Well so much for the ACC being weak ..

[Bayside44]

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.

UNC prints money to fight back on this stuff. We are a bit of a paper tiger in comparison, perfect foil for the NCAA.

Nevermind who our "leadership" was at the time.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

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.

Things can change with trends. You are taking biases out and going off of performance. If the B1G and P12 can't get to the FF but the ACC has multiple schools, it is silly to say it is just randomness. You know that the P5 has better talent both in players and in coaching. All things being equal you should side with the talent.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It shouldn't.

And it doesn't. Rightly.

It is silly IMO. It is like saying leave an SEC team out of the playoff in football because the 2nd place Sun Belt team was 12-1. That is what BBall is doing.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

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.

I was talking UVA but if you want to use Wake they played 23 P5 teams (I won't count Oregon State since they were horrendous). There is a much greater chance of a slip up playing the ACC 12th place team than the WCC 6th place team.

Where are San Fran and Wyoming's quality Ws? If they had quality Ws then you can over look their conference. They beat no one AND they played in mid majors. There is no logic in taking either school.

Edit

As for Wake I think beating UNC and Notre Dame, plus winning at VA Tech, at UVA, and at FSU are all better Ws than anything San Fran or Wyoming did.

 

[oldpinepoint]

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.

I pull for conference because I want more money for Cuse. That’s it.

 

[orange79]

Things can change with trends. You are taking biases out and going off of performance. If the B1G and P12 can't get to the FF but the ACC has multiple schools, it is silly to say it is just randomness. You know that the P5 has better talent both in players and in coaching. All things being equal you should side with the talent.

By this thinking, we should have been a 7 seed this year.

 

[orange79]

It is silly IMO. It is like saying leave an SEC team out of the playoff in football because the 2nd place Sun Belt team was 12-1. That is what BBall is doing.

Every season is a season unto itself. History should have no bearing.

Your straw man above is just a false equivalency.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

By this thinking, we should have been a 7 seed this year.

Yeah ok. Come on and at least debate and not be ridiculous. I am talking about teams with winning records in P5 conferences. Not teams under .500 making it. I don't think Vandy football should get in over Coastal Carolina but I do think Ole Miss should.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Every season is a season unto itself. History should have no bearing.

Your straw man above is just a false equivalency.

All things being equal you should side with the past performance. It should be the tie breaker. To ignore what the coaches have done makes no sense.

 

[Sherman20]

A fortunate combination of playing well, good matchups and the beneficiary of some upsets.

What has surprised me the most is that neither UNC or Duke defended well during much of the season. They’ve both stepped it up.

That’s unfair to Carolina. They weren’t exactly beneficiaries. As much as I hate them, they were the ones who pulled the upset over one of the title favorites—Baylor. And UCLA was a legit title contender in my mind. Another great win. I agree that their defense has improved a lot in the past month or two.

 

[orange79]

Yeah ok. Come on and at least debate and not be ridiculous. I am talking about teams with winning records in P5 conferences. Not teams under .500 making it. I don't think Vandy football should get in over Coastal Carolina but I do think Ole Miss should.

The logical conclusion to this specious argument is that based on history, we should have been in.

You start with a faulty premise. Things are not equal. Each season is different, and should be adjudicated accordingly. History should have no bearing at all.

Done.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The logical conclusion to this specious argument is that based on history, we should have been in.

You start with a faulty premise. Things are not equal. Each season is different, and should be adjudicated accordingly. History should have no bearing at all.

Done.

If you cannot wrap around the concept I don't know what else to say. You are totally warping things.

 

[Alsacs]

The MWC shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt from the committee.

I got no problem with San Francisco riding the St. Mary’s and Gonzaga train as the NCAAT is about the little guys.

Midmajors just need to challenge themselves in the nonconference and i am fine with the fact their schedules aren’t as hard.

 

[Chip]

By this thinking, we should have been a 7 seed this year.

Sounds good to me.

Start this tourney all over.

 

[orange79]

If you cannot wrap around the concept I don't know what else to say. You are totally warping things.

I am warping nothing. Your post states "other things equal...".

They are not. Each season exists as a standalone experience.

Kudos, you drew me back in. Not again.

 

[orangenauburn]

There was no findings of players getting paid to play for SU or systematic grade fixing to allow eligibility in either probe.

Baltimore Sun: Baltimore breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic

Baltimore Sun: Your source for Baltimore breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic

www.baltimoresun.com

Basically a Lax goalie, Jerry Delorenzo, who was a head case triggered the initial investigation because he felt he was wronged and had an axe to grind with the school.

He has had no problem using his Syracuse ties to help his career after he left the school, though he ran into his own troubles.

FSU club lacrosse on probation for plane hijinks

The Florida State men’s club lacrosse team had just finished beating two of the top teams in the country last week when a ruckus on an airplane ride home from Maryland put an end to its season.

www.google.com

SPORTS PEOPLE: LACROSSE; Syracuse Bans Professor in Lacrosse Case (Published 1993)

www.nytimes.com

 

[PhatOrange]

If ACC teams getting deep in the tourney mean more conference money that ultimately trickles down to Syracuse then I’ll root for ACC teams.

ACC once again proving they are the best conference even in a year everyone ragged on them as being weak. Even Syracuse would’ve beaten a lot of these teams I watched the last week and a half

 

[Orange Barrel]

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.

Couldn't agree more. I would add that Penn State was able to get all of their 13 years of vacated wins restored, all of their $60 million in fines refunded, all of their 40 scholarships (over 4 years) restored, their four year post season ban removed and their five year probation cancelled. How did they manage that in spite of the heinous nature of their offenses? They threw an army of lawyers at the NCAA and the NCAA ran away. Syracuse, on the other hand was punished severely and shrugged and said, "Wow, bummer."

 

[jncuse]

I was talking UVA but if you want to use Wake they played 23 P5 teams (I won't count Oregon State since they were horrendous). There is a much greater chance of a slip up playing the ACC 12th place team than the WCC 6th place team.

Where are San Fran and Wyoming's quality Ws? If they had quality Ws then you can over look their conference. They beat no one AND they played in mid majors. There is no logic in taking either school.

Edit

As for Wake I think beating UNC and Notre Dame, plus winning at VA Tech, at UVA, and at FSU are all better Ws than anything San Fran or Wyoming did.

Why would the committee give Wake extra credit for beating "P5" teams when they played 21 of 23 of those games against ACC schools. ACC did not play to the level of any P5 league out of conference except the Pac 12.

In the out of conference season they played at the level of the P12, the WCC, and MWC. In the OOC season the ACC played nowhere near the SEC, B12, B10, Big East. This is not disputable. The data is clear.


Overall NET -- there are 4 clear top conferences that dominated the seeds. Deservedly so. Why would the ACC expect the same "P5" respect as those. ACC Net and non-conference Winning Percentage was closer to the MWC and WCC.

Good OOC Wins are out of conference wins against teams that ended up seeded #12 or better.
Bad OOC Losses are out of conference Q3 and Q4 Losses

Once again it is pretty clear who the peers of the ACC were in out of conference this year. And before claiming all those WCC wins were by Gonzaga, they had 3 of the 9. Comparably Duke had 2 of the 6 for the ACC.

All the actual good "P5" conferences did not blow games left and right and actually won some quality games. The ACC did what the WCC and MWC basically did.

 

[AZOrange]

Remember when people thought UNC hiring Hubert Davis was a mistake?

 

[AZOrange]

Why would the committee give Wake credit for beating "P5" teams when they played 21 of 23 of those games against ACC schools. ACC did not play to the level of any P5 league out of conference except the Pac 12. In the season they played at the level of the P12, the WCC, and MWC. In the regular season the ACC played nowhere near the SEC, B12, B10, Big East.


Overall NET -- there are 4 clear top conferences that dominated the seeds. Deservedly so. Why would the ACC expect the same "P5" respect as those. Their Net and non-conference Winning Percentage was closer to the MWC and WCC.


View attachment 215968
Good OOC Wins are out of conference wins against teams that ended up seeded #12 or better.
Bad OOC Losses are out of conference Q3 and Q4 Losses

Once again it is pretty clear who the peers of the ACC were in out of conference this year. And before claiming all those WCC wins were by Gonzaga, they had 3 of the 9. Comparably Duke had 2 of the 6 for the ACC.

All the actual good "P5" conferences did not blow games left and right and actually won some quality games. The ACC did what the WCC and MWC basically did.




View attachment 215967

Unfortunately Cuse was responsible for a lot of those bad ACC OOC losses…

 

[CardiacCuse]

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.

i agree...i think when they shifted to weighting out of conference more it was generally good...it made the early season matter more and incentivized p5 to stop scheduling cream puffs etc...making every game matter more is generally good for all sports.

but i think the shift to shorter timelines (1 season now basically) for building teams as opposed to multiple seasons like 80s-90s etc means that the teams you see in november are now not going to be the teams you see in march as the norm ...which was exacerbated by the flux of the portal.

perhaps a better way to do it would be to somehow escalate the weight of games as the season progresses...still give importance to early season games but give more weight to feb and march etc...

in the end its hard to come up with something that is fair and works every season...

i think an escalated weighting system would be more representative of current strength and likelihood of doing well in the tourney than the current system which divvies up conference rankings (and subsequent team rankings) based on november and december, basically.

nothings gonna be perfect...always gonna be the virginia techs that win conf tourneys and bomb in the big dance...

but all we heard all season was how bad the acc was...why? because of nov and december...yeah they were bad in early season...but now have almost half of the elite eight...soo...idk...

 

[jncuse]

i agree...i think when they shifted to weighting out of conference more it was generally good...it made the early season matter more and incentivized p5 to stop scheduling cream puffs etc...making every game matter more is generally good for all sports.

That shift is not making the impact you think. It doesn't really change things when it comes to conference impact (**) Under the older "last 10" approach or the current "all the same" approach the ACC was getting equally destroyed this year on Selection Sunday

How good or how crappy your conference as a whole did in out of conference play has always had the exact same impact. What your conference did in out of conference has always dictated its ability to create more Top 50 Wins, Group 1 Wins, or now the newer Q1 win. The top four conferences beat each other up in conference this year for Q1 wins... the ACC largely beat each other up for Q2 wins... and worse some Q3 losses.


** The only difference is that under the old system teams that got in that were streaking or slumping may be moved up or down a few lines, or if you were right on the bubble line . your last 10 would carry more relevance than today.

 

[Scooch]

I pull for conference because I want more money for Cuse. That’s it.

That’s fine. When we’re splitting the money 15 ways over 6 years, I’m not sure it’s making a meaningful difference to our bottom line. A school like SU better not be dependent on tourney units to fund things.

To me, being in the ACC is a marriage of convenience. I’m glad we’re in the conference, it’s a good home for us given the alternatives. But I feel zero conference pride. It’s transactional.

 

[jncuse]

Unfortunately Cuse was responsible for a lot of those bad ACC OOC losses…

We caused 2 of them. We did our part , but so did others like Louisville and Virginia that typically don't screw it up.