- This topic has 48 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The facepalm seems to have gained popularity during the pre-game reports and the results over the past week certainly deserve one (probably more than one).
[See the full post at: ACC BB Round-Up]Note that I didn’t say that there was a chance. I merely stated what needed to happen.
EDIT
Sorry, I lied. I forgot about attempting to be cute on the RPI graph.After seeing UNC whip Duke last night, coupled with the idea that they absolutely own us, there is no chance we win that game. They’ve gotten much better since our first game, and we haven’t. So we will be home for March.
The heck with the schedule. I’m going with the upward trending, 1 week, 2 week alternating saw tooth pattern.
Fall down one week, climb higher than we were before, fall down two weeks, climb higher than we were before, down one week, climb higher, down two weeks climb higher.
No doubt we now climb this week which can only mean one thing VICTORY!!!Yea, that’s how I see it.
Yep – we are definitely trending to 9-9.
Clemson evidently went to the Seth Greenberg scheduling school, but at least they didn’t lose to a couple of those crap teams (like vatech always seemed to).
As I said in other thread…we have a chance. Its not mind blowing to think of us winning 4 of our next 5 and going 1-1 in the tourney which would place us on that bubble.
Its not mind blowing to think of us winning 4 of our next 5 and going 1-1 in the tourney which would place us on that bubble
We have different definitions of mind blowing. In any event, a win against Pitt and 1-1 in the ACCT probably wouldn’t be enough.
I think 4-1 and 2-1 in ACCT would be. Difference would be two good wins, not one added to our resume.
So for consideration, who would we rather play on Friday.
I’m thinking Cuse but they may be out to kick our butt.9-9, NIT would be satisfactory. Not “good” – but satisfactory. We are what we are.
This series is a good case study as to why the tourney does NOT need expanding. There are bubble teams on here that have had ample chances to improve their lot…and failed. Nothing on their resumes is the least bit impressive. Yet, they are still alive in late February. 68 slots be plenty, and no – the low/mid-majors don’t get too many bids.
What people mean is that beating Pitt on the road (unlikely), holding serve in all other games, including ACCT Thursday (unlikely), AND a Friday ACCT win (unlikely) would likely be enough, and I agree. But understanding probability/statistics, getting 3 unlikelies is…quite unlikely. Being wildly optimistic and giving us a 40% shot at each prong, (.4)^3 = 6.4%.
I think 4-1 and 2-1 in ACCT would be.
In the unlikely chance that State could do this, I think that an at=large bid would be guaranteed and also that the opponent on Friday wouldn’t matter.
The most likely scenarios have Pitt in the 4-6 seed which means that they wouldn’t be State’s opponent. Syracuse, Duke, UVA, or UNC would all be a good enough win.
BJD you are correct. More teams would be more teams like us that may get hot a game or two but just as likely may not show up and provide the fans any kind of decent game. Could you imagine a game like our showing against Clemson. Only the winning team’s fans could enjoy that. The rest to the USA – pass, no interest at all.
no – the low/mid-majors don’t get too many bids.
This is one thing that we’ve always disagreed on. In the “king for a day” scenario, I would move the bottom 12-16 conferences to some other designation and give them the NIT to fill in its entirety. Appy St got a lot of good attention by winning the I-AA championship several times and I would gladly do the same thing for small basketball programs.
VWolf, yea, I was thinking of who we could possible beat on Friday. Agree any of the top 4 would be the great win we need. And were just dreaming anyway. Like maybe VA will knock Cuse back to 2 and we finish 7th. But it’s all a crap shoot I just hope we are ready for Va Tech.
But see, all this talk of 3 needed but not likely wins ignores the upward trending saw tooth action that statistics blatantly show us climbing up to about 40 in RPI by the end this upcoming win streak.
You see, in this case, Numbers isn’t bull$#!+ (but I could be).
At least until Feb 27th and then I need a new plan.
VA – I’m ok with it because those low majors have accomplished something, and it’s cool for them to have the experience. Plus, it gives weight to the regular season by aptly rewarding #1 and #2 seeds (almost no chance of losing their first game).
Your argument could hold sway if you also reduced the size of the tourney to, say, 56 teams (giving the 1 and 2 seeds full instead of “de facto” byes). But that’s less for TV and thus bad for business. I would sooner reward the little guy than a middling big guy that hasn’t really done anything all season.
I like how they split the play-in round games, too – 2 games for a 16 seed, 2 for an at-large place. Balances the equities of VA’s argument and mine (long ago on SFN, I proposed the 68-team format, but with all 4 games matching at-large combatants). In practice, it’s worked very well.
When you think it through, the 7 seed is probably optimal for a bubble squad. You still play a Thursday team that’s on short rest, but you also get a Friday opponent that’s MUCH easier to beat than the 3 and 4 seeded Blues.
Of course, Cuse could get their mojo back…but right now they look like shit. And everybody knows UVA is a paper tiger. They will be the team every office pool has being upset in their first NCAAT game.
“This series is a good case study as to why the tourney does NOT need expanding.”
^Oh God no – no more expanding … but that’s a topic for another day 🙂
9-9 with a chance of 10-8 would be a great coaching job by our standards. This team could have been lost (season lost) a few times this season.
Pyramid of success style is a good approach for Gott.
Great write up btw!!!
I’m not prepared to agree that 9-9 or 10-8 would qualify as “great” coaching just yet, but I will say it wouldn’t be a dumpster fire.
I think we could easily go 4-1 if we play like we did the whole game against Syracuse or in the first halves of our games against Pitt and Mizzou. The one loss I see is to UNX, but perhaps our boys will be a little pissed about all the attention showered on the two Blues and that will motivate them to steal that one.
I’m not as good with the stats i.e. BPI, RPI, SOS etc. but I’m a little hesitant to say that 4-1 or 3-2 and then 2 ACCT wins gets us in the dance–I feel like it really depends on who those 2 tourney wins are against. We have no good wins and a few bad losses; whereas UNX had losses to UAB, Belmont and UVA but wins over MSU, Kentucky, and Louisville and was STILL arguably on the bubble last night (I think it’s safe to say the Dook win put them in).
Guys, I really think we’ve GOTT to win the ACCT to sway the selection committee. Make it so!
Four freshmen, 2 sophomores, a red shirt senior who has never played meaningful minutes, a one trick pony transfer, and a JUCO transfer. If that rotation doesn’t scream mediocrity I don’t know what does. We are not dance worthy. I’ll be shocked at any better than 9-9.
I said pre-season that our season would rest on how well we shot the three and how fast the freshman bigs matured. The bigs have been highly inconsistent but have improved. The shooting has sucked except for BSW in stretches. I was also correct in being cautious about Cat. He plays so much like the classic freshman it isn’t funny.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
