Friendly Reminder

[bpo57]

While this is true, and I am too unsure to put a lot of energy into it, there are always firsts. Right? Someone has to do what was formerly thought of as impossible, and how many teams with that record have beaten 3 top 10 teams and gone .500 in the best conference in basketball?

Fortunately, I think a lot of time is being wasted on speculation of something that won't happen(anyone want to wager me on it, straight up odds?).

What won't happen?

 

[CaptainJ]

What won't happen?

Losing the next 2. Isnt that what all this needless fretting is about? I dont think we'll even lose the next 1, so this will die sooner than later.

 

[Moontan]

As of today, palm has us as last 4 in playing RI in Dayton. I think Lunardi has us more solid but he lost alot of cred with me after calling UCLA a 4 seed


Lol, yes, that would be a crazy path, but possible. Thing is, this team sucks away from the dome like no other team ever has.

The committee may view the ACC Tournament as home games, hence the need to win 3 if they can't take care of things against the Yellow Jackets.

 

[bpo57]

Losing the next 2. Isnt that what all this needless fretting is about? I dont think we'll even lose the next 1, so this will die sooner than later.

gotcha. I feel pretty good about beating GT. After that, not so much.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Let's put it this way - if we're sitting at 17-15 I'd like to place a wager with you that SU does not make the tourney. That way at least I'll profit from the inevitable bad news. Sound like a plan?

I think you might have a problem...

 

[Nicknack]

here we (some) go again... predicting what we need to get in when what is happening around us is actually more important. We could lose out and get in. We could win one more and get left out too providing team(s) around us are doing what they need to do. As much as we would like to have definites, that's just not how this party works. We just need to win; that's the only thing in our control.

 

[iommi]

I'm not sure what people were expecting today. Road games against really good teams tend to turn out that way. I hoped we'd be closer, but I'm not shocked.

I do agree with those that think Lydon passes up too many 3s. If we're going to make a run he's going to have to lead us there. Which means shooting it when you have a chance and finishing down low.

Get a week off, take care of business at home against GT. Get our first ever ACCT win, and go from there. Today doesn't really change much.

Anyone with a clue was expecting a loss. Still need the take care of biz like you said.

 

[Budley]

I mean I'd obviously be nervous going in, but I'd still think we were in the 50-50 range. Maybe 40-60 or 60-40, depending on what other teams did down the stretch. But when you go .500 in the best conference in the country (BY FAR), beat three top-10 teams and your struggles were early in the year, you've almost always got a shot.

Not all of our struggles were early in the year, I would put @GT and @Pitt pretty sad, and they were in Feb. we'd be in a much better position without those 2!

 

[bpo57]

I think you might have a problem...

haha separating fools from their money is never a problem. It's a public service.

 

[dasher]

Just for the record, no team has ever received an at large bid with 15 losses. And in the last 25 years only one team with 14 losses got an at-large invite.

Sort of meaningless because until recently, the field was 64 not 68. Those 4 extra teams are in big deal. And this is a really soft bubble.

 

[bpo57]

Sort of meaningless because until recently, the field was 64 not 68. Those 4 extra teams are in big deal. And this is a really soft bubble.

Actually there are three times in history when a team with 14 losses got an at large invite and they were all prior to the increase to 68 teams. Since the change the max has been 13 losses.

 

[iommi]

Sort of meaningless because until recently, the field was 64 not 68. Those 4 extra teams are in big deal. And this is a really soft bubble.

Somewhat recently, yes. 2011.

 

[dasher]

Actually there are three times in history when a team with 14 losses got an at large invite and they were all prior to the increase to 68 teams. Since the change the max has been 13 losses.

I feel a lot better with our chances with 68 than with 64. Which is the # that should be in the tournament by the way. This season alone shows how ridiculous adding those 4 spots was.

 

[bpo57]

I feel a lot better with our chances with 68 than with 64. Which is the # that should be in the tournament by the way. This season alone shows how ridiculous adding those 4 spots was.

I agree with you. But I don't feel good about our chances if we go 17-15.

 

[pearl31]

I usually scoff at the term "must win" - but if there is such a thing it's next Saturday. If you think otherwise, you'd be mistaken

 

[jncuse]

here we (some) go again... predicting what we need to get in when what is happening around us is actually more important. We could lose out and get in. We could win one more and get left out too providing team(s) around us are doing what they need to do. As much as we would like to have definites, that's just not how this party works. We just need to win; that's the only thing in our control.

I agree there are way too many definitive statements. And anybody that reads my posts, I usually say things like good chance, more likely than not, but hardly work in absolutes.

But I feel that our resume at 17-15 is so bad in certain regards that I can be pretty close to definitive. There are 2 measures that we would not only be bad in, but the worst ever in, and 1 other measure we may the best worst ever in.
- We would have the worst RPI Ever by alot (about 100 vs 75)
- We would have the most losses ever by an at-large team
- We may have the lowest amount of road/neutral wins by an at large ever (2)

Those 3 things open the room to quite a bit of judgment and inconsistency which is always a concern. There has also been 6 teams in history that have had 6 top 50 wins and did not make the tournament (per Jerry Palm last week)

I'm not usually an RPI guy, but as I said earlier it can't be out of control.

One win brings the RPI way down to the 80's and at least we don't have the most losses. It also gives us one more win against another bubble team, But someone earlier said, that win isn't that great, so why would the Georgia Tech win put us over the top. Well it helps our resume in many regards, but that person is right it doesn't clear put us over the top. But that doesn't show that 17 wins may be enough IMO -- it shows that 19 wins might be needed.

 

[Briancuse]

I agree there are way too many definitive statements when we are in a range that isn't definitive.

But I feel that 17-15 is in a pretty close to a record I can be definitive with. There are 2 measures that we would not only be bad i, but the worst ever in, and 1 other measure we may the best worst ever in.
- We would have the worst RPI Ever by alot (about 100 vs 75)
- We would have the most losses ever by an at-large team
- We may have the lowest amount of road/neutral wins by an at large ever (2)

Those 3 things open the room to quite a bit of judgment and inconsistency which is always a concern. There has also been 6 teams in history that have had 6 top 50 wins and did not make the tournament (per Jerry Palm last week)

I'm not usually an RPI guy, but as I said earlier it can't be out of control.

One win brings the RPI way down to the 80's and at least we don't have the most losses. It also gives us one more win against another bubble team, But someone earlier said, that win isn't that great, so if that works why wouldn't 17 work. It's a fair point, but I see it the other way. It just shows that 18 might not be enough.

18 is in the you can't be definitive range IMO. I can just tell we will be more strongly considered at that point.

I heard Palm tonight say we might need to win two more games to get in.

 

[jncuse]

I heard Palm tonight say we might need to win two more games to get in.

I agree that we might need 2. One win might do it, and some may guarantee it, but I am not going to even say it is highly likely at this point. I have one win at 50%, and it's a fairly arbitrary number that I am not comfortable budging from for at least one week. Too many moving parts, too much risk for community judgment and inconsistency. We will know a little bit more by next week

 

[Eric15]

I feel a lot better with our chances with 68 than with 64. Which is the # that should be in the tournament by the way. This season alone shows how ridiculous adding those 4 spots was.

I couldn't agree more. I've always felt expanding from 64 to 68 was just the most pointless thing ever. Did people watch the tournament 15 years ago thinking, "This thing is OK, but what it really needs is a few more 18-13 teams to be better."

 

[Eric15]

But I feel that our resume at 17-15 is so bad in certain regards that I can be pretty close to definitive. There are 2 measures that we would not only be bad in, but the worst ever in, and 1 other measure we may the best worst ever in.
- We would have the worst RPI Ever by alot (about 100 vs 75)
- We would have the most losses ever by an at-large team
- We may have the lowest amount of road/neutral wins by an at large ever (2)

My understanding is that if we say "but it's a super weak bubble!" enough times the committee will ignore the objective facts you list above and let us in at 17-15 simply because they feel bad for us.

 

[jncuse]

I don't feel good about being the guy to post "That will not be enough or I'm not sure if its enough". I hated that "guy" last year and in January and early February of the current year.

It was easier last year when I was in the small group here that continued to try to keep the faith and try to show others that we still had a decent chance.

And don't get me wrong we are still in pretty good shape even though we have a must win game.

Maybe everything will break right for us next week so that we can really feel good entering the ACC tourney even if we lose in the ACC tourney.

 

[cuse522]

Not all of our struggles were early in the year, I would put @GT and @Pitt pretty sad, and they were in Feb. we'd be in a much better position without those 2!

I don't know if losing to bubble teams on the road counts as a sad loss, obviously we'd be in great shape with those two as wins, though. We'd also be in much better shape if we won a couple of those early season games, too, though.

I feel a lot better with our chances with 68 than with 64. Which is the # that should be in the tournament by the way. This season alone shows how ridiculous adding those 4 spots was.

I don't necessarily agree, and a big part of the reason is how the ACC in particular beats up on itself. I think there's a case that anyone other than BC this year in the ACC would be on the right side of the bubble if they were in any other major conference, based on the difficulty of ACC play. Pitt is a great example. They had to play Louisville and UNC twice, and @Duke. They had Florida St. at home (and won that one). The other power conferences have two teams as good as those FOUR, and Pitt had to play six games against those four. I think Pitt would be on the right side of the bubble in literally any other conference. Instead, they may not even come close... and that's with 68.

One win brings the RPI way down to the 80's and at least we don't have the most losses. It also gives us one more win against another bubble team, But someone earlier said, that win isn't that great, so why would the Georgia Tech win put us over the top. Well it helps our resume in many regards, but that person is right it doesn't clear put us over the top. But that doesn't show that 17 wins may be enough IMO -- it shows that 19 wins might be needed.

If you're thinking of my post, it was simply in reference to people saying GT is a must-win. I don't see why GT is a must-win when they could lose to GT and win the first tournament game and be in pretty much the same shape in terms of RPI, if not a little better since it would likely be a neutral site win over a better RPI team.

The only way GT is a must-win is if you think that we absolutely need two more wins, and I just don't think that's the case.

I think we're around 50-50 if we lose out and 90% plus with any win (most of this 10% being stolen bids or someone going on a run... Like if Pitt wins out @GT and @UVA, then wins two ACCT games before bowing out 19-15, I think they'd probably get a spot). But I think we're essentially a lock with two wins, you'd have to see tons of stolen bids. I don't think anyone thinks we're absolutely out if we lose out, and I don't think anyone thinks we are more likely out than in if we win one game. You don't, right?

 

[jdubs30]

The committee likes teams that has proven they can beat good teams. In a historically weak bubble I think the record vs. top 50 will mean more this year than it years prior.

When you have more than a handful of teams between 16-18 wins, what separates them? Maybe a huge RPI or SOS difference - but I honestly think the committee will look at who you beat. 6 top 50 wins is a big deal in this bubble. I'd rather have 16 wins and 6 top 50 wins than I would 18 wins and 2 top 50 wins.

When all is said and done, 1 more win should be enough, barring a crazy amount of things happening next week. 2 would make us more comfortable, but I think Palm is an idiot.

 

[MGP]

In the words of Mary-Chapin Carpenter ...

"Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug ...

"Sometimes you're a Louisville Slugger, sometimes you're the ball ..."

Actually the words of Mark Knopfler, but right on!

 

[Moontan]

I couldn't agree more. I've always felt expanding from 64 to 68 was just the most pointless thing ever. Did people watch the tournament 15 years ago thinking, "This thing is OK, but what it really needs is a few more 18-13 teams to be better."

The NCAA and some coaches (one of whom we won't mention) would like to see the tournament expand to 96.

Here is the opinion of the coach that we won't name here.