• 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!

Official NCAA Tournament discussion thread (NWT or WT?)

A team shouldn't get an at large bid without having some Top 50 wins especially if they've had plenty of chances to get them.
 
We have seven RPI top 50 teams (what the committee uses to determine "top 50 wins") left on our schedule, and NC State is #53. If we get a conference record good enough to get in, we will accumulate some top 50 wins.

A decent comp for us may end up being Texas from 2014-15. They had 12 games against the RPI Top 50 and only won 2, both at home. Went 8-10 in the Big 12. Played the #15 SOS and #88 non-conf SOS, both of which will be lower than ours. And they got in to the field and did not have to play in Dayton
 
Last edited:
Deacsfan27 said:
We are 3-5 and currently are projected to win 5.20 more games (8.20 win expectancy).

Dropping the Duke game from that would put us at a 4.73 expected win total the rest of the way, which is 7.73 wins, still bumping up to 8 wins.
Click to expand...
Fortunately we are good at winning .73 of nearly all our games.
 
PhDeac said:
A team shouldn't get an at large bid without having some Top 50 wins especially if they've had plenty of chances to get them.
Click to expand...

I go back and forth on this. If you don't beat anyone in the top 50 and you played, say, 10 games against that competition but also have no losses to anyone outside the top 50, isn't this a solid indication that you as a team are correctly slated as a top 50 team or so? Meaning that by definition you're roughly around the bubble to get into the tournament?
 
The Deacons are presently 1-7 vs. teams in the top 50 in Kenpom and 1-8 vs. teams in the top 50 in Sagarin. The Deacs only top 50 win was against Miami (13-6), who is winless against the top 50. Wichita State (17-4), Dayton (14-4), Arkansas (16-4) and VCU (15-5) are the other Top 50 teams that are winless vs. top 50 competition. We're on the bubble, but the idea that a 17-13 record and 8-10 in conference will put the Deacons in the Dance seems optimistic. Keep this in mind, all 350 NCAA D-1 teams can lose to tournament teams. It's the ability to beat those teams that determines who is selected.
 
An ACC team that goes 17-13 (8-10) and finishes in the top 10 in the ACC is in the tournament this year as long as they're not 10th AND lose to BC in the ACCT. I don't think there's too much of a question about that, especially in Wake's case where the Deacs are going to finish the season with a top 15 if not 10 SOS.
 
BlackjackMc said:
The Deacons are presently 1-7 vs. teams in the top 50 in Kenpom and 1-8 vs. teams in the top 50 in Sagarin. The Deacs only top 50 win was against Miami (13-6), who is winless against the top 50. Wichita State (17-4), Dayton (14-4), Arkansas (16-4) and VCU (15-5) are the other Top 50 teams that are winless vs. top 50 competition. We're on the bubble, but the idea that a 17-13 record and 8-10 in conference will put the Deacons in the Dance seems optimistic. Keep this in mind, all 350 NCAA D-1 teams can lose to tournament teams. It's the ability to beat those teams that determines who is selected.
Click to expand...

My simple question would be what is the reason why the Texas team with the resume I detailed above deserved a bid, while the Deacs would not.

Going off pure record (Texas was 20-13) seems pretty weak. If you're basically saying Wake would make the field if they were 19-13 instead of 18-14, then you're saying we should've played somebody like NCA&T as opposed to challenging ourselves by going to play @ Xavier.

That's not how the committee views it, nor should it be
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Doesn't make any sense. I think oversight is more likely. We were in the field in his last projection. I don't see how losing by five on the road makes you drop 8-10+ spots. Especially when Pittsburgh lost the same night as we did, and lost by 50+. Pitt has lost five straight games.
Click to expand...

Palm is putting a lot of emphasis on State's win at Duke (something he even said himself), because that is what the committee did for Syracuse last year, who finished 19-13 (9-9) and without a win in the ACCT.

One interesting note about State is right now State is 14-7 (3-5), and at one point during State's Sweet Sixteen run two years ago State was 14-11 (5-7).

I have no idea why Pitt is in there though (same for Clemson in Lunardi's bracket). Just shows how even in late January metrics are still gonna be skewed. I would have Wake in right now.

Also, I think in this year's ACC with a couple wins in the ACC Tournament, an 8-10 conference record will get some team in.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
I go back and forth on this. If you don't beat anyone in the top 50 and you played, say, 10 games against that competition but also have no losses to anyone outside the top 50, isn't this a solid indication that you as a team are correctly slated as a top 50 team or so? Meaning that by definition you're roughly around the bubble to get into the tournament?
Click to expand...

For me it comes down to the purpose of at-large teams. I think at-large teams should be teams capable of winning the tournament and seeded according to that capability. It's hard to argue a team that is 1-10 or similar against top 50 opponents is capable of doing that compared to a team with a better record even if they have few bad losses.
 
I agree with the sentiment. But the committee historically has not
 
wsc8521s said:
My simple question would be what is the reason why the Texas team with the resume I detailed above deserved a bid, while the Deacs would not.

Going off pure record (Texas was 20-13) seems pretty weak. If you're basically saying Wake would make the field if they were 19-13 instead of 18-14, then you're saying we should've played somebody like NCA&T as opposed to challenging ourselves by going to play @ Xavier.

That's not how the committee views it, nor should it be
Click to expand...

To answer your question, Texas got into the tournament on the basis of perception and three wins against ranked teams. Their record against Top 25 teams was 3-10, so in fact they had demonstrated the ability to win vs. ranked teams. Of their 10 conference losses eight were against Top 25 teams and ten of their 13 losses were against Top 25 ranked teams. I have stressed "Top 25" because there is a difference in perception between the teams you see in the newspaper and on the television as the Top 25 and top 50 teams according to computers and "experts". Eliminate those 13 games and Texas was 17-3 against unranked teams, an argument often made by bubble teams with a brutal schedule.

At least that's my guess.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
An ACC team that goes 17-13 (8-10) and finishes in the top 10 in the ACC is in the tournament this year as long as they're not 10th AND lose to BC in the ACCT. I don't think there's too much of a question about that, especially in Wake's case where the Deacs are going to finish the season with a top 15 if not 10 SOS.
Click to expand...

Well, then let's do this- sounds like a plan! :)
 
Not to pick nits, but there's no guarantee that BC finishes last. If I were a betting man, I'd probably take them, but Clemson and Pitt are both dumpster fires at the moment.
 
CantStandYa said:
This is pretty obvious, given the prominence of Villanova and Gonzaga in basketball.
Click to expand...

Well not that obvious. There are plenty of contenders in the ACC and Pac-12 and Kentucky is lurking.

CantStandYa said:
Not to pick nits, but there's no guarantee that BC finishes last. If I were a betting man, I'd probably take them, but Clemson and Pitt are both dumpster fires at the moment.
Click to expand...

Yep. Plenty of basketball left.
 
BlackjackMc said:
To answer your question, Texas got into the tournament on the basis of perception and three wins against ranked teams. Their record against Top 25 teams was 3-10, so in fact they had demonstrated the ability to win vs. ranked teams. Of their 10 conference losses eight were against Top 25 teams and ten of their 13 losses were against Top 25 ranked teams. I have stressed "Top 25" because there is a difference in perception between the teams you see in the newspaper and on the television as the Top 25 and top 50 teams according to computers and "experts". Eliminate those 13 games and Texas was 17-3 against unranked teams, an argument often made by bubble teams with a brutal schedule.

At least that's my guess.
Click to expand...

"Top 25" doesn't really enter into the committee's process at all, though. Maybe RPI Top 25 vs. RPI Top 50, but not the polls. Maybe it plays into their perception of Wake entering the room, but I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Texas did play 12 RPI top 25 teams that year, while Wake is currently slated to play 9, though that obvs doesn't include the ACCT. Still, our resume is better in other areas -- notably in SOS which is always a huge emphasis -- so I wouldn't get too torn up about that
 
Last edited:
Very last team in Lunardi's updated bracket.

As mentioned on another thread our RPI is currently 30th. While I don't think the committee relies on RPI quite as much as they have in the past, the highest RPI of a major conference team not to make the field was 40th.

So we could prove to be an interesting test case, but you'd have to imagine we'd need to get to 8-10 in the ACC to have any shot. Looks like there could be a lot of teams like us with iffy records but strong schedules (Clemson, OKSt, etc.) this year
 
wsc8521s said:
Very last team in Lunardi's updated bracket.

As mentioned on another thread our RPI is currently 30th. While I don't think the committee relies on RPI quite as much as they have in the past, the highest RPI of a major conference team not to make the field was 40th.

So we could prove to be an interesting test case, but you'd have to imagine we'd need to get to 8-10 in the ACC to have any shot. Looks like there could be a lot of teams like us with iffy records but strong schedules (Clemson, OKSt, etc.) this year
Click to expand...

We absolutely have to sweep BC/GT/State/Pitt, then will need to steal a road game or hold serve against Louisville to get to 8 wins. Certainly doable, but I don't think anyone can feel confident about this team on the road, even after the State win.
 
I'll believe it when I see it.

Manning has coached us into a yuge hole by giving away home wins. :(
 
Not to be a downer, but there is no way in the world we would be in the tournament at this point. That is a pipe dream. We are 0-6 against the top 25, which means that we have no good wins. Put another way, we are #29 in RPI, which sounds great, except that according to the RPI metric, we haven't beaten a single team above us all year. Or looked at a different way, out best win is against the #66 RPI team. I think we have no shot unless we go at least 4-2 to finish with at least one of those wins being at ND or at Duke.
 
Three things:

*The tournament doesn't start today
*Unless our "upset" win comes against Clemson or VT AND the team we beat falls out of the RPI Top 50, there's no way we can get to 8-10 in the ACC w/o a top 50 win.
*No team from a major conference with an RPI better than 40 has failed to make the tourney
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top