• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2023-24 Wake Forest Basketball Season - 21-14 (11-9) - KP#29 / NET#43

Does the Clemson loss maybe help us?

Yes, we lost a Q1 win. But if we beat Pitt, and avoid a blowout loss to UNC, we almost certainly would be ranked above them in NET. And it looks like they are solidly in the tournament as an 8-seed.

And if BC beats UVA, they are toast, I would think. And they have a chance to become a Q1 win for us in place of Clemson.

That really only leaves four teams for the ACC: UNC, Duke, Clemson and WF. I don't see how you could jump Pitt or UVA over us at that point. And I'm just not ready to say the ACC is going to be a three-bid league.
 
The committee does not calculate bids by league. Each team stands on its own, as it should be. Some years the ACC might get 8 bids, some years 4.

This really isn't that hard. Don't suck in the OOC schedule. People are going bonkers because Clemson is still a lock to get into the tournament. In addition to winning at UNC, they had a great OOC record. WF did not. Pitt did not. UVA's was middling. If you want to go the lame SEC/Big 10 football route and guarantee a certain number of bids per conference, advocate for that (BTW, that's a really stupid system IMO), but otherwise, don't lose to Utah, UGA and LSU in the OOC part of your schedule; don't play a bunch of teams rated 300 and below.

FWIW, WF is probably in with a win over Pitt, but to just blindly say the ACC is the best conference or in the top 3, when the conference sucked when it played other conferences really makes no sense.
 
Well we certainly would have won a few of those OOC games with Efton . I think Bilas said he NCAA waited way too long to make a decision. Really ridiculous but that is water under the bridge. Hopefully we beat Pitt and I think we make it.
 
Pilchard said:
The committee does not calculate bids by league. Each team stands on its own, as it should be. Some years the ACC might get 8 bids, some years 4.

This really isn't that hard. Don't suck in the OOC schedule. People are going bonkers because Clemson is still a lock to get into the tournament. In addition to winning at UNC, they had a great OOC record. WF did not. Pitt did not. UVA's was middling. If you want to go the lame SEC/Big 10 football route and guarantee a certain number of bids per conference, advocate for that (BTW, that's a really stupid system IMO), but otherwise, don't lose to Utah, UGA and LSU in the OOC part of your schedule; don't play a bunch of teams rated 300 and below.

FWIW, WF is probably in with a win over Pitt, but to just blindly say the ACC is the best conference or in the top 3, when the conference sucked when it played other conferences really makes no sense.
Click to expand...
The three losses mentioned all came while the NCAA was claiming Wake's starting center was ineligible to play.
 
Deaconblue said:
The three losses mentioned all came while the NCAA was claiming Wake's starting center was ineligible to play.
Click to expand...
People keep mentioning this, but our resume is what we accomplished, not what we hypothetically could have accomplished. Kansas could have hypothetically won the Big 12 tournament with a healthy Hunter Dickinson and Kevin McCuller and gotten a #1 seed, but instead they lost in the 1st round to Cincy without those players.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
People keep mentioning this, but our resume is what we accomplished, not what we hypothetically could have accomplished. Kansas could have hypothetically won the Big 12 tournament with a healthy Hunter Dickinson and Kevin McCuller and gotten a #1 seed, but instead they lost in the 1st round to Cincy without those players.
Click to expand...
Sure but the committee isn't going to punish Kansas for losing that game without their best two players from a seeding perspective. I would imagine that missing players is always a consideration at large for the committee, but the degree to which they will have a talk specifically about Efton Reid and Wake - no idea
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Sure but the committee isn't going to punish Kansas for losing that game without their best two players from a seeding perspective.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Losses and wins affect your seeding, that’s not a punishment. You should know better than anyone that it’s based on analytics - you get credited for playing better than predicted, and you get demerited for playing worse than predicted.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
What are you talking about? Losses and wins affect your seeding, that’s not a punishment. You should know better than anyone that it’s based on analytics - you get credited for playing better than prediction, and you get demerited for playing worse than predicted.
Click to expand...
I mean the committee isn't going to drop Kansas a seed for losing without their best two players
 
+ everyone, including Forbes and Reid, knew that the waiver approval process was going to take time and Reid could miss some games, we just didn’t know how long it would take.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I mean the committee isn't going to drop Kansas a seed for losing without their best two players
Click to expand...
If other programs, who are competing with Kansas for that seed line, outperform their expectation, then Kansas might very well drop, and that’s not even referencing the hypothetical of what they could have accomplished, just as our losses earlier prevented us from advancing in a tournament and playing a more difficult schedule. Every team has hypotheticals.
 
At the beginning of the season all 3 of Kentucky’s bigs were hurt or they likely could have won 2 more big games. Kentucky isn’t being “punished” by not getting credit for games they didn’t win.
 
As it turns out, the MVP of the Wake Forest basketball season was the Wake Forest fans.

Somehow our fanbase was able to cheer this team on toward completely dominant home wins, and without that fanbase support, we couldn’t accomplish anything.

Go us!
 
Lock the thread. It's over and it was a disappointment. On to 2024-25.
 
It's actually very impressive how consistently on-brand the Wake Forest athletic fan experience is. You'd think there would be some eventual variation.
 
Players getting hurt is a part of basketball. The NCAA failing to do their job properly and evaluate transfer requests in a timely manner and correctly is a little different.
 
DeacDaddy said:
It's actually very impressive how consistently on-brand the Wake Forest athletic fan experience is. You'd think there would be some eventual variation.
Click to expand...
Right. There's a problem with Wake Forest sports that leads to the same things happening year to year with a few exceptions like baseball last season and football in 2021. Otherwise it's the same story.
 
At least pre-bz the disappointment typically occurred in both the ACCT & NCAA… now it’s just one. I prefer the double dose of pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top