The Day that Clemson BBall died - the Golden Rule {part 4}

May 18, 2023, 9:10 AM

Tables 1 and 2.png(99.0 K)

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before
But the man there said the music wouldn't play ------ fr. “American Pie” (1971)

….the BracketMatrix just wasn’t seeing the Golden Rule. No worries, apparently Brad Brownell and the Clemson Admin missed it as well.

what you know

What you know: a decade ago, Pitt and Clemson played the final game of the year at Littlejohn, with the winner ascending to an 11-7 record and 5th place in the ACC year end standings.

What you’ve never been told: 11-7 was the golden number for an NCAA invite. Golden.

the golden rule

So, given the overall strength of ACC teams, its unparalleled history, and the non-trivial fact that the league played a balanced schedule for the first thirteen (13) years of this overall 28-year period, it only follows that the NCAA Committee might well use a metric in handing out Tournament invites that either solely or in part relied purely on internal ACC Conference play. A metric of Strength on strength, Iron sharpening iron. A simple metric even; maybe even Conference win/loss records. Call it a “golden rule”, if you will.

And indeed, such was the inarguable strength of the ACC that the prevailing and unerring impact of finishing an ACC Conference season at least “+4 games over .500” during these almost 30 years isn’t simply mere suggestion. The data confirms it.

the data confirms it

During the first 22 years of 16 game ACC schedules leading up to our review year, 54 teams had finished at “better than +4 games over .500” in conference play. Every one of those teams got an NCAA invite – every one. Then, in the six (6) years after our review, but also prior to Covid, the metric of “better than +4 over .500 in conference” held unanimously again. During that 6-year period, twenty-two (22) out of 22 teams with records “better than +4 over .500” all also received invites during this period.

Thus, for 28 years running, any team that ended its ACC schedule at “better than +4 games over .500” was effectively guaranteed an NCAA invite. It was 76 out of 76. Money.

But what about Clemson and Pitt, fighting to finish “exactly +4 games over .500”?

So, let’s first look at the 22 years leading up to our review year. That tells us what could have been known at that very time of the Pitt-Clemson game itself. In this initial 22-year period, another 16 ACC teams would finish at “exactly +4 games over .500” in conference play. Fourteen (14) of those 16 would garner NCAA invites. Then in the six (6) years after our review, but also prior Covid, the metric of “exactly +4 over .500 in conference” held unanimously. Ten (10) out of 10 possible “exactly +4 teams” all received NCAAT invites in those years.

Thus, at the time of the Pitt-Clemson game in question more than a decade ago, the teams could/should have understood that a win meant something like an 88% (14/16) chance of an NCAA invite. Stretching beyond to the seasons after, with 6 years more of data leading up to Covid, the chance was actually more properly suggested as something like 92% (24 of 26).

Over the years, the NCAA Selection Committee had memorialized the strength of the ACC with a Golden Rule of sorts in determining who out of the ACC would get NCAAT invites. Indeed, 100 out of 102 times over three decades, the overall benchmark held without adjustment.

It was virtually foolproof; and yet you’ve never been told.

**********

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down