The ACC - What am I missing here?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I understand the ACC has the best RPI this year. Many of the talking head "experts" still consider it the top conference in hoops. I'm not arguing with the numbers, but when you look at the conference, it seems THIS would actually be a down year for the ACC. They're top heavy as usual with Duke and UNC, but beyond them, what's so impressive about the conference this year? You've got good tournament teams in Clemson and Miami, but the usual major players just aren't there. BC is normally a heavy hitter, and they sit at the cellar. Maryland, Wake, Ga Tech, and NC State are frequent tournament teams, and all will be sitting at home this year. Va Tech had a solid squad, but they'll be in the NIT. FSU is often more competitive than they were this year. UVA is where they're at as per usual.

Only four teams in the tournament for a conference many are quick to call the best. I'm just not seeing it.

[buckeye_in_sc]

I live it everyday...

I hear how good they are blah, blah, blah...based on number of bids Big East is the Daddy...

but I am not impressed with the ACC and I hear about how they own the Big 10 in the challenge...that is November it is now March...play it now and things might be different...

I think Big East and Pac 10 are probably the top...

of course I still can't believe the Big East got EIGHT FUCKING BIDS...

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Oh, by no means am I going to put the Big 10 ahead of the ACC...but when I look at that conference, I see some usual major players that just aren't in the picture this year. The Pac10, Big East, and even Big12 look more impressive to me this year than the ACC.

[indyfrisco]

It's the Atlantic Coast bias I am sure.

[MuchoBulls]

of course I still can't believe the Big East got EIGHT FUCKING BIDS...

The Big East deserved 7 bids. Not too sure that Villanova should be in there though.

[Dinsdale]

of course I still can't believe the Big East got EIGHT FUCKING BIDS...

The Big East deserved 7 bids. Not too sure that Villanova should be in there though.

And in reality, the PAC10 probably "deserved" 4. But he ACC and PAC are kind of the NCAA's cash-cows in hoops... so there'ya'go.

[King Crimson]

The Pac10, Big East, and even Big12 look more impressive to me this year than the ACC.

Big XII had a lot of average teams in the 30-55 rpi range. some nice OOC wins, but hardly the Big XII of 01-02.

Kansas can beat anybody if they play together, and UT has great guard play....other than that i doubt you see any XII team in the Sweet 16.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Kansas can beat anybody if they play together, and UT has great guard play....other than that i doubt you see any XII team in the Sweet 16.

Beyond Duke and UNC, the same could be said for the ACC.

[indyfrisco]

Wouldn't most agree that the confeences these days due to parity have the same thing? Top heavy with 2-3 great teams with some average and then the few cellar-dwellars?

[Dinsdale]

Wouldn't most agree that the confeences these days due to parity have the same thing? Top heavy with 2-3 great teams with some average and then the few cellar-dwellars?

No, I wouldn't agree at all. Washington and Cal would have probably rolled through the B11 with winning records. They were a freaking joke in the PAC.


Again, there was only one losing team in the PAC10.

[indyfrisco]

I'm not saying every conference is equal. Far from that. I am saying every conference has a couple teams at the top of the RPI, a few in the top-middle, a few ok teams and then a few shit teams.

The PAC has UCLA and average teams after that. You use record as your base for quality of teams in your conference. Your second place team (Stanford) had a record of 26-7. That was a couple games better than the Big XII's sixth best team in A&M. Looking at the PAC's OOC SOS; it wasn't too spectacular. Hell, you're saying your 9th place team had a winning record. Well, Kal was 10-2 OOC with it's 10 wins coming against teams who 99% of CBB fans have never even heard of.

There's a reason the PAC has a lower RPI ranking than the ACC and XII. It is a good conference who had a good year for their standards. Quit acting like they were shit on.

[Dinsdale]

Quit acting like they were shit on.

And in reality, the PAC10 probably "deserved" 4.

When people don't agree with your points, you decided the best response is to start flat-out lying, then adress the points you wish they made?

C'mon, dude -- you're better than that.

[indyfrisco]

You said Kal would roll through the Big 10 based simply upon the fact they had a winning record (16-15 I believe w/o looking it up again?) Yes, they were a joke in the PAC-10 based upon their record there. But their inflated 10-2 OOC record is what you are hanging you hat on as being a team who could roll the Big 10? Please.

Spins, find a new avenue. This one osn't working for you.

[Dinsdale]

You said Kal would roll through the Big 10 based simply upon the fact they had a winning record

If that's how that read, then I apologize.

Cal would fuck up most of the B11 is my opinion after seeing Cal, and several B11 games. The B11 is generally a pretty darn respectable hoops conference at minimum, but this year, it just seemed weak to me. A classic Haves/have nots scenario.The strong feasted on the weak. Because the bottom-half teams really sucked. That isn't the case in the PAC.


Sidenote -- there's some big-balled ballers on Purdue. Look like they have no business playing hoops... I like that.

Yes, they were a joke in the PAC-10 based upon their record there. But their inflated 10-2 OOC record is what you are hanging you hat on as being a team who could roll the Big 10?

Again, it's based on what I've seen and the sports fans' "gut feeling." I did mention the OOC, but it was a supporting fact, rather than the entire basis.

And let's face it -- few are the teams that give a fuck about OOC scheduling. There's a few, but besides UCLA, Gonzaga, Zona, and maybe Duke and Kansas, who goes out and goes balls out OOCing every year? I'm sure there's more, but the point being, not many. It's like SEC football on steroids -- what's the point, when you can dance anyway?

[Degenerate]

And let's face it -- few are the teams that give a fuck about OOC scheduling. There's a few, but besides UCLA, Gonzaga, Zona, and maybe Duke and Kansas, who goes out and goes balls out OOCing every year? I'm sure there's more, but the point being, not many. It's like SEC football on steroids -- what's the point, when you can dance anyway?

Michigan State (the gold standard of OOC big games the last 10-15 years)
Kentucky
Oklahoma
North Carolina
Louisville
Indiana
Butler
Texas

And there are quite a few others, i'm sure. All those schools, year in and year out, put together solid OOC schedules with at least 3-4 name schools as opponents. Often against each other. Kentucky has played UNC, L'Ville, Indiana, UCLA every year for the past four, IIRC. And that doesn't count the preseason tournaments they are all willing to play. People who bother to watch college basketball in November and December instead of jumping on after the Super Bowl are fully aware of this.

[Dinsdale]

Like I said, "I'm sure there's more," but those were the ones that jumped to mind immediately.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Wouldn't most agree that the confeences these days due to parity have the same thing? Top heavy with 2-3 great teams with some average and then the few cellar-dwellars?

No, I wouldn't agree at all. Washington and Cal would have probably rolled through the B11 with winning records. They were a freaking joke in the PAC.


Again, there was only one losing team in the PAC10.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the bottom dwellers in the Big East would have rolled through the Big Ten. But I do think the seventh place team in the Big East (Pitt) would have finished no worse than second in the Big Ten.

Yes, the Big East is a bigger conference, but the overall numbers don't account for that level of disparity. It's roughly a 3:2 ratio between the Big East and the Big Ten, actually slightly less than that.

[Dinsdale]

The BE was also top-heavy, but in a conference that size, you can't discount the top teams because of the bottom teams.

That was a very strong conference this year. Sure, there were pansies (unlike all but one PAC team), but that league is so large, it's inevitable that there's bottom feeders, and that shouldn't detract from the strength of the conference.

Just my overpriced $0.02. I just thought the PAC and BE were ead and shoulders above the rest. I also think that Dook has been underrated. They had more L's than they should have, but when they're executing, they can play with anyone.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the bottom dwellers in the Big East would have rolled through the Big Ten. But I do think the seventh place team in the Big East (Pitt) would have finished no worse than second in the Big Ten.

Yes, the Big East is a bigger conference, but the overall numbers don't account for that level of disparity. It's roughly a 3:2 ratio between the Big East and the Big Ten, actually slightly less than that.

A healthy Pitt team (like they are now, and oh btw, a solid FF sleeper pick for all you bracket junkies out there)… is a Top 10-15 team and would have rolled through the Lil 11… which is another joke of a conference this year (like the Pathetic 10)

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Uh huh. Get back with me when they get rolled by the Spartans in the second round.

Jamie Dixon = Sweet 16s.

Tom Izzo = Final Fours.

[Mook]

I also think that Dook has been underrated.

Duke underrated?????? Duke is a good team.....they were ranked in the top 5-7 much of the year,they are a two seed, they are on TV three times a day.........Duke hasn't been underrated since about 1986.....

[Dinsdale]

Duke hasn't been underrated since about 1986.....

And probably for the first time since 1986, I thibk the Duke cock sucking polls have underrated them.

But that's why they play the games, right?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'll buy it.

If Dook Vitale hasn't picked the Blue Devils to win it all, they must be flying under the radar.