Well so much for the ACC being weak ..

[jncuse]

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.

Didn't address this earlier, but this will have not have the impact you think. It would actually have the exact opposite impact. It would have hurt the ACC more (no Wake and likely no Notre Dame) and boosted the BIG, B12, BE and SEC even more.

Why? Remember that since the BIG, B12, BE, SEC did really well OOC, a majority of its Jan/Feb conference game result in a Q1 win opportunity. Since conferences like the ACC, MWC, P12 did more poorly than those 4, instead of getting Q1 win chances they get many more Q2 win chances instead.

If we are going to value January + February games more who do you think will get more rewarded? This year would have just been an even bigger positive multiplier for the BIG, B12, BE and SEC who are getting many more Q1 wins opportunities. Its possible they get more bids -- your proposal may have impacted the mix of who gets in within those 4 conferences. It would have certainly helped Texas A&M and on objections to that.

But your proposal would not have helped the ACC. It would have only hurt Wake's chances more. And Notre Dame probably does not get in either.

The only way the ACC could have avoided the impact of its brutal out of conference play was if the committee made one of the following changes:
1) if they created a NET formula that started to weigh prior years conference performance to partially offset what happened OOC this year. This would create less Q1 opportunities for those conferences that did better than normal in OOC, and more Q1 win opportunities for conferences that did worse than normal.
2) Create conference seed quotas based on prior year performance (which may be OOC or tournament based)

And I don't think that is fair either.

 

[jncuse]

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.

The 11 WCC teams had 9 out of conference wins against teams that were seeded 12 or higher in the NCAA
The 15 ACC teams had 6.

Take out Gonzaga and Duke, its still 6 for the WCC vs. 4 for the ACC.

They earned as much "benefit of the doubt" as the ACC this year.

EDIT - Just noted you said MWC and not WCC
The MWC earning benefit of the doubt is harder to argue.
The MWC only had 4 such wins and they lacked name power. So they certainly did not get in on their wins like the WCC.

But they also didn't blow as many bad games (per team) as the ACC. In the end its those absurd # of bad losses that crushed the ACC.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

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.

You're not taking biases out. You're adding biases and making programs accountable for the past success or failures of other programs that they can't control, based on results that occur in a single elimination tournament.

This idea, sir, is quite frankly terrible and batantly unfair to programs in the non power conferences, and programs in general because they would be advantaged or disadvantaged because of what other programs they're somewhat associated with did before.

And this is a big thing here that is hard for some people to grasp - the entire set up of the NCAA single elimination tournament is designed for random results. The professional leagues don't want randomness. That's why they have lengthy series determine their champions - because they know that increases the likelihood that the better team survives.

 

[jncuse]

You're not taking biases out. You're adding biases and making programs accountable for the past success or failures of other programs that they can't control, based on results that occur in a single elimination tournament.

This idea, sir, is quite frankly terrible and batantly unfair to programs in the non power conferences, and programs in general because they would be advantaged or disadvantaged because of what other programs they're somewhat associated with did before.

And this is a big thing here that is hard for some people to grasp - the entire set up of the NCAA single elimination tournament is designed for random results. The professional leagues don't want randomness. That's why they have lengthy series determine their champions - because they know that increases the likelihood that the better team survives.

Basically he is looking for P5 conference seed quotas or NET protection for P5 conferences that stink OOC.
So when the ACC stinks the bed OOC (or any P5 conference stinks the bed in any given year) they will be protected from its negative impacts. Since the reputation of P5 schools suggests they are better than that. Not sure how any of that is fair but that is what some of these people want.

The solution for the ACC is simple and should not be that hard to avoid in future years. It was not hard to avoid in prior years either! Don't lose 17 games to the following Q3/Q4 teams, when other top conferences are losing nowhere close to that.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Basically he is looking for P5 conference seed quotas or NET protection for P5 conferences that stink OOC.
So when the ACC stinks the bed OOC (or any P5 conference stinks the bed in any given year) they will be protected from its negative impacts. Since their reputation of those schools suggests they are better than that,

Not sure how any of that is fair

It would be absolutely awful and quite possibly the worst idea I’ve ever heard of. The favoritism given to certain schools would turn the sport into the WWE.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Basically he is looking for P5 conference seed quotas or NET protection for P5 conferences that stink OOC.
So when the ACC stinks the bed OOC (or any P5 conference stinks the bed in any given year) they will be protected from its negative impacts. Since their reputation of those schools suggests they are better than that,

Not sure how any of that is fair

It's not.

But people can talk themselves into weird things sounding fair when you root for a bad team and you're not used to being on the outside looking in.

 

[JustPherU]

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

Syracuse got took to the woodshed by every team they played that made the tournament except Indiana.Even the Indiana game that was played at home took overtime to win it. We got destroyed by Georgetown that didn’t win a game in their conference.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

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.


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

You are using the NET which is an awful metric.

 

[Cusefan0307]

You are using the NET which is an awful metric.

Better than the RPI. It actually takes into account teams performance which seems pretty important.

 

[jncuse]

You are using the NET which is an awful metric.

It's not the ACC's fault. Its the fault of the NET!
The ACC was good, the NET is awful!

These 17 losses to Q3/Q4 teams are not bad losses. They are good teams dammit but the NET does not measure them properly. Georgetown went 0-20 in the Big East but they are good! The ACC only beat 6 tournament teams OOC but that is the NET's fault!

Did you even look at what I circled. None of those were the NET.

1. A comparison of winning % by conference
2. A comparison of out of conference wins against tournament teams in the top 12 seed lines
3. A comparison of out of conference losses against Q3/Q4 teams

In all 3 measures, the ACC was nowhere near the elite 4 conferences this year and basically was right in line with what the MWC and WCC did .

But yes it all the NET.
ACC was good, NET Bad!

 

[Cusefan0307]

Imagine if the any other sport took into account prior years performance. Now imagine how stupid those sports postseasons would look.

 

[jncuse]

Some people are probably wondering why I care so much in showing how bad the ACC was vs others, instead of reveling in the great success of UNC and Duke (and Miami). And to be fair the fact that Miami and those others are doing is great. It will help our respect in some areas.

But there are 2 reasons I am worried about how extremely bad we were in OOC
1) If the middle and bottom of this conference don't start stepping it up it will hurt Syracuse moving forward. And other ACC schools are saying the same thing about us. As a middle of the pack school, this matters much more than Duke and UNC making the final four this year.
2) I follow how NCAA teams are selected and I take pride in knowing how it done so I can make observations on it all year rather than just on the conference tournament weekend. . Its a silly thing to get invested is but it is what it is. I don't like inaccurate statements and I like to inform why things happen. Some don't like that -- may make me weird or anal, so be it.

I am sure the ACC bottom and middle will do at least do a bit better next year OOC. I don't think we can bottom out any worse than this. But it needs to be much better!

 

[jncuse]

Imagine if the any other sport took into account prior years performance. Now imagine how stupid those sports postseasons would look.

They should have invited 8 or 9 Pac-12 schools to this years tournament!

 

[MSOrange]

Imagine if the any other sport took into account prior years performance. Now imagine how stupid those sports postseasons would look.

I admit I have a rooting interesting in some non Power 5 teams with family ties. But I'm really struggling with this concept.

 

[PhatOrange]

Syracuse got took to the woodshed by every team they played that made the tournament except Indiana.Even the Indiana game that was played at home took overtime to win it. We got destroyed by Georgetown that didn’t win a game in their conference.

Thanks for the season recap

 

[jncuse]

Better than the RPI. It actually takes into account teams performance which seems pretty important.

Its certainly better than the RPI but not sure how much better. There are still quirks in it.
But either way the NET was not the cause of the ACC's issues (before March 15th anyway!)

 

[HRE Otto IV]

If you all weren't being disingenuous you would agree. You know damn well if SU had Wake’s resume this year and got left out for Wyoming, you would think that it is the greatest travesty in the history of the world.

 

[jncuse]

If you all weren't being disingenuous you would agree. You know damn well if SU had Wake’s resume this year and got left out for Wyoming, you would think that it is the greatest travesty in the history of the world.

Moving the goalposts now I see. Using data to reach conclusions apparently equals disingenuous for you since the data does not agree with your perceptions

I was not outraged when we missed in 2017, and I am sure you could find posts from me giving benefits of the doubt to mid-majors in 2016 (like Monmouth and St Mary's) when we barely made

The difference in 2016 and 2017, and in all recent years, is that ACC Schools actually had a fair number of quality Q1 wins. They did not in 2022.

You can't compare an ACC school this year to prior years, nor can you give 2022 ACC schools equity for prior years. What the conference does in November and December matters for its middle teams.

 

[tbonezone]

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

if it doesn't lower ticket prices why should i care ?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You know damn well if SU had Wake’s resume this year and got left out for Wyoming, you would think that it is the greatest travesty in the history of the world.

Actually, no. Because I feel like some things (a lot of things) are bigger than what's best for Syracuse basketball, and I've been really consistent on that over a couple of decades on the board.

 

[Scooch]

You're not taking biases out. You're adding biases and making programs accountable for the past success or failures of other programs that they can't control, based on results that occur in a single elimination tournament.

This idea, sir, is quite frankly terrible and batantly unfair to programs in the non power conferences, and programs in general because they would be advantaged or disadvantaged because of what other programs they're somewhat associated with did before.

And this is a big thing here that is hard for some people to grasp - the entire set up of the NCAA single elimination tournament is designed for random results. The professional leagues don't want randomness. That's why they have lengthy series determine their champions - because they know that increases the likelihood that the better team survives.

This is why using tourney performance to retroactively determine conference strength is silly. I know why people do it, but that doesn’t make it any less silly.

Just because UNC decided to be UNC 6 weeks ago, and Miami won a couple games unexpectedly, doesn’t mean the mediocre middle of the ACC is any better than they were 10 days ago.

 

[jncuse]

This is why using tourney performance to retroactively determine conference strength is silly. I know why people do it, but that doesn’t make it any less silly.

Just because UNC decided to be UNC 6 weeks ago, and Miami won a couple games unexpectedly, doesn’t mean the mediocre middle of the ACC is any better than they were 10 days ago.

Perhaps we play November and December again and:
Miami doesn't go 0-2 against top 12 seed / first 4 out teams and lose to UCF
UNC doesn't go 1-3 against such teams
Virginia Tech doesn't go 0-3 in such games
Notre Dame doesn't go 1-4 in such games
Wake doesn't go 0-1 in such games

And maybe
Syracuse doesn't lose to Georgetown and Colgate
Virginia doesn't lose to James Madison and Navy
Louisville doesn't to lose Furman and Depaul at Home, or at Western Kentucky
And maybe we don't have 4 bottom feeders who lose to Nikki's Massage Therapy Institute

But they did. And you can't make the impacts of it go away or ignore it because we are P5 schools and that "we were only improving".

Its great that the cream rose to the top in March. Its good for the league. But its not great when you seemingly have all your programs heading in the wrong direction early in the year.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This is why using tourney performance to retroactively determine conference strength is silly. I know why people do it, but that doesn’t make it any less silly.

Just because UNC decided to be UNC 6 weeks ago, and Miami won a couple games unexpectedly, doesn’t mean the mediocre middle of the ACC is any better than they were 10 days ago.

Basing broad judgments on single elim tournament performance is fraught with a high likelihood of error when opining on anything beyond the facts of single game results.

 

[JustPherU]

Thanks for the season recap

Glad to help

 

[jncuse]

But they did. And you can't make the impacts of it go away or ignore it because we are P5 schools and that "we were only improving"

Actually to be fair (and to correct my post) a new season starts in November and all that crap does indeed go away. Our past record will not be used for us or against us

Hopefully all the programs do better early, especially Syracuse!