Having to win the conference tourney to make NCAA

[Brooky03]

i dont remember the details as far as the 2006 team’s rpi/sos etc, but i do remember the 1st round game against cincinnati being considered as pretty much a play in game. winner is in, loser is out. once we beat uconn the next day, who i believe was ranked #1 at the time, we were solidly in.

That rings a bell. Looking back, it’s just wild to me that that team was in so, relatively, easily. Their best tournament resume bullet point was “they only lost to one bad team and beat a kinda good WVU team”

 

[Cusefan0307]

That rings a bell. Looking back, it’s just wild to me that that team was in so, relatively, easily. Their best tournament resume bullet point was “they only lost to one bad team and beat a kinda good WVU team”

Half the battle of making the tournament is winning the games you are suppose to win. We do not do that enough anymore.

 

[Eric15]

I should probably change this thread title to "unanticipated referendum on 2006 season."

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

Not sure I follow you.

In the 1997, 2002 and 2007 seasons for instance, the committee indicated that we were one of if not the first team out of the field. So that translates into probably having needed one more conference tourney win.

In 2006, we were probably in after beating Cincy, and were an absolute lock after beating #1 UConn. The Georgetown and Pitt games were just icing on the seeding cake (as evidenced by the fact that we were a 5 seed and not a 10 seed.)

Ah yes, the great Gottlieb wars of 2006!

 

[kirbivore]

Not sure I follow you.

In the 1997, 2002 and 2007 seasons for instance, the committee indicated that we were one of if not the first team out of the field. So that translates into probably having needed one more conference tourney win.

In 2006, we were probably in after beating Cincy, and were an absolute lock after beating #1 UConn. The Georgetown and Pitt games were just icing on the seeding cake (as evidenced by the fact that we were a 5 seed and not a 10 seed.)

Still overseeded as a #5. In a 30+ game season if the committee is being objective you don't move from wrong side of bubble to top 20 team in 4 games. They got caught up in the moment. The seeding screw job that really pissed me off was in 2005 when SU got no BET bounce and was underseeded at #4 and got to play a defacto road game against an underseeded #13 Vermont.

 

[tptcuse]

Almost got kicked out of high school for cutting class early to watch those games. Don't regret a thing.

I had colleagues give me a hard time for watching those games at work and go to my boss. Who does that?

 

[Brooky03]

I should probably change this thread title to "unanticipated referendum on 2006 season."

How bout we switch gears? 69% of Syracuse teams that went to the NIT or worse since ‘79 needed to win the conference tournament to get into the NCAAT.

That’s 7 teams by my count. Somebody prove me wrong.

Edit: Maybe 6. How do we count ‘81? We won the BET but didn’t go to the NCAAT. My understanding is that the NCAAT had replaced the NIT as THE tournament at that point, so it wouldn’t be a ‘the NIT was cooler and we picked that’ situation.

 

[Eric15]

How bout we switch gears? 69% of Syracuse teams that went to the NIT or worse since ‘79 needed to win the conference tournament to get into the NCAAT.

That’s 7 teams by my count. Somebody prove me wrong.

The 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2008 teams did not have to win the BET to make the NCAA. They each probably only needed to win one more game based on things the committee said during the Selection Show and the fact they were all #1 seeds in the NIT. I can't "prove" you wrong since I wasn't personally on the committee, but I'm like 95% sure.

 

[Eric15]

Still overseeded as a #5. In a 30+ game season if the committee is being objective you don't move from wrong side of bubble to top 20 team in 4 games. They got caught up in the moment. The seeding screw job that really pissed me off was in 2005 when SU got no BET bounce and was underseeded at #4 and got to play a defacto road game against an underseeded #13 Vermont.

Agree on both counts.

 

[Brooky03]

The 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2008 teams did not have to win the BET to make the NCAA. They each probably only needed to win one more game based on things the committee said during the Selection Show and the fact they were all #1 seeds in the NIT. I can't "prove" you wrong since I wasn't personally on the committee, but I'm like 95% sure.

How are you factoring in conference tournament games being discounted though? Like a win over #21 Villanova in the BET probably wouldn’t have been enough to get us in in ‘97 because it doesn’t count the same in the committee’s eyes as a win over #21 Villanova in the regular season.

 

[OrangeDW]

We were bad in 2006 and you said the win against UConn was enough to get that team in the tournament. If that’s the case and we were somehow on the bubble going into the BET then so be it; I’m just trying to reconcile that. Yeah, that team avoided bad losses I guess but they didn’t beat hardly anybody in the regular season. A non-tournament Cinci team, WVU, and Texas Tech were the landmark wins that year. That DePaul team that slaughtered us was ranked 1,782nd I think. Community colleges wanted a piece of them.

That team had to have been saved by SOS/RPI. They got credit for losing to really good teams. We can’t get credit for losing to really good teams this year because we don’t play many/any. That was part of my point about it being an indictment of the conference.

I’m aware our bad losses are worse than the 2006 losses. But they’re not THAT much worse. Colgate has a really good shot at winning their conference. Idk what the metrics say, but that shouldn’t count as a bad loss. Bryant and St. John’s are the two bad losses.

Edit: I’m also not in agreement with including the 2020 season in this. COVID bastardized that season. Write that one off like it didn’t happen, as far as I’m concerned.

Wait, 2019-20 season? It was pretty much over before COVID wreaked havoc.

We’d played to the point where “we had to win the ACC tourney to get in”.

 

[Brooky03]

Wait, 2019-20 season? It was pretty much over before COVID wreaked havoc.

We’d played to the point where “we had to win the ACC tourney to get in”.

Yeah but it’s more convenient for me if we get to write it off

 

[OrangeDW]

I had colleagues give me a hard time for watching those games at work and go to my boss. Who does that?

Wow. I would’ve just taken the days off the next year.

How bout we switch gears? 69% of Syracuse teams that went to the NIT or worse since ‘79 needed to win the conference tournament to get into the NCAAT.

That’s 7 teams by my count. Somebody prove me wrong.

Edit: Maybe 6. How do we count ‘81? We won the BET but didn’t go to the NCAAT. My understanding is that the NCAAT had replaced the NIT as THE tournament at that point, so it wouldn’t be a ‘the NIT was cooler and we picked that’ situation.

Could just leave it at “we were being mentioned as on the bubble in 97, 02, 07, 08”….

2020 is the first time in my life that we weren’t at minimum “on the bubble” heading into the conference tourneys.

2023 will seemingly be the 3rd time in 4 years that we’re not even on the bubble.

 

[Brooky03]

Wow. I would’ve just taken the days off the next year.

Could just leave it at “we were being mentioned as on the bubble in 97, 02, 07, 08”….

2020 is the first time in my life that we weren’t at minimum “on the bubble” heading into the conference tourneys.

2023 will seemingly be the 3rd time in 4 years that we’re not even on the bubble.

I mean, we could have just left it at one of the other 200 threads pointing out how bad we’ve been. This one gets points for finding a creative way to say it, though.

 

[tptcuse]

Wow. I would’ve just taken the days off the next year.

I was teaching at the time and you cannot "take the days off." (Not a complaint, just the way it is.) I had a student teacher and listened to the UConn overtime on headphones while he taught part of the class. My colleagues decided to say something. I got called in about it and after explaining the situation, my boss said, "I would have done the same thing as you did." The colleagues ended up getting chewed out because I was the new guy and they were clearly being ridiculous.

 

[OrangeDW]

I mean, we could have just left it at one of the other 200 threads pointing out how bad we’ve been. This one gets points for finding a creative way to say it, though.

If covering new ground was a requirement, this place would be dead other than the game threads.

 

[Brooky03]

If covering new ground was a requirement, this place would be dead other than the game threads.

Fair