Why is the ACC so bad in basketball this season?
- Thread starter JackStorm
- Start date
Hahaha...prepare yourself for a brigade of ACC slurpers to come in and tell you that the ACC really isn't bad, and that Duke and UNC have faced a challenging conference schedule, and would be just as good if they were in the Big 12/SEC....
The ACC has been down for a few years now. There’s been a general lack of consistency among the name brand programs where their successes are too staggered and aren’t concurrent. The fall of the Louisville, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh programs is a HUGE factor in this, too. Duke, Carolina, and Virginia have been generally solid, except for a few outliers of seasons. It’s that 4-7 where the conference has way too much turbulence.
the ACC is down but also didn’t do as good a job gaming the system in the non-conference schedule as some of the other big conferences.
That new Duke coach sure is a crybaby & sucks a hell of a d!ck.
You do realize you just posted a moron that claims 6 Mountain West teams are really good right?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Come on, you know…juggernauts like Boise State, New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada…teams that are not ranked
Does anybody actually care about the Cocks? I guess they were kind of interesting for like 5 minutes under Frank Martin.
Your wife told me that the last time you said that, she didn’t feel a thing.
It is. And most of the wins for the ACC were 4 months ago when the star freshmen of the SEC were just getting settled into their dorm rooms
Nah we're giving out quality losses to help the conference. Probably gonna do it tonight too lmao
You're acting like the Cocks are the main reason why the SEC is a good conference, also using that same analytics and facts angle your program has been a hot mess 10x longer than the ACC has been down.
This has been a reoccurring theme for the past 5 seasons. The top-third of the ACC is fine (i.e. 3 Final Fours in the past 2 years). The middle-third of the conference has been a little below average - and the bottom-third of the ACC has been WAY below average, often dragging down the computer rankings of the whole conference.
The SEC is 18-12 versus the ACC this year (60%). There's a lot of mediocrity in the ACC. But, if you take the teams that have winning conference records in both leagues, ACC has actually won 5 of the 7.
UNC > Tennessee
Kentucky > UNC
Virginia > Florida
Clemson > Alabama
Clemson > South Carolina
Wake Forest > Florida
Florida > Pittsburgh
The SEC is 18-12 versus the ACC this year (60%). There's a lot of mediocrity in the ACC. But, if you take the teams that have winning conference records in both leagues, ACC has actually won 5 of the 7.
UNC > Tennessee
Kentucky > UNC
Virginia > Florida
Clemson > Alabama
Clemson > South Carolina
Wake Forest > Florida
Florida > Pittsburgh
I'm old enough to remember when San Diego State took down the #1 overall seed in the tournament, Alabama, and advanced all the way to the national title game.
UNC, Duke, and Clemson are easily in.
Virginia is a projected 10 seed, while Wake is a projected 11 seed. And then Syracuse and Pitt are on the wrong side of the bubble, but they both have opportunities to inch closer to the right side of the bubble.
UNC and Duke could both make the Final Four. Clemson is a dangerous team. They've got the the dogs to win 2-3 games. And honestly, I'd say the same about Wake Forest. They lost 3 of their first 5 games of the season (didn't have Efton Reid the first month). But, they've been a top 15 team according to BartTorvik since January 1st. If Wake gets in, they could be a very tough 11 seed. They have Sweet 16 potential. The odds are stacked against them, certainly, as they'd have to likely face a 6 and 3 seed to advance to the second weekend. The talent is there, though.
UVA, on the other hand, is doodoo. No confidence in them. If they get in, I'm picking against them. Not a whole lot of confidence in Syracuse or Pitt to do much either, tbh. UNC-Duke-Clemson-Wake, however, are a solid quartet that are all capable of winning multiple games in March.
Didn't realize the SEC was 18-12 against the ACC this year. Didn't even think there was close to 30 games between the two conferences this yr.
I just put no stock whatsoever in these early season Nov/Dec matchups. They literally mean nothing as to how a team has developed, gotten better, gotten worse, and how they ultimately are playing 3-4 months later in late Feb/early March.
I mean, Duke lost to Ark (who was playing without their best player), and Ark is awful. How does that have any bearing three months later on how either of those teams are actually playing now...it means nothing.
To look back and say, "well this conference had this record against this conference 3-4 months ago means that conference is better than what most ppl think (not saying you are doing this, just speaking in general)" is silly. Those games mean squat (not in relation to seeding/resume, but as to how a team/conference is performing 3-4 months later), to be honest.
Certainly the OOC season would tell us more if the games were played in February than November/December. Things change, yes.
But, I also wouldn't say the games mean nothing. Look at the past 5 national champions. Those 5 teams lost a combined 1 game in OOC play. 1 game! That's it. And it was Kansas losing to Dayton on a buzzer-beater.
The SEC is collectively better than the ACC. The middle third is better, and so is the bottom-third. And you could make the argument that the top-third of the SEC is better, too. Certainly 7 games doesn't gives us a whole lot of data points. But, there are arguments to be made that the ACC's top teams are relatively close to the SEC. I might break it down like this:
2nd-Tier Title Contender
Tennessee, UNC
Reasonable Shot at a Final Four
Alabama, Auburn, Duke
FF is possible, but Elite 8 is a more realistic ceiling
Clemson, Kentucky
Capable of a Run to the Sweet 16
Florida, South Carolina, Wake Forest
Just Survive and Advance
Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Virginia (and anyone else that makes it)
I'm giving the SEC a 4-3 edge in terms of teams that have a reasonable shot at playing in the Regional Finals (or 6-4 edge for teams that have a decent shot at making the Sweet 16). That's what I mean when I say the top-third of the ACC is fine. Having watched these teams, I feel like the ACC has 4 really solid teams. Doesn't mean they're all going to the second weekend, but they're all very capable.
Just because the last five champs have played well in non conference games doesn't really prove anything. One would expect a national champion, generally speaking, to have played solidly the majority of the year. That in no way, shape, or form speaks to the strength of a conference. UK was phenomenal in the non conference in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, but the SEC blew chunks. I don't see the relevancy.
Out of curiosity, why would you put Auburn and Bama above UK, when UK just dominated both of those teams, including winning at Auburn, a place impossible to win at, and they did so by double digits? UK also beat UNC, but lost to UT. So 3-1 against those teams. Your opinion, so I am definitely cool with that, just seems like an odd ordering...
This was in response to you saying, "I just put no stock whatsoever in these early season Nov/Dec matchups. They literally mean nothing..." I was simply saying you can get a pretty good glimpse of how capable specific teams are.
Certainly you have to look at the corpus, and not a single game. Auburn's defense affords them a higher margin for error. And you could argue Kentucky/Alabama are reasonably similar in terms of good offense, mediocre defense. I just think Bama's offense is on an entirely different level than anyone in the SEC. And they should have an easier path to get to a Final Four as they won't have to play a 1 seed like UK likely would in the Sweet 16.
I think regardless of what side of the argument one is on (regarding importance of early season non conference games), you can always point to individual teams performance in the non conference.
UK curbstomped UNC and KU in 2022, both of them played for the title, UK was bounced in the first round. That "glimpse" as you alluded to, provided nothing of value.
I believe in its totality, one does not get much out of Nov/Dec games, as these teams are so flippin different nowadays in Feb/March.
Lastly, regarding Bama's offense being on a different level then anyone else in the SEC, I don't think I would subscribe to Bama having an offense that is on a different level then UK.
