Is 12 ACC wins enough?

[Miami04]

I was just looking at the schedule and we’ve put ourselves in such a hole with the home losses to UL and FSU things look more bleak than I realized.

I think 13 ACC wins has us in, 12 has us on the bubble.

Look at our remaining schedule and find me 12 wins.

Pitt
@NC St
VT
@UVA
UNC
@Clemson
@BC
Duke
GT
@UNC
BC
@FSU

Let’s say a miracle happens and we win our next 3, that puts us 7-4. We should be able to beat BC x2 and GT Which get us to 10 wins. That leaves us needing a minimum of 2 wins in 6 games against UNCx2 UVA Clemson Duke FSU. Not an easy task considering I didn’t take any upsets into account and I’m praying beating NC St is part of this equation.

It‘s all speculation at this point, but there is no way I see the team that has played January the way we have going 8-4 (or 9-3) over our next 12 games.

I do think we beat UNC or Duke at home for an upset in our favor.

 

[JackMcClinton89]

Unfortunately like you mentioned at the end, we are not playing like a team that currently has any kind of positive momentum so such a scenario seems highly unlikely. More likely is that we stay floating around .500 and end up well outside the bubble. I would say I think 12 wins is probably not enough unless several of those wins are against UNC/Duke etc.

 

[HurricanePhilly]

If we don’t get to that 12 we need a deep Acc tourney run and still will be kicking ourselves for Louisville and Syracuse

 

[caneworld]

If we don’t get to that 12 we need a deep Acc tourney run and still will be kicking ourselves for Louisville and Syracuse

We played uninspired, self centered ball in those games.. chucking 3s and hero ball. Some questionable coaching decisions didn't help either

 

[HurikaneMarc]

Winning can sometimes be as simple as getting hot at the right time. There is time enough for us to get hot enough to change our fortunes. And the talent is there to make a sweet 16 run. We'll probably have to beat a really good team though. Which we have yet to do.

A side note, Norchad is pretty **** good when he stays out of foul trouble. So is the team.

 

[passitback]

Lunardi only has three ACC teams making it in his latest mock. Somehow the SEC has eight. I hate that conference, and look forward to them being exposed in March.

Men's Bracketology: Duke plus Cooper Flagg makes Blue Devils early overall No. 1

Bracketology begins the off season projections with a familiar name at the top. Duke, led by generational recruit Cooper Flagg, starts our 2024-25 bracket cycle on top.

www.espn.com

 

[IndayArtHauz]

Lunardi only has three ACC teams making it in his latest mock. Somehow the SEC has eight. I hate that conference, and look forward to them being exposed in March.

Men's Bracketology: Duke plus Cooper Flagg makes Blue Devils early overall No. 1

Bracketology begins the off season projections with a familiar name at the top. Duke, led by generational recruit Cooper Flagg, starts our 2024-25 bracket cycle on top.

www.espn.com

The SEC is almost as mid as the ACC.

 

[passitback]

The SEC is almost as mid as the ACC.

Indeed, not a big fan of the conference, and think they get exposed in a few weeks.

 

[Miami04]

Lunardi only has three ACC teams making it in his latest mock. Somehow the SEC has eight. I hate that conference, and look forward to them being exposed in March.

Men's Bracketology: Duke plus Cooper Flagg makes Blue Devils early overall No. 1

Bracketology begins the off season projections with a familiar name at the top. Duke, led by generational recruit Cooper Flagg, starts our 2024-25 bracket cycle on top.

www.espn.com

I can't figure out what happened. The ACC was the gold standard for basketball. Getting 7 of 9 teams in the tournament at one point. But over the last few years the league has zero respect. Despite that, year after year the ACC dominates in March while these other hyped up leagues like the SEC fold like paper.

Honestly, I feel like it all started when we won the league in 2013. Still the only team in ACC history to win the league and the tournament and not get a 1 seed.

I was looking at NET rankings the other day and the ACC besides Duke and UNC just get abysmal rankings. I not sure how to fix it but if we are going to stick around in this stupid league then the entire league needs to sit down and figure out how to get teams NET rankings hight because that's all anyone looks out anymore.

 

[AmherstCane]

I can't figure out what happened. The ACC was the gold standard for basketball. Getting 7 of 9 teams in the tournament at one point. But over the last few years the league has zero respect. Despite that, year after year the ACC dominates in March while these other hyped up leagues like the SEC fold like paper.

Honestly, I feel like it all started when we won the league in 2013. Still the only team in ACC history to win the league and the tournament and not get a 1 seed.

I was looking at NET rankings the other day and the ACC besides Duke and UNC just get abysmal rankings. I not sure how to fix it but if we are going to stick around in this stupid league then the entire league needs to sit down and figure out how to get teams NET rankings hight because that's all anyone looks out anymore.

The easiest way to boost net is to schedule bad teams and run train on them.

Playing close games against mid teams or getting blown out hurt you bad in efficiency ranking systems. Playing a top team close but losing generally helps your ranking.

Winning or losing matters less than how many points you score and how many points you give up relative to the quality of opponent (but the system struggles to commensurately adjust margins when the opponent is rally bad… which is why we moved up in the rankings after Long Island)

 

[Da_Lucky_One]

Maybe but probably not considering the fact that they lost big to Colorado and Kentucky in the non-conference part of the schedule.
Those are two teams who are very likely to be seeded fairly high in the NCAA tournament.
If the ACC is as "weak" as some of the people in this group think then 12 wins probably will not be enough since you also need some quality wins to boost your tournament resume.
Miami will definitely need to start beating some ranked teams.
The bigger question is which would be better for the team, which would be better for the development of the team for 2024-25, a first weekend loss after barely making the NCAA tournament or a deep run in the NIT tournament.
Personally, I think the NIT tournament would be better. It would give guys like Casey, Nwoko, Watson and George more games and practices to gain confidence and establish their roles for next season.

 

[Miami04]

Maybe but probably not considering the fact that they lost big to Colorado and Kentucky in the non-conference part of the schedule.
Those are two teams who are very likely to be seeded fairly high in the NCAA tournament.
If the ACC is as "weak" as some of the people in this group think then 12 wins probably will not be enough since you also need some quality wins to boost your tournament resume.
Miami will definitely need to start beating some ranked teams.
The bigger question is which would be better for the team, which would be better for the development of the team for 2024-25, a first weekend loss after barely making the NCAA tournament or a deep run in the NIT tournament.
Personally, I think the NIT tournament would be better. It would give guys like Casey, Nwoko, Watson and George more games and practices to gain confidence and establish their roles for next season.

I would never choose the NIT championship over making the NCAA. Too much importance is put on the dance and making it. No one knows who won the NIT but recruits can remember that Miami has made the NCAA 3-4 years in a row.

 

[AmherstCane]

UCF and KSU both being in the top half of the Big 12 is helpful. If they can stay there (which isn’t impossible because they’ve both beaten top teams in conference play already) those will be two quality wins.

 

[passitback]

The easiest way to boost net is to schedule bad teams and run train on them.

Playing close games against mid teams or getting blown out hurt you bad in efficiency ranking systems. Playing a top team close but losing generally helps your ranking.

Winning or losing matters less than how many points you score and how many points you give up relative to the quality of opponent (but the system struggles to commensurately adjust margins when the opponent is rally bad… which is why we moved up in the rankings after Long Island)

Not so sure about your first point, because Alabama has an identical record to UM, but has a 7 NET ranking. This is because they are 5-6 against Q1,2, and undefeated (8-0) vs Q3, 4 teams.

The second point tends to support BAMA's NET, because they have played better teams so far. They have "quality" losses to tournament teams: Tenn, ZONA, Creighton, Purdue, Clemson...

The third point also supports BAMAs NET, because they doesn't lose against Q3, 4 teams. Miami lost to Louisville, FSU, and Cuse.

 

[IncaneInTheBrain]

I can't figure out what happened. The ACC was the gold standard for basketball. Getting 7 of 9 teams in the tournament at one point. But over the last few years the league has zero respect. Despite that, year after year the ACC dominates in March while these other hyped up leagues like the SEC fold like paper.

Honestly, I feel like it all started when we won the league in 2013. Still the only team in ACC history to win the league and the tournament and not get a 1 seed.

I was looking at NET rankings the other day and the ACC besides Duke and UNC just get abysmal rankings. I not sure how to fix it but if we are going to stick around in this stupid league then the entire league needs to sit down and figure out how to get teams NET rankings hight because that's all anyone looks out anymore.

Since the mid 2010s, almost all of the good coaches are gone and have been replace with, for the most part, chumps. Pitino, Brown, Coach K, Boeheim, and to a lesser extent Mike Brey, Gottfried, Buzz, and Jamie Dixon are all gone. Only the 2 blue bloods have recovered.

 

[IncaneInTheBrain]

I've been saying this is an NIT team for a while. The pieces don't fit, the depth sucks, and the few good players we have are always nicked up, which shouldn't be much of a surprise considering they're all playing 38 minutes a night.

 

[AmherstCane]

Not so sure about your first point, because Alabama has an identical record to UM, but has a 7 NET ranking. This is because they are 5-6 against Q1,2, and undefeated (8-0) vs Q3, 4 teams.

The second point tends to support BAMA's NET, because they have played better teams so far. They have "quality" losses to tournament teams: Tenn, ZONA, Creighton, Purdue, Clemson...

The third point also supports BAMAs NET, because they doesn't lose against Q3, 4 teams. Miami lost to Louisville, FSU, and Cuse.

Would you believe that UM has a better record against Q1&2 teams than Alabama (5-4 vs 5-6)?

Also my first point was schedule bad teams AND run train on them. We did not consistently do that. We also lost to 1 bad team and 1 mediocre team.

Margin of victory ends up trumping everything other than playing elite competition close… that’s why NET and kenpom are deeply flawed ranking systems.

Also, the ACC’s poor reputation comes from bad efficiency metrics which somehow overshadows the performance of the conference in March.

An ACC team has been in 3 of the last 4 and 11 of the last 15 final fours. Big 12 and Big East are not far behind but Big Ten and SEC are nowhere close.

 

[passitback]

Would you believe that UM has a better record against Q1&2 teams than Alabama (5-4 vs 5-6)?

Also my first point was schedule bad teams AND run train on them. We did not consistently do that. We also lost to 1 bad team and 1 mediocre team.

Margin of victory ends up trumping everything other than playing elite competition close… that’s why NET and kenpom are deeply flawed ranking systems.

Also, the ACC’s poor reputation comes from bad efficiency metrics which somehow overshadows the performance of the conference in March.

An ACC team has been in 3 of the last 4 and 11 of the last 15 final fours. Big 12 and Big East are not far behind but Big Ten and SEC are nowhere close.

Another way of looking at 5-4 vs. 5-6 is 9 teams vs. 11 teams. Perhaps they reward teams for playing more against better competition. Now I am not saying the comp. BAMA has faced is better than Miami's. The NET folks are. They are with their rankings.

I agree that both KenPom and NET are flawed. All metrics are, to some degree. However, as flawed as it may be, it is often cited as a means to justify a team dancing - or not.

I di agree with you on mrgin of victory. Blow outs are rewarded. Close wins/losses against solid comp (based on KenPom, NET, etc. metrics) are also rewarded. That's 100% fact.

I can't speak to the poor reputation angle, because I don't envision the ACC in that light, never have. In fact, I was ****ed when the ACC nabbed CUSE, PITT, Louisville, etc. I'm a Johnnie fan, so I ride and die with the Big East. Those additions made the ACC BETTER.

We seem to agree on more than not. Still a lot of season to play. Miami has big games coming up that can quickly change the trajectory of the season.

You know hoops are fluid. ****, my Johnnies can still boom or bust. No game, sans DePaul, is a gimme. That is true for you guys as well.

You're in great hands with Coach L. Let's see how thing shake out.

PS: You should be explaining this to the good folks at KenPom, NET, etc.

 

[AmherstCane]

Another way of looking at 5-4 vs. 5-6 is 9 teams vs. 11 teams. Perhaps they reward teams for playing more against better competition. Now I am not saying the comp. BAMA has faced is better than Miami's. The NET folks are. They are with their rankings.

I agree that both KenPom and NET are flawed. All metrics are, to some degree. However, as flawed as it may be, it is often cited as a means to justify a team dancing - or not.

I di agree with you on mrgin of victory. Blow outs are rewarded. Close wins/losses against solid comp (based on KenPom, NET, etc. metrics) are also rewarded. That's 100% fact.

I can't speak to the poor reputation angle, because I don't envision the ACC in that light, never have. In fact, I was ****ed when the ACC nabbed CUSE, PITT, Louisville, etc. I'm a Johnnie fan, so I ride and die with the Big East. Those additions made the ACC BETTER.

We seem to agree on more than not. Still a lot of season to play. Miami has big games coming up that can quickly change the trajectory of the season.

You know hoops are fluid. ****, my Johnnies can still boom or bust. No game, sans DePaul, is a gimme. That is true for you guys as well.

You're in great hands with Coach L. Let's see how thing shake out.

PS: You should be explaining this to the good folks at KenPom, NET, etc.

So kenpom and net (with some modifiers) are incredibly simple…. they rank based upon points per possession (offensive and defensive) adjusted for the opponents offensive and defensive efficiency.

There’s effectively no difference between winning by 1 or losing by 1 because the win or loss is irrelevant and 2 points doesn’t make a significant difference in the ranking formula.

So the way to get ranked well in net/kenpom is either play close games against great teams or beat the doors off bad teams (score enough points and hold the opponent to few enough to offset the quality of opponent adjustment). Playing close games against bad teams kills your ranking, even if you win.

The worst thing about kenpom/net is they HEAVILY reward RUTS. So you could have a losing record but if every win was by a huge margin and every loss was a close loss to a highly ranked team, you could still be ranked very highly in Kenpom.

Net uses some other adjustments but Kenpom is really that simple.

 

[Notsince1985]

If they're not healthy, it's not happening.