Scheduling Quirk

by **bignick33** on Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:31 pm

Guys, there's a very real possibility that our next three games will be against Wake, then Wake again, and then Virginia Tech.

by **twballgame9** on Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:36 pm

Awesome. A bad team twice and a team tat cannot beat BC. Unless BC decides to WTF, 3 more wins.

by **BCEagle74** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:27 am

bignick33 {l Wrote}:Guys, there's a very real possibility that our next three games will be against Wake, then Wake again, and then Virginia Tech.

Yes. VT could be a 4 seed 10-6 if they beat Clemson --- and if Clemson wins then all 3 are 9-7.

BC 2-1 --- 2-0 vs VT and 0-1 versus Clemson
Clemson -- 2-0 VT and BC
VT --- 0-3 --- 0-2 vs BC and 0-1 versus Clemson

Clemson 4
BC -5
VT- 6

I do not know the tiebreaker system and I assumed head to head is the first deal????

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:31 am

BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:
bignick33 {l Wrote}:Guys, there's a very real possibility that our next three games will be against Wake, then Wake again, and then Virginia Tech.

Yes. VT could be a 4 seed 10-6 if they beat Clemson --- and if Clemson wins then all 3 are 9-7.

BC 3-1 --- 2-0 vs VT and 0-1 versus Clemson
Clemson -- 2-0 VT and BC
VT --- 0-3 --- 0-2 vs BC and 0-1 versus Clemson

Clemson 4
BC -5
VT- 6

I do not know the tiebreaker system and I assumed head to head is the first deal????

I believe you are correct. Don't forget that UMD could join the 9-7 party and that would mean:

BC 4-1 (your BC record above should be 2-1)
CU 2-1
VT 2-3
UMD 1-4

BC = #4!!!

by **bignick33** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:36 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
BC = #4!!!

For the reasons mentioned in other threads, I'm not sure that this would be a good thing.

by **pick6pedro** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:37 am

bignick33 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
BC = #4!!!

For the reasons mentioned in other threads, I'm not sure that this would be a good thing.

And I agree. The exclamation points were more out of shock that it's still possible rather than a chubster I'd get at receiving one.

by **BCEagle74** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:39 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:
bignick33 {l Wrote}:
I believe you are correct. Don't forget that UMD could join the 9-7 party and that would mean:

BC 4-1 (your BC record above should be 2-1)
CU 2-1
VT 2-3
UMD 1-4

BC = #4!!!

This is correct. Major boo-boo by 74 pea brain.

I am in record of performance rehab now with Sheen and I expect to get paid.

GO TERPS 2-0, GO CLEMSON 1-1, GO VT 0-1, GO BC 1-0.

That would ensure a BC tourney bid with a 4 seed and a bye.

Sir Pedro to the rescue.

by **bignick33** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:40 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
bignick33 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
BC = #4!!!

For the reasons mentioned in other threads, I'm not sure that this would be a good thing.

And I agree. The exclamation points were more out of shock that it's still possible rather than a chubster I'd get at receiving one.

Then again, if get the 4 seed and win our first game in the ACC Tourney, we're talking seeding rather than in/out status.

by **eepstein0** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:59 am

bignick33 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
bignick33 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
BC = #4!!!

For the reasons mentioned in other threads, I'm not sure that this would be a good thing.

And I agree. The exclamation points were more out of shock that it's still possible rather than a chubster I'd get at receiving one.

Then again, if get the 4 seed and win our first game in the ACC Tourney, we're talking seeding rather than in/out status.

For selfish reasons I'd like to watch them stomp Wake on Thursday. Although true, we're better off with a bye. 3 games in 3 days with the third against UNC/Duke will not be pretty.

by **Bumpers** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:25 am

bignick33 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
bignick33 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
BC = #4!!!

For the reasons mentioned in other threads, I'm not sure that this would be a good thing.

And I agree. The exclamation points were more out of shock that it's still possible rather than a chubster I'd get at receiving one.

Then again, if get the 4 seed and win our first game in the ACC Tourney, we're talking seeding rather than in/out status.

Not that we can control it if it does happen, but 3 games in a row against WF at the end of the season will not help our SOS factor in seeding. One of the things the talking heads are pointing to that we are in right now despite an 18-11 record is because we have a SOS of @ 13. Assuming we stay in because we continue to win, if SOS goes down appreciably becasue of multiple games against Wake (RPI 246) that will be bad for seeding.

by **BCEagle74** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:59 pm

I do believe no ACC Bye team in the Tourney has ever been left out, except maybe, maybe VT.

BC getting in the Dance at any seed is the real deal.

Seeded 9-12 or even 1st!!!

6 wins.. Thank God for that after the Miami game!

GO EAGLES!

by **BCEagle74** on Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:09 pm

BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:
bignick33 {l Wrote}:Guys, there's a very real possibility that our next three games will be against Wake, then Wake again, and then Virginia Tech.

Yes. VT could be a 4 seed 10-6 if they beat Clemson --- and if Clemson wins then all 3 are 9-7.

BC 2-1 --- 2-0 vs VT and 0-1 versus Clemson
Clemson -- 2-0 VT and BC
VT --- 0-3 --- 0-2 vs BC and 0-1 versus Clemson

Clemson 4
BC -5
VT- 6

I do not know the tiebreaker system and I assumed head to head is the first deal????

I left out Maryland...for good reason... :laugh

by **EagleDave** on Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:41 am

I recall this potential situation occurring last year as well. Didn't we beat UVA with Landesburg on the last day of the regular season and then they mopped the floor with us a week later in the ACCT without him?

I think I'd much rather have the bye and then play someone like Clemson in Round 2...who I think they can easily take on a neutral court.

by **bignick33** on Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:53 am

EagleDave {l Wrote}:I recall this potential situation occurring last year as well. Didn't we beat UVA with Landesburg on the last day of the regular season and then they mopped the floor with us a week later in the ACCT without him?

I think I'd much rather have the bye and then play someone like Clemson in Round 2...who I think they can easily take on a neutral court.

If we can't beat Wake twice in a row, we don't deserve an NCAA Tourney Berth. They're dreadful. It's as simple as that.

by **EagleDave** on Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:35 pm

bignick33 {l Wrote}:
EagleDave {l Wrote}:I recall this potential situation occurring last year as well. Didn't we beat UVA with Landesburg on the last day of the regular season and then they mopped the floor with us a week later in the ACCT without him?

I think I'd much rather have the bye and then play someone like Clemson in Round 2...who I think they can easily take on a neutral court.

If we can't beat Wake twice in a row, we don't deserve an NCAA Tourney Berth. They're dreadful. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying they can't...I was just playing devils advocate and pointing out that we were in the exact situation last year. Not to mention that beating Wake twice in a week probably doesn't help our situation...in fact it might actually weaken our numbers a tad.

by **RedBaron67** on Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:22 pm

EagleDave {l Wrote}:
bignick33 {l Wrote}:
EagleDave {l Wrote}:I recall this potential situation occurring last year as well. Didn't we beat UVA with Landesburg on the last day of the regular season and then they mopped the floor with us a week later in the ACCT without him?

I think I'd much rather have the bye and then play someone like Clemson in Round 2...who I think they can easily take on a neutral court.

If we can't beat Wake twice in a row, we don't deserve an NCAA Tourney Berth. They're dreadful. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying they can't...I was just playing devils advocate and pointing out that we were in the exact situation last year. Not to mention that beating Wake twice in a week probably doesn't help our situation...in fact it might actually weaken our numbers a tad.

As you point out, BC blew the second game with UVA last year, and they've remained somewhat erratic this year, so keeping their heads focused on beating WF twice is essential. I don't think beating WF twice will actually lower BC's RPI, though it certainly won't boost it much; but, since we have to do it just to stay on the bubble, there's no point in arguing about it. Beyond that, I think we should all be hoping that Clemson beats VT on Saturday and gets the 4 seed, because beating a 20-9 VT -- which has had its bubble popped three years in a row -- for the third time this season would be much tougher than beating a 20-10 Clemson with a home victory over BC and a little more confidence in its tournament chances.

by **cvilleagle** on Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:53 pm

Am I correct that we have now been eliminated from the possibility of being the 4 seed? It seems that (assuming we take care of Wake) if Clemson beats VT, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If VT wins, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If we lose to Wake, there are other possibilities, but it seems like if we take care of business we will get the 5 now that Maryland lost to Miami.

by **pick6pedro** on Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:39 am

cvilleagle {l Wrote}:Am I correct that we have now been eliminated from the possibility of being the 4 seed? It seems that (assuming we take care of Wake) if Clemson beats VT, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If VT wins, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If we lose to Wake, there are other possibilities, but it seems like if we take care of business we will get the 5 now that Maryland lost to Miami.

CONFIRMED

by **eepstein0** on Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:45 am

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
cvilleagle {l Wrote}:Am I correct that we have now been eliminated from the possibility of being the 4 seed? It seems that (assuming we take care of Wake) if Clemson beats VT, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If VT wins, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If we lose to Wake, there are other possibilities, but it seems like if we take care of business we will get the 5 now that Maryland lost to Miami.

CONFIRMED

Perfect Scenario this weekend:

BC > Wake
Clemson > VT
UNC > Duke
However Miami gets that 8th or 9th seed

This gives us the 5 seed versus Wake on Thursday. Then we'd play Clemson on Friday who I think is horribly over-rated. We should take them on a neutral floor. I freaking guarantee Miami or Maryland KO(s) Duke or Carolina or Friday, most likely Carolina.

by **2008Eagle** on Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:26 pm

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:
cvilleagle {l Wrote}:Am I correct that we have now been eliminated from the possibility of being the 4 seed? It seems that (assuming we take care of Wake) if Clemson beats VT, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If VT wins, they will get the 4, and we will get the 5. If we lose to Wake, there are other possibilities, but it seems like if we take care of business we will get the 5 now that Maryland lost to Miami.

CONFIRMED

Perfect Scenario this weekend:

BC > Wake
Clemson > VT
UNC > Duke
However Miami gets that 8th or 9th seed

This gives us the 5 seed versus Wake on Thursday. Then we'd play Clemson on Friday who I think is horribly over-rated. We should take them on a neutral floor. I freaking guarantee Miami or Maryland KO(s) Duke or Carolina or Friday, most likely Carolina.

Making the semis is definitely in play. First, we'll have to beat Wake twice, and if they can't do that, then they deserve the NIT anyway. Wake has only won two games since Christmas and are no better than, say, Florida A&M right now. I mean, they just lost to fucking Georgia Tech for the 2nd time this year by a margin exceeding 25 points. There's no excuse not to win both comfortably. If BC gets Wake on Sunday and then GT on Thursday, they should win both of those, too.

BC could take Clemson down on a neutral court. They're 5-8 away from home this year and aren't much better than we are in general.

Scheduling Quirk

Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Re: Scheduling Quirk

Who is online