One More Week

Corey Alexander does an “OK” job on the ACC broadcasts, but he was really pissing me off with the constant references to State’s 2006 season. I’m sure he was just trying to illustrate what a good job that KK has done in his first year in Raleigh. But a comparison to Herb’s team that pretty much tanked after January brought back unpleasant memories…and a connection that I don’t want made to this team.

I’m undoubtedly making too much about something that was intended to be a compliment for this State team, because that was the only thing remotely unpleasant about Sunday night’s game.

 

RPI TREND GRAPHS

When a graph is nearly incomprehensible rather than illuminating, it’s time (or past time) to do something different. So since the ACC has broken itself into four groups, it’s seems natural to use three graphs to summarize most of the conference. The bottom group would be titled “Abandon hope all ye who enter here” and doesn’t warrant a graph.

But before we get to the trend graphs, let’s review the basis for the RPI ranges I use for “IN”, “Bubble”, and “OUT”. Back during the days of the Herbble, I correlated at-large bids with final RPI rankings to see what, if anything, there was to see. It turns out for college basketball as a whole, there is too much data scatter to use just the RPI ranking. But when we look at only the power conferences, we get #1-#40 and #41-#75 as a quick and dirty definitions for “IN” and “Bubble”.

The “Bubble” is further broken down into “Some Chance” and “Slim Chance” based on parsing the at-large bids extended to teams within the larger Bubble zone. After collecting data for a number of years, the “Slim Chance” range of 56-75 was based on that face that there were a number of years where none or only one bid was extended to a team ranked #55+.

But don’t forget the importance of keeping cause/effect straight. These ranges don’t necessarily represent true cause/effect, but they are good enough to use as a starting point for projecting NCAAT bids. Don’t forget that just last year the record for most total losses to receive an at-large bid was broken. Likewise, there is always the chance that the Selection Committee will force us to further refine the ranges that have served pretty well for over a decade.

Since I’m breaking down the trend graphs based on the teams, rather than just current RPI Ranking, take a second to look at the Y-axis to see what RPI range the graphs are illustrating

UVa went 2-0 against two of the worst teams in the conference.

Duke also went 2-0, but against L’ville and SYR.

UNC beat SYR mid-week and had the weekend off.

GT coming to Clemson was the perfect scenario to break Clemson’s three-game losing streak. At halftime, it looked like GT might extend the Tiggers losing streak, but they couldn’t hold on. Unsurprisingly, beating GT at home didn’t help Clemson’s RPI ranking.

This is the new graph tracking the four teams that have conspired to make things interesting…while simultaneously destroying the usability of my standard graphs.

Miami had a 2-0 week while at the same time making their game against BC interesting. This week was a welcome relief for ‘Canes fans since it broke a three-game losing streak.

The road win to complete the sweep of the Hokies gave the Cards a nice bump and their best ranking in three weeks.

SYR going 0-2 against UNC and Duke isn’t surprising, but the Orange needed something much better than “expected”.

With a mid-week break, FSU had a week to prepare for State…and they weren’t.

VT had a nice mid-week win over Clemson, but the home loss to L’ville resulted in a net loss for the week.

As we heard several times on the Sunday night broadcast, State is currently on a four-game winning streak and reached a new high-water mark on the trend graph for this season. (Look at how the home loss to L’ville affect VT. State doesn’t want to see that same effect.)

ND had a 1-1 week, but needed a lot more.

 

RPI SUMMARY TABLE

Miami is probably right on the edge of doing the minimum required to get in. But no one wants to go into Selection Sunday on a three-game losing streak. They finish @UNC and then host VT to finish the regular season.

Strangely enough, L’ville’s second win over VT hurt their resume by leaving them with only one Top 50 win…@FSU. I saw on one bracket (maybe CBS), that they had moved L’ville to the First Four. Right now, I wouldn’t bet money that they have done enough. They finish with UVa at home and then travel to Raleigh for Saturday’s game.

SYR is in bad shape. They need two wins badly…either two this week (@ BC and then Clemson) or one this week and then one on Thursday in the ACCT.

FSU has six Top 50 wins and even though two of those are positioned precariously ([email protected] #50 and [email protected] #45), they are probably OK as long as they win one this week to finish at .500 in conference. Their week sees them travel to Clemson and then host BC on Saturday.

As we’ve talked for weeks, I thought that State needed a minimum of 10-8 to feel comfortable. They’ve got the 10 wins, but I don’t want to enter Selection Sunday on a three-game losing streak.

I’ve been watching the VT game with Duke as I finish off this update. I agree with the announcers, VT just got another signature win to go along with victories against Clemson and UVA and just like State, they should have done enough to secure a bid. They finish the season at Miami.

Best case, ND is in the same position as SYR. They host Pitt mid-week and then travel to Hoo’ville on Saturday.

 

MISCELLANEOUS BRACKETOLOGY

Anyone that is interested in bracketology absolutely needs to read this article. Here are a few quotes from the AD at Creighton and this year’s NCAAT Selection Committee chairman that leapt out at me:

…the non-conference SOS has its flaws. It only takes into account the won-lost records of who you played, not where you played the game, not the outcome of the game, and most importantly, not the strength of the team you played… there are many other reasons why non-conference SOS is an invalid number…

I’ve seen State fans take this paragraph completely out of context to conclude that State’s embarrassing OOC schedule won’t hurt State. Those State fans conveniently ignore this part:

While the committee does examine in detail the non-conference opponents of a team under consideration, they also look at the “intent” in scheduling….

So riddle me this….what intent do you see with the scheduling of these icons of college basketball?

They look to me like sure wins were scheduled. Does anyone see anything else?

In any event , here are some illuminating comments about the new quadrants being used by the Selection Committee:

The quadrant system is simply a sorting mechanism. The ranges in the quadrants were selected because of historical data that shows that a road win against a team with an RPI of 75 is comparable to a home win against a team with an RPI of 30, for instance…

The committee will look at each game in quadrant 1 on its own merits, and a road win against a team with a high RPI is obviously looked at much more favorably than a road win against a team with a (worse) RPI.

I take that to mean that there won’t be huge changes to the selection process this year. That may just be wishful thinking, so we’ll see what we see. After reading the entire article, I tend to agree with the author’s closing thoughts:

But I’ll say this: If the entire committee knows the landscape as well as Creighton’s athletic director, college basketball fans can sleep soundly on Selection Sunday Eve.

 

DANCE CARD

About the only good thing about putting this entry up so late is that I can add the Dance Card calcs to our other discussions.

I found it interesting/surprising that State came out as the first team after the four teams fighting for a high tournament seed. I guess it’s theoretically possible for the ACC to get 10 teams in, but it seems really unlikely to me.

 

ACC STANDINGS

These standings were after the State/FSU game and do not include VT’s win over Duke.

The only thing of interest to me is what it would take for State to get their first two-round bye. You all can do the math as well as I can…well, most of you anyway. 🙂

The odds of more than one team finishing at 11-7 are extremely high. So I’m just going to pull for State and see what transpires elsewhere.

 

FINAL GAMES OF THE REGULAR SEASON

Mercifully, State had the last Saturday off last year. This year that same mercy was extended to Pitt.

Good Lord willing, I’ll put up my “Last Look at the Bubble” next Monday to see who needs what out of the ACCT.

About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

ACC Teams College Basketball Stat of the Day

Home Forums One More Week

This topic contains 23 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  Texpack 4 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #131601

    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    Corey Alexander does an “OK” job on the ACC broadcasts, but he was really pissing me off with the references to State’s 2006 season. I’m sure he was j
    [See the full post at: One More Week]

    #131603

    Tau837
    Participant

    Thanks for all of the effort you put into this and all of your posts on this subject. I look forward to reading the new entry every week.

    If State wins out, this will end up as State’s best regular season since 1988-89. What an enjoyable season. I could get used to this…

    #131604

    freshmanin83
    Participant

    Thanks again VaWolf. In answer to your question as to why easy teams were scheduled I would venture that a new head coach might be trying to build confidence in a system and himself as their leader with a new team and players that some of the major potential contributors have not even played together much less than in the new system.

    Getting your team to buy into a new system while having your butt kicked by middling teams might be significantly harder than winning and getting your team to believe in the system.

    I would think the committee might cut a little slack the first few years but none thereafter.

    #131605

    Wulfpack
    Participant

    The committee should not (and doesn’t) grant such slack.

    #131606

    GoldenChain
    Participant

    Well for Keatts I understand, as he said on his show, just scraping up the grad transfers and the good fortune of getting Beverly eligible on appeal made a world of difference. If you rolled that set of dice 100 times they wouldn’t fall the way they have for us this season. So I totally get our OOC schedule. My question is (and has been) why does it matter if we played teams that are in the high 200’s/low 300’s or teams in the low or middle 200’s? In either case we would be expected to win, maybe by 12 instead of 20+ but still expected. THat’s my whole problem with the quadrant thing. I understand the math (VA) I just don’t understand the rationale behind the system.
    I believe what V did some was played these same type teams but he would get ones that had won their dinky conferences and made the NCAA, but they were still dinky teams, but he could claim it as a quality win because they were an NCAA team. Of course I realize that predated the sophisticated system with all the metrics we have now.

    #131607

    Fastback68
    Participant

    I want State to beat GT for many reasons but a major one is not having the wood choppers 4 game ACC win streak brought up by another game announcer. The only memory I want to keep from that era is Andrew Brackman draining a 3 pointer to send UConn packing.

    #131608

    44rules
    Participant

    Thanks VA. A bit over my head, but I kind of understand and always enjoy reading.

    And I second this, Tau: “If State wins out, this will end up as State’s best regular season since 1988-89. What an enjoyable season. I could get used to this…”

    Of course, if State keeps winning out, it will be the best year since, oh, 1983! Dream big, boys.

    Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Mao Zedong

    #131609

    bill.onthebeach
    Participant

    Thanks again VaWolf!
    Worth waiting for….

    —————–
    Am I correct?

    In the College Football Playoff Selection criteria, games at the end of the season are weighted heavier and games at the beginning of the season are discounted regardless of whether they are wins or losses.

    Given the complexity of the RPI, Kenpom, Dance Card, et al, metrics, it seems that this early/late season weighing is missing.

    College Football is a 12 game season.

    If that early/late season weighing makes sense for a 12 game season, it seems to me it makes even more sense when trying to quantify a team’s body of work over a 30 game season.

    GO PACK!

    #NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!
    #131610

    freshmanin83
    Participant

    The committee should not (and doesn’t) grant such slack.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    #131613

    Texpack
    Participant

    Well for Keatts I understand, as he said on his show, just scraping up the grad transfers and the good fortune of getting Beverly eligible on appeal made a world of difference. If you rolled that set of dice 100 times they wouldn’t fall the way they have for us this season. So I totally get our OOC schedule. My question is (and has been) why does it matter if we played teams that are in the high 200’s/low 300’s or teams in the low or middle 200’s? In either case we would be expected to win, maybe by 12 instead of 20+ but still expected. THat’s my whole problem with the quadrant thing. I understand the math (VA) I just don’t understand the rationale behind the system.
    I believe what V did some was played these same type teams but he would get ones that had won their dinky conferences and made the NCAA, but they were still dinky teams, but he could claim it as a quality win because they were an NCAA team. Of course I realize that predated the sophisticated system with all the metrics we have now.

    V played ND, MSU, Louisville home and away, Mizzou on the road, WVU neutral, Wichita State neutral, Memphis State all during the time I was at State and the schedule was only 27 games prior to the tournament not 31

    #131614

    BassPacker
    Participant

    The next three games will determine our faith more than any metrics. We cannot lose at GT or even at home to the Ville and be looking in from 4 of the out. Its so tight from 2nd down to 9th that we could fall to being tied for 8th place. 20-11 would probably mean atleast one maybe two wins in ACC tourney to secure a dance card. 20-12 is NIT bound. Amazing how important the last week of play has become. Win out and a double bye is ours. Lose out and the pressure is on in the Bronx.

    #131616

    FergusWolf
    Participant

    So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.

    The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.

    Is that likely to help us?

    #131617

    bluelena69
    Participant

    MJ missed 7 games total. Just in case anyone missed it on Sunday. And it was a suspension on felony assault charges… They said it at least twice

    #131618

    Texpack
    Participant

    So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.

    The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.

    Is that likely to help us?

    We might get a semi-pass for the UNC-G game. The others are doubtful. At this point every little bit helps

    #131619

    Tau837
    Participant

    So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.

    The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.

    Is that likely to help us?

    I very seriously doubt it. These are the 7 games he missed:

    L UNC-G
    W Robert Morris
    W Jacksonville
    L @Clemson (by 16 points)
    L @Notre Dame (by 30 points)
    W Duke
    W Clemson

    IMO it is reasonable to think we would have beaten UNC-G if he played, especially since that was the first game he missed. Two counterpoints, though:

    1. This NC State team has no business losing to UNC-G with or without Johnson. Especially given they beat Duke and Clemson without Johnson, two of their biggest wins of the season.
    2. This NC State team lost to Northern Iowa (a worse loss than UNC-G) with Johnson, so he may not have made a difference.

    The losses at Clemson and at Notre Dame were lopsided enough that I doubt anyone would reasonably expect that Johnson would have made a difference in either outcome.

    I don’t see a real pattern here. Sure, we went 4-3 without him, but it was also an extremely difficult schedule during that stretch. I don’t see any reason to expect the committee to discount the losses. Especially since Johnson was missing for a reason that had something to do with his own behavior, not an injury he could not control.

    Fortunately, we won’t need such consideration to make the tournament.

    #131620

    TheAliasTroll
    Participant

    RPI appears to be way too heavily weighted against OOC SOS. Assuming your RPI summary table in the post above is correct, you’ll see that we’re a full 10 spots below Louisville in RPI ranking, but looking at everything else EXCEPT OOC SOS and it would seems we should be 10-20 spots ahead of them.

    Wins against top 25 we blow them to smithereens. To me that seems vastly more important than who you played in November.

    #131621

    Tau837
    Participant

    RPI appears to be way too heavily weighted against OOC SOS

    RPI measures what it sets out to measure. It is a simple formula. If you play a lot of teams with lousy RPI, and those teams also play a lot of teams with lousy RPI, it will have a negative effect on your RPI.

    What you seem to really be getting at is how important the RPI should be with respect to evaluating teams. Or possibly whether or not we could devise another metric that would improve upon the deficiencies of RPI.

    I think those questions are one reason why the committee considers many different criteria and metrics, including RPI but also quadrants, BPI, KenPom, Sagarin, conference record, road/neutral record, etc.

    The fact is that State seems to be safely in the tournament as a 9 or 10 seed as of today, despite having a RPI of 47. That tells you that RPI is not the be all, end all.

    #131622

    Rick
    Keymaster

    So, here’s my question. I believe I’ve heard it stated (usually in reference to Notre Dame this year), that the committee takes into account injuries and the record of the team before, during, and after the injury, and might “help out” a team that returns a star late in the season.

    The same could (should imo) apply to MJs “7 game suspension” (How many times did they say that on Sunday?), we lost 3 of our games (UNC-G, Clemson, ND) during this time.

    Is that likely to help us?

    I very seriously doubt it. These are the 7 games he missed:

    L UNC-G
    W Robert Morris
    W Jacksonville
    L @Clemson (by 16 points)
    L @Notre Dame (by 30 points)
    W Duke
    W Clemson

    IMO it is reasonable to think we would have beaten UNC-G if he played, especially since that was the first game he missed. Two counterpoints, though:

    1. This NC State team has no business losing to UNC-G with or without Johnson. Especially given they beat Duke and Clemson without Johnson, two of their biggest wins of the season.
    2. This NC State team lost to Northern Iowa (a worse loss than UNC-G) with Johnson, so he may not have made a difference.

    The losses at Clemson and at Notre Dame were lopsided enough that I doubt anyone would reasonably expect that Johnson would have made a difference in either outcome.

    I don’t see a real pattern here. Sure, we went 4-3 without him, but it was also an extremely difficult schedule during that stretch. I don’t see any reason to expect the committee to discount the losses. Especially since Johnson was missing for a reason that had something to do with his own behavior, not an injury he could not control.

    Fortunately, we won’t need such consideration to make the tournament.

    First off I 100% agree we should never lose to uncg. But….. If I remember correctly they found out about the suspension at the last minute.

    Honestly, after the uncg, Clemson and ND loses I was in a wait until year three mode. Heck of a coaching job turning that ship around.

    #131623

    Rick
    Keymaster

    And one more vote for ‘great work va’.

    #131624

    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    My question is (and has been) why does it matter if we played teams that are in the high 200’s/low 300’s or teams in the low or middle 200’s? In either case we would be expected to win, maybe by 12 instead of 20+ but still expected.

    The UNC-G and UNI losses would appear to disprove this theory.

    In the article I linked in the Misc Bracketology section, the Selection chairman talked about wanting teams to challenge themselves with their OOC schedule. The more meaningful games a team plays, the better read the committee can get when evaluating them. And ultimately that’s the committee’s job….select and seed the best teams in college basketball.

    I don’t knock KK for this OOC schedule. No one could have predicted the improvement in MJ and Y7 and how all of the various pieces of a flung-together team would work out. If you go back and read my first entry before the conference schedule got in full swing, I said that State’s OOC schedule wouldn’t matter this year. I’m certainly glad to have been proven wrong.

    Back to the cupcakes….nearly everyone plays some of these. The problem is that State played way too many.

    #131625

    Fastback68
    Participant

    Google RPI for at large bids. There are many interesting articles. Top 30 guarantee (there are exceptions) and Major Conference Surety- be in the top 50.

    #131626

    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    If that early/late season weighing makes sense for a 12 game season, it seems to me it makes even more sense when trying to quantify a team’s body of work over a 30 game season.

    Several years ago, the Selection Committee specifically said that it doesn’t matter when in the season a victory happened…they’re all treated the same.

    Late-season injuries are a key exception to the above rule. The loss of a key player late in the season is one of the things that the Selection Committee will consider.

    #131627

    choppack1
    Participant

    Keatts has broken the mold with this year. Most years we are on the bubble because we don’t have those real quality wins (or just have one).

    No worries on that front this year. I think we need to 2 of next 3 to be comfortable a week from Sunday. We got 1-2 and we will be sweating it.

    #131628

    Texpack
    Participant

    Larry’s boys up eight at the half in Cheater Hill.

    More and more of the experts have us in without any reservations at this point. It makes my stomach hurt to hear that kind of talk. What I really want at this point is to win the ACC Tournament so the double bye is the first big step

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.