Remaining Schedule and Bubble | Syracusefan.com

Remaining Schedule and Bubble

benjams77

Walk On
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
131
Like
432
First off whatever your perception of BC is, that lose is not a Bad loss by the metrics.. Yes we hate losing to them as BC is inferior but It didnt hurt our NET ans a quad 2 loss..

Now what I see is we have 4 games that would be awful loses that we cannot take - We should win these if our metrics hold true
LVille
@Lville
Notre Dame
@ Ga Tech

I think we can split these 2
@NC ST
Va Tech

and we need to split these 4 games
@ Wake
Clemson
UNC
Clemson

That would make us 21-10 heading to ACC tourney and I think right in the conversation
 
First off whatever your perception of BC is, that lose is not a Bad loss by the metrics.. Yes we hate losing to them as BC is inferior but It didnt hurt our NET ans a quad 2 loss..

Now what I see is we have 4 games that would be awful loses that we cannot take - We should win these if our metrics hold true
LVille
@Lville
Notre Dame
@ Ga Tech

I think we can split these 2
@NC ST
Va Tech

and we need to split these 4 games
@ Wake
Clemson
UNC
Clemson

That would make us 21-10 heading to ACC tourney and I think right in the conversation
You're severely underestimating @GT.
 
and we need to split these 4 games
@ Wake
Clemson
UNC
@Clemson
200.gif
 
First off whatever your perception of BC is, that lose is not a Bad loss by the metrics.. Yes we hate losing to them as BC is inferior but It didnt hurt our NET ans a quad 2 loss..

Now what I see is we have 4 games that would be awful loses that we cannot take - We should win these if our metrics hold true
LVille
@Lville
Notre Dame
@ Ga Tech

I think we can split these 2
@NC ST
Va Tech

and we need to split these 4 games
@ Wake
Clemson
UNC
Clemson


That would make us 21-10 heading to ACC tourney and I think right in the conversation
Syracuse hasn't even competed with a team in the 50 yet but sure, they'll somehow beat 2 of them.
 
First off whatever your perception of BC is, that lose is not a Bad loss by the metrics.. Yes we hate losing to them as BC is inferior but It didnt hurt our NET ans a quad 2 loss..

Now what I see is we have 4 games that would be awful loses that we cannot take - We should win these if our metrics hold true
LVille
@Lville
Notre Dame
@ Ga Tech

I think we can split these 2
@NC ST
Va Tech

and we need to split these 4 games
@ Wake
Clemson
UNC
Clemson

That would make us 21-10 heading to ACC tourney and I think right in the conversation
I think 8-2 with 3 wins of the four last grouping and no losses in the first group we’re in a discussion, anything less than that we’re cooked.
 
Here are win probabilities from Massey for each of those games;

LVille 81%
@Lville 65%
Notre Dame 76%
@ Ga Tech 56%

"I think we can split these 2"
@NC ST 39%
Va Tech 54%

"and we need to split these 4 games"
@ Wake 38%
Clemson 50%
UNC 35%
Clemson 32%
 
Here are win probabilities from Massey for each of those games;

LVille 81%
@Lville 65%
Notre Dame 76%
@ Ga Tech 56%

"I think we can split these 2"
@NC ST 39%
Va Tech 54%

"and we need to split these 4 games"
@ Wake 38%
Clemson 50%
UNC 35%
Clemson 32%
What does a $10 ML parlay pay out?
 
Syracuse hasn't even competed with a team in the 50 yet but sure, they'll somehow beat 2 of them.
I'm thinking of it this way. Gonzaga is 25 in the Net and is 0-4 in the Net. Need to measure what the other bubble teams are doing. I do agree we need to show something for the eye test on the road though.

A win at Wake however unlikely + Oregon winning Saturday again will move up 2 spots to Q1 as well. We would be 3-5 in Q1 overnight with 1 road win. Looks alot different just in 24 hours.
 
Here are win probabilities from Massey for each of those games;

LVille 81%
@Lville 65%
Notre Dame 76%
@ Ga Tech 56%

"I think we can split these 2"
@NC ST 39%
Va Tech 54%

"and we need to split these 4 games"
@ Wake 38%
Clemson 50%
UNC 35%
Clemson 32%

Is there anyone who doubts young Kreese is going to go ape from 3 against us for two games?
 
Here is my favorite comparison yet... Memphis.. Today Joe L has them in the Last four in of his updated Bracket. and Palm at CBS had them an 8 seed before their loss to Rice this week. This just makes zero sense to me.. The AAC is not a great conf. Memphis has played 2 quad one games and one win.. They have a quad 3 loss and a quad 4 loss and the NET is 77... What am i missing. Yes I know we have been blown out by some good teams but cmon Memphis in the tourney is a joke
 
Here is my favorite comparison yet... Memphis.. Today Joe L has them in the Last four in of his updated Bracket. and Palm at CBS had them an 8 seed before their loss to Rice this week. This just makes zero sense to me.. The AAC is not a great conf. Memphis has played 2 quad one games and one win.. They have a quad 3 loss and a quad 4 loss and the NET is 77... What am i missing. Yes I know we have been blown out by some good teams but cmon Memphis in the tourney is a joke

Before I start I'll add that only 4 of the 15 most recent brackets updated on the Bracket Matrix yesterday had Memphis in. So I wouldn't ride Joe L's take it on that hard. The 4 who have them in may also be influenced by Joe. I think part of it is people who have been slow to react in their "as of now" to what was maybe a 5 seed 4 games ago, losing 4 in a row.

Memphis being around the line still shows a number of key things pertaining to Syracuse though
1) The Bubble Line is not that strong (not that uncommon). Teams that are in as of now, lack something, be it quality wins or other warts.
2) Closing the gap upward by some teams that have very few mentions right now difficult (like Syracuse), but not impossibly difficult.
3) Don't discount Syracuse getting in the discussion with a 7-3 record.
4) NET isn't everything - a NET of 77 is not disqualifying "as of now" to some analysts nor should it be as a standalone number by year end (assuming it ends up somewhere in the 60's for optics reasons)

Memphis has had a glorious fall the last 4 games -- 0-4, with a Q3 loss, a Q4 loss, and losing to a Q3 team (who only became Q2 after beating them). Their NET may have fell about 40 spots in the process, especially since 2 losses were at home (speculating on the figure). Anyway there main selling point is a 6-4 record vs Q1/Q2 teams, which is very good for a bubble team... but add 2 bad losses to it (and possibly a 3rd flipping into one), and all that good is wiped away.

The other thing to ask, is if not Memphis, then who? Who replaces them. Pointing this out below to show that the strength of the bubble line is not great, and to sort of give an idea of "the gap" between us and the line.

Purely looking at the newest 21 brackets on the matrix, we have the following as top outs"
- Butler 9
- Gonzaga 5
- Virginia 5

Butler's resume is as follows:
NET 57
Q1: 3-6 (AT Marquette, H Texas Tech (could fall to Q2), N Boise St (could fall to Q2)
Q2: 1-1
Q1+Q2: 4-7
13-7, no bad losses

I would have them over Memphis because bad losses matter. But they are not that far apart.

But the more important part is how far behind are we from Butler and Memphis as of now (and alternatively the other teams that are in or just out of now). We are behind by a gap, but not at an excessively large one. A 7-3 record, which by default means that we have to go at least 4-3 in Q1+Q2 games, with at least 1 Q1 win, should get us in the discussion. From there who nows.
 
Last edited:
In summary, there are really two different things to assess:

1) Does 7-3 get you in the "discussion" heading into the ACC Tournament. I think the chances of that are quite good - we would get a fair share of mentions in the matrix, whether we are just in or just out. We might well be on the outside, in the hands of "committee judgment", which has actually been very good to us since the 2015 season. There are a few scary things though with Virignia and Gonzaga lying around the bubble line as common opponents.

2) Ultimately, those who agree or disagree with my take on #1 -- We are very unlikely to find out who was right or wrong. I don't think the chances are good that we finish at 7-3.
 
Here are win probabilities from Massey for each of those games;

LVille 81%
@Lville 65%
Notre Dame 76%
@ Ga Tech 56%

"I think we can split these 2"
@NC ST 39%
Va Tech 54%

"and we need to split these 4 games"
@ Wake 38%
Clemson 50%
UNC 35%
Clemson 32%

Some of those are lower than I expected and higher than I expected I expected over 81% and 76% at home vs Louisville and Notre Dame.

I find the Barttorvik odd's a little more in line with my expectations for those two games. Unfortunately, the general trend with Barttorvik is it gives us better odds against the really bad teams, but even worse odds against the better ones. Which is actually a worse situation for us!

Louisville - 91% (+10%)
at Louisville - 75% (+10%)
Notre Dame - 83% (+7%)
Georgia Tech - 51% (-5%)

at NC St - 39% (Same)
Virginia Tech - 57% (+3%)

at Wake - 27% (-11%)
Clemson - 48% (-2%)
UNC - 30% (-5%)
at Clemson - 22% (-10%)
 
First off whatever your perception of BC is, that lose is not a Bad loss by the metrics.. Yes we hate losing to them as BC is inferior but It didnt hurt our NET ans a quad 2 loss..

Now what I see is we have 4 games that would be awful loses that we cannot take - We should win these if our metrics hold true
LVille
@Lville
Notre Dame
@ Ga Tech

I think we can split these 2
@NC ST
Va Tech

and we need to split these 4 games
@ Wake
Clemson
UNC
Clemson

That would make us 21-10 heading to ACC tourney and I think right in the conversation
The key is to have 4 wins over ACC bottom three. Then split the rest of games. That will make our ACC record 12-8.
 
What does a $10 ML parlay pay out?

Based on the Massey probabilities I calculated that we had 0.104% chance of going 10-0, or 1 in 962 chance... Barttorvik gives us a 0.055% chance or 1 in 1,818 chance. Looking good!
 
Based on the Massey probabilities I calculated that we had 0.104% chance of going 10-0, or 1 in 962 chance... Barttorvik gives us a 0.055% chance or 1 in 1,818 chance. Looking good!
As long as we have Bell and Taylor in the starting lineup, we have no chance of being in the NCAA tournament.
 
As long as we have Bell and Taylor in the starting lineup, we have no chance of being in the NCAA tournament.

OK - 0.05% vs 0%
Big difference...

EDIT - I thought you were commenting on the 10-0 thing (since that was the topic of my post you repled to). But its the tournament you are talking about. While our chances are not that good, they are a bit higher than 0.05% in my view.
 
Last edited:
Is that our current chance???

No it's not. I appeared to have misread his post. I thought he was countering my post to our chances of going 10-0 , by saying we have 0% chance of going undefeated because of Bell and Taylor. And I was like OK, 0% and 0.05% - same freaking thing,

But it appears he is talking about tournament chances and not the 10-0 that I was discussing in my post.

Our chances of getting to the tourney are greater than 0.05%. Obviously chances of going 7-3 or 8-2 are better than 10-0 -- guessing lesser than 20% for 7, and around 5% for 8 based on educated guesses. Was looking for the Barttorvik probabilities on his site of getting 7 wins -- and I'm sure its there, I just can't find it in all his stuff.

But I think if you look at the probabilities of us getting 7 and 8 wins, you can probably back into a tourney estimate figure... take 35% of the probability we get to 7, take like 90% of the probability we go 8-2, and that is the estimate I would give... hint, its not good.
 
Last edited:
Can talk possibilities all day and night.
But the Orange need to beat someone good.
And/or make a run in the ACC Tournament.
 
Can talk possibilities all day and night.
But the Orange need to beat someone good.
And/or make a run in the ACC Tournament.
Bingo. Need to beat UNC and take care of business. I think Clemson isn't as good as people think
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,415
Messages
4,702,295
Members
5,907
Latest member
Jojo123

Online statistics

Members online
327
Guests online
2,124
Total visitors
2,451


Top Bottom