Best teams in the ACC

[omniorange]

Why is it going to be harder? Because the teams are different? Because they certainly aren't better. Pitt was ranked in almost every game that we played on the road against them. Louisville and UConn too.

There's exactly one team ranked in the ACC right now not named Syracuse.

In 2009-10 we finished 15-3 in a Big East who at this equivalent point in time had Nova #6, WVU #8, G'Town #12, UConn #13, Pitt #23, and Cincy rv #28

In 2011-12 we finished 17-1 in a Big East who at this equivalent point in time had G'Town #11, L'Ville #14, UConn #17, Seton Hall #24, Marquette #25 and WVU rv #28.

This year the ACC had Duke #16, UNC rv #28 and an underrated Pitt team rv #30.

Now, if one sees this SU squad as being more similar to those years teams in terms of play, I don't see how anyone can seriously claim with a straight face 6 losses in conference. If one doesn't see this year's team as being anything like those SU teams in terms of overall play and talent and more equivalent to last year's team then I suppose 6 losses is possible. But even last year's Big East had #3 L'Ville, #17 ND, #19 G'Town, #21 Cincy, and rv Marquette.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[SUFan44]

It's going to be harder because in the big east we've had the luxury of playing away games in cavernous NBA arenas with little to no home court advantage. Hell UCONN was one of the most successful teams in the league and their HCA was a total joke. In the ACC we play road games at smaller on campus arenas. They're going to be pretty packed (last nights game notwithstanding...there were other factors) and essentially will functional as their NCAA tournament game.

So while the quality of teams in the ACC is down I think it's actually going to be harder to win on the road.

A basketball hoop is 10 feet high and a basketball court is 94 feet long.

Respectfully, you're nuts.

 

[HOFCeluck]

A basketball hoop is 10 feet high and a basketball court is 94 feet long.

Respectfully, you're nuts.

Um, Ok.

 

[durhamcuse]

My big concern is the game at WF just before the Duke game is going to be a trap game because the players are going to be thinking about Duke at home. Combine that with unfamiliar surroundings, first time travel issues, the home crowd advantage, the WF game is the one I am most concerned about.

I just don't see this team falling into a trap against any opponent. They have tended to play down to the level of the competition and the team is well aware that they can lose to anyone they play. However, I think that (whether it's chemistry, talent or coaching or all three) this team adjusts better in game or after half better than any SU team I've seen in awhile. I really appreciate a well run offense and we finally have this with a true point guard. The defense is a little deficient in terms of size at the top of the zone, but the help from the wings, especially at crunch time has been impressive.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Didn't we beat Virginia in Virginia in the mid oughts in a non league game? Might of been the year Devo blew out his knee. If we get through next Saturday unscathed against Pitt and UNC, I doubt we finish with more than 3 losses. While this years team has been pretty good offensively, it seems to me the defense is really starting to get better the last couple of games.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Didn't we beat Virginia in Virginia in the mid oughts in a non league game? Might of been the year Devo blew out his knee. If we get through next Saturday unscathed against Pitt and UNC, I doubt we finish with more than 3 losses. While this years team has been pretty good offensively, it seems to me the defense is really starting to get better the last couple of games.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=283330183

Yes. We won in cville by two. I lived there a the time and it was awesome.

Uva finished 15-15 and 5-11 in the ACC.

 

[longislandcuse]

We'll see how good SU is when they play in the "College Gym's" They have played in the Big Arena's for the most part in their Big East History but now the Gyms they play in will be like Rutgers, starting tuesday we'll see how good they are in Campus Gyms it's like reverting back to the late 60's and 70's the ECAC Days

That was the first thing I noticed when the @Va Tech game started. I'm not used to watching us play in those types of gyms.

 

[pfister1]

One thing that people may be discounting in terms of the difference between road games in the old Big East and road games in the ACC is the difference in crowd composition.

We liked to brag about how we travel and how we were oftentimes able to take over opponents arena. It is one thing to do that where tickets are plentiful and the game is a short drive from our major fanbases. It is a lot less likely to happen at Cameron, Carmichael, Littlejohn, Reynolds, or any of the other ACC arenas that are both smaller and further away from our fan base.

Who did we play in the Big East that had both a small intimate arena and a strong home fanbase? Still don't think we lose 6 at this point, but its not impossible either.

 

[longislandcuse]

You ought to be concerned about all these ACC games because any one of these teams is perfectly capable of beating SU especially any team that beats UNC or Duke. I think Boeheim knows this and if the players don't yet they are going to get a rude awakening pretty quickly.

I see us losing 4 to 6 ACC games. This SU teams has some flaws and these ACC coaches already see them. That's why Miami had us tied with a few minutes left.

Or...we missed a ton of inside shots we normally make, Miami hit some lucky threes and Cooney couldnt hit the broadside of a barn.

 

[Townie72]

In 2009-10 we finished 15-3 in a Big East who at this equivalent point in time had Nova #6, WVU #8, G'Town #12, UConn #13, Pitt #23, and Cincy rv #28

In 2011-12 we finished 17-1 in a Big East who at this equivalent point in time had G'Town #11, L'Ville #14, UConn #17, Seton Hall #24, Marquette #25 and WVU rv #28.

This year the ACC had Duke #16, UNC rv #28 and an underrated Pitt team rv #30.

Now, if one sees this SU squad as being more similar to those years teams in terms of play, I don't see how anyone can seriously claim with a straight face 6 losses in conference. If one doesn't see this year's team as being anything like those SU teams in terms of overall play and talent and more equivalent to last year's team then I suppose 6 losses is possible. But even last year's Big East had #3 L'Ville, #17 ND, #19 G'Town, #21 Cincy, and rv Marquette.

Cheers,
Neil

The problem with your analysis is that you are imbuing "ranking" in early January with far too much validity as a measure of relative strength.

"Rankings" are their own terribly-flawed system. Does anyone really believe that we have enough data to judge SU as the second best team? (although some on here might as they are already using the term "great team".) The polls have their own logic. Using it, SU is #2. But at the end of the tournament, we will have a better picture based on a lot more data.

Before the beginning of the year, "experts" pick the best teams based on the previous year's performance with a little windage for the losses and additions to the roster and historical strength or reputation. These initial rankings are essentially wild-assed guesses because these are different teams with different rosters, especially with the early departure of impact-players. But they have a tremendous impact on ranking from that point on since all you have to do is cruise through the cupcake part of the schedule (with a few good teams sometimes) to stay at the top of the polls.

Then the "experts" iterate off of that initial list moving teams up, down or out based upon early "good" and "bad" losses. Because the starting point is so flawed, all of this is built upon a bad foundation.

When we get to the Conference season, we have more data and more good teams as opponents. When we get through the conference tournament then rankings begin to make some sense although the tourney is the best "ranking" device we have.

Six losses is worse case. Three or four might be considered an "expected" level. We'll need luck to lose two or fewer. And "luck" doesn't always break our way.

 

[Townie72]

Or...we missed a ton of inside shots we normally make, Miami hit some lucky threes and Cooney couldnt hit the broadside of a barn.

And that will never happen again???

 

[longislandcuse]

And that will never happen again???

It will, but that could happen against Providence. Just because its a team with an ACC patch on the jersey didnt make that happen.

 

[omniorange]

The problem with your analysis is that you are imbuing "ranking" in early January with far too much validity as a measure of relative strength.

"Rankings" are their own terribly-flawed system. Does anyone really believe that we have enough data to judge SU as the second best team? (although some on here might as they are already using the term "great team".) The polls have their own logic. Using it, SU is #2. But at the end of the tournament, we will have a better picture based on a lot more data.

Before the beginning of the year, "experts" pick the best teams based on the previous year's performance with a little windage for the losses and additions to the roster and historical strength or reputation. These initial rankings are essentially wild-assed guesses because these are different teams with different rosters, especially with the early departure of impact-players. But they have a tremendous impact on ranking from that point on since all you have to do is cruise through the cupcake part of the schedule (with a few good teams sometimes) to stay at the top of the polls.

Then the "experts" iterate off of that initial list moving teams up, down or out based upon early "good" and "bad" losses. Because the starting point is so flawed, all of this is built upon a bad foundation.

When we get to the Conference season, we have more data and more good teams as opponents. When we get through the conference tournament then rankings begin to make some sense although the tourney is the best "ranking" device we have.

Six losses is worse case. Three or four might be considered an "expected" level. We'll need luck to lose two or fewer. And "luck" doesn't always break our way.

This I agree with, but I'd say the 3-4 losses already factors in the What "luck" element. Realistically, we should only lose @Duke and @Pitt which is what most computer projections have us doing.

As for the rest of your post, it was a waste of time since any one who follows the sport at all knows that this year's ACC is nowhere near the level of strength of the Big East from 20008-09 through 2012-13. But the real point of my post was that how this Syracuse team performs this year will have far, far more to do with us than playing against this year's version of the ACC. And those that seem to feel that this team is overrated, such as yourself, will have more of those What type losses while those who think this team is actually as good, if not better than our 09-10 and 11-12 teams will see anything more than 3 losses in conference as underperforming. At this point I think we are slightly less than those two teams but if we continue to get better play from Rak and BMK and SilentG becomes more assertive on the offensive end, this team will at least be equal to those two teams.

Personally, I believe the UNC and Pitt home games will tell the story as to how the rest of the season goes.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[HOFCeluck]

I think this team is close to the 2012 team...that team was excellent but I think really got the benefit of a down year in the big east...nova and Pitt were horrible, UCONN was mediocre, Louisville was good but inconsistent. Marquette was pretty legit but we only had to play them once at home.

I just wish we had an AO clone.

 

[omniorange]

I think this team is close to the 2012 team...that team was excellent but I think really got the benefit of a relatively down year in the big east...nova and Pitt were horrible, UCONN was mediocre, Louisville was good but inconsistent. Marquette was pretty legit but we only had to play them once at home.

I just wish we had an AO clone.

Fixed that for you.

And while even admitting that it was a relatively down year for the Big East, it still would rank better than this year's ACC so far, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[HOFCeluck]

Fixed that for you.

And while even admitting that it was a relatively down year for the Big East, it still would rank better than this year's ACC so far, imho.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah I think this rivals the turn of the century big East in terms of overall awfulness.

 

[orangedave]

We'll see how good SU is when they play in the "College Gym's" They have played in the Big Arena's for the most part in their Big East History but now the Gyms they play in will be like Rutgers, starting tuesday we'll see how good they are in Campus Gyms it's like reverting back to the late 60's and 70's the ECAC Days

I agree that the smaller arenas could provide more of a home court advantage for our opponents.
On the other hand, a significant portion of our current top players did not play in those Big Arenas either because they are freshmen this year or did not play significant minutes last year. And I doubt if our coaches will be intimated by the smaller arenas.

 

[Pitt_Fan_ACC]

Pitt deserves to be ranked. You are getting hosed by the voters. By seasons end it will be apparent that Pitt is going to make some noise.

It is what it is at this point. I don't mind these guys flying under the radar a little bit. Let the chip build on their shoulder to keep them focused game in and game out. If they keep winning then the ranking will take care of itself. If Patterson makes those foul shots and closes out Cincy, my guess is they would be ranked right now. The ACC is looking suspect this year though. I don't know if I have seen a more Jekyll and Hyde team than UNC.