so whats it gonna take to make the tourny?

[pearl31]

spot on as always, jn

 

[Oráiste]

road wins.

we have 0 at the moment. Will probably need to go at least 5-4 in ACC road games (with at least 11 conference wins total)

 

[djcon57]

Just some other positives for consideration:

1) The ACC has had a very good preseason - probably better than last year although I do not have the numbers in front of me. 9 ACC wins will inherently give you a number of top 50 wins.
2) Last year we were 19-12 and lost our first round game and still were not one of the last 4 in. So while our 19-12 might be weaker there is still some leeway. And if we win the our first quality ACC tourney game it probably closes the gap completely.
3) We don't have a St. John's type loss on our resume. (yet anyway)

Disadvantages:
1) Lack of OOC wins
2) Likely will not have a strong group of quality neutral win/road
3) Playing like crap right now so the thought of 19 or 20 wins is hard to fathom.

But I stick with my 20-11 to feel fairly safe entering the ACC tournament, and 19-12 to be a little bit more uncertain than last year.

To me the major difference is we had Atlantis wins last year. That's what got us in, imo.

We don't have them this year and won't

 

[Cusefan0307]

Just some other positives for consideration:

1) The ACC has had a very good preseason - probably better than last year although I do not have the numbers in front of me. 9 ACC wins will inherently give you a number of top 50 wins.
2) Last year we were 19-12 and lost our first round game and still were not one of the last 4 in. So while our 19-12 might be weaker there is still some leeway. And if we win the our first quality ACC tourney game it probably closes the gap completely.
3) We don't have a St. John's type loss on our resume. (yet anyway)

Disadvantages:
1) Lack of OOC wins
2) Likely will not have a strong group of quality neutral win/road
3) Playing like crap right now so the thought of 19 or 20 wins is hard to fathom.

But I stick with my 20-11 to feel fairly safe entering the ACC tournament, and 19-12 to be a little bit more uncertain than last year.

Gotta win out the OOC. Francis made a good point that starting out well in the ACC is a huge requirement. Need to start 4-1 or 5-0. If we can be 15-3 or 14-4 we will be in good shape.

 

[sugrad68]

It's really hard to say without seeing other bubble resumes, but something to consider...

Sweep the rest of the non-conference we are 10-3
Go 11-7 in the ACC we are 21-10

So we could possibly be a ten loss team with these wins

v Colgate
v Holy Cross
v Monmouth
v South Carolina St
v North Florida
v Boston U
v Georgetown
v Eastern Michigan
v St. John's
v Cornell

at Boston College
v Pittsburgh
at Virginia Tech
v Boston College
v Wake Forest
v Florida St
at NC State
at Clemson
at Pittsburgh
at Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech

I'm not sure (hard to say at this point) a resume like that gets us in. With the non-conference resume we will end up with this team is going to need a few marquee wins in the ACC.

Beat Pitt twice? When is the last time that happened? We simply do not match up well against Pitt. Artis and Young usually eat us alive.

 

[jncuse]

road wins.

we have 0 at the moment. Will probably need to go at least 5-4 in ACC road games (with at least 11 conference wins total)

I think we are going to down the same track as last year where people overrate what is necessary to get into the tournament. As a reminder 68 teams have to get in the tounrey. We will not need "at least" 21 wins to have a shot at the tourney. 21-10 will be a certainty.

 

[jncuse]

To me the major difference is we had Atlantis wins last year. That's what got us in, imo.

We don't have them this year and won't

It certainly is a real factor. Which is why 19-12, + quality loss in ACC tournament is not going to get it done this year.

That is why I am saying we need to go at least 20-11, or 19-12 with a quality ACC tournament win to feel a fairly decent chance at the tourney.

 

[pearl31]

I think we are going to down the same track as last year where people overrate what is necessary to get into the tournament.

gee, ya think?
:crazy:

 

[jncuse]

Gotta win out the OOC. Francis made a good point that starting out well in the ACC is a huge requirement. Need to start 4-1 or 5-0. If we can be 15-3 or 14-4 we will be in good shape.

Good shape for a 2 seed?

Virginia lost 4 times in OOC in 2013/14, including losing at Green Bay. Their best OOC win was against RPI #45 SMU. They got a #1 seed by going 16-2 in the ACC.

In no way am I stating that we are going to go 16-2. But my point is that if we go 14-4 or 15-3 we are talking a high seed no matter what we have done so far.

 

[jncuse]

As we are 19-12 on RPI Forecast, I can see how that resume stacks against other projected resumes entering the conference tourney. What you are going to see is the last teams that are getting in right now do not have good projected numbers.

RPI Forecast


59 TEAMS CLEARLY IN BASED ON RESUMES ABOVE (Projected Leader for One Big Conferences)
Big East (5) - Villanova, Butler, Xavier, Creighton, Marquette
ACC (7) - UNC, Louisville, Duke, Virginia, Notre Dame, Florida St, Miami,
B12 (6) - Kansas, Baylor, West Virginia, Iowa St, Texas AM, TCU
SEC (4) - Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, Arkansas
WCC (2) - Gonzaga, St. Mary's
AAC (1) - Cincinnati
B10 (7) - Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan St, Northwestern
P12 (4) - UCLA, Arizona, Oregon, USC
Conferences With Only One Lock - 23


9 of the Following Teams Get in (Maybe 6 or 7 if you consider bubble busters)
Houston, Central Florida, Temple, SMU
Dayton, VCU
Wake Forest, Virginia Tech, Syracuse
Stanford
Ohio St
Oklahoma St
Cal
Providence

How many of the resumes above are clearly better than Syracuse 19-12, with 4 top 50 wins. I think most of the P5+BE resumes are about the same. Will the AAC still get the same respect it got last year? Or will it be disrespected like prior years?

The whole point is that at 19-12, with 4 top 50 wins, its hard to project a field of 68 teams where we are not in the bubble discussion.

Obviously mix of wins will matter. And while some of the teams in the out group may step it up, some of the in teams will take a step down as well.

I stick with 20-11 being the feel fairly good number, and 21 being a clear lock. The issue for me is if the team has what it takes to get to those numbers/

 

[Roll Cuse]

lol so sad that this is what being a cuse hops fan has become. early december can we make tourney/bubble talk.

hey espn bpi has us at 19! what a formula they must be using.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Good shape for a 2 seed?

Virginia lost 4 times in OOC in 2013/14, including losing at Green Bay. Their best OOC win was against RPI #45 SMU. They got a #1 seed by going 16-2 in the ACC.

In no way am I stating that we are going to go 16-2. But my point is that if we go 14-4 or 15-3 we are talking a high seed no matter what we have done so far.

I think you misunderstood me. We need to be 14-4 or 15-3 overall heading into the UNC game. To do that we need to win out in the OOC and win at least 4 of the first 5 ACC games.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Our projected resume ends up very close to what we had last year. (As an FYI the projected resume projects the rest of our season based on Sagarin)

RPI Forecast

19-12, 4-8 top 50 record, 2 bad losses, RPI in mid 60s.

Although the record ends up being the same and the RPI about the same as last year, we lack the quality OOC wins. I believe last year we had 5 top 50 wins, and we had a great mix of neutral and of course the road win at Duke. It's going to be hard to get that mix again.

Mix always matters in terms of top 50 wins... not so much for RPI. My guess is that 19-12 would just be on the outside (Final 4 out) entering the ACC tourney and we would need at least one quality win in the ACC tournament.

My guess is that 20-11 would be a fairly safe resume to get in. RPI around 50, and to get to 20 wins we will inherently have to get 4 or 5 top 50 wins.

The bubble was also weak last year, for whatever reason. Not always the case.

 

[Roll Cuse]

Good shape for a 2 seed?

Virginia lost 4 times in OOC in 2013/14, including losing at Green Bay. Their best OOC win was against RPI #45 SMU. They got a #1 seed by going 16-2 in the ACC.

In no way am I stating that we are going to go 16-2. But my point is that if we go 14-4 or 15-3 we are talking a high seed no matter what we have done so far.

In what world is the team we have watched so far even remotely capable of this type or record in the best conference in America? Cuse has been non competitive over the only 80 mins they've played against tournament teams (seriously outside of 2-0 vs SC did they ever lead once in either game?), beat North florida(who lost by 30+ to the other 2 legit teams they played) by 6, and just lost to a team that wont make the NIT. Now all of a sudden they are going to win 14 of 18 games in a conference that will tout 5-6 top 25 teams and 8-10 tourney teams?

I get that things can change but any non biased analysis of this team would sugest theres a significantly better chance they lose to the Clemsons, Vtechs, and NC States of the world, than beat the Duke, Virginia, and UNC's. Oh not to mention the Pitts, Louisvilles and Miami's...and Notre Dames...and FSU's. Is Cuse better than a single team I just listed? The answer currently is an emphatic no. The team I have watched over the last 2 weeks will be lucky to get 8 ACC wins. And thats with the gift of playing GT and BC 4 times.

So whats it going to make the tourney? A much better team than this.

 

[newmexicuse]

I think we are a lock............for the NIT.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The bubble was also weak last year, for whatever reason. Not always the case.

I don't get this. Even the best college basketball analysts say this ever year. When is the bubble strong?

If you're on the bubble chances are you have at least 10 or 11 losses if you are a power conference team.

 

[jncuse]

I think you misunderstood me. We need to be 14-4 or 15-3 overall heading into the UNC game. To do that we need to win out in the OOC and win at least 4 of the first 5 ACC games.

Yes - I clearly misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Cuse House]

I don't get this. Even the best college basketball analysts say this ever year. When is the bubble strong?

If you're on the bubble chances are you have at least 10 or 11 losses if you are a power conference team.

A weak bubble is when teams on the bubble lack quality wins. Hence why we weren't actually on the bubble last year, we had those wins.

 

[jncuse]

In what world is the team we have watched so far even remotely capable of this type or record in the best conference in America? Cuse has been non competitive over the only 80 mins they've played against tournament teams (seriously outside of 2-0 vs SC did they ever lead once in either game?), beat North florida(who lost by 30+ to the other 2 legit teams they played) by 6, and just lost to a team that wont make the NIT. Now all of a sudden they are going to win 14 of 18 games in a conference that will tout 5-6 top 25 teams and 8-10 tourney teams?

I get that things can change but any non biased analysis of this team would sugest theres a significantly better chance they lose to the Clemsons, Vtechs, and NC States of the world, than beat the Duke, Virginia, and UNC's. Oh not to mention the Pitts, Louisvilles and Miami's...and Notre Dames...and FSU's. Is Cuse better than a single team I just listed? The answer currently is an emphatic no. The team I have watched over the last 2 weeks will be lucky to get 8 ACC wins. And thats with the gift of playing GT and BC 4 times.

So whats it going to make the tourney? A much better team than this.

Where did I make any prediction on where the team will finish.

All I am trying to predict is what it will take to get in. Not assessing our probability of getting those records. I am more confident in our ability to get in at 20 wins. Getting to 20 wins is another matter.

 

[jncuse]

The bubble was also weak last year, for whatever reason. Not always the case.

When was the last time the bubble was actually strong? After years of saying the bubble is really weak (personally), weak is probably just the normal.

And there are tools to see where the bubble is heading. Instead of being blind to them, I try to analyze the data that is spit out of RPIforecast.

I think many people still view the bubble from a 2007 to 2008 perspective -- when the MVC, MWC and CUSA were stronger and there were 65 teams. We haven't really identified with the bubble since 2009 because we were always clearly in.

Of course, if the committee changes its attitude towards smaller conferences getting bids, that might close the door on the lower end of the P5, But that clearly did not happen last year. Except for the AAC - they really liked the AAC for some reason.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Considering our current RPI is 167, it might take a miracle for this squad to make the NCAAs.

The good old RPI in December post. Gotta love it.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Beat Pitt twice? When is the last time that happened? We simply do not match up well against Pitt. Artis and Young usually eat us alive.

No Dixon. New coach, new team & strategy. Not saying that this is all it takes, but it's a point in our favor.

hey espn bpi has us at 19! what a formula they must be using.

SU's defense is what's keeping them up in the numbers. It's not pretty, but it is effective in slowing down the game and limiting possessions. A blow out against SU is scoring 65+ points. The problem, as it has been for the last three plus seasons, lays with the offense which is not efficient.

 

[jncuse]

A weak bubble is when teams on the bubble lack quality wins. Hence why we weren't actually on the bubble last year, we had those wins.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say we were not on the bubble. It sure felt like it. But what kept us on the right side was quality wins.

The committee viewed us more favourably than we expected. In large part because that did not create spots for Monmouth, St. Bonaventure, St. Mary's, San Diego St. Not many P5 schools that had a shot were left out except for South Carolina.

Certainly the wins over UConn and Texas AM created more of a comfort level then we will have this year, but it will be hard to get to 20 ACC wins without getting 3 or 4 top 50 wins.

 

[Cuse House]

I'm not sure it's accurate to say we were not on the bubble. It sure felt like it. But what kept us on the right side was quality wins.

The committee viewed us more favourably than we expected. In large part because that did not create spots for Monmouth, St. Bonaventure, St. Mary's, San Diego St. Not many P5 schools that had a shot were left out except for South Carolina.

Certainly the wins over UConn and Texas AM created more of a comfort level then we will have this year, but it will be hard to get to 20 ACC wins without getting 3 or 4 top 50 wins.

I think we assumed we were on the bubble as in the last 4 in/out. We were not even in that last 4 in group, so I think if we were on the bubble it was barely. We were solidly in the field in the committee's eyes. This was even after the first round stinker with Pitt.

 

[jncuse]

I think we assumed we were on the bubble as in the last 4 in/out. We were not even in that last 4 in group, so I think if we were on the bubble it was barely. We were solidly in the field in the committee's eyes. This was even after the first round stinker with Pitt.

From your perspective you are indeed correct.

I view the bubble as a non fixed size and a little larger than you. There is usually not a big gap between most 10/11 seeds and the last 4 in. But either way the committee had us as leaders of the pack in that group to the surprise of many.