Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 2011711, member: 1969"]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?