Get Fvck in here you ACC apologist.
This is ridiculous. ND IS terrible,
Tell me again how the ACC IS good?
Gimme a fvcking break
This is ridiculous. ND IS terrible,
Tell me again how the ACC IS good?
Gimme a fvcking break
Wake Forest is getting dominated by a HORRIBLE Nd team:
- Thread starter JackStorm
- Start date
Now am I crazy or didn't this Wake juggernaut just beat the vaunted Dookies?
Lmao. They're so fvcking overrated and I look forward to gloating on here when their sorry asses get sent home early.
At this point…as brutal as a critic as I am….
It’s fvcking laughable. I strongly urge any ACC FANBOYS not to post until they get a good win this week
The mighty SEC is 3-16 vs ranked teams in non conference. Maybe it’s time to focus some of that brutal criticism toward your own league. 🤣
Last edited:
lol and just like that Wake is on the wrong side of the bubble. Hunter Sallis shot his wad a little too early.
I think there are 5 for sure. I'd lean toward making Florida 6 but both they and Miss St have paper thin resumes.
In this order:
Tennessee
Auburn
Florida
UK
Alabama
S. Carolina
Miss St
Some people would have Bama higher, but not me, they are very flawed away from home. Florida, South Carolina and Mississippi State are better than most want to believe. I think Florida is better than UK and it's simply because Todd Golden knows who his best players are and he plays them. Their guards are elite.
I don't think that conference pride is that strong with fans of ACC team like the homos or the SEC and B1G. Who gives a shit if Syracuse is good or bad if you are a Duke fan or unc fan? I get being a Carl's Jr fan, you have to rely on Georgia and Alabama in football and Kentucky and for a short time, Florida in basketball. So all yoj have is conference pride. Which is sad.
No conference pride here. Fvck'em all! I want to win the B1G by 4-5 games.
The only time I defend the B1G is when some idiot tries to say Purdue is only 25-3 because they haven't beaten anyone when we still have the #3 SOS in the country.
And yet the SEC will get 8+ teams in the tourney...how is that possible with such a poor showing (according to you) in the non conference?? Almost like those early Nov/Dec games mean jack...
The way all these ACC fans are coming out to defend their conference would say otherwise...just look at all the threads on this board regarding which conference is the best...if you say the ACC sucks (which it does), everyone comes out of the woodwork to tell you otherwise.
Also, like I personally have stated numerous times in all these threads, I hope the SEC craps down their leg in the NCAAs. I actively root against all SEC teams (unless they are playing Louisville or IU)...I couldn't care less about tourney performance.
But that does not preclude my ability to say the ACC blows.
I think so many get stuck conference honking, because we have so many dudes on here that are just waiting to discredit your team for who they beat and who they lost to, or the fact that your team would have way more losses if they played in X conference.
Are you seriously arguing that the committee doesn't take non-con games into account?
Also, it's not like they're going to have a bunch of 1-2 seeds. You don't have to kill it to earn a 6-10 seed.
Its called the Duke hangover.
How is Duke "overrated"? They aren't really being talked about much in the media. No one's comparing them to Purdue or UConn or Houston. Most talking heads are saying they're a possible Final 4 team just like Kentucky.
Not saying that in the slightest (and you already know this based upon our conversation in the other threads regarding this exact topic)...
The point is you think non conference performance directly relates to the strength of a conference. As you are well aware, in my opinion, these Nov/Dec games mean nothing when determining the overall strength of a conference.
If they did, then again, why is the SEC rated so highly in all metrics, and is mostly like getting 8 or more teams in the tournament, when according to you, they performed poorly in the non con? What is boosting the conference's metrics? Sure as heck can't be the non con if they are performing as poorly as you indicate.
What matters is how teams/conferences are performing in late Feb/early March. Nothing from Nov/Dec tells you anything about how a conference will be performing 4 months later. Nothing.
The SEC gamed the NET system by scheduling a weaker NC SOS and more Quad 4 games get over it.
Duke and UNC only played 5 Quad 4 games, Cuse and FSU only has played 5 Quad 4 games.
SC played 9 Quad 4 games, LSU has played 8 Quad 4 games and Ole Miss played 7 Quad 4 games.
Home Court advantage is out of control this season. I don't care if it's not showing up as much in the stats, but what seemingly happened every once in a while is now happening damn near every game. Look at the swings between games home and away in the ACC. I didn't watch the game so no I have no idea what happened, but the trend is STRONG.
The ACC is not as bad as people/computers say, just as the Big East and some other mid majors are no where near as good as people/computers say. Those two are the most glaring misconceptions in all the recent conference talk. This of course is just my opinion.
Then why the heck doesn't every D1 high major program schedule that way in order to "game" the NET system?
If it is as simplistic as you say (which it isn't in the slightest), every single high major program would schedule that way.
And if you are right (which you aren't), then shame on the ACC for being too stupid to "game" the system.
When you say "It's almost like Nov/Dec games mean jack" in reference to the number of teams they're getting into the tourney, it sure seems to imply that you think those games won't mean "jack" when they select the field.
Again, you're only making this argument because the SEC didn't have a great non-con. No way would you be taking this angle otherwise. It's ridiculous to pretend like those games are meaningless a few months later, or to think you can judge the strength of a league based solely on games played in conference.
Btw, the SEC isn't really that highly rated by the computers, relative to other power conferences. It's well below the Big 12 on Kenpom, and also below the Big East and Big 10. And most people don't think that highly of the Big 10.
What signs are there of the vast improvement you're talking about throughout the league? I assume you're mostly talking about Kentucky, since they have more young players than most. So if they're so vastly improved, why did they lose to an average Gonzaga team at home recently? Can't blame that one on a tough conference.
The SEC gamed the net by scheduling quad 4 opponents? That makes zero sense. You actually go backwards if you do that and don't blow them out by 40.
The only way you game the net, is doing what Michigan state did, just schedule a bunch of tough opponents. You only have to beat 1 or two, which is exactly what they did.
They have 11 losses, just lost back to back games at home to Iowa and Oh state. Lost at home to James Madison too.
They lost to Oregon, Indiana, Tx Tech, Arizona, Tennessee, Wiscy twice, @ Minnesota, @ Northwestern, @ Illinois and Memphis.
Their best wins aside from Baylor and Illinois (both at home) are sweeps of Maryland and Penn St. They beat Butler, Rutgers and Minnesota.
Yeah, they have 8 quad 1 wins, but most of them are teams like Penn State, @ Iowa and Minnesota. That is the definition of gaming the system.
No one is defending the ACC like that. The ACC isn't good this year last year or maybe 5 years ago but they fared well in the tournament overall.
I asked this earlier, how do you decide what conference is the best, OOC wins, post season play? All these conference homers and the ones doing all the talking are the fans of teams that never won anything.
Since nobody is playing the same schedule and the metrics are easily gamed, I think you have to look at how many teams are good enough to get into the tournament from each league, how many 1-4 seeds each league has and how many legit FF teams are in each conference.
Not true. The NET uses scoring margin so scheduling terrible teams and running them off the floor helps NET ratings.
Yes, if you run them off the floor, that's the part that would benefit you, but it’s a risk, right, because what if you don't blow those teams out?
To me, it's more of a risk, because it's not that easy to blow teams out in November and December and eventually, you are going to end up playing good teams in conference and if you lose to those good teams, you just screwed yourself.
I give you two examples: Florida and Ole Miss.
Florida is playing really well in league play, but since their pre-con schedule was meh, it is killing them in the NET.
Ole Miss didn’t play any quad 1 teams in the pre-con, went undefeated against shit competition and are now losing a lot of games. They aren't even on the bubble now.
Give me some examples of SEC teams that have gamed the system by playing Q4 competition. I'm not sering them.
Again, Michigan State has 11 losses, beat 2 real teams and is still a projected 8 seed. THAT is a joke. But, they have at least 3 more losses coming, maybe 4, so they might end up out anyway.
Florida is 28th in the NET and their non-con SOS is a respectable 104th.
As you imply, Ole Miss' problem is they looked meh against bad teams in the non-conf. That is a risk but if you are a good team, that shouldn't happen. But even with that, their resume is really weak.
I didn't say any SEC teams gamed the NET. The link I provided was about the Big 12 doing it (they did).
I guess, but the BIG12 is loaded with quad 1 teams, so it almost doesn't matter what they do in the pre con.
Did you watch the video? The middle and lower end of the pack in the Big 12 gamed the system. That caused all of them to have relatively high net rankings. So unlike other leagues, when you win a road game at damn near anyone else in that league (whether they are good or not), it's a Q1 win. Hell, a home win against some is a Q2 win.
Hence why people are saying they gamed the system. I don't really give a shit because my team still has the most Q1 and Q2 wins in the country despite playing in an average B1G. But depending on what the committee does, it could impact some bubble teams.
I agree. I root for anyone against UNC, State and really don’t care about the others.
No one is forcing you, it’s called educating you.
Go ahead….dont listen to your 5th grade science teacher trying to explain ice, water and air H20 to you,,,,,you’re right..,,
She’s bogus bro!!! Fvck that!!!!
Just watched it, I heard about what SVP said and yeah, it's very true, but there are so many ways to game the system, that’s just one of them.
I've said it for years, you can't concoct a mathematical algorithm that could possibly adjust for all the different home court atmosphere's, injuries, team development and player effort level.
But, there has to be a way to evaluate teams and this is much better than they eye test.
I still say Michigan State gamed the system too, they just did it the direct opposite way the BIG12 did.
