FWIW, from one of the best "bracketologists"

[pearl31]

Patrick Stevens of Syracuse.com fame now does the bracket projections for USA Today. Something called the Bracket Project has him ranked as the #8 (out of aprox 100 - Lunardi is 36, Palm is 56) "bracketologist" over the past 8 years. Anyway, the Daily Orange just interviewed him about SU's status - and among other things he offered this:

The variables are reduced to this point that I will say this: If Syracuse beats N.C. State, loses the two road games, splits in the ACC tournament, I think it’s going to take a lot of absolute wackiness elsewhere to cost them an NCAA Tournament berth.

 

[jncuse]

That's pretty much the conclusion I have been pushing for a while.

The Bracket Project is the people that do the Bracket Matrix. They take your final bracket and score it base on something called a Paymon Score. They keep the average score and rank people.

http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html
right.

I used to submit brackets for a few years to that site (2008-2010 I think)... I was middle of the pack. I just stopped doing brackets regularly. I do know my final prediction that was posted on this board 2 years ago would have been top 5% ... i think last year my final bracket it was probably close to bottom 10% !!. I tend to really veer off in the middle of the bracket some years.

But if you average them all out it gives a fair ranking of who can piece together a good final bracket, so this guy Stevens knows how to piece it together.

I'm not a big fan of "Scoring" brackets. It suggests that it is a test -- and that the committee has all the right answers in the end. Which is of course a little flawed. There will be years where the top scores are much higher then other years. In those years that the scores are higher as a group it doesn't mean people are now smarter... it just means the committee did what the group expect. In years, where the average as a group is way down. it doesn't mean people all of a sudden got dumber... probably that the committee did some stupid things.

Either way if your average is consistently higher then the mean like Patrick it is very good.

I do find the real value of "bracketology" not being your final bracket. But providing good insights throughout the year -- it really is a two month process. That is what I try to do by posting here (right or sometimes wrong). I have read a few of the blogs that are linked on the matrix -- some are really good, some are garbage just to get links. Palm provides goods insights as well. Lunardi really does not provide any insights either -- he just post some brackets on his website.

We should consider creating a weekly seed list here amonst a few of us and have a thread at the top of the forum -- I am sure we could get a link to syracusefan.com from the matrix.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

3 wins and we're in.

2 wins and we sweat.

1 win and we pray.

 

[jncuse]

3 wins and we're in.

2 wins and we sweat.

1 win and we pray.

If the second win is the road game at Florida St, we should be fine (but I can't give it the 100%)

 

[Briancuse]

No reason we can't beat Fsu, if we don't, and don't win a couple in the acct, we don't deserve to get in?

 

[jncuse]

No reason we can't beat Fsu, if we don't, and don't win a couple in the acct, we don't deserve to get in?

But yet we may very well get an at large in such a scenario (over 50% from my view)

Although I see your point and share a similar view to an extent. If you play yourself into the bubble discussion on the final day, you deserve any potential negative consequences. Don't leave it in the hands of the committee to select amongst mediocore resumes.

 

[Briancuse]

But yet we may very well get an at large in such a scenario (over 50% from my view)

Although I see your point and share a similar view to an extent. If you play yourself into the bubble discussion on the final day, you deserve any potential negative consequences. Don't leave it in the hands of the committee to select amongst mediocore resumes.

We might, like I have said before, whenever we are on the bubble, we don't get in. If we are sitting there on selection sunday, after only beating Nc State at home, and lets say beating a Wake Forrest in the in the acct, I think we are all going to be a nervous wreck.

 

[orangenirvana]

Syracuse has never made the Tourney when they've been on the bubble during the Boeheim Era. That's a fact.

Hell, on one occasion (2007) they weren't even on the bubble and the committee decided to leave them out.

 

[NKR1978]

Syracuse has never made the Tourney when they've been on the bubble during the Boeheim Era. That's a fact.

Hell, on one occasion (2007) they weren't even on the bubble and the committee decided to leave them out.

There are also 4 more at large teams in the tournament now along with two locks that won't be in. That frees up 6 spots from the last time we were a bubble team.

 

[Brooky03]

3 wins and we're in.

2 wins and we sweat.

1 win and we pray.

Depends on who the two wins would be against. A win against UNC and a win in the ACCT gets us in somewhat comfortably.

 

[Brooky03]

Syracuse has never made the Tourney when they've been on the bubble during the Boeheim Era. That's a fact.

Hell, on one occasion (2007) they weren't even on the bubble and the committee decided to leave them out.

Then we're due haha

 

[RandygoCuse]

But yet we may very well get an at large in such a scenario (over 50% from my view)

Although I see your point and share a similar view to an extent. If you play yourself into the bubble discussion on the final day, you deserve any potential negative consequences. Don't leave it in the hands of the committee to select amongst mediocore resumes.

This. Even when we got screwed in 2007, one factor remains the same. You have the chance to remove doubt and ambiguity over a 30-something game season.

 

[Nicknack]

Syracuse has never made the Tourney when they've been on the bubble during the Boeheim Era. That's a fact.

Hell, on one occasion (2007) they weren't even on the bubble and the committee decided to leave them out.

Ugh... thanks for reminding me. That was one of the worst snub jobs in years. I still remember very well the moment that I realized that they had not selected us. I went through the stages of grief, especially denial. I kept waiting for them to come back on the air and explain that they made a mistake and we were in after all. Anger didn't come for a while because I was so strongly in denial. Talk about a shocker and poor decision by the committee. Oh yeah, I STILL haven't reached the acceptance stage.

 

[pearl31]

I think most of you are still missing Stevens' point, and the crux of this thread. I guess if you've got yourselves convinced the committee is out to get us and we're doomed - well, then no rational points will get through

 

[CorduroyG]

Heres how i see it

0-3 we need to win acc tourny

1-2 we need to win 1 acc tourny game, 2 to feel 100% safe

2-1 we're just about a lock, 1 acc tourny win to feel 100% safe


Basically 2 wins the rest of the way should get us in, 3 will lock us in.

 

[Nicknack]

Heres how i see it

0-3 we need to win acc tourny

1-2 we need to win 1 acc tourny game, 2 to feel 100% safe

2-1 we're just about a lock, 1 acc tourny win to feel 100% safe


Basically 2 wins the rest of the way should get us in, 3 will lock us in.

Same way I see it, so you are 100% right and have a brilliant mind!

 

[HoustonCuse]

Ugh... thanks for reminding me. That was one of the worst snub jobs in years. I still remember very well the moment that I realized that they had not selected us. I went through the stages of grief, especially denial. I kept waiting for them to come back on the air and explain that they made a mistake and we were in after all. Anger didn't come for a while because I was so strongly in denial. Talk about a shocker and poor decision by the committee. Oh yeah, I STILL haven't reached the acceptance stage.

The anger part came later that night when the NIT bracket came out. We we so not a bubble team that the NIT didn't think we'd be available and gave away our #1 seed to Clemson (as I recall). Forcing us into a road game to get to NYC, which of course was a disaster.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I think this NCSt game will be tougher than people expect.

That said we are also due for a hot start.

 

[sabach]

I think this NCSt game will be tougher than people expect.

That said we are also due for a hot start.

We sort of had a hot start last Saturday. 10 to 2 isn't a bad way to start a game.

 

[andyw715]

We sort of had a hot start last Saturday. 10 to 2 isn't a bad way to start a game.

True NCSt had a really hot start vs UNC (23-10) and eventually lost by that margin

 

[Nicknack]

I'm looking for PAIN this Saturday to be unleashed on NC State.

It might very well be a tough battle but I believe our boys will be completely dialed in and ready to go. If you can't get up for senior day, last home game of the year and an opportunity to take one step closer towards solidifying our place in the NCAA tourney, you've got problems.

A hot start would be good but not as good as a consistent showing. I would like to see us early on establish a little cushion (8-10 pts would be nice) and just keep them from biting distance all the way until the horn sounds. Little drama, little anxiety... just a good 'ole fashioned W. Let's go 'Cuse!

 

[jncuse]

Syracuse has never made the Tourney when they've been on the bubble during the Boeheim Era. That's a fact.

Hell, on one occasion (2007) they weren't even on the bubble and the committee decided to leave them out.

There has only been one year where we deserved to get in on the bubble - 2007. 29 of 30 people had us in on the final bracket matrix -- I did not have us as a clear in, but safely in nonetheless. I don't think 2007 was any vendetta but just a case of poor logic. If you remember we last at home to Drexel that year -- and Drexel was also a team that many thought would get in -- (16 of 30 on the matrix). My guess is that when they tried to separate the bubble, they decided Drexel was out, and then used the if A beat B, and A is not in, then B cannot be in either logic. Just my guess.

http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2007.html

And if you believe John Feinstein (per something Alsacs said a few days ago) we were the last team out in 2008 after Georgia won the SEC which was a heck of a generous placement for us (we did not deserve that spot at all). Of course it is just heresay, but that does not indicate a vendetta if it was true. In 2008, 2 out of 53 people had us in the tourney per the final matrix -- so it would have been quite generous.

 

[orangenirvana]

There has only been one year where we deserved to get in on the bubble - 2007. 29 of 30 people had us in on the final bracket matrix -- I did not have us as a clear in, but safely in nonetheless. I don't think 2007 was any vendetta but just a case of poor logic. If you remember we last at home to Drexel that year -- and Drexel was also a team that many thought would get in -- (16 of 30 on the matrix). My guess is that when they tried to separate the bubble, they decided Drexel was out, and then used the if A beat B, and A is not in, then B cannot be in either logic. Just my guess.

http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2007.html

And if you believe John Feinstein (per something Alsacs said a few days ago) we were the last team out in 2008 after Georgia won the SEC which was a heck of a generous placement for us (we did not deserve that spot at all). Of course it is just heresay, but that does not indicate a vendetta if it was true. In 2008, 2 out of 53 people had us in the tourney per the final matrix -- so it would have been quite generous.

Well since the mid-80's SU has only missed the Tourney six times. Two of those six they weren't eligible, which leaves four legit misses - each of which we were legitimate bubble teams.

1996-97 - 19-12, RPI of 60 after the home FSU loss. I'm guessing during Selection Sunday that their RPI was somewhere in the low-to-mid-50's.

2001-02 - 20-11, RPI of 54 after the NIT. I can't imagine the RPI improved much after going 3-2 in the postseason considering none of their wins came against a team that finished with an RPI higher than 65. Let's assume their RPI on Selection Sunday was somewhere in the mid-to-upper 40's.

2006-07 - 24-10, RPI #50 on Selection Sunday. 8-2 record in final 10 games, including win over #2 seed Georgetown. Georgia Tech (52), Texas Tech (53), Virginia (55) and Stanford (67) all had higher RPI's and made it in as at-large teams.

2007-08 - 19-13, RPI #56 on Selection Sunday. Kentucky (58) and Oregon (61) made the Tournament.

 

[pearl31]

Well since the mid-80's SU has only missed the Tourney six times. Two of those six they weren't eligible, which leaves four legit misses - each of which we were legitimate bubble teams.

1996-97 - 19-12, RPI of 60 after the home FSU loss. I'm guessing during Selection Sunday that their RPI was somewhere in the low-to-mid-50's.

2001-02 - 20-11, RPI of 54 after the NIT. I can't imagine the RPI improved much after going 3-2 in the postseason considering none of their wins came against a team that finished with an RPI higher than 65. Let's assume their RPI on Selection Sunday was somewhere in the mid-to-upper 40's.

2006-07 - 24-10, RPI #50 on Selection Sunday. 8-2 record in final 10 games, including win over #2 seed Georgetown. Georgia Tech (52), Texas Tech (53), Virginia (55) and Stanford (67) all had higher RPI's and made it in as at-large teams.

2007-08 - 19-13, RPI #56 on Selection Sunday. Kentucky (58) and Oregon (61) made the Tournament.

So there's been a standing notice posted annually in the committee room going back 20 years reading something like, REMEMBER, KEEP SYRACUSE OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT AT ALL COSTS

 

[orangenirvana]

So there's been a standing notice posted annually in the committee room going back 20 years reading something like, REMEMBER, KEEP SYRACUSE OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT AT ALL COSTS

Um...ok.