The ACC is down this year so we should be really good

[Cusefan0307]

Carlik Jones(grad transfer) was really the only player of significance who missed Louisville’s game. The other guys that were out barely play or haven’t played. So basically the equivalent of us missing Guerrier/Newton/Ajak/Sid and losing by 40 against UNC.

 

[OrangeDW]

That’s the nature of fandom. People will complain either way. If we win 14-15 ACC games, but lose in the first or second round in the tourney this board will say we were not that good.

If we win just 9 or 10, but make the tourney and go to the EE fans will say it’s a fluke. We’ve seen that play out on the board both ways over the years.

Yeah, there’s definitely some who are that way. For me, I can deal with the early tourney loss in a really good season (91, 05, 14), the not so enjoyable seasons with a surprise run (16, 18)...but we gotta start mixing in SOME seasons where we’re flat out good all year, again.

 

[Alsacs]

Carlik Jones(grad transfer) was really the only player of significance who missed Louisville’s game. The other guys that were out barely play or haven’t played. So basically the equivalent of us missing Guerrier/Newton/Ajak/Sid and losing by 40 against UNC.

They were without Minlend, Nickelberry, Williams and Carlik Jones who are 3 players projected to be starters and 4th scholarship rotation playerZ

 

[eatmatsroe]

these 3 scrape by wins might allow us one or two bad acc losses should they happen without worry of being bubblelicious

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Though I agree to an extent, many have argued that our mediocre regular seasons don't really matter if we make a run in the NCAA tourney. Can't have it both ways. Either the tourney results matter or they don't (of course they do, but they shouldn't be all that matters). Hence, I listed goals for all three major phases of the season.

I submit that having it both ways is actually the only thing that makes sense.

You celebrate if you overachieve in a single elimination tournament, because it's really difficult to do.

You shrug it off if you don't, because there's only one winner in a single elimination tournament.

 

[Cusefan0307]

They were without Minlend, Nickelberry, Williams and Carlik Jones who are 3 players projected to be starters and 4th scholarship rotation playerZ

Jones was the only guy out due to covid. Minlend hasn’t played all season. Williams is the equivalent of missing Sid and Nickelberry is like missing Ajak. They lost by 40 points. If we were out with guys like that and still lost by 40 this board would be freaking out.

 

[Coach Orange]

If the choice is mediocre regular seasons and successful postseasons or vice-versa I personally would take successful postseasons.
However I get the other side as a 1 and done tournament is more luck.
I will take it though because the nation only follows College hoops nationally that one month.

Though I get the spirit of your post (if you're going to be bad at something, make it the regular season since eyeballs are on the NCAA tourney), it's not mutually exclusive, right? A team can be good in the regular season and reach the Sweet 16 or better. In fact, statistics show that 1-3 seeds in the NCAA Tourney advance to the Sweet 16 far more than other seeds. Furthermore, 4-seeds make the Sweet 16 almost 50% of the time (interestingly, 5-seeds don't make the Sweet 16 nearly as often, but if they make the Elite 8, they almost always make the Final Four). Teams earn those seeds by playing well in the regular season and/or conference tournaments.

.