ACC a joke once again

[senorpalmer]

4 bids, two of which are 8 seeds.

Luckily for that sorry bunch help is on the way.

 

[obliterata]

Yeah. I think Temple beats NC St and I'm hoping Nova beats NC.

And if Louisville, SU, Pitt, and ND weren't joining them the C7+3 Big East might be a better conference.

 

[bballbeadle]

They need an infusion desperately. Here comes the former Big East with their packed blood cells!

They say invasion; we say infusion. They say confusion; we say delusion!
Invasion, infusion! Confusion, delusion!
We can't call the whole thing off.

 

[Shermthegeneral]

The ACC has definitely lost its luster! I tuned on the ACC tourney over the weekend and said to myself, there isn't a star player or a team I care to watch in the entire league. Back in the 80's, 90's, and early 00's there was a buzz about the league. Now nothing! Due to expansion they watered down the bball product allowing the Big East to take over.

 

[tommyharn]

Luckily for that sorry bunch help is on the way.

Yup, though unfortunately they'll have to wait one more year for Louisville comes to play.

In the meantime, they'll have to settle for a couple of football schools and a team that brings a 30K + arena to play in with only a flukey early 00's title to their name. Might as well have convinced Maryland to stay . . .

 

[senorpalmer]

Yup, though unfortunately they'll have to wait one more year for Louisville comes to play.

In the meantime, they'll have to settle for a couple of football schools and a team that brings a 30K + arena to play in with only a flukey early 00's title to their name. Might as well have convinced Maryland to stay . . .

Ah yes, the team with the fluky title that's played in three national title games since louisville last played in ONE. You're not a very good troll.

 

[AirForceOrange]

Ah yes, the team with the fluky title that's played in three national title games since louisville last played in ONE. You're not a very good troll.

Hey be nice...I guess you missed his 1 like?!

 

[jncuse]

I think the ACC will be extremely competitive in two years.

Some of their programs that have had success in the past, but turned terrible in recent years, are young and/or trending upwards

Boston College - KenPom moved from 259 last year to 90
Georgia Tech - moved from 179 to 94
Wake Forest - moved from 210 to 120

Not good schools right now, but at least the bottom feeders have improved alot. And these school have had more success in recent times than schools like Depaul, Rutgers, USF that stunk forever.

Clemson also appears to have the right coach. Unfortunately, FSU may take a fall if it does not get Wiggins, and Miami is primed for a move back after graduation.

But the bottom which used to be never bad, is improving quite a bit. It will help the new conference.

 

[Indytarheel]

There is no doubt that the quality of the ACC dropped but to call a conference that dominated the national championships since the earlier 90's is a stretch at best. ACC 91, 92, 93, 01, 02, 05, 09 and 2010 compared to Big East 99, 03, 04 and 2011. Even if you take it back to the 80s, the ACC adds 82 and 83 while the Big East adds 84 and 85. The ACC is really a joke conference with winning all those titles.

 

[senorpalmer]

There is no doubt that the quality of the ACC dropped but to call a conference that dominated the national championships since the earlier 90's is a stretch at best. ACC 91, 92, 93, 01, 02, 05, 09 and 2010 compared to Big East 99, 03, 04 and 2011. Even if you take it back to the 80s, the ACC adds 82 and 83 while the Big East adds 84 and 85. The ACC is really a joke conference with winning all those titles.

One or two strong teams does not in itself make a good conference. , many would say the Big East flopped horribly in 2011 when it got 11 bids and only 2 made it past the first weekend, even if one of those teams (UCon) went on to win the whole thing. Meanwhile in the ACC, in its 8 years as a 12 team league, 4 times they've managed to get just a paltry 4 bids, including 2 of the last 3 years. In those 8 years, a program not named Duke or UNC has made it past the first weekend a whopping 3 times. This does not say much for the vast majority of the league's membership.

 

[senorpalmer]

I think the ACC will be extremely competitive in two years.

Some of their programs that have had success in the past, but turned terrible in recent years, are young and/or trending upwards

Boston College - KenPom moved from 259 last year to 90
Georgia Tech - moved from 179 to 94
Wake Forest - moved from 210 to 120

Not good schools right now, but at least the bottom feeders have improved alot. And these school have had more success in recent times than schools like Depaul, Rutgers, USF that stunk forever.

Clemson also appears to have the right coach. Unfortunately, FSU may take a fall if it does not get Wiggins, and Miami is primed for a move back after graduation.

But the bottom which used to be never bad, is improving quite a bit. It will help the new conference.

I'll believe it when I see it. Citing teams that were able to break into the top 100 (or close) doesn't do much for me, I mean Rutgers has indeed stunk forever and they managed 105 on KenPom this year. And there were still teams worse than the aforementioned.

Miami has been a nice surprise, but they've never one to sustain success for very long. I heard a lot about how great NC State was going to be this year and how their new coach was going to take that team to an elite level, instead they're still looking like first weekend fodder--of course by their standards this has been a good year as their 8 seed is the best they've achieved since 04. I'll need to see a lot more from Clemson and their 5 conference wins this year before I buy that their program is capable of being anything beyond being a an occasional tournament participant that can go anywhere in March.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Yeah. I think Temple beats NC St and I'm hoping Nova beats NC.

And if Louisville, SU, Pitt, and ND weren't joining them the C7+3 Big East might be a better conference.

Nova still deserves retribution from that game against UNC in the dome a few years ago where the refs literally got the order to execute order 66 about 2/3rds of the way through.

 

[Shermthegeneral]

Nova still deserves retribution from that game against UNC in the dome a few years ago where the refs literally got the order to execute order 66 about 2/3rds of the way through.

Forgot about that!

 

[bevosu]

Miami has one thing going for them at the moment that they've really never had before, a very good head coach. I think Larranaga will keep Miami competitive, if he decides to stay for awhile.

 

[billsin01]

There is no doubt that the quality of the ACC dropped but to call a conference that dominated the national championships since the earlier 90's is a stretch at best. ACC 91, 92, 93, 01, 02, 05, 09 and 2010 compared to Big East 99, 03, 04 and 2011. Even if you take it back to the 80s, the ACC adds 82 and 83 while the Big East adds 84 and 85. The ACC is really a joke conference with winning all those titles.

I like that national titles is somehow the measuring stick of a good conference. Surely it's a factor and no one could argue with the cream of the ACC crop just about every year dating back to, well, forever. But in a lot of ways that dominance at the top has only made the conference that much less interesting and competitive for the past decade or close to it. Once Maryland and Wake dropped off, there has been nothing outside of Duke and Carolina. Even NC State (which got a ton of hype preseason) was really pretty poor most of the year. UVA plays a horrible brand of hoops. The bottom feeders may be improving, but this conference should be absolutely dreaming of a day when it actually a handful of elite teams again.

Edit: Obviously Miami has been outstanding and I love Larranaga, but I'm not sure how much sustainability they have. We'll see. FSU has had some success as well but never quite seems to get over the hump.

 

[tommyharn]

Nova still deserves retribution from that game against UNC in the dome a few years ago where the refs literally got the order to execute order 66 about 2/3rds of the way through.

What everyone always seems to forget is that Raymond Felton was called for two phantom calls, his fourth and fifth, resulting in Carolina playing the last four minutes of the game without a true point guard. The only reason why the game was even in doubt was because of these fouls, as UNC was up by ten at the time. Everyone remembers the contested travel call at the end, but forgets that it was a horribly officiated game throughout.

 

[Indytarheel]

I like that national titles is somehow the measuring stick of a good conference. Surely it's a factor and no one could argue with the cream of the ACC crop just about every year dating back to, well, forever. But in a lot of ways that dominance at the top has only made the conference that much less interesting and competitive for the past decade or close to it. Once Maryland and Wake dropped off, there has been nothing outside of Duke and Carolina. Even NC State (which got a ton of hype preseason) was really pretty poor most of the year. UVA plays a horrible brand of hoops. The bottom feeders may be improving, but this conference should be absolutely dreaming of a day when it actually a handful of elite teams again.

Edit: Obviously Miami has been outstanding and I love Larranaga, but I'm not sure how much sustainability they have. We'll see. FSU has had some success as well but never quite seems to get over the hump.

What other measuring stick is there? The end result of the season is the National Championship and going through whatever conference is a training ground for the end game. So, are we supposed to celebrate because one conference sends 11 teams and out of those 11, none win the title? What does it say about that conference? That it underachieved? Or, could it be that the conference really only had one to two teams that could win it all with a great portion of the conference filled with teams that are good but not great. And, you also have to consider the fact that conference records could be inflated since the bottom of the Big East is horrendous and surely many teams would benefit from playing bottom feeders like DePaul, USF, Providence, Rutgers and Seton Hall. That is five victories that other conferences do not have.

Look, I get it. You guys are proud of the Big East and what it has accomplished with regard to tourney bids. But in the same breath, you guys overlook the fact that only 2 teams have brought home the hardware. That if it wasn't for UConn, the Big East would be a conference with tough regular season play but no shows come tourney time. I guess we will agree to disagree but I think I would rather the ACC have the titles rather than cheering for the fact that we got 11 teams in a tourney that your teams can't win. Just saying.

 

[senorpalmer]

What other measuring stick is there? The end result of the season is the National Championship and going through whatever conference is a training ground for the end game. So, are we supposed to celebrate because one conference sends 11 teams and out of those 11, none win the title? What does it say about that conference? That it underachieved? Or, could it be that the conference really only had one to two teams that could win it all with a great portion of the conference filled with teams that are good but not great. And, you also have to consider the fact that conference records could be inflated since the bottom of the Big East is horrendous and surely many teams would benefit from playing bottom feeders like DePaul, USF, Providence, Rutgers and Seton Hall. That is five victories that other conferences do not have.

Look, I get it. You guys are proud of the Big East and what it has accomplished with regard to tourney bids. But in the same breath, you guys overlook the fact that only 2 teams have brought home the hardware. That if it wasn't for UConn, the Big East would be a conference with tough regular season play but no shows come tourney time. I guess we will agree to disagree but I think I would rather the ACC have the titles rather than cheering for the fact that we got 11 teams in a tourney that your teams can't win. Just saying.

A national title belongs to one team, not to a conference the last time I checked. Perhaps sorry programs like the majority of those residing in the current ACC tell themselves otherwise to feel better about their insignificance.

Butler and Memphis narrowly missed winning national titles in recent years. Had they pulled it out, would that have meant Conference USA or the Horizon League were great leagues? Of course not.

BTW, Providence, Rutgers and Seton Hall are indeed low end programs, but you might want to take a look at how they compared to the likes of Clemson, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, GTech and BC this year.

 

[billsin01]

What other measuring stick is there? The end result of the season is the National Championship and going through whatever conference is a training ground for the end game. So, are we supposed to celebrate because one conference sends 11 teams and out of those 11, none win the title? What does it say about that conference? That it underachieved? Or, could it be that the conference really only had one to two teams that could win it all with a great portion of the conference filled with teams that are good but not great. And, you also have to consider the fact that conference records could be inflated since the bottom of the Big East is horrendous and surely many teams would benefit from playing bottom feeders like DePaul, USF, Providence, Rutgers and Seton Hall. That is five victories that other conferences do not have.

Look, I get it. You guys are proud of the Big East and what it has accomplished with regard to tourney bids. But in the same breath, you guys overlook the fact that only 2 teams have brought home the hardware. That if it wasn't for UConn, the Big East would be a conference with tough regular season play but no shows come tourney time. I guess we will agree to disagree but I think I would rather the ACC have the titles rather than cheering for the fact that we got 11 teams in a tourney that your teams can't win. Just saying.

I get what you're saying but you're somehow arguing that a single-elimination tournament in march somehow defines the entire ACC as a conference.

What you're arguing is that Duke and Carolina winning a mountain of championships and a bunch of schools having pretty solid hoops histories somehow makes the past 10 years of ACC play great. That means duke and carolina have been great. everybody else? Eh, not so much.

And while the BE has some bottom dwellers (and no defense can be offered for depaul), the point is very few games are simply "wins" in this conference. Rutgers at home can be really tough, the hall won 21 games just last season (not great but hardly a guaranteed win), provy was .500 in BE play this season as well. Awesome teams? No, but the whole point is that this is a tough conference mostly from top to bottom and there's been plenty of elite at the top. G'town was in the 07 final four, l'ville was in the final last year, nova was in the 09 final four with trips to the sweet 16 in three of the previous four years. Even USF won two games last year. And, let's not forget that because there are so many BE teams in the dance every year, they can't help but knock each other out on occasion (Marquette beat Cuse two years ago, Nova beat pitt on a buzzer beater to go to the final four in '09 ...)

So what's the point? Basically this -- if you want to argue that carolina and duke are hoops blue bloods, it's cool. If you want to argue that the ACC has a proud and strong tradition of hoops excellence, fine. But arguing that as a whole the conference has been anything other than uninspired, bland and largely unsuccessful on the court the past 10 years is misguided. Again, Duke and carolina, yes. Anyone else? No. Maybe FSU but they take a three seed and get knocked out in the second round last year and then lay a clunker and miss the dance this year. Just a conference in desperate need of some depth and there is no way to deny that.

 

[ImperialOrange]

There is no doubt that the quality of the ACC dropped but to call a conference that dominated the national championships since the earlier 90's is a stretch at best. ACC 91, 92, 93, 01, 02, 05, 09 and 2010 compared to Big East 99, 03, 04 and 2011. Even if you take it back to the 80s, the ACC adds 82 and 83 while the Big East adds 84 and 85. The ACC is really a joke conference with winning all those titles.

It's been a top heavy conference that has been UNC, Duke... and then everyone else. Getting 33% of a 12 team conference into the tourney isn't what I'd expect from the ACC and likely not what you expect either.

Not sure how you can argue that the 11 bid year wasn't impressive as 68.75% of the BE teams got in that year. That would be the same as the 12 team ACC getting 8-9 teams in on a given year.

Won't be much of an issue moving forward though. With Syracuse, ND, and L'ville on the way in the ACC should get 7 of 14 or better in the tourney most years.

 

[obliterata]

Judging a conference by how many championships they have is stupid. If the Miami Heat was in the ACC with 11 biddy ball teams the Heat would win the NCAA title every year but the ACC would stink. A very good indicator of how good a conference is is how well they do in the NCAA tournament, with one of the most important accomplishments being getting past the Sweet Sixteen - this is not an easy thing to do even for elite programs.

Looking at recent history - which is more important than older history - when the Big East went to 16 schools and the ACC went to 12 back in 2005, North Carolina hasn't been the Heat but they've been tremendous. They have been better than any school in the country with 5 trips past the Sweet Sixteen in these 7 years. And what has the other 11 ACC schools done in the last 7 years? Combined they have one trip past the S16, and yes, that includes Duke.....that's pathetic.

During this same time period 16 Big East schools have 12 trips past the Sweet Sixteen and, just as important, 7 DIFFERENT schools have done it.....wow.

So:

In the last 7 NCAAs, the Big East has had seven different schools make it to at least the Elite Eight - they've done it a combined twelve times.

In the last 7 NCAAs the ACC has had one school (besides NC) make it to at least the Elite Eight - they did it once.

7>1, 12>1 ----- even with NC 7>2, 12>6

This is one of the reasons why the ACC is a joke.

 

[sutomcat]

Judging a conference by how many championships they have is stupid. If the Miami Heat was in the ACC with 11 biddy ball teams the Heat would win the NCAA title every year but the ACC would stink. A very good indicator of how good a conference is is how well they do in the NCAA tournament, with one of the most important accomplishments being getting past the Sweet Sixteen - this is not an easy thing to do even for elite programs.

Looking at recent history - which is more important than older history - when the Big East went to 16 schools and the ACC went to 12 back in 2005, North Carolina hasn't been the Heat but they've been tremendous. They have been better than any school in the country with 5 trips past the Sweet Sixteen in these 7 years. And what has the other 11 ACC schools done in the last 7 years? Combined they have one trip past the S16, and yes, that includes Duke.....that's pathetic.

During this same time period 16 Big East schools have 12 trips past the Sweet Sixteen and, just as important, 7 DIFFERENT schools have done it.....wow.

So:

In the last 7 NCAAs, the Big East has had seven different schools make it to at least the Elite Eight - they've done it a combined twelve times.

In the last 7 NCAAs the ACC has had one school (besides NC) make it to at least the Elite Eight - they did it once.

7>1, 12>1 ----- even with NC 7>2, 12>6

This is one of the reasons why the ACC is a joke.

Nice post. The more I read about the recent history of ACC basketball, the more disturbed I become. Wow, it has been a really bad conference for an extended period.

Don't worry Tarheel, you and Duke are about to get some decent competition.

 

[Wallo]

It's been a top heavy conference that has been UNC, Duke... and then everyone else. Getting 33% of a 12 team conference into the tourney isn't what I'd expect from the ACC and likely not what you expect either.

Not sure how you can argue that the 11 bid year wasn't impressive as 68.75% of the BE teams got in that year. That would be the same as the 12 team ACC getting 8-9 teams in on a given year.

Won't be much of an issue moving forward though. With Syracuse, ND, and L'ville on the way in the ACC should get 7 of 14 or better in the tourney most years.

Why did you omit Pitt?? Jamie Dixon's record against "The Cuse" is 12 wins--- 3 losses..

 

[ImperialOrange]

Why did you omit Pitt?? Jamie Dixon's record against "The Cuse" is 12 wins--- 3 losses..

Just forgot to list them honestly. Was thinking the ACC was going to 14 rather than 15.