Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. Mad props to Featherston

    I just wanted to post a thread to acknowledge Featherston's articles...they are consistently interesting and refreshingly insightful. If Featherston had a blog I would definitely bookmark it. Bravo Al, and keep up the good work!

    On a side note -- DBR, is there anyway to archive all of Featherston's articles in one place so easily accessible? I.e. sort of like an "Our Call" section, except it's dedicated to all of Featherston's articles? I think his stuff is good enough that it merits a section of his own...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    i second that motion
    Duke '96
    Cary, NC

  3. #3

    Looking for Jay Bilas

    I really hope Jay Bilas will come here and comment on today's Featherston article: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24321.

  4. #4
    Love that article! I love how Featherston always seems to address the apparent weaknesses in his own arguments.

  5. #5

    Featherston is so rare

    He's substantive, funny, passionate without being obnoxious, fair, engaging... I could go on and on.

    Thank you Al for such great writing, and thank you DBR for supporting it.

  6. #6
    I am afraid to acknowledge that I lost a lot of respect for Jay Bilas' analysis while watching his commentary at Pauley (while chants of East Coast bias were heard in the background noise). Like Featherston, I couldn't believe it. Kudos to Featherston for a rational analysis of the strength of the ACC. The only argument against his analysis would be that he lumped 4 of the bottom 5 ACC teams with the bottom 2 PAC10. However, I agree with him in all comparisons.

  7. #7
    The Pac-10 is the best conference this year. The Featherston article was far more biased than anything I've heard Bilas say about the issue.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, North Carolina

    Great conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    The Pac-10 is the best conference this year. The Featherston article was far more biased than anything I've heard Bilas say about the issue.
    Care to give some reasoning?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnboy View Post
    Care to give some reasoning?
    Lumping the bottom four ACC teams with the bottom two Pac-10 teams is pretty clear evidence that Featherston is just out with an agenda.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    Lumping the bottom four ACC teams with the bottom two Pac-10 teams is pretty clear evidence that Featherston is just out with an agenda.
    Well we do have two more teams than them don't we? So having two more teams at the bottom isn't all that surprising, we'd have to have two more teams in one of the groups...

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Well we do have two more teams than them don't we? So having two more teams at the bottom isn't all that surprising, we'd have to have two more teams in one of the groups...
    Grouping them at the bottom makes the ACC look a lot better in comparison. As an example, let's instead lump the top four into two groups and see what happens:

    UNC, Duke = UCLA
    Clemson, Maryland < Stanford
    NC State < Washington State
    Miami < USC
    Virginia Tech < Arizona State
    Boston College = Oregon
    Wake Forest < Arizona
    Georgia Tech < Cal
    FSU > Washington
    Virginia > Oregon State

    And even that's giving some ACC teams the benefit of the doubt - I think UCLA is better than UNC or Duke, and that Oregon is better than Boston College.

    Point being, lumping the teams at the bottom just makes the ACC look better and lumping them at the top makes the ACC look worse. There's no perfect way to do this, but if you've really got your heart set on a team-by-team comparison, you could, for example, group the middle four ACC teams together, or just remove the 6th and 7th place teams from the ACC entirely.

  12. Wander, great point -- how you lump the teams all seems quite arbitrary. Arrange them in one way, the ACC looks better. Arrange them in another, the Pac-10 looks better.

    But Al did bring up other points in his article. How do you respond to them? And particularly the following?

    Instead, the closest thing we can get to a head-to-head matchup is to compare the two leagues against all the other so-called power leagues - the Big East, the Big 12, the Big 10 and the SEC (as well as each other).

    We see a pretty significant disparity - the ACC at 29-18 in such games; the Pac 10 at 15-14. Not only is the ACC’s advantage in winning percentage striking, but so is the fact that the 12-team ACC has played an average of four BCS opponents each, while the 10-team Pac 10 has played less than three BCS opponents each.
    How do you substantiate your claim that the Pac-10 is the best conference this year?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by jyuwono View Post
    But Al did bring up other points in his article. How do you respond to them? And particularly the following?
    I think many of his points are fine and actually agree that the ACC isn't as far behind as some make it out to be... it sure as hell isn't the 5th best conference. I do think it's behind though and that it's clear Featherston has an agenda.

    I think the Pac-10 is the best conference because I think it has the best teams overall (although you and I could probably team up and beat Oregon State 2 on 5).

  14. I was also curious to know what it would look like if we did lump ACC teams in the middle, and this is what I came up with:

    UNC = UCLA
    Duke > Stanford
    Clemson < Washington St
    Maryland = USC
    NC State < Arizona State
    Miami, VT, BC = Oregon
    Wake Forest < Arizona
    G Tech < Cal
    FSU > Washington
    Virginia > Oregon

    Given the above, the Pac-10 edges the ACC 4-3 but hardly a decisive result.

    If I had to take a call on the "="s, I would say UNC beats UCLA (as indicative of its better human and computer rankings), USC probably beats Maryland, Miami beats Oregon, Oregon beats VT and BC. That would bring it to 7-5 to the Pac-10. Again, not a decisive edge. For example, NC State has been playing well recently while Arizona State is reeling...one can make the argument that NC State is favored over Arizona State as of this moment. If that is so, that would bring the score to 6-6.

    I agree with Al's overall message in his article...it is just not that clear the Pac-10 is *definitely* the best conference in the nation as many people have stated ad nauseum. The ACC is very close to the Pac-10 if not as good.

  15. #15

    nice idea

    Al's like a machine..he just keeps churning great stuff out. if we can find a way to do it, we will. It's not as easy with this system though.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio View Post
    Al's like a machine..he just keeps churning great stuff out. if we can find a way to do it, we will. It's not as easy with this system though.
    How about a Featherston thread with a brief description of the article and a link to the article. The thread could be stickied and locked with Mods making additions as appropriate?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by jyuwono View Post
    Wander, great point -- how you lump the teams all seems quite arbitrary. Arrange them in one way, the ACC looks better. Arrange them in another, the Pac-10 looks better.

    But Al did bring up other points in his article. How do you respond to them? And particularly the following?
    _____
    Quote:
    Instead, the closest thing we can get to a head-to-head matchup is to compare the two leagues against all the other so-called power leagues - the Big East, the Big 12, the Big 10 and the SEC (as well as each other).

    We see a pretty significant disparity - the ACC at 29-18 in such games; the Pac 10 at 15-14. Not only is the ACC’s advantage in winning percentage striking, but so is the fact that the 12-team ACC has played an average of four BCS opponents each, while the 10-team Pac 10 has played less than three BCS opponents each.
    _____
    This was the weakest part of the article for me. The fact is, there's all of one BCS conference near the Pac 10 schools; the Big XII. This year they ran a Pac 10 - Big XII series, similar to the ACC-Big10 challenge. Outside of that, the national programs, UCLA and Arizona, played a bunch of BCS schools, but they have the profiles and the budgets to do that. So, there just aren't a lot of BCS games being played. There's no sense in Cal flying to New Jersey to play Seton Hall. But when they did play BCS schools, they did fairly well. Keep in mind, 6 of their 14 or 15 losses (whichever it is), came from miserable Washington and Oregon State teams. Otherwise, UCLA, Stanford, Wazzu, Arizona and USC went 10 and 4, with those four losses coming to Texas (UCLA), Kansas (Arizona), Kansas (USC) and Virginia (Arizona), by a total of 13 points.

    Meanwhile the rest of the schools play the Pepperdines, Fresnos, SDSU, Cal-Poly, Gonzaga, St. Mary's of the world. Decent non-BCS competition, although certainly nothing to crow about. While the ACC schools can play (in many instances, middle of the road) SEC and Big East schools for a reasonable expense with reasonable travel issues, on top of playing the rather tame Big 10 in the Big 10 - ACC deal. Which isn't to say the ACC didn't have a stronger strength of schedule, I think they did. But there is a reasonable explanation for both their record (UDub and the Beavers) and why they play relatively few BCS games (geography).

    If you want to look at comparative strength of the conferences, you need to look at the nitty gritty of all the teams. I noticed Al took the time to tear down each Pac 10 team, but didn't detail the weaknesses of the ACC teams' performances.

    I don't know where to come down. I'm not certain the Pac 10 or ACC is all that great. Both are good at the apex of UNC, Duke and UCLA. The fact that there is a true bottom of the Pac 10 in Washington and Oregon State, certainly weighs against the Pac 10. And I'm not certain that Wazzu and Stanford are any great shakes or really any better than the mishmash of teams in the ACC. But I do know that looking at BCS records or two head to head interconference matchups isn't a real strong indicator of relative strengths (oh, and Arizona may have had all its players for the Wahoo game, but Lute had recently checked out, so it's not like they didn't have some issues, not the least of which persists today; having Kevin O'Neill at the helm).

    Anyway, an interesting, if not wholly persuasive take, and I certainly don't think the ACC can be equated to the Big 10.

Similar Threads

  1. props once again
    By grossbus in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-28-2016, 12:22 PM
  2. Props to the Board
    By Jumbo in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 10:53 AM
  3. Props to Jim Sumner
    By -jk in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-23-2007, 11:33 AM
  4. Way too damn funny, props to
    By duketaylor in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 11:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •