ACC best ever? | Syracusefan.com

ACC best ever?

rrlbees said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/...orts&nl_art=9&nlid=22809962&ref=headline&te=1
Expand...

This article seems to be written by or for a 3rd grader or someone who does not know anything about basketball. 4-11 Clemson could potentially make 12 bids to beat the Big East record? Yes the bottom of the league can win on any given night. Yes the ACC is the best league in basketball. Yes if Clemson or Pitt won out to go 7-11 and made a deep run in the tournament they still have a chance with the weak national bubble... but some of these bubble teams are going to lose and even 11 bids is not happening. 10 is possible and that is if the ACC bubble teams finish well. The 5-6 bubble teams all have 12-13 losses, a losing conference record (except Cuse whose issue is the terrible OOC), and some will finish weakly. Apparently the NY Times should stick to politics.
 
Last edited:
9 bids is where the ACC is going to end up.

The ACC might at some point beat that great Big East season...but I don't see it in the. Ext year or two.

Speaking of which, I miss Big East Basketball...how it was in its prime was some of the best.
 
JRHEETER said:
9 bids is where the ACC is going to end up.

The ACC might at some point beat that great Big East season...but I don't see it in the. Ext year or two.

Speaking of which, I miss Big East Basketball...how it was in its prime was some of the best.
Expand...

I agree on both points... comparatively the ACC is a beast this year but comparisons to big east times need to take in account that times have changed as the one and done becomes the norm. I don't really think any conference can be better than big east glory days with the current NBA rules. I do agree there are less doormats like DePaul now (yes Cuse lost to them once).
 
A lot is made out of the Big East getting 11 bids back in 2011, but what most forget is that the league tanked in the tournament, with only 2 of those 11 teams making the Sweet 16 (UConn - won the NC that year - and Marquette - lost in Sweet 16). It will be interesting to see how the ACC does this year with its likely 9 bids.

The large clusterf#@k Big East's best year in the tourney was 2009, when it got only 7 bids, 5 of those 7 made the Sweet 16, 4 made it to the Elite 8, and 2 advanced to the Final Four, but both lost at that point. Last year's ACC was similar with 7 bids, 6 making the Sweet 16, 4 making it to the Elite 8, 2 to the Final Four, and 1 being Runner-Up.

ACC will be a beast for a long, long time. And that is what conference stability provides.

Cheers,
Neil
 
What makes this league and the old Big East, are the coaches. The ACC has 4 Hall of Fame coaches and then there is the next generation which are terrifyingly good. We better hope that Hop works out, because every ACC team is stepping up and making good head coaching hires, with the exception of BC. This conference is set up to have 4-5 elite teams and another 4-5 or more really good teams every single year.
 
I expect each year going forward a minimum of 1 ACC team in the Final Four. And frankly 2 in the FF (like last year) being pretty frequent. I also expect a "golden year" in which 4 ACC teams make the Final Four - maybe once every 20 years.
 
I agree on the future of the ACC. The comparison to the heyday of the Big East is interesting. I thought Boeheim made a relevant point in the Duke presser. The ACC at the moment is deep from top to bottom. No "conference cupcakes." Part of that may have been to rationalize the BC loss, but there is lots of truth to it. The Big East generally had 2-3 sucky teams every year (i.e. Depaul in recent times). Then it comes down to how one defines success. Is it number of bids or teams that make it far? Neil referenced the Big East in 2011 when most of the teams flamed out. My personal opinion is that it is a combination of sorts. Lots of bids + a handful of teams in final 8. This looks like it could be a good combo year. NC looks poised to make final 4 again, then 4-5 other teams capable of making a run.
 
omniorange said:
A lot is made out of the Big East getting 11 bids back in 2011, but what most forget is that the league tanked in the tournament, with only 2 of those 11 teams making the Sweet 16 (UConn - won the NC that year - and Marquette - lost in Sweet 16). It will be interesting to see how the ACC does this year with its likely 9 bids.

The large clusterf#@k Big East's best year in the tourney was 2009, when it got only 7 bids, 5 of those 7 made the Sweet 16, 4 made it to the Elite 8, and 2 advanced to the Final Four, but both lost at that point. Last year's ACC was similar with 7 bids, 6 making the Sweet 16, 4 making it to the Elite 8, 2 to the Final Four, and 1 being Runner-Up.

ACC will be a beast for a long, long time. And that is what conference stability provides.

Cheers,
Neil
Expand...

I agree that 2009 was the best year. We were legitimately good. We made the sweet 16, won 28 games, beat Kansas, beat Florida...and were only 11-7 in the league. The top of the league was just ridiculously good that year.
 
I think there were at least 2 BE vs BE matchups in 2011 which obviously limits how many can advance.

And the whole giving the 3 seed Syracuse an 11 seed in the 2nd round who already beat us.
 
I don't think you necessarily judge how far a team goes in the tournament to how good that team really is. CRAZY CRAZY things happen hence obviously the name March Madness. The Big East was a BEAST in 2011. I really believe the ACC is going to be similar in the coming years.

Personally, I'm just hoping one day the ACC will become similar to the Big East with the physicality of play and such. There wasn't a night I wasn't watching college basketball and Big East basketball when it was on. Now I wouldn't say I'm as tuned in to college basketball as before because it's just not as exciting.
 
JRHEETER said:
I don't think you necessarily judge how far a team goes in the tournament to how good that team really is. CRAZY CRAZY things happen hence obviously the name March Madness. The Big East was a BEAST in 2011. I really believe the ACC is going to be similar in the coming years.

Personally, I'm just hoping one day the ACC will become similar to the Big East with the physicality of play and such. There wasn't a night I wasn't watching college basketball and Big East basketball when it was on. Now I wouldn't say I'm as tuned in to college basketball as before because it's just not as exciting.
Expand...
You want the physicality? That wasn't even basketball. I hate flopping, but I love free flowing basketball. When you have teams like Pitt and Louisville fouling on every play because "Hey, they can't call a foul on every possession." It makes for a slow and ugly game. Basketball is meant to be up and down the court, letting the players show off their athleticism. I prefer football for physical play.
 
orangefog said:
You want the physicality? That wasn't even basketball. I hate flopping, but I love free flowing basketball. When you have teams like Pitt and Louisville fouling on every play because "Hey, they can't call a foul on every possession." It makes for a slow and ugly game. Basketball is meant to be up and down the court, letting the players show off their athleticism. I prefer football for physical play.
Expand...


Yeah, but the fouls weren't called as much, refs really let them play. It was fun to watch.

I totally get what you are saying but there was nothing like Big East Basketball.
 
JRHEETER said:
I don't think you necessarily judge how far a team goes in the tournament to how good that team really is. CRAZY CRAZY things happen hence obviously the name March Madness. The Big East was a BEAST in 2011. I really believe the ACC is going to be similar in the coming years.

Personally, I'm just hoping one day the ACC will become similar to the Big East with the physicality of play and such. There wasn't a night I wasn't watching college basketball and Big East basketball when it was on. Now I wouldn't say I'm as tuned in to college basketball as before because it's just not as exciting.
Expand...

And I respect your point of view that the tournament can't be everything in these types of analyses and if I gave that impression I am sorry. I just thought it was understood that if a league gets more than 50% of its teams in the dance, then they had a great to spectacular regular season.

But with that now clarified, I don't think the 2011 Big East was a BEAST, because how conference teams perform in the NCAAs is also a significant criteria in judging that conference. The fact it flamed out so bad in terms of Sweet 16 teams that year shows that it wasn't great, at least to me. To get 2 out of 9 possible teams in the Sweet 16 that year (there were two BE match-ups in the round of 32 - to account for only 9 out of 11 being able to reach the Sweet 16), hardly demonstrates greatness to me.

Imho, in terms of taking into account both the regular season and the tournament the Big East so far has had the greatest year ever in 1985. The next best would be the 2009 Big East due to its regular season nudging out the next best which is the ACC from last year. While equaling BE from 2009, wasn't as dominant during the regular season as those BE teams from 2009.

Cheers,
Neil
 
AZcuse77 said:
This article seems to be written by or for a 3rd grader or someone who does not know anything about basketball. 4-11 Clemson could potentially make 12 bids to beat the Big East record? Yes the bottom of the league can win on any given night. Yes the ACC is the best league in basketball. Yes if Clemson or Pitt won out to go 7-11 and made a deep run in the tournament they still have a chance with the weak national bubble... but some of these bubble teams are going to lose and even 11 bids is not happening. 10 is possible and that is if the ACC bubble teams finish well. The 5-6 bubble teams all have 12-13 losses, a losing conference record (except Cuse whose issue is the terrible OOC), and some will finish weakly. Apparently the NY Times should stick to politics.
Expand...
The players, top to bottom, aren't as good as the old BE.
 
No doubt the ACC is incredibly deep but it won't surprise me at all if the top three teams in the PAC-12 do more damage next month than the upper echelon teams of the ACC.
 
Top to bottom we are great.

Bottom we are great, middle we are great and at the top we are what? Just pretty good?

As far as best ever? I don't know that you can crown a conference when the top is just pretty good.

This question can only be decided in March IMO. It's too hard to say until our top 4 teams are challenged in the tourney. I do think Ville, UNC & Duke are very good and capable of a F4 run.

The coaching in this conference is definitely the best in any single conference ever.
 
This is a little bit off the topic, but I am currently reading the Legends Club by John Feinstein. It is about the rivalry between Dean Smith, K and Valvano and how K and Valvano developed their programs in the shadown of UNC. It is really an interesting read if you are a fan of college basketball and aren't turned off by things that aren't SU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,892
Messages
4,735,702
Members
5,930
Latest member
CuseGuy44

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
266
Guests online
1,134
Total visitors
1,400
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom