ACC overrated?

One of the reasons that Duke had a disappointing won-lost record this season was supposedly the strength of competition in the ACC. Many fans feel that the ACC was the strongest conference this season, after a "down" year in 2005-06.

But UNC is the only ACC team that has made it to the Sweet 16, and Clemson is the only ACC team that has made it to the NIT semi-finals. Other "power conference" teams have done much better than the ACC in the post-season tournaments.

Was the ACC overrated in 2006-07 ?

Hi,

The ACC was overrated, on the men's side. I expect that next year the ACC will do better in the NCAA tournament and re-assume its rightful mantel as the BEST conference in the nation.

GO DUKE!

A lot of us Duke fans would like to say it was the toughest conference due to us finishing 8-8. (It makes our record over all look better.) And you can point to the non-conference games record of all the ACC schools (especially the ACC / Big 10 Challenge) to say the ACC was one of if not the best conference. Truth be told if BC was able to survive losing key players, UVA finished on top and Clemson started off undefeated it's hard to say the ACC was dominant. The ACC front office is pulling for UNC to go as far as possible to pull up the average for the conference. But I'll take all the ACC schools losing some extra money in a couple years if it means a tarheel loss.

IMO everyone in the ACC was good enough to beat each other, but no one was dominant enough to be considered a great team. The only ACC teams I had making it to the regionals were Carolina (and I found them vulnerable in the 2nd round) and us (largely wishful thinking). I think the ACC was a great conference the way the 04 pistons were a great team - no great players, but lots of good ones.

I don't think the ACC was overrated. It really was the deepest conference, and deserved the most bids to the dance. But it was not the most top-heavy conference, so it shouldn't have the most slots left in the later rounds.

Besides, aside from Duke, the ACC performed almost exactly as the committee thought it would. The only other two upset losses were Maryland (a #4 losing to #5 Butler) and Virginia (#4 losing to #5 Tennessee). Both games were decided by 3 points.

The other ACC losses were: Georgia Tech (a #10 falling to a #7 by 4 points); VA Tech (#5 losing to a #4, though by more than they should have); and BC (a #7 losing to a #2 by 7 points).

Unfortunately, Duke is the only team that lost before it really should have been in danger, according to the seeds (and according to seeding should have lost to Pitt in the second round). If everything had gone exactly to plan for the committee, including the 4-5 game that weren't really upsets, then yes, the ACC would have 3 teams in the Sweet 16, and then only one in the Elite 8.

As several before me noted, the ACC was overhyped THIS year. I still think we have been, and will be, the premier conference in basketball. But you can't argue with the results from this season. It's not opinion, therory or speculation.

Bay Area brings up a good point, and I'm sure many of us questioned the ACCS strength ourselves, but didn't really want to mention it. Thanks Bay Area for thrwoing it out there. A good question/observation indeed!

The NCAA is not the only judgement. All season long the ACC was better based on what we did non-conference. Saying we weren't good based on a dozen games is ridiculous. The tournament is not an accurate judge of 'who's the best', it is only a judge of 'who's the hottest in March'. Big difference. The SEC and PAC-10 were solidly behind us during the season, and are slightly ahead of us in the NCAA. Of the ACC's 12 teams, 10 were in the postseason and 8 were either in the final 32 or the quarters of the NIT. Except for VTech (to a very tough SIU club) and FSU (at MSU), each postseason loss has been very close.

The big televen is lucky to be alive in the NCAA. The only team that hasn't had to win in the final minutes for the Pac-10 is USC - UCLA and OU both survived really close squeakers to much lower seeded teams to advance. The SEC needed a double overtime and an injury to JR Reynolds for two of their teams to advance. The only difference between us advancing and Pitt was that VCU hit a contested shot against us in the final seconds and missed a wide open shot against them. G'Town squeaked by a struggling BC team.

The ACC had four OOC wins against top-2 seeds - 3 by ACC teams that finished .500 or worse in the league - more than anyone else. I'm not sure that the ACC was quite as good as everyone thought, but top-to-bottom it was still the best conference in the land.

The ACC was the toughest top to bottom no doubt. However, we only have UNC-CH as a national power. Everyone else was a top 15-30 type team. Our performance in the NCAA's and NIT's prove that. Everyone (aside from the holes and Duke) lost in the second round putting them as a top 17-32 team. All the NIT folks made it to the third round putting them in the top 50 or so (and include Duke in that top 50).

So, that's 1 top 10 team, 5 top 17-32 teams and 4 top 50 teams. For a total of 10 teams that can pretty much beat anyone on any given night with UNC-CH being expected to beat anyone.

I don't see how that is "weak" or "overrated". Now, if everyone had predicted that the ACC would have 4 title contenders this year...we would be overrated.

Pacman got it right.

Top end not as strong as people thought, but the middle perhaps stronger. No way the Big Ten teams were as strong as the ACC from 3-9 or so. Look at the NIT. NC State lost a tough game to a very good West Virginia squad. Clemson is in the semifinals.

In sum, I don't think the ACC was "overrated" this year at all.