• 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!

Consolidated Bracketology Thread 3/12/23 updates

Currently we would be a Q1 win for Clemson since we are 75th, but if they beat us we will not be 75th any longer, so it's Q2. SAD !
 
DeacsATS said:
This is NOT scientific at all, but there are 13 games left in the season.

I know there are metrics and quads and all sorts of things that I pay a lot of attention to.

HOWEVER

I am looking at it as simple as this:
6-7 or worse = No NCAA Tourney
7-6 = Sweating on Selection Sunday; Work to do in ACC Tourney
8-5 or better = NCAAs

6-7 gets us to 19-12 (11-9) - That just doesn't feel like enough, regardless of who the Ws and Ls are against.
7-6 is 20-11 (12-8) - Depends on a lot of things, including who we beat and what the ACC standings look like.
8-5 is 21-10 (13-7) - Feels like enough with this schedule. 8 wins from here would mean there were some impressive victories in there. You can't get to that number without piling up some Q1s and moving up significantly in NET.

So, while I'll continue to look at the metrics almost daily, it feels to me like 8 wins over the next 13 is enough to get the job done.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but no two years are the same. The bar should be a little lower for ACC teams record wise this year because the league is improved and other leagues (A10, Big East, B10) are trending towards less bids than usual. It also really depends on what we do in in the ACC Tournament. Grab 2 wins there including a Q1 and all of the sudden 12-8 regular season ACC record should be more than enough. Go 12-8 and get bounced by BC or FSU and we'll really be sweating on Selection Sunday.
 
Wake becomes a very live bubble team for Lunardi with a win tonight.

 
NJDeac’22 said:
Agreed, but no two years are the same. The bar should be a little lower for ACC teams record wise this year because the league is improved and other leagues (A10, Big East, B10) are trending towards less bids than usual. It also really depends on what we do in in the ACC Tournament. Grab 2 wins there including a Q1 and all of the sudden 12-8 regular season ACC record should be more than enough. Go 12-8 and get bounced by BC or FSU and we'll really be sweating on Selection Sunday.
Click to expand...

Yeah... It's just tough to know anything about the field in mid-January. So much of it depends on what happens with other teams and in conference tourneys.

That's why I set my sights on 8 wins. No matter what happens elsewhere, it is hard to imagine we'd get left out at 13-7 with some quality wins. Especially if that means a Top 4 finish in the ACC (and double bye in the ACC Tourney)
 
Wake barely missed the top 4 at 13-7. And even though we thought Wake was on the bubble after losing to BC, Wake wasn't even one of the first four out and was a #2 seed in the NIT.

I know the OOC is stronger this year and the ACC schedule may be stronger too. But I'd feel a whole lot better at 14-6 or in the top 4.
 
PhDeac said:
Wake barely missed the top 4 at 13-7. And even though we thought Wake was on the bubble after losing to BC, Wake wasn't even one of the first four out and was a #2 seed in the NIT.

I know the OOC is stronger this year and the ACC schedule may be stronger too. But I'd feel a whole lot better at 14-6 or in the top 4.
Click to expand...
This year it would be extremely unlikely for 13-7 to not get us in. It would take Wisconsin and Duke stinking the rest of the year and multiple bid stealers in conference tournaments. Last year we didn't have a single quad 1 win. If we get to 13-7 this year, we will have had at least 4 or 5. Totally different scenarios. Our minimum of 4 games left against State, UNC, and Duke are going to be huge for everyone involved, which is really fun.
 
I will never get used to an ACC team needing 14 conference wins to be considered a safe NCAA bid.
 
PaddyWF said:
I will never get used to an ACC team needing 14 conference wins to be considered a safe NCAA bid.
Click to expand...
That's not the case. Last year was a huge anomaly because of Notre Dame having a ridiculously unbalanced ACC schedule playing the bottom 6 all twice and top 8 all once, and us playing absolutely nobody in non-conference and crapping the bed in Brooklyn. There will most likely be 7 ACC teams in the tournament this year including at least one at 12-8. Would be shocked to see a 13-7 team left out this year, whereas we all saw it as a possibility last year even this early on.
 
If it still matters I am sure I will waste way too much time looking at the bubble, but I have not done so yet. I did read this in the Athletic this week.

“It’s shaping up as a rough year for mid-major at-large bids.”

and

“Most every team outside the power conferences is going to have to win its league tournament.”
 
KennyRogersRoast said:
If it still matters I am sure I will waste way too much time looking at the bubble, but I have not done so yet. I did read this in the Athletic this week.

“It’s shaping up as a rough year for mid-major at-large bids.”

and

“Most every team outside the power conferences is going to have to win its league tournament.”
Click to expand...
The Richmond coach gave a really good press conference statement on this. He basically explained that schools like Richmond are desperately trying to schedule series with power conference teams, but they're having no success. By going to 20 league games, the major conferences have made it nearly impossible for good mid majors to rack up Q1 wins. The Mountain West and WCC might be the only two multi-bid mid majors if there aren't upsets in conference tournaments such as CofC losing in the CAA tourney.
 
Florida Atlantic has a pretty good shot to make the tournament even without a conference tournament win. If they match rough projections they finish 27-4. Bad news is that don't have any more Q1 games as of right now and their OOC was really bad. Good news is they went 2-0 in Q1 games.
 
Are the American Athletic Conference and C-USA mid-major conferences? AAC has the #1 team in the country, Houston, #36 Memphis (they are 4-1 against the SEC, and almost beat Bama at Bama; they are 6-2 against the six power conferences) and #42 UCF; AAC is getting multiple bids. FAU is 17-1 ($35 KP), they have 16 game win streak, and they are getting in the NCAAT if they don't win CUSA.
 
PhDeac said:
It's still jarring for those of us used to 7-9 being good enough to get in most years.
Click to expand...
Interesting to look back at this for sure. Sub .500 teams in ACC play to get an at-large bid to the tournament since 1990:

UVA (1990), GT (1991), UVA (1991), Wake (1992), Clemson (1996), UVA (1997), FSU (1998 - at 6-10!), Clemson (1998), State (2005), Maryland (2009), GT (2010), Cuse (2018).

Maryland won the 2004 ACCT with a 7-9 regular season record.
 
KennyRogersRoast said:
If it still matters I am sure I will waste way too much time looking at the bubble, but I have not done so yet. I did read this in the Athletic this week.

“It’s shaping up as a rough year for mid-major at-large bids.”

and

“Most every team outside the power conferences is going to have to win its league tournament.”
Click to expand...
Mid-major at large bids have been the big shift making it tough for major conferences.
 
PhDeac said:
Mid-major at large bids have been the big shift making it tough for major conferences.
Click to expand...
I think this dovetails nicely with the discussion about ACC teams being able to get into the tournament more in the past with a losing conference record. I think for a while there was a pretty heavy bias towards major conference teams when it came to at-large spots and some of the recent changes in focus on stats/metrics/committee stuff has shaken that up. I'm sure some of the one off Final Four runs also helped that shift too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top