|
Replies: 42
| visibility 1,751
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth
3
Nov 13, 2023, 4:56 PM
|
|
If we learned anything from last year, the biggest games on Clemson's schedule are Alcorn State, Queens, and Radford. It's what you do against the worst competition that matters . . . unless you win . . . then it doesn't matter . . . if you lose it really matters a lot, though, because of quads and stuff.
The conference schedule really doesn't matter. You can finish T-3 in the ACC and not get in the tournament, because by the time conference games get going, the computers already know who's good and who isn't (bleep blerp . . . the Big 12 is awesome bleep . . . the ACC sucks blerp bleep).
Thank goodness the Tigers came back and won against Davidson, although, since Davidson lost to Clemson they must be like a quad 7 team, and Clemson only beat them by 1 point . . . so maybe it was a bad thing? I'm not sure.
Maybe Clemson should just pretend everyone is sick with Covid against Alcorn, Queens, and Radford. Is that still a thing? If so, then they could just avoid the heads Tigers lose, tails computers win scenario.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4596]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3361
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth
5
5
Nov 13, 2023, 8:38 PM
|
|
Some of last year's losses NET:
219 Morehead St.
235 South Carolina
269 Loyola Chicago
314 Louisville
Those are what kept us out of the Tournament. Not the Citadel and Townson State games (although we sure couldn't afford to lose those).
It seems hard to that a team that on paper is probably the best Brownell has managed to assemble struggled so mightily against UAB, a team that (if they told us once they told us 50 times in the broadcast) had 1 returning starter and 9 new transfers (and 4 transfers never played a Division 1 game before this season).
And then have the same team turn around and trail 17-2 to Davidson?
The positive here is that they did actually manage to pull out both of those games. And we did receive 1 vote in the AP poll, so there's that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44055]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32968
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Youve hit on the next step for our program.
1
2
Nov 13, 2023, 8:46 PM
|
|
It’s not losing several games this year to quad 4 teams.
It’s unfortunate that the current metrics penalize teams so much for losing games like that, because anyone paying attention last year could see that we deserved an NCAA Tournament berth based on our overall body of work.
But knowing that it comes down to NET rankings, which are largely determined in November and December, we have to do better in those games. I believe we will this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Youve hit on the next step for our program.
1
Nov 13, 2023, 8:56 PM
|
|
As posted below - 4% of brackets on Bracket Matrix selected Clemson. They did not deserve to be there. They lost their worst game in February. Completely negating your insincere defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16263]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12789
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Anyone and everyone paying attention last year saw us lose to 8-seed
2
Nov 14, 2023, 6:42 PM
[ in reply to Youve hit on the next step for our program. ] |
|
Morehead State in the first round of the NIT, at home, absolutely vindicating the NCAA selection committee, the NET rankings, RPI, and everyone associated with NCAA basketball not affiliated with Clemson. We 100% went out and proved the system worked, and next time around afforded them the confidence to make the same decisions.
I hate it, but that's the reality at hand. We burned any ounce of benefit of the doubt, but good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Wasnt any benefit of the doubt to begin with
1
Nov 14, 2023, 6:56 PM
|
|
Winning NIT, losing to Morehead State - still Clemson, still a football school, still dismissed. It will always be harder for Clemson to get into the NCAAT. No NIT outcome is gonna change that. Only thing that would change it is a run of success in the NCAAT, something Brad hasn’t been able to do, and something the selection committee makes more difficult by snubbing us. Gotta do something this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Wasnt any benefit of the doubt to begin with
Nov 14, 2023, 8:29 PM
|
|
But we weren’t snubbed.
Sports Reference team and conference SRS, NET, ELO, RPI, Sagarin, and KenPom all said we weren’t going to make it if you looked at the numbers. We were close. All we had to do was not lose to Louisville. And still, if Brownell - with his best regular season ACC record and a bid to make the tourney on the line - probably gets in with a win over a top 20 Virginia. A loss against Duke would not have hurt our chances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth
1
Nov 13, 2023, 8:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth ] |
|
The other games contributed but if we don’t lose to Louisville we almost certainly would have made the tourney. So, contrary to his point, the math is not arbitrary. We finished in a 3-way tie for 3rd. ACC seeding had us 4th. Any value in either was negated by losing to the worst team in the conference who happened to be the worst team on our schedule and in all of Power 5 basketball. You cannot argue that your team has improved and early losses shouldn’t be held against you and then do that. All arguments for Clemson making the tournament were disingenuous and no one that has ever seriously followed the NCAA would have thought we were getting in. We were picked on a total of 10 out of 229 brackets on Bracket Matrix and I’m gonna put them in the not serious pile. 4%. And Brownell and Neff had the nerve to pretend they had been done wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
3 seed in the ACC tournament
4
Nov 14, 2023, 8:28 AM
|
|
We were the 3 seed, not the 4, because we were 2-0 against Pitt and Duke, the teams we tied with in the standings, who both got in. We were also 3-0 against the 6th place team NC State, beating them by a combined 65 points across 3 games. NC State got in.
A 3-seed in the ACC tournament had never been snubbed since the NCAAT field expanded to 64 teams. Not only did Clemson get snubbed as a 3-seed; the 3 teams behind them all got in. Clemson also beat Penn State, who got in.
I can understand being frustrated with Brownell's underwhelming record (2 NCAAT wins during his seemingly eternal tenure). I've hammered him a bunch on here, but saying last year's team should've been in the tournament isn't disingenuous.
I think Vitale, Bilas, and Greenburg are pretty serious about college basketball, and all those guys thought Clemson should've been in: https://www.si.com/college/clemson/mens-basketball/dick-vitale-jay-bilas-react-to-clemson-basketball-snub
We overvalue the computers, and the computers overvalue the early season schedule. Plus, people dump on Clemson basketball. Change the name on the jersey to Syracuse, or UNC, or NC State, and last year's team is in. No question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4596]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3361
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Not snubbed, pretty accurately not invited
1
Nov 14, 2023, 5:03 PM
|
|
Maybe if we had gone on to win the NIT, we could be talking about getting snubbed. Before we puked all over ourselves against Morehead State, maybe we had some right to talk about not making it when others did. But the several horrible regular season losses discounted wins.
Instead what we proved was that the NCAA committee knew best by not included us, and that the NIT committee was just DEAD WRONG for giving us a #1 seed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Nah
3
Nov 14, 2023, 5:50 PM
|
|
Losing to Morehead State was a bad look, sure, but it doesn't negate the fact that we were snubbed.
Pitt won a game in the tournament. Duke won a game in the tournament. Penn State won a game in the tournament. Clemson beat all those teams. Obviously, they were capable of being competitive in the NCAAT.
After winning 15 ACC games and getting dissed by the committee, I can understand not being super motivated to go win the NIT. That doesn't excuse losing to Morehead State in the first round, but neither does losing to Morehead State in the first round excuse the NCAAT selection committee from the egregious error of leaving out a 23-win Clemson team, who finished third in the ACC. Again, no third place ACC team has been left out since the field expanded to 64. That's a snub, and it wouldn't have happened to UNC, Syracuse, NC State, Wake Forest, UVA, etc. no matter what the computers said.
Clemson has to do more than other teams to make the tournament. That much is clear. Computer rankings, on the other hand, are not. Better not give the committee any excuses this time around, because PJ Hall and Chase Hunter ain't coming back. The window is this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44055]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32968
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
But our NIT performance DID have everything to do with Failure of Leadership
1
Nov 15, 2023, 3:08 PM
|
|
If you can't get up to play on your own home court at the end of the year - with the chance to prove to some degree that you got jobbed by the NCAA Committee - then you're just lazy and spoiled.
Then you get up 15 in the first half, but ultimately completely cave because some other team has the balls to stand up to you, and you're just pathetically immature.
All of this is Leadership, or lack thereof, from the Head Coach on down.
These SOB's take no effing responsibility for anything. They're just practiced Liars and Charlatans.
viztiz®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4596]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3361
Joined: 8/14/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44055]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32968
Joined: 2/22/03
|
Just because you don't think we deserved to be in the NCAA Tournament
1
Nov 16, 2023, 9:36 AM
|
|
it doesn't mean that we didn't deserve to be in the NCAA Tournament.
Thanks for sharing though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [364]
TigerPulse: 77%
Posts: 928
Joined: 11/18/23
|
Contrarily, thats exactly what it means.***
Dec 7, 2023, 3:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: 3 seed in the ACC tournament
1
Nov 14, 2023, 8:12 PM
[ in reply to 3 seed in the ACC tournament ] |
|
But it wasn’t the early season that ultimately kept them out - it was the Louisville game. That was in February. And yes a 3 seed hadn’t been kept out but it was the worst rated ACC since the 1985 (64 team expansion) and worst overall since 1969-70.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/acc/men/
People arguing that we should be in are really struggling to put that in perspective. When you look at the relative strength rating within the conference we were 7th overall.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/acc/men/2023.html
While ESPN talking heads (ESPN does hold the rights to ACC basketball) might say nice things, but only 4% of folks who actually run bracketology sites (and that includes Lunardi, Palm, and other major media figures) actually put Clemson on their bracket.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230516053754/http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
Fans look at their team being left out in a vacuum. We did XYZ , why aren’t we in!?! But Rutgers and OK State had better arguments and were left out too.
Finally, sorry about mistake on seeding. You are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Computer rankings are flawed
1
Nov 15, 2023, 7:58 AM
|
|
That’s my point. All the bracket “experts” like Lunardi are just plugging in computer rankings. We try to act like the devaluation of the ACC and Clemson’s conference record is objective. It’s not that simple. It is a simple excuse for the selection committee, though.
It’s kind of ridiculous that you can’t lose to Louisville and get in the dance. Like they don’t know how to play basketball or have basketball talent at Louisville. Pretty sure that’s not the case.
College basketball is super competitive. Teams can lose to most anyone on a given night. Think uva losing as a one seed. Computers aren’t capable of understanding that. People should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Computer rankings are flaw
Nov 15, 2023, 4:50 PM
|
|
All of them? Every one? I mean that seems like a stretch. Regardless of computers it’s not like we should have been a 4 or a 5 seed and got left out to everyone’s consternation. We were, at best, a bubble team. I would say your comment about Louisville betrays the fact that you aren’t really aware of the state of ACC basketball in 2022-23 and just how historically awful Louisville was. They were 4-28. You dismiss anything computer related so just wrap your head around that. Louisville as you knew or perceive them is irrelevant. They won 4 games. They beat Lipscomb, Florida A&M, 15-18 GT, and us. They lost 9 games to teams with overall losing records. They didn’t play murders row. Over 1/3 their schedule was teams that finished with losing records. Most of of bracket matrix is just dude’s filling out brackets trying to be the best to give their sports blog a boost and they knew not to put Clemson in. If you still want to dismiss them explain Clemson over Rutger or OK State. Because they both had better arguments. And you’re kind of contradicting yourself in the first paragraph. You don’t have to like it, but SRS is a completely objective way of rating teams and conferences. So, if some entity (NCAA, ESPN) wants to devalue the ACC for subjective reasons we gave them plenty of reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
"Objective" doesn't equal perfect
1
Nov 15, 2023, 6:11 PM
|
|
But we act like the two terms are interchangeable. Yeah, Louisville had a bad year. Clemson had a good one, though.
Clemson had a better record than Rutgers, who finished fourth in the Big 10. ACC beat the Big 10 in the annual Big 10/ACC Challenge, and they put a team in the final 4. Big 10 didn't. Big 10 had the same number of teams in the round of 16 as the ACC - 1.
As for Ok State, they had a losing record in the Big 12.
Winning ought to matter. Clemson won more than either of those two teams, and my point with the Big 10 vs. ACC records head to head and in terms of NCAAT results is that (despite what the computers and SRS might say), the ACC is not so much worse than the other major conferences. It's highly competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: "Objective" doesn't equal perfect
Nov 15, 2023, 7:25 PM
|
|
I’m truly not trying to be snarky, I’m taking from what you’re saying the W/L record should be paramount. For which Clemson would have been obviously included. But RPI, long the NCAA standard for tournament seeding, is that formula. It isn’t an algorithm per se. it’s just simple (albeit lengthy) arithmetic. Your W/L record, your opponents W/L record, and your opponents’ opponents w/L record. I understand the argument that Clemson is treated unfairly. We hold one of the biggest snubs of the RPI era when we were left out in 2007 with a 45 rpi. Purnell should have been to 4 straight and Clemson to 5 straight NCAA tourneys. We were snubbed in 2019 when we finished tied 8th / seeded 9th in the ACC. We had a 35 NET 25 with 20 wins and a .5OO conference record. We played 8 seed NC State (tied in ACC record) in the first round of the tourney. NC State had played a significantly easier SOS than us. In all likelihood, if we had won that game, we would have made the tourney. But we lost and the NCAA left us both out. None of the measurables had us anywhere as close last year. The only thing to point to was our conference record. We had a single ranked win against 3 losses to teams with losing records. Rutgers had 2 ranked wins, including a top 5 win, and only 2 losses to teams with losing records - Ohio State and Minnesota who were better than Louisville, Loyola-C, or USC.
And here’s the final point I’ll make. Purnell overcame the bias against Clemson, despite the snub in 2007, taking us to 3 straight tourneys. Brownell inherited that team and limped into the field in 2011 with a 55 RPI, getting a benefit of the doubt based on recent history that we had previously never received. Then he spent the most of the next decade squandering that goodwill by simply not being very good more often than not. He has never been consistent enough to get anyone on the committees vote if it comes down to a toss up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Appreciate the civil, measured argument
Nov 16, 2023, 9:05 AM
|
|
I think we agree more than we disagree.
I do think that all the computer rankings are necessarily flawed. It's impossible for them to be perfect. Same goes for RPI.
When it comes to deciding who gets in, it isn't up to computers. It's up to the people on the committee, and as you've pointed out, your school either has goodwill stored up, or it doesn't. If the computers say Clemson is out, Clemson is out. If the computers say Syracuse or NC State are out, maybe they aren't. Some of those schools' goodwill is earned, but some of it is just based on mental associations that have nothing to do with what's relevant (NC State? Yeah, Tobacco Road, Jimmy V, yeah they're good, we want that team in). People aren't as rational as they want to believe they are.
I miss the Purnell years too. It was an entertaining product on the floor and very successful except for when it came tournament time. Always thought we were kind of run down by then, that maybe we peaked a little too early. That Villanova loss was really painful.
I've gotten on Brownell enough on here. I want to believe that this is our year. Somehow, we have to be better than a year ago, because the committee isn't going to give us any breaks. Brad's gotta get it done. Sweet 16 or bust. And if you really want to start piling up some of that goodwill, go ahead and get into the round of 8, coach. Of course, to do those things, you have to make the tournament first. Winning the next three games sure would be a good start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [805]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 816
Joined: 10/15/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4466]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 10/26/05
|
Very important to beat bad teams. I was at the dirtpeckers
Nov 13, 2023, 9:00 PM
|
|
Game last year. It was so early in the season. Anyways that loss was so horrible. It left a very bad taste in my mouth for the whole season. Went to a few other games but just couldn’t get excited after we loss to our rivals and they were just so bad. One of their worst teams ever and they beat us. Ughhh almost as frustrating as losing to them in football. (I said almost)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [485]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 250
Joined: 11/8/09
|
Re: November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth
Nov 15, 2023, 8:22 AM
|
|
I get your point, but I would say it a bit differently. These are not the most important games for getting into the NCAA tournament in March. Rather, these are the games that would likely eliminate a team from consideration for the tournament. In other words, if Clemson won all of the nonconference games, but lost almost all of the conference games, they still would not make the tournament.
It's like the company where I have been employed for over 25 years. Annually, they ask all salaried employees if they have any restrictions regarding relocation. If the employee says "no restrictions," there is no guarantee of promotion (and a very low risk of being relocated unless the employee really wants to relocate). But if the employee notes restrictions such as "not open to relocation," the employee will be redlined from promotion even if the promotion opportunity is local.
So, the relocation question is a disqualifier question for promotion like losses in Clemson's nonconference schedule is a disqualifier for making the NCAA tournament in March.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Just stop playing non conference opponents i guess
1
Nov 15, 2023, 9:04 AM
|
|
Can’t win
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
What you are missing Thornhill is the unbalanced schedule
1
Nov 15, 2023, 10:23 AM
|
|
Only a couple of years’ back, the ACC went to an unbalanced schedule different from the past. Last year we didn’t play all the other teams twice. So our lack of in-conference losses may have looked good on the surface, but the failure to play all the best teams Home and Home meant that we simply just beat up the bottom of the barrel.
And Viz is right: last year wasn’t your Daddy’s ACC. Those days are gone.
In the end, bad losses and all, the team got what they earned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Ole Mike
1
Nov 15, 2023, 10:32 AM
|
|
I guess I just choose to disbelieve that the ACC is as bad as the computers and some people say it is. I think the likes of Pitt, Duke, NC State, etc. are bringing in really high level talent and that winning 15 games in a conference like that means you have a really competitive team. I think we got shortchanged. Also think this year's group needs to do better to avoid it happening again.
Finally, I appreciate you referring to me by my Tnet first name. Seems like really proper Tnet decorum. Classy. TU for that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
Check out Wake Forest from the previous year - same problem
1
Nov 15, 2023, 2:58 PM
|
|
Also, I did a very long piece early last year about missing the 2013-14 NCAAT.
One of the big things there was that in the 22+ years previous, no team that had been +4 Wins-to-Losses in-conference in the ACC had ever missed the 64-team NCAAT. The NCAAT valued the balanced in-conference schedule enough to say that 12-8, 10-6, 11-7, 13-9, etc. were all Tourney worthy. This is what you are remembering.
But we finished 10-8 that year, not 11-7, because we blew a game on the last day (March 8th) to Pitt, after being up by 5 with 5 seconds to go on our own home court. The loss meant we were only 2 games above .500 (10-8), not the required 4 (11-7).
Win that game and we're in the NCAAT. Instead Pitt got the Bid.
But Brad Brownell choked at the end and cost the team a Bid. It is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Nice post
1
Nov 15, 2023, 3:22 PM
[ in reply to Check out Wake Forest from the previous year - same problem ] |
|
Still, boeheim could be .500 in conference and get in most years. Like when they were 9-9 in 2015-2016 or 8-10 in 2017-2018 or 10-8 in 2018-2019 or 9-7 in 2020-2021. Different rules for clemson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
I don't disagree - some Coaches get a pass
Nov 15, 2023, 4:00 PM
|
|
And Boeheim earned that pass.
That 9-9 team from 2016 you brought up, well they went all the way to the Final Four.
I'm sorry, but Brownell hasn't come close to sniffing that level of credibility.
And now we're back at 1st round NIT failures to Morehead State and Oakland....
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Boeheim has certainly been a monster in the tournament
Nov 15, 2023, 6:13 PM
|
|
Brad's a far cry from that dude, but it sure would be nice to get some more opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4596]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3361
Joined: 8/14/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2849]
TigerPulse: 65%
Posts: 2576
Joined: 6/9/00
|
Just check the road schedule
1
1
Nov 15, 2023, 10:41 AM
|
|
Win or lose, that's where the points will increase. The committee has let it be known -- it is not who you beat it is who you lose to and where you lose to them. Stupid system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44055]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32968
Joined: 2/22/03
|
It sure is.
1
Nov 15, 2023, 9:11 PM
|
|
We really got screwed last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4596]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3361
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: It sure is.
Dec 7, 2023, 3:17 PM
|
|
Perhaps the better way to show the Committee that they screwed up was, oh, I don't know, maybe not lose to Morehead State on our home floor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Just check the road schedule
Nov 15, 2023, 10:15 PM
[ in reply to Just check the road schedule ] |
|
The committee has done no such thing. It is absolutely both. We had a single ranked win last season. Rutgers had more ranked wins and less bad losses. They got left out too. Now that conferences play unbalanced schedules regular season rank is almost meaningless. We played the 4 top teams in the ACC once last year while playing 3 of the bottom 4 twice. I know you do actually go to games and have a functional understanding of how our schedule and NCAA selection works. So stop lying, probably as much to yourself as to anyone else, about what happened last year. It’s cry baby bs an old school southern boy like yourself calls out in any other context. It is exactly the snowflake, “everyone gets a trophy”, crap I’m sure you’ve hypocritically called out elsewhere. We did not earn it despite many opportunities to do so. Beat Virginia. Beat Louisville. Either in the final weeks of the season and none of this is up for debate. We made our bed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth
1
2
Nov 16, 2023, 8:46 AM
|
|
Hilarious to hear the haters shill for the NCAA year after year For basketball. The selection committees process is perfect and there are no flaws!
We heard all the same crap after we got snubbed in 2018 where we sported a 29 kenpom rating and a 35 NET. The haters assured us rhat the NCAA tourney selection committee was perfect and it was the lack of quality wins (brownell's fault). Last year the 29th team in kenpom ratings was a 6 seed and the 35th net team was a 9 seed. Hell nc state, who we beat 3 times had a 45 NET and they got in!
Now that the NCAA has prioritized different metrics, we didnt get in last year, and once again the process was perfect! Despite having many quality wins, we lost a few games to poor teams. That'll get you, per the resident ncaa committee experts.
So even though the NCAA prioritizes different metrics every year, we all know they get the best teams every year. They never make a mistake.
https://www.tigernet.com/clemson-basketball/news/clemson-men-fall-short-of-ncaa-tournament-bid-32568#:~:text=The%20clear%20downside%20of%20the,%3B%20away%201%2D75).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1868]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 965
Joined: 9/9/18
|
Nice
1
Nov 16, 2023, 9:11 AM
|
|
Didn't realize how high we were rated that year. Maybe we should just win the ACCT this year and not leave it up to the stupid committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Nice
1
Nov 16, 2023, 9:29 AM
|
|
Yep, cant leave it up to those degens
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4596]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3361
Joined: 8/14/01
|
Re: November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth
Dec 7, 2023, 3:30 PM
[ in reply to Re: November/December dictates (lack of) tournament berth ] |
|
I'm pretty sure we were slated into a nice 7 or 8 slot for some weeks, right up until we vomited up all over our season by losing to Louisville, capping off a streak losing 4 out 5 including 3-in-a-row. That was the last straw, on top of SCAR, Loyola-Chicago.
The 3-in-a-row losing streak started with loss at Boston College (NET #91) the day after we cracked the top 20 for the first time in forever and ended with yet another 20-blowout loss at UNC (the 4 point loss to ranked Miami was tough to swallow, but understandable).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 42
| visibility 1,751
|
|
|
50
