The ACC sucks.

[Indytarheel]

The Big East was the best basketball conference of all time. The ACC was always Duke, Carolina and a mystery guest. The 9th place team in the Big East won the NCAA tournament a few years ago.

I realize it would've been hard for the Big East to expand by adding schools from the other major conferences and that UNC had no desire to join the BE.

Let's say:

1) Notre Dame would've helped the Big East by agreeing to play FSU, Maryland, whomever in football if that school would join the BE

2) the owners of MSG wouldn't allow any ACC school to play in MSG unless they joined the BE

3) ESPN would've tried to destroy the ACC instead of the Big East

4) the BE would've cared more about football than they did

"Crazy" things may have happened if those things were true.

As far as the "great" ACC is concerned, recent history is more important than older history (that applies to just about anything in life but back to the subject at hand). Since the Big East went to 16 teams and the ACC went to 12 (2005-2006 season, so the last 8 years) the BE has had 8 different schools make it past the Sweet Sixteen a combined 15 times - this is better than any other conference and is quite remarkable as getting to an Elite Eight (or beyond obviously) is a hard thing to do. UNC has done it 5 times in this time period which is tremendous and Duke somewhat surprisingly has only done it twice (again, it's hard to do). There is no question that UNC and Duke have great basketball programs but 2 schools don't make a conference. As far as the rest of the ACC is concerned, 0 schools have made it past the Sweet Sixteen a combined 0 times. That's right, in the last 8 years the other 10 schools in the "great" ACC have never gotten past the Sweet16 - that's pathetic. All the other major conferences did better than that, the ACC is the only league with only 2 schools making it that far - even the lowly Pac12 got 3 schools that far.

The Big East was getting better too, it had a bright future in basketball and a solid future in football. It never was going to be the best in that sport but neither is the ACC. At any rate, if the pathetic ACC is going to do anything amazing in the future it will be because of the Big East schools and not the old ACC.

With all due respect, I will take your 8 year review and trump it with decades of excellence. Where you talk about sweet sixteen appearances, I can talk about National Championships. See the difference. Yes, no doubt after the first round of expansions with BC, Miami and VaTech, the Big East poached some conferences and strengthen their ranks with programs on the upswing in basketball. And, as a byproduct, the football side of things improved greatly as ACC football floundered and the basketball took a downward turn. However, even with that downward turn, the ACC won three National Championships during that time ('05, '09, '10). For the great New Old Big East, two National Championships ('11 and '13 not sure if U of L counts towards New Old Big East or AAC). You guys also dismiss the fact that the cellar dwellers were true cellar dwellers. DePaul, USF, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Providence and to some extent Saint Johns. Talk about easy W's. Wake my have taken a nose dive but at least they were in the fight up until their coach passed away. VaTech is VaTech. Face facts, the old big east died back in the late 80's.

 

[dasher]

With all due respect, I will take your 8 year review and trump it with decades of excellence. Where you talk about sweet sixteen appearances, I can talk about National Championships. See the difference. Yes, no doubt after the first round of expansions with BC, Miami and VaTech, the Big East poached some conferences and strengthen their ranks with programs on the upswing in basketball. And, as a byproduct, the football side of things improved greatly as ACC football floundered and the basketball took a downward turn. However, even with that downward turn, the ACC won three National Championships during that time ('05, '09, '10). For the great New Old Big East, two National Championships ('11 and '13 not sure if U of L counts towards New Old Big East or AAC). You guys also dismiss the fact that the cellar dwellers were true cellar dwellers. DePaul, USF, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Providence and to some extent Saint Johns. Talk about easy W's. Wake my have taken a nose dive but at least they were in the fight up until their coach passed away. VaTech is VaTech. Face facts, the old big east died back in the late 80's.

First, you have no idea how tough the Big east was. We have now played in both. Sorry. The ACC doesn't measure up. The ACC became UNC, Duke and another team that rotated over the years. NC State? Maryland? G-tech? The Big East was a monster. Of course louisville counts. Just as Syracuse counts for the ACC now. Can you imagine how the ACC would look this year without us? 2 top 25 teams. Yikes

 

[Hoo's That]

4) the BE would've cared more about football than they did

From what I've seen on this board and read on others that would have required the Catholic schools in the present Big East to do a complete 180 and I'm not sure if you could count on that. I've read several times here that they didn't want the football competition to be allowed to use the "Big East" name even though just about all of you were members for the other sports.

 

[obliterata]

With all due respect, I will take your 8 year review and trump it with decades of excellence. Where you talk about sweet sixteen appearances, I can talk about National Championships. See the difference. Yes, no doubt after the first round of expansions with BC, Miami and VaTech, the Big East poached some conferences and strengthen their ranks with programs on the upswing in basketball. And, as a byproduct, the football side of things improved greatly as ACC football floundered and the basketball took a downward turn. However, even with that downward turn, the ACC won three National Championships during that time ('05, '09, '10). For the great New Old Big East, two National Championships ('11 and '13 not sure if U of L counts towards New Old Big East or AAC). You guys also dismiss the fact that the cellar dwellers were true cellar dwellers. DePaul, USF, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Providence and to some extent Saint Johns. Talk about easy W's. Wake my have taken a nose dive but at least they were in the fight up until their coach passed away. VaTech is VaTech. Face facts, the old big east died back in the late 80's.

You apparently missed my point. I'm not talking about the Sweet Sixteen, old history, UNC, Duke, or the National Championships they won. I'm talking about how the 2 conferences have done since the last major expansion when the Big East went to 16 schools and the ACC went to 12 - "recent history".

1) I'm talking about reaching the Elite Eight not the Sweet Sixteen. Reread what I posted, getting past the Sweet16 is a hard thing to do.

2) I'm talking about recent history, the last 8 years because that's when the Big East added 5 schools and the ACC added one which are significant events. The old and older history of the ACC has been very good but that has primarily been UNC and Duke.

3) UNC has made it past the Sweet16 5 times in the past 8 years, no other school has done that. I gave them credit for that in my previous post but it has nothing to do with what I stated above and about the rest of the ACC not doing well in the NCAAT.

4) Duke has made the Elite Eight 2 times in the last 8 years but my previous sentence applies here too.

5) Again, this has nothing to do with National Championships however if it did at least get your facts straight, the ACC and the Big East each have 2. And you've got one guess which schools won the NCs for the ACC.

Face facts, the old big east died back in the late 80's.

Face facts? Died in the 80s? You have no idea what you're talking about.

a) 50% of the 16 BE schools made it to at least the Elite Eight, 16.7% of the 12 ACC schools did.

b) 50% of the BE didn't, 83.3% of the ACC didn't.

c) 6 different BE schools have made the Final Four a combined 8 times, 2 different ACC schools have made it a combined 3 times.

d) The 16 school BE averaged 1.875 teams in the Elite Eight and 1 team in the Final Four, the 12 school ACC averaged .875 and .375 respectively.

e) Jamie Dixon, who many people criticize for not doing well in the NCAAT, has more tournament wins than 10 schools in the ACC.

f) Since the Big East expanded to 16 schools no other conference has had as many schools reach the Elite Eight and Final Four.

Those are the facts.

 

[NOD1]

You apparently missed my point. I'm not talking about the Sweet Sixteen, old history, UNC, Duke, or the National Championships they won. I'm talking about how the 2 conferences have done since the last major expansion when the Big East went to 16 schools and the ACC went to 12 - "recent history".

1) I'm talking about reaching the Elite Eight not the Sweet Sixteen. Reread what I posted, getting past the Sweet16 is a hard thing to do.

2) I'm talking about recent history, the last 8 years because that's when the Big East added 5 schools and the ACC added one which are significant events. The old and older history of the ACC has been very good but that has primarily been UNC and Duke.

3) UNC has made it past the Sweet16 5 times in the past 8 years, no other school has done that. I gave them credit for that in my previous post but it has nothing to do with what I stated above and about the rest of the ACC not doing well in the NCAAT.

4) Duke has made the Elite Eight 2 times in the last 8 years but my previous sentence applies here too.

5) Again, this has nothing to do with National Championships however if it did at least get your facts straight, the ACC and the Big East each have 2. And you've got one guess which schools won the NCs for the ACC.




Face facts? Died in the 80s? You have no idea what you're talking about.

a) 50% of the 16 BE schools made it to at least the Elite Eight, 16.7% of the 12 ACC schools did.

b) 50% of the BE didn't, 83.3% of the ACC didn't.

c) 6 different BE schools have made the Final Four a combined 8 times, 2 different ACC schools have made it a combined 3 times.

d) The 16 school BE averaged 1.875 teams in the Elite Eight and 1 team in the Final Four, the 12 school ACC averaged .875 and .375 respectively.

e) Jamie Dixon, who many people criticize for not doing well in the NCAAT, has more tournament wins than 10 schools in the ACC.

f) Since the Big East expanded to 16 schools no other conference has had as many schools reach the Elite Eight and Final Four.

Those are the facts.

What an odd and arbitrary choice of cutoffs for measuring success.

You do realize that, during the 8 years you referenced, EVERY ACC team except Duke, UNC, and FSU changed head coaches, right?

It's apples and hand grenades.

 

[NOD1]

Even before Cuse, Pitt, and ND joined, the ACC had more NC's in the new millennium than the Big East. And they had many more players in the NBA than even the 4,000-team Big East.

 

[obliterata]

What an odd and arbitrary choice of cutoffs for measuring success.

You do realize that, during the 8 years you referenced, EVERY ACC team except Duke, UNC, and FSU changed head coaches, right?

It's apples and hand grenades.

No, it's not arbitrary at all. It's a defining moment, it's when the Big East went from 11 to 16 schools and the ACC completed it's expansion to 12. Arbitrary would be to take the past 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 9 years or taking 1982 to 1989 - something ridiculous like that.

As far as Elite Eights go, I think it's a good measuring stick to use when judging conferences, schools, and coaches. Sweet Sixteens are nice but getting past that round is a hard thing to do as I keep saying. UNC is one of the few schools that made it look easy and I have given them credit for it on numerous occasions but UNC isn't the subject of the thread.

Going back a decade isn't arbitrary either. In that time frame the BE had 8 different schools make a combined 17 E8s and the ACC had 3 different schools combine for 10 E8s. Yes, unbelievably a school other than UNC and Duke made it past the Sweet Sixteen in this time frame.

As Derrick Coleman would say, "Whoopdeedamndoo".

I've said everything I can in this thread, it's pointless to keep repeating myself so I'll bow out. One last time: Since the last round of major expansion the 10 ACC schools not named UNC or Duke have not made it past the Sweet Sixteen ----- this is not good.

 

[NOD1]

It's a 'defining moment' the same way the last time I got a haircut was a 'defining moment.' Your 'defining moment' is when you guys added 4 basketball schools and one glorified CC in a desperate attempt to save your conference,, and the ACC added a BC team that saw the writing on the wall. It's like choosing a particularly prodigious fart as a life event.

 

[WoadBlue]

Most of us are ecstatic to be here. From reading the board, you know that. Every now and then, an 'I long for the good old days' post comes up. Whether nostalgic or misguided, I don't know. But as a basketball conference, the BE was something special. It should be remembered fondly. Don't forget that. But again, the key word in that sentence is 'was'.

And just because Greensboro has more seats and nicer amenities, doesn't make it MSG. Have you been the the Garden recently? Very different than it was just a few years ago.

You'd think by now, the greatness of some of the ACC fan bases would have rubbed off on State. Then again, we thought the same thing about Rutgers and UConn.

In the old 8 team A

The theme of your post seemed to be that there's a need to be forward thinking and that positioning the league for maximum exposure and revenue is wise, right up until the bolded part. If MSG is attainable, it would be idiotic not to play there as much as possible for so many reasons. A foothold in a world famous arena in the number one market in the country is a no-brainer.

The ACC has been a number of things thus far in the SU era, what it has not been is a very good basketball league. And that goes back to the last ACC expansion really. Top heavy with two programs that are/were heavyweights, and a big big dropoff after that. SU's arrival adds a third major player, and Louisville brings that next year. Pitt adds hoops value...after that the rest of this league needs to step up its game. Virginia has done so this year, kudos to them. Would be nice if they could be the kind of program that can actually make an NCAA tournament in consecutive years, something they aren't today. While the old Big East was too vulnerable to remain built as was, the level of hoops competition we enjoyed as fans was on another level compared to where SU is today. As far as rivalries go, SU has history with Pitt and Louisville (we hate Notre Dame but it might be too lop-sided to be a 'rivalry'), and there'll be a lot of opportunities to play some high level battles with Duke and UNC. 2/3 of the way into this season, I would say almost all of the league has failed to form the beginnings of a rivalry with SU, and those shortcomings are on the league.

MSG is historic, but it can't be the home of the ACC tournament. Any entity that cuts itself off significantly from its founding roots is going to die or in surviving become so very different that it is in effect a new thing. ACC basketball must remain grounded in NC, and Greensboro is much better than Charlotte.

Tournaments in FL are a waste of time. Atlanta can be good occasionally. DC probably would not work well without Maryland and is far less important than NYC for media.

As we do need to stake the claim to NYC, I would be happy with the tournament rotating between 2 spots: say, even years in Greensboro and odd years in NYC. That would get us both of the 2 most important things we need in terms of tournament location. And such a rotation, rather than one of 3 or 4 years in the same place followed by 3 or 4 years in the other place, would make the tournament fresh each year in terms of venue.

The key to getting MSG that way would be to work with the BE, getting it to move elsewhere every other year. And as the BE now has Creighton and Butler, it could gain from playing its tournament away from NYC.

 

[WoadBlue]

I realize it would've been hard for the Big East to expand by adding schools from the other major conferences and that UNC had no desire to join the BE.

Let's say:

1) Notre Dame would've helped the Big East by agreeing to play FSU, Maryland, whomever in football if that school would join the BE

2) the owners of MSG wouldn't allow any ACC school to play in MSG unless they joined the BE

3) ESPN would've tried to destroy the ACC instead of the Big East

4) the BE would've cared more about football than they did

"Crazy" things may have happened if those things were true.

As far as the "great" ACC is concerned, recent history is more important than older history (that applies to just about anything in life but back to the subject at hand). Since the Big East went to 16 teams and the ACC went to 12 (2005-2006 season, so the last 8 years) the BE has had 8 different schools make it past the Sweet Sixteen a combined 15 times - this is better than any other conference and is quite remarkable as getting to an Elite Eight (or beyond obviously) is a hard thing to do. UNC has done it 5 times in this time period which is tremendous and Duke somewhat surprisingly has only done it twice (again, it's hard to do). There is no question that UNC and Duke have great basketball programs but 2 schools don't make a conference. As far as the rest of the ACC is concerned, 0 schools have made it past the Sweet Sixteen a combined 0 times. That's right, in the last 8 years the other 10 schools in the "great" ACC have never gotten past the Sweet16 - that's pathetic. All the other major conferences did better than that, the ACC is the only league with only 2 schools making it that far - even the lowly Pac12 got 3 schools that far.

The Big East was getting better too, it had a bright future in basketball and a solid future in football. It never was going to be the best in that sport but neither is the ACC. At any rate, if the pathetic ACC is going to do anything amazing in the future it will be because of the Big East schools and not the old ACC.

You might as well be asking what it all of eastern Canada became Syracuse football fans, resulting in a new dome seating 105, 000 and filled every game. That is no more absurd than the rest of your what ifs.

The BE was always dead on arrival for reasons I've stated above. Syracuse is quite fortunate to be in the ACC rather than in the AAC while UConn or Cincy is in the ACC.

Your tastes and preferences I cannot change. Nor can I make you see the obvious. But your little tagline 'F the ACCKKK' ought to be enough to get you reprimanded by moderators. You sound as insufferably stupid and the worst UConn fans, and that casts aspersions on Syracuse.

 

[dasher]

You might as well be asking what it all of eastern Canada became Syracuse football fans, resulting in a new dome seating 105, 000 and filled every game. That is no more absurd than the rest of your what ifs.

The BE was always dead on arrival for reasons I've stated above. Syracuse is quite fortunate to be in the ACC rather than in the AAC while UConn or Cincy is in the ACC.

Your tastes and preferences I cannot change. Nor can I make you see the obvious. But your little tagline 'F the ACCKKK' ought to be enough to get you reprimanded by moderators. You sound as insufferably stupid and the worst UConn fans, and that casts aspersions on Syracuse.

Sorry if you are disappointed. Now leave

 

[senorpalmer]

In the old 8 team A



MSG is historic, but it can't be the home of the ACC tournament. Any entity that cuts itself off significantly from its founding roots is going to die or in surviving become so very different that it is in effect a new thing. ACC basketball must remain grounded in NC, and Greensboro is much better than Charlotte.

Tournaments in FL are a waste of time. Atlanta can be good occasionally. DC probably would not work well without Maryland and is far less important than NYC for media.

As we do need to stake the claim to NYC, I would be happy with the tournament rotating between 2 spots: say, even years in Greensboro and odd years in NYC. That would get us both of the 2 most important things we need in terms of tournament location. And such a rotation, rather than one of 3 or 4 years in the same place followed by 3 or 4 years in the other place, would make the tournament fresh each year in terms of venue.

The key to getting MSG that way would be to work with the BE, getting it to move elsewhere every other year. And as the BE now has Creighton and Butler, it could gain from playing its tournament away from NYC.

The ACC IS a new thing. It is no longer a southeastern league, but rather an east coast league. Half the membership played in the old Big East. From a fairness standpoint, sure it makes sense to rotate the location of the conference tournament. But modern high level college athletics, like many things in life, are not fair. You may find that MSG is not interested in a rotation and that option closes. Or you may find that MSG does go for it, and in comes the Big 10 with interest in NYC, and now they've got a foot in the door in the #1 market now when the ACC in theory could have gotten a stranglehold there. As for the current Big East, I can assure you they have no interest in moving their conference tournament, any relocating will be driven by MSG (moving it to the Midwest to accommodate Butler and Xavier is laughable, if anything they would aim for another big east coast market like DC or Philly).

 

[Indytarheel]

First, you have no idea how tough the Big east was. We have now played in both. Sorry. The ACC doesn't measure up. The ACC became UNC, Duke and another team that rotated over the years. NC State? Maryland? G-tech? The Big East was a monster. Of course louisville counts. Just as Syracuse counts for the ACC now. Can you imagine how the ACC would look this year without us? 2 top

No, it's not arbitrary at all. It's a defining moment, it's when the Big East went from 11 to 16 schools and the ACC completed it's expansion to 12. Arbitrary would be to take the past 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 9 years or taking 1982 to 1989 - something ridiculous like that.

As far as Elite Eights go, I think it's a good measuring stick to use when judging conferences, schools, and coaches. Sweet Sixteens are nice but getting past that round is a hard thing to do as I keep saying. UNC is one of the few schools that made it look easy and I have given them credit for it on numerous occasions but UNC isn't the subject of the thread.

Going back a decade isn't arbitrary either. In that time frame the BE had 8 different schools make a combined 17 E8s and the ACC had 3 different schools combine for 10 E8s. Yes, unbelievably a school other than UNC and Duke made it past the Sweet Sixteen in this time frame.

As Derrick Coleman would say, "Whoopdeedamndoo".

I've said everything I can in this thread, it's pointless to keep repeating myself so I'll bow out. One last time: Since the last round of major expansion the 10 ACC schools not named UNC or Duke have not made it past the Sweet Sixteen ----- this is not good.

Did you not read my post? I understand what you are saying and I even said that if you want to consider regular season victories, number of teams in tourney and whatever other arbitrary metric to show the greatness of the Big East after the last expansion. Unfortunately, you completely ignored the fact that the ACC won national championships during that 8 year span you referenced. I even listed the years. 2013-8 years equal 2005. So how can you ignore the titles won by the ACC (3) to the Big East (1 or 2 if U of L was still in the Big East and not the AAC). And, let's face facts, UConn has won the bulk of the Big east titles, let's not act like the Big East was loaded with national championship contenders. Basically, there are too many variables to the tourney that effect how a conference will perform anyway and winning the title does not necessary mean that the team is actually the best. The stacked Rudy Gay UConn team comes to mind. They were obviously the best team that year season and failed to make it beyond the sweet sixteen if I am not mistaken, but I digress. Counting the number of teams that make the tourney and how far they go in the tourney is no more a determination how great a conference is/was when it is not a round robin or a series set up like the NBA. One and done tourneys don't define who is actually the best for the season but more so for the moment.

And yes, put me down as one of the individuals who believe the real Big East was the Pat Ewing, Pearl Washington, Chris Mullin era. To me, that was the real Big East.

I understand the passion of the Cuse fan base and I love it. Now, I don't know about you but I am getting ready to root for the ACC' to bring it home in basketball, some how in women's basketball, track and field, baseball and lax. If it is the Orange, then cool. If it is Dook, I will hate life but cool for the conference. So, dust yourselves off go into Hansborough Indoor Stadium and beat Pauley D and the gang down.

 

[senorpalmer]

Did you not read my post? I understand what you are saying and I even said that if you want to consider regular season victories, number of teams in tourney and whatever other arbitrary metric to show the greatness of the Big East after the last expansion. Unfortunately, you completely ignored the fact that the ACC won national championships during that 8 year span you referenced. I even listed the years. 2013-8 years equal 2005. So how can you ignore the titles won by the ACC (3) to the Big East (1 or 2 if U of L was still in the Big East and not the AAC). And, let's face facts, UConn has won the bulk of the Big east titles, let's not act like the Big East was loaded with national championship contenders. Basically, there are too many variables to the tourney that effect how a conference will perform anyway and winning the title does not necessary mean that the team is actually the best. The stacked Rudy Gay UConn team comes to mind. They were obviously the best team that year season and failed to make it beyond the sweet sixteen if I am not mistaken, but I digress. Counting the number of teams that make the tourney and how far they go in the tourney is no more a determination how great a conference is/was when it is not a round robin or a series set up like the NBA. One and done tourneys don't define who is actually the best for the season but more so for the moment.

And yes, put me down as one of the individuals who believe the real Big East was the Pat Ewing, Pearl Washington, Chris Mullin era. To me, that was the real Big East.

I understand the passion of the Cuse fan base and I love it. Now, I don't know about you but I am getting ready to root for the ACC' to bring it home in basketball, some how in women's basketball, track and field, baseball and lax. If it is the Orange, then cool. If it is Dook, I will hate life but cool for the conference. So, dust yourselves off go into Hansborough Indoor Stadium and beat Pauley D and the gang down.

ACC fans have relied on this titles argument as if 1-2 teams winning titles says something about the overall strength of a conference. A strong conference has a number of good teams, not 1-2. In 8 years as a 16 team league, the old Big East placed 6 different programs in the Final 4, so yeah I would actually say that the league did indeed have a number of national title contenders over that span. If we were to line up all the schools from both leagues and look at their performances over those 8 years, after duke and unc, the next 8-9 best programs were all from the old Big East.