agreed. gives us BC/LVL (so likely BC) vs. NCSU winner. also puts Pitt at 4th, which makes me chuckle after their “banner” year. and it puts duke & miami opposite us until the ACCT.
and i think i’d rather play NCSU than UNC again (really, i think i’m saying i could live with taking an L to them over taking another L to UNC, and my rooting interests are generally based on fear of losing vs. joy of winning)
Some ACC bubble thoughts:
Alright, @Raleigh_Hoo what do you think?
Here is my latest bracket:
http://raleighwxmodels.com/awhuffma/bracketology/bracketology2023.html
Pitt is tricky. I have them 7 deep in today. Going for them 4-3 vs Q1, 3-4 vs Q2, 6-2 vs likely NCAAT teams. Against them 1 Q3 and 1 Q4 loss. Mediocre NET at 55, mediocre results/predictive metrics. I can see them as a 10 seed or just missing the field. At this point, they want to avoid anything else that would draw negative attention to their profile. LIke getting annihilated at Miami or in the quarters, or picking up a bad loss. I do think one more good win probably locks it up, if they dont pick up a good win or a bad loss. I lean towards them being in, but it will highly dependent on the rest of the country.
UNC. A win @ Duke may have them in heading into the ACCT but barely if so. So yeah I think they need at least 2 more quality (Q1/Q2) wins to be in pretty good shape. Keep in mind their only Q1 win is us. Our NET today is 30. If we dont blow out Louisville Saturday it may raise above that making their Q1 win a Q2 win.
NCSU - I think they are fine. No bad losses enough good wins.
Thanks! Yeah, after I typed that about Pitt, I noticed that they’re 4-3 in Q1 right now, and they’d be 4-5 in Q1 even if they lose both Miami and (likely) Duke. And as I look at bubble resume, 4-5 in Q1 is really good! But yeah, none of the computer metrics (predictive or resume) are kind to them.
So Lunardi has Wisconsin and Penn State in the NCAAT.
Wisconsin = 16-13 overall & 8-11 in conf.
Penn State = 18-12 overall & 9-10 in conf.
The BIG10 sucks and lost to the ACC. They should not be getting 10 teams in the NCAAT. The algorithmic system is broken.
It is what it is. We have benefitted from the same metrics in the past.
You have to have an objective sorting tool. The other conferences did better in the non-conference schedule than the ACC did, thus they dont bring each other down as much as teams in the ACC do because of their putrid NC performances. FSU and UL were historically bad.
I dont disagree that come NCAA tournament time we may see the ACC outshine the B1G again, but there is no other way to sort these teams. You cant value games in Feb more than in Nov/Dec, you dont want the hottest teams in the tournament you want the ones that have the best body of work and deserve it more. I believe there was a study done that showed that Last 10 had absolutely no correlation with tournament performance.
IF the ACC wants more respect, then dont lose to the Bellarmines and Stetsons of the world and have more teams than a few beat some quality teams out of the league. This year UVA did the best outside the league. Miami was pretty good, Duke was alright. And lo and behold those are the 3 teams that are locks right now. Pitt had a nice win over Northwestern not much else, Clemson sucked and they are in trouble because of that not how they played in the ACC, NC State did nothing but didnt blow it at least, UNC beat another bubble team in Michigan but did nothing else despite lots of opportunities, Wake won at Wisconsin but lost to Loyola Marymount on a neutral floor and to a bad bad LSU team. Va Tech actually did decently but then struggled in the league. Everyone else sucked majorly for the most part. The ACC needs to better outside the league that is all there is to it.
I think the flaw in the system is that the last four teams (for example) in your conference should not dictate the quality of the top 11 teams.
The last 4 teams don’t dictate the quality of the top 11 teams. But wins against those teams aren’t worth anything (and losses to them are deadly). Which is as it should be.
“Conference strength” isn’t part of NET, or the computer metrics, or the selection criteria. Some people seem to think that merely being in the same conference as Louisville is making our resume worse. It’s not. What matters is who you played, where, and the outcomes. It just happens that if you’re in a sucky conference, you play sucky teams. And so you better blow them out just the same as you should avoid a scare against Monmouth or Loyola-Chicago.
I just cant think of a practical way though to account for this. Yeah ACC teams had more opportunities to lose to bad teams than the B1G or Big 12 teams, but you still have to play those teams and should if you are a good team beat them.
I place more importance on Q1/Q2 winning % than just number of wins and I think the committee does to. For instance WVU has 10 Q1 and Q2 wins. The same as UVA, Tennesse, Gonzaga, Marquette, UConn, Indiana, Miami. More than Duke, Creighton, etc.
But WVU is 5-12 vs Q1 and 10-13 vs Q1/Q2. UVA is 4-5 vs Q1 and 10-5 vs both. I think the committee will still hold teams like WVU to a standard that they still need to find ways to win some games vs good teams and just losing to good teams isnt enough to get you in. I think a team like Oklahoma or Texas Tech would probably be an at-large team if they were in the ACC, but they just havent won enough games to justify it. But a team like WVU has even though they havent won so much they get a higher seed. I would wager if WVU was in the ACC they would be at worst the 4th best team and probably have a 6/7 seed type profile. But it is all neither here nor there really.
As an example, the following are factored:
The strength of your opponents SHOULD affect how your W-L record is interpreted. If our record is inflated by a bunch of wins against Q4 teams, then that’s a worse resume than another team who has the same record against a bunch of Q2 teams.
New Cuts just dropped. Without the cuts.
Oops wrong thread oh well
I think the “playing Duke in North Carolina” argument is always over-inflated (like my ego).
I’ve been to five or six “toonamints” — as Mikeysurf annoyingly calls them — in N.C. and have found that (a) there aren’t a helluva lot of Duke fans in N.C. (they’re traveling from NYC and Jersey and they’re annoying more than loud) and (b) other fan bases — particularly those of the other Tobacco Road teams, with fans and alums who actually reside in the Triad and surrounding communities — gang up on Duke, and make a lot of the Duke games feel like road games for the Devils.
That’s fair. I don’t think fans are much of a factor at tournaments either way. My only Greensboro experience was 2015 (Justin injured finger year), but there were more local Dookies than I would have guessed. My buddy went to a football game at Wallace Wade ~10 years ago and was surprised to see some local color, as well.
Nailed it right there
It’s no joke playing Carolina or NC State in Greensboro or Charlotte. They’re loud — NC State, in particular, when they’re on a roll.
I was at the championship game in Charlotte in 2002, on the way back from visiting friends in Athens, and my brother’s gf had an extra (her father had played football at Duke). I sat with them — 75% of the fans were wearing red, another 15% wearing royal blue, and the remaining 10% didn’t really give a crap (like me), but found themselves rooting against Duke.
Unreal atmosphere for a conference tourney, but that Duke squad was just 10x better than State.
That was the year NC State beat us by 20. I’ve hated Archie Miller ever since.
Julius Hodge?
Yep, knocked us off the NCAA bubble in a year we had peaked at No. 4 in the country.
Then NC State beat a Maryland team that won the NCAAs — and lost to Duke by 30. 
He was a frosh. Can’t find the box score yet. Evtimov killed us too