Mike and Mike (Cuse mention)

[longislandcuse]

Rece Davis and Jay Bilas both think it would be close, but we WOULD be in the tournament.

Both also think we would have played different down the stretch. Do we agree or disagree with that premise?

 

[donniesyracuse]

Rece Davis and Jay Bilas both think it would be close, but we WOULD be in the tournament. Both also think we would have played different down the stretch. Do we agree or disagree with that premise?

I disagree with both notions. An RPI of 67 doesn't get into the tournament. UCLA's is 49.

This team played to win down the stretch. They were beaten by better teams.

 

[CaptainJ]

I disagree with both notions. An RPI of 67 doesn't get into the tournament. UCLA's is 49.

This team played to win down the stretch. They were beaten by better teams.

I was waiting for someone else to speak, but yeah it seems like if they got in the bar would be much lower than better SU and other teams in the past that didn't make it. The only bar I picture this team belonging around at the moment is Chucks. (forgive me Mantonio, wherever you may be)

 

[NKR1978]

We had a much better resume than UCLA. Wins at Notre Dame, Louisville and Iowa were better than anything they have. We also had more than their single away win.

And we only lost to Virginia by 12, so for the committee that might have meant something.

 

[donniesyracuse]

We had a much better resume than UCLA.

RPI does not agree.

 

[Marsh01]

We would have played much differently down the stretch. And who knows what we would have done in the ACC tourney. We would have been right there. Had we beaten NOVA we would have been in no doubt.

 

[Alsacs]

RPI does not agree.

RPI would say Colorado State 30 over UCLA 47

We would have played Clemson in the ACCT and then had a shot against UVA. We won at ND, beat Louisville top 4 seeds and beat Iowa on a neutral court, we also passed the NCAAT committee "eye test" AT Villanova.

We would have been right on the bubble and I think would have gotten in.

 

[donniesyracuse]

RPI would say Colorado State 30 over UCLA 47

I would too

 

[tbonezone]

wow jay bilas is everywhere it seems. just saw him on QVC and Weather channel. expect he'll also turn up on TCM in a trench coat. " here's looking at at you duke..."

 

[Brooky03]

RPI does not agree.

The committee doesn't just look at RPI. UCLA's resume doesn't pass the eye test when compared to ours. That said, UCLA shouldn't be in the NCAAT and we probably wouldn't/shouldn't have been, unless we did damage in the ACCT.

 

[donniesyracuse]

UCLA's resume doesn't pass the eye test when compared to ours.

I don't agree. Their resumes are similar; both have four wins over the top 100.

I realize that the committee looks at more than RPI. I do wish they focused more on objective measures than subjective nonsense like "eye test."

 

[NKR1978]

I don't agree. Their resumes are similar; both have four wins over the top 100.

I realize that the committee looks at more than RPI. I do wish they focused more on objective measures than subjective nonsense like "eye test."

Ok, how many wins on the road? Is an OT loss at Nova worth more than a 4 point loss to a 2 seeded Arizona? Our best wins are better than any of their wins.

 

[upperdeck]

for all we know we play our way in by winning the ACC tourney. we were playing to win but there also was no urgency to win since winning didnt do anything for us except for pride

 

[690West]

RPI does not agree.

Committee doesn't look at RPI anymore. Its all eye-test baby. That's what the chair told us yesterday. If Gtown was a 4 seed, we would have been a 5 or 6 seed. lol

 

[longislandcuse]

If it was between us and UCLA, we should be in over them. Yea, their RPI is higher but our wins over ND and Louisville absolutely demolish anything they've done. Also we were competitive in some of our losses against good teams, Duke (Game 1) and Nova. However, apparently UCLA was safely in so who knows. Still think the committee chair needs to get his ducks in a row in his UCLA explanation becuase he sound like a complete joke trying to explain how they got in.

As far as us playing differently with the tourney on the line. I dont know but sometimes you can't change whats in the back of your mind and in the back of our mind, we knew, it didnt matter.

 

[jekelish]

We would have played much differently down the stretch. And who knows what we would have done in the ACC tourney. We would have been right there. Had we beaten NOVA we would have been in no doubt.

The ACC Tournament is the big one in this equation. If we win a couple games, suddenly we're sitting at 20-14, and as mentioned, we would have played differently down the stretch, so maybe we'd be 21-13 or 22-12. If we were sitting on 21 or 22 wins, I think we'd be in.

Then again, Colorado State has an RPI of 30 and didn't get in, so who knows?

 

[orangecuse]

We would have played much differently down the stretch. And who knows what we would have done in the ACC tourney. We would have been right there. Had we beaten NOVA we would have been in no doubt.

I do agree with that. We beat ND late in the season at ND. ND won it all, so who's to say...

 

[SoBeCuse]

If UCLA and Indiana got in then maybe we would've also. But, I don't think Syracuse passes the 'eye test' at all. Our guards??! Maybe if we made it to the ACC Tourney final.

 

[oli44]

In my mind we would have needed two wins in the ACC tournament to get back into the discussion and put us squarely on the bubble. Three wins and we're in for sure.

 

[HOFCeluck]

We'd have been the lowest ranked at-large in kenpoms rankings FWIW.

But it's impossible to say what the outcomes of games would be down the stretch or in the ACCT if we had something to play for. Long story short, I don't know.

 

[SU2NASA]

RPI does not agree.

UCLA's RPI was 13 worse than Temple's and they got in. Temple was 8-8 vs. RPI top-100, UCLA was 5-10. Temple's best win was Kansas, UCLA's was Utah. (going off what I heard this morning on Czaban)

 

[Madbiker]

Comparison SU vs. Other At Large Competitors

Team/RPI/ Top 50/Top 100

SU - 67/2-7/4-12

Temple-34/2-8/8-8
Texas - 42/3-12/8-13
OK St. - 46/6-9/8-11
BYU - 38/1-4/4-6
UCLA - 49/2-8/5-10
Miami - 62/2-7/6-8

It's hard to see how SU would would have been selected without beating UVA and making the final of the ACCT.
Even UCLA who should not have been selected was better against the top 100 than us.
Temple got totally screwed.
Miami had a better case than us. Better top 100. Beat Duke at Cameron. Beat us in the Dome head-to-head.

Just a frustrating forgettable year.

 

[kirbivore]

If UCLA and Indiana got in then maybe we would've also. But, I don't think Syracuse passes the 'eye test' at all. Our guards??! Maybe if we made it to the ACC Tourney final.

UCLA and Indiana are at the blue blood level which Syracuse falls just below. For those two teams along with Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, and Duke they have to really suck not to get in. If they are anywhere near the bubble they get in. Before you mention UK in 2013 that was because they had no shot after Noel got hurt.

 

[SoBeCuse]

UCLA and Indiana are at the blue blood level which Syracuse falls just below. For those two teams along with Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, and Duke they have to really suck not to get in. If they are anywhere near the bubble they get in. Before you mention UK in 2013 that was because they had no shot after Noel got hurt.

Correct. That UK bunch was just a dysfunctional bunch as well on top of the Noel injury.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Nobody can pretend to know if we would have been in, based on what a hatchet job the committee did this year. Who knows what criterion they would have pulled out their arses to justify whatever they did?

Is it the eye test? Is it the who did you play and where did you play them test? Is it the "hot down the stretch" test? Or perhaps the lesser known "eye down the stretch who did you play" test?

We are just as likely to have been a 10 seed as to not make the tournament.