UNC on the bubble

[Olympic Fan]

There's an article by John Gasway posted on ESPN today, suggesting that UNC might not make it to the NCAA Tournament. Sorry, it's an insider article, so I can't link.

As much as I would like to see the cheaters miss the NCAA for the second time in four years, I have to say they are in decent shape. Before last night's blowout loss to NC State -- which was very much like the blowout loss to Butler six weeks ago (in that UNC fell behind by 20-plus, then made a futile rally to make it respecable) -- I think they have been playing better -- well enough to finish in the top third of the ACC and secure a bid.

Right now, UNC is No. 35 in the RPI -- that's usually pretty solid shape for an at-large bid (the usual cutoff is 44/45 or so, although there are always a few outliers in the selection). A week ago, Lunardi had UNC in as a No. 9 seed ... another projector had them as one of the last four in, playing in Dayton.

The truth is that the Heels don't have a lot going for them -- they are 12-6 (not 13-6 -- the Chaminade win doesn't count) and half their wins have come against teams with an RPI over 150. Just one (UNLV) has come against a top 50 team. They have just three top 100 wins (FSU and Maryland being the other two). On the other hand, they don't have any really bad losses -- Texas and Virginia are non-top 100 teams, but both just miss (in fact, Virginia is No. 101).

I guess the point is they have put themselves in position where they have work to do in order to qualify. They get four games agaist highly rated teams -- two at home (No. 1 Duke and No. 15 NC State) and two on the road (No. 1 Duke and No. 3 Miami). They need at least one and maybe two of those to bolster their resume. At the same time, they can't afford to lose to any of the ACC's weak sisters -- a loss next week at Boston College or later at Georgia Tech or at Clemson coul be a fatal crusher.

UNC is currently 3-3 in the ACC ... that's not a good pace -- 9-9 would leave them in the NIT. But they should get to 6-3 with games at BC and home to Virginia Tech and Wake Forest coming up. They'd better get to 6-3 -- because that stretch is followed by games at Miami and at Duke.

Anyway, if I had to bet, I'd guess UNC will scrape into the field ... but it's going to be fun to watch them squirm in the meanwhile.

[davekay1971]

UNC is definitely a bubble team, really the perfect definition of one. Here's where they stand:

Non-conference: Their good win is UNLV. They have one bad loss in Texas. They have convincing but understandable losses to Indiana and Butler. As a nonconference resume, that's a wash - the nice win over UNLV at home wiped out by a bad loss to Texas on the road. They beat the lightweights they were supposed to beat and got killed by the heavyweights.

Conference: They are 3-3 in a conference that will probably require at least 10 wins (probably more with their non-conference resume) to get in, unless they can get some wins against top 25 opponents. Right now, that means: Duke, State, or Miami. So far they are 0-2 against that trio. They have 4 games left against that trio, 2 at home (NCSU and Duke) and 2 away (Miami and Duke). Home wins against Duke and State are going to be very important for UNC.

Of their 12 remaining games, here's how it breaks down:
@BC - even on the road, should win
VT - should win
WFU - should win
@Miami - should lose
@Duke - Better LOSE
UVa - tough
@GT - should win
NCSU - tough, but doable given State's road struggles
@Clem - tough
FSU - should win
@MD - tough
Duke - should LOSE

That gives, by my best guess, 5 that they should win. That's 8 wins. They then need to win at least 2 of (UVA, NCSU, @Clem, @Md) to get to 10 wins. If they also steal one of the ones I expect them to lose (@Duke, @ Miami, Duke), that would certainly get them in.

I expect UNC to be a NCAAT team, but it will be tight for them. They have as many road woes as anyone, and Clemson and Maryland should present challenges for them away from the Dean Dome. I don't see a 2010 meltdown, but, at this point, they have to be considered about 50/50 for making the tournament.

[OldPhiKap]

If I am reading the above right, a split from here on out puts them at 18-12 with a 9-9 conferences record. Hard to see them missing the tourney, even with a ACC tourney loss out of the gate.

You start getting below that, though, it gets dicier. Ditto if they drop 4 of the last 5, which is not out of the realm of possibility.

[ChillinDuke]

If I am reading the above right, a split from here on out puts them at 18-12 with a 9-9 conferences record. Hard to see them missing the tourney, even with a ACC tourney loss out of the gate.

You start getting below that, though, it gets dicier. Ditto if they drop 4 of the last 5, which is not out of the realm of possibility.

Trying to be as objective as I can regarding UNC, I think 10 is their magic number in conference. They get 10 wins, I think they are in. 18-12 and 9-9 in conference, and I think they would be on the outside looking in - unless two of those wins are against NCSU/Miami/Duke.

Rereading my post actually leads me to perhaps reconsider and simplify my thought: If UNC goes 0-6 against the trio, they are out. 1-5 bubble. 2-4 in.

That's my 2 cents.

- Chillin (tab: $0.22)

[sporthenry]

If I am reading the above right, a split from here on out puts them at 18-12 with a 9-9 conferences record. Hard to see them missing the tourney, even with a ACC tourney loss out of the gate.

You start getting below that, though, it gets dicier. Ditto if they drop 4 of the last 5, which is not out of the realm of possibility.

Depends how they get to 9-9 but not sure 9-9 in the ACC will carry that much weight if it only includes wins against the likes of Wake and BC. And that first tourney game will probably be big especially if they don't get a bye. A loss to Wake or a Tech or a BC might pop their bubble. It is a bit early to start with the speculation since UNC could theoretically still win the ACC. Of course I'm kidding but need a few more dominoes to fall and see what other teams do in terms of playing themselves onto or off the bubble but I'd say UNC needs 7 more wins if they don't beat Duke, NC State or Miami.

[TruBlu]

Maybe Duke can help burst their bubble . . . two (or three) times.

[FerryFor50]

Depends how they get to 9-9 but not sure 9-9 in the ACC will carry that much weight if it only includes wins against the likes of Wake and BC. And that first tourney game will probably be big especially if they don't get a bye. A loss to Wake or a Tech or a BC might pop their bubble. It is a bit early to start with the speculation since UNC could theoretically still win the ACC. Of course I'm kidding but need a few more dominoes to fall and see what other teams do in terms of playing themselves onto or off the bubble but I'd say UNC needs 7 more wins if they don't beat Duke, NC State or Miami.

I think a lot of it depends on how many teams have similar resume's come selection time. If UNC and a LaSalle have a similar record and RPI, UNC will get the node due to the name and ability to sell tickets.

I seriously doubt UNC misses the tourny unless they are closer to .500 on the year.

[Kedsy]

I think a lot of it depends on how many teams have similar resume's come selection time. If UNC and a LaSalle have a similar record and RPI, UNC will get the node due to the name and ability to sell tickets.

I seriously doubt UNC misses the tourny unless they are closer to .500 on the year.

Does the NCAA really care about selling tickets at this point? Other than the Dayton play-in games, don't they pretty much sell out no matter who's playing?

[FerryFor50]

Does the NCAA really care about selling tickets at this point? Other than the Dayton play-in games, don't they pretty much sell out no matter who's playing?

Merch, too.... hotels for travel, etc. TV ratings.

[CameronBlue]

Does the NCAA really care about selling tickets at this point? Other than the Dayton play-in games, don't they pretty much sell out no matter who's playing?

It's not about ticket sales. UNC has a grand and illustrious tradition to uphold and should be included in the tourney on that basis alone.

Wait a second.....we are talking about the NIT aren't we?

[cptnflash]

No way a 9-9 conference record gets them in. If they find a way to lose one of their next three, they're probably done.

[sporthenry]

Merch, too.... hotels for travel, etc. TV ratings.

I agree with the previous poster that ticket sales, hotels, merchandise, etc. won't come into the discussion with UNC at all. If this even came out, the NCAA would lose credibility. This is unlike the bowl season and their job is to get the best teams there. The NCAAT are sold out way in advance apart from the tickets sold to the schools which will sell out regardless.

Besides, this sort of comes back to the Duke/Va. Tech discussion we had with regards to Duke going to a bowl. Many Va. Tech fans weren't interested in going to a bowl to see a .500 team while Duke fans were excited for the chance to go to a bowl. The same could be said of a La Salle. How many La Salle alumni/students would take what could be a once in a generation trip? How many UNC fans are actually going to travel out to California or Indiana or wherever to watch UNC lose on the first weekend?

UNC might get in by name b/c people have continued to buy into the hype that they might turn it around and based on pedigree which is impossible to disregard and part of the reason Duke was a 6 seed.

[tommy]

No way a 9-9 conference record gets them in. If they find a way to lose one of their next three, they're probably done.

Since 1985, 28 teams with losing records in conference have received at-large bids to the tournament. 9-9 would in no way be a disqualifier for UNC.

[Duvall]

Does the NCAA really care about selling tickets at this point? Other than the Dayton play-in games, don't they pretty much sell out no matter who's playing?

Plus, now that the NCAA owns the NIT they can make money off UNC from either side of the bubble.

[JasonEvans]

Since 1985, 28 teams with losing records in conference have received at-large bids to the tournament. 9-9 would in no way be a disqualifier for UNC.

I don't think the poster was saying that no team that goes 9-9 in the ACC (or .500- in any conference) is out of contention. He was merely talking about this year's Carolina team and their chances of making the dance with a 9-9 conference record.

Because Carolina's non-conference slate was so unimpressive, it is very hard to see them making the dance with a 9-9 conference record. I suppose there are scenarios where they make it, but they seem farfetched. It would have to be something like them swooning now and then righting the ship with 5 straight wins in a row down the stretch (including victories over Duke and NCSU) or perhaps something where they beat us in the season finale and then run all the way to the ACC championship game. Other than scenarios like that, it is almost impossible to see a 9-9 UNC team making the NCAA tourney.

Things may be very different in the ACC next year, with Syracuse, NC, and Pitt added to the conference -- making going .500 significantly more difficult. But this season, given the relative mediocrity of the conference (Duke, Miami, and NCSU are the only solid NCAA tourney teams at this point), merely finishing 9-9 in the ACC is not a formula for impressing the selection committee.

Carolina remaining schedule in the ACC includes 6 games with teams under .500 and 6 with the .500+ half of the conference (twice with us, once with everyone else). The key for them is to not drop any of those games to the Wake, Va Tech, Maryland, Clemson type-teams and then find a way to beat someone like and FSU, Virgina, or NCST (all games at UNC) to get to 10-8. It is very doable... but the margin is slim.

--Jason "notice I did not mention them beating us... because that is unthinkable" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

Since 1985, 28 teams with losing records in conference have received at-large bids to the tournament. 9-9 would in no way be a disqualifier for UNC.

most of those 8-8 teams and teams with a losing conference record were in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- back when the ACC was unquestionably the strongest league.

In recent years, even 9-7 hasn't always been good enough.

Last year, one (out of three) 9-7 ACC team and the only 8-8 ACC team missed the NCAA field. In 2011, two out of three 9-7 teams missed the field. Duke did get in with an 8-8 ACC record in 2007, butthat included impressive non-conference wins over Indiana, Georgetown (which played in the Final Four), Temple, George Mason, Air Force (which was pretty good in '07), St. Johns and Gonzaga.

While I think UNC has a good chance to get to 10-8 or better, I can't see how this UNC team -- with its unimpressive non-conference record -- can get a bid at 9-9 in an unimpressive ACC.

The Heels need good wins vs. Duke, Miami and/or NC State .... but if they alternate some good wins like tat with losses to sub .500 ACC teams, they're going to have a tough time.

Of course, nothing is in a vacuum and UNC's chancesalso depend on what other bubble teams are doing. But I suspect that an .500 team from the Big Ten would have a much better chanceof getting a bid.

[sporthenry]

Of course, nothing is in a vacuum and UNC's chancesalso depend on what other bubble teams are doing. But I suspect that an .500 team from the Big Ten would have a much better chanceof getting a bid.

Seems like we mention it every year, but the bubble is as soft as ever. Mid majors seem very top heavy and apart from the Mountain West they aren't offering much. The BE isn't as strong as normal, the SEC is still down and the ACC is stronger than the P12. Yes, the Big 10 is the strongest and sure if Iowa or Northwestern finish .500 in conference, they'll have an argument over UNC but that will be a chore for them and none of them have a better non conference than UNC. UNC's win over UNLV will be their saving grace in a lot of these discussions.

[CameronCrazy'11]

They have four games left against Duke, State, and Miami. I think they have to win at least two of those to find themselves on the right side of the bubble. If they lose three, they have at least nine losses, but probably 11 or 12 since they will drop a few to other teams in conference, and only one win over a top-25 team. That just isn't enough. To be honest, I think Duke can keep them out of the tourney with a sweep.

[Deslok]

Its probably a reasonable proposition that UNC will need 10 conference wins to make the NCAAs. 9-9 will probably be enough to make it... provided they win their opening round game in the ACC tourney. 10-8 probably means they can lose that opener. 8-10 mean that they need to win the opener, and then beat an NCAA quality team(with a bye) in the next round to get the bid.

Obviously there's much to play out and how other teams perform, but I think that's a decent assessment of where they will stand.

[BD80]

My concern is that the analysis in this thread sounds like it could fall under a field explored by Sigmund's less reputable brother: Shady Freud.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree with the sentiment that if UNC is a true bubble team on selection Sunday, the NCAA is likely to give them the nod over a team with a similar resume. However, I don't think it's likely to be part of any grand conspiracy to bump ratings or tickets. I think it's the sort of "legacy" treatment that Duke would likely get (let's not try and find out any time soon). In other words, if you are trying to get the "best" 64/65/68 teams into the tournament for the best level of competition and the greatest tournament possible - a 18-12 UNC team has a better potential upside for a good tournament than a second tier mid-major. Given their history, talent, coaching, etc, UNC would be given the benefit of the doubt over a St. Mary's, BYU, or Indiana St. (3 teams currently on Lunardi's bubble).

Of course, I am basing all of this on nothing. Also, it's worth noting (again) for selection purposes UNC stands at 12-6, not 13-6. Their resume (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/sort/RPI/teamId/153) doesn't look that impressive outside of an SOS of 17. Additionally, being a massive Duke homer, I'd love for UNC to "lose out" and go to 12-18, lose their ACC opener for 12-19, and get to head off to Spring Break a bit early. I don't think that I will take much glee out of an early NCAA tourney exit from the boys in baby blue this year - we have lost that high ground for a few more seasons yet. Given all my yammering, I'd just as soon have them out of the equation as soon as possible.

Go Duke!

[oldnavy]

Watching this UNC team leds me to think that they will find a way to make the tourny. All the arguments have merit, however I suspect that UNC will win just enought to qualify.

Having said that, right now they have only one "decent" win and I say decent because it was agains UNLV at home. A win at UNLV would have been a good win IMO, but to beat them at home takes some of the luster off it. Otherwise they have lost every game against good teams, and lost against a really poor team Texas.

They have word to do, but I think they can do it.

[budwom]

Just my opinion, but I think you guys are dreaming if you think a 9-9 carolina team won't make the tournament.
They are official NCAA royalty, immune from normal requirements(*). A dinner bet is offered to those who think otherwise.

* class work, wins, etc.

[davekay1971]

Of course, what really matters, as much as anything, is RPI, for which I provide the CBS link (not sure if that's the official RPI or CBS's best guesstimate).

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings/rpi/index1

UNC's current RPI is 36, putting them on the inside of the bubble. I'd say if they have a winning record through the remainder of ACC play, their RPI isn't likely to drop much, making the opinions that a 10-8 record would get them in plausible. If they drop into the mid to high 40s, however, which could happen with an even conference record or maybe a 10-8 conference record where they only beat the bottom half teams, then their record against RPI top 50 (1-4 currently) and top 100 (3-4) comes more into play.

Those remaining games against the RPI top 50 (Duke, State, Miami) and top 100 (Maryland) become crucial if UNC finishes up 10-8 or 9-9 in conference play.

[freshmanjs]

If they drop into the mid to high 40s, however, which could happen with an even conference record or maybe a 10-8 conference record where they only beat the bottom half teams

the way the RPI works, it doesn't matter which teams you beat on your schedule. 10-8 record where they only beat the bottom teams would give them the same RPI as 10-8 record where they beat all of the top teams.

[Reilly]

Right now Carolina is #35 in the simple rating system at sports-reference.com:
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2013-standings.html

They have made an appearance in the AP top 10 this year.

I wonder how many teams have been in the AP top 10 during the season ... and then didn't make the tourney.

[freshmanjs]

Right now Carolina is #35 in the simple rating system at sports-reference.com:
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2013-standings.html

They have made an appearance in the AP top 10 this year.

I wonder how many teams have been in the AP top 10 during the season ... and then didn't make the tourney.

not sure how many, but it happened to duke in 1994-95.

[Reilly]

You can make a sabermetrician argument that the 94-95 team was one of the most deserving ACC teams to ever be left out of the tournament. Even with the 13-18 record, the SRS at sports-reference.com ranked Duke as the 22nd best team (out of 307) that year. By contrast, Carolina is #35 out of 347 right now.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/1995-standings.html (click on SRS to order the column)

[sagegrouse]

not sure how many, but it happened to duke in 1994-95.

And to UNC in 2009-2010 (#6 preseason, #3 in the NIT post-season). -- sagegrouse

[davekay1971]

the way the RPI works, it doesn't matter which teams you beat on your schedule. 10-8 record where they only beat the bottom teams would give them the same RPI as 10-8 record where they beat all of the top teams.

Thanks! I did not know that. Amazingly stupid for the RPI to function that way, but I guess the selection committee can balance that out by looking at the vs. RPI top 50 and vs. RPI top 100 records of schools with relatively similar RPI rankings. I guess my basic point still applies - if their RPI falls into the mid 40s range, I think how they fare in their remaining games against RPI top 100 teams and RPI top 50 teams will be critical. If they finish up with just the UNLV win against RPI top 50, against 8 losses, it'd be hard to argue for them in the tournament.

[JasonEvans]

I wonder how many teams have been in the AP top 10 during the season ... and then didn't make the tourney.

It happens all the time, especially when talking about teams who were in the Top Ten early in the season and then faded. Just last season Pitt was in the top 10 early in the season and stood at 11-1 on the season as we entered Christmas. But the wheels just came off from there. They lost 8 games in a row (including losses to Wagner, DePaul, and Rutgers). They finished the season with a 5-13 record in the Big East and 17-16 overall. They were no even on the NCAA bubble. They went to the CBI tournament where they made the best-of-three finals against Washington State, losing the championship in 3 games.

So, it has happened before... just last year.

I forget the year, but the one I really remember was a season where Virginia was in the Top 5, maybe even Top 3, in mid-December and then went on to just tank in the ACC regular season and failed to make the Dance. It was in the early-90s, I think. My memory is fuzzy.

-Jason "sporthenry is right that what matters is not just Carolina's record, but the record of the other bubble teams. We can't say with any degree of certainty that 10-8 or 9-9 gets them in or out without knowing who would go or not go in their place" Evans

[CDu]

You can make a sabermetrician argument that the 94-95 team was one of the most deserving ACC teams to ever be left out of the tournament. Even with the 13-18 record, the SRS at sports-reference.com ranked Duke as the 22nd best team (out of 307) that year. By contrast, Carolina is #35 out of 347 right now.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/1995-standings.html (click on SRS to order the column)

Ah, the glory days of the ACC as a conference. When 4 teams (not including Duke) were top-10 caliber teams, and all 9 were in the top-60 (8 of them were top-41).

As for the question about whether a top-10 team has missed the tournament, it has happened many times in the last 15 years, including once previously to UNC (courtesy of Sports-reference.com):

1998: Iowa (#10)
2001: UConn (#10), Seton Hall (#7)
2002: UVa (#4), Iowa (#7), Syracuse (#8)
2004: Missouri (#3), Oklahoma (#6)
2006: Louisville (#4)
2007: Alabama (#4), LSU (#5), Wichita State (#8), Oklahoma State (#9)
2009: Notre Dame (#7), Georgetown (#9)
2010: UNC (#6)
2011: Baylor (#9)
2012: Pitt (#9)

[JasonEvans]

Thanks! I did not know that. Amazingly stupid for the RPI to function that way, but I guess the selection committee can balance that out by looking at the vs. RPI top 50 and vs. RPI top 100 records of schools with relatively similar RPI rankings. I guess my basic point still applies - if their RPI falls into the mid 40s range, I think how they fare in their remaining games against RPI top 100 teams and RPI top 50 teams will be critical. If they finish up with just the UNLV win against RPI top 50, against 8 losses, it'd be hard to argue for them in the tournament.

Lets be clear-- the RPI attempts to judge in a numerical way how difficult your schedule was and how you did against that schedule. It does not weigh any one game above any other on your schedule. It makes no adjustments for home/road/neutral court. It does not know if you won 20 in a row or lost the last 7 in a row. It is merely a mathematical function of your record, your opponents' records, and your opponents' opponents' records.

That is why many people find Sagarin, KenPom, and even the human polls to be a far superior method of ranking teams. It is worth noting that the selection committee, according to reports, relies on the RPI less today than it ever has and that they do look at Pomeroy's rankings as well as other methods of evaluating the teams when making decisions.

Here's a question -- would the committee prefer a team that had shown it could beat the big boys but also lose to lousy teams or a team that consistently beat the bad ones but never really got over the hump versus teams in the top 50 of the RPI?

Team 1 - 20-14 record, 8-11 vs. top 100, 5-7 vs top 50, 3-4 vs top 25
Team 2 - 22-12 record, 9-12 vs top 100, 2-11 vs top 50, 0-6 vs top 25

-Jason "which team would you rather see in the tourney?" Evans

[Wander]

Just my opinion, but I think you guys are dreaming if you think a 9-9 carolina team won't make the tournament.
They are official NCAA royalty, immune from normal requirements(*). A dinner bet is offered to those who think otherwise.

* class work, wins, etc.

Don't mean to single you out, because this thought seems to be held by a lot of people, but why does anyone think this? Syracuse is a basketball powerhouse but didn't make the tournament in 2007 and 2008, despite having a 10-6 and 9-9 record in the Big East. They were bypassed for teams like Old Dominion and St Mary's.

[Lar77]

I heard on the radio that either UNC or UK or both have been in the NCAAT every year since it went to 64 teams. Both are 13-6 with the tougher part of their conference schedules coming up. Assuming that they are .500 in their conferences, I think they will get in. Looking at KenPom, Kentucky is still in the top 25 and loooking at the mid-majors around UNC, do you see Mountain West getting 4 teams in (just to pick on a conference - their top 4 actually are pretty good)? Personally, I think the tournament is better with a mediocre UK or UNC than not. Both teams are clearly talented and thus dangerous in a one and done, but both teams have shown they are very beatable. Both situations make a better story.

[Matches]

So far UNC has lost to three pretty good teams (ok two pretty good teams and one marginally good team that was playing at home), and beaten three mediocre-to-bad teams.

Considering the state of the ACC, if they continue their current performance they'll end up about 11-7 in conference play. They won't be a high seed but they will get in.

[budwom]

Don't mean to single you out, because this thought seems to be held by a lot of people, but why does anyone think this? Syracuse is a basketball powerhouse but didn't make the tournament in 2007 and 2008, despite having a 10-6 and 9-9 record in the Big East. They were bypassed for teams like Old Dominion and St Mary's.

No problem (on singling me out).

UNC is coated with some kind of magical fairy dust which renders them immune to normal NCAA treatment.

How else could you possibly explain why the NCAA has no interest whatsoever in scrutinizing a program which has admitted that large numbers of athletes passed courses which did not exist, took advanced classes
while taking remedial English, etc, etc.

The offer of a bet stands: 9-9 Carolina will be in the tournament.

[sagegrouse]

UNC on the bubble? Way too premature.... I don't know what kind of season UNC will have this year. Moreover, Ol' Roy doesn't know how his team will turn out. Heck, even Wheat doesn't know.

My guess is that UNC will end up in the top four in the ACC -- along with Duke, State and Miami -- and make the NCAA's easily. OTOH, having seen mid-season swoons by the Heels in 2002 and 2010, who knows?

sagegrouse
'Formerly Blue Grouse, but I had to change the post name to remain ornithologically corrent. The American Ornithologist's Union decided to split the Blue Grouse species - a common yard bird for me -- into the Dusky Grouse of the Rocky Mountains and the Sooty Grouse of the Cascades. It was a dastardly act, if you ask me, given the minor plumage differences. Moreover, "Dusky Grouse?" As a birder friend's wife says, "Some bird names are so dumb they could only have been thought of by a man."

'Anyhoo, I became "Sage Grouse," a handsome bird that inhabits these parts, although not as yet my yard'

[Reilly]

From the 1984-85 season (tourney expands to 64) through the 2011-12 season = 28 seasons.

In that time, 569 teams were ranked in the AP top 10 sometime during the season.

31 of the 569 teams (5.4%) did not make the tourney.

In 17 of the 28 seasons (61% of the seasons), a team ranked in the top 10 during the season did not make it.

I didn't check to see if the top-10-but-non-tourney teams might've been on probation.

Louisville was #2 in 1987 and didn't make it. In fact, L'ville has 3 of the 31 squads.

ACC teams: Duke 95 (6), UVA 02 (4), UNC 10 (6).

In 2012-13, 18 teams have made an in-season AP top 10 appearance so far. Kentucy, UNC and Illinois have the most losses (6) of those 18 teams. Right now per the SRS, Kentucky is 18th best team in the land, UNC #35, and Illini #43.

So if you make an in-season AP top 10 appearance, 95% of the time, you make the tourney. But in over half of the years, somebody in the top 10 doesn't make it ... and right now Illini and UNC might be condenders.

[Tom B.]

I forget the year, but the one I really remember was a season where Virginia was in the Top 5, maybe even Top 3, in mid-December and then went on to just tank in the ACC regular season and failed to make the Dance. It was in the early-90s, I think. My memory is fuzzy.




It was 2001-02. The year before, Virginia had finished a respectable fourth in the ACC and made the Tournament, but Gonzaga upset them in the first round in a 5/12 game. Virginia returned most of its players for the 2001-02 season, and things started off well for them. They were #11 in the AP pre-season poll and climbed as high as #4 in the January 1, 2002 poll. They were still in the Top 10 in early February -- then the wheels came off. They lost eight of their last eleven games, then lost the 4/5 game in the first round of the ACC Tournament -- a game that was widely viewed as a play-in for the ACC's fourth and likely final NCAA Tournament slot that year -- to N.C. State.

But I think my favorite example of a highly-ranked team not making the Tournament was the 1986-87 Louisville team. The Cardinals were the defending national champions and were ranked #2 in the pre-season AP Poll. Then they lost their first three games to Northeastern (with Reggie Lewis), Washington and Texas, fell completely out of the rankings and were never heard from again, as they stumbled to an 18-14 record.

In a somewhat odd postscript, Louisville actually won the Metro Conference regular season that year, with a conference record of 9-3. But they lost in the Metro Conference Tournament semifinal to Memphis State (now Memphis), which went on to win the conference tournament. The Metro Conference awarded its automatic NCAA bid to the conference tournament winner -- however, Memphis State was on probation at the time and was barred from playing in the NCAA Tournament. No other Metro schools received an at-large bid, so the Metro went unrepresented in the Tournament that year.

[johnb]

I have historically avoided watching Carolina when they weren't playing Duke; it's painful to watch them win.

This year, however, it's been a pleasure to watch several of their games.

I'd guess they'll have to win at least one game against a top 50 team to make the tournament; without even a tiny signature win, it's just too easy to leave them out. But, even if tehy do get into the NCAA, I'll look forward to settling onto my couch that first weekend and watching them get blown out. Having said that, I kinda think they'll right the ship and easily get in...

[oldnavy]

Lets be clear-- the RPI attempts to judge in a numerical way how difficult your schedule was and how you did against that schedule. It does not weigh any one game above any other on your schedule. It makes no adjustments for home/road/neutral court. It does not know if you won 20 in a row or lost the last 7 in a row. It is merely a mathematical function of your record, your opponents' records, and your opponents' opponents' records.

That is why many people find Sagarin, KenPom, and even the human polls to be a far superior method of ranking teams. It is worth noting that the selection committee, according to reports, relies on the RPI less today than it ever has and that they do look at Pomeroy's rankings as well as other methods of evaluating the teams when making decisions.

Here's a question -- would the committee prefer a team that had shown it could beat the big boys but also lose to lousy teams or a team that consistently beat the bad ones but never really got over the hump versus teams in the top 50 of the RPI?

Team 1 - 20-14 record, 8-11 vs. top 100, 5-7 vs top 50, 3-4 vs top 25
Team 2 - 22-12 record, 9-12 vs top 100, 2-11 vs top 50, 0-6 vs top 25

-Jason "which team would you rather see in the tourney?" Evans

Jason, I'll play.

Given the choice, I would rather see the team that won consistently over the teams that they should have beaten. I veiw the NCAA in some degree as a reward. I would rather reward teams that were consistent, so team 2 is my choice.

Rewarding a team that gets up and plays hard at times but loses 3 games to teams out of the top 100 (if I am reading your example correctly) meaning that they must have played really below their potential (of course injuries, etc... could explain some of this and may change my opinion) is not my first choice.

However, I fully accept the other arguement as reasoniable as well.

[jipops]

UNC's next 3 games are against 3 of the bottom feeders of the conference. I'd say these are 3 must-wins. After that stretch things could become dicey with Miami, Duke, and UVA. I would also say they have a very good shot in their rematch with State at home given that the Pack plays almost no defense.

[oldnavy]

UNC's next 3 games are against 3 of the bottom feeders of the conference. I'd say these are 3 must-wins. After that stretch things could become dicey with Miami, Duke, and UVA. I would also say they have a very good shot in their rematch with State at home given that the Pack plays almost no defense.

UNC will win these games, I expect. BC, VT nor Wake will bring what it will take to beat UNC. Two of those games are at home and UNC has played well at home, even against Miami. Beating BC away, should be well within their reach.

Of course I hope I am very wrong on this!!

[davekay1971]

UNC will win these games, I expect. BC, VT nor Wake will bring what it will take to beat UNC. Two of those games are at home and UNC has played well at home, even against Miami. Beating BC away, should be well within their reach.

Of course I hope I am very wrong on this!!

I think you're probably right.

Interestingly, UNC's salvation probably came at the hands of the one team who's fanbase would most like to see them burn...NC State.

UNC is, as has been mentioned, a young-ish team, at least one without obvious upperclassman leadership, and therefore is probably a little more pyschologically vulnerable to emotional ups and downs. Had State kept the pedal to the metal and really buried UNC, inflicting a truly devastating 30 or 40 point loss on them where UNC never had a chance, I think it easily could have sent UNC into enough of a spiral that they might have dropped one or 2 of those 3 very winnable upcoming games. Go 1-2 in this easy 3 game stretch, and they are done. But State let them off the mat, so UNC can gain a lot of confidence that they fought back to have a chance (albeit a slim one) of winning a game that they trailed, on the road, by 28 points, to a top 20 team. I think UNC's take-home from the State game is that they need to play hard, from the beginning, and that, if they do that, they can play with anyone in the ACC. If State had really stepped on their throats and humiliated them, as they could have done if they'd stayed locked in and focused, UNC's young players might have walked away feeling much more disheartened about their prospects this season.

[tommy]

most of those 8-8 teams and teams with a losing conference record were in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- back when the ACC was unquestionably the strongest league.

While you're right that there were more sub-.500 in-conference teams earning at-large bids in the late '80 and early '90's, even since 2005 the average has been 1 team per year. There have been just a small handful of years in which no such teams were invited. And of course there are a lot more teams right at .500 in conference (which is what I was responding to -- a 9-9 UNC) that have made it.

The post to which I responded stated definitively that there would be "no way" a 9-9 UNC team would get an invite, and that simply isn't the case. They might not, or they might. As others have subsequently posted, it depends how they get to 9-9 -- who they beat and who they lose to -- as well as the resumes of the other bubble teams compared to UNC's resume. As I said, a .500 (or even sub-.500) conference record is by no means a disqualifier.

[Tom B.]

most of those 8-8 teams and teams with a losing conference record were in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- back when the ACC was unquestionably the strongest league.

In recent years, even 9-7 hasn't always been good enough.




Of course, there are always outliers -- like the 1998 Florida State team, which made the Tournament with a conference record of 6-10, even after losing the play-in game in the ACC Tournament.* They had some big out-of-conference wins, though, including a win over defending national champ Arizona. They made the Tournament as a #12 seed and actually won a game (upsetting TCU), before losing in the second round to the Valparaiso team that had upset Ole Miss on Bryce Drew's buzzer-beating three-pointer in the first round.


* This was during that three-year stretch in the late 1990s when the ACC experimented with a screwy two-game schedule on Thursday, with one game pitting the #1 against the #9 seed (with the winner getting a rest day on Friday), and the other game pitting the #7 seed against the #8 seed for the right to play the #2 seed the next day. Florida State was the #7 seed in the ACC Tournament and lost to #8 seed N.C. State.

[sporthenry]

Lets be clear-- the RPI attempts to judge in a numerical way how difficult your schedule was and how you did against that schedule. It does not weigh any one game above any other on your schedule. It makes no adjustments for home/road/neutral court. It does not know if you won 20 in a row or lost the last 7 in a row. It is merely a mathematical function of your record, your opponents' records, and your opponents' opponents' records.

That is why many people find Sagarin, KenPom, and even the human polls to be a far superior method of ranking teams. It is worth noting that the selection committee, according to reports, relies on the RPI less today than it ever has and that they do look at Pomeroy's rankings as well as other methods of evaluating the teams when making decisions.

Here's a question -- would the committee prefer a team that had shown it could beat the big boys but also lose to lousy teams or a team that consistently beat the bad ones but never really got over the hump versus teams in the top 50 of the RPI?

Team 1 - 20-14 record, 8-11 vs. top 100, 5-7 vs top 50, 3-4 vs top 25
Team 2 - 22-12 record, 9-12 vs top 100, 2-11 vs top 50, 0-6 vs top 25

-Jason "which team would you rather see in the tourney?" Evans

I think the way they try to compensate with the RPI is using top 50 and top 25 RPI wins as well. But SOS is important to the committee hence why they try to reward that. That is why you have seen mid majors on the bubble usually rewarded for teams with a tough SOS over a team like Va. Tech who played nobody.

As far as your hypotheses, I would go with Team 1 (team that can beat good teams) and I think the committee would as well. Lunardi and Co. usually cite these resume building wins and it seems the committee wants to know you are capable of beating another tournament team.

[UrinalCake]

There was also the year that UVA and UNC had identical 9-7 records, and UNC got in while UVA did not even though UVA had a better overall record and beaten them head to head. That made a lot of sense 8-)

[Olympic Fan]

Just a few points:

-- UNC's RPI is okay at the moment, but Jim Sukup, who does The RPI Report (Collegate Basketball News), just released a list of 48 teams that finished with an RPI of 42 or better, yet missed the tournament. The list includes such big names as Syracuse (No. 22), Oklahoma (No. 30), Notre Dame (No. 32) , Ohio State No. 35), Michigan (No. 40) and, most interestingly, Florida State in 2007 when the Noles were 20-12 overall with seven top 100 wins (No. 41 in RPI).

-- You are right that UNC's RPI would be the same with a 10-8 ACC record without a win over a top team and 10-8 with a couple of wins over Duke/State/Miami. But absolute RPI rank is not how the committee uses the RPI (oh, they look at it, but it's not a huge deal). Where it really comes into play is in measuring top 25 wins, top 50 wins and top 100 wins.

THAT is where UNC is hurting. The Heels are just 1-4 against the top 50 and just 3-4 against the top 100. At this moment, just six ACC teams are in the top 100 (No. 1 Duke, No. 3 Miami, No. 15 State, No. 65 Maryland and No. 69 Florida State). They have four more chances to get a second top 50 win -- at Miami, at Duke ... NC State and Duke at home. They have two other chances to get a top 100 win -- at Maryland and FSU at home.

If they get to 10-8, that means that they have added at least one more top 100 win. But I suspect 1-8 vs. top 50 and 4-9 against top 100 would not get them in. So it IS important that they beat some of the top ACC teams left on their schedule.

-- You are right that the committee likes to reward SOS. But what they reward is NON-CONFERENCE SOS -- since, they always say, that's the part of your schedule that you can control. Right now (and it's not likely to change much) UNC's non-conference SOS is No. 100 (for reference, Middle Tennessee, which is No. 35 -- one place ahead of UNC in the RPI -- has a non-co0nference SOS at No. 16.

Strength of schedule is not going to help UNC if it's on the bubble.

(BTW: Miami has the No. 1 non-conference SOS in the country ... Duke has the No. 2 non-conference SOS).

I repeat what I said to start this thread. I think UNC's is improving enough that they'll make the field. But they have to work at it -- and at 9-9, I think they are a real long shot.

[oldnavy]

I think you're probably right.

Interestingly, UNC's salvation probably came at the hands of the one team who's fanbase would most like to see them burn...NC State.

UNC is, as has been mentioned, a young-ish team, at least one without obvious upperclassman leadership, and therefore is probably a little more pyschologically vulnerable to emotional ups and downs. Had State kept the pedal to the metal and really buried UNC, inflicting a truly devastating 30 or 40 point loss on them where UNC never had a chance, I think it easily could have sent UNC into enough of a spiral that they might have dropped one or 2 of those 3 very winnable upcoming games. Go 1-2 in this easy 3 game stretch, and they are done. But State let them off the mat, so UNC can gain a lot of confidence that they fought back to have a chance (albeit a slim one) of winning a game that they trailed, on the road, by 28 points, to a top 20 team. I think UNC's take-home from the State game is that they need to play hard, from the beginning, and that, if they do that, they can play with anyone in the ACC. If State had really stepped on their throats and humiliated them, as they could have done if they'd stayed locked in and focused, UNC's young players might have walked away feeling much more disheartened about their prospects this season.

Dave, I am not so sure. I think UNC knows that NCSU could have and should have beat them by 30 points or more. Granted they did cut the margin, but those guys know that they came back due to NCSU knowing the game was in the bag and letting up. When they did get close when they actually could have won the game, NCSU stepped on the gas and ran the lead back up to 17. Then for some unknown reason, NCSU let up again. UNC got close again, but by then it really was too late and only a miracle would have changed the outcome.

I am not to sure that UNC can logically conclude that they can play with NCSU from this game. I believe that UNC was playing hard to open the game. They were just overmatched at ALL positions. They really had no hope of winning this game, the only hope they had was that NCSU would find a way to lose it. A subtle, but signifcant difference IMO.

The UNC players know that they were overmatched and I am not so sure that if NCSU plays "their" game that UNC has the ability to beat them this year. Anything can and has happened of course, but assuming that both teams play their best NCSU wins ten out of ten.

I can recall a similar experience from my past. In HS we played Northern Durham in football my JV year (thank God that was the only year we played them). It was the only game in three years that I knew after the first series of downs that we could not win. We lost other games, but this was the only game where I knew we did not have the manpower to overcome a superior team.

It really didn't impact our psyche so much, in fact we joked about it, but we knew we were not big time athletes either, so our egos were not threatened....

Who knows how UNC will feel after that game. I suspect they will realize that for them to have a chance to win they have to play hard every game, but I think that if they feel they can play with NCSU after that smack down, they are misreading it.

I feel that I need to say something about our loss at Miami. I think that although the outcomes were essentially the same (beat downs) our game was different in that we had a VERY unusual night shooting. We know that we will not shoot like that every night, but I don't believe our guys would come away from that game feeling like they could not win against Miami. I do think that our guys realize that it will take a special effort to beat them because they are a very good team, but we had open shots that just would not drop. That just snowballed and got out of hand...

As always, I qualify everthing I say with I could very well be wrong!! :D

[Bluedog]

I heard on the radio that either UNC or UK or both have been in the NCAAT every year since it went to 64 teams. Both are 13-6 with the tougher part of their conference schedules coming up. Assuming that they are .500 in their conferences, I think they will get in. Looking at KenPom, Kentucky is still in the top 25 and loooking at the mid-majors around UNC, do you see Mountain West getting 4 teams in (just to pick on a conference - their top 4 actually are pretty good)? Personally, I think the tournament is better with a mediocre UK or UNC than not. Both teams are clearly talented and thus dangerous in a one and done, but both teams have shown they are very beatable. Both situations make a better story.

How quickly we forget! ;) UNC didn't make the NCAA just a few years ago in 2010, being runner ups to Dayton in the NIT Finals. UNC was also in the NIT in 2003. You don't have to go too far back for Kentucky either, as they went to the NIT quarterfinals in 2009, Billy Gillespie's last year. The longest current streak is Kansas at 23. Duke has the second longest current streak at 17 (since 1996). UNC does, though, have the longest streak in history at 27 (1975-2001).

[TruBlu]

As always, I qualify everthing I say with I could very well be wrong!! :D

You're more positive than I am. I qualify my statements with "Well, I might actually be right this time, for a change". (It rarely turns out to be true. You can ask my wife.)

[jipops]

Dave, I am not so sure. I think UNC knows that NCSU could have and should have beat them by 30 points or more. Granted they did cut the margin, but those guys know that they came back due to NCSU knowing the game was in the bag and letting up. When they did get close when they actually could have won the game, NCSU stepped on the gas and ran the lead back up to 17. Then for some unknown reason, NCSU let up again. UNC got close again, but by then it really was too late and only a miracle would have changed the outcome.

I am not to sure that UNC can logically conclude that they can play with NCSU from this game. I believe that UNC was playing hard to open the game. They were just overmatched at ALL positions. They really had no hope of winning this game, the only hope they had was that NCSU would find a way to lose it. A subtle, but signifcant difference IMO.



I agree here. State showed a prime example of how to completely mis-manage a game. Many division one teams can score 50+ points in a half while facing zero defensive pressure. UNC's defense wasn't very good in the 2nd half either.

So here is UNC's remaining sched with my prediction:

currently 3-3

@Boston College W
vs Virginia Tech W
vs Wake Forest W
@ #14 Miami (FL) L
@ #5 Duke L
vs Virginia W
@ Georgia Tech L
#19 North Carolina State W
@ Clemson L
vs Florida State W
@ Maryland W
vs #5 Duke L

This would put them at 10-8. I'd say they're in.

The State and Duke games would be even bigger in this scenario.

[ChillinDuke]

How quickly we forget! ;) UNC didn't make the NCAA just a few years ago in 2010, being runner ups to Dayton in the NIT Finals. UNC was also in the NIT in 2003. You don't have to go too far back for Kentucky either, as they went to the NIT quarterfinals in 2009, Billy Gillespie's last year. The longest current streak is Kansas at 23. Duke has the second longest current streak at 17 (since 1996). UNC does, though, have the longest streak in history at 27 (1975-2001).

You may be misreading the post. I think the poster was referring to either UNC or Kentucky. Not both.

Or maybe I'm misreading the post, and you're just that good.

- Chillin

[Bluedog]

You may be misreading the post. I think the poster was referring to either UNC or Kentucky. Not both.

Or maybe I'm misreading the post, and you're just that good.

- Chillin

Oh, perhaps. So, the post is simply saying that at least one of UNC or Kentucky has been in the tournament when looking only at a single year? That doesn't mean much to me - Kansas or East Tennessee St or both have been in the NCAA tournament every year since it expanded as well. Doesn't help East Tennessee St much though... ;)

[oldnavy]

I agree here. State showed a prime example of how to completely mis-manage a game. Many division one teams can score 50+ points in a half while facing zero defensive pressure. UNC's defense wasn't very good in the 2nd half either.

So here is UNC's remaining sched with my prediction:

currently 3-3

@Boston College W
vs Virginia Tech W
vs Wake Forest W
@ #14 Miami (FL) L
@ #5 Duke L
vs Virginia W
@ Georgia Tech L
#19 North Carolina State W
@ Clemson L
vs Florida State W
@ Maryland W
vs #5 Duke L

This would put them at 10-8. I'd say they're in.

The State and Duke games would be even bigger in this scenario.

You think UNC beats NCSU at CH? Even though UNC seems to play better at home, I just don't think they will beat State this year. State is too hungry for some lamb chops this year. Now they (NCSU) could go out and drop a game to VT or Clemson, but I think they have UNC's number.

[weezie]

(NCSU) could go out and drop a game to VT or Clemson, but I think they have UNC's number.


Oy, VT?! No way, Mr. oldnavy sir. That's a complete train wreck down there. I wish MD would take VT with them in their carry on bags.

[oldnavy]

Oy, VT?! No way, Mr. oldnavy sir. That's a complete train wreck down there. I wish MD would take VT with them in their carry on bags.

Yea, now that you mentioned it, that is a bit of a stretch.

Just saying NCSU will slip, but I think they want to rub UNC's nose in it this year, and I don't see how UNC can stop them - talent wise. NCSU is stronger at Point (by a wide margin), Center, the 2, 3 and 4..... foul trouble could be the wild card however....

[Indoor66]

(It rarely turns out to be true. You can ask my wife.)

Probably only have to look in her direction to see the nodding....:eek: :cool:

[davekay1971]

@Boston College W
vs Virginia Tech W
vs Wake Forest W
@ #14 Miami (FL) L
@ #5 Duke L
vs Virginia W
@ Georgia Tech L
#19 North Carolina State W
@ Clemson L
vs Florida State W
@ Maryland W
vs #5 Duke L

This would put them at 10-8. I'd say they're in.

.

This isn't an unreasonable forecast, though I think UNC would be ecstatic to both beat State at home AND beat Maryland in College Park. On the other hand, they could very well beat GT in Atlanta. However, even if you're right on your predictions, they get to 2-7 against RPI top 50. Better against RPI top 100, but still...bubblicious! I guess this all proves the point of the OP...UNC is very much on the bubble in any realistic prediction of their finish. FWIW, looking at that schedule, it's just as easy to see them finishing 8-10 as it is 10-8.

[JasonEvans]

I am not to sure that UNC can logically conclude that they can play with NCSU from this game. I believe that UNC was playing hard to open the game. They were just overmatched at ALL positions. They really had no hope of winning this game, the only hope they had was that NCSU would find a way to lose it. A subtle, but signifcant difference IMO.

Reggie Bullock is better than Scott Wood. Aside from that, you are correct that State is better at every position. Carolina's bench is also slightly better than State's I think.

-Jason "still, Carolina knows they are a longshot against teams as talented as State, Duke, and Miami" Evans

[jipops]

You think UNC beats NCSU at CH? Even though UNC seems to play better at home, I just don't think they will beat State this year. State is too hungry for some lamb chops this year. Now they (NCSU) could go out and drop a game to VT or Clemson, but I think they have UNC's number.

Yes, because I just do not trust State to win many of the games they should win on the road. Just look at their road games with WFU and Maryland. They may be the most talented team in the conference, but I just don't see a very disciplined group that is at all committed to defense. I think UNC will actually take advantage of this at the dean dome.