

 

[RF2044]

Well one thing I'll say is we don't know how the committee is going to view these things. So if you're talking about the media giving passes; well, I don't know and i don't care either. Doesn't mean anything.

I disagree that Kansas or Mich State would be ranked #1 with 4 losses; no way they'd be ahead of Florida. If you mean a projected #1 seed, then I agree, assuming a normal distribution of the losses. And if we had a normal distribution of losses, then we'd be a projected #1 as well.

But I don't think you can just look at the losses. Kansas, has higher quality wins than we do. And they have more losses. Both are in large part because they played a tougher schedule. (Pomeroy has them with easily the #1 schedule. #2? BC. LOL)

I disagree that tacking on weight to different losses is dumb; you don't think losing to a bad team is worse than losing to a good team and should be treated as such? Just like beating a good team is better than beating a bad team.

Despite what Lunardi seems to think, i think if we win the tournament this weekend we'll have a very strong case for a 1. The resume is still very strong; my bigger fear was with how we were playing more than how we stacked up; our performance with a healthy Grant made me feel a lot better about the team going forward.

Absolutely not--I think a loss is a loss. Teams already get a boost in SOS, RPI, and various other factors as a function of the difficult schedule they play. There's already enough subjectivity applied to the timing of the loss to warrant additional subjectivity being factored into the equation.

Double counting [or double penalizing] a loss doesn't make sense, and is inappropriate weighting, IMO.

Second, I don't even have that big of an issue with losses being rated against one another for comparison--but what I said above that you didn't address is how losses are credited to certain teams and weighed as being more important than wins. Which, as you point out, is more about media interpretation than how the seeding committee will affect it.

And with apologies, I don't agree with your take about Kansas or MSU--if they were 27-4, they would absolutely be ahead of Florida. Those two were projected very highly pre-season. Manifest destiny.

At the end of the day, with a good showing this week we can still get to be a #2 seed. That's an attainable goal.

 

[Dave85]

Interesting commentary:

"Case for the final No. 1 seed: Only a few weeks after it seemed like a potential lock No. 1 seed, Syracuse now is at the bottom of this pecking order. The Orange didn't win their league title, they don't have as many quality wins as some of their other peers and while they only have four losses, the two at home against Boston College and Georgia Tech are eyesores. Were Syracuse to win the ACC tournament, the Orange would probably get a look, especially since they might have to go through Duke and either Virginia or North Carolina to do it. Even then, many of the teams above Syracuse on this list would have to lose early in their conference tournaments. "

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab...tering-conference-tourney-week-142934959.html

 

[Knicks411]

Not sure what you mean by double count the losses; I'm just saying you can't sort teams by losses and say one team has 4 and the other has 6 so the team with 4 should be seeded better without looking at the entire resume, who they beat, lost to, etc. I'm not saying sort teams by RPI or whatever, and then penalize us again for losing to BC; that's why the RPI is (relatively) poor in the first place.

And with apologies, I don't agree with your take about Kansas or MSU--if they were 27-4, they would absolutely be ahead of Florida. Those two were projected very highly pre-season. Manifest destiny.

I can't say that with much confidence, since we'll never know, but knowing how the polls work? I'd be very surprised if a 4 loss team was ranked ahead of a 2 loss team, even considering the conferences. I guess it depends on where the losses came, but I would really doubt it.

Though there's probably no doubt if Kansas had 4 losses with that schedule I'd be one of the people saying I thought they were better than Florida...

 

[RF2044]

Not sure what you mean by double count the losses; I'm just saying you can't sort teams by losses and say one team has 4 and the other has 6 so the team with 4 should be seeded better without looking at the entire resume, who they beat, lost to, etc. I'm not saying sort teams by RPI or whatever, and then penalize us again for losing to BC; that's why the RPI is (relatively) poor in the first place.



I can't say that with much confidence, since we'll never know, but knowing how the polls work? I'd be very surprised if a 4 loss team was ranked ahead of a 2 loss team, even considering the conferences. I guess it depends on where the losses came, but I would really doubt it.

Though there's probably no doubt if Kansas had 4 losses with that schedule I'd be one of the people saying I thought they were better than Florida...

Not sure how you can make the claim in the second paragraph, given what you say in the first paragraph. You seem to be contradicting your own position.

Also, why do you always delete the poster information when you quote somebody's post? I've been meaning to ask you that for awhile.

 

[longislandcuse]

None of this matters, all that matters is the ACC Tournament. Go further than UVA and Duke and we are either a 1 or 2 in the East/Buffalo/MSG. Thats all that matters.

 

[Knicks411]

Not sure how you can make the claim in the second paragraph, given what you say in the first paragraph. You seem to be contradicting your own position.

Also, why do you always delete the poster information when you quote somebody's post? I've been meaning to ask you that for awhile.

Sometimes I do when I'm not quoting the entire post. There's probably a way around that but I am not so good at it.

As for the other point; I don't think they are contradictory. I prefaced it by saying knowing how the polls work. The polls pretty much only care about losses. I've been pretty clear about how meaningless I think they are, but I still get how they work. That's why I then said I'd probably be saying KU was better than Florida with 2 additional losses.

 

[NashvilleOrange]

It doesn't really matter at this point but it's kind of amazing that a 4 loss ACC team is ranked outside the top 10. I can't believe I'm actually typing this but I think the ACC is underrated; there are 4 teams in the conference who can easily make the final 4. It blew my mind hearing the announcer for the UMD - UVA game saying that Maryland is headed to the best basketball conference next year. Seriously?! I think he said something along the lines of the Big Ten being the best conference the last 4 or 5 years... yeah, OK. This is the same conference that hasn't won an NCAA title since 2000.

 

[Dave85]

It doesn't really matter at this point but it's kind of amazing that a 4 loss ACC team is ranked outside the top 10. I can't believe I'm actually typing this but I think the ACC is underrated; there are 4 teams in the conference who can easily make the final 4. It blew my mind hearing the announcer for the UMD - UVA game saying that Maryland is headed to the best basketball conference next year. Seriously?! I think he said something along the lines of the Big Ten being the best conference the last 4 or 5 years... yeah, OK. This is the same conference that hasn't won an NCAA title since 2000.

It's too bad we did not beat Michigan last year. That would have put a nail in the coffin of that argument.

 

[two3zone]

It doesn't really matter at this point but it's kind of amazing that a 4 loss ACC team is ranked outside the top 10. I can't believe I'm actually typing this but I think the ACC is underrated; there are 4 teams in the conference who can easily make the final 4. It blew my mind hearing the announcer for the UMD - UVA game saying that Maryland is headed to the best basketball conference next year. Seriously?! I think he said something along the lines of the Big Ten being the best conference the last 4 or 5 years... yeah, OK. This is the same conference that hasn't won an NCAA title since 2000.

You don't lose games and stay in the same spot very often. Lose 4 out of 6 and you're going to drop far and hard, lose to BC and GT at home and you're dropping harder. 11 really isn't that bad considering.