Well so much for the ACC being weak ..

[jncuse]

For me, personally, we were good back then.

Now, we seem to be a perennial bubble team that makes a run in the tourney if we get in.

Conference perception means a lot when you’re Syracuse now vs Syracuse then.

See, Wake Forest. Regardless of what they did in the NIT - because, who cares - they should have been in the Tournament. They weren’t due to conference perception this year.

I guess its how you are defining perception. If its perception based on the metrics that are used to evaluate teams then yes I agree that is why they missed. If it just general eye ball perception than I disagree.

They missed because of actual bad conference performance which killed the key metrics the committee emphasizes. They had 1 measly Q1 win. They also had 2 bad losses. In the end it did them in,

 

[jncuse]

Just spitballing here…While the ACC had a down year overall, it was probably the best conference in terms of offense. Five teams in the top 20 according to KenPom. ND not far behind. So all these mediocre defensive teams went through conference play trying to keep up with above average offensive teams. And they probably improved.

The tournament must be a breath of fresh air. A lot of these teams are offensively challenged. Or maybe they only have one or two guys you have to worry about. ACC teams are better equipped for these games compared to where they were during the non-conference. Adequate defense paired with above average is proving to be a winning formula against teams that struggle to score. Look at Texas Tech. We knew their defense could limit Duke. We also knew they would go through extended dry spells of their own. We’ll probably see the same today with Arkansas.

I think there is some merit to your spitballing. The theory for me is that its more easy for teams, especially talented teams, to up their defensive effort, intensity and focus. All things that can improve your defence. I would argue its generally easier to improve your defence than your offence.

About 5-7 years ago I was starting some sort of analysis that compared teams performance by seed line, looking at the team that had the best KenPom offensive efficiency on each line, and those that had the worst. (

I only got through about 5 years of stuff and through the first 2 or 3 seed lines in those years, but it was clear that the "more efficient" offensive teams were doing better than the "more efficient" defensive teams in the NCAA tournament.

There have of course been some exception over the years including Virginia.

Not sure if it applies to much to the ACC this year. But Duke and UNC are talented teams so I can there defence clearly stepping up when they up their focus.

 

[Cuse#1]

The ACC will have a team playing in 3 out of the 4 elite 8 games. Big 10 zilch

Time to rethink & reshape the comittee pronto!
Coulda easily been a lack of being thorough cause of the rough start of the ACC & visa versa, lil 10‍









{

{

{

{

{

{

 

[jncuse]

Talking about efficiency. I need to improve the efficiency / TLDR'ness of my posts!
Will work on that for the remainder of this thread.

 

[jncuse]

What’s sad was that Wake Forest didn’t get in with their record in the ACC because every analyst said that the ACC was weak.

The reason everyone said the ACC was so weak was because we got crushed in the ACC/Big 10 challenge.

I had been saying all year I thought the ACC was a lot stronger than people thought and felt that a lot of the losses were because it was so strong that the ACC kept beating one another.

Anyway, glad the ACC is getting respect and the deeper these teams run the more money that will go into Syracuse’s pockets from the ACC

1. Wake Forest didn't miss the tournament because of the media analysts. It did not get in because of the metrics the committee uses to evaluate bubble teams. It has 1 Q1 win.

2. Literally nobody that actually looked at things said the ACC was so weak because of its performance in 14 games against the ACC.

See how ridiculously high that number of 17 is compared to other conferences (and how low the wins are as well). We had way too many schools (about 9 of them) do really stupid things out of conference that smeared the analytics. None of those losses were against BIG schools.

3. The analysis of the ACC had nothing to do with the ACC beating each other. That is silly, Every conference after January 1 only beat up against each other. The problem is conferences that do well OOC beat each other and somebody will get a Q1 win. When your conference stinks in OOC people beat each other and you get Q2 wins or worse some Q3 losses. This can't be overstated enough. That is what kills bids and seedings.

4. What is more important for Syracuse moving forward is not that Duke/UNC do well at the tournament. Its that the ACC's middle and bottom do better. Because we are not currently a top teams -- we are team that is fighting for bids.

 

[jncuse]

The mental gymnastics our fans are using to pull for the two blue bloods in this conference because of conference superiority is something else. Who the fluck here ever pulled for UConn or Georgetown in March FFS.

As long as we are middle of the pack ACC team we don't really need to give a damn about what Duke/UNC does. It will not help us.

What will help us more is getting Virginia, Louisville, Florida St back on track (not losing stupid games) and for schools like NC St and Georgia Tech not to stink like they did. At this point we can expect BC and Pitt will stink. But we can't have 3 other schools play to their level in any given year either.

If those schools as a whole don't improve a lot, the days of getting in the tourney with a record of 9-11 or 10-10 or 11-9 in the ACC are long gone.

 

[jncuse]

UNC finished the regular season 11-2 and is 15-3 in its last 18. They just put it together a little later like you noted.

They aren’t a huge surprise to me based on how they’ve been playing in the back half of the schedule.

Who knows if our conference as a whole improved vs others.

But for sure an individual team like UNC certainly has. They have been on a run for a while.

 

[jncuse]

Thank you. I used to root for Big East teams post-2003, because of the raid on the conference and the need to prove we were still elite.

I don’t feel compelled to root for ACC teams and *certainly* not Duke or UNC. I hope they lose in agonizing fashion every time they step on the court.

If you want to root for the health of the ACC and how it relates to Syracuse, worry about how the 12 non Duke/UNC Schools. I am fine for cheering for all 12 of them.

Those two will always be fine -- we need the others to step up and not lose an enormous amount of bad games (and they are probably saying the same thing about us!).

 

[jncuse]

Going 13-7 in ACC play plus 2-1 OOC vs the P5 (LSU was the L), is a better resume than the MWC teams or San Fran.

San Fran went 10-6 in the WCC didn't beat Gonzaga or St Marys and were only 1-0 against the P5 (at Arizona State). They also lost OOC to Loyola and Grand Canyon. There is no way to justify them getting in over UVA let alone Wake.

Wyoming went 13-5 in the MWC (4th place), and was 2-4 vs the Top 3. They were 1-2 vs the P5 (at Washington in OT). That is better than UVA?

San Diego State was 1-2 vs the P5 (neutral vs Arizona State) and also lost at BYU OOC. They went 2-4 vs the Top 2 in the MWC finishing in 3rd place. They did beat St Mary's OOC, but that is enough to beat out Wake?

You can certainly argue that the WCC or MWC resumes were not better than Wake's. I don't think there was much difference to be honest. I will always argue for non P5+BE schools to get in, but it is admittedly a bias I may have for them against middling P5 schools who had plenty of opportunity.

But what is much more important for the ACC is for its conference as a whole to once again perform at the same level as the BIG/SEC/B12/Big East out of conference. Then we will be comparing resumes with a legit amount of quality wins.

The ACC left itself exposed to being compared to MWC and WCC schools this year because its bubble teams had similar quality win profiles.

 

[jncuse]

2 of the factors which contribute to this surprising ACC success and overall unrepresentative success of teams i.e their seed ...imo

1 - early season records are overwieghted and non-indicative especially for this portal season where most teams were all new and had to find chemistry throughout the year...even moreson than other seasons this year was about growth and being good IN MARCH not december...in fact a lot of teams that were very good in november - baylor, purdue, gonzaga etc either got worse or didn't improve much at all throughout the season...but rankings and perceptions of teams and conferences were all formed in november and december - deceivingly

2. every year is a rebuilding year now in the sport for almost all teams basically...so even though blue bloods do have easier access to talent...the ability for ANY PROGRAM to create a truly DOMINANT team is much lower than ever. yeah duke has 5 first rounders which is an advantage but theyre all freshman and not close to fully developed players...So a "top ten team" is not nearly as far from a top 25 or even 64 team as has historically been the case in NCAABB...portal defections really hurt the chances of midmajors building a good team but overall - the teams in sport are closer in performance level to each other than back in the day...and anyone can beat anyone.

Here is the problem.

If you are comparing two teams with similar resumes you can certainly say we shouldn't weigh Team A's early season games as much, and I pick Team B because it ended the season better.

However, if your 15 conference members do bad as a whole, it severely limits the ability of your members to build a resume so you can make that consideration on an individual team level. And unfortunately I'm not sure there is a fairer alternative here -- you can't just guess.

 

[jncuse]

Do we hate UNC and Duke as much as UConn or Georgetown? I don’t. But even while I was rooting for them to do as poorly as possible - I could still see that the conference doing well benefitted us.

It takes mental gymnastics to *not get that*

I guess it depends how and when you got into the game.
I really hate Duke first and foremost. Then UConn. Georgetown not so much - they are more a nuisance for me. Let me explain.

I became a fan of college basketball in the early 90's. And while I was always a fan of Syracuse (would make sure to watch their game or listen on the radio), I quickly became a fan at the "National Level" rather than the Big East. In large part because I had rabbit ears on the Canada side and I only got CBS, NBC, and ABC. No ESPN! And I bought and read every annual magazine, subscribed to SI, subscribed to Sporting News. So the information I absorbed was more of a national scope rather than Big East scope.

Which is why a hatred for Duke developed more than anybody else. And as I got exposed to more things on TV or the internet there has been nothing to really improve that view on Duke... only made it worse.

If you didn't watch much college basketball in the 1980's, the allure of a Georgetown is not very significant.

 

[jncuse]

Talking about efficiency. I need to improve the efficiency / TLDR'ness of my posts!
Will work on that for the remainder of this thread.

I think it was an F before this post.

Based on my recent posts I think I may have improved it to a D. maybe a C- from someone generous!

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You can certainly argue that the WCC or MWC resumes were not better than Wake's. I don't think there was much difference to be honest. I will always argue for non P5+BE schools to get in, but it is admittedly a bias I may have for them against middling P5 schools who had plenty of opportunity.

But what is much more important for the ACC is for its conference as a whole to once again perform at the same level as the BIG/SEC/B12/Big East out of conference. Then we will be comparing resumes with a legit amount of quality wins.

The ACC left itself exposed to being compared to MWC and WCC schools this year because its bubble teams had similar quality win profiles.

Net rankings are garbage. If you look at the actual schedules you cannot justify San Fran or Wyoming over UVA. They did not have better Ws.

 

[NineOneSeven]

It's frustrating...
JB said before the tournament that the ACC was good/better than a lot of people think.
And darned if he is right. He KNOWS the game. Great basketball mind.

So how come the team sux? how come at best, we're a bubble and the recruiting is...blah ?

JB says a lot of things.

 

[jncuse]

Net rankings are garbage. If you look at the actual schedules you cannot justify San Fran or Wyoming over UVA. They did not have better Ws.

Where are the quality Wake W's. That is what made them comparable to those other weaker conferences.
I wasn't even looking at NET.

 

[kirbivore]

It's frustrating...
JB said before the tournament that the ACC was good/better than a lot of people think.
And darned if he is right. He KNOWS the game. Great basketball mind.

So how come the team sux? how come at best, we're a bubble and the recruiting is...blah ?

I wish that great hoops mind (no sarcasm completely serious) could have come up with a better inbounds play

 

[OttoinGrotto]

IMO conference track record should come into play with at larges. The fact that the ACC stunk OOC should punish them on the seed line. But the ACC should b given the benefit of the doubt IMO. The ACC is a P5 conference we know the talent and coaching is there. The B12, B1G, and P12 have a hard time going deep into the Tourney. That should come into play.

I strongly disagree with this. You're advocating for teams to not just have previous seasons factor in, but the performance of teams in their conference in previous seasons. They have no control over that.

How a conference does historically in the tourney should have zero bearing on where any single team is seeded in a given season.

 

[DoctorBombay]

I have no quarrel w/ rooting for ACC teams, even Duke and UNC. Why? Because of an overriding self interest: it’s more moolah for us when they do well. I don’t compare their programs with ours & honestly, there isn’t the bile or bitterness of rivalry like w/ a GTown/UConn.
All I care about is Syracuse, and what benefits Syracuse. Period.

 

[orange79]

How a conference does historically in the tourney should have zero bearing on where any single team is seeded in a given season.

It shouldn't.

And it doesn't. Rightly.

 

[jncuse]

I have no quarrel w/ rooting for ACC teams, even Duke and UNC. Why? Because of an overriding self interest: it’s more moolah for us when they do well. I don’t compare their programs with ours & honestly, there isn’t the bile or bitterness of rivalry like w/ a GTown/UConn.
All I care about is Syracuse, and what benefits Syracuse. Period.

Miami wins the National Title.
Victory for all.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I

Duke has the most pure talent, by far, of any team in America. Its like rooting for the house in blackjack.

Remember that one hot minute we were in on Flip? Now he’s going to Duke who has another killer class.

All this is doing is making it harder for us to ascend back to the top of the conference.

I think Sr Jesse will be better. Maybe not, but that’s my view.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

What’s sad was that Wake Forest didn’t get in with their record in the ACC because every analyst said that the ACC was weak.

The reason everyone said the ACC was so weak was because we got crushed in the ACC/Big 10 challenge.

I had been saying all year I thought the ACC was a lot stronger than people thought and felt that a lot of the losses were because it was so strong that the ACC kept beating one another.

Anyway, glad the ACC is getting respect and the deeper these teams run the more money that will go into Syracuse’s pockets from the ACC

ACC lost a lot more than just the ACC/Big Ten challenge. They had a bunch of horrendous out of conferences losses this year.

In general, college basketball was way down this year with lots of parity. ACC teams were very mediocre. It’s not like Duke, UNC and Miami are dominating the tournament.

It also doesn’t change that Syracuse absolutely stunk this year. Anyone that’s watched decades of college basketball can tell you that.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

We were 100% guilty on the first probation. What are you spewing.

The second one was 4 misdemeanors that the NCAA treated as felonies and overpunished but again we did those misdemeanors.

This isn’t a conspiracy.

Syracuse’s mistake was self reporting and not fighting it tooth and nail. UNC had an entire scheme to create non-college level classes just to keep their athletes eligible. They fought it tooth and nail and the NCAA went away. Syracuse self reported some additional academic help and we were almost given a death sentence. Syracuse is too righteous sometimes.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Syracuse’s mistake was self reporting and not fighting it tooth and nail. UNC had an entire scheme to create non-college level classes just to keep their athletes eligible. They fought it tooth and nail and the NCAA went away. Syracuse self reported some additional academic help and we were almost given a death sentence. Syracuse is too righteous sometimes.

In other words...

we didn't cheat enough.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

In other words...

we didn't cheat enough.

Or we didn’t remotely put up a fight. We pulled down our pants and let the NCAA go to town on us.