Whats the magic W number?

[Trueblue25]

When do you start your deep dive on bubble status? Best part of the forum.

Agreed, legendary board contribution

 

[jncuse]

When do you start your deep dive on bubble status? Best part of the forum.

Usually mid February I think...not sure. So many moving parts at this time of year.

Maybe I will start a weekly discussion thread for some big picture thoughts or game discussion next week. I would say as of now, the bracket matrix is always a solid guide.

 

[obliterata]

On December 31st I said 13-7, I'll stick with it. I think 12-8 would mean the wrong side of the bubble and 11-9 has no chance.

Going to be hard to do but it's a long way from being impossible. Beat Clemson.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Mind you going 13-7 in ACC and not making the tourney means there is no weight / credit to teams improving throughout the year which is insane . If we played the cuse team from November right now , we’d win by 25 ... there has to some weight given to how good your team is now vs the first few games of the year when your freshman can’t even wipe their asses

 

[jncuse]

Mind you going 13-7 in ACC and not making the tourney means their is no weight / credit to teams improving throughout the year which is insane . If we played the cuse team from November right now , we’d win by 25 ... there has to some weight given to how good your team is now vs the first few games of the year when your freshman can’t even wipe their asses

The committee gives no weight to improvement or slowing down. They just look at the overall results and don't consider time of year.

And that mentality has generally played itself out in the handing out of seeds in the past.

Not saying its right or wrong. But that is how they do it.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The committee gives no weight to improvement or slowing down. They just look at the overall results and don't consider time of year.

And that mentality has generally played itself out in the handing out of seeds in the past.

Not saying its right or wrong. But that is how they do it.

it's pretty dumb. Im not saying you should just give more weight to games right at the end, but the general trend of a team as a global picture MUST be considered if you want the best teams in the tourney, particularly when you are dealing with teams that are relying on freshman to heavily contribute (which is most teams these days).

 

[rocfan44]

I think if they get to 14 wins in regular season they get it. If they get to only 12 but win any two of Duke/Louisville/FSU they can get in. I still think if they stay in 4th place they get in. Don’t see the ACC getting more than 4 in this year.

 

[longtimefan]

The committee gives no weight to improvement or slowing down. They just look at the overall results and don't consider time of year.

And that mentality has generally played itself out in the handing out of seeds in the past.

Not saying its right or wrong. But that is how they do it.

Yep. They did away with the Last 10 (or 12) metric about 5 years ago.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

The committee gives no weight to improvement or slowing down. They just look at the overall results and don't consider time of year.

And that mentality has generally played itself out in the handing out of seeds in the past.

Not saying its right or wrong. But that is how they do it.

Yes, but they do have the qualitative “eye-test” and natural human bias that enters into the equation. Humans are biased to events and performance that has occurred more recently in time.

The NCAA selection committee is a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis. The heavy quant based metrics are really used to winnow down the pool of candidates. From there it’s all qualitative.

In other words, you’d rather be playing well and building your resume after January than early in the season.

Take a look at Michigan this year. They actually reached #1 early in the year. We now have a better record. Two ships moving in opposite directions. It will be interesting to compare us vs Michigan if we both end up close to the bubble.

 

[orangecuse]

FWIW, I heard Woody Durham say yesterday during the broadcast something that as of now, only 3 ACC teams are projected to get in the tourney. And, how if that holds true, you'd have to go back all the way to 2001 with only 3 ACC teams in. He also pointed out the fact that back then there were only 9 ACC teams in the league, so 33% of its teams.

Who knows how it plays out, but there's not many pundits out there that I've heard whom think much of the league other than the obvious 3. It's kind of crazy to think that we could have by far our best league record since the inaugural season, and possibly miss the dance. If that does indeed play out, I guess it truly would speak volumes about how bad the league was this season.

 

[cuseguy]

21 because of the OOC

i hope not. We’re not going 8-3, that’s for sure.

 

[Cusefan0307]

FWIW, I heard Woody Durham say yesterday during the broadcast something that as of now, only 3 ACC teams are projected to get in the tourney. And, how if that holds true, you'd have to go back all the way to 2001 with only 3 ACC teams in. He also pointed out the fact that back then there were only 9 ACC teams in the league, so 33% of its teams.

Who knows how it plays out, but there's not many pundits out there that I've heard whom think much of the league other than the obvious 3. It's kind of crazy to think that we could have by far our best league record since the inaugural season, and possibly miss the dance. If that does indeed play out, I guess it truly would speak volumes about how bad the league was this season.

They don’t know what they are talking about. Virginia Tech and NIT State would have both most likely have been in before yesterday if that’s when the season ended. NC State was in 89 of 95 brackets on the matrix and VT was is 79. Now I think we can pass both schools.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

FWIW, I heard Woody Durham say yesterday during the broadcast something that as of now, only 3 ACC teams are projected to get in the tourney. And, how if that holds true, you'd have to go back all the way to 2001 with only 3 ACC teams in. He also pointed out the fact that back then there were only 9 ACC teams in the league, so 33% of its teams.

Who knows how it plays out, but there's not many pundits out there that I've heard whom think much of the league other than the obvious 3. It's kind of crazy to think that we could have by far our best league record since the inaugural season, and possibly miss the dance. If that does indeed play out, I guess it truly would speak volumes about how bad the league was this season.

ACC will get more than 3. Probably closer to 6 when everything shakes out.

 

[Cusefan0307]

i hope not. We’re not going 8-3, that’s for sure.

Let the season play out and maybe stop predicting how we will do? You posted two weeks ago 16 was the absolutely most we could win after we beat UVA. KenPom has us projected for 19 right now and we can beat anyone left on the schedule. The big 3 are not last years Duke/UVA/UNC.

 

[cuseguy]

Let the season play out and maybe stop predicting how we will do? You posted two weeks ago 16 was the absolutely most we could win after we beat UVA. KenPom has us projected for 19 right now and we can beat anyone left on the schedule. The big 3 are not last years Duke/UVA/UNC.

We all make some sort of prediction. You do, I do, we all do. If I predicted 8-3 or better, you’d be fine with my prediction. You just don’t like my prediction. But 6-5 or 7-4 is much more likely.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We all make some sort of prediction. You do, I do, we all do. If I predicted 8-3 or better, you’d be fine with my prediction. You just don’t like my prediction. But 6-5 or 7-4 is much more likely.

Wasn’t the point at all.

 

[cuseguy]

Wasn’t the point at all.

Oh, okay. I’ll let the season play out because that’s what you told me to do.

Got it.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Oh, okay. I’ll let the season play out because that’s what you told me to do.

Got it.

No don’t take it personal, but sometimes I wonder if you’re even enjoying the wins. You said we can’t win 8. Based on what? Last years ACC with last years team? I’m not predicting anything, but there’s no reason why we can do damage THIS year.

Every game left we will be favored in or is a toss up except for the big 3 who I don’t think are great. We can beat anyone. We could lose to anyone too. Nobody thought we would go 5-0 the last 5 and there’s still a significant portion of the fan base moaning that they don’t like that we have a D-2 backcourt. Sometimes it’s tiresome.

 

[cuseguy]

No don’t take it personal, but sometimes I wonder if you’re even enjoying the wins. You said we can’t win 8. Based on what? Last years ACC with last years team? I’m not predicting anything, but there’s no reason why we can do damage THIS year.

Every game left we will be favored in or is a toss up except for the big 3 who I don’t think are great. We can beat anyone. We could lose to anyone too. Nobody thought we would go 5-0 the last 5 and there’s still a significant portion of the fan base moaning that they don’t like that we have a D-2 backcourt. Sometimes it’s tiresome.

Trust me, I enjoy every win. I’m miserable when SU loses, and sometimes I take it too personally. I’m excited about the improvement this team has made, but I’m also a realist. Anything is possible, but I like to think realistically. If they can win 19 or 20 games, even 18 for that matter, it will be a fantastic turnaround.

 

[Moontan]

20 plus an ACC tournament win = 21.

 

[jncuse]

Yes, but they do have the qualitative “eye-test” and natural human bias that enters into the equation. Humans are biased to events and performance that has occurred more recently in time.

The NCAA selection committee is a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis. The heavy quant based metrics are really used to winnow down the pool of candidates. From there it’s all qualitative.

In other words, you’d rather be playing well and building your resume after January than early in the season.

Take a look at Michigan this year. They actually reached #1 early in the year. We now have a better record. Two ships moving in opposite directions. It will be interesting to compare us vs Michigan if we both end up close to the bubble.

I have to respectfully disagree with most of your post.

The committee makes it quite clear that it is a quantitative process, and the list of key factors they have is all quantitative. They never talk much about qualitative analysis, although they do say members watch games, so there is some element, I agree.. But when asked its "Who you played, and who you beat". I think you are incorrect in stating that the committee uses quants to wean, and quals to seed and select.

The teams getting and in seedings in the last 5 years are fairly correlated with the numbers, and there really has been no evidence of significant impact of eye test or other biases in their selections.

And also there is no real evidence that they are veering off their stated emphasis that time of year does not matter, or that natural bias has moved them off this principle. OOC matters just as much as the regular season. They state it and it has been evident in what they have done. Oklahoma in 2018 for example, and there were a few others that year, that crashed down the stretch in conference play and still got in because of big OOC scalps.. We have also benefited from OOC in 2016, and penalized by it in 2017.

 

[jncuse]

ACC will get more than 3. Probably closer to 6 when everything shakes out.

3 is extremely doubtful.
6 is more likely than 3, but still not very likely in my view.
They are the two ends in my view.

4 or 5 is the most reasonable expectation. Teams are really limited in building up a quality resume because of the lessened Q1 win opportunities. That is what happens when you are the #5 conference in out of conference play.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I have to respectfully disagree with most of your post.

The committee makes it quite clear that it is a quantitative process, and the list of key factors they have is all quantitative. They never talk much about qualitative analysis, although they do say members watch games, so there is some element, I agree.. But when asked its "Who you played, and who you beat". I think you are incorrect in stating that the committee uses quants to wean, and quals to seed and select.

The teams getting and in seedings in the last 5 years are fairly correlated with the numbers, and there really has been no evidence of significant impact of eye test or other biases in their selections.

And also there is no real evidence that they are veering off their stated emphasis that time of year does not matter, or that natural bias has moved them off this principle. OOC matters just as much as the regular season. They state it and it has been evident in what they have done. Oklahoma in 2018 for example, and there were a few others that year, that crashed down the stretch in conference play and still got in because of big OOC scalps.. We have also benefited from OOC in 2016, and penalized by it in 2017.

I think you misread my post. Quantitative is used first but it’s pretty clear qualitative metrics are used to make the final decisions and some seeding decisions. Humans are actually making the final decisions. That in itself introduces qualitative metrics and human bias.

They wouldn’t need a committee if it was strictly quantitative.

 

[jncuse]

I think you misread my post. Quantitative is used first but it’s pretty clear qualitative metrics are used to make the final decisions and some seeding decisions. Humans are actually making the final decisions. That in itself introduces qualitative metrics and human bias.

They wouldn’t need a committee if it was strictly quantitative.

Yeah, I see your point, There is a bunch of quantitative measures, but no magic number that is spit out, so you do have do decipher through them all to see which ones are more importance to make a judgment, so that is open to human bias.

I will say though that I really don't think there has been a bias for the back of the season games in what I have seen. First, there is no accepted quant for the end of the season like last 10, that they can emphasize when they are judging what quants are more important. And secondly, as explained below the human bias may go the other way.

Just think of the following committee scenario -- one of the key things they probably beat down on the decision makers all week is the core principles -- one of them being "time of game does not matter". So when discussing teams they are probably so careful to make sure they are following that principle, that they make errors the other way.

Its no different if the boss tells me to make sure I give just consideration to "x" factor in choosing amongst various options. That factor probably will be over emphasized by me in my option choice.

 

[Ragman2000]

Does anyone remember how much "out of conference" played into bubble teams last year? It seems as if every year there is a different point of emphasise and they never seem to be the same two years in a row. I'm some years, it's road victories, in others it's OOC record, others still it's how you're playing now vs early in the season etc.

If OOC record was the non negotiable last year, it's less likely to be the stumping point this year.