did lunardi really say 4-2 gives us a shot??

[Orangezoo]

 

[Cuse181]

Yes and no - using total wins at this point is largely a simplified view which assumes we get additional Q1 and Q2 goodies as we expand our wins.

The problem with your highlighting our Q1 win opportunities to close is... "is that it"? The best we can do by the end of regular year if things breaks right is to have just 2 Q1 wins -- at Pitt and at Clemson. One team which may never be in the tournament in Clemson.

Using the its "who we beat" instead of total wins doesn't really help our case, because the who we beat analytics are not going to be good if we close at 3-2.

Technically NC State or Duke could climb back to top 30

 

[Cusefan0307]

Are the last 10 games going to have weight this year? That could help Cuse.

Not in at least a decade.

 

[jncuse]

Technically NC State or Duke could climb back to top 30

That is true - likely case though is 2 is best we have heading into ACC, whatever the mix.

 

[jncuse]

View attachment 225100

Thanks for that. 2 and 5 are confusing.

Net efficiency is largely correlated to average margin of your games - so margin of victory (and blowout wins or losses) do come into play here.

Than #5 says the scoring margin is capped at 10. But in #2 it wouldn't be capped at 10.

 

[Nicknack]

To make the dance they would have to win every game left plus at least 2 in the ACCT

No one knows what we need right now - depends a lot on what other teams have done who are on the bubble. That said, you could be right although I think we have a decent shot if we only lose one more regular season and win 2 in the ACCT.

 

[Orangezoo]

Thanks for that. 2 and 5 are confusing.

Net efficiency largely equatable to average margin of your games - so margin of victory (and blowout wins or losses) do come into play here.

Than #5 says the scoring margin is capped at 10. But in #2 it wouldn't be capped at 10.

This is why I think something is still off with how 5 it is weighted... possibly being given too much sway... or how it's being used in combination with 2 and 4.

 

[Cuseball]

barttorvik.com has a Teamcast page where you can play around with different W/L scenarios and see how they change Cuse’s bubble status.

If you click ”win out” to make us 5-0 the rest of the regular season, we’re in … the next four out.

I would not take bootleg kenpom as gospel, but I trust it more than Joey.

Very cool site. For what it's worth, if we win out and then beat BC, Clemson and UVA on a neutral floor we would be one of the last 4 in. Of course, this is very unlikely and would all depend on what others do but we've got a chance!

 

[jncuse]

This is why I think something is still off with how it is weighted...

They say #2 is much more important than #5 in their table.
So obviously margin of victory matters - which I am largely OK with in terms of calculating NET only.
I guess I just don't understand even having #5 in the equation at this point.

The biggest factor is still ultimately Q1 and Q2 wins and record, and your own NET doesn't matter for that.

 

[jncuse]

barttorvik.com has a Teamcast page where you can play around with different W/L scenarios and see how they change Cuse’s bubble status.

If you click ”win out” to make us 5-0 the rest of the regular season, we’re in … the next four out.

I would not take bootleg kenpom as gospel, but I trust it more than Joey.

I was familiar with Barttorvik - didn't realize they had that. There is so much there, that you can miss some of the good tools they had.

RPI forecast used to have a nice forecasting tool as well. When I would run my tourney projections, I would always based it on annual projections based on what teams did to date.

An in/out model can't be 100% accurate, but its interesting to see what gets us in the last 4 or next 4. I would think that's a target number to at least be discussed on Selection Sunday.

 

[Orangezoo]

They say #2 is much more important than #5 in their table.
So obviously margin of victory matters - which I am largely OK with in terms of calculating NET only.
I guess I just don't understand even having #5 in the equation at this point.

The biggest factor is still ultimately Q1 and Q2 wins and record, and your own NET doesn't matter for that.

Yeah. The analytics background in me gets a nervous take with their generalizations. While q1 and q2 wins matter more, the weighting on 5 moving teams around so much is my issue. Also.. look at clemson.. 7-4 in q1/q2 but they are at 77. Their margin of victory this year is not impressive at all.. along with poor efficiency numbers as well.

It's almost as though ranking teams by NET confuses the issue too much.. thus work to be done still.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

In terms of q1/q2 record?? Or eye test?

We are playing well and much better than the first half of the season. Using the committees messaging around total body of work.. you have to look at the numbers around quality wins. We fall massively short there right now and we need to be at 22 wins to be feeling even somewhat confident here. We are playing catch up as I outlined using Lunardis last four in/next four out and those teams like us will still have games to boost their resume.

My point is you need 36 at large teams. Then the first four out and next four gets you up to 44 teams. The committee is not taking teams like Oral Roberts, Liberty, Iona, etc over us. Neither will they take teams like Ohio State, Washington State, or other majors with a lot of Ls over us. Also are they really going to fall for the NET ranking manipulation of the MWC again? That conference should never get more than 2 teams again. They have been awful in the NCAAT. Which could eliminate a few of teams.

So where are the 40 at large teams clearly ahead of SU, should we get to 21 Ws? IMO getting to 21 Ws will put us in the conversation. We will fall short but at least we make the bubble.

 

[Orangezoo]

My point is you need 36 at large teams. Then the first four out and next four gets you up to 44 teams. The committee is not taking teams like Oral Roberts, Liberty, Iona, etc over us. Neither will they take teams like Ohio State, Washington State, or other majors with a lot of Ls over us. Also are they really going to fall for the NET ranking manipulation of the MWC again? That conference should never get more than 2 teams again. They have been awful in the NCAAT. Which could eliminate a few of teams.

So where are the 40 at large teams clearly ahead of SU, should we get to 21 Ws? IMO getting to 21 Ws will put us in the conversation. We will fall short but at least we make the bubble.

This is a lot of thought and speculation. I'm just speaking to what the numbers say. If we get to 21 Ws we would be on the fringe but wrong side of the bubble. The numbers point to that... and not actual net ranking but quadrant records.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

This is a lot of thought and speculation. I'm just speaking to what the numbers say. If we get to 21 Ws we would be on the fringe but wrong side of the bubble. The numbers point to that... and not actual net ranking but quadrant records.

But the quads are based off of the NET. It is all circular.

 

[blust2i3d4]

Hard to believe 4-2 would be enough when our NET ranking only went up from 98 to 95 after beating NC St. Not a lot of opportunity in our remaining regular season schedule except for at Pitt. Might have to at least get to the ACCT Final. I think we're playing for an NIT bid now, and that may be in question with a low NET ranking.

After NC State win, our RPI only moved up from 108 to 104. Most schools have this figure out. To move RPI up, you need to win on the road. So they schedule at least two OOC road games every season. Neutral sites don't count. I don't know why SU only schedule one true OOC road game every year. This year we lost to Illinois on the only road game. Make it worse to our RPI ratings, especially many RPI systems count our two neutral site games in NYC as our home games thus even lowered RPI ratings on many RPI systems.

 

[Orangezoo]

But the quads are based off of the NET. It is all circular.

Yes but where we severely lack is in our quality record. 2-8 in q1/q2 games with 21 wins putting us around 6-9 with 1 q1 win puts us pretty much out of the conversation. 22 wins gives us a shot, 23 is the sweespot and 24 a lock.

While I get the comment on names- in our total body of work our non conference is very very poor. So we are coming to the table lacking much of anything to argue about.

Even if we get to say 22 wins, if our good wins are weakened then that hurts too. You have to rack up quality wins if you are going to lose to Bryant, Colgate, St Johns and get hammered by Illinois in the non conference. The Johnnies nosedive was insult to injury.

 

[kcsu]

keep winning and we have a shot. One at a time mentality. Each game needs to be treated as if we are already in the tournament. win and keep going otherwise go home. The kids can win every game left.

 

[CardiacCuse]

This year's non-conference schedule let us down. That ... and we lost way too many of those games (4).
In the past, JAB and crew do a nice job with our schedule to be certain that it would pop on the RPI rankings. Now with the newer NET, we may have to reconsider how to better build/engineer the schedule.

I also think the B12 has thrown the whole CBB landscape out of whack in 2022-23. It's a strong league(!). Maybe even historically good (TBD). But I think the B12's "dominance" this year had somehow devalued each of the other 4-5 power conferences, with perhaps the exception of the SEC, which is not quite as good as they'd hoped (but still quite strong).

Bottom line, if he is back, I think JAB has to look at building a schedule that is significantly more efficient within the constructs of the NET rankings. And we have to hit our stride a bit earlier in the season (aka win our OOC games).

the schedule was just about as difficult as they could handle early on...getting this team ready was always going to take months...it was an impossible thing to schedule for appropriately...they werent going win any good games, most likely...

 

[CardiacCuse]

This is why I think something is still off with how 5 it is weighted... possibly being given too much sway... or how it's being used in combination with 2 and 4.

hmmmm...if scoring margin matters...all of the close losses to good teams should mean something too...but i dont think they do...

 

[kcsu]

JB will lead them down the stretch i think our coach is ready for a heck of a finish

 

[HoustonCuse]

I've never thought we were as far out of bubble consideration as some. I believe we have a lot of work still to do, but certainly feasible. It obviously depends on what other teams are doing, but I like our chances if we can finish 13-7 in the regular season and make the finals in the acc tournament. The only downer to that outcome is that if we end up doing that, Mintz is probably continuing to play really well possibly leading himself to the draft.

Mintz is gone either way. When will everyone learn?

 

[blust2i3d4]

Thanks for that. 2 and 5 are confusing.

Net efficiency is largely correlated to average margin of your games - so margin of victory (and blowout wins or losses) do come into play here.

Than #5 says the scoring margin is capped at 10. But in #2 it wouldn't be capped at 10.

JG3 should have scored in the last few seconds in FL State game to have our winning margin at 11, instead of 9. It makes big difference on our NET ratings.

 

[Newhouser]

IF we don't get a legit road win we don't belong in the tournament.

Losing close games, improving all year, etc etc. - all meaningless. We don't have a legit road win, the only thing keeping us in the discussion is Joey B knows our fan base will click and read, and the bubble is horrendous.

 

[bballbeadle]

I know this is a very technical thread on whether we will make it in the NCAAs, and I want to go as much as the next person, but would it be so bad to be in the NIT? And perhaps win the whole thing?

 

[sutomcat]

I know this is a very technical thread on whether we will make it in the NCAAs, and I want to go as much as the next person, but would it be so bad to be in the NIT? And perhaps win the whole thing?

For our young team, I think going to the NIT and hopefully playing well in it, could be a great way to build some momentum, get more experience for our young players and start preparations for next season.

It worked pretty well for us in 2002.