senorpalmer
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 14,635
- Like
- 38,275
4 bids, two of which are 8 seeds.
Luckily for that sorry bunch help is on the way.
Luckily for that sorry bunch help is on the way.
Luckily for that sorry bunch help is on the way.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
Forgot about that!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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Why did you omit Pitt?? Jamie Dixon's record against "The Cuse" is 12 wins--- 3 losses..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..