that the ACC has not reached the depths of poor tournament results like the Big 10 in recent years. My point is that based on the Big 10 experience, the previous year has little if anything to do with how many teams get in from a given conference. If that is true for the Big 10, it should be all the more so for the ACC.
except that isn't exactly what happened. what actually happened is that i threw it out there that the acc isn't looking very good and if the mismosh of teams in the middle don't start winning games, the league very well could get only 3 bids. then, a poster comes on and says that that is hogwash because the league has the number 1 rpi and that i am going to look foolish predicting 3 bids when the league's rpi will get it more than that. several posters pointed out that the league rpi is completely irrelevant and he/she continued with the league rpi argument so i said fine, post a link that shows league rpi has any bearing on the ncaat selection process.
i do agree that it's not just the acc that looks weak -- the big 10, big east and sec all look very mediocre and i think that there is going to be a giantic mismosh of bcs bubble teams (moreso than normal) with warts all over their ncaat resumes come march. and, yes, another thing that helps acc teams is that each game produces a win so no matter how mediocre the teams are, when they play, someone walks away with a win. however, 8-8 and 9-7 in the acc isn't going to exactly wow the same committee that left out an 8-10 fsu team (including the acct) team last year that also beat the number 1 team in the country (florida) and duke.
in any event, it is worth discussing given how badly some of the acc teams have looked so far and 3 bids is not unprecendented as it happened in 2000. fwiw, i think that at least 1 of the teams outlined earlier will get enough wins over the next 2 months to sneak in. certainly the biggest thing most of those teams can do over that time period is beat either unc or duke, which isn't exactly the best thing for us.
Agreed it is worth discussion how poor the conference middle looks and that a number of teams will need to do some work in their conference slate to get NCAA consideration -- I certainly agree with you on that.
But, just to be clear, talking about the ACC only getting 3 teams in during the 2000 season and saying that has any bearing on the league today is sorta silly seeing as there were 9 teams in the ACC then and 12 teams today. 3 out of 9 is the same as 4 out of 12. If the ACC is as bad as it has looked lately, then I think 4 bids is a reality... and that would be as bad as the year we only got 3 bids in 2000.
--Jason "I think the middle teams can succeed and impress by beating each other -- not just by beating Duke, UNC, and (to a lesser extent) Clemson" Evans
--Jason "I'm of the belief that the selection process is a lot less nefarious and sneaky than others think" Evans
And you also think that unc has to be good for us to be good...()
Last edited by JBDuke; 01-13-2008 at 04:26 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
FSU's loss to Cleveland State doesn't look so bad now.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=280170325
Bob Green
Earlier on this board there was a post that the ACC might be a three-bid league this year. That seems unlikely but not wholly impossible. There's a lot of jockeying going in the bottom 10 right now. You would think at least two other ACC teams will get in besides Duke and that team in second place right now. What about it?
No more than four. Duke and UNC are locks. Clemson and Maryland look like the 3-4 teams, but both have been inconsistent and it's always difficult to judge Maryland based only on the UNC and Duke games.
We're going to load up the NIT this year, though. Lots of teams right below NCAA-level.
I expect the ACC will get four or five bids. Who might get them? There are an awful lot of games to be played among the "other ten" and someone has to win them. I would bet on Clemson and Maryland at this point if Booker isn't too badly injured, but I wouldn't bet more than a quarter. Any of the ten can beat any other on a given night and it's not really an upset so I think we'll just have to wait for the games to be played. I do our NIT representatives will kick some butt.
From every game I've seen this year Duke is the only team that has clearly been playing better than the others in the league. UNC has the talent and reputation, but hasn't been playing much better than the ten. The Duke/UNC comparison is really interesting. UNC has obvious strengths and subtle weaknesses while Duke has obvious weaknesses and subtle strengths. Because of this I've been repeatedly surprised at how teams can hang with the heels, but Duke just accelerates past them.
Four.
In order of likeliness, I'm saying 4, 5, 3.
With the apparent parity of 9-10 of the ACC teams and the unbalanced schedule, it appears to me that the remaining six weeks of the ACC season will be very interesting and that the ACC tournament may be a nightmare for the league as far as seeding is determined. For now, I see two top teams, a team that is fighting to stay on top and the rest. I went through the schedule and the following is my prediction for the final league standings:
1. Duke 14-2
2. UNC 13-3
3. Clemson 9-7
4. Ga. Tech 8-8
5.(tie) FSU, Md, Miami, NCSt, Va Tech 7-9
10.(tie) BC, Wake 6-10
12. Virginia 5-11
The amazing part is that the bottom nine teams can be scrambled if a couple win on the road or pull an upset. I expect the ACC to get four bids and for several teams to populate the NIT.
gw67
Four, with the possibility of 5. Miami, NCSU, Clemson being the bottom 3.
One of the problems the ACC is having is that the teams that have looked the best in conference play (outside of Duke/UNC) looked the worst in non-con. Take Maryland and Georgia Tech - Maryland had ugly losses to Ohio and American at home in preseason play. So even if they go 10-6, they'll be 20-12 with two very, very bad home losses and only 1 good win (unless they can get Duke in Cameron or Clemson at Comcast). And that's assuming they finish 10-6 - which would take no fewer than 3 road wins out of the 6 remaining road games. Georgia Tech has 2 conference road wins and an oh-so-close UNC game that many people remember, but their non-con was even worse than Maryland's, with losses to Winthrop, Georgia, and UNC-Greensboro (at home). 10-6 for them gets just a 17-12 record with 2-3 bad losses. They really need to be 12-4 or 11-5 to get consideration, and would need to either beat Duke in Cameron or sweep Clemson to get good wins.
On the other side, Miami is off to a 2-3 start and still has 3 games against Duke and Clemson; Virginia is 1-4 (with some heartbreaking losses - they could very easily be 4-1); and FSU (the win over Florida keeps looking better) is 2-4 with 2 home losses.
It looks like it's going to be very, very hard to meaningfully differentiate among teams after Duke and UNC (and maybe Clemson). Which could mean we get 6 in, with three teams around 9-11 seeds. Or we get 3 in, with everyone else beating each other just enough that they're all on the outside looking in. I'd like to think a 10-6 ACC record is NCAA-worthy, but if it's Georgia Tech, Maryland, or Wake putting up that record, it may not be enough. The ACC-tournament could be filled with play-in games on both Thursday and Friday - the 3/6 and 4/5 games could be huge.
Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.
You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner
You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke
Locks
Duke
Carolina
Clemson
On the Bubble
Miami (not in yet but yesterday's win was huge)
Maryland (needs to get it together--quick)
NC State (see Maryland)
Ga Tech (something tells me not to count this team out yet)
Clemson is not a lock right now and are starting to revert to typical form (quick start, a tough loss on the road in conference play, then the almost predictable collapse). Whether they'll turn it around this year or not remains to be seen, but Clemson has NOT gotten in yet. Of course no one is IN for sure yet, but with their reputation, they'll need to finish strong and have an over .500 record in ACC play to get in.
I think that Maryland'll play their way in and Georgia Tech will give it a run as well. Both will need to win at least one tourney game to get in. I agree that those teams both hurt themselves with bad out of conference losses but are showing up strongest in conference play.
None of this is going to help the discussions about Duke's strength of schedule. That'll get all of us fired up throughout the next six weeks or so, feeling like we're being slighted. The ACC has a tougher bottom and top of the conference than any other in the country, but a very soft middle this year. Odd.
I think five, maybe six. Right now, I'd say there are only two locks: Duke and UNC. After that, there will HAVE to be some teams who get to 7-8 wins in conference play.
If I had to guess, Clemson will get in with 20+ win seasons and at least 7 wins in conference play. I think Boston College will get at least 8 wins in conference and make it as well. And I think at least one of Miami and Maryland will get in. That's five teams. And that ignores NC State, who is lurking and has talented players. And Georgia Tech, who seems to have found a good mix of players. Those last two are long shots, but not out of the question.
I could even see six or seven if things played out great, depending upon how the teams finish up. Only Duke and UNC will be higher than a #4 seed, and probably the rest will be in the #7-10 seed ranges. But I do believe they'll still get in.
I suspect that much will depend on (a) whether a team can get to 9-7 in conference and (b) what teams manage to beat Duke and/or the hated Heels. There aren't a lot of impressive non-conference wins out there for the other 10 teams, and there are some atrocious losses (e.g., MD losing to American). Since the bottom 10 teams don't have great non-conference wins to fall back on, they're going to have to rely on either great conference wins (Duke or UNC) or a strong conference performance (which I think this year means 9-7 or better). For most of these teams, I don't think an 8-8 conference record, when combined with the remainder of their resume, is going to be good enough. PFRDUKE's comment that the ACC tournament 1st and 2nd round games may be like play-in games for a lot of these teams may be spot on.