Clemson for sure in ncaa tourney?

14 league wins- 21 total- beat a team 3 times that they let in over us. I have stated many times on this board how the NET is rigged - it was purposeful because the BIG and SEC weren’t getting enough bids under the old process. They changed it and now those leagues get a #### load of bids compared to the ACC. Yet the ACC with their ridiculous low # of bids continues to rack up more tourney wins and send teams deeper than either of those leagues. The B12 and some other leagues have also figured out how to game the NET. There are 6 teams in the ACC that should be in the NCAAT. Every team in the league except for one is actually capable of winning a 1st round game. A team like SU, NCSU, VT or FSU could even win a couple on the right nights. But 6 have earned it IMO this year. But the question is what will the selection committee do and based on their flawed tools then Clemson is going to be the 3rd team and comfortably in the field. UVA is probably fine unless Clemson gets upset in the 2nd round and UVA loses to BC or Miami then they are probably on the bubble again. Pitt probably has to win 1 and WF at least 2 to be in unfortunately as they should all be in. Especially Pitt - they have some huge road wins and they have some FR that have really elevated them 2nd half of the year.

viztiz®

Legend [16930]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 10782

Joined: 1/25/07

Re: Look at the NCAAT results - ACC is outperforming

Mar 10, 2024, 3:57 AM

That’s not a meaningful measure. They’re independent variables. That the top teams in the ACC perform well when given the opportunity doesn’t reflect on the bottom teams. 2/3 of the ACC aren’t being left home because they lose to the top 1/3. The middle third is being left out because they lose terrible out of conference games and lose to the bottom third of the conference. That’s what the conference you think are being biased towards aren’t doing. When you start with the presumption, based entirely on your feelings, that the ACC is as good as the other conferences then of course you’re gonna distrust these results. But it isn’t just NET. RPI, Ken Pom, Sagarin, SRS, AP rankings - all said the ACC was trash last year. They all say it’s better this year - but still at best 4th. I don’t think you have the slightest grasp of what NET is, you’ve just decided it’s a boogie man for you to latch onto.

And the committee does still deliberate. That aspect hasn’t changed at all. The NET simply replaced RPI. They still use team sheets. You seem to acknowledge any system is flawed (true) and can be gamed (true) but that this one somehow is prejudiced against the ACC (false). You cannot look at the out of conference results of the ACC last year and sincerely make this argument. Teams were healthy. They went out and lost to terrible teams. If you want to weight late season games more than early, it’s all going to be relative. If Notre Dame loses trash OOC games and turns around and beats Clemson in the home stretch, that’s gonna make that game more punitive to Clemson. The relative hierarchy between the conferences is still established in the OCC schedule.

And your no team with 14 wins scenario is simply impractical without expanding the tournament. To try and shoe horn that in now will incentivize conferences to outright cheat/fix matches to maximize tourney participation. The 14 games threshold is particularly arbitrary given unbalanced scheduling and that at least 2 power 5 conference don’t play 20 games schedules. If your schedule allows you to play 8 games against the bottom 4 teams should going 6-6 against anyone with a pulse in the conference actually get you in?