Something to keep in mind about tourney projections | Syracusefan.com

Something to keep in mind about tourney projections

Orangemen

All Conference
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,557
Like
2,681
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.
 
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.

upload_2016-1-27_15-15-48.png
 
Last edited:
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.

 
Despite the fact that I am not counting on JB factor, I still like our chances of making it.

I think people are understating how competitive our resume will be compared to other bubble teams if we end up at 9-9 in conference.
 
Despite the fact that I am not counting on JB factor, I still like our chances of making it.

I think people are understating how competitive our resume will be compared to other bubble teams if we end up at 9-9 in conference.

I was literally just looking at our schedule. We will definitely have some bad losses, but A&M is a 2 seed right now for Lunardi, that win is going to carry. UConn will be a tournament team. @ Duke. Plus to get to 9 wins in the ACC, we're going to beat Pitt, Notre Dame, and FSU (probably once, maybe twice). FSU is a fringe tournament team, but we could easily be looking at 5-6 wins against tournament teams, including a really high quality neutral site win.

I'm cherrypicking, but Cincy is one of Lunardi's last 4 in; as far as I can tell they have one win against a tournament team; VCU at home, who is currently an 11 seed.

Washington is another one, they have a neutral site against Texas (a 7) and a home win against USC, a 5.

LSU has a home win against Kentucky, and that's it.

Clemson is the outlier in the last 4 in, they have home wins against Duke, Louisville, and Miami, plus a home win against a fringe team (FSU) as well as the win @ us. They also have lost to 2 teams outside the KP top 200. (We have 1, St. Johns).

Honestly though, I guess the St. Johns loss is a real killer, but I'm not sure why Cincy for instance, has a better resume than we do. If we get to 9 wins, I think I'm going to like our chances on selection sunday, even without any accounting for the JB suspension.
 
I was literally just looking at our schedule. We will definitely have some bad losses, but A&M is a 2 seed right now for Lunardi, that win is going to carry. UConn will be a tournament team. @ Duke. Plus to get to 9 wins in the ACC, we're going to beat Pitt, Notre Dame, and FSU (probably once, maybe twice). FSU is a fringe tournament team, but we could easily be looking at 5-6 wins against tournament teams, including a really high quality neutral site win.

I'm cherrypicking, but Cincy is one of Lunardi's last 4 in; as far as I can tell they have one win against a tournament team; VCU at home, who is currently an 11 seed.

Washington is another one, they have a neutral site against Texas (a 7) and a home win against USC, a 5.

LSU has a home win against Kentucky, and that's it.

Clemson is the outlier in the last 4 in, they have home wins against Duke, Louisville, and Miami, plus a home win against a fringe team (FSU) as well as the win @ us. They also have lost to 2 teams outside the KP top 200. (We have 1, St. Johns).

Honestly though, I guess the St. Johns loss is a real killer, but I'm not sure why Cincy for instance, has a better resume than we do. If we get to 9 wins, I think I'm going to like our chances on selection sunday, even without any accounting for the JB suspension.
good post, agree on all
 
Despite the fact that I am not counting on JB factor, I still like our chances of making it.

I think people are understating how competitive our resume will be compared to other bubble teams if we end up at 9-9 in conference.

There is a lot of basketball to be played. Because we've been playing better doesn't change many things. We still have zero presence inside and a bad shooting day almost guarantees a loss. I get it, it's been an exciting couple of weeks but we've been HOT on offense, what if we cool down just a little bit, where does that leave us? Will fatigue play a part towards the second half of the ACC schedule like it has in the past?

This is the first time in many many years that I remember people being this excited about a Syracuse team after a loss, a loss where they took 30 shots from three and nailed almost half of them. A loss where the rebounding was about even, a loss where we had less turnovers than the other team.

I'm not nailing the coffin on us, I'm not saying there isn't a chance for us to make the dance and am not denying that we've been playing well, but over the course of this season this is one of the least consistent teams we've ever seen here, expecting them to keep it up seems kind of a long shot more than a sure thing. If we go 4-1 or 5-0 over the next 5 then I think we can all look around and start believing we'll make it in.
 
There is a lot of basketball to be played. Because we've been playing better doesn't change many things. We still have zero presence inside and a bad shooting day almost guarantees a loss. I get it, it's been an exciting couple of weeks but we've been HOT on offense, what if we cool down just a little bit, where does that leave us? Will fatigue play a part towards the second half of the ACC schedule like it has in the past?

This is the first time in many many years that I remember people being this excited about a Syracuse team after a loss, a loss where they took 30 shots from three and nailed almost half of them. A loss where the rebounding was about even, a loss where we had less turnovers than the other team.

I'm not nailing the coffin on us, I'm not saying there isn't a chance for us to make the dance and am not denying that we've been playing well, but over the course of this season this is one of the least consistent teams we've ever seen here, expecting them to keep it up seems kind of a long shot more than a sure thing. If we go 4-1 or 5-0 over the next 5 then I think we can all look around and start believing we'll make it in.

In light of the Rock's recent return "What in the blue hell is wrong with you?"

I said this team has decent chances to get to 9-9, not win the Super Bowl of College Basketball.

You make "decent chances to get to 9-9" sound like outlandish homer based optimism. Models based on how we have played to date (which includes a lot of crappy play) are projecting us to go 9-9 in conference. No, they are not always going to be right, but it certainly supports the fact that this team has a decent chance to get to 9-9.
 
Last edited:
Will be interesting to see if the NCAA tries to stick it to JB one more time and leave us out.
 
In light of the Rock's recent return "What in the blue hell is wrong with you?"

I said this team has decent chances to get to 9-9, not win the Super Bowl of College Basketball.

You make "decent chances to get to 9-9" sound like outlandish homer based optimism. Models based on how we have played to date (which includes a lot of crappy play) are projecting us to go 9-9 in conference. No, they are not always going to be right, but it certainly supports the fact that this team has a decent chance to get to 9-9.

It was more a comment about what our resume would look like at 9-9 rather than us getting to 9-9. I don't know how one can be confident getting a bid going .500 in a conference that's having a down year.
 
It was more a comment about what our resume would look like at 9-9 rather than us getting to 9-9. I don't know how one can be confident getting a bid going .500 in a conference that's having a down year.
If we get to 9-9 we are more than likely in.. This team is a tournament team with Boeheim on the bench. Just like the Duke game where you gave us no chance... Wrong again.
 
If we get to 9-9 we are more than likely in.. This team is a tournament team with Boeheim on the bench. Just like the Duke game where you gave us no chance... Wrong again.


I'm sure it depends on how the 9-9 looks but going .500 doesn't make it more than likely that we're in.

Not really sure what this conversation has to do with the prediction that we lose to Duke, if you're going to call me out find something better than telling me I'm wrong about an upset that 99% of the population didn't believe was going to happen. Maybe you're wrong again, how's your glue guy Chinoso doing?
 
I'm sure it depends on how the 9-9 looks but going .500 doesn't make it more than likely that we're in.

Not really sure what this conversation has to do with the prediction that we lose to Duke, if you're going to call me out find something better than telling me I'm wrong about an upset that 99% of the population didn't believe was going to happen. Maybe you're wrong again, how's your glue guy Chinoso doing?

Predicting we lose to Duke is one thing. You gave us no shot in hell. Way off on that one. Typical of you to not get behind the team, though.
It tilts me that you take issue with fans who want to be excited about this team, that's all.
 
doesnt 9-9 mean we played 9-5 down the stretch with our HC which they will value.. still could come down to winning an ACC tourney game either way.
 
Predicting we lose to Duke is one thing. You gave us no shot in hell. Way off on that one. Typical of you to not get behind the team, though.
It tilts me that you take issue with fans who want to be excited about this team, that's all.

I don't have issues at all with who's excited with the team, don't know where you're getting that from.
 
JB's suspension is not going to help us unless we are one of the last few teams up for consideration and that could be a tiebreaker in our favor.

If we go 9-9 win the first ACCT game and play well in QFs I think we are in.
If we go 10-8 we will be in.
If we go 8-10 then we will need to make the ACCT SFs or Finals.

We have a decent resume but we need to win these home games and beat BC again. if we go 2-0 this week we will be in next week's projected field.
 
To me, 9-9 puts us in really good position; though obviously it's hard to project how the other bubble teams go. How many other bubble teams are going to have 5 wins over tournament teams? Including a neutral site win over a 2/3 seed.
 
It was more a comment about what our resume would look like at 9-9 rather than us getting to 9-9. I don't know how one can be confident getting a bid going .500 in a conference that's having a down year.


I am relying heavily on this tool to make my assessment of a Syracuse 9-9 team to get that confidence (and I assume no damage done with a bad loss in the ACC tounrey). And to be clear its not 100% confidence, but certainly over 50%, Right now they have Syracuse at 8.3 ACC wins, which is a little less then the KP model.

http://www.rpiforecast.com/index2.html

But if you put as at 19-12, we would have an RPI around 55, and you can see the rest of our resume (at least 4 top 5o wins). Of course there will be moving parts between P5 conference teams, but if a new team comes in, that means another team from that conference had to lose some games as well.

Look at the data now:

6 of the following teams must make it:
Cincy
Vanderbilt
Gonzaga
UCLA
Syracuse (if 9 wins)
Tulsa
Texas Tech
Florida St
Georgetown
Oregon St
Boise St
Seton Hall
Washington

There is not that much strength around the projected bubble right now. Any it's not like there has been any year recently the past 5 years where we think the bubble is strong.

Note - I have used rpiforecast.com as a source for a while, but I have never tracked it as closely as it applies to one team's ultimate record like I have this year (because Syracuse has not been there for a while). So perhaps it falls apart at the end, and real bubble teams end up having better resumes than what they project now. That being said those pre conference tourney resumes pass the smell test for me given how weak the bubble has been in recent years.

I will be the first one to admit that I was wrong if we get to 9-9 and we are not in or scrapping hard for that last one or two spots. I like to use tools like this, and it will make me more cautious about it in the future.
 
Last edited:
We have better wins than Washington, Boise State, Tulsa, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Seton Hall

Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Oregon, UCLA, Gonzaga, Georgetown would be my six teams in no order.

Where is LSU? They can't be safely in ahead of these teams.
 
We have better wins than Washington, Boise State, Tulsa, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Seton Hall

Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Oregon, UCLA, Gonzaga, Georgetown would be my six teams in no order.

Where is LSU? They can't be safely in ahead of these teams.

Sorry Alsacs, it should have been Oregon St on my list, not Oregon, which only makes it a little weaker.

As for LSU, they are not yet on the radar per that projected data, but I certainly can see them play there way on to it at same point. They expect them to go 11-7 which is probably lower than expected as they are on an upward tend.

With a record of 11-7 in the SEC, they would have an RPI of 92. They had a terrible OOC - nothing positive about it at all. However, I do think they could get it to 13-5 which would make the RPI a little more digestible for the committee (around 60). But still it's empty in the OOC. If they could beat Oklahoma this weekend it would obviously be huge.

I noticed Lunardi had them in the last 4 in yesterday, in his "as of now" projection. I don't see how that is possible.

LSU and Clemson could be interesting bubble teams this year if they really go with the entire body of work concept.
 
A funny thing to me is that I remember being disappointed Gonzaga lost to A&M over Thanksgiving, thinking Zaga was better and we'd have a chance for a good win there. Nobody knows anything.

Fwiw, Lunardi had LSU as his last team in on Monday.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
597
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
8
Views
453
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
6
Views
461
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
6
Views
764
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
7
Views
599

Forum statistics

Threads
168,135
Messages
4,751,985
Members
5,942
Latest member
whodatnatn

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
1,503
Total visitors
1,681


Top Bottom