Since joining the ACC we have the 4th best record in the conference

[cuseinseattle]

When things go bad you often hear various posters talk about how we are a middle tier ACC program, some might even say .500 program in conference. Well those posters would be wrong. Since joining the ACC in 2014 we have the 4th best regular season record. We also have the 3rd best NCAA tournament record at 8-3 and one of only three programs to make the Final Four (Duke, UNC and Cuse). So, we would all like us to be closer to UVA, Duke and UNC and do even better in the NCAA's but not really that bad (especially considering the impact of coming through sanctions). By the way, UVA is amazing regular season.

View attachment 150189

Great thread. It's the opposite of the 25-0 start thread. Why did you decide to start the stats when we joined the conference. Shouldn't it start 3/4 of the way through season 1.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Impressive research! Just as I posted earlier, one can choose to use specific data that meets one's particular attempted argument being made.

Depending on the chosen base year I can just as easily prove the earth is warming or cooling.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Impressive research! Just as I posted earlier, one can choose to use specific data that meets one's particular attempted argument being made.

We are even worse using median place.

1. UVA
2. Duke
3. UNC
4. Louisville
5. ND
6. Miami
7. NC State
8. VA Tech
9. Clemson
10. SU
11. FSU
12. Pitt
13. Wake
14. GA Tech
15. BC

 

[Eric15]

I appreciate the time the OP took in compiling that data. But I don't feel good/better about the past 5 years as a result of this information.

 

[HOFCeluck]

We had a very good conference record out first year, and haven’t really approached it since. I’m not really sure that’s debatable.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I appreciate the time the OP took in compiling that data. But I don't feel good/better about the past 5 years as a result of this information.

Apparently our conference peers are Miami, Florida State, and Notre Dame.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I think we'll have a better picture in a few years when the sample size is big enough to go Olympic Figure Skating style (taking out the top and bottom score) - yes, I just invented that term.

Or for that better picture maybe at some point, when the sample size is big enough, we can compare years when teams weren't involved with sanctions.

 

[orangecuse]

We are even worse using median place.

1. UVA
2. Duke
3. UNC
4. Louisville
5. ND
6. Miami
7. NC State
8. VA Tech
9. Clemson
10. SU
11. FSU
12. Pitt
13. Wake
14. GA Tech
15. BC

I prefer the mean (8th) position over the median (10th) as it won't label anyone in such "negative" light by the usual suspects.

However, according to arithmetic rule when it comes to actuarial science, when the data used has a large sample size it's more accurate to throw out an outlier (as in SU's inaugural season for instance) and use the mean and to use the median (which includes the outlier) when the sample size is not so large. Since we only have 5 + seasons to go on, I think that would constitute using the median, which in this case is 10th. Now, this is just according to the arithmetic rule relative to actuarial science, not position or opinion.

 

[rrlbees]

I prefer the mean (8th) position over the median (10th) as it won't label anyone in such "negative" light by the usual suspects.

However, according to arithmetic rule when it comes to actuarial science, when the data used has a large sample size it's more accurate to throw out an outlier (as in SU's inaugural season for instance) and use the mean and to use the median (which includes the outlier) when the sample size is not so large. Since we only have 5 + seasons to go on, I think that would constitute using the median, which in this case is 10th. Now, this is just according to the arithmetic rule relative to actuarial science, not position or opinion.

Your post is contradictory

 

[br801]

SU is undefeated in ACC play since Monday.

 

[omniorange]

None of them made it to the Elite 8 or beyond, apparently, during that timeframe.

Not sure why the OP left others out, but ND had two E8 appearances during this time frame, the Cards made the E8 their first year in the conference, and FSU joined the party just last year.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[bevosu]

I don't care where you start the ACC won/loss record.

When we joined the ACC, I and most of the posters on this board expected better.

 

[orangecuse]

Your post is contradictory

How so? Please enlighten me.

I said, I prefer the mean, as in my preference over the median since it makes us look better/not as negative (8th vs. 10th). I went on to advise, however, based upon the arithmetic rule of actuarial science, the more accurate assessment would be 10th as there has only been a relatively small sample size (5 years and just into year 6 of conference play, thus the inclusion of the outlier season) vs. a larger sample size, where by aforementioned rule, the outlier gets thrown out and the mean would be a better assessment. Capiche?

 

[moqui]

I don't care where you start the ACC won/loss record.

When we joined the ACC, I and most of the posters on this board expected better.

very true
but neither did i expect to be docked 12 scholarships & have coaches taken off the road for the first few years, either

 

[Townie72]

I don't care where you start the ACC won/loss record.

When we joined the ACC, I and most of the posters on this board expected better.

Why was that?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Why was that?

Put it this way, ND and SU came in at the same time. The last 5 years in the Big East, SU finished higher in the standings than ND 4 times. The last 5 years in the ACC, ND was ahead of SU 4 times. That’s a total 540 turnaround.

 

[Townie72]

Put it this way, ND and SU came in at the same time. The last 5 years in the Big East, SU finished higher in the standings than ND 4 times. The last 5 years in the ACC, ND was ahead of SU 4 times. That’s a total 540 turnaround.

What's a "540 turnaround"? Do you mean a 360 degree turnaround?

I get the numbers. I was looking for why the poster was optimistic about SU's performance in the ACC? Why is he surprised?

Was it because he didn't really understand what the impacts of the sanctions might be?

Is it because he underestimated the top to bottom strength of the ACC versus the Big East when SU left?

What was it that made him "expect better"?

 

[Eric15]

What's a "540 turnaround"? Do you mean a 360 degree turnaround?

I think you both meant 180 degrees.

 

[omniorange]

I don't care where you start the ACC won/loss record.

When we joined the ACC, I and most of the posters on this board expected better.

Our previous five years in the Big East might have led to that expectation (with an .825 conference winning percentage) but the previous 5 years (with a .607 winning percentage in conference) is just slightly above what we have accomplished in the ACC. And that earlier time period in the Big East did not include a probation and the BE didn't have three programs operating at such a high level as Duke, UNC, and UVA above SU during the 2003-04 through 2007-08 years.

It's a matter of perspective. Mine is that not just the probation, but the anti-JB/zone/age-of-JB recruiting tactics by other programs as well as JB no longer being assistant coach to Coach K (who has also moved on) for the Olympics has hurt our overall recruiting tied to the fact that the ACC is simply a better overall conference than the Big East means some of us should dial back our expectations until we see some of these disadvantages overcome.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Townie72]

I think you both meant 180 degrees.

I don't mean anything. I was trying to figure out what the 540 was all about. I guessed it was about degrees.

This idea that ND finished behind us in the BE and ahead of us in the ACC isn't a 180 degree, 360 degree or any degree change. It's an inappropriate measure. It's not we were going one way and then reversed ourselves thereby executing a 180 degree change in direction.

I can easily diagram a 180 degree turn in any situation where it is appropriate. Try and diagram this one.

 

[Townie72]

Our previous five years in the Big East might have led to that expectation (with an .825 conference winning percentage) but the previous 5 years (with a .607 winning percentage in conference) is just slightly above what we have accomplished in the ACC. And that earlier time period in the Big East did not include a probation and the BE didn't have three programs operating at such a high level as Duke, UNC, and UVA above SU during the 2003-04 through 2007-08 years.

It's a matter of perspective. Mine is that not just the probation, but the anti-JB/zone/age-of-JB recruiting tactics by other programs as well as JB no longer being assistant coach to Coach K (who has also moved on) for the Olympics has hurt our overall recruiting tied to the fact that the ACC is simply a better overall conference than the Big East means some of us should dial back our expectations until we see some of these disadvantages overcome.

Cheers,
Neil

Dialing back expectations? Good luck with some of this crowd on that advice.

Just read the comments we get about the ease SU will have in hiring a coach when JB finally steps down. I was surprised to read SU was one of the Top 8 jobs in all of college basketball according to one frequent, respected poster.

We are in a tougher top-to-bottom conference in the age of cable sports in which on any given night there are 8 or 10 basketball games on and on a Saturday there are 40 or 50.

 

[bevosu]

I agree that the NCAA stuff was a factor. The Hop situation probably didn't help. All I'm saying is that based on (I'll call it the board consensus) expectations when we joined the ACC most of us felt we'd do better than we have. That 25-0 start helped boost expectations. Unfortunately, as it turned out, to an unrealistic level.

The Duke win was great and I hope the team is elevating their game, but for one reason or another we haven't shown the promise that we had late Big East.

 

[rrlbees]

How so? Please enlighten me.

I said, I prefer the mean, as in my preference over the median since it makes us look better/not as negative (8th vs. 10th). I went on to advise, however, based upon the arithmetic rule of actuarial science, the more accurate assessment would be 10th as there has only been a relatively small sample size (5 years and just into year 6 of conference play, thus the inclusion of the outlier season) vs. a larger sample size, where by aforementioned rule, the outlier gets thrown out and the mean would be a better assessment. Capiche?

Reread the post I responded to. Your words are backwards.

 

[omniorange]

Dialing back expectations? Good luck with some of this crowd on that advice.

Just read the comments we get about the ease SU will have in hiring a coach when JB finally steps down. I was surprised to read SU was one of the Top 8 jobs in all of college basketball according to one frequent, respected poster.

We are in a tougher top-to-bottom conference in the age of cable sports in which on any given night there are 8 or 10 basketball games on and on a Saturday there are 40 or 50.

On what basis are we not Top 8 program? Perhaps if we were to value conference season titles, conference tourney titles, regular season wins, ease in which we get into the NCAAs and recruiting rankings higher than TV ratings, actual NCAA results, and attendance?

Over the past 7 seasons (11-12 through 17-18) my data mining SMW has found only 10 programs have played in 30 or more regular season/conference tourney games that exceeded 1 million viewers or more. The Top 5 have done it 45 or more times - Kentucky (89, yes 89), Duke (69), North Carolina (61), Michigan State (51) and Kansas (46). If one wonders why I am using the last 7 years it is because the SMW archives are not very good beyond that time frame and obviously this year is not complete.

So there is clearly an expected separation of the Top 5, versus the next five which are Michigan (40), Louisville (37), Syracuse (32), Ohio State (31), and Indiana (30). And yes, the Kansas 46 vs the Michigan 40 is a chasm when you take into consideration the Jayhawks are carrying an entire conference on their backs while the Wolverines are getting support from MSU above them and OSU and Indiana in the same grouping as them, and Wisconsin (not on the Top 10 list but on the next level down which has the Badgers, Cavaliers, and Irish separate from the next level down from them). And yes, Kentucky is truly a cut above everyone else because they are doing what KU is doing but at a much higher level.

In terms of average ratings of those games SU ranks in actuality 7th, but realistically 8th since KU behind them is hindered by their conference affiliation.

In terms of NCAA results over the same 7 year period - SU ties for fifth with Florida just behind Michigan State. And in terms of attendance over that period SU only trails Kentucky. So taking all of that into consideration I personally don't see how we are not a Top 8 program in the country. But that is my view. You may have a perfectly valid different point of view, just wondering what you are basing yours on?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Townie72]

On what basis are we not Top 8 program? Perhaps if we were to value conference season titles, conference tourney titles, regular season wins, ease in which we get into the NCAAs and recruiting rankings higher than TV ratings, actual NCAA results, and attendance?

Over the past 7 seasons (11-12 through 17-18) my data mining SMW has found only 10 programs have played in 30 or more regular season/conference tourney games that exceeded 1 million viewers or more. The Top 5 have done it 45 or more times - Kentucky (89, yes 89), Duke (69), North Carolina (61), Michigan State (51) and Kansas (46). If one wonders why I am using the last 7 years it is because the SMW archives are not very good beyond that time frame and obviously this year is not complete.

So there is clearly an expected separation of the Top 5, versus the next five which are Michigan (40), Louisville (37), Syracuse (32), Ohio State (31), and Indiana (30). And yes, the Kansas 46 vs the Michigan 40 is a chasm when you take into consideration the Jayhawks are carrying an entire conference on their backs while the Wolverines are getting support from MSU above them and OSU and Indiana in the same grouping as them, and Wisconsin (not on the Top 10 list but on the next level down which has the Badgers, Cavaliers, and Irish separate from the next level down from them). And yes, Kentucky is truly a cut above everyone else because they are doing what KU is doing but at a much higher level.

In terms of average ratings of those games SU ranks in actuality 7th, but realistically 8th since KU behind them is hindered by their conference affiliation.

In terms of NCAA results over the same 7 year period - SU ties for fifth with Florida just behind Michigan State. And in terms of attendance over that period SU only trails Kentucky. So taking all of that into consideration I personally don't see how we are not a Top 8 program in the country. But that is my view. You may have a perfectly valid different point of view, just wondering what you are basing yours on?

Cheers,
Neil

You are defending the Top Eight claim by coming up with a set of variables --- TV ratings, Attendance and NCAA success -- that support it. But as you pointed out, if you choose a different set of variables, you get a different answer. The set of variables you chose seem like a way to choose "Most Famous Programs" but not necessarily "The Best".

I'm not going to get into what the right set of variables are and how to weight them, not because its not interesting, but because its an exercise in arbitrariness and futility. It's like the Medieval arguement over how many angels can fit on a head of a pin.

I go at this differently. I don't think you can get to who is #8 or #10 or #16.

I think there are a few teams at the top level (Duke, Kentucky, UNC and maybe Kansas.)

Then there's a whole bunch of teams that are at the second level and I mean a lot of them. And that''s where SU is in that group. Michigan State, Michigan, Gonzaga, Villanova, Virginia, etc., etc., etc.

And trying to rank these teams in any precise order is an exercise in statistical games.

The "Top Eight" claim was really about the relative attractiveness of the coaching job after Boeheim. Perpective coachs are going to use a whole different set of variables when they assess the job opportunity. (What are the expectations? What should the expectations be really? Can I do better than JB?, etc. etc.)

I'd agree SU is a Top 20 job. There's a ton of jobs out there that are just as good.