Week 19 AP rankings
#10 UConn
#16 Miami
#18 SDSU
#25 FAU
#10 UConn
#16 Miami
#18 SDSU
#25 FAU
Texas.Miami(Fla) game thread...
- Thread starter IUfanBorden
- Start date
Hitting a full court shot rarely ever happens but still counts, and can win a game....and they give you three points.
Maybe not but year after year the ACC outperforms these other conferences who get more consideration based on regular season performances. Maybe winning when it matters should play a part.
They do look good but I think your coach is better than Hurley. A week to prepare I wouldn't be surprised if Miami pulled it off.
TBH Corey I think alot of it is simple match-ups as well. I mean the B10 got 8 in, but only two teams were above a 7-seed. So with that, and outside of Purdue, I felt the B10 pretty much faired as expected.
Nevermind, of course Christian Laettner did it too. Shocker 🙄 lol
What a massive choke by Texas. They were in complete control of that game. Up double digits with Norchad on the bench with 4. And they basically stopped running offense and just went iso ball, and then decided to foul every defensive possession. Hurricanes made like 3 threes in the game and nearly scored 90.
The answer to that is Christian Laettner, 10/10 from the field and 10/10 from the line in the epic elite 8 win over Kentucky.
Already been done my man...Christian Laettner: 10-10 from the field....10-10 from the line.
You football dudes, man....
Hey can we put Miller up there with Laettner and Walton now?
Why would they make a full-court shot illegal? C'mon, dude.
The rule is in plce to keep teams from throwing lob passes over the top of the backboard...Plus, you cannot defend such a pss/shot. Its a rule IMO that is needed, although it eliminates being able to shoot from there. Collateral damage with this one.
They need to spice shit up. Last 2 minutes of the game inside the half court circle is a 4-pointer and inside the opposite end free throw circle is a 5 pointer. 
They need to spice shit up. Last 2 minutes of the game inside the half court circle is a 4-pointer and inside the opposite end free throw circle is a 5 pointer.
Yeah, it is a pretty consistent trend. I mean, let's look at UNC. They DID NOT DESERVE in. No way. But if they did get in they probably a better chance than most of these Big Ten teams moving on. Like I said, it's kind of a trend. Do you think FSU could have won a few games as tough a year as they had? Probably. ACC teams just do better when it matters. Not sure why.
Duke lost in 2nd Round....UVA in 1st round...NC State 1st round....Pitt 2nd round...I mean overall, maybe. Duke, UNC for sure...UVA is hit or miss. FSU has been to a few SW 16's....Lousiville had some nice runs of course under Pitino...Syracuse was hit and miss.
Big 10 struggles due to simply not being athletic enough...Pretty simple.
There are always some teams who will lose early. I don't even pull for the ACC. I wanted Texas to win today for sure. But it's hard to make a case against how the ACC has done in the tournament the last couple of years relative to other conferences who get a bunch of teams in based mainly on how their teams do against the teams in their conference. Their is so much weight on the OOC (not arguing it's not relevant) and then those results can't be overcome. In theory if a conference has a good OOC run and then those teams falter and suck later in the year it doesn't matter because they are only playing each other. It really doesn't make a lot of sense.
Anyway, my only point is going forward a team from the ACC that appears less than a Big Ten or Big 12 school should get the benefit of the doubt since precedence shows those ACC teams probably have a better chance of success.
Miami making a run while the rest faceplant isn’t overperforming by the conference. By that logic, we should be bowing down to whatever league Fla Atlantic is in.
I mean FSU beat Pitt and Miami in Pitt and in Miami. So yeah, I think it’s possible we could have won a game.
I think the league’s overall style is just better suited for March and tournament ball. A lot of shot makers. A lot of athletes. A variety of systems that prepares you for different matchups.
Haha true. I want to be in the Big 10, which is ironic considering this specific convo.
NOW you're making sense!! Preach. And overtime should be a game of horse.They need to spice shit up. Last 2 minutes of the game inside the half court circle is a 4-pointer and inside the opposite end free throw circle is a 5 pointer.
Every year some (or more than just some) ACC team/s make a run. Every year some random team from whatever conference FAU in does not.
But I'm mainly just making fun of the Big Ten here tbh.
The ACC has had 7 programs go to the Elite 8 since 2016. And Louisville could have definitely made it 8 in 2020 if there was a tournament.
And what’s really crazy is in some years it’s been so many ACC teams in the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 that we are knocking each other out so it could be 8 or 9 programs. Hell, one year an entire side of the Elite 8 bracket was ACC.
I’d hope that an ACC team makes a run now and then. There are like 18 teams in the league and they’re loaded with the best athletes the east coast has to offer.
Everybody kissed the ACC’s asses relentlessly for years. It’s kind of funny to see ACC fans pulling the no respect card. I do think the league may have been a bit undervalued last year, but I’m not sure that’s the case this year. Although Miami should have been seeded higher.
Does Miami’s run prove that the league was underrated, or does co-champ Virginia’s 1st round loss to a 13 mean it’s overrated? Obviously neither proves squat. If a league faceplants as a whole, I think we can conclude that they were probably overrated. If it’s a mixed bag, I don’t think you can take much away from it. It’s not like the ACC murdered the tourney field like the Pac-12 did a few years ago.
My point is that once conference season starts teams only play each other. So the Big 12, which IMO was the best conference, only plays each other and gets pumped up regardless of any outcome because they play each other. Lose a bunch of Quad 1 games? No one cares because you get credit for just winning a few of them. So the Quad system is very biased towards a conference that had a strong OOC. That may not necessarily be reflective of how teams are playing at the end of the year. My argument is mainly a knock on how stupid the Quad system is. Teams get killed because of what they did in November and December and if they struggled with Quad 1 games then and their conference is weak they have zero chance to make up for it.
I think the ACC sucked ths year and I don't pull for the conference anyway. But, I do think tournament success should be considered and that again reflects how bad the NET and Quad stuff is.
Sounds like what you want to say is that UNC got screwed. That they were left out due to a weak resume, but should have gotten consideration due to what they did in the tourney last year. For the record, I think North Carolina should have been in the field over some other teams. But I also think that losing Manek was a massive blow and that he masked a lot of their problems last year.
There will never be a way to objectively determine how well teams are playing at the end of the year. And it would be pretty shitty if a team that killed it all year was hammered for having a rough stretch near the end, in favor of some team that got hot for a handful of games.
I don't have a problem with the quad system. I think quality wins/losses throughout the year should always be the main focus when seeding. What I have a problem with is the lack of consistency in their approach. If you're supposedly putting so much emphasis on quad 1 wins, how do you give Houston the Midwest over a team with 10 more quad 1 wins and a similar win % in quad 1 games? Makes no sense. I'm also not a big fan of the NET rankings.
ACC wasn't elite this year. That is abundantly clear. What really holds the conference back, though, is simply the fact that there are way too many subpar teams. 5 of the 15 schools weren't even in the KenPom top 150. Kills stregnth of schedule - and if you're playing 7-8 games against sub-150 opponents, one really bad loss is going to be a scarlet letter for your tournament resume. Such was the case with Clemson and their loss to Louisville.
Think about this. Clemson was one game out from winning the conference regular season title. And they didn't make the tournament. Pitt was also one game out - and they were in the play-in game.
All 4 ACC schools outperformed their seed last year. And similar to Pitt, ND found themselves in the play-in game, even though they were just 1 game out of the league title (they lost a contested battle against Texas Tech in the Round of 32). Miami, as a 10 seed, advanced to the Elite 8. Carolina, as an 8 seed, made it to the NCAA title game. Duke made the FInal Four. This year? Modest, but the only conference that you can really say did better than the ACC, in terms of outperforming their seed, is the Big East.
At least equaled seed expectation (i.e. 4 seed = Sweet 16 or better):
ACC: 4/5
Big East: 4/5
Big Ten: 5/8
Big 12: 4/7
Pac 12: 2/4
SEC: 5/8
Outperformed their seed:
ACC: 2/5 (Miami, Pitt)
Big East: 2/5 (Creighton, UConn)
Big Ten: 2/8 (Michigan State, Penn State)
Big 12: 1/7 (Kansas State)
Pac 12: 0/4
SEC: 2/8 (Auburn, Arkansas)
Kihei was on the take. That's the only logical explanation for that pass
Still think it's crazy that Duke was 19-1 when we had all 8 of our rotational players (we were 8-8 when missing at least 1 player). Only loss was the tightly contested game against Virginia on the road.
Don't feel like we were a top 5 team, even when fully healthy, but I think we were close. Certainly would have been nice to had the services of Mark Mitchell against Tennessee.
Don't feel like we were a top 5 team, even when fully healthy, but I think we were close. Certainly would have been nice to had the services of Mark Mitchell against Tennessee.
Yes, and if they had Zeigler, they probably would have been a 3 seed or higher - so we probably wouldn't have been facing them in the 2nd round anyway.
