Breaking News!

[grossbus]

Bilas just said that Duke is probably the best team in the ACC. Of course, he didn't dwell on it, but he did say it.

[roywhite]

Bilas just said that Duke is probably the best team in the ACC. Of course, he didn't dwell on it, but he did say it.

I'll testify...heard him say it.

Had some nice words about Nolan Smith.

[Bob Green]

My desire is to hear Jay Bilas say Duke is the best team in the ACC on March 14, 2010, at the conclusion of the ACC Championship Game. Our first big challenge to the "best team in the ACC" claim will take place on January 3, 2010.

[roywhite]

My desire is to hear Jay Bilas say Duke is the best team in the ACC on March 14, 2010, at the conclusion of the ACC Championship Game. Our first big challenge to the "best tean in the ACC" claim will take place on January 3, 2010.

I certainly agree with the sentiment, but Duke's excellent performance in the ACC Tournament over the last decade seems to count for very little compared to all the commentary about early NCAA exits.

[77devil]

Jay made a similar statement in the studio last week with Reese, Digger and Hubert with the same stipulation "with Nolan Smith on the floor." Doug Gotlieb was surprisingly complementary tonight(if very briefly) as well citing Miles' play.

However, neither he or JWill had any love for the ACC as a top conference this season. Big 12, Big Ten, and Big East in the discussion with not a mention of the ACC which is rated the top conference by Sagarin and Pomeroy at this early stage. Sure the stat ratings aren't meaningful yet, but the Big Ten? IIRC it's never won the ACC vs. Big Ten Challenge, although looking at the match ups this year it could go either way.

[jipops]

However, neither he or JWill had any love for the ACC as a top conference this season. Big 12, Big Ten, and Big East in the discussion with not a mention of the ACC which is rated the top conference by Sagarin and Pomeroy at this early stage.

The ACC's performance tonight did very little to prove them wrong.

[oldnavy]

I think Jay tries to be fair. I do think that he may overcompensate at times so not to be thought of as a homer, but he is still one of the best analyst doing TV IMO.

[cbnaylor]

I don't know, I was kind of liking the underdog but I will take it. I still want all the Carolina fans to think that they will dominated again this year like they were saying before well, before the Orange. Go Duke.

F9 F9 F9 F9

[DevilWolf]

I think Jay tries to be fair. I do think that he may overcompensate at times so not to be thought of as a homer, but he is still one of the best analyst doing TV IMO.

I think Bilas' reputation as being a great analyst is like Ginyard's reputation for being a great defender. When no one around you is doing what they're supposed to do, average performances get boosted to become great performances.

An analyst's job is not to make predicitions on who the best team at the end of each week is, and then make comments to that on every broadcast they do. Their job is to analyze the game they're calling, and Bilas rarely does that. When I watch a game called by Bob Knight, I feel like I learn about the game. I'm a smarter fan at the end of the game. When I listen to Dick Vitale, I feel like I'm dumber at the end of the game. Bilas, eh, somewhere in between.

The NFL does this the best of anyone, by the way. I hated Brian Billick when he was in Baltimore, but he teaches me something new about football every week. John Gruden, fantastic at it as well. The NBA isn't bad either. Yes, the one common thread is that all three were highly successful coaches, but maybe that's the answer to the riddle. Instead, ESPN chooses to find analysts who can just talk the loudest.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think Bilas' reputation as being a great analyst is like Ginyard's reputation for being a great defender. When no one around you is doing what they're supposed to do, average performances get boosted to become great performances.

An analyst's job is not to make predicitions on who the best team at the end of each week is, and then make comments to that on every broadcast they do. Their job is to analyze the game they're calling, and Bilas rarely does that. When I watch a game called by Bob Knight, I feel like I learn about the game. I'm a smarter fan at the end of the game. When I listen to Dick Vitale, I feel like I'm dumber at the end of the game. Bilas, eh, somewhere in between.

The NFL does this the best of anyone, by the way. I hated Brian Billick when he was in Baltimore, but he teaches me something new about football every week. John Gruden, fantastic at it as well. The NBA isn't bad either. Yes, the one common thread is that all three were highly successful coaches, but maybe that's the answer to the riddle. Instead, ESPN chooses to find analysts who can just talk the loudest.

Nice post. However, I will add that Bilas talks about the legality of plays a lot and uses the rule book throughout his analysis. Being a lawyer by profession, that makes complete sense. I do learn a few things, although the rule book isn't the most interesting to learn . Agree with you on Bobby Knight and Vitale (although I love Vitale because his passion is unrivaled).

The one thing that bothers me about Bilas is not the fact that he "never chooses Duke". That's completely fine and I'm happy that he tries to remain unbais. However, I sometimes get the feeling that he is ashamed to be part of the Duke family. This is because he never brings up Duke, his experiences with Coach K, other Duke players, or drops hints that he wants Duke to win (wanting Duke to win is different from saying you think Duke will win). Whenever he does talk about Duke, another analyst has brought it up. Maybe it's just me, but that's what I feel.

[slower]

Bob Knight is the gold standard for ex-coach NCAA analysts. If only ESPN could hire Hubie Brown to do NCAA games, the (college basketball viewing)world would be a better place.

[ice-9]

The ACC seems decent from 2 to 12, but there's no doubt in my mind that the ACC is down this year as a whole. We just don't have the kind of teams that can make a dent in the NCAA tournament. The losses by Maryland, FSU, and Georgia Tech and I would even argue UNC* to middling teams prove that. Even the lower tier of UVA and BC look terrible.

Duke, Clemson and Miami are the only silver linings so far. Wake Forest and Virginia Tech haven't lost but it's not clear how much of that is a function of an easy schedule. NC State has done better than expectations but that's not saying much given how low those were to begin with.

I think this is going to be the year the ACC finally loses the challenge to the Big Ten.

That said I think the Big East is the best conference so far. It's hard to argue against results at the moment.


* UNC lost to a middling team? OK so maybe Syracuse isn't middling but I don't think they're that good either. Syracuse winning the Coaches vs. Cancer tournament is more a function of how overrated Cal and UNC are in the preseason. We already knew about UNC, but Cal was not a great team last year and they didn't really do enough over the summer to merit such a lofty preseason ranking.

Syracuse lost to Le Moyne for a good reason; it was no accident. They're good enough to beat good teams, but they're also bad enough to lose to bad teams. Hence, middling.

[77devil]

The ACC's performance tonight did very little to prove them wrong.

So you agree with them(by omission) that the ACC doesn't even belong in the conversation?

[airowe]

The ACC always belongs in the conversation, but past Duke and Carolina, its really a crapshoot. You've got two very talented teams in Wake and GA Tech who don't have great coaching and then a bunch of marginal teams with few bright spots.

The Big 12 is a little like the ACC usually is, with KU and Texas making it top heavy.

The Big East is very balanced, top to bottom, but always beat themselves up by the end of the year with their physical play.

The Big 10 has a lot of question marks but Michigan St is the clear leader.

I agree that this year I see the Big 10 beating the ACC for the first time in this challenge.

[oldnavy]

I think Bilas' reputation as being a great analyst is like Ginyard's reputation for being a great defender. When no one around you is doing what they're supposed to do, average performances get boosted to become great performances.

An analyst's job is not to make predicitions on who the best team at the end of each week is, and then make comments to that on every broadcast they do. Their job is to analyze the game they're calling, and Bilas rarely does that. When I watch a game called by Bob Knight, I feel like I learn about the game. I'm a smarter fan at the end of the game. When I listen to Dick Vitale, I feel like I'm dumber at the end of the game. Bilas, eh, somewhere in between.

The NFL does this the best of anyone, by the way. I hated Brian Billick when he was in Baltimore, but he teaches me something new about football every week. John Gruden, fantastic at it as well. The NBA isn't bad either. Yes, the one common thread is that all three were highly successful coaches, but maybe that's the answer to the riddle. Instead, ESPN chooses to find analysts who can just talk the loudest.

I think you are right. Knight to me is the best. Jay is one of the best, because most of the others are not that good. But I still think he does a fair job.

I wish that the announcers would focus on the game at hand and not on all the superfluous crap going on (who is in the stands, who is the best conference, yada yada yada!). Then, if they could get the camera men to keep the camera on the action, well then it would be much more enjoyable to watch a game on TV.
And while I am at it, what the heck is up with that picture in a picture shot of the coaches, which shrinks the game view down to almost impossible to see size... I wish they would quit fooling around and just show the freakin game!

[DukieTiger]

The ACC always belongs in the conversation, but past Duke and Carolina, its really a crapshoot. You've got two very talented teams in Wake and GA Tech who don't have great coaching and then a bunch of marginal teams with few bright spots.

The Big 12 is a little like the ACC usually is, with KU and Texas making it top heavy.

The Big East is very balanced, top to bottom, but always beat themselves up by the end of the year with their physical play.

The Big 10 has a lot of question marks but Michigan St is the clear leader.

I agree that this year I see the Big 10 beating the ACC for the first time in this challenge.

I wouldn't call Clemson a marginal team. In fact, I'd put them ahead of Wake, GT and Carolina currently. In my mind, the ACC has a very solid top 5 or 6, with my perception of the order being something along the lines of: Duke, Clemson, Unc, GT, FSU, Wake

That doesn't include Maryland or Miami either. While the ACC doesn't necessarily have the firepower at the top like other leagues, I'd be willing to say that it could be the deepest league by the end of the year. I just listed 8 teams with legit expectations to make the NCAA's and that's not too bad for a down year.

I also think Purdue would have something to say about your B10 comments.

[airowe]

It's hard for me to put much stock in Clemson or Purdue in the beginning of the season, esopecially Clemson because I've been burned way too many times by them. I agree Clemson seems to have more depth in the frontcourt this year, but I want to see how they do from the outside later on before I pick them second in the ACC.

Purdue may be good down the road but they are no where near as balanced as Michigan State is. If Hummel gets hot he can certainly put them on his back, but I don't see him taking them too far. JMO.

[ice-9]

We'll see how good Clemson really is in the next few games: Texas A&M, Illinois, South Carolina.

[ice-9]

And down goes Clemson. Wow, the ACC is performing really badly thus far.