Tracking the ACC vs Other Leagues (2025/2026)

[jncuse]

Here is the ACC vs other conferences. Based on my tracking I was expecting a little better, but I suspect my error came in diminishing of home games by NET.

ACC is far better positioned from where it was last year. 10 top 60 teams vs 5 for example. But it is still clearly positioned in slot #4, after SEC, B10, B12.

Compared to other conferences. Doesn't have the star power as the other 3 -- especially from #3-#6. In the middle "good", teams #7-#10 they are all very comparable. ACC could use a couple of their teams in the #11-#14 range to step up over the next month. (Syracuse, FSU, Virginia Tech all came out firing early in the year, but slowed down). Everybody but the SEC has it share of bottom feeders.

If I had to guess teams the SEC because of its lack of crud, is probably best positioned for double digit seeds. BIG and B12 are in the 8-10 range. But the ACC is going to come in a few seeds higher than prior years. Probably a 7 bid league. It will be hard for the Big East to get more than 4 given its early season start.

 

[jncuse]

Its also important to consider what other conferences outside the top 4 are doing. Because if the top 4 conferences are going to hoard a few more seeds than normal, the ACC is going to benefit by hanging close to the top 3. This improves the possibility of an 11-7 ACC team getting enough of a quality resume.

Big East (WAY DOWN) - The Big East is a mess NET wise to start the season. 3 top 25 schools. A 4th at #50. But then 6 of 11 teams outside of the 100. Sets up as a 3 or 4 big league.

MWC (WELL DOWN) - Top 5 teams are 29. 59. 66, 80 and 112 in the NET, last year it was 41,42,43,44,58 Its going to be tough for those teams to gain momentum off each other like they have done in the past to get interconference Q1 and Q2 wins.

 

[jncuse]

I probably won't track this in more detail for the rest of the year, other than making some observations, and perhaps head to head record.

For the most part NET came in as expected, although I expected the ACC to perhaps come in a tad stronger.. of course those expectations were seeded in part because of the fast start in the first 2 weeks, that had fell..
- SEC is in the healthiest situation (top 50 and 100) because they have done well in Q4 margin.
- While the Big 12, Big 10, and ACC were all close in margin, B12 and B10 came in higher. Those teams have won more games, so NET does value the higher teams better.

But my tracking of margins and records did show the ACC was way better than last year both in margin and record, and that bore out in the initial NET. Far better position than last year.

 

[jncuse]

I still believe that with a Tennessee loss, a clean OOC slate after that, and an 11-7 ACC record, we will at minimum be on the bubble. The ACC is not in horrible shape NET wise.. could be better but it is nowhere like the last 2 or 3 years. 11 wins and you will get some quality. Remember bubble teams are not exactly bursting out with great resumes.

I saw somewhere else where someone said we needed to go 14-4 in the ACC to possibly have a chance. That's crazy - doesn't really take into account the current metric landscape of the ACC in 2025/2026. Metrics are fluid from year, and they stand alone from year to year.. A few years back when the ACC really started to stink some struggled to grasp that 12-8 in the ACC wouldn't be enough for most teams. Now its the other direction.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Yea. things are amplified now. Even road losses to the top 2-3 teams in the ACC which are expected will be met with extreme talk to can Autry right away.

He’s just gotta steal a big win and then keep taking care of business. At the same time a A loss to a bottomfeeder and things go real bad

Players and the team know this too. Things can get ugly fast when Autrys on his way out and the tourney becomes a lost cause.

I hate to say it, but I just don't have any faith that they can do that.

 

[Blanko97]

I think we did not draw the bad schedule. We demanded it. Red thought we could beat Houston. And his plan almost worked. But when the referees refused to let Houston lose, we are like a deflated balloon in the next two days.

The refs were not the problem, the 17 missed free throws were. The refs gave us PLENTY to win.

 

[Blanko97]

I still believe that with a Tennessee loss, a clean OOC slate after that, and an 11-7 ACC record, we will at minimum be on the bubble. The ACC is not in horrible shape NET wise.. could be better but it is nowhere like the last 2 or 3 years. 11 wins and you will get some quality. Remember bubble teams are not exactly bursting out with great resumes.

I saw somewhere else where someone said we needed to go 14-4 in the ACC to possibly have a chance. That's crazy - doesn't really take into account the current metric landscape of the ACC in 2025/2026. Metrics are fluid from year, and they stand alone from year to year.. A few years back when the ACC really started to stink some struggled to grasp that 12-8 in the ACC wouldn't be enough for most teams. Now its the other direction.

you think 11 wins could get them in? With today's NET they could realistically win 11 games with only 1 quad one win, and it would Clemson who is at the cusp of a quad 2. We would need quad 1 wins to be in contention and while syracuse has opportunities it almost certainly requires a few what the heck losses along side some what the heck wins for 11 to be a bubble number.

 

[jncuse]

you think 11 wins could get them in? With today's NET they could realistically win 11 games with only 1 quad one win, and it would Clemson who is at the cusp of a quad 2. We would need quad 1 wins to be in contention and while syracuse has opportunities it almost certainly requires a few what the heck losses along side some what the heck wins for 11 to be a bubble number.

11 is the bubble number in my view. Not saying it gets you in. It's my preliminary in the discussion number.

Clemson could fall out of Q1, but SMU can rise in too. The ACC is not weak as prior years (at least through month 1 in OOC) such that teams in the ACC could actually move up in NET once the season starts if they do well in the ACC In the last 3 years, there was NET degradation come conference play. That won't happen this year... in fact the avg NET might build slightly after conference starts.

As for today's NET its quite fluid, and is only 7 games of data impacted by an outlier. If they get to 11-7 in the ACC, its going to move up. It might not be in the 40's though.

I see the following as a fairy decent bubble resume (assuming a loss tonight, and a clean OCC slate otherwise)

11-7 in ACC
3 Q1 wins (or 2, if 1 is a marguee victory)
0 bad losses

If we use today's NET's, its 8 Q1, 3 Q2, 7 Q3. I do expect that 7 number to fall to 4-5 by season's end due to NET building off each other in confernce. Helps power conferences that did well enough in OOC.

So say it ends up 8/5/5.

Obviously we need to win those 5 Q3 games to have a clean slate.
3-2 in Q2
3-5 in Q1 (or 2 if is a premium win like at Duke or at Louisville)

Is it a great resume. No. It's not what we want, but bubble teams have warts.
I'll hit on that in another post.

 

[Blanko97]

11 is the bubble number in my view. Not saying it gets you in. It's my preliminary in the discussion number.

Clemson could fall out of Q1, but SMU can rise in too. The ACC is not weak as prior years (at least through month 1 in OOC) such that teams in the ACC could actually move up in NET once the season starts if they do well in the ACC In the last 3 years, there was NET degradation come conference play. That won't happen this year... in fact the avg NET might build slightly after conference starts.

As for today's NET its quite fluid, and is only 7 games of data impacted by an outlier. If they get to 11-7 in the ACC, its going to move up. It might not be in the 40's though.

I see the following as a fairy decent bubble resume (assuming a loss tonight, and a clean OCC slate otherwise)

11-7 in ACC
3 Q1 wins (or 2, if 1 is a marguee victory)
0 bad losses

If we use today's NET's, its 8 Q1, 3 Q2, 7 Q3. I do expect that 7 number to fall to 4-5 by season's end due to NET building off each other in confernce. Helps power conferences that did well enough in OOC.

So say it ends up 8/5/5.

Obviously we need to win those 5 Q3 games to have a clean slate.
3-2 in Q2
3-5 in Q1 (or 2 if is a premium win like at Duke or at Louisville)

Is it a great resume. No. It's not what we want, but bubble teams have warts.
I'll hit on that in another post.

I see what you're saying, im just not sure they will be in the conversation without a couple of marquee wins. The best OOC win will likely be hofstra thats going to be a really difficult mountain climb. The NC SOS will sit at a high number but the comittee will say "okay, but what did you actually do with it"

 

[jncuse]

I see what you're saying, im just not sure they will be in the conversation without a couple of marquee wins. The best OOC win will likely be hofstra thats going to be a really difficult mountain climb. The NC SOS will sit at a high number but the comittee will say "okay, but what did you actually do with it"

Maybe the number is 12.

At 12, I am highly certain we are OK.
I have seen 14-4 and 15-3 in various posts, or having to win 2 or 3 games against Duke, Virginia and Louisville. That is grossly overselling what we need to do We don't need all that - probably will need one win though against those teams.

 

[jncuse]

A bit of a nice surprise to see the ACC take 7 out of 10 from the ACC.

At the same time, it's not a huge surprise. Both conferences have been about equal in head to head matchups (and Q1+Q2 matchups) as I have been tracking above. The ACC also got a bit lucky winning all 5 games that were within 5 points. So this really could have went 4-6, 5-5, 6-4.

Hopefully the NET has some secret sauce that isn't heavily margin, so we get some metric benefit from winning. At least rep wise this will help the image.

As they have done, SEC did well in the margin battle even if they only won 3 out of 10. Overall they won the games by a total of 30 points.

 

[jncuse]

A bit of a nice surprise to see the ACC take 7 out of 10 from the ACC.

At the same time, it's not a huge surprise. Both conferences have been about equal in head to head matchups (and Q1+Q2 matchups) as I have been tracking above. The ACC also got a bit lucky winning all 5 games that were within 5 points. So this really could have went 4-6, 5-5, 6-4.

Hopefully the NET has some secret sauce that isn't heavily margin, so we get some metric benefit from winning. At least rep wise this will help the image.

As they have done, SEC did well in the margin battle even if they only won 3 out of 10. Overall they won the games by a total of 30 points.

Correction make it 6-3. I counted the California win over Utah in erro.

SEC though still outscored the ACC by 37 points over 9 games - although most of that was Florida St.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Last season the ACC went 2-14 against the SEC, and the conference never really recovered the rest of year (but probably did stink last year). Coming out 6-3 on night one is a huge step in the right direction for the conference’s computer metrics. Hope they have similar success tomorrow.

 

[Niastri]

Last season the ACC went 2-14 against the SEC, and the conference never really recovered the rest of year (but probably did stink last year). Coming out 6-3 on night one is a huge step in the right direction for the conference’s computer metrics. Hope they have similar success tomorrow.

Looking at the matchups tonight, you could easily see a 2-5 record, but the first night already secured a big improvement over last season's results. If we can win some of the games where we are an underdog, we could really shift the NET towards the ACC in two days.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Duke pulled out win over Florida at Cameron.
Malik saved the win by tipping the same kind of inbound pass that the orange let Tennessee get at the end of the game.

 

[Niastri]

Duke pulled out win over Florida at Cameron.
Malik saved the win by tipping the same kind of inbound pass that the orange let Tennessee get at the end of the game.

One of the few times all year I will cheer for a Duke victory. The ACC needs these wins.

 

[Blanko97]

Looking at the matchups tonight, you could easily see a 2-5 record, but the first night already secured a big improvement over last season's results. If we can win some of the games where we are an underdog, we could really shift the NET towards the ACC in two days.

2-5 seems fair, Louisville over Arkansas and Virgina over texas? maybe clemson pulls a miracle? Could be a 1 win night honestly.

 

[jncuse]

Last season the ACC went 2-14 against the SEC, and the conference never really recovered the rest of year (but probably did stink last year). Coming out 6-3 on night one is a huge step in the right direction for the conference’s computer metrics. Hope they have similar success tomorrow.

I don't mean to pick this post, because its a positive take about the ACC and some of the facts are certainly right. I just a think a different spin on the results is needed. Its largely the point that you made the SEC/ACC challenge got us off the rails last year, can get us on the right direction this year, and the huge impact on metrics. I'll discuss below (see a),b)c).

I have been more positive about the ACC's improvement this year before the SEC/ACC challenge than most on this board, challenging recent posts that the ACC is dog poop and is basically same old, same old. But that is because I have been tracking the 130 games the conference has already played OOC vs last year, and the differences and improvement were massive, even if we slot in at #4. . We have been far more competitive with the powers this year, and even at #4, we are not that far off #1-#3.

So please don't feel like I'm taking a dig at you, but I just want to give I'll just say a more accurate spin in my view, and it's also why I track results from the beginning

a) When we went 2-14 last year that is not what sent us off the rail. The ACC was already a hot garbage mess at this point last year in the 130 or so games played before the challenge. It had already went off the rails already before the challenge. I'll pull up the numbers later but they were terrible. The damage was already done. The 2-14 result was largely the expected output (within a few games) based on how they had played, and the results afterwards were similar.

b) Alternatively this year, the ACC had certainly already course corrected significantly from last year before this challenge in the 130 games it had played, even if slotted at #4. In the approximately 50 competitive games each conference had played they were about the same record. We were already headed in the right direction. This 6-3 record is a validation and confirmation that the ACC continues to move forward, but the huge step had already started. I will say 6-3 is better than expected, but I thought we could make this a 7-9, 8-8 type challenge entering this, and there was no way a 2-14 would happen. Part of it is because the SEC is down.

c) In terms of the metrics. The challenge is still just 16 games over an ACC OOC slate of about 220 games. And it will about 16 games out of about 80 "competitive games". Winning these is certainly much better than losing and will move things, but the sample size won't massively impact the metrics. it will improve our eye test though.

 

[jncuse]

2-5 seems fair, Louisville over Arkansas and Virgina over texas? maybe clemson pulls a miracle? Could be a 1 win night honestly.

Mississippi St hasn't been very good. Neither has Georgia Tech for that matter, but they have a decent shot of winning at home.

SMU might also surprise - big test for them to see if they are legit.

But this is leaning to a 2-5 night. Could go 1-6 if bad breaks, but could 3-4 as well.

 

[Orangezoo]

I don't mean to pick this post, because its a positive take about the ACC and some of the facts are certainly right. I just a think a different spin on the results is needed. Its largely the point that you made the SEC/ACC challenge got us off the rails last year, can get us on the right direction this year, and the huge impact on metrics. I'll discuss below (see a),b)c).

I have been more positive about the ACC's improvement this year before the SEC/ACC challenge than most on this board, challenging recent posts that the ACC is dog poop and is basically same old, same old. But that is because I have been tracking the 130 games the conference has already played OOC vs last year, and the differences and improvement were massive, even if we slot in at #4. . We have been far more competitive with the powers this year, and even at #4, we are not that far off #1-#3.

So please don't feel like I'm taking a dig at you, but I just want to give I'll just say a more accurate spin in my view, and it's also why I track results from the beginning

a) When we went 2-14 last year that is not what sent us off the rail. The ACC was already a hot garbage mess at this point last year in the 130 or so games played before the challenge. It had already went off the rails already before the challenge. I'll pull up the numbers later but they were terrible. The damage was already done. The 2-14 result was largely the expected output (within a few games) based on how they had played, and the results afterwards were similar.

b) Alternatively this year, the ACC had certainly already course corrected significantly from last year before this challenge in the 130 games it had played, even if slotted at #4. In the approximately 50 competitive games each conference had played they were about the same record. We were already headed in the right direction. This 6-3 record is a validation and confirmation that the ACC continues to move forward, but the huge step had already started. I will say 6-3 is better than expected, but I thought we could make this a 7-9, 8-8 type challenge entering this, and there was no way a 2-14 would happen. Part of it is because the SEC is down.

c) In terms of the metrics. The challenge is still just 16 games over an ACC OOC slate of about 220 games. And it will about 16 games out of about 80 "competitive games". Winning these is certainly much better than losing and will move things, but the sample size won't massively impact the metrics. it will improve our eye test though.

I’m curious how much the 5th year covid guys being gone has slowed down the SEC spike in power. They had the big money for both frosh and the 5th year guys and now other leagues do have better NIL but the 5th year guys that can dominate are not a thing anymore.

 

[jncuse]

Conference NET vs Conference RPI (via Warren Nolan). Since RPI is so easily calculated, sites still track it live. When we compare the two, the flaws of the NET become more apparent.

Conference NET / Conference RPI
SEC - #1 / #4
B12 - #2 / #2
B10 - #3 / #1
ACC - #4/. #3

So the SEC is #1 in NET, but #4 in RPI.
We know that the SEC is #3 or #4 in head to head record (basically tied with ACC), and well behind B12 and BE. But their Q4 margin gap, way ahead of others is allowing them to get to #1 in

RPI is ultimately a quality of record measure... a very flawed one, at the same time I think it has B10 and B12 ranked higher because they are actually winning more of the quality head to head games.
If you have a sample of 200 games, and conferences have similar strengths, conference RPI is probably a better measure than NET.

 

[jncuse]

Not going to update all the margin stuff, but I will update head to head and quality games throughout December. Haven't updated anything since last Sunday, but perhaps tomorrow there will be an update.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Conference NET vs Conference RPI (via Warren Nolan). Since RPI is so easily calculated, sites still track it live. When we compare the two, the flaws of the NET become more apparent.

Conference NET / Conference RPI
SEC - #1 / #4
B12 - #2 / #2
B10 - #3 / #1
ACC - #4/. #3

So the SEC is #1 in NET, but #4 in RPI.
We know that the SEC is #3 or #4 in head to head record (basically tied with ACC), and well behind B12 and BE. But their Q4 margin gap, way ahead of others is allowing them to get to #1 in

RPI is ultimately a quality of record measure... a very flawed one, at the same time I think it has B10 and B12 ranked higher because they are actually winning more of the quality head to head games.
If you have a sample of 200 games, and conferences have similar strengths, conference RPI is probably a better measure than NET.

Kind of shocked those are the metrics based on eye test. If I didn’t know any better I’d have the Big 10 and Big 12 1 and 2 with the ACC/SEC just behind.

 

[jncuse]

Kind of shocked those are the metrics based on eye test. If I didn’t know any better I’d have the Big 10 and Big 12 1 and 2 with the ACC/SEC just behind.

I'll update the head to head records later tonight... but B10 and B12 are far ahead in those and deserve to be #1 and #2.

But since over half the games are Q4 cupcakes, and SEC was at 29.8 (Vs 24.5 BIG, and 21.7 B12), they are ahead in the NET. (Note the margin numbers are as of end of last week... stopped tracking as of Sunday)

 

[jncuse]

Records in games between B12, B10, ACC, SEC, BE

B12 35-22*
B10 25-22
ACC 29-32 **
SEC 26-34
BE 16-22

* B12 is 12-2 vs the SEC

** As an aside the ACC was 20-54 in head to head games last year when I stopped tracking near Dec 20.