- This topic has 95 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As I posted previously, I think these scenarios get us in without winning a game in the ACC tournament:
1. Finish regular season 4-1. Doesn’t really matter to whom we lose, though it wouldn’t seem great if it was either home game (VT = bad loss; Syracuse = last game). Regardless, that would be 19-12 (10-8) regular season against a top 5-10 SOS, with at least two marquee wins and no bad losses.
2. Finish regular season 3-2 with two of the wins over UNC (another marquee win on the road) and VT (to avoid a bad loss). 18-13 (9-9) against a top 5-10 SOS, with 3 marquee wins, including 2 on the road, and no bad losses. This one is a bit dicier, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t enough.
Not holding my breath for either scenario.
No less than 3 more wins is required unless we win the ACC tournament. No team has ever received an at-large bid with 15 or more losses.
Most likely scenario seems to be finish 3-2 with loss to UNC, wins over VT and Syracuse at home, and split of the 2 other road games. In that scenario, we probably need to win 1 game in the ACC tournament to feel secure. I don’t think 2 wins would be required, but that would clinch it.
Louisville taking a L to Syracuse. Every time we get the big W, that team loses again to take some of the shine off of it.
Duke taking it to UNC but UNC hangin in there, down 7 halftime.
UNC will be a tough game for us. Need to contain Paige and keep them off the offensive boards (they seem bigger than us). Also their bigs (Tokoto, Meeks) seem to have decent jumpers. Will require a solid game plan to stay close.
Not sure why Louisville is #12. Only Marque wins are UNC at home and a #14 Ohio State. Although they did win @Miami by 8 (we could not).
Have fun this weekend FSU, Pitt, Clemson and Miami. State just win and gain a game on these teams in the standings.
I’m not sure why the Cheaters are #15. The only Marque wins they have are at home against Louisville and at a neutral site against Ohio State.
The Tarholes are 1-5 against RPI Top 25 teams. They are 1-6 against RPI Top 26 teams (Notre Dame is 26th in RPI). Their biggest win is over Louisveille (RPI 19) with their next best wins being against Ohio State (35), NC State (43), UCLA (47), and Davidson (47).
The Tarholes only road wins this season over RPI Top 100 teams on the road were against State (43) and Clemson (86).
They are losers of 4 of their last 5 games with their lone win during that period coming at home against Boston College.
That makes the Cheaters sound like a terrible team. I wish it were so. Anyone who watched that game last night, it looked like a final four match up, and it will take our best effort of the esason yet to beat them. I’d wager that Ol’ Roy is taking plenty of heat for losing that game. It was on him. I do not believe he will be there much longer. He cannot be having any fun.
I’m not sure why the Cheaters are #15.
#15 in what? If you’re talking about the polls, there is no reason to even waste time wondering.
They’re 12th in RPI rankings with the 3rd rated SOS. That high SOS counts for a lot; just like it does for State.
#15 in the Polls, but #12 in RPI. Weird thing is…State is #43 in RPI with a SOS that is similar, PLUS we’re 2-5 against RPI Top 25 teams. Strange that there is such a big gap.
#15 in the Polls, but #12 in RPI. Weird thing is…State is #43 in RPI with a SOS that is similar, PLUS we’re 2-5 against RPI Top 25 teams. Strange that there is such a big gap.
Not weird if you notice that UNC is 4-1 against 51-100 and 6-0 against 101-200. State is 3-3 against 51-100 and 5-1 against 101-200. I wouldn’t call that gap strange at all.
Remember RPI ranking is just where does your RPI percentage fall in relation to everyone else. In this example you have #12 vs #48 (per the CBS page I brought up) thus a difference in ranking of 36 spots.
UNC is 0.6289
State is 0.5770
That’s a delta of 0.0519.If you apply that same delta to UNC you have a difference in ranking you get 0.6808 which would be good for #3 thus a difference in ranking of 9 spots. You apply the same difference below State and you get 0.5251 or #124 ranking thus a difference of 76 spots. The same delta changes the spot differential due to the number of teams closer together.
In a nut shell, you have 9 teams 0.0519 percentage points below #3, you have 36 teams 0.0519 percentage points below #12, and you have 76 teams 0.0519 percentage points below #48. Same difference but more teams thus the larger change in ranking.
Espn Bubble Watch, updated today (2/20)
“Last weekend, the NCAA held its annual media mock selection exercise. …
For example: This week, one committee member told Grantland’s Mark Titus: “I care more about who you can beat than who can beat you.” Do big wins matter more than bad losses? Detroit Free Press writer Joe Rexrode told his readers that the mock committee looked at “every possible number and intangible measure of quality,” including “individual players who make a team more viable — such as Green Bay point guard Keifer Sykes.” That sounds like a new idea, but it could easily explain NC State’s surprise T.J. Warren-led bid last season. The Chicago Tribune’s Teddy Greenstein wrote that the mock committee debated the meaning of a bad loss — whether, say, Iowa’s Jan. 20 blowout defeat at Wisconsin fit that category. (Our own Mike Tirico, who called the game, thought so.)
There is a risk to parsing too much here; there’s (obviously) a huge difference between the mock committee and the committee itself.
Still, taken together, even mock discussions offer a useful reminder: The composition of the NCAA tournament is more art than science. For every “official” guideline the committee must follow, there might be a dozen personal quirks brought to bear when the bubble arguments get tight. One member doesn’t care about bad losses. Another member thinks a star player should push a team over the top. Another places more value on recent performance than official guidelines suggest. Another knows a coach tried to schedule well but got stuck with opponents having down years. Another ends a heated S-Curve argument by simply asking “Who would you rather play?” Another places way too much value on her own “eye test.” Who knows?
That’s why Kansas State — if it were, like, 15-12 and not 13-14, with an even remotely reasonable RPI — would be such a fun argument in the committee room. The Wildcats have great wins and terrible losses and a star guard (Marcus Foster) and a bunch of weird stretches in their season that could be interpreted very differently by people with different personal priorities. At the end of the day, that’s all the committee is: a bunch of people with opinions. We can analyze résumés and look at historical trends and try to introduce as much science as possible. Opinions, and the people who have them, are rarely so simple as that.”
Pretty fascinating.
Espn Bubble Watch, updated today (2/20)
“Last weekend, the NCAA held its annual media mock selection exercise. …
For example: This week, one committee member told Grantland’s Mark Titus: “I care more about who you can beat than who can beat you.” Do big wins matter more than bad losses? Detroit Free Press writer Joe Rexrode told his readers that the mock committee looked at “every possible number and intangible measure of quality,” including “individual players who make a team more viable — such as Green Bay point guard Keifer Sykes.” That sounds like a new idea, but it could easily explain NC State’s surprise T.J. Warren-led bid last season. The Chicago Tribune’s Teddy Greenstein wrote that the mock committee debated the meaning of a bad loss — whether, say, Iowa’s Jan. 20 blowout defeat at Wisconsin fit that category. (Our own Mike Tirico, who called the game, thought so.)There is a risk to parsing too much here; there’s (obviously) a huge difference between the mock committee and the committee itself.
Still, taken together, even mock discussions offer a useful reminder: The composition of the NCAA tournament is more art than science. For every “official” guideline the committee must follow, there might be a dozen personal quirks brought to bear when the bubble arguments get tight. One member doesn’t care about bad losses. Another member thinks a star player should push a team over the top. Another places more value on recent performance than official guidelines suggest. Another knows a coach tried to schedule well but got stuck with opponents having down years. Another ends a heated S-Curve argument by simply asking “Who would you rather play?” Another places way too much value on her own “eye test.” Who knows?
That’s why Kansas State — if it were, like, 15-12 and not 13-14, with an even remotely reasonable RPI — would be such a fun argument in the committee room. The Wildcats have great wins and terrible losses and a star guard (Marcus Foster) and a bunch of weird stretches in their season that could be interpreted very differently by people with different personal priorities. At the end of the day, that’s all the committee is: a bunch of people with opinions. We can analyze résumés and look at historical trends and try to introduce as much science as possible. Opinions, and the people who have them, are rarely so simple as that.”
Pretty fascinating.
seems too subjective in my opinion. Almost like its better to have a friend on the committee or something. There dont seem to be any set rules and objectives.
I have a funny feeling State is going to get screwed this year based on our recent luck with the selection process. I hope I am wrong
seems too subjective in my opinion. Almost like its better to have a friend on the committee or something. There dont seem to be any set rules and objectives.
I have a funny feeling State is going to get screwed this year based on our recent luck with the selection process. I hope I am wrong
While having friends is never a bad thing, the Selection Committee is surprisingly consistent from year to year. The authors of the Dance Card discuss this because without consistency they could never have developed an algorithm to predict what the Selection Committee will do. The accuracy of the Dance Card algorithm proves to me that the Selection Committee is pretty consistent.
However, I do not want State to be in the last-four-in/first-four-out discussion. Since the final decision is made by people, there might be some that feel that State got a gift last year and someone else should get one this year. Remember…just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.
While having friends is never a bad thing, the Selection Committee is surprisingly consistent from year to year. The authors of the Dance Card discuss this because without consistency they could never have developed an algorithm to predict what the Selection Committee will do. The accuracy of the Dance Card algorithm proves to me that the Selection Committee is pretty consistent.
^I agree. I feel each iteration of the committee is very objective in their subjective selections 🙂
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>VaWolf82 wrote:</div>
While having friends is never a bad thing, the Selection Committee is surprisingly consistent from year to year. The authors of the Dance Card discuss this because without consistency they could never have developed an algorithm to predict what the Selection Committee will do. The accuracy of the Dance Card algorithm proves to me that the Selection Committee is pretty consistent.^I agree. I feel each iteration of the committee is very objective in their subjective selections
My gut says we still get screwed somehow this year. We have been very fortunate lately.
My gut says we still get screwed somehow this year. We have been very fortunate lately.
Personally, I don’t think we’ll get screwed if we take care of business.
If we continue to live in that last four in/last four out territory, we won’t be what I would considered ‘screwed’ if we don’t get in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
