The ACC is is truly EMBARRASSING and OVERATED this season

[jalovell23]

you cant hide from the facts. Nine ACC teams were selected to be in the NCAA tournament and only 1 team(North Carolina) made it to the Sweet 16.

Based on the last Top 25 rankings:
#6 North Carolina is proven to be a top 10 team
#7 Duke CHOKED again as always in the NCAA tournament( but looks good in the ACC tourn)
#10 UoL, could never win a big game on the road this season, and was way over ranked in the NCAA tournament and final rankings
#14 Notre Dame was inconsistent during the end of the season
#16 Florida State. God only knows what happened to that team.
#24 Virginia Should of never been in the top 30.

 

[ThroughBlue]

It's all abou Matchups in march. Those "garbage" sec teams if nothing else usually throw five exceptional athletes on the floor and if they get going they can beat anyone on a given night. They're not always the most skilled but they are always uber athletic.

 

[earsky]

Isn't there already a thread about this?

Nevermind...it's locked.

 

[Rollem Cards]

If we ever see another thread about how tough the ACC BB is, I will rank it right up there with $EC FB.

Of course I guess we can say the ACC didn't do well in the tourney because we were so beat up from our conference schedule and tourney.

Works for the $EC FB. They still have the world thinking they have no equal regardless what bowl season says.

 

[ThroughBlue]

If we ever see another thread about how tough the ACC BB is, I will rank it right up there with $EC FB.

Of course I guess we can say the ACC didn't do well in the tourney because we were so beat up from our conference schedule and tourney.

Works for the $EC FB. They still have the world thinking they have no equal regardless what bowl season says.

Does it get tiring making replies like this all the time? Or am I on the football board now?

 

[Rollem Cards]

Does it get tiring making replies like this all the time? Or am I on the football board now?

No.

You're on our board. By your choice.

 

[ThroughBlue]

No.

You're on our board. By your choice.

Just crazy how fast the narrative switches to SEC football when it fits the talking point. Especially considering the SEC football has basically been Bama for the past few years. ACC basketball isn't a one horse league so where does that comparison fit?

 

[KerryRhodes]

Just crazy how fast the narrative switches to SEC football when it fits the talking point. Especially considering the SEC football has basically been Bama for the past few years. ACC basketball isn't a one horse league so where does that comparison fit?

Its called an analogy.
You cant be that dense.

 

[ThroughBlue]

Its called an analogy.
You cant be that dense.

I realize that but my point was that the SEC the past few years in football is a one horse league with Alabama. Not so much for the ACC in basketball. The post season doesn't tarnish a whole season

 

[stenchymouse]

These days, everybody has good players!

Hell, OVC teams and MVC teams have good players...

Nobody is gonna dominate year in and year out because there's just too much parity.

 

[KerryRhodes]

I realize that but my point was that the SEC the past few years in football is a one horse league with Alabama. Not so much for the ACC in basketball. The post season doesn't tarnish a whole season

Before the Title game, most picked Bama because they were tested more by a down SEC, than Clemson was. Their words.

I know. The 18 game grind plus the tourney is taxing.
Only teams that prepared and cared about winning the SEC regular season was Uofk and UF. Scar threw in the towel.

 

[zipp]

There's nothing wrong with the ACC in basketball. The last 48 hours barely move the needle when you look at all the data objectively.

The better question is why haven't the 2017 NCAA tourney results reflected what we know to be the case? What's wrong with that indicator?

When you get an unexpected measurement on something, the first thing you do is check your gauge...

 

[JohnKBA]

There's nothing wrong with the ACC in basketball. The last 48 hours barely move the needle when you look at all the data objectively.

The better question is why haven't the 2017 NCAA tourney results reflected what we know to be the case? What's wrong with that indicator?

When you get an unexpected measurement on something, the first thing you do is check your gauge...

I think someone pointed it out above - once you get past the first round, anyone can lose to anyone in a 1 game showdown. This year the ACC happened to underachieve vs expectations, but it's not such a big outlier that you automatically make the jump to "The ACC was overrated." It's the same reason you don't jump to "The SEC was underrated" because we have almost 20% of the sweet 16. Sometimes, weird shit happens in a one and done tournament.

The NCAA tourney is a series of tossups, basically. Even a single 3 minute stretch in a single game can and often does decide the fate of teams.

I wasn't aware of this fact but someone pointed it out here recently - Louisville's first 2 games in the 1980 tourney both went to overtime. So they won back to back literal coin flips then went on and won the title. There is not a more random event among major sports than the NCAA tourney.

 

[FURYREVENGE4]

One thing i dont want to hear from uk fans is that they are everybodys superbowl inconference. Cause if thats the case why didn't South Carolina play with the same effort against them than Duke.?

 

[FURYREVENGE4]

It's all abou Matchups in march. Those "garbage" sec teams if nothing else usually throw five exceptional athletes on the floor and if they get going they can beat anyone on a given night. They're not always the most skilled but they are always uber athletic.

Matchups matchups plain and simple!

 

[JohnKBA]

One thing i dont want to hear from uk fans is that they are everybodys superbowl inconference. Cause if thats the case why didn't South Carolina play with the same effort against them than Duke.?

I'll give a reply to this one that I'm sure will be very well received;

They did, we are just a much better team than Duke.

Sarcasm implied

 

[Cue Card]

The post season has been one big egg laying party for the ACC. Does that mean they were overrated? IDK, maybe. I do know that the brand of ACC basketball san Virginia is usually an exciting brand to watch, and I also know a ton of the kids who play in the ACC have futures as professional basketball players. When you consider less than 2% of all student-athletes become professional athletes, that tells me the ACC basketball conference is top notch.

 

[KerryRhodes]

I'll give a reply to this one that I'm sure will be very well received;

They did, we are just a much better team than Duke.

Sarcasm implied

Duke had 8 McDonald's all Americans.
Scar has 1 or 2.
No excuses to give up 65 SECOND HALF points and lose.
Karma on Coach K for not properly suspending Tripper.

 

[JohnKBA]

Duke had 8 McDonald's all Americans.
Scar has 1 or 2.
No excuses to give up 65 SECOND HALF points and lose.
Karma on Coach K for not properly suspending Tripper.

Ultimately the lack of a true PG really cost Duke vs USC jr. They weren't equipped to handle the kind of defensive pressure South Carolina brings, especially the physicality. I really don't think there was an answer available to them yesterday. With the rosters as they are, Duke was simply not going to win that game - except nobody realized it until after the fact.

 

[kyjeff1]

One thing i dont want to hear from uk fans is that they are everybodys superbowl inconference. Cause if thats the case why didn't South Carolina play with the same effort against them than Duke.?

They did.

 

[HoptownCat93]

Ultimately the lack of a true PG really cost Duke vs USC jr. They weren't equipped to handle the kind of defensive pressure South Carolina brings, especially the physicality. I really don't think there was an answer available to them yesterday. With the rosters as they are, Duke was simply not going to win that game - except nobody realized it until after the fact.

They had a Freshman that Coach K talked into reclassifying in 2015. Played some good minutes last year. Then that player was pushed out due to the big incoming 2016 class.

Derryck Thornton seemed like he might have been Duke's missing piece as a true Point Guard this season, and that is truly karma.

 

[zipp]

...Sometimes, weird shit happens in a one and done tournament...

I've made a similar argument in a different context regarding coaching. Many fans argue that the NCAA tourney is the ultimate indicator of whether your coach is underperforming. Take a guy like Tony Bennett at Virginia. He has a system that wins consistently and often against more talented teams. No one can argue that his teams aren't battle tested, but he struggles in the NCAA tourney. That hardly means he's not doing a good job.

The ACC dominated the tourney last year with a 19-7 record IIRC. The same teams (plus one this year, Louisville) and most of the same coaches and players, but this year the ACC is overrated? Ain't buyin' it. This year's NCAA result simply isn't confirming the ACC's standing as a basketball conference.

"Why" is a different discussion...

 

[Rollem Cards]

I think the $EC doesn't play as hard against uk because for 75 years, they been told "Kentucky is the best in the $EC. You ain't going to beat them".

So, they don't expect to beat uk, therefore they don't.

But they don't know they "can't" beat Duke, UVA, UL etc.

Yeah, it's a stretch. But Jeezzz, they look like world beaters.....until they play uk.

 

[JohnKBA]

I've made a similar argument in a different context regarding coaching. Many fans argue that the NCAA tourney is the ultimate indicator of whether your coach is underperforming. Take a guy like Tony Bennett at Virginia. He has a system that wins consistently and often against more talented teams. No one can argue that his teams aren't battle tested, but he struggles in the NCAA tourney. That hardly means he's not doing a good job.

The ACC dominated the tourney last year with a 19-7 record IIRC. The same teams (plus one this year, Louisville) and most of the same coaches and players, but this year the ACC is overrated? Ain't buyin' it. This year's NCAA result simply isn't confirming the ACC's standing as a basketball conference.

"Why" is a different discussion...

This is where fans fall into the trap of "it's all about March." For the real, true "big boy" programs - Duke, U of L, UNC, Kansas, UK...I think that is mostly true. That doesn't mean you have to win the title every year, but mixing in a Final Four, consistently getting through the first weekend, etc is a reasonable expectation for the elite schools IMO.

For a school like Virginia, I'd argue Bennett has been wildly successful. Same with Brey at ND. If you're a South Carolina fan, Frank Martin is your hero. I think there are degrees of acceptable success levels dependent on the school, and that's ok. And to extend that point, regular season success counts at some places. If you're at a non traditional power and consistently have your team seeded on the 4-5 line or higher, that's pretty impressive.

In all likelihood, the ACC will be right back in the mix with multiple sweet 16 teams next year. I'm glad the SEC has looked better than in the past - hopefully people noticed that it's not just UK that can compete with the very best teams, but I'd also like to see some sustainability.

 

[NothinButNylon]

I think the $EC doesn't play as hard against uk because for 75 years, they been told "Kentucky is the best in the $EC. You ain't going to beat them".

So, they don't expect to beat uk, therefore they don't.

But they don't know they "can't" beat Duke, UVA, UL etc.

Yeah, it's a stretch. But Jeezzz, they look like world beaters.....until they play uk.

I have to agree with you.. it is a stretch. I understand that you don't watch all the SEC games (neither do I), but it appears to me that each SEC team plays at least as hard, if not harder, against UK then they do anyone else in the conference. It is one of their very few chances to get a quality win in the SEC. I know, USC looked good against Duke, but they actually have a good team believe it or not. Duke is better no doubt though.

 

[BooneCo_Card]

Ultimately the lack of a true PG really cost Duke vs USC jr. They weren't equipped to handle the kind of defensive pressure South Carolina brings, especially the physicality. I really don't think there was an answer available to them yesterday. With the rosters as they are, Duke was simply not going to win that game - except nobody realized it until after the fact.

Spot on. Duke could not handle the physicality of the Gamecocks w/o the ACC whistle to protect them. South Carolina plays a lot like Pittsburgh did in the old BE. One or two offensive threats and everybody bangs.

But what do I know? I had them losing to Marquette.

 

[kyjeff1]

I think the $EC doesn't play as hard against uk because for 75 years, they been told "Kentucky is the best in the $EC. You ain't going to beat them".

So, they don't expect to beat uk, therefore they don't.

But they don't know they "can't" beat Duke, UVA, UL etc.

Yeah, it's a stretch. But Jeezzz, they look like world beaters.....until they play uk.

LMAO.

 

[JohnKBA]

Spot on. Duke could not handle the physicality of the Gamecocks w/o the ACC whistle to protect them. South Carolina plays a lot like Pittsburgh did in the old BE. One or two offensive threats and everybody bangs.

But what do I know? I had them losing to Marquette.

Ha, so did I, and I watch them play several times a year.

This goes back to the convo that happens here occasionally about how bad the SEC is - as a whole, I think even the most ardent SEC fans will admit that the conference is weak, especially compared to the ACC. The coaches are mediocre, fan support is pretty blah, etc. But they recruit lots of athletes and play a very physical brand of ball. You could tell Duke was really flustered with how aggressive the USC guys were on the defensive end.

 

[ThroughBlue]

But what do I know? I had them losing to Marquette.

Me too

 

[Rockfly78]

I've made a similar argument in a different context regarding coaching. Many fans argue that the NCAA tourney is the ultimate indicator of whether your coach is underperforming. Take a guy like Tony Bennett at Virginia. He has a system that wins consistently and often against more talented teams. No one can argue that his teams aren't battle tested, but he struggles in the NCAA tourney. That hardly means he's not doing a good job.

The ACC dominated the tourney last year with a 19-7 record IIRC. The same teams (plus one this year, Louisville) and most of the same coaches and players, but this year the ACC is overrated? Ain't buyin' it. This year's NCAA result simply isn't confirming the ACC's standing as a basketball conference.

"Why" is a different discussion...

I wanted to bring this up in the other thread (the one that got locked). Zipp you have always argued that the SEC does nothing to prepare Kentucky for the tournament. Basically saying that we spend the winter snacking on cupcakes but then run into trouble playing quality teams in the NCAA tourney. I've counter argued that Kentucky succeeds in the NCAA tourney in spite of its conference.

But something that was overlooked is style of play. What we just saw was 3 of 5 SEC teams advance further than 8 of 9 teams from a stronger conference. If you watched those games you would have noticed that the physical aggressor largely came out on top. For instance, Duke was overwhelmingly more talented than SC but they could not deal with the physical nature of the game. Arkansas gave UNC tons of trouble with their physical play as well. I'm just using these two as examples but the tournament as a whole has been super physical and the refs are allowing it. I would say that this is detrimental to the ACC teams and I think the results back that up. Kentucky is accustomed to those bar fights in Fayetteville and Gainesville and we are better prepared for what we are facing now.

Louisville fans should know about this all too well. For years the big east was a rock fight while everyone else played finesse (Pittsburgh and cincy hint hint). So I think the less talented SEC has been excellent in preparing Kentucky for the tourney. It didn't seem so in January but with time brings clarity.

 

[zipp]

...something that was overlooked is style of play. What we just saw was 3 of 5 SEC teams advance further than 8 of 9 teams from a stronger conference. If you watched those games you would have noticed that the physical aggressor largely came out on top.

...I would say that this is detrimental to the ACC teams and I think the results back that up. Kentucky is accustomed to those bar fights in Fayetteville and Gainesville and we are better prepared for what we are facing now...

I'll make the same response I made in another thread to "theorists"--most of them in that thread who were U of L fans--about this past weekend's results...

Whatever theory you wanna advance has to hold up against ALL results, not just the ones you wanna explain. IOW, how does your theory explain LAST year's NCAA results? And does it jive with the thirty games played during the 2017 regular season?

Keep in mind too that during a short time frame, a year or so, you have most of the same players and coaches in all of those games.

My explanation and one I'm standing by until I hear a better one... There's noise in the data, and two days' results tell very little. Not nothing, but very little. If this is an SEC-ACC debate, maybe that the SEC is slightly better than I've been giving it credit for, and the ACC is not quite as good. That doesn't mean that one conference isn't still significantly better in basketball than the other...

 

[zipp]

Here's another example of how a limited amount of data can distort your conclusions...

The ACC went 9-5 against the Big Ten in this year's "challenge" contests; yet, the Big Ten has three teams in the Sweet 16 vs. one for the ACC. And last year's (2015) challenge was won by the Big Ten 8-6 even though the ACC dominated the postseason.

You might THINK a weekend's worth of games is a lotta data. But when results bounce around like this, you're wrong. And obviously, one or two games tell even less...

 

[KerryRhodes]

Starting with 1999. Here are conferences that got 2 teams in the FF that DIDNT win the Title;

1999-MSU/OSU. Champion UCONN
2002-KU/OU. Champion MD
2003-KU/Texas. Champion Cuse
2004-GT/Duke. Champion UCONN
2005-MSU/Illinois. Champion UNC
2009-UCONN/Nova. Champion UNC
2014-uofk/UF. Champion UCONN
2015-MSU/Wisc. Champion Duke
2016. UNC/Cuse. Champion Nova

So just because a conference has more teams left doesn't mean theyre better.
They had a 50% chance of winning the Title vs 25% and failed.

 

[JohnKBA]

Starting with 1999. Here are conferences that got 2 teams in the FF that DIDNT win the Title;

1999-MSU/OSU. Champion UCONN
2002-KU/OU. Champion MD
2003-KU/Texas. Champion Cuse
2004-GT/Duke. Champion UCONN
2005-MSU/Illinois. Champion UNC
2009-UCONN/Nova. Champion UNC
2014-uofk/UF. Champion UCONN
2015-MSU/Wisc. Champion Duke
2016. UNC/Cuse. Champion Nova

So just because a conference has more teams left doesn't mean theyre better.
They had a 50% chance of winning the Title vs 25% and failed.

So by this logic Kerry, whichever conference wins the title is the best conference every year, right? I don't necessarily think you're wrong, just trying to nail down the crux of your argument.

 

[Rockfly78]

I'll make the same response I made in another thread to "theorists"--most of them in that thread who were U of L fans--about this past weekend's results...

Whatever theory you wanna advance has to hold up against ALL results, not just the ones you wanna explain. IOW, how does your theory explain LAST year's NCAA results? And does it jive with the thirty games played during the 2017 regular season?

Keep in mind too that during a short time frame, a year or so, you have most of the same players and coaches in all of those games.

My explanation and one I'm standing by until I hear a better one... There's noise in the data, and two days' results tell very little. Not nothing, but very little. If this is an SEC-ACC debate, maybe that the SEC is slightly better than I've been giving it credit for, and the ACC is not quite as good. That doesn't mean that one conference isn't still significantly better in basketball than the other...

I can get on board with your last paragraph. There's even some humility in there! Welcome to the fold my dude.

 

[Rockfly78]

Here's another example of how a limited amount of data can distort your conclusions...

The ACC went 9-5 against the Big Ten in this year's "challenge" contests; yet, the Big Ten has three teams in the Sweet 16 vs. one for the ACC. And last year's (2015) challenge was won by the Big Ten 8-6 even though the ACC dominated the postseason.

You might THINK a weekend's worth of games is a lotta data. But when results bounce around like this, you're wrong. And obviously, one or two games tell even less...

I don't like the word "data" when discussing sports. I prefer to look at the games. The product on the floor and the competition itself. I know that data is conclusive. But you can't experience a movie by mearly reading the script.

Data tells us the gap is wide. But watching live ball reveals intangibles that closes the gap. Venue atmosphere, game strategy, fatigue, physicality, injury, officiating, etc. I myself have been guilty of dogging the SEC and B10 this year. It proved to be ill conceived.

 

[KerryRhodes]

So by this logic Kerry, whichever conference wins the title is the best conference every year, right? I don't necessarily think you're wrong, just trying to nail down the crux of your argument.

Quite the contrary.
Whether UNC wins the Title, doesnt take away the fact that the ACC was the toughest this season.

Who in the sweet 16 could have won the regular season ACC ?
Kansas, UCLA, Oregon. Arizona

Who in the SS, would have not received an at large bid or a lower seed?
Butler, Scar, Xavier, Baylor, Gongzaga, Michigan

 

[JohnKBA]

Quite the contrary.
Whether UNC wins the Title, doesnt take away the fact that the ACC was the toughest this season.

Who in the sweet 16 could have won the regular season ACC ?
Kansas, UCLA, Oregon. Arizona

Who in the SS, would have not received an at large bid or a lower seed?
Butler, Scar, Xavier, Baylor, Gongzaga, Michigan

That's in conflict with your earlier post though. I figured you were trying to say something different but it came across wrong. I follow you now.

 

[JohnKBA]

I don't like the word "data" when discussing sports. I prefer to look at the games. The product on the floor and the competition itself. I know that data is conclusive. But you can't experience a movie by mearly reading the script.

Data tells us the gap is wide. But watching live ball reveals intangibles that closes the gap. Venue atmosphere, game strategy, fatigue, physicality, injury, officiating, etc. I myself have been guilty of dogging the SEC and B10 this year. It proved to be ill conceived.

Man, I am a HUGE advanced metrics guy. I love numbers. I'm such a nerd I pay for KenPom and use it for everything from betting to tourney pools to conversations about team x vs team y.

Clearly though, sports is about more than just numbers, and that's what makes it great - especially a crapshoot like the tourney.

 

[zipp]

What you're saying in lieu of or in addition to data is you like the "eye test." That's inherently subjective unless you have some sort of way to ground it in objectivity, e.g., a panel of evaluators, blind samples, repetition, etc.

SEC fans see beauty in the SEC when no one else does. You're never gonna get anywhere with that type of analysis.

"Elite program," my a$$...