need a 5-1 acc start

[CorduroyG]

if we wanna go dancing we need some home cooking, 4 of the next 5 at home. softest part of the schedule, cant afford any slipups.

at notre dame - win
clemson
ga tech
at duke
pitt
miami

 

[Sherman20]

Agreed. But Clemson won’t be a pushover. They’ll likely be a tourney team. They lost some tough close games to Creighton, Nebraska and Miss State. They’re just behind us in the overall KenPom ratings, but their defense isn’t as stout as last season. Hopefully the Tigers shoot it poorly inside the Dome and we can pull it out at home. If we can beat Clemson on Wednesday, I’ll feel much more confident about a 5-1 start.

 

[jncuse]

We can certainly overcome a 4-2 start... but we would be blowing an opportunity at what is our most reasonable path..

 

[Briancuse]

We can certainly overcome a 4-2 start... but we would be blowing an opportunity at what is our most reasonable path..

Considering our ooc I think 5 and 1 is a must.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

We can certainly overcome a 4-2 start... but we would be blowing an opportunity at what is our most reasonable path..

Has there ever been a season where we have won every game we were favored? And lost every game we were underdogs? Of course not. We could lose Saturday and then win at Duke. Highly doubtful but strange things always happen.

 

[jncuse]

Considering our ooc I think 5 and 1 is a must.

Unfortunately I don't have the RPI forecast tool anymore which was always pretty good to set a target at what we generally need to do at such an early date... but I would have to think like usual these past 4 years, 9-9 in the ACC may be enough. And while the back end is harder, 5-7 in those games is hardly unfathomable. (

 

[supp]

Unfortunately I don't have the RPI forecast tool anymore which was always pretty good to set a target at what we generally need to do at such an early date... but I would have to think like usual these past 4 years, 9-9 in the ACC may be enough. And while the back end is harder, 5-7 in those games is hardly unfathomable. (

Really? I don't see it. I think 12 wins at a minimum to guarantee a bid. Anything less than 11 and we're done.

We need Boeheim to get the guys the basketball equivalent of the cut-out of the owner in Major League that the manager would strip a piece off for every win needed for the pennant. Maybe a cut-out of Nancy Cantor?

 

[obliterata]

To be safely in the NCAAT I think we need to go 11-7 considering our OOC record. 10-8 or 9-9 puts us on the bubble sweating things out again. Of course a lot depends on how other teams do but I think 11-7 makes that a moot point.

A 5-1 start isn't a must or necessary but it sure would help a lot.

 

[20Plus]

Really? I don't see it. I think 12 wins at a minimum to guarantee a bid. Anything less than 11 and we're done.

We need Boeheim to get the guys the basketball equivalent of the cut-out of the owner in Major League that the manager would strip a piece off for every win needed for the pennant. Maybe a cut-out of Nancy Cantor?

Whether you see it or not if we get 10 wins and win one in the ACCT we’re gonna be right there

 

[orangecuse]

Whether you see it or not if we get 10 wins and win one in the ACCT we’re gonna be right there

I don't know about that, not with our poor OOC results. Additionally, not all wins are created equally. If we attain the vast majority of those wins against lessor teams (such as ND today, Wake, BC, Pitt, etc.) that 10 number is not very impressive, especially, again with those OOC losses we had earlier.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We’re going to win 13 ACC games.

 

[adk(roc)CUSE]

We’re going to win 13 ACC games.

Lets get to 5-1 like the op says and see what happens. Go Cuse!

 

[jncuse]

Really? I don't see it. I think 12 wins at a minimum to guarantee a bid. Anything less than 11 and we're done.

We need Boeheim to get the guys the basketball equivalent of the cut-out of the owner in Major League that the manager would strip a piece off for every win needed for the pennant. Maybe a cut-out of Nancy Cantor?

9 is the minimum to get on the bubble, far from a guarantee. We are certainly not done at 10-8 ... whatever permutation of wins gets us to 10 will give us plenty of tier 1 and tier 2 wins.

Saying 12 wins, to guarantee and 10 is dead, is overselling what is needed. Happens all the time in past 3 years.

 

[jncuse]

I don't know about that, not with our poor OOC results. Additionally, not all wins are created equally. If we attain the vast majority of those wins against lessor teams (such as ND today, Wake, BC, Pitt, etc.) that 10 number is not very impressive, especially, again with those OOC losses we had earlier.

Our OOC was worse in 2016/2017, with 5 losses including a really bad one vs St. John's. We also had no quality wins OOC like Ohio St. At 10-8 in the ACC, we were the last team out.

Last year we had only 2 losses OOC, but also only went 8-10 in the ACC, and got in.

I am not guaranteeing anything at 10-8 in the ACC, but if I was betting man I would say that if we got 10-8 (whatever permutation) we are much more likely to be in than out this year.

 

[elimunelson]

If we beat duke 2x and win 7 are we on the bubble? What if we beat duke 2x, UVA and win 6 (but 3 additional in the ACC tournament). Let’s play it out and see how it goes. Last year proved to me that i have no clue what is important or not. We play in the best conf in america. It gets the benefit of the doubt when others are down

 

[pearl31]

12 wins at a minimum to guarantee a bid. Anything less than 11 and we're done.

Where do you get this nonsense?

 

[jncuse]

Another way to look at it. 23 of 44 people on the Bracket Matrix have us in "as of now" despite our current failures, so we have not dug ourselves a massive hole. We just have put ourselves in a hole to play to that damn line again (which pisses me off this year)

The ACC is once again one of the 2 or 3 top conferences in America. Teams that go over .500 in those conferences always get in as long as their OOC was reasonable for a bubble team... and our OOC was reasonable for a bubble team.

 

[OrangeDW]

Where do you get this nonsense?

I actually now get excited when people post stuff like that in anticipation of you, jncuse(I think), and maybe 1 or 2 others coming in to hammer them with the facts.

And it never stops. I find it entertaining at this point.

 

[sugrad68]

This is the weakest the ACC has been since SU joined it in my opinion. ND, Wake, Miami, GT, BC, Pitt, Louisville and Clemson are weaker than last year. Certainly no automatic victories against any of those teams but the only game against those teams where ESPN has us as underdogs is against Clemson at their place. We look good -- on paper.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

This is the weakest the ACC has been since SU joined it in my opinion. ND, Wake, Miami, GT, BC, Pitt, Louisville and Clemson are weaker than last year. Certainly no automatic victories against any of those teams but the only game against those teams where ESPN has us as underdogs is against Clemson at their place. We look good -- on paper.

May be weaker at the bottom, but it’s not weak at the top. Need to avoid losses to the lower half and find a way to steal a few wins from the upper tier.

 

[sugrad68]

May be weaker at the bottom, but it’s not weak at the top. Need to avoid losses to the lower half and find a way to steal a few wins from the upper tier.

That's exactly my viewpoint. There are still the excellent teams at the top -- Duke, NC, Virginia, VT, and possibly NC State and Florida State. But the bottom of the league is weaker than it's been in years.

 

[Orangefan1]

I’d prefer 6-0. I think we will have a very
Competitive game with Duke. However I agree 5-1 is a good start

 

[jncuse]

This is the weakest the ACC has been since SU joined it in my opinion. ND, Wake, Miami, GT, BC, Pitt, Louisville and Clemson are weaker than last year. Certainly no automatic victories against any of those teams but the only game against those teams where ESPN has us as underdogs is against Clemson at their place. We look good -- on paper.

Won't comment on the others, but I have to point out that Pitt is much better than last year. Then again its not that hard to be better than 0-18 in the ACC, with only 8 wins and a KP rating of #227. Their KP rating is now up to #89... its possible that a win at Pitt might actually be a tier 2 win this year.

Hate to defend Pitt -- really I want to point out how historically bad they were last year,

 

[jncuse]

That's exactly my viewpoint. There are still the excellent teams at the top -- Duke, NC, Virginia, VT, and possibly NC State and Florida State. But the bottom of the league is weaker than it's been in years.

Based on KP they still have 9 of the top 37 teams (as compared to 9 out of 38 last year) and a few more in the top 20. So the top and middle tier is largely a draw.

Here is that bottom tier.
41, 46, 77, 89, 119. 227
67, 77, 85, 89, 104, 158

I guess you could argue this is a 9 deep conference this year vs an 11 deep conference last year. Not too much difference beyond that.

 

[jncuse]

I did misrepresent a point earlier after looking again at the standing. The ACC is currently 4th in NET. (Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC)

But there is a decent gap from the Big East who is having a down year, and a massive gap from the PAC-12. So while the Big East may lose a team or two, and the Pac-12 is a two team conference (3 max), the B10 will do much better though than last year's 4 spots.