ACC vs BIG 12 | Syracusefan.com

ACC vs BIG 12

Don’t clutter the tournament bid discussion with facts. NET is the future, and the NET says the Big12 and MWC are the best. Their performance on the court proves it.

1) The Big 12 went 28-16 (64%) against the other 4 power conferences in regular season
The ACC went 22-29 (43%)against the other 4 power conferences in regular season.

2) So B12 won 31-25 (55%) overall against all power conferences in the regular season and the ACC went 31-32 (49%) overall.

3) in Q3 games (generally most games are out of P6) Big 12 went 25-1, and the ACC went 26-8. That's 8 questionable losses vs mostly non P6 schools vs 1.

It should be fairly clear what conference should have more seeds purely looking at W-L's.

Now should the disparity been as much as NET suggested - probably not. There was a gap, but not that large.
 
Just because the ACC has been quite good in tourney play the last 3 years, doesn't change the actual fact that the conference played like crap in 2022 OOC and 2023 OOC,. Not good in 2024 either, but not a huge gap like the prior two years either. But that has its impacts downstream. It's not just NET manipulation (although there was some of it this year) its largely just W and L's, and we are always behind the top. Until conferences decide to start playing lots against each other in Jan and Feb, which would be great, it is what it is. November and December performance as a group matters, that is the system. We have benefitted from our conference mates stellar play in the past, and the ACC should have enough pedigree teams to do in the future as well.

Syracuse is lucky that we have never been hard on the bubble line these last 3 years so it didn't bite us in the butt. Hopefully, we start playing better .. and start playing well above the bubble line in future years so it doesn't matter how good the ACC did OOC compared to others. And hopefully the ACC gets better at that time of the year too.

None of the above is a defence of the weaknesses in the NET.

They are not changing to a system where they consider prior season tournament play to assess current year seeds. They never have, and they will not going forward unless its publicly announced as a new format (which would be surprising) They may certainly tweak the NET - I have given my suggestion on how to do that before.
 
Last edited:
ACC finished with a 12-3 record this year against the “so called” best conference!
NET creator just said Big 12 and Mountain West just had bad lucky in March. I saw most analysts said that ACC teams are just ripe in the right time.
 
NET creator just said Big 12 and Mountain West just had bad lucky in March. I saw most analysts said that ACC teams are just ripe in the right time.

Well NC State certainly is. I don’t have an explanation for their run, but you can’t say anybody saw it coming 3 weeks ago.
 
1) The Big 12 went 28-16 (64%) against the other 4 power conferences in regular season
The ACC went 22-29 (43%)against the other 4 power conferences in regular season.

2) So B12 won 31-25 (55%) overall against all power conferences in the regular season and the ACC went 31-32 (49%) overall.

3) in Q3 games (generally most games are out of P6) Big 12 went 25-1, and the ACC went 26-8. That's 8 questionable losses vs mostly non P6 schools vs 1.

It should be fairly clear what conference should have more seeds purely looking at W-L's.

Now should the disparity been as much as NET suggested - probably not. There was a gap, but not that large.

Who are your non-ACC “power 4 conferences”. I’m assuming you omit the P-12. But given the consensus (i.e. committee) view as to conference strength, it’s really a P7, so these cut-offs are arbitrary. Probably doesn’t move the needle though.
 
Just because the ACC has been quite good in tourney play the last 3 years, doesn't change the actual fact that the conference played like crap in 2022 OOC and 2023 OOC,. Not good in 2024 either, but not a huge gap like the prior two years either. But that has its impacts downstream. It's not just NET manipulation (although there was some of it this year) its largely just W and L's, and we are always behind the top. Until conferences decide to start playing lots against each other in Jan and Feb, which would be great, it is what it is. November and December performance as a group matters, that is the system. We have benefitted from our conference mates stellar play in the past, and the ACC should have enough pedigree teams to do in the future as well.

Syracuse is lucky that we have never been hard on the bubble line these last 3 years so it didn't bite us in the butt. Hopefully, we start playing better .. and start playing well above the bubble line in future years so it doesn't matter how good the ACC did OOC compared to others. And hopefully the ACC gets better at that time of the year too.

None of the above is a defence of the weaknesses in the NET.

They are not changing to a system where they consider prior season tournament play to assess current year seeds. They never have, and they will not going forward unless its publicly announced as a new format (which would be surprising) They may certainly tweak the NET - I have given my suggestion on how to do that before.

It is more than the last 3 years. The ACC schools historically do well in the NCAAT. Same for the Big East schools. The B18 and P12 struggle. The B12 outside of Kansas struggled until recently. The MWC conference has been awful outside of San Diego State last year.

I agree the NCAAT is random when looking at individual teams. But collectivity there certainly is a pattern for conferences.
 
Just because the ACC has been quite good in tourney play the last 3 years, doesn't change the actual fact that the conference played like crap in 2022 OOC and 2023 OOC,. Not good in 2024 either, but not a huge gap like the prior two years either. But that has its impacts downstream. It's not just NET manipulation (although there was some of it this year) its largely just W and L's, and we are always behind the top. Until conferences decide to start playing lots against each other in Jan and Feb, which would be great, it is what it is. November and December performance as a group matters, that is the system. We have benefitted from our conference mates stellar play in the past, and the ACC should have enough pedigree teams to do in the future as well.

Syracuse is lucky that we have never been hard on the bubble line these last 3 years so it didn't bite us in the butt. Hopefully, we start playing better .. and start playing well above the bubble line in future years so it doesn't matter how good the ACC did OOC compared to others. And hopefully the ACC gets better at that time of the year too.

None of the above is a defence of the weaknesses in the NET.

They are not changing to a system where they consider prior season tournament play to assess current year seeds. They never have, and they will not going forward unless its publicly announced as a new format (which would be surprising) They may certainly tweak the NET - I have given my suggestion on how to do that before.
There’s a logic to what they are doing but if they miss late season improvement during conference play, there’s a flaw in the system.

The best way to fix it:

1. Start conference play earlier by 2 weeks
2. Have specific weeks later in the season for OOC games
3. Add the late season record back into the criteria

All of this would drive interest in the regular season and give tv providers a chance to highlight the best, most important OOC games. As it stands now, there’s a lack of audience on the most important OOC games due to NFL and CFB. Shifting it a bit would help drive interest while making the whole thing make more sense for the viewers, casual and diehard
 
You knew the Big 12 wasn't actually that good when Kansas was struggling and dropping a ton of games. But lets be honest this was the one year where Texas and OU overlapped with BYU and Houston who both had great seasons. They absolutely had the quantity > quality.


Syracuse screwed the ACC over by getting blown out twice in Hawaii. Wake, FSU, and Pitt were bad OOC and couldn't beat P5 teams either. All 4 were upper half of the league. That is why the ACC got no love.

Its crazy how this forum completely ignores Syracuse's culpability in the ACC being disrespected in both sports. A lot of the blame falls on us. If we hired Oats or Hurley instead of doing the daddyball thing do you think the ACC would be in a stronger spot?

Keep Jesse Edwards and I think we could have had a year like Clemson or run like NC State. They are doing this because of a very good veteran big man that passes well.
 
Last edited:
There’s a logic to what they are doing but if they miss late season improvement during conference play, there’s a flaw in the system.

The best way to fix it:

1. Start conference play earlier by 2 weeks
2. Have specific weeks later in the season for OOC games
3. Add the late season record back into the criteria

All of this would drive interest in the regular season and give tv providers a chance to highlight the best, most important OOC games. As it stands now, there’s a lack of audience on the most important OOC games due to NFL and CFB. Shifting it a bit would help drive interest while making the whole thing make more sense for the viewers, casual and diehard


I 100% agree that is the best way to do things and I think it would draw eyeballs (But I suspect division of money when you try to plan something out becomes the issue). I proposed in a thread a few weeks back something similar to you.

At the end of December, you take a top half and bottom half team of each conference according to NET. Then you have a program that randomly matches each P6 school against another (top half or bottom half) depending on your standing.
2 games in some week in January
2 games in some week in February
(you could already have the dates and location slotted, just not the opponent until December)

My guess why it doesn't happen - money. It seems like there is more money to be made by doing this, but since its interconference division of money will always be a question.

In the end, until this year, I think for the most part the P6 were satisfied with the system. They dominate in OOC, it creates a mechanism that largely blackballs smaller conference teams because of lack of opp's, all the P6 benefit in whole, but the biggest benefitee is the ones that played the best in OOC. Now with all the Q4 games being played, it murks things up a bit - which is why I suggested a NET/RPI hybrid since RPI punishes Q4, but is also a little too friendly too Q3 games.
 
You knew the Big 12 wasn't actually that good when Kansas was struggling and dropping a ton of games. But lets be honest this was the one year where Texas and OU overlapped with BYU and Houston who both had great seasons. They absolutely had the quantity > quality.


Syracuse screwed the ACC over by getting blown out twice in Hawaii. Wake, FSU, and Pitt were bad OOC and couldn't beat P5 teams either. All 4 were upper half of the league. That is why the ACC got no love.

Its crazy how this forum completely ignores Syracuse's culpability in the ACC being disrespected in both sports. A lot of the blame falls on us. If we hired Oats or Hurley instead of doing the daddyball thing do you think the ACC would be in a stronger spot?
We did beat Oregon (neutral site) and LSU OOC as well as Georgetown on the road. It wasn’t a total disaster.

Even the Gonzaga game was a lot more competitive than the final score indicated. SU was within 56 with 8:21 to go before collapsing. This was not a deep team and playing two nights in a row finally took its toll.

Hopefully next season we schedule a bit smarter and use that to help get an NCAA bid.
 
We did beat Oregon (neutral site) and LSU OOC as well as Georgetown on the road. It wasn’t a total disaster.

Even the Gonzaga game was a lot more competitive than the final score indicated. SU was within 56 with 8:21 to go before collapsing. This was not a deep team and playing two nights in a row finally took its toll.

Hopefully next season we schedule a bit smarter and use that to help get an NCAA bid.

Syracuse was certainly part of the problem in 2022/2023 (we had bad losses) as did a lot of mid-tier ACC teams that year

But you are correct, this year we weren't really part of the problem - as you noted we did beat some "mid-tier" power conference teams and we had no bad losses. So we generally did our part as a "mid" conference team.

Part of the problem for the ACC is teams like Florida St and Notre Dame really stink in OOC, driving down the conference metrics, but they then rise their play to a degree in conference play taking out the mid-tier which is a double whammy,
 
We did beat Oregon (neutral site) and LSU OOC as well as Georgetown on the road. It wasn’t a total disaster.

Even the Gonzaga game was a lot more competitive than the final score indicated. SU was within 56 with 8:21 to go before collapsing. This was not a deep team and playing two nights in a row finally took its toll.

Hopefully next season we schedule a bit smarter and use that to help get an NCAA bid.

You can't turn down Maui. I'm hoping Red can put together a team that wants to be here and we have a couple year run with a squad that is NCAA worthy Bell/Brown locked in for 2 more with the freshmen and transfers. If we under schedule 12-8 in the ACC might find us left out. We might regret not having one more tough game OOC Georgetown at home and Texas in Brooklyn isn't enough to jack up the SOS. Oregon was a gift game with half their team injured we probably won't get one of those next year.

Bringing Benny back was a huge mistake I think if we booted him 12 months ago we make the tournament. He had already quit on the team last year. We knew Taylor was limited. If we hadn't done that we probably don't start Taylor every game and the Benny replacement gives us starters minutes. Keep Edwards and you have a dominant front court and a really good bench.

When we had Brown and Copeland both coming off the bench they wreaked havoc and were creating turnovers non stop. Brown did well as a starter but stopped being the X factor he was before.
 
1) The Big 12 went 28-16 (64%) against the other 4 power conferences in regular season
The ACC went 22-29 (43%)against the other 4 power conferences in regular season.

2) So B12 won 31-25 (55%) overall against all power conferences in the regular season and the ACC went 31-32 (49%) overall.

3) in Q3 games (generally most games are out of P6) Big 12 went 25-1, and the ACC went 26-8. That's 8 questionable losses vs mostly non P6 schools vs 1.

It should be fairly clear what conference should have more seeds purely looking at W-L's.

Now should the disparity been as much as NET suggested - probably not. There was a gap, but not that large.
Makes you wonder if the net actually reflected teams that should be each quadrant what the records would look like. Oh wait they would look like the Big 12. How many of those Q3 loses were against us?
 
Makes you wonder if the net actually reflected teams that should be each quadrant what the records would look like. Oh wait they would look like the Big 12. How many of those Q3 loses were against us?

Given that they went 25-1 in those games, I’m thinking not many.
 
I mean the thing is I watched a limited amount of college basketball this year outside of Syracuse and I could tell you that the B12 was overrated and the MWC was going to do nothing in the tourney.

B12 still may have had more good quality teams than any other conference. They’re top teams however, we’re not as good as the top teams in the other power conferences. B12 also tends to allow too much physical play in conference, which hurts them in the tourney , IMO.

NET Whatever it’s supposed to do is not properly rating teams across all conferences, so that we get the best at large bids into the field. I say that, and I still have no problem with Syracuse being left out of the tournament. If we had beaten one of Boston College on the road, Florida State at home, Georgia Tech on the road or NCST a 3rd time then I feel we should’ve been strongly in the bubble conversation. If we had won two of those games, I think we should’ve been in. The fact is we lost all of them and looked like we had no chance against Clemson to finish the regular season.
 
I mean the thing is I watched a limited amount of college basketball this year outside of Syracuse and I could tell you that the B12 was overrated and the MWC was going to do nothing in the tourney.

B12 still may have had more good quality teams than any other conference. They’re top teams however, we’re not as good as the top teams in the other power conferences. B12 also tends to allow too much physical play in conference, which hurts them in the tourney , IMO.

NET Whatever it’s supposed to do is not properly rating teams across all conferences, so that we get the best at large bids into the field. I say that, and I still have no problem with Syracuse being left out of the tournament. If we had beaten one of Boston College on the road, Florida State at home, Georgia Tech on the road or NCST a 3rd time then I feel we should’ve been strongly in the bubble conversation. If we had won two of those games, I think we should’ve been in. The fact is we lost all of them and looked like we had no chance against Clemson to finish the regular season.
I agree with most of what u say but Houston was a legit top three team. I think it's quite likely they'd still be alive if Shead didn't get hurt.
 
I agree with most of what u say but Houston was a legit top three team. I think it's quite likely they'd still be alive if Shead didn't get hurt.

Quite possible. Like I said, haven’t watched a ton of basketball this year. Honestly, though Houston got lucky to make it to the round of 16. The team played in the second round the bed.
 
Don’t clutter the tournament bid discussion with facts. NET is the future, and the NET says the Big12 and MWC are the best. Their performance on the court proves it.
I just realized I forgot to use sarcasm font for this post.

BTW…what is the sarcasm font of choice these days?
 
ACC finished with a 12-3 record this year against the “so called” best conference!
ESPN began talking down ACC basketball years ago, when it made the decision go 100% with the SEC for everything. It seemed to many that ESPN bashing ACC football was just kind of expected because of SEC football, but knocking ACC basketball when you have all of it? That was the sign that ESPN meant to do some very serious harm to the ACC.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,385
Messages
4,772,008
Members
5,949
Latest member
Laxmom2317

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
854
Total visitors
1,005


Top Bottom