ESPN Bubble Watch

[sabach]

focuses on the Cuse and the JB effect. Guy says that we probably are in the "Should Be in" category, but we could be in trouble if we lost to both Pitt and NCState so in that regard we still have some work to do.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch

 

[andyw715]

"Either way, we've learned this much: A guy with almost 1,000 career wins is, in fact, important to his team's chances of winning. Case closed."

FUNCAA

 

[sabach]

"Either way, we've learned this much: A guy with almost 1,000 career wins is, in fact, important to his team's chances of winning. Case closed."

FUNCAA

I thought the same thing.

 

[pearl31]

My fav takeaway:
The good news for Cuse fans: Even if the committee told them that Boeheim's absence didn't matter -- tough cookies, and all that -- his team has done more than enough to get into the tournament as of today.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I can't help but think of 2007.

 

[sabach]

My fav takeaway:
The good news for Cuse fans: Even if the committee told them that Boeheim's absence didn't matter -- tough cookies, and all that -- his team has done more than enough to get into the tournament as of today.

They have done enough if the season ended today. We need two more wins to secure a bid as of the end of the season.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

We're currently an #8.

If JB hadn't been suspended and we won a few more games, we'd be a #6.

I'm sure the #9 that gets stuck playing us is thrilled.

 

[Alsacs]

Perfect Analysis if we beat 2 of Pitt/NC State/UNC/FSU we are 100% in.
Until we do that we have some work to do but we have a good chance to make the tournament.
The bubble is weak again this year so take care of home court we will make it.

 

[sabach]

We're currently an #8.

If JB hadn't been suspended and we won a few more games, we'd be a #6.

I'm sure the #9 that gets stuck playing us is thrilled.

As will the #1 be that would get us in Round 2.

 

[MSOrange]

I think that's a very fair take. I'd have a tough time making the argument we should be in if we dropped to both NC State and Pitt at home depending on the outcomes of our other games.

 

[pearl31]

I can't help but think of 2007.

Diary of an SU basketball fan.

 

[sabach]

I think that's a very fair take. I'd have a tough time making the argument we should be in if we dropped to both NC State and Pitt at home depending on the outcomes of our other games.

Yup. If we lost our last five games to finish 8-10 in the ACC (including Louisville), we'd have to make a run to the ACC semis to make the dance. If we win one of our last four, we probably get in with a win in the ACCT and may get in even without one. If we win 2, we are in, regardless of the ACCT.

 

[pearl31]

Yup. If we lost our last five games to finish 8-10 in the ACC (including Louisville), we'd have to make a run to the ACC semis to make the dance. If we win one of our last four, we probably get in with a win in the ACCT and may get in even without one. If we win 2, we are in, regardless of the ACCT.

yep

 

[orange79]

focuses on the Cuse and the JB effect. Guy says that we probably are in the "Should Be in" category, but we could be in trouble if we lost to both Pitt and NCState so in that regard we still have some work to do.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch

My fav takeaway:
The good news for Cuse fans: Even if the committee told them that Boeheim's absence didn't matter -- tough cookies, and all that -- his team has done more than enough to get into the tournament as of today.

Chose your posts just because they mentioned JB. I know a committee member said they would take JB's absence into account, but Palm makes some good points - how exactly would they do that? The answer? They can't.

 

[sabach]

Chose your posts just because they mentioned JB. I know a committee member said they would take JB's absence into account, but Palm makes some good points - how exactly would they do that? The answer? They can't.

Which is exactly why we need to win 2 more games and then we are in even without any consideration of JB's absence.

 

[SUOrangeSU]

i think if we win the @unc, we are in

 

[pearl31]

i think if we win the @unc, we are in

nah

 

[Eric15]

I'm so nervous about this Pitt game -- can someone talk me off the ledge and explain why I shouldn't be?

 

[sabach]

I'm so nervous about this Pitt game -- can someone talk me off the ledge and explain why I shouldn't be?

Paul Harris will not be playing.

 

[jncuse]

Chose your posts just because they mentioned JB. I know a committee member said they would take JB's absence into account, but Palm makes some good points - how exactly would they do that? The answer? They can't.

I have been basically thinking the same all year, but it is good to see Palm who is certainly an authority on the subject have an even clearer presentation of why it won't happen.

And even if they want to positively "consider" it, if we are on the bubble there is nothing left to consider.

At 10-8 we should be a lock... but say we lost the first ACC game and the committee for some really unexpected (and poor) reason still sees us on the bubble. That means we ended 2-4.

Or 9-9, with a win and a loss in the ACC Tourney, or just loss. Basically if we end up on the bubble, we end the season with a 1-5, or 2-4,or 2-5 stretch under JB. With a weak close you think they are going to discount a weak stretch of other games?

 

[RandygoCuse]

nah

Your posts remind me of a certain line from Major League. Who can name it?

 

[kcsu]

We need to win two more games at a minimum. If we win two of the last four and a game in the tourney i see us as a 6-7 seed

 

[KaiserUEO]

Chose your posts just because they mentioned JB. I know a committee member said they would take JB's absence into account, but Palm makes some good points - how exactly would they do that? The answer? They can't.

I agree with palm, ive felt that way all year.

if we don't get in...Hops fault.

if we get a crappy seed...Hops fault.

somebody make sure coyle has a list started...

 

[pearl31]

I have been basically thinking the same all year, but it is good to see Palm who is certainly an authority on the subject have an even clearer presentation of why it won't happen.

And even if they want to positively "consider" it, if we are on the bubble there is nothing left to consider.

At 10-8 we should be a lock... but say we lost the first ACC game and the committee for some really unexpected (and poor) reason still sees us on the bubble. That means we ended 2-4.

Or 9-9, with a win and a loss in the ACC Tourney, or just loss. Basically if we end up on the bubble, we end the season with a 1-5, or 2-4,or 2-5 stretch under JB. With a weak close you think they are going to discount a weak stretch of other games?

I generally agree with you. However, with the case of Palm (and I generally defer to his authority on tourney/seeding matters) he is largely missing the point. Those examples he gives in prior years of Purdue and Cinci were cases where those teams were clearly damaged post-injury with no prospect of those players coming back - i.e., there was no chance for them to return to where they were pre-injury. In our case this year, and in other cases throughout the years - a team demonstrates a level of play, then loses a piece of their team for a period and demonstrates a lower level, while then re-establishing the previous higher level of play with the return of the missing piece. That's completely different than Palm's examples of Cinci and Purdue losing their best players for the remainder of the season with no chance of return.

 

[jncuse]

I generally agree with you. However, with the case of Palm (and I generally defer to his authority on tourney/seeding matters) he is largely missing the point. Those examples he gives in prior years of Purdue and Cinci were cases where those teams were clearly damaged post-injury with no prospect of those players coming back - i.e., there was no chance for them to return to where they were pre-injury. In our case this year, and in other cases throughout the years - a team demonstrates a level of play, then loses a piece of their team for a period and demonstrates a lower level, while then re-establishing the previous higher level of play with the return of the missing piece. That's completely different than Palm's examples of Cinci and Purdue losing their best players for the remainder of the season with no chance of return.

Yes they are very different directions. But Palm does address that

Basically he points that there have been situations where the committee has used negatives to negatively adjust seeds, but he does not remember where the committee has positively altered a resume to get a team in the tournament or a noticeably better seed (nor do I)

And we are in the latter situation.