Every tourney projection out there is almost certainly taking into account the teams full body of work so far, meaning it includes the Hopkins games. The tourney committee head already said these games would be discounted to some degree, and since it makes so much sense given the stark difference between JB vs no-JB games, I believe him.
I would guess that whatever projection you look at, you could probably bump SU 8-10 spots up the S curve, if not more. That smaller JB coached samples is heavy on good wins with the Atlantis games and now Duke.
A few things to note:
a) It was not the head of the committee that said that. But it was somewhat of importance within the NCAA tournaments side.
b) More importantly, that person said did not say things would be discounted. He said the factor would be considered.
There is a big difference between discounting / adjusting and considering as I will show below. This is no different than almost all other injuries which are "considered" and ultimately not measured. The committee has always been very careful about making significant adjustments to the point they rarely make any. I can't see why they would make one now.
Here is an example of "considering the situation". The NCAA did what they said they would do. Fake dialogue from the committee:
----------
Head: Alright, let's consider the JB situation at Syracuse. This is to be treated the same as any player absence, so the threshold for adjustment is high. We must be certain that the injury or absence was the sole factor in the losses.
Syracuse was 16-8 with JB, and 4-5 without him.
The question we must ask like any injury is can we gain confidence that JB's absence was essentially the sole factor behind Syracuse's 4-5 record in that stretch.
Member A: We have to consider that in his last game before his absence they lost at home to Wisconsin. Was this a team simply slumping and still trying to find itself? We should not make an adjustment in that case.
Other Member: They lost to St. John's. St. John's is a terrible team. You, me, Dookie V, Hopkins or Boeheim, the homeless guy on the street corner - we all could have coached that team to a win against a team like that. If we are to pinpoint the reason for the loss, it was that the PLAYERS played poorly. That was the factor -- not JB's absence.
Member B: Winning on the road is hard. Can we reasonably expect any coach to be the difference maker in a road game they would have a good chance of losing anyway -- games like Georgetown, Miami and Pitt would fall in this category.
Conclusion: There were signs that this team was in a slump (Wisconsin / St. John's), neither of which we could say was purely due to JB's absence. For the team to lose to St. John's the players had to be playing poorly at the time. It is not our job to absolve teams of losses when they are finding themselves. We simply cannot reach the conclusion that JB was the sole driving factor behind the team's subpar performance in his absence, given our high threshold. No adjustment will be made as is usual in these situations.
-----
Based on what I have seen in the past, I would not count on an adjustment. If we are one of the 5 last teams up for debate for the final 3 spots, I could see this used as a factor to split us from another team. But that is about it.
