Updated RPI

[Alsacs]

yeah I guess, there were plenty of such folks tho!

Got the proof here
Confidence meter?

 

[Alsacs]

Disagree w Vitale's logic...

Percentage chance of us getting in
I was definitely beating the drums in our favor last
March.

 

[Delmar]

All of this speculation won't matter when we win the ACC tournament and get a 9 seed in the big dance.

 

[jdubs30]

I know the committee has said it doesn't look at the last 10 games anymore as more important than the first 10. But starting 7-5 and finishing 13-6 versus a tougher schedule has to carry some weight I'd think. Like SUFan44 said, I believe we have to split Duke/Ville x2/UNC to have a legit shot. If we split those, avoid the losses to the bottom feeders and pick up a few quality wins like @VaTech and FSU I think we have a good chance.

 

[jncuse]

I think you are wrong. I was telling everyone we were making the tournament based on non conference wins.
You sure you don't have me confused with someone else?

Alsacs was definetely on the we are in campaign last March,

While I was mainly looking at the Bracket Matrix and mainly looking at the weakness of the last 4 out and how few bubble contenders were remaining and saying it was a crapshoot with not that many contenders, Alsacs was doing the team vs team analysis and showing how many teams we were ahead or basically equal footing to.

 

[jncuse]

11 wins? We have 7 (now 8 with Cornell). That certainly isn't 11.

12 wins puts us at 20-11. We also play BC, Pitt and Georgia Tech six times. All 3 are projected to be bottom half in the league.

We have Duke and Louisville at home, and Louisville and UNC on the road. Realistically, we need to split those four games to remain in the conversation for an at-large, plus win the majority of the games against the middle of the league including at Va Tech, at Clemson, at ND, at NC State , vs FSU. Not very likely.

Monmouth will need to go 17-3 in its league to stay top 50. Not going to be easy.

Just because I don't post a lengthy reply doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

1) I didn't criticize you for not having a lengthy reply. Some counters can be short and sweet, even if I disagree. I criticized you for
a) not arguing any of my points
b) bringing up a qualifier (zero quality wins to date) that was by default inherent in my analysis of an 11-7 ACC record.
c) arbitrarily settling on a number (12 wins) which still had the exact same fault that you brought up.

2) 11 wins meant 11 ACC wins.

2) Only 2 teams are projected to be sub 100 RPI in ACC - 12 of the 15 in the top 70, 9 in the top 50. This is the 2016 PAC-12 with better teams at the top. The ACC will have a lack of bad loss opportunities and many mediocore quality wins opportunities at home against middle of the road teams.

4) Your latest scenario is based on us winning 12 or 13 wins and saying it will be difficult to win those games. You are creating an argument that I can't dispute, but still irrelevant. Of course winning those 12 games is not likely. Plus I am not dissecting a 12 win ACC season -- I am looking at an 11-7 ACC season.

Let's dissect what the 11 wins could reasonably look like. (As I said I doubt we get 11 wins, but if we do here is the lowest quality 11 wins)

W - (2) Boston College
W - (2) Georgia Tech

Other Easier Home Wins - Miami, Pitt, Wake Forest, Florida St (3 top 50 wins)

That gives us 4 top 50 wins, and we then have to win 3 games from the rest of the schedule. 1 of those is almost certain to be top 50 based on probabilities. So that give us 5 likely top 50 wins.

4) It will not be straighforward for Monmouth, but it is the current expected scenario for them. Should we not be using expectations to make assessments of the quality of games to date.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The house knows only squares make championship prop bets

why would they purposefully over-seed them though? they actually getting action on that number? i dont think they have to worry about a pay out.

 

[HoustonCuse]

1) I didn't criticize you for not having a lengthy reply. Some counters can be short and sweet, even if I disagree. I criticized you for
a) not arguing any of my points
b) bringing up a qualifier (zero quality wins to date) that was by default inherent in my analysis of an 11-7 ACC record.
c) arbitrarily settling on a number (12 wins) which still had the exact same fault that you brought up.

2) 11 wins meant 11 ACC wins.

2) Only 2 teams are projected to be sub 100 RPI in ACC - 12 of the 15 in the top 70, 9 in the top 50. This is the 2016 PAC-12 with better teams at the top. The ACC will have a lack of bad loss opportunities and many mediocore quality wins opportunities at home against middle of the road teams.

4) Your latest scenario is based on us winning 12 or 13 wins and saying it will be difficult to win those games. You are creating an argument that I can't dispute, but still irrelevant. Of course winning those 12 games is not likely. Plus I am not dissecting a 12 win ACC season -- I am looking at an 11-7 ACC season.

Let's dissect what the 11 wins could reasonably look like. (As I said I doubt we get 11 wins, but if we do here is the lowest quality 11 wins)

W - (2) Boston College
W - (2) Georgia Tech

Other Easier Home Wins - Miami, Pitt, Wake Forest, Florida St (3 top 50 wins)

That gives us 4 top 50 wins, and we then have to win 3 games from the rest of the schedule. 1 of those is almost certain to be top 50 based on probabilities. So that give us 5 likely top 50 wins.

4) It will not be straighforward for Monmouth, but it is the current expected scenario for them. Should we not be using expectations to make assessments of the quality of games to date.

When we're having to count Pitt as one of the easy wins you know all concept of reality has fled the scene. Also this isn't your older brother's FSU team.

 

[kirbivore]

When we're having to count Pitt as one of the easy wins you know all concept of reality has fled the scene. Also this isn't your older brother's FSU team.