Why is the ACC so bad in basketball this season?
- Thread starter JackStorm
- Start date
And what value does your opinion of how teams are playing during league play have?
The non-con helps to give a clearer picture of the strength of each league, and there's no debating that. Focusing solely on games played between conference rivals doesn't tell us a lot.
Obviously teams improve throughout the year. But guess what....they all improve. Not just SEC teams.
This is right. It’s not a top 2 league by any means. But also not below the Mountain West like some are suggesting. The ACC has terrible leadership and they seemingly don’t care at all about doing the NET manipulation on a conference wide scale like other leagues have done.
But there are still 7 top 60 teams and another clump in the 70s/80s. A lot of teams capable of winning an NCAAT game, but also capable of losing to a crappy team.
Everyone is fascinated by metrics and eye tests, up until March, then nothing matters. Any top ACC team can get on a heater and win it all.
We've seen teams squeak in from the conference tournament, had a shit season, and make some noise.
teams get lucky. san diego state didnt win the natty bc frauds eventually all get exposed.
Because how teams are playing in league play at the end of the year give a much better idea as to they type of team they truly are going into the tourney...games in Nov/Dec don't.
All teams do not improve during the year. That is a bad take. Arkansas is example number 1 of plenty of examples of teams getting worse as the season progresses. Not sure why you would say "they all improve." And when did I say this only applies to the SEC?
Also, the ACC, according to you, went 9-2 against the Big 12 in the non con. What kind of a clear picture does that give? One would think the ACC would be on the cusp of getting 8-9 teams in the field using your logic, not 4-5 hahaha.
unc and duke could both make the final four?
It can happen but we all know you guys won't be there.
So what if the SEC flames out in the tourney and the ACC does well, will the ACC be considered better? I like to think tournament success has alot to do with overall conference success.
Development of the players and coaches.
Players get better, the coaches need to know how to make them shine. Teammates. hustle, right place. right passes with someone coming to it.
think of a great band being really tight.
I hope they do. I actively root against all SEC teams in the tourney. Have said this in other threads, was rooting for Duke to beat UT and KU to beat Ark last yr...didn't happen unfortunately.
Speaking only for myself, i don't get any satisfaction out of the SEC performing well in the NCAAs. Is UKs overall performance somehow tied to how the SEC performs??
Do you actively root for ACC teams in the NCAAs (excluding Duke)??
Yes. ACC is 9-3 versus the Big 12. I don't think that means we're better than the Big 12, but it likely means the gap between the ACC and other power conferences isn't enormous.
UConn won all 6 tournament games by double-digits. They exposed everyone. If you think you can luck your way to 5 tournament wins and a national title game, I can't take your opinion seriously.
I think conference honking is ghey. No way in hell I'm rooting for other ACC teams to do well, especially if UNC get's knocked out.
But the way a team plays is a direct reflection of who they're playing. Any team can look like a worldbeater vs a weak opponent. How do you know how weak a conference opponent is if you're throwing out the first 2-3 months of the season? If you're using metrics, those are heavily influenced by early season games.
guys we all know the cookie crumbles unpredictably in sports, but the fact is SO far...THIS season...the cookie has crumbled in the SEC's favor.....heavily
Maybe relative to the ACC. Congrats. The SEC is better than the 5th best league.
Again, the Big 12 was terrible against the ACC...what picture does that paint for you about the overall strength of the Big 12 in relation to the ACC? What personally do you glean from the ACC absolutely dominating the Big 12? Why is the ACC only going to get 4-5 teams in the tourney (as opposed to 8+ from the Big 12) if you are putting so much emphasis on the non conference games shaping which conferences really are the best??
It makes no logical sense. I would never in a million yrs say the ACC is on par with the Big 12 this yr (or last yr). These Nov/Dec games don't mean nearly as much as you think they do.
If you're actually trying to make a fair and rational argument, it makes sense to look at each matchup individually instead of focusing on a record in a small sample.
For example, West Virginia losing to one of the best teams from the ACC by 2 (Virginia) obviously doesn't reflect poorly on the B12. They also lost to another of the ACC's top teams. Top teams from any major conference should be competitive with the last place team in a given league.
Most of the losses were by bottom-feeders. The top five in the Big 12 only played one game vs the ACC and the top three teams played zero. To say the league was "absolutely dominated" based on the results of lesser teams is pretty dumb.
The top 6 in the SEC literally lost to every decent team they played in non-con, other than Tennessee's home win vs Illinois and Kentucky's win vs UNC. With losses to teams like App St and Wilmington. It's not hard to see why you're taking this angle.
Only if those ACC teams beat the teams that took the SEC teams out. 😁
Well, in the words of exit Flagger, the ACC > BIG12 and the SEC > the ACC.
So, it looks to me like the SEC > the ACC > the BIG12. There, it's settled.
Exitflagger:
The non-con helps to give a clearer picture of the strength of each league, and there's no debating that. Focusing solely on games played between conference rivals doesn't tell us a lot.
Dude, just like yesterday, you are defeating your own argument...if the SEC has done as poorly as you say in the non conference (I will take you at face value), then how the heck is the conference rated as highly as they are with 8-9 teams currently tourney bound??
If non con results matter as much as you say they do from Nov/Dec when determining conference strength, how the heck is the SEC going to get all these teams in the tourney with such poor non con results?
Once again you are defeating your own argument dude.
Well, West Virginia beat Kansas and Wva isn't getting in, so that means KU isn’t getting in, right? I mean, obviously Wva is better than KU.
Arkansas beat duke and since Arkansas isn’t getting in, that means duke is no good and they aren't getting in.
Am I doing this right? 🤣
Arkansas beat duke and since Arkansas isn’t getting in, that means duke is no good and they aren't getting in.
Am I doing this right? 🤣
I'm not defeating anything. You're just all over the place.
You can't seriously be arguing that the tourney committee is throwing out non-con results, right? And I didn't say the SEC did really poorly in non-con overall. Just saying the top 6 had a poor record vs solid teams.
Now quote the part that says what you claimed.
You should really just quit while you're behind.
You are, unfortunately...I am sorry you can't see that, but you did the exact same thing yesterday.
I have been crystal clear in my stance. I have not been all over the place at any point in this thread, or the one yesterday. NON CON GAMES PLAYED IN NOV/DEC HAVE NO IMPACT IN RELATION TO HOW A CONFERENCE AS A WHOLE IS PERFORMING 3-4 MONTHS LATER. Even bolded it for you. I have not wavered in the slightest. Sorry if you cannot comprehend.
Dude, the top 6 teams in the SEC make up 75% of the conference that will get bids...what are you even talking about? If the so called top 6 teams in the SEC were awful, according to you, in the non con, how the heck are they rated as highly as they are? How is the conference rated as highly as it is if the top 6 teams struggled in the non con?
Your argument makes no sense dude. Just own it and move on. Sheesh.
You mean the one about Wva beating KU and Arkansas beating duke? That quote???
Or the one to Duke Devils showing the ACC is kicking the BIG12's ass and the SEC has the lead h2h over the ACC?
Nothing I've posted has defeated anything I've said. Sorry if you can't comprehend that, but it isn't rocket science.
Where did I say they were awful in non-con?
It makes no sense to argue that we should consider all games instead of conference games only when determining the strength of a league?
Like your little pal, you should really just quit while you're behind.
I haven't been on this board super long.. but one thing is 100% certain, Flagger hates UK and UK fans more then he enjoys KU winning. He gets exponentially more satisfaction on watching UK lose and arguing with UK fans then he does out of KU winning. Not a shadow of a doubt in my mind.
Heck, he even admitted to creating a profile on Rupp Rafters, just to then get banned. Who does that as an opposing fan of a different team?
Heck, in this very thread, he will gladly pile on UK/SEC at the expense of KU and the Big 12 by promoting the ACCs 9-2 record against the Big 12 to try and prove a point that he later on defeats himself. Beyond comical...
Similar threads
