Bubble Watch (Feb. 14)

[Olympic Fan]

I always object to starting to talk about the NCAA bubble too early, but I think midway through February it's time, especially since the NCAA held its mock draft late last week -- inviting experts (Jerry Palm, Joe Lunardi, Clark Kellog) to pick the field following the NCAA rules and procedures.

Just an interesting note -- the NCAA staff simulates some of the problems the committee faces by generating upsets in various conference tournaments. According to Jerry Palm, this year they had Virginia (not in the field as an at-large team) reaching the finals of the ACC Tournament against Duke -- creating the possibility of knocking an at large team out if the Cavs won ... but he says, the staff had Duke beating the Cavs for the title (I'd take that result!).

Anyway, the mock draft included six ACC teams -- Duke (a No. 2 seed), Wake (a No. 5 seed), Georgia Tech (a No. 6 seed), Clemson and FSU (No. 9 seeds) and Maryland (a No. 10 seeds). Interesting that Va Tech, which got to 20 wins Saturday, did not make it.

One more thing to add -- there's a big difference between the RPI ratings and the Pomeroy rankings. For example:

RPI
3 Duke
11 Wake
29 Georgia Tech
31 Clemson
40 Maryland
47 FSU
49 Va Tech
79 Miami
82 UNC
94 Virginia
106 N.C. State

Pomeroy
2 Duke
13 Maryland
19 Clemson
23 Virginia Tech
25 FSU
26 Wake
28 Georgia Tech

Strange that Pomeroy likes Maryland and Virginia Tech so much more than the RPI .. actually most of the top ACC teams rate higher, except for Wake Forest

So from that starting point, let's start the ACC bubble watch:

LOCKS

Duke (21-4) -- No. 3 in the RPI, No. 2 in Pomery ... Duke is probably locked into a No. 2 seed, although the Devils still have an outside shot at moving up or down a line.

Wake (18-5) -- No. 11 RPI, No. 26 Pomeroy ... barring total collapse, the Deacs are in -- they're playing for a better seed.

GOOD SHAPE

Georgia Tech (17-8) -- No. 29 RPI, No. 28 Pomeroy ... the only reason the Jackets aren't a lock is that they've lost 3 of 4 and appear to be going backwards. As long as they take care of business at home (UNC, BC and Va Tech), they'll be fine.

Clemson (18-7) -- No. 31 RPI, No. 19 Pomeroy ... I think the mock draft should have given the Tigers a higher seed. I know there is a lot of uninformed talk about how they always collapse in February, but don't you think the loss of Stitt for two weeks had something to do with this year's slump? He's back and they've won three of four in the last two weeks (including really solid wins over Maryland and FSU). Pretty close to a lock IMHO.

Maryland (16-7) -- No. 40 RPI, No. 13 Pomeroy ... the only reason the Terps aren't a lock are the early season hole they dug for themselves.But when you look at it, only a homecourt loss to William & Mary is that bad -- Cincinnati, Wisconsin and Villanova are the other non-ACC defeats. The loss to Duke Saturday wasn't a bad one ... let them survive the current three-games-in-five-days stretch (Virginia at home Monday; at floundering NC State Wednesday) and they're looking good. Need to get one or two of the remaining home games with Georgia Tech, Clemson and Duke.

THE REAL BUBBLE

FSU (17-8) -- No. 47 RPI, No. 25 Pomeroy ... The 'Noles aren't in terrible shape, but they still have work to do. It doesn't help that FSU has just three top 50 wins (although to be fair, that's just one less than No. 2 Kentucky has at the moment). Just 4-5 in the last nine games. Need the BC game today (and should get it at home). Also has Clemson and Wake at home ... plus road games at ACC bottom feeders UNC and Miami, plus at Virginia. Beat BC and get two wins in the other five games and they should make it.

VIRGINIA TECH (20-4) -- No. 49 RPI, No. 23 Pomeroy ... hard to believe that an ACC team with 20 wins at this point could be in trouble, but with one top 50 win on their resume, the Hokies still have something to prove. Upcoming home games with Wake Forest and Maryland offer opportunities -- so does a trip to Cameron and a trip to Georgia Tech. Win a couple of those and pad the win total with wins over N.C. State at home and at BC and the Hokies will make it.

DESPERATION TIME

VIRGINIA (14-8) -- for all the praise heaped on Tony Bennett, the Cavs are a long, long way from competing for an at large spot. Duke's Feb. 28 visit to Charlottesville is vital to putting the Cavs into the conversation. So are home games with Maryland and FSU. A very weak early season performance is going to require the Cavs to do better than 8-8 in the ACC ... probably better than 9-7 -- that's not likely to happen.

NORTH CAROLINA (14-11) -- a lot of Tar Heel fans are grasping at straws after beating N.C. State. They like to talk about all the tough teams UNC played early -- forgetting that it's not enough to merely play tough teams, you have to beat some too: Right now, UNC has three top 50 wins -- Michigan State, Ohio State and Virginia Tech (at No. 49, another loss or two and they'll drop out of the top 50, leaving UNC with just two top 50 wins).

UNC gets Florida State and Miami at home down the stretch ... even giving them those two (FSU is no lock), they'd still have to do significant damage on the road to make a run -- maybe at BC, but at Georgia Tech? at Wake? at Duke? Even if you give UNC every borderline game (FSU, Miami at home; BC on the road), they'll have to win one of those three tough road games to get to 7-9 in the ACC (18-13 overall) and even that probably won't do it (since the loss of Davis negates the two early season top 50 wins).

I'm sure the NCAA Tournament will bend over backwards to give UNC a break (as they did last year with an undeserving Arizona team), but it's hard to see UNC getting close enough to capitalize on its fame.

WIN THE ACC TOURNAMENT
BC, Miami and N.C. State are dead in the water for an at large bid. Because of Miami's easy early schedule, they have a chance to get an NIT bid ... BC and State don't even have that. Well, State might play itself onto the NIT bubble, but after the last two games, it looks like the team has quit on Lowe.

[OldPhiKap]

Good analysis, thanks. My un-scientific tweaks/comments:

GT has the worst coach in the conference. They will find a way to screw it up and end up on the bubble.

UNC isn't dead yet, and I would argue that Henson's move into more minutes is probably long overdue. I won't rest easy until they get that 10th loss in the conference.

Sad as it is, I coule see a situation where the conference only gets four teams in. Fair or not, it seems to be pile on the ACC season.

[sagegrouse]

Excellent post, timely topic.

Your thoughts are right on, although I think FSU and VT and good bets, if they don't blow it. FSU is now trailing BC at home, so one or both could blow it.

Does anyone else think that VT -- because of close misses in the past -- is likely to get a bid this year if on the bubble?

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

Also has Clemson and Wake at home ... plus road games at ACC bottom feeders UNC and Miami, plus at Virginia.

Admit it, the sole purpose of this post was so you could write this sentence.



Just kidding; it's a great writeup. I'm expecting 7 ACC teams to make the tourney (and UNC isn't one of them).

[InSpades]

I think Virginia Tech's case for a bid is really interesting. For the most part they have no bad losses (@ Temple, @UNC, @Miami, @ Fla. St). They also don't really have many good wins either though (the best being home for Clemson). 1 thing I do like about their schedule is that they beat a lot of BCS teams (Iowa, Georgia, Penn St., Seton Hall). Obviously none of those teams are all that good but it's certainly more impressive than playing bad non-BCS schools. I think if they finish 3-3 that they are in good shape. That would put them at 10-6, 23-7 and you can't really deny them at that point. It would also mean atleast 1 more good win for them. I don't know if 2-4 gets them in, even though they'd be 9-7 in the ACC. 2-4 they might need to get to the semis in the ACC tournament.

[allenmurray]

My nightmare is that unc finishes the season below .500 both overall and in-conference, and then wins the ACC Tournament. If that happens I will have to give up on basketball for the rest of my life.

[Duvall]

My nightmare is that unc finishes the season below .500 both overall and in-conference, and then wins the ACC Tournament. If that happens I will have to give up on basketball for the rest of my life.

To be honest, without Ed Davis I have a hard time seeing them beating any non-State team in the ACC Tournament, let alone four. (And they won't get to play State.)

[Newton_14]

My nightmare is that unc finishes the season below .500 both overall and in-conference, and then wins the ACC Tournament. If that happens I will have to give up on basketball for the rest of my life.

I feel real comfortable saying you will not be giving up basketball any time soon. At this point it should be obvious to everyone that the holes are a bad basketball team. With their remaining schedule, staying above .500 in-conference and overall will be a real challenge. So that part has a decent chance of happening. That team winning 4 games in 4 days against the upper half of the league is another thing entirely. Not happening..

[roywhite]

My nightmare is that unc finishes the season below .500 both overall and in-conference, and then wins the ACC Tournament. If that happens I will have to give up on basketball for the rest of my life.

Since the Heels are virtually certain to play opening day, Thursday, of the ACC Tournament---winning it would take 4 straight days of focus and good guard play. Naaah, ain't gonna happen.

[SCMatt33]

Clemson (18-7) -- No. 31 RPI, No. 19 Pomeroy ... I think the mock draft should have given the Tigers a higher seed. I know there is a lot of uninformed talk about how they always collapse in February, but don't you think the loss of Stitt for two weeks had something to do with this year's slump? He's back and they've won three of four in the last two weeks (including really solid wins over Maryland and FSU). Pretty close to a lock IMHO.

I'm not really sure that Clemson is being that underrated. I'm not sure how much credit Clemson will be given for the Stitt injury causing their problems. Remember, he only missed two games, and they went 1-1 including the win over Maryland, which is probably their second best of the year, behind the neutral court win over Butler. He played through much of the injury and his minutes did not decline significantly.

The other thing to consider is that of the most recent four losses, three were on the road, and the other to Duke. Combine that with the home win over Maryland without Stitt at all, and it would be hard to argue that Stitt's absence is the overwhelming reason for the losses and not problems on the road.

The ACC's representative on the committee is Wake AD Ron Wellman. Unless he brings strong evidence to the room about Clemson's streak being caused by Stitt's injury, I think that their record will be taken for what it is.

That being said, they are currently 3-4 against the top 50 (wins over Butler, Maryland, FSU and losses to Texas A&M, Duke (x2), and GTech). That's a decent percentage for a bid, but not a ton of top 50 games. They have a very tough finishing stretch. After a home game against UVA, they have @MD, @FSU, GT, and @Wake. As of right now, that is four top 50 games to finish. If they hold serve on UVA and split the last four they will be a lock. They will still probably be in ok shape if they go 2-3 in the last 5. That would be 8-8 in conference, and while that should be enough with a number of good wins, I'd still watch the selection show closely.

[CDu]

I think Virginia Tech's case for a bid is really interesting. For the most part they have no bad losses (@ Temple, @UNC, @Miami, @ Fla. St). They also don't really have many good wins either though (the best being home for Clemson). 1 thing I do like about their schedule is that they beat a lot of BCS teams (Iowa, Georgia, Penn St., Seton Hall). Obviously none of those teams are all that good but it's certainly more impressive than playing bad non-BCS schools. I think if they finish 3-3 that they are in good shape. That would put them at 10-6, 23-7 and you can't really deny them at that point. It would also mean atleast 1 more good win for them. I don't know if 2-4 gets them in, even though they'd be 9-7 in the ACC. 2-4 they might need to get to the semis in the ACC tournament.

Yeah, if they were a mid-major, I think their schedule would look good right now for an at-large bid. They're 20-4 with an RPI of 49. But as a major conference team, it's lacking in meat. It's crazy. They've yet to play any of the other teams in the top-4 of the conference, and they'll only play each of those teams once this year. But they've beaten Clemson once and UVa twice. And they have no bad losses.

[CDu]

I'm not sure I'd say GT is in good shape. They're 5-6 in conference, with two very tough road games (@Md, @Clemson), one tough home game (VT), and a game that could sneak up on them if they aren't careful (UNC). If they win against UNC, they put themselves in (at worst) an interesting position (assuming they also beat BC). If they finish at 7-9 in conference with an RPI probably around 40, I think they're on the bubble. I agree that if they hold serve at home, they should be fine. But that's not a given with this team against those opponents (even with UNC being crappy).

Honestly, I think GT, VT, FSU, and Clemson are all about at the same point. All have decent (not great) resumes, all need about 2-3 more conference wins, and none have a slam dunk path to get there with their remaining schedules.

I think that three or all four of them will get in and join Duke, Wake, and Maryland (who could become a lock after this week and has the easiest remaining schedule of these teams).

[gumbomoop]

GOOD SHAPE

Georgia Tech (17-8) -- No. 29 RPI, No. 28 Pomeroy ... the only reason the Jackets aren't a lock is that they've lost 3 of 4 and appear to be going backwards. As long as they take care of business at home (UNC, BC and Va Tech), they'll be fine.

DESPERATION TIME

NORTH CAROLINA (14-11) -- UNC gets Florida State and Miami at home down the stretch ... even giving them those two (FSU is no lock), they'd still have to do significant damage on the road to make a run -- maybe at BC, but at Georgia Tech? at Wake? at Duke? Even if you give UNC every borderline game (FSU, Miami at home; BC on the road), they'll have to win one of those three tough road games to get to 7-9 in the ACC (18-13 overall) and even that probably won't do it (since the loss of Davis negates the two early season top 50 wins).

I'm sure the NCAA Tournament will bend over backwards to give UNC a break (as they did last year with an undeserving Arizona team), but it's hard to see UNC getting close enough to capitalize on its fame.

Great thread and analysis.

I'm gonna piddle a little with these 2, because their game tomorrow eve is big, big for both. Admitting, of course, that every game is crucial for the remaining 9 hopefuls. [Well, in Duke's case, maybe less crucial for Devils than for health of DBR posters.] And because it pits contestants for conf [national?] WCOY.

Tomorrow's contest is real close to make-break for GaT and UNC. If GaT wins, stops their slide, makes it likely they'll get to 8-8 and 20 wins, needing, perhaps a Thurs win in ACCT. A UNC loss means they'd have to win remaining 5, including @Wake and @Duke, just to get to 8-8 and 19-12.

OTOH, a UNC win puts them on a "roll" [!!], makes it plausible that they'd go to Wake on 2/27 on a 4-win streak, and gives them legit hope. A GaT loss would be 4-of-5 losing streak, with tough @Md looming [Sat, 2/20] as 5-of-6, bad, bad vibes, talk of Hewitt buy-out, likely 7-9, needing probably 2 wins in ACCT. GaT loses tomorrow eve, and I'd say they move from Good Shape to Desperation Time in one fell swoop.

[gw67]

Olympic,

As usual, your lead for this thread is terrific reading. I've looked at upcoming schedules and I see the ACC getting 5-7 invites to the NCAAT. In addition to Florida State and Virginia Tech, I think Georgia Tech is on the bubble. It will be interesting to watch all three teams over the next three weeks.

For grins, a composite of 55 or so brackets is linked below:

http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm

Tech and the Noles are the last ACC teams in according to the rackup. Given the closeness of the league this year, it would not surprise me to see a team with a poorer league record chosen over a team that finished ahead of them because of all those considerations that you mentioned including RPI, SOS, good wins and bad losses.

gw67

[CDu]

VT and GT had big wins today. Both probably still need two more regular-season wins to get into the field, but these games were virtually must-win games given their remaining schedules.

VT has tough games remaining (@Duke, vs Md, @GT) but has a game @BC and vs NC St as well. Had they lost last night, I don't know that they'd have gotten three of those five remaining games. Now, I can see them beating BC and NC State to make the field.

GT has BC and VT at home and @Md and @Clemson remaining. Had they lost last night, I don't see them getting to 8 ACC wins, and I don't know that a 7-9 conference record is enough. But now, with 6 wins, I think they'll get past BC and VT to make it.

Of course, this is assuming nothing absolutely insane happens in conference tournaments (typically there are a few surprises but nothing Earth-shattering).

[Olympic Fan]

I appreciate the input -- and obviously everything's in flux.

One point I'd like to bring up. Several of you have brought up conference records or projected final ACC records. In itself, that means NOTHING. The committee pays no attention to conference marks -- especially in conferences that play an unbalanced schedule. This comes up in the VPI debate because the Hokies played the top teams in the league just once each and load up on the bottom feeders.

So saying that Georgia Tech needs to get to 8-8, rather than 7-9, is meaningless in itself. Naturally, each win and loss is important, but not in terms of conference position. The teams that don't get automatic bids are considered as at large candidates, not as ACC candidates. That's why when I listed the candidates, I included their overall record and not their conference record. Overall record is all that matters.

So for Georgia Tech, the outcome of the upcoming game at Maryland is no more important than the outcome of its Jan. 2 win at Charlotte (which has a similar RPI) -- except that it's late in the season and performance in the LAST 10 games is a major consideration.

I think that since my original post, Virginia Tech has helped itself most. Its victory over Wake Tuesday night gives the Hokies a second top 50 win. They are not a lock, but their chances look a lot better. I don't think they have to win at Duke Sunday (although an upset in Cameron would make them a virtual lock) ... but beat the bottom feeders (confession -- I didn't write the original post JUST to include UNC in this group, but I admit it was fun that it worked out that way!) at BC and NC State at home and they should be there.

FWIW, Joe Lunardi said last night in the ESPN late wrapup that he now has VPI as a No. 9 seed -- that's safely in (the last at-large team is usually a No. 12 seed).

FSU and Georgia Tech helped themselves too -- beating BC and UNC, respectively. That's more on the lines of "taking care of business" rather than padding your resume.

Looking back at it, Ga Tech's recent slump was largely a function of the schedule -- I mean, losing at Duke and at Wake is hardly cause for panic. And a 2-point loss at Miami isn't horrible. Their final four include tough road games at Maryland and at Clemson, plus home games with BC and Va Tech. Win at home (they are 13-1 at home this season) and I think they are in.

As for Clemson and Stitt. I understand that he missed just two games, but he played hurt -- and far below his normal effectiveness -- in several more. If the committee does it's job (and they have an excellent advisory staff), they'll understand his importance to the Tigers and how much it hurt them when he was hobbled.

My contention is that THAT consideration moves the Tigers from borderline in (as they are now) to solidly in (as they should be). Of course, before you can use player's absence as an excuse, you have to prove that he's back and healthy and that his return makes a difference (Stitt certainly looked good in Saturday's Miami game).

Clemson has a week off to get ready for Virginia's visit Saturday. That will get them to 19-7 -- but they finish with 3 of their last 4 on the road ... and all four are against quality opponents (at Maryland, at FSU, at Wake ... Georgia Tech at home). They still have work to do -- with or without Mr. Stitt.

Just a note about overall records -- people talk about 9-7 in the ACC teams almost always making it ... and it does usually work out that way.

But consider this: since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985, 108 of the 110 ACC teams that have 20 overall wins on Selection Sunday have gotten bids (note: several teams have gotten to 20 wins later, by winning in the NIT).

The only exceptions to the 20-win rule came in 2007, when an astonishing nine ACC teams had 20 wins on selection sunday. Seven got in -- 21-10 Clemson and 20-12 FSU missed it.

As it now stands, I think seven ACC teams will get to 20 wins in 2010 -- Duke and Va Tech are already there; Wake, Clemson, FSU, Ga Tech are all at 18 wins at the moment. Maryland has 17 wins (so does Miami, but I don't think they'll make it -- although they could change my mind with a win tonight).

I hoping for seven bids -- it would help if the bottom four would continue to roll over and die for the top eight ... I don't mind them beating each other, but I'd hate to see UNC beat FSU in Chapel Hill or BC upset VPI in Chesnut Hill or N.C. State to win in Blacksburg or Miami end the seson by knocking off FSU in Miami. Those upsets would really hurt the legue's chances.

[CDu]

One point I'd like to bring up. Several of you have brought up conference records or projected final ACC records. In itself, that means NOTHING. The committee pays no attention to conference marks -- especially in conferences that play an unbalanced schedule. This comes up in the VPI debate because the Hokies played the top teams in the league just once each and load up on the bottom feeders.

So saying that Georgia Tech needs to get to 8-8, rather than 7-9, is meaningless in itself. Naturally, each win and loss is important, but not in terms of conference position. The teams that don't get automatic bids are considered as at large candidates, not as ACC candidates. That's why when I listed the candidates, I included their overall record and not their conference record. Overall record is all that matters.

Obviously the complete resume matters, but conference record does still matter as well. A .500 conference record doesn't guarantee anything of course, but it's REALLY hard to be an at-large team with a sub-.500 conference record.

And in the cases of GT and VT, who don't have very impressive OOC resumes (though GT's is better), conference record and "who you beat" matter more. That's why I think both needed three more wins prior to last night. 8-8 is meaningless for VT because they don't have quality wins. So they need to do REALLY well in conference to overcome the lack of any sort of resume. 8-8 is meaningful for GT because they haven't done enough out-of-conference to overcome a sub-.500 in-conference mark.



FWIW, Joe Lunardi said last night in the ESPN late wrapup that he now has VPI as a No. 9 seed -- that's safely in (the last at-large team is usually a No. 12 seed).

A #9 seed is safely in only at season's end. But a lot can happen in the next 3-4 weeks that can push a team that's currently a #9 seed to the wrong side of the bubble come selection Sunday. So VPI is by no means safe. Right now, only Duke and Wake are safely in. Everyone else is very much battling for their tourney lives.


I hoping for seven bids -- it would help if the bottom four would continue to roll over and die for the top eight ... I don't mind them beating each other, but I'd hate to see UNC beat FSU in Chapel Hill or BC upset VPI in Chesnut Hill or N.C. State to win in Blacksburg or Miami end the seson by knocking off FSU in Miami. Those upsets would really hurt the legue's chances.

I think that as long as UNC/BC/UVa/Miami/NC State don't screw things up, we'll get seven teams. But the middle of the ACC has had a bad habit of blowing games that they really need in the past, so it's very possible that we'll see somebody trip up and fall on the wrong side of the bubble.

[Klemnop]

As for Clemson and Stitt. I understand that he missed just two games, but he played hurt -- and far below his normal effectiveness -- in several more. If the committee does it's job (and they have an excellent advisory staff), they'll understand his importance to the Tigers and how much it hurt them when he was hobbled.

My contention is that THAT consideration moves the Tigers from borderline in (as they are now) to solidly in (as they should be). Of course, before you can use player's absence as an excuse, you have to prove that he's back and healthy and that his return makes a difference (Stitt certainly looked good in Saturday's Miami game).

Clemson has a week off to get ready for Virginia's visit Saturday. That will get them to 19-7 -- but they finish with 3 of their last 4 on the road ... and all four are against quality opponents (at Maryland, at FSU, at Wake ... Georgia Tech at home). They still have work to do -- with or without Mr. Stitt.



Well said. I hope the committee is as informed.

Stitt got injured with 12 minutes to go on the road at NCState. At that moment the Tigers held a commanding 10+ point lead, a margin they had held essentially since the outset of the game. Stitt went down and it's as if someone blew a huge hole in the top of the parachute...and we went into freefall. We managed to pull that one out at the end (or, perhaps more appropriately, State managed to not be able to take it).

Three days later we rolled into GaTech for a Tuesday night game. Absolutely positively no way Stitt should have played (in retrospect). He should have have been held out and his foot should have been given time to mend. But he did play - 36 minutes, 4-10 shooting, 2 TOs and zero Asst. He wasn't 100%. He wasn't 70%. I won't say he hurt us - because our options behind him are limited, but he wasn't the same player he had been prior. We lost by two...Stitt dribbling the ball off his shin on a drive to the hoop with 5 seconds remianing in a tie game.

The following Saturday we played home to Duke. Again, Stitt should have sat. Duke was fantastic that night and really took the game to Clemson. With or without Stitt we lose that game. 34 minutes, 4-12 shooting, 3 TOs and 3 Asst.

The killer was the the following Tuesday (2nd consecutive Tuesday road game after Sat. game for all your schedule-haters out there.) The staff finally committed to getting Stitt healthy by resting him. Clemson came out falt and let BC apply pressure to throw then completely off their game in the 1st half. BC was up 17 at half - and despite the Tigers gathering themselves for a nice run in the 2nd half (cutting the lead to 4 at one point under 5 minutes) they couldn't get all the way home. Andre Young, Stitt's replacement, was 2-11 shooting.

That's "the slump". Two point loss @GaTech two days after the Stitt injury. Outplayed (period) by Duke. 6 point road loss @ BC in the first game the staff committed to holding Stitt out.

Since then the team has rallied for convincing home wins vs. Maryland and FSU, a go-through-the-motions win vs. Miami and a road loss @ VaTech when Malcolm Delaney was allowed to shoot 23 FTs...all by himself. (Want an interesting stat? Clemson is 0-fer-'09/'10 in games officiated by Karl Hess. You can look it up.)

Where does that leave us (Clemson)? Got to win at home Sat. vs. UVa. Got to win home vs. GaTech in a couple of weeks. Got to win our 1st round ACC Tourney game against BC/UNC/Miami/NCState. I think that's the recipe for a secured NCAAT bid. Lose a home game? Lose to a low-light in the ACC Tourney on Thursday? I think that puts us on the bubble outside looking in.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Klem

[gw67]

The league has split into seven “haves” and five “have nots”. I agree with Olympic that Duke and Wake are locks for the NCAAT. The Bubble Watch involves the other five teams in the “haves” category – Maryland, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State and Georgia Tech. I disagree with Olympic that the ACC standing has no bearing. Sure, the NCAAT committee could pick an 8-8 team over a 9-7 team but I doubt the teams finishing third or fourth in the final standings and getting an ACCT bye would be bypassed.

Looking at the remaining games for each we have:

Virginia Tech (8-3) @Duke, @GT, Md @BC, NC State
Maryland (8-3) GT, Clem, Duke, @VT @Va
Clemson (6-5) @FS, @Md, @WF, GT, Va
Florida State (7-5) Clem, WF @UNC, @Miami
Georgia Tech (6-6) @Md, @Clem, WF, BC

Based on their remaining schedules, Florida State has the easiest road while Clemson has the toughest. Both Virginia Tech and Maryland have several tough games remaining but they have the advantage of the best records going into the final two weeks. IMO, 3rd place in the league comes down to the Tech-Maryland game in Blacksburg. Clemson and Georgia Tech will likely finish with 8-8 or, at best, 9-7 records while Florida State may be able to win 10 games and tie for 4th. This assumes that these teams beat the “have nots” on their schedule.

While I expect the ACC to get at least five and perhaps as many as seven NCAAT bids, the bubble teams going into the ACC tourney may turn out to be Clemson and Georgia Tech even though they currently have the best RPI’s among the five teams.

gw67

[pfrduke]

While I expect the ACC to get at least five and perhaps as many as seven NCAAT bids, the bubble teams going into the ACC tourney may turn out to be Clemson and Georgia Tech even though they currently have the best RPI’s among the five teams.

gw67

I agree with this, and think it's actually a good thing for getting 7 bids rather than 5. Too often in the past we've had teams with good records but questionable RPI's being the teams on the bubble. It seems like it would be better to have our more bubblish teams have higher RPI's.

[gvtucker]

T I disagree with Olympic that the ACC standing has no bearing.

You might disagree, but IMO you would be wrong, then. The selection committee has continually maintained that it does not draw any distinction at all between conference games and nonconference games. The strength of the opponent matters, not the conference affiliation. Look no further than the 2008 season, when Miami made the NCAA tournament even though their conference record was worse that Virginia Tech, who didn't make the NCAA tournament.

[gw67]

gv,

You left out my qualifier. Regardless, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong (or last). However, if, for example Virginia Tech finishes 3rd and the powers to be on the Selection Committee decide to leave them out to include a 6th or 7th place finisher who has a better RPI and SOS then the committee (and the AD at Wake who is a member) would come under considerable fire, IMO.

If conference standings have no meaning other than for ACCT tournament seeding, then I suggest that we get rid of our conference affiliation, play a nationwide schedule and rely completely on RPI.

gw67

[gvtucker]

gv,

You left out my qualifier. Regardless, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong (or last). However, if, for example Virginia Tech finishes 3rd and the powers to be on the Selection Committee decide to leave them out to include a 6th or 7th place finisher who has a better RPI and SOS then the committee (and the AD at Wake who is a member) would come under considerable fire, IMO.

My bad, your qualifier actually took that exact example into account. And while I doubt that there are any examples of a 6th place conference finisher that had a better RPI and SOS than a 3rd place finisher, I still stand by the same point. The selection committee takes rather great pains to point out every year that a nonconference win and a conference win against a team with the same RPI has exactly the same impact.

Similarly, at one point in time there a myth that the selection committee practically required a .500 conference record, even though they denied it every year. I think it took FSU's invitation in 1998 with a 6-10 conference record to finally convince folks that the committee didn't have that requirement.


If conference standings have no meaning other than for ACCT tournament seeding, then I suggest that we get rid of our conference affiliation, play a nationwide schedule and rely completely on RPI.

With no complete round robin, I see no reason why the conference standings even should have a meaning, because you're comparing apples and oranges, as teams can have drastically different conference strength of schedules.

As far as what I assume is a tongue-in-cheek comment, if for some crazy reason Duke did get rid of its conference affiliation, our revenues would collapse if that happened, because our football team wouldn't generate anything any more, even if we did start to manage a bowl appearance here and there.

[blueprofessor]

7 ACC schools(seed) in:
8 MD
10 Clemson
9 VPI
10 GA Tech
5 Wake
8 FSU
2 Duke


ON THE BUBBLE

LAST FOUR IN:
Oklahoma State
Florida
Marquette
Saint Mary's

FIRST FOUR OUT:
Mississippi State
Charlotte
South Florida
Cincinnati

NEXT FOUR OUT:
Ole Miss
San Diego State
Wichita State
Connecticut

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

[Olympic Fan]

gv,

You left out my qualifier. Regardless, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong (or last). However, if, for example Virginia Tech finishes 3rd and the powers to be on the Selection Committee decide to leave them out to include a 6th or 7th place finisher who has a better RPI and SOS then the committee (and the AD at Wake who is a member) would come under considerable fire, IMO.

If conference standings have no meaning other than for ACCT tournament seeding, then I suggest that we get rid of our conference affiliation, play a nationwide schedule and rely completely on RPI.

gw67

I don't know why this is so hard for people -- including some well-paid commentators to understand.

"Conference record" is NOT one of the factors included in the guidelines for selection of at large teams. I've been involved in several mock drafts that were conducted according to NCAA guidelines and principles and this simply doesn't come up.

This makes sense when you consider that a lot of conferences -- including the ACC and Big East -- play extremely unbalanced conference schedules. If Virginia Tech were to finish 9-7 with a conference schedule that includes one game with Duke, Wake, Clemson and Maryland (and two games with Virginia, NC State, Miami and Boston College) should that be given an edge over, say, Georgia Tech, which plays Duke twice, Clemson twice, Florida State twice and Wake Forest twice, but finishes 8-8?

It HAS happened before -- gvtucker offers a great recent example -- where 8-8 Miami got a bid over 9-7 Virginia Tech. It's happened several times in the Big East in the last few years. Last year 9-9 Minnesota got in over 10-8 Penn State. In the SEC, 9-7 Mississippi State got in while 10-6 South Carolina and 10-6 Auburn didn't get in.

Where was the outcry to that?

I repeat -- conference records DON'T matter one little bit ... each game -- in and out of conference -- counts equally. Conference standings are not an NCAA selection criteria (except in the Ivy League, the only conference that gives its automatic NCAA bid to its regular season champion).

And the fact that its happened quite often and there HASN'T been "a considerable fire" directed at the committee is evidence that it's not that big a deal. It's happened before and it will happen again.