Was The ACC Overrated ?

[NYC Duke Fan]

I think that the conference just might have been. One team in the Sweet 16, and no team in the Final Four.

It seems that the Pac 10, SEC and Big 12 were tougher conferences.

[Duvall]

I think that the conference just might have been. One team in the Sweet 16, and no team in the Final Four.

Not really, no. The ACC had 10 teams among the top 50 or so in the country, and only one team in the top 10. That's pretty much how the league was ranked by the end of the year, and pretty close to how it was seeded. No ACC team overachieved in this year's tournament, but no team massively underachieved this year either.


It seems that the Pac 10, SEC and Big 12 were tougher conferences.

Do not mistake having more strong teams at the top of a conference for having a tougher conference overall.

[JJweMISSu]

but no team massively underachieved this year either..

I would say our lose in the 1st round was a big underachievement

[EddieRebel]

Not only did we underachieve, I think most of the ACC teams did. Look at Maryland's loss to Butler, UVA's loss to Tennessee, and Virginia Tech's loss to S. Illinois. I can see BC losing to G'Town, and G'Tech losing to UNLV still stings even though it wasn't an upset. But those are games that normally I think our ACC teams should win.

The ACC's record was 7-7 with two teams 0-1. If you look at the last rankings before the tourney, we only had 3 teams in the top 25 -- UNC 8, MD 20, Duke 21. I don't consider that a very strong showing for the ACC.

[BTBall]

We heard all season about how the ACC was the best conference. The tournament proved conclusively that it just wasn't the case.

[feldspar]

Using the NCAA tournament as the sole measuring stick for the overall performance and strength of a conference is stupid.

[DukieUGA]

Just as John Edwards likes to say there are 2 Americas, there are also 2 seasons. The regular season and the tournament season. The ACC decimated everybody else in the regular season, the ACC owned winning records vs. every conference i believe, especially the "big" conferences. 8-4 vs SEC, 7-4 vs the Big 10 etc....and also owned the strongest RPI and most every other measure of strength of schedule measures.
As we all know now, several ACC teams did not perform well in tourneys, principally in the NCAA tourney, but a 7-7 tourney record is not bad, just average. I think the ACC season just wears everybody down so much, which is why you'd expect a team like UNC to do well this year, deep and talented at several positiions so as to not wear down. Unfortunately their near Duke-like propensity to cough up leads late in games cost them and the ACC some notoriety.

[A-Tex Devil]

The ACC was very middle heavy this year. Look at it this way -- I think you could make a good (but of course, subjective) argument that FSU would have finished in the top half of every other conference in America.

Take the 8th best team in all the other BCS conferences and put them in the ACC. Do they do any better than Miami, Wake or NC State? Probably not.

What I thought was really interesting in the tourney was that the great 8 consisted of every BCS conference regular season and tournament winner and the highest rated non-BCS team. That essentially shows that each conference had 1 or 2 dominant teams and some good teams, and that reared its head with the final 8 teams.

The ACC had more good teams than any other conference IMHO. Plain old "good" teams don't often make it past the 2nd round or sweet 16, though.

[Uncle Drew]

Unfortunately their near Duke-like propensity to cough up leads late in games cost them and the ACC some notoriety.


That (UNC losing to Georgetown) was the most fortunate thing to happen for Duke and the rest of the ACC in two years. It may cost a little money to all the schools in a year or two when tournament checks are passed around. But the deeper they got in the tournament, the better they could and would do in recruiting.
The ACC was subpar in some ways. I think a lot of schools and media people thought Duke going 8-8 this year must have meant the conference was stronger top to bottom. (Especially given their RPI.) But even with the winning record against other conferences, there weren't any blow out dominant wins, even in the Big 10 challenge. Sure UNC stomped AZ, but even that looks like a weak win in retrospect.

[EddieRebel]

Until we start hanging banners for having the best RPI or record against other conferences, I think one measuring stick is enough. Its always nice to look at the glass as being half full, but in this case it doesn't amount to very much.

[ron mckernan]

A little bit. But hard to deny this one, in my opinion...

- Remember that deceiving hot start by Clemson was one of the reasons people fell in love with the ACC early the year.
- In hindsight, BC was running on fumes after their big guy got suspended. It's a tribute to Dudley & co's toughness that they stayed afloat the rest of the way.
- I am soooo not sold on Paul Hewitt. I know they were young, but that Tech team was a turnover bonanza and seemed to consistently flake out under pressure. In fact, it seems that's been Tech's modus operandi since that surprise Final 4 (when everybody decided Hewitt was a rising star).
- Duke, Maryland, VaTech, UVA, all up & down wildly throughout the year...I'm still not sure which of those teams were truly pretty good and which weren't.

For a rare change, (and it pains me to admit this) the Pac 10 actually lived up to its hype....after watching them beat Kansas, UCLA is the real deal. Oregon wasn't just a hot-shooting no-defense West Coast "3 seed," they deserved to be playing in the Final 8.

On the other hand, don't assume the SEC was all that great just because Tenn, Vandy & (ugh) Florida made some tourney noise. Florida ran roughshod over that conference without even really trying, and they were in the "good" half of the conference!

The Big Ten really was pretty bad...come one, did anyone really think Wisconsin earned that #1 ranking they had for a few weeks? Nice team, but they couldn't have piled up winning streaks in the ACC like they did in the Big 10.

I saw pieces of some great Big 12 games...I wonder if those teams might have been beaten down by conference play, along the same lines as certain ACC teams. Speaking of, the same comment above about Paul Hewitt goes for Bill Self. He moved through that coaching ladder awfully quickly thanks to a couple hot seasons and some fortuitous job openings, and (while UCLA gets a lot of defensive credit) that team got wayyyy stupid at the end of the game.

I'd start predicting a stronger ACC next year, but let's face it, that very much depends on draft decisions here (UNC, G'Tech) and elsewhere (UCLA, Kansas, Georgetown)...and the success of "rebuilding" jobs at some of high-profile programs (UConn, Zona, Kentucky, and uh, Duke).

I, for one, am optimistic about Duke next year. My guess is we hardly recognize Zoubek and Thomas from their freshmen selves...Zoubek in particular is closer than everyone thinks to being legit. And even incremental improvements from Scheyer, Nelson and Henderson could lead to a lot more wins. Not to mention all those kids at other schools who were sick of being thrashed by JJ, Shelden & the like will be slowly filtering out of the conference...don't underestimate the effect of that hate tsunami. We'll still be hated, but that extra "I'm playing Duke so I'm going to do my Kobe Bryant imitation" effect can't last forever...

[feldspar]

A little bit. But hard to deny this one, in my opinion...

- Remember that deceiving hot start by Clemson was one of the reasons people fell in love with the ACC early the year.

Thing is, though, you could make a compelling argument that the strength of the ACC is exactly what stopped Clemson in its tracks.

[ACCBBallFan]

If you look at the conference records in NCAAs and NIT:

+6BE 14-8 with G-town and W VA
+6SEC 14-8 with FL and MS St
+5ACC 14-9 with Clemson still standing (who would have thunk?)
+4Pac10 9-5 with UCLA
+3Big10 9-6 with Ohio St
+1Big12 7-6

ACC had 10 of its 12 teams in post season play, had several very good teams but only one exceptionally good team this year.

Hard to know what the best measure is, I chose net plus/minus rather than W-L% since all but two will eventually have a loss and conferences with lots of decent teams will have lots of eventual losses.

Like last year, if you played the NCAAs 10 times, I doubt any one team would win more than twice among the top 4 seeds plus UCLA and G-town.

Big East and ACC had lots of NIT wins which speaks to the qulaity of their mid-tier teams (W VA, Syracuse and DePaul plus Clemson, FSU and suprisingly strong finish by NC St).

UNC, MD, UVA and Duke did not carry their seeds, but 1-2 and 4-5 can go either way. So only Duke was a true upset

Wisc was probably the biggest upset. Notre Dame was an upset. Wash St was an Upset, and though only 4-5 TX was an upset.

So all in all things went pretty much according to seeds, give or take a few, and no conference really outperformed its seeding.

In the NITs all four one seeds are in its final four, with #2 Okl St being the biggest upset loss to # 7 Marist, followed by #3 Drexel being upset by #6 NC State, who then beat Marist. San Diego St over MO State was also an upset but neither was major conference. #3 DePaul over #2 K-State was a mild NIT upset.

[Duvall]

I would say our loss in the 1st round was a big underachievement

Not really. It's just not that unusual for 6 to lose to an 11.

The other ACC upsets - UVa, Maryland, UNC - are barely worthy of the name.

The ACC didn't underachieve or overachieve. It just achieved.

[throatybeard]

The ACC didn't underachieve or overachieve. It just achieved.

Woah, cosmic.

[05dukie]

The ACC didn't underachieve or overachieve. It just achieved.

"I know you can be overwhelmed and you can be underwhelmed but can you ever just be whelmed?"
"I think you can in Europe"

[hurleyfor3]

OK, so if the ACC wasn't the best conference, which one was?