"Losing 5 of last 6 makes Boeheim's absence irrelevant"

[orangenirvana]

I keep reading an argument that is going around saying even if the committee was willing to consider Boeheim's absence, that it won't matter because Syracuse lost five of their final six games.

This makes no logical sense to me.

To prove that Boeheim's absence had a negative impact on the team, one would have to show that the games in which Boeheim was suspended has negatively effected Syracuse's resume.

Consider the following:

In the nine games Boeheim missed, the team went 4-5 (.444 winning percentage) against a schedule where opponents average an RPI ranking of 161.

In the other 23 games, the team went 15-8 (.652) against a schedule where opponents average an RPI ranking of 83.

I think anyone can agree that that is a tremendous difference.

To address the "Syracuse lost 5 of their last 6 so none of this matters anyway" crowd - let's compare those five losses.

Average RPI of the five opponents SU lost to without Boeheim: 103.6
Average RPI of the five opponents SU lost to in last six games: 42.18

Also consider - the three worst losses of the year occurred during the nine-game stretch without Boeheim: Saint John's (242), Clemson (124), and Georgetown (103). Those were the only losses outside of the Top 100.

Based on this information, it is all too obvious that nearly 30% of our resume was negatively effected by Boeheim's absence.

In addition to all of that, one also needs to consider the fact that the 'Final 10' criteria is no longer a consideration. Which means the fact that Syracuse lost five of their final six games is completely irrelevant. Those five losses could be placed anywhere in their schedule. They could have lost all 13 of their games in November and December and it wouldn't matter - all that matters is the full resume.

 

[anglerman]

Losing 5/6 to end the season is a final nail in the coffin. There's no chance the NCAA is going to put in a bubble team that tanked at the end of the season.

 

[Alsacs]

People who think the 5 of 6 losses to end matter have no flipping clue how the committee does its job.

If you want to say the committee looks at the eye test then we pass that as we played competitive basketball in these games and lost.

The committee looks at who you have played and who you have beaten. While I am sure the committee members have their own additional criteria. The fact people don't get even with how we ended we are right on the edge. The reason why is the other teams suck so much. If Louisville/SMU were eligible we would be done.

Look at the teams we are competing with Wichita State/Vanderbilt/Michigan/UConn/St. Bonaventure/Monmouth/St. Mary's.

The RPI is not the end all be all. It is easily manipulated. Syracuse even playing Montana State and Texas Southern costed us 10 spots.

We need the following teams to win today.
Indiana over Michigan
Cincinnati over UConn
Davidson over St. Bonaventure
Michigan State over Ohio State.

 

[orangenirvana]

Losing 5/6 to end the season is a final nail in the coffin. There's no chance the NCAA is going to put in a bubble team that tanked at the end of the season.

Did you even read what I wrote?

The 'Final 10' criteria is no longer a consideration. Which means the fact that Syracuse lost five of their final six games is completely irrelevant. Those five losses could be placed anywhere in their schedule. They could have lost all 13 of their games in November and December and it wouldn't matter - all that matters is the full resume.

 

[Nicknack]

Did you even read what I wrote?

The 'Final 10' criteria is no longer a consideration. Which means the fact that Syracuse lost five of their final six games is completely irrelevant. Those five losses could be placed anywhere in their schedule. They could have lost all 13 of their games in November and December and it wouldn't matter - all that matters is the full resume.

Nirvana... I'll answer your question - no, he obviously didn't.

Your post is similar to the logic I used in another thread that I started but it just falls on deaf ears to some. I'm not sure why. For some reason, this losing 5 out of the last 6 is etched into the psyche of some here. Oh, well. For us not to get a little boost due to Boeheim's absence would be flat out wrong. The way I see it though, we will most likely need to be VERY close to another team so that the committee doesn't have to admit that this put us over another team. Imagine the storm that the committee would get if they admitted that the thing that tipped the scales in our favor over xx team was the 9 games that Boeheim was out. I would love to hear it though.

 

[Newhouser]

People who think the 5 of 6 losses to end matter have no flipping clue how the committee does its job.

If you want to say the committee looks at the eye test then we pass that as we played competitive basketball in these games and lost.

The committee looks at who you have played and who you have beaten. While I am sure the committee members have their own additional criteria. The fact people don't get even with how we ended we are right on the edge. The reason why is the other teams suck so much. If Louisville/SMU were eligible we would be done.

Look at the teams we are competing with Wichita State/Vanderbilt/Michigan/UConn/St. Bonaventure/Monmouth/St. Mary's.

The RPI is not the end all be all. It is easily manipulated. Syracuse even playing Montana State and Texas Southern costed us 10 spots.

We need the following teams to win today.
Indiana over Michigan
Cincinnati over UConn
Davidson over St. Bonaventure
Michigan State over Ohio State.

I am lost at how St Bonnie is on the bubble and how they get in without winning the A-10 tournament. Their schedule is abysmal. The A-10 is not the ACC of the early 70's - doing well in a mediocre league with no OOC wins or even losses of note should not guarantee you a tournament spot.

 

[Alsacs]

I am lost at how St Bonnie is on the bubble and how they get in without winning the A-10 tournament. Their schedule is abysmal. The A-10 is not the ACC of the early 70's - doing well in a mediocre league with no OOC wins or even losses of note should not guarantee you a tournament spot.

I broke them down i the ESPN Committee head coming on thread. St. Bonaventure's resume is pathetic compared to ours.

They didn't challenge themselves.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Final 10 isn't a factor, but if SU had finished 4-2 or 3-3 down the stretch, you might get the committee to look at St John's and say "oh they didn't have Boeheim then". With the 1-5 finish, some of them might think he's not the difference-maker we think he would have been.

This of course is the yearly reminder that the NCAA would be better served to have a selection committee which wasn't comprised of AD's and conferenced admins who have jobs that don't allow them to devote the time necessary to pick the most deserving at-large teams.

 

[orangenirvana]

We need the following teams to win today.
Indiana over Michigan
Cincinnati over UConn
Davidson over St. Bonaventure
Michigan State over Ohio State.

I would also include...

Texas A&M over Florida (this is huge)
Memphis over Tulsa (also big)
Georgia over South Carolina (although this is debatable)
Kentucky over Alabama
South Florida over Temple (not likely but what the hell)

Others not quite as important but could be useful...

Notre Dame over North Carolina (should move ND into RPI Top 25)
Saint Joseph's over George Washington (gets them out of the way)
UMass over VCU (is VCU a lock?)
Tulane over Houston (needs a run but gets them out of the way)
Long Beach State over UC Irvine

 

[andyw715]

Wow, I don't think I've ever been so vested/interested in other conference's tourneys; especially these early games.

 

[orangecuse]

Losing 5/6 to end the season is a final nail in the coffin. There's no chance the NCAA is going to put in a bubble team that tanked at the end of the season.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

I keep reading an argument that is going around saying even if the committee was willing to consider Boeheim's absence, that it won't matter because Syracuse lost five of their final six games.

This makes no logical sense to me.

To prove that Boeheim's absence had a negative impact on the team, one would have to show that the games in which Boeheim was suspended has negatively effected Syracuse's resume.

Consider the following:

In the nine games Boeheim missed, the team went 4-5 (.444 winning percentage) against a schedule where opponents average an RPI ranking of 161.

In the other 23 games, the team went 15-8 (.652) against a schedule where opponents average an RPI ranking of 83.

I think anyone can agree that that is a tremendous difference.

To address the "Syracuse lost 5 of their last 6 so none of this matters anyway" crowd - let's compare those five losses.

Average RPI of the five opponents SU lost to without Boeheim: 103.6
Average RPI of the five opponents SU lost to in last six games: 42.18

Also consider - the three worst losses of the year occurred during the nine-game stretch without Boeheim: Saint John's (242), Clemson (124), and Georgetown (103). Those were the only losses outside of the Top 100.

Based on this information, it is all too obvious that nearly 30% of our resume was negatively effected by Boeheim's absence.

In addition to all of that, one also needs to consider the fact that the 'Final 10' criteria is no longer a consideration. Which means the fact that Syracuse lost five of their final six games is completely irrelevant. Those five losses could be placed anywhere in their schedule. They could have lost all 13 of their games in November and December and it wouldn't matter - all that matters is the full resume.

Good Post. I agree with you.

I just don't think anybody is going to do Boeheim any favors...or give him, or the team, the benefit of the doubt...

I also think that, psychologically, the committee will look at losing 5 out of last 6 and give it consideration, even if they aren't supposed to. Human nature.

Really hope I'm wrong but not expecting it...

 

[Orangello]

We all have a better of chance of winning the lottery than the NCAA doing anything remotely to help Syracuse

 

[81South]

I agree with the OP as well. The logic is poor. I have us in the field of 68 at the moment.

Joey Brackets.

 

[TinyManInside]

We all have a better of chance of winning the lottery than the NCAA doing anything remotely to help Syracuse

Truth.

 

[pfister1]

I keep reading an argument that is going around saying even if the committee was willing to consider Boeheim's absence, that it won't matter because Syracuse lost five of their final six games.

This makes no logical sense to me.

To prove that Boeheim's absence had a negative impact on the team, one would have to show that the games in which Boeheim was suspended has negatively effected Syracuse's resume.

Consider the following:

In the nine games Boeheim missed, the team went 4-5 (.444 winning percentage) against a schedule where opponents average an RPI ranking of 161.

In the other 23 games, the team went 15-8 (.652) against a schedule where opponents average an RPI ranking of 83.

I think anyone can agree that that is a tremendous difference.

To address the "Syracuse lost 5 of their last 6 so none of this matters anyway" crowd - let's compare those five losses.

Average RPI of the five opponents SU lost to without Boeheim: 103.6
Average RPI of the five opponents SU lost to in last six games: 42.18

Also consider - the three worst losses of the year occurred during the nine-game stretch without Boeheim: Saint John's (242), Clemson (124), and Georgetown (103). Those were the only losses outside of the Top 100.

Based on this information, it is all too obvious that nearly 30% of our resume was negatively effected by Boeheim's absence.

In addition to all of that, one also needs to consider the fact that the 'Final 10' criteria is no longer a consideration. Which means the fact that Syracuse lost five of their final six games is completely irrelevant. Those five losses could be placed anywhere in their schedule. They could have lost all 13 of their games in November and December and it wouldn't matter - all that matters is the full resume.

There is no question that Boeheim's absence had an impact on us, but I don't think its obvious enough what that impact was for the committee to spend much time giving us positive credit for it. For instance if Boeheim were there would we have won all the games we lost, probably not. Would we have won 1, 2, 3? Who knows. Maybe we just put up a better fight and still lose. It isn't truly quantifiable.

I think if we had finished stronger, it would have been easier to try to make a case that the "majority" of Syracuse's losses or losses to equal or lesser competition came during the period when JB was sidelined. When you look at our results I think there are three games without JB that you could argue seem to be inconsistent with our results over the rest of the season Gtown, St. John's and Clemson. With our relatively weak finish (specifically 2 losses to fellow bubble denizen Pitt and a loss to NIT bound FSU) I think it becomes easier to simply say maybe those results aren't so inconsistent and SU has simply been a mediocre and maybe inconsistent team throughout the season with and without Boeheim.

Ultimately, I don't think the argument is did his absence impact the team. I think it is, are they a different team today with JB on the bench then they were during that stretch when they incurred some negative results such that those negative results should be overlooked. Given our finish I am not sure that argument rings true.

 

[Nicknack]

Will the committee give us any kind of boost due to Boeheim's absence? Who knows but I am not expecting it.

I will say if they are basing this on how we finished, that's a crock of . If you look at the body of work (which is what they should) while Boeheim was coach versus when he was on suspension, it is absolutely undeniable that he is a difference maker. The numbers simply don't lie.

Taking off my orange cloak for a moment, I wouldn't be too pleased being another bubble team and hearing that the committee might help a team who, according to the NCAA, cheated. You can look at it any which way you want (as I have) but I still don't think it's right. That being said, (orange cloak back on) those are the so called rules so I hope the committee follows them. Maybe next year they can revise them but for now, let's honor them.

 

[orangenirvana]

There is no question that Boeheim's absence had an impact on us, but I don't think its obvious enough what that impact was for the committee to spend much time giving us positive credit for it. For instance if Boeheim were there would we have won all the games we lost, probably not. Would we have won 1, 2, 3? Who knows. Maybe we just put up a better fight and still lose. It isn't truly quantifiable.

I think if we had finished stronger, it would have been easier to try to make a case that the "majority" of Syracuse's losses or losses to equal or lesser competition came during the period when JB was sidelined. When you look at our results I think there are three games without JB that you could argue seem to be inconsistent with our results over the rest of the season Gtown, St. John's and Clemson. With our relatively weak finish (specifically 2 losses to fellow bubble denizen Pitt and a loss to NIT bound FSU) I think it becomes easier to simply say maybe those results aren't so inconsistent and SU has simply been a mediocre and maybe inconsistent team throughout the season with and without Boeheim.

Ultimately, I don't think the argument is did his absence impact the team. I think it is, are they a different team today with JB on the bench then they were during that stretch when they incurred some negative results such that those negative results should be overlooked. Given our finish I am not sure that argument rings true.

I absolutely disagree.

I'd say it's pretty quantifiable if you look at the numbers.

Syracuse never lost to a team with an RPI greater than 100 in the 23 games Boeheim was on the sideline. In the nine games without Boeheim they lost to three of them - including Saint Freakin' John's!

I don't see how much more quantifiable something can possibly get.

 

[TheCusian]

It will matter when we are compared against one or two other teams and they say "man, that loss to St.Johns..." And someone else says "JB was out" - and that may be enough.

 

[jncuse]

I actually tend to agree with it to an extent-- it just shows we are a team that relies on the jumper and can be inconsistent. I know the SOS is significantly different.

But as a few speculated, it could come in handy when we are debating to really close teams -- like Vandy. So they don't adjust our resume. but in a head to head it is maybe used as a tiebreaker/

 

[orangenirvana]

According to andyw715, dropping the nine games without Boeheim Syracuse's RPI would be #27.

27 < 71

 

[Briancuse]

According to andyw715, dropping the nine games without Boeheim Syracuse's RPI would be #27.

27 < 71

You have to realistically look at what games we might have won if he had Jb, obviously no one knows for sure, its all speculation. I think we beat Clemson and St Johns, and still lose to Pitt and Miami, toss up for the Gtown game.