PDA

View Full Version : ACC Overrated!



mr. synellinden
03-20-2009, 10:16 PM
At 10:15 Eastern, Wake is down 15 to Cleveland St., and FSU has 5 points in 9 minutes against Wisco.

dukelifer
03-20-2009, 10:21 PM
At 10:15 Eastern, Wake is down 15 to Cleveland St., and FSU has 5 points in 9 minutes against Wisco.

Wake needs to imagine the other team has the letters DUKE on their jerseys. This team is much better than they have been playing of late. They are getting hammered.

_Gary
03-20-2009, 10:23 PM
And Miami got their butts kicked by Florida earlier tonight. I really thought they'd beat the Gators too. Looks like the ACC may truly be overrated this year.

DukieBoy
03-20-2009, 10:25 PM
At least Florida state came back, but Wake????? I wasn't really expecting that.

Newton_14
03-20-2009, 10:27 PM
At 10:15 Eastern, Wake is down 15 to Cleveland St., and FSU has 5 points in 9 minutes against Wisco.

You read my mind. I get so annoyed watching ACC teams that played Duke like their lives were on the line, come out against lesser teams and not compete with heart and mental toughness. Clemson, BC, and now Wake. Defensive intensity non-existent in all 3 games, and no semblance of any type of offense.

The worst of all is the Wake team. What a waste of talent. I am of the mind that Gaudio is in over his head. They have so many versatile offensive weapons on that team and he has no idea how to use them. If Coach K were coaching this Wake team, how good would they be???

roywhite
03-20-2009, 10:28 PM
Wake needs to imagine the other team has the letters DUKE on their jerseys. This team is much better than they have been playing of late. They are getting hammered.

Too bad for Wake the tournament is not being played at LJVM in Winston-Salem.

Have to admit to a certain satisfaction when teams whose fans rushed the court after wins over Duke in Jan. or Feb. lose and go home. Clemson, BC, now Wake? Michigan, you're next.

77devil
03-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Not looking good with BC and Clemson out and Wake getting thumped. Hopefully Wake turns it around and FSU puts Wisconsin away.

UConnJack
03-20-2009, 10:34 PM
I have Wake in my Final Four, apparantly I put too much stock in those UNC and Duke wins....

Newton_14
03-20-2009, 10:34 PM
I know most folks on this board hate Sweaty Gary and I get that, but the guy can coach a little bit. He has far less talent than Clemson and Wake but has his team playing much better than them.

I hope Wake can turn it around and win this game, and FSU can get it done as well. Would like to see the ACC fare well in this tourney...

snowdenscold
03-20-2009, 10:45 PM
Well at least they cut it to single digits by the half. I like to see other ACC schools (that I don't disdain) do well in the pre-conference and tourney parts of the season.

Dukeford
03-20-2009, 10:48 PM
How tall is Teague?
Looks like he's about 5'6"

Newton_14
03-20-2009, 10:48 PM
Well at least they cut it to single digits by the half. I like to see other ACC schools (that I don't disdain) do well in the pre-conference and tourney parts of the season.

I pull for all of our ACC Brethren in the Big Dance except of course the Toe Heels. It's 9F for them...

FSU up 12 at the break, Wake was able to cut it to 9. I am really hoping we get at least 4 teams to the Sweet 16.

roywhite
03-20-2009, 10:49 PM
I know most folks on this board hate Sweaty Gary and I get that, but the guy can coach a little bit. He has far less talent than Clemson and Wake but has his team playing much better than them.

I hope Wake can turn it around and win this game, and FSU can get it done as well. Would like to see the ACC fare well in this tourney...

When you consider that at one point in the season Wake was ranked #1 with wins over UNC and Duke, and Maryland was coming off a loss to Morgan State and a 41-pt drubbing by Duke....yeah, it's amazing.

Gary can definitely coach; I'm not sure about Dino.

willowglen
03-20-2009, 10:50 PM
Teams have cracked the code against Wake. Make them shoot from outside, and their offense sputters. And they don't play good defense when their offense is not going well, a sign of young players.

Spret42
03-20-2009, 11:02 PM
Maybe it is time for fans and the media to stop extolling the virtues of one conference as being superior to the others and realize that for the most part they are all fairly equal. There are teams in each whose coaches are a bit better and who have recruited a level of player that allows them to play more consistently. However for the most part, college basketball is made up of 19-22 year old young men who can be world beaters one moment and forget where they left their daggone heads the next.

weezie
03-20-2009, 11:28 PM
How about Jackson dropping the teardrops on Teague? Mirror image.

mr. synellinden
03-20-2009, 11:29 PM
Serious danger time for Wake. Down 9 with 9 to go. Was this team really ranked#1?

And FSU is now tied. Potential black Friday for the ACC.

weezie
03-20-2009, 11:32 PM
Pardon me, but is the "roof on fire" in Miami?

Duvall
03-20-2009, 11:46 PM
Moderators, please delete the unnecessary question mark from the title of this thread.

FireOgilvie
03-20-2009, 11:50 PM
Moderators, please delete the unnecessary question mark from the title of this thread.

LOL. Total meltdown by Wake and Clemson this year. Wake is getting dominated.

moonpie23
03-21-2009, 12:04 AM
wake got owned pretty hard....guess gino and teague learned that inter-conference play not the same thing as the big dance.....

devildownunder
03-21-2009, 12:08 AM
I have Wake in my Final Four, apparantly I put too much stock in those UNC and Duke wins....

That was an incredibly poor use of capital.

devildownunder
03-21-2009, 12:10 AM
wake got owned pretty hard....guess gino and teague learned that inter-conference play not the same thing as the big dance.....

Wake Forest had absolutely zero sense of direction tonight, at either end of the floor. Meanwhile, CSU had outstanding floor leadership in Cedric "The Entertainer" Jackson and every Viking on the court knew what his job was supposed to be at all times. They looked like a polished, well-coached team. Wake looked like some league's all-star squad that hadn't had time to practice together.

SharkD
03-21-2009, 12:16 AM
FSU can't defend the basket for 8.3 secs from a mid-court inbounds play. So much for the ACC CoY.

DukeUsul
03-21-2009, 12:21 AM
Wake Forest had absolutely zero sense of direction tonight, at either end of the floor. Meanwhile, CSU had outstanding floor leadership in Cedric "The Entertainer" Jackson and every Viking on the court knew what his job was supposed to be at all times. They looked like a polished, well-coached team. Wake looked like some league's all-star squad that hadn't had time to practice together.

Yup. Cleveland State started four seniors to Wake's none. It showed.

BuschDevil
03-21-2009, 12:22 AM
ACC 0-for Friday... ???

WTH?

FireOgilvie
03-21-2009, 12:22 AM
A solid FSU meltdown. Outscored 33-21 in the 2nd half and loses in OT. Not great.

UConnJack
03-21-2009, 12:23 AM
That was an incredibly poor use of capital.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get it?

ice-9
03-21-2009, 12:24 AM
Well that was embarrassing.

Wake gets spanked by a 13 seed.

FSU loses to one of the last teams to make the tournament.

Clemson continued their late season slide into obscurity.

Rice was MIA and BC lost to a team that wouldn't have made the tournament without an automatic bid.

No one lost to a bad team, but seriously, for the ACC to lose all four games today is just terrible, especially when you consider they were favored in all four games. Even though the ACC has the higher seed in SIX out of SEVEN games in the first round, the conference posted just a 43% winning percentage. That's just beyond bad. That's shameful.

Maryland is the only team who did the ACC proud.

And if Duke loses tomorrow to Texas...yikes.

dukelifer
03-21-2009, 12:25 AM
The ACC did not fare well tonight. Wake got killed wire to wire- and Florida State gives up a big lead. Not feeling happy about the ACC. They will certainly hear it.

buddy
03-21-2009, 12:26 AM
Now that the ACC is 3-4 in the first round, maybe we should tone down the denigration of the Big East. I agree with the comment about Wake playing like an all-star team--they had more individual talent, but were not mentally prepared for tournament play. And I do not understand the FSU meltdown. The ACC certainly looks overrated at this point.

roywhite
03-21-2009, 12:27 AM
ACC, and Wake in particular, getting trashed pretty good by the Bristol Talking Heads.

Wake was totally flat. No leadership? Chemistry issues?

DU82
03-21-2009, 12:28 AM
Given the way the rest of the conference has gone (other than Duke and Maryland) maybe we should root for Carolina later today to uphold the stature of the conference.

Nah.

FireOgilvie
03-21-2009, 12:31 AM
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get it?

You said you put too much stock in the UNC and Duke wins... and capital = $money$.

GoingFor#5
03-21-2009, 12:31 AM
The tournament is a funny thing. We do have a lot of inexperienced coaches when it comes to the big dance and it showed. I think the talent is not overrated though. It is just 1 game, but you have to learn it is different from playing in the regular season. You have to really prepare as your players have no idea who is on the other team. I would put these losses on the coaches. Teague, Douglas...still 2 of the top guards in the country.

WiJoe
03-21-2009, 12:33 AM
What a friggin' disaster.

ACC = artificial championship contenders?

VERY frustrating

So now we're counting on

1. DUKE

2. Maryland (v. memphis)

3. bad shade of blue

UConnJack
03-21-2009, 12:36 AM
You said you put too much stock in the UNC and Duke wins... and capital = $money$.

Ah. Guess I am dense. Or maybe I have subconsciously disassociated that meaning of the word considering the economic climate.

Either way, you right, but I never have been a good investor.

sagegrouse
03-21-2009, 12:38 AM
What a friggin' disaster.

ACC = artificial championship contenders?

VERY frustrating

So now we're counting on

1. DUKE

2. Maryland (v. memphis)

3. bad shade of blue

If the ACC had fought with Wellington, Napoleon would have died in his sleep in Paris and Waterloo Station would be found on the other side of the Channel (Gare de Waterloo?).

What a disaster!

sagegrouse

moonpie23
03-21-2009, 12:39 AM
fsu down too....

micah75
03-21-2009, 12:40 AM
Embarrassing. Maybe Dickie V was right.. St. Mary's and some of the little guys should have gotten in? He's probably smirking right now. And I wouldn't blame him one bit.

zingit
03-21-2009, 12:48 AM
The tournament is a funny thing. We do have a lot of inexperienced coaches when it comes to the big dance and it showed. I think the talent is not overrated though. It is just 1 game, but you have to learn it is different from playing in the regular season. You have to really prepare as your players have no idea who is on the other team. I would put these losses on the coaches. Teague, Douglas...still 2 of the top guards in the country.

I agree that inexperience makes a difference here. I know some people want to bash Dino Gaudio, but let's remember he is a first-year head coach, and with a young team to boot. They've got a lot of talent, but they've been consistently inconsistent. They look like they're a year away from being a real contender in the tournament. They will learn, both the players and the coaches. Not to toot my own horn or anything (okay, maybe a little) but I correctly picked the upset there.

GoingFor#5
03-21-2009, 12:49 AM
The thing is though the Big Ten is 3-3, and of course FSU lost to a Big Ten team....BUT we whoop the Big Ten every year so what can it possibly mean to lose one game?

UConnJack
03-21-2009, 12:50 AM
I wouldn't say the ACC is overrated, I think the teams deserved their seeds based on their body of work over the season.

But they sure have under performed.

ncexnyc
03-21-2009, 12:53 AM
I'm not really sure this comes as much of a surprise. If you look at the teams and the match-ups you could see lots of danger signals.

Clemson was well into their annual swoon prior to the start of the tourney. We've all seen first hand how difficult Michigan's zone can be.

FSU is a bit of a shock, but let's remember the Badgers are a tournament tested team and they always, always play stellar defense.

The disaster that was Wake, well the handwriting was clearly on the wall for them. Pack it in and dare them to beat you with their outside shooting. Cleveland State got some nice press coming into the game so it's not like they are a bunch of scrubs.

BC is another one that shouldn't surprise anyone. USC has one of the more highly touted freshman in the country on it's team and the Trojans rounded into form just when you're supposed to.

FireOgilvie
03-21-2009, 12:54 AM
I agree that inexperience makes a difference here. I know some people want to bash Dino Gaudio, but let's remember he is a first-year head coach, and with a young team to boot. They've got a lot of talent, but they've been consistently inconsistent. They look like they're a year away from being a real contender in the tournament. They will learn, both the players and the coaches. Not to toot my own horn or anything (okay, maybe a little) but I correctly picked the upset there.

This was Gaudio's second year... but I agree with you overall.

BuschDevil
03-21-2009, 12:57 AM
I know most folks on this board hate Sweaty Gary and I get that, but the guy can coach a little bit. He has far less talent than Clemson and Wake but has his team playing much better than them.

Notice how the 3 ACC teams left are the ones coached by guys who have won a title (or 3 :D)... Good coaching matters... I'm sure glad we've got a great one.

On a positive note... articles in the paper about the ACC's poor showing may push more stories about Ty Lawson's big toe off the front page for a while.

Go Duke!

nyesq83
03-21-2009, 12:59 AM
Sad, really.

Glad I didn't do a bracket this year...

zingit
03-21-2009, 01:01 AM
This was Gaudio's second year... but I agree with you overall.

Whoops, what I meant to say is that this is his first year coaching in the tournament as a head coach. It wouldn't surprise me if he were a little extra nervous or maybe under-prepared, or something, due to that inexperience.

Thanks for the correction.

BuschDevil
03-21-2009, 01:06 AM
Teague, Douglas...still 2 of the top guards in the country.

Agreed, but... Teague has been playing poorly of late, he can sometimes just disappear for long stretches. Maybe he can improve that next year. Douglas shows up every night, he just didn't get enough help tonight. I'd take Douglas over Teague.

devildownunder
03-21-2009, 01:10 AM
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get it?

I probably should have written allocation of capital. :D

FireOgilvie
03-21-2009, 01:13 AM
Agreed, but... Teague has been playing poorly of late, he can sometimes just disappear for long stretches. Maybe he can improve that next year. Douglas shows up every night, he just didn't get enough help tonight. I'd take Douglas over Teague.

You're right about Teague. He's only scored over 20 points in 2 games out of the last 14... and Wake has gone 8-6 in that stretch. Not good for a guy averaging 19 a game. Douglas has been great all year.

devildownunder
03-21-2009, 01:13 AM
Whoops, what I meant to say is that this is his first year coaching in the tournament as a head coach. It wouldn't surprise me if he were a little extra nervous or maybe under-prepared, or something, due to that inexperience.

Thanks for the correction.

This is a really good point. We don't hear nearly as much about the effect of inexperienced coaching in the tournament as we do about young players. Of course, there are no guarantees. Leonard Hamilton down at Florida State has plenty of experience. So does Skinner at BC.

AIRFORCEDUKIE
03-21-2009, 01:15 AM
Well I was keeping track of the wins and losses by each confrence in another thread but now my heart isn't in it anymore. What a waste, and now all the Big East can say "Told You So" except for WV haha

DU82
03-21-2009, 01:37 AM
This is a really good point. We don't hear nearly as much about the effect of inexperienced coaching in the tournament as we do about young players. Of course, there are no guarantees. Leonard Hamilton down at Florida State has plenty of experience. So does Skinner at BC.

Did anybody else notice that when FSU called a full timeout late in the game, it wasn't Hamilton drafting and explaining a play, it was one of his assistants?

BaysideDevil
03-21-2009, 01:56 AM
Yet if Wisconsin hadn't hit that crazy long 3-pointer as the shot clock expired in the last minute of regulation, how different would this discussion be right now?

I'd seen a lot of the stats geeks point out that BC and FSU were overrated and overseeded but I wasn't too worried. Then again, was USC really a 10 seed? They'd won 5 straight going into the tourney and had just posted wins over UCLA, UWash and ASU en route to a Pac-10 title? And a 10 seed? In all honesty they should have been seeded the other way around (BC 10, USC 7).

DevilCastDownfromDurham
03-21-2009, 02:02 AM
Did anybody else notice that when FSU called a full timeout late in the game, it wasn't Hamilton drafting and explaining a play, it was one of his assistants?

Yeah, some real vintage "Coach of the Year" decision-making in the last few minutes. :rolleyes:

Make no mistake, this is a dark day for the ACC. We'll be hearing about this from the media for a while and it may cost us some bids next year. It's no coincidence that the three teams left are coached by K, Roy, and Gary. We've got a lot of young coaches and the last few seasons have not been promising. Unless Maryland can pull a MAJOR upset the "Duke, UNC and the 10 Dwarves" talk is only going to get louder. Here's hoping Duke and Maryland can take care of business tomorrow (but Carolina still loses by 100. Conference pride only extends so far.)

AIRFORCEDUKIE
03-21-2009, 02:12 AM
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/20/terps-star-vasquez-c-usa-pretty-much-questionable/

Heres some board material for the Tigers for tommorow,:eek: Luckily though when Vasquez talks he backs it up as NC State found out, along with unc :pthis year.

Airforcedukie

mgtr
03-21-2009, 02:15 AM
I really don't know, just asking, but how strong of an out of conference schedule did these losing teams play? I am of the opinion that Duke plays a tough ooc schedule for a reason -- to prepare for the NCAAs.

AIRFORCEDUKIE
03-21-2009, 02:26 AM
I really don't know, just asking, but how strong of an out of conference schedule did these losing teams play? I am of the opinion that Duke plays a tough ooc schedule for a reason -- to prepare for the NCAAs.

Fl St. played Pitt, Florida, Cinncinati, W Kentucky and I think Tex A&M

Clemson played Temple, Charlotte, Illinois, Alabama, SC, and ECU

Wake played Baylor, BYU and ECU and Indiana but that doesnt really count

BC played Purdue, Iowa, UAB, UMASS,Providence, and Harvard wouldnt mention them but they lost to them so hey.

Not too bad but not great by any means, BYU at BYU for Wake is probably the best OOC game on this list

brevity
03-21-2009, 03:01 AM
I feel bad for FSU. Wisconsin is where good basketball goes to die. Root hard for Xavier.

In other news, enjoy the tournament. The real bracket is the one that's developing now, not the one you made a few days ago.

MB in MD
03-21-2009, 07:19 AM
Embarrassing. Maybe Dickie V was right.. St. Mary's and some of the little guys should have gotten in? He's probably smirking right now. And I wouldn't blame him one bit.

Except that the last two teams in (#12s from major conferences) were AZ and WS. It's hard to justify substituting St. Mary's for Wake, but I think that except for a couple of the high seeds and maybe Utah, Wake played the worst of anyone in the tournament thus far. Hell, Binghamton would have beaten them the way they played.

I know teams play each other, not conferences, but it makes me seriously worried for later today,

mgtr
03-21-2009, 07:56 AM
I have a theory, and its only that, that the ACC tends to be more of a finesse conference and the Big East tends to be more of a power conference (power being a nice way to say slam 'em, bang 'em). Of course this is an oversimplification, but if there is an element of truth in that comparison, and the game overall is getting rougher (let 'em play philosophy), then that would tend to favor the Big East.
I may have woven this entire notion from spider webs and it will fall apart at the first poke, but it does seem like a possible explanation to me.

gumbomoop
03-21-2009, 08:00 AM
Wake needs to imagine the other team has the letters DUKE on their jerseys. This team is much better than they have been playing of late.

Lots of interesting comments on this thread. I'm sticking with dukelifer's suggestion, as it reflects a point I personally harp on ad nauseam: I never cease to be amazed at how fiercely other ACC teams play against Duke, much more even than against UNC, and how lethargic they sometimes seem against each other. It's not merely a cliche that "Duke gets everyone's best shot," especially on their respective home courts.

There are logical, "we might have predicted some of this, given recent trends, given matchups, etc.," explanations, but the performances of Clemson, Wake, and BC are nevertheless truly dismaying. Contrast the dullness of their play with their focus and intensity against Duke. It's startling.

FSU's loss is disappointing, given ACC dominance over Big 10, and more especially because Douglas deserved a deep run in the spotlight.

Saratoga2
03-21-2009, 08:04 AM
After seeing the results from the first 2 days, one has to conclude the wins within the ACC are overrated. The ACC teams that lost had size, athleticism and good guards. Perhaps they didn't play well as teams and didn't counter what other teams were doing to neutralize them. Maybe thaat had to do with coaching.

Duke, and UNC's record within the ACC now is not as meaningful and they have to prove it on the floor, Texas will not be easy and it is coming from a conference where all the teams advanced in the tournament. More on that matchup in another thread.

SMO
03-21-2009, 08:17 AM
Embarrassing. Maybe Dickie V was right.. St. Mary's and some of the little guys should have gotten in? He's probably smirking right now. And I wouldn't blame him one bit.

Only problem is Dickie V's goat, Arizona, pulled a 12 over 5 upset. In a one-out tournament after 7-10 days off for many of these teams, it's just too unpredictable.

SMO
03-21-2009, 08:20 AM
You're right about Teague. He's only scored over 20 points in 2 games out of the last 14... and Wake has gone 8-6 in that stretch. Not good for a guy averaging 19 a game. Douglas has been great all year.

Maybe Teague played too many minutes this season:p

gumbomoop
03-21-2009, 08:36 AM
After seeing the results from the first 2 days, one has to conclude the wins within the ACC are overrated.

Would you accept this as a friendly amendment? "One has to conclude that any win against Duke is overrated."

Duke-bashers willl say, "Right, 'cause we all know those I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ies are overrated."

But my point is quite different: one has to assume that any team that beats Duke was at its most focused and ferocious, and that it will never match that intensity the rest of the season. Thus, to all our conference opponents, UNC's title aspirations the only vaguely possible exception, the Duke game means the most.

MarkD83
03-21-2009, 08:37 AM
Yesterday was a happenstance bad luck day for the ACC, nothing more. Back in the late 70's Duke and UNC lost on the same 1st Friday of the NCAA deemed Black Friday.

Duke, Md and UNC should be ok today. (Well all except UNC).

gumbomoop
03-21-2009, 08:41 AM
Ha! An inspired "friendly amendment" to my post from Mystery Mod. Yes, I accept your friendly amendment.

CDu
03-21-2009, 08:46 AM
Fl St. played Pitt, Florida, Cinncinati, W Kentucky and I think Tex A&M

Clemson played Temple, Charlotte, Illinois, Alabama, SC, and ECU

Wake played Baylor, BYU and ECU and Indiana but that doesnt really count

BC played Purdue, Iowa, UAB, UMASS,Providence, and Harvard wouldnt mention them but they lost to them so hey.

Not too bad but not great by any means, BYU at BYU for Wake is probably the best OOC game on this list

FSU played Tex A&M CC, not Tex A%M U. So that game was a joke. But they did play Cal and @Northwestern. And I'd say that the FSU game against Pitt was the best OOC game on the list. unless you mean best OOC win, in which case I'd say the win @Illinois for Clemson was just as big.

But yes, these teams played reasonable, if not great, OOC schedules. They didn't lose yesterday because of their OOC opponents. They lost because they happened to play poorly at the wrong time.

Faison1
03-21-2009, 08:55 AM
Well, as the rest of this thread says, the first 2 days of the tourney have been incredibly disappointing. Going through the season, watching a lot of BBall, one becomes a fan of each team (GTHC). So, not only was it disappointing to see the ACC perform so poorly, but it was sad to see some of my favorite players play their last games. So, I say goodbye to:

Toney Douglas
Tyrese Rice
KC Rivers

Before the FSU loss, I was going to say we all need to continue to take the ACC Tourney seriously, as it seemed all the semi-finalists were going to advance, while all the first-rounders were going to lose. Oh well.

I said early in the season that Wake and Clemson were peaking too soon. Not sure what to say about Gaudio, except that K had a tough couple years in the tourney before his run, so maybe it's just a matter of time for him and his team.....except that things have changed since the early 80's, and he might have to battle early entries to the pro ranks.

As for Clemson, it will be interesting to see what happens to Oglesby.....a Clemson friend of mine says he should transfer. :) Maybe it was sour grapes from my friend, but boy, did Oglesby fail to show, then compound the situation by making bone-head plays. I think he cost his team about 15 points in turnovers, and missed three's leading to opponent rebounds.

roywhite
03-21-2009, 08:57 AM
But my point is quite different: one has to assume that any team that beats Duke was at its most focused and ferocious, and that it will never match that intensity the rest of the season. Thus, to all our conference opponents, UNC's title aspirations the only vaguely possible exception, the Duke game means the most.

I'd say that beating Duke and rushing the court in January or Feb. must seem a little hollow today to Clemson, BC, and Wake. But maybe not. They had a moment of glory and enjoyed it. And I agree that their intensity during other games does not match what they display against Duke, particularly on their home courts.

I prefer celebrations in March and April.

gumbomoop
03-21-2009, 09:02 AM
But yes, these teams played reasonable, if not great, OOC schedules. They didn't lose yesterday because of their OOC opponents. They lost because they happened to play poorly at the wrong time.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, so help me. But may I push you just a bit on the phrase, "happened to"? Why did they happen to play that way in what ought to have been the most important game of their season? And why did they happen to play poorly in a particularly lethargic way? And why do they happen to play with focus and passion against Duke? Is everything in some sense a letdown compared to Duke? No, I know that can't be quite right, but something's going on that's more than happenstance.

GoingFor#5
03-21-2009, 09:18 AM
I think the ACC should have a challenge with the Big East rather than the Big Ten so we can actually see which conference is better rather than speculating based on what happens on 2 days in March.

NYDukie
03-21-2009, 09:25 AM
A few observations from a Duke fan from Big East territory in NYC. I know some posters jumped on the Big East overrated line pretty quick yesterday afternoon but bottom line, they won and advanced sans WVU. And one other thing, they all generally play hard game in and game out as opposed to most ACC teams who only play like its life or death when its Duke or UNC.

As for the the ACC, let's be honest, its a great league but basically at 2 team dominated league for god knows how many years. Outside of Gary and his Twerps, you get the occassional GT, Wake or some other team uptick for a few years and they fall off the face of the earth. If Duke or UNC don't advance, you would think this was a league similar to the A-10...I might be overstating that a bit but sometimes I feel like that. Go back and check the past 20 years of the tourney...it just seems like Duke, UNC and everyone else in the league.

And since we are talking overrated leagues and such, what about the Big 12 goinng 5-0...do you think they may just be a bit underrated???? All I know come this evening I will be nervously watching the Duke game hoping they don't have a meltdown given their past two year early exits. We all know watching their games this year, as much as we love this team so much better than teams of the past few years (my fav since the 2004 team), that they will go through their stretches tonight to aggravate the hell out of us. And I know its sacriligous (spell check) but I think to root for UNC and MD (to a lesser degree) is worth it to save the ACC's and Duke's credibility going forward in the tourney assuming Duke also hold's up its end of the bargain tonight.

dukerev
03-21-2009, 09:43 AM
As an ACC fan, I didn't like seeing our brethren go down on Thursday and Friday. As a Duke fan...it didn't matter. Unlike college football, once we get to this point, it doesn't really matter who you beat and who you didn't during the season. It only matters who you play next. We play Texas next. That Wake or BC or Clemson are out matters not one iota at this point for the Devils. What Digger Phelps or Jay Bilas or Alfred E. Newman think about us at this point matters not one iota. Nobody gets voted forward in this tournament. Just because the Big 12 is undefeated in the first round and the ACC is 3-4 has nothing to do with who will win that game. If Duke wins, it does not prove tha the ACC is a better conference than the Big 12 and if Texas wins (urp, I just threw up a little in my mouth typing that), it does not prove that the Big 12 is better than the ACC. It will only prove that Duke or Texas is better than Duke or Texas. Let's remember that Memphis made the championship game last year. That certainly didn't prove that C-USA was better than the ACC. Only that Memphis was better than everyone they played...except Kansas of course.

ice-9
03-21-2009, 09:54 AM
Yesterday was a happenstance bad luck day for the ACC, nothing more. Back in the late 70's Duke and UNC lost on the same 1st Friday of the NCAA deemed Black Friday.

Duke, Md and UNC should be ok today. (Well all except UNC).


If Maryland can beat Memphis I'd be impressed.

roywhite
03-21-2009, 10:12 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21wakeforest.html?_r=2&hp

From the article:
"he (Gaudio) looked overmatched on the sideline."

"The Wake Forest offense was never in sync, the defensive adjustments were too little, too late and the Demon Deacons were consistently scorched on inbound plays."

Ouch.

arnie
03-21-2009, 10:16 AM
Given the way the rest of the conference has gone (other than Duke and Maryland) maybe we should root for Carolina later today to uphold the stature of the conference.

Nah.

Uh, NO NO NO NO NO

Rudy
03-21-2009, 10:16 AM
ACC, and Wake in particular, getting trashed pretty good by the Bristol Talking Heads.

Wake was totally flat. No leadership? Chemistry issues?
I should have paid more attention to what was happening at the ACC tournament. Wake and Clemson both looked bad, not playing as a team and depressed when early shots didn't fall. Their effort was poor. At least FSU and BC went down fighting for more than 4 minutes in the second half.

The only Wake players playing hard were Johnson and Smith. When a talented team loses its focus, energy and apparent motivation for more than a game I look at the coach. Dino seems like a good guy. I hope he spends some time in the off season figuring out how to motivate his players.

CDu
03-21-2009, 10:20 AM
I'm not trying to start a fight here, so help me. But may I push you just a bit on the phrase, "happened to"? Why did they happen to play that way in what ought to have been the most important game of their season? And why did they happen to play poorly in a particularly lethargic way? And why do they happen to play with focus and passion against Duke? Is everything in some sense a letdown compared to Duke? No, I know that can't be quite right, but something's going on that's more than happenstance.

I think it has nothing to do with letdowns. I think it is merely a case of our flawed teams having their flaws present themselves more than other conferences' flawed teams having their flaws present themselves. And combine that with a little bad luck/bad timing, and you have what we have.

Each of the teams mentioned (BC, Wake, Clemson, FSU) have flaws:
BC - they don't play good defense and they ca
Clemson - they are really dependent on the press and have inconsistent shooters and an enigmatic big man
Wake - I think they're poorly coached, and they rely too much on individual performances (especially from Teague)
FSU - too dependent on one player

BC lost because they couldn't defend in the post and USC completely shut down Rice. FSU lost because they had nobody help Douglas at all. Clemson lost to Michigan because they couldn't hit their threes against the zone (sound familiar?). Wake lost because Jeff Teague was awful and they didn't play good defense.

There were different reasons in each case, but happenstance DOES play into each of the losses as well. The tournament does a few things: it introduces the luck factor (players and teams can get hot and shoot out a better team), and it exposes bad coaching jobs. Sometimes, it's just not your night. In the regular season, that gets swept under the rug. In the tournament, it can end your season.

yancem
03-21-2009, 10:40 AM
Hopefully, yesterday the ACC got all of its suckage out and today will be a new day. Unfortunately, I think that Wake, FSU, BC and Clemson all bailing in the first round means that we need to root for UNC and Maryland at least for this round/ IF both of them and Duke can win, that puts 3 ACC teams in the sweet 16 which isn't too bad.

Chard
03-21-2009, 10:43 AM
Let's not forget that the BE has THREE #1 seeds. That pretty much guarantees three wins right there. Pitt tired to test that theory but they came through and their opponent didn't hit their free throws anywhere close to their season average.

The ACC has a #1 and a #2. Those should be counted as two very likely wins. The next best seed was Wake with a 4 seed. That was a shockingly inept performance by them last night coupled with a great job by Cleveland St. FSU (5 seed) was a down to the last shot game in OT that just didn't go their way. BC (7 seed) couldn't make the adjustments to get Rice off and it showed. USC played very well. On Thursday Clemson (7 seed) couldn't shake a bad case of the Oglesby's until after his ejection. Clemson was able to grid it down to a close game after he was sent to the showers. His bad, bad shot selection doomed Clemson. Purnell should have pulled him after the first two or three bad shots. Clemson could have used him down the stretch.

The BE has the three #1's, two #3's and two #6's. One 6 seed lost and the other was taken to the last shot and won by one point over Utah St. (a team that I picked! Drat!)

So, the BE averaged a 3 seed while the ACC averaged a 5.14 seed. That is a huge difference in terms of the quality of opponent when you compare only the two conferences. The BE was 6-1 and the ACC was 3-4.

Let's look at the other major conferences:

The Big Ten with seven seeds averaged a 7.4 and went 4-3.

The Big Twelve with 6 seeds averaged a 5.3 seed and are 6-0.

The Pac-10 with 6 seeds averaged a 7.8 and went 5-1.

I haven't had coffee so I make no claims at accuracy! :) You can go here to get the stats. (http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/basketball/men/)

I'm not placing to much stock in the first round. Compared to the rest of the major conferences, the ACC did look bad during the round of 64. We'll see the cream rise to the top regarding conferences after today. If Maryland can shock Memphis the ACC should place three in the Sweet Sixteen. That would be a good representation for the ACC. It won't be easy though.

Wander
03-21-2009, 10:46 AM
As I suspected, Bo Ryan coached circles around Hamilton. He wasn't a good coach the past six years and he didn't all of a sudden become one this year. My bracket is on life support, but Wisconsin saved it from being completely dead.

I hope Duke is the only team left standing tomorrow.

House G
03-21-2009, 11:31 AM
As an ACC fan, I didn't like seeing our brethren go down on Thursday and Friday. As a Duke fan...it didn't matter. Unlike college football, once we get to this point, it doesn't really matter who you beat and who you didn't during the season. It only matters who you play next. We play Texas next. That Wake or BC or Clemson are out matters not one iota at this point for the Devils. What Digger Phelps or Jay Bilas or Alfred E. Newman think about us at this point matters not one iota. Nobody gets voted forward in this tournament. Just because the Big 12 is undefeated in the first round and the ACC is 3-4 has nothing to do with who will win that game. If Duke wins, it does not prove tha the ACC is a better conference than the Big 12 and if Texas wins (urp, I just threw up a little in my mouth typing that), it does not prove that the Big 12 is better than the ACC. It will only prove that Duke or Texas is better than Duke or Texas. Let's remember that Memphis made the championship game last year. That certainly didn't prove that C-USA was better than the ACC. Only that Memphis was better than everyone they played...except Kansas of course.
I love the Alfred E. Newman reference because I was a huge fan of his growing up.:D However, I have to ask if this is also a reference to one of the ESPN talking heads.

blueprofessor
03-21-2009, 11:47 AM
As I suspected, Bo Ryan coached circles around Hamilton. He wasn't a good coach the past six years and he didn't all of a sudden become one this year. My bracket is on life support, but Wisconsin saved it from being completely dead.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/seminoles/orl-bianchi2109mar21,0,1113239.column

A game that got away....:(

Best--Blueprof :)

captmojo
03-21-2009, 12:16 PM
The turkeys are looking terrible in the NIT at home with Baylor.

:) or :( or :o or :D ???


Well, it's colorful, ain't it?

SMO
03-21-2009, 12:18 PM
Not only are ACC teams underperforming in the NCAAs, they're losing in the NIT. Miami lost to Florida, and VaTech is getting hammered at home by Baylor! What is up with ACC teams looking lifeless in over the past 24 hours??

Acymetric
03-21-2009, 12:35 PM
Not only are ACC teams underperforming in the NCAAs, they're losing in the NIT. Miami lost to Florida, and VaTech is getting hammered at home by Baylor! What is up with ACC teams looking lifeless in over the past 24 hours??

Not to jinx anything, but Baylor is starting to lose control of the game against VT...some lazy passes and just a general lack of hustle.

House G
03-21-2009, 12:37 PM
Vassallo and Delaney 3/23 combined from the field--add Vassallo to the list of players who forgot to show up for their final ACC game.

tendev
03-21-2009, 12:38 PM
First, it is parity. Just like in college football. It used be that the ACC ruled the roost in basketball. That is just not the case anymore and so it goes. Second, the Big East has 16 teams in it. They should have more good teams as it is really a basketball conference. Finally, I think the ACC more than any other conference gets hurt by players leaving early for the pros.

gofurman
03-21-2009, 01:09 PM
scary - just like Baylor .... The Big Twelve with 6 seeds averaged a 5.3 seed and are 6-0.

this does not bode too well for us...

c'mon guys

gumbomoop
03-21-2009, 01:20 PM
I think it has nothing to do with letdowns. I think it is merely a case of our flawed teams having their flaws present themselves more than other conferences' flawed teams having their flaws present themselves. And combine that with a little bad luck/bad timing, and you have what we have.

There were different reasons in each case, but happenstance DOES play into each of the losses as well. The tournament does a few things: it introduces the luck factor (players and teams can get hot and shoot out a better team), and it exposes bad coaching jobs. Sometimes, it's just not your night. In the regular season, that gets swept under the rug. In the tournament, it can end your season.

Your argument is solid, not least because you provide specifics.

To clarify my view, by "letdown" I didn't mean end of season slump or some sort of bad karma after having defeated Duke. Rather, I'm struck by how woefully unprepared psychologically (?) Clemson, Wake, and BC were, when they sure were't lethargic in the 5 games they collectively played against Duke this year. Each beat Duke on its home court, Wake played solidly at CIS, and BC came within one shot of winning in ACC tourney.

You're certainly correct that "happenstance DOES play into each of the losses," and I agree that luck, good/bad coaching, hot/cold, bad call by ref, poor free throw shooting, etc., are immediately relevant. But I'm relectant to totally abandon the idea that there's something important in the seemingly obvious fact that good ACC teams are regularly ready to play Duke, but that, equally obviously, these 3 weren't even close to being ready yesterday in what should have been a far, far more important game.

This thread is about the overrated ACC. Maybe any ACC win over Duke is misleading, for, according to my speculation, a victory over Duke is psychologically atypical.

FireOgilvie
03-21-2009, 04:24 PM
VT lost to Baylor by 18 at home in the NIT and Memphis is up 53-33 at halftime against Maryland. When it rains, it pours.

gotham devil
03-21-2009, 04:35 PM
VT lost to Baylor by 18 at home in the NIT and Memphis is up 53-33 at halftime against Maryland. When it rains, it pours.
LOL

I doubt we'll be seeing any more of our season-long editorials on how overrated the Big East is anytime soon.;)

miramar
03-21-2009, 05:06 PM
While this may have little or nothing to do with Duke and UNC, Clemson finished 7-9, BC 4-6, Wake 8-7, FSU 6-5, VT 3-8, and Miami 5-9. Considering the postseason results, that wasn't just league powerhouses beating up on each other. Maryland actually finished well, at least until today.

davekay1971
03-21-2009, 05:08 PM
Ugly, ugly 24 hours for the ACC. Hopefully the tide will turn at a little after 8 pm tonight. :)

ForeverBlowingBubbles
03-21-2009, 05:08 PM
the tourney is already an embarrassment for the ACC... If neither Duke or UNC make it to the final four, this will be a humongous embarrassment.

hudlow
03-21-2009, 05:12 PM
I hope Duke is the only team left standing tomorrow.

Exactly!

hud

davekay1971
03-21-2009, 05:32 PM
Geaux TIGERS!

bjornolf
03-21-2009, 05:41 PM
And then there were two. Ouch.

House G
03-21-2009, 09:54 PM
My implantable defibrillator keeps going off!

dukieinaz
03-21-2009, 11:05 PM
I don't care how far we make it now if we go farther than Carolina

NYC Duke Fan
03-22-2009, 05:25 PM
I don;t think that there can be disagreement this year...the Big East is a stronger conference than the ACC.

I also think that their coaches as a whole are also better. The ACC has Coach K, Roy and Gary as elite coaches. The Big East has Pitino, Boeheim and Calhoun as elite coaches but many of the other coaches are excellent coaches..Thompson, Dixon, the Marquette Coach, Davis of Providence, Jay Wright, Huggins

loran16
03-22-2009, 05:33 PM
I don;t think that there can be disagreement this year...the Big East is a stronger conference than the ACC.

I also think that their coaches as a whole are also better. The ACC has Coach K, Roy and Gary as elite coaches. The Big East has Pitino, Boeheim and Calhoun as elite coaches but many of the other coaches are excellent coaches..Thompson, Dixon, the Marquette Coach, Davis of Providence, Jay Wright, Huggins

You know, i'll agree the Big East has a better group of teams. But how do you weigh the bottom 4 of the Big East? Because Rutgers, Seton Hall, Depaul, and St. Johns (and you could probably throw cincinatti in there as well) really are worse than EVERY ACC team this year. Even Georgia Tech.

So yes, i'll say their top 9 vs our top 9 would be a win for them. Maybe even the whole top 12 vs 12. But those other 4 are just soooo awful.

ChemGod
03-22-2009, 05:34 PM
I don;t think that there can be disagreement this year...the Big East is a stronger conference than the ACC.

I also think that their coaches as a whole are also better. The ACC has Coach K, Roy and Gary as elite coaches. The Big East has Pitino, Boeheim and Calhoun as elite coaches but many of the other coaches are excellent coaches..Thompson, Dixon, the Marquette Coach, Davis of Providence, Jay Wright, Huggins

Pretty controversial an didacted statement (i.e. way to shoot your mouth off) without any analysis or data.

Anyone can be a crank...surely you can do better!

And by the way, I think the ACC is better top to bottom than the Big LEAST. Teams 4-6 there would likely get crushed in the ACC and would end up in the bottom 2-3 here.

Wander
03-22-2009, 05:52 PM
And by the way, I think the ACC is better top to bottom than the Big LEAST. Teams 4-6 there would likely get crushed in the ACC and would end up in the bottom 2-3 here.

Did you stop watching basketball in January?

Bluedog
03-22-2009, 06:00 PM
Well, obviously the Big East has performed a lot better than the ACC in the Big Dance. But that was expected. I think it's pretty obvious that the Big East's top 7 is better than the ACC's top 7. But that's not necessarily the definition of the "best" (although I personally would say the Big East is better) considering the size of the Big East. Just look at their seeds: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 6, and 6. All were expected to win first round by fairly wide margins. All won except WV. In the second round, all the teams were favored except Marquette. All won and Marquette is down by 12 to Mizzou. So, they've largely done what was expected (although it's hard to exceed expectations at this point when you've got three #1 seeds).

The ACC meanwhile had 1, 2, 4, 7, 7, and 10 seeds. They underperformed based on their seeds. Only 1, 2, and 10 seeds won first round. 4, 7, and 7 were upset.

The Big 12 has been the biggest surprise to me - coming in at 7-2. I don't really see why the NCAA tournament is the ultimate indicator of what the best conference is. Why aren't the other hundreds of games played between BCS conferences during the regular season just as indicative? It's not really "fair" that the Big East had only their top teams get into the dance with the lowest seed as a 6, while the ACC had some more bubble-type teams get into the dance that weren't expected to do as well. When considering conferences as a whole, you have to consider ALL teams (even those that don't make the dance). I don't think the Big East is infinitely better on a proportional basis than the ACC (they are, in fact, 33% larger), but I do think they can claim that they are a stronger conference despite the fact that the bottom four stink.

Duvall
03-22-2009, 06:29 PM
I think we can say with some confidence that the top half of the Big East was stronger than the top half of the ACC this year. This does change the fact that the bottom half of the Big East was and remains astonishingly terrible, to an extent that the bottom half of the ACC simply isn't.

brevity
03-22-2009, 06:47 PM
Well, obviously the Big East has performed a lot better than the ACC in the Big Dance. But that was expected.

Not by this board. Big East supporters here have faced an uphill argument for the past 3 months.

NYC Duke Fan
03-22-2009, 06:52 PM
Pretty controversial an didacted statement (i.e. way to shoot your mouth off) without any analysis or data.

Anyone can be a crank...surely you can do better!

And by the way, I think the ACC is better top to bottom than the Big LEAST. Teams 4-6 there would likely get crushed in the ACC and would end up in the bottom 2-3 here.

So I guess you are saying that Marquette, Villanova Georgetown and Providence would get , " crushed " in the ACC. I guess that you are entitled to your opinion but I think that you and I were not watching the same basketball this year.

It is my opinion that the coaches after the 3 elite coaches in each conference are better in the Big East than the ACC. It is just my opinion nothing more and you can respectfully disagree. Calhoun, Boeheim and Pitino are the equal of Coach K, Gary and Roy.

Saratoga2
03-22-2009, 08:09 PM
Maybe it's a stretch, but if you call 6 conferences the power of the NCAA, then the Big East's performance was the best and the Big 12 was second.

Big 10
Two of 7 alive into the sweet 16, MS and Purdue

ACC
Two of 7 alive into the sweet 16, UNC and Duke

Big East
five of 7 teams into the sweet 16, Louisville, UConn, Pitt, Villanova, Syracuse

Big 12
Three of 6 teams into the sweet 16, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma

SEC
None of the 3 into the sweet 16

PAC 10
One of 6 through to the sweet 16, Arizona

Three from the non power conferences got through, Memphis, Xavier and Gonzaga. These are three excellent programs.

I would postulate that all of the programs in the sweet 16 have excellent coaching, are able to recruit effectively and have played throughout the season against solid competition.

Faison1
03-22-2009, 08:15 PM
And by the way, I think the ACC is better top to bottom than the Big LEAST. Teams 4-6 there would likely get crushed in the ACC and would end up in the bottom 2-3 here.

Please tell me you're joking, right? Teams 4-5 in the Big East made the Sweet 16, with team #6 missing it by the hairs of a questionable call.

Teams 3-7 of the ACC (except Maryland) didn't make it out of the first round, and I'd have to say, I wouldn't like their chances against the likes of Syracuse, Villanova, Marquette, and West Virginia.

It pains me to say these things, but the ACC's performance in the tourney this year has been an embarrassment. The Big East just set a record for number of teams from one conference in the Sweet 16. It's unfortunate, but true. The ACC needs to step it up if it wants the kind of national recognition we think it deserves.

ncexnyc
03-22-2009, 08:34 PM
What's the point of arguing, which conference is better at this point in time? If Duke and the heels win their next game and the remaining Big East teams should somehow lose their's does that make the ACC better?

NYC Duke Fan
03-22-2009, 08:47 PM
What's the point of arguing, which conference is better at this point in time? If Duke and the heels win their next game and the remaining Big East teams should somehow lose their's does that make the ACC better?

NO It Does Not.

CDu
03-22-2009, 08:52 PM
This is a silly debate. The ACC is probably stronger at the middle/bottom than the Big East. The Big East clearly has more elite teams than the ACC. The NCAA tournament will only allow us to evaluate the top portion of the two conferences, where the Big East has an obvious advantage. It's also deceiving - Wake Forest is clearly better than Cleveland St - they just happened to have a terrible game at the wrong time.

If you rate conferences based solely on who has the most top-tier teams, the Big East clearly has the edge. If you base it on who has the toughest conference top to bottom, I'd say the ACC is tougher. But there isn't a clearly defined measure of "best" conference, nor does it really matter.

roywhite
03-22-2009, 09:15 PM
This is a silly debate. The ACC is probably stronger at the middle/bottom than the Big East. The Big East clearly has more elite teams than the ACC. The NCAA tournament will only allow us to evaluate the top portion of the two conferences, where the Big East has an obvious advantage. It's also deceiving - Wake Forest is clearly better than Cleveland St - they just happened to have a terrible game at the wrong time.

If you rate conferences based solely on who has the most top-tier teams, the Big East clearly has the edge. If you base it on who has the toughest conference top to bottom, I'd say the ACC is tougher. But there isn't a clearly defined measure of "best" conference, nor does it really matter.

I agree with your point about conference strength, but disagree about Wake. That was more than an off game; it was a beatdown from start to finish. It wasn't close and it wasn't a fluke. If Wake were truly a top 10-15 team, that wouldn't have happened IMO. The game revealed signficant problems with the way Wake was playing away from home. Look also at their loss to Maryland in the ACC Tournament.

marinbobbyduhon
03-22-2009, 10:17 PM
Maybe it's a stretch, but if you call 6 conferences the power of the NCAA, then the Big East's performance was the best and the Big 12 was second.

Big 10
Two of 7 alive into the sweet 16, MS and Purdue

ACC
Two of 7 alive into the sweet 16, UNC and Duke

Big East
five of 7 teams into the sweet 16, Louisville, UConn, Pitt, Villanova, Syracuse

Big 12
Three of 6 teams into the sweet 16, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma

SEC
None of the 3 into the sweet 16

PAC 10
One of 6 through to the sweet 16, Arizona

Three from the non power conferences got through, Memphis, Xavier and Gonzaga. These are three excellent programs.

I would postulate that all of the programs in the sweet 16 have excellent coaching, are able to recruit effectively and have played throughout the season against solid competition.

I live on the West Coast and see a lot of Pac-10 games. Arizona isn't better than Washington, USC, UCLA, or Arizona St, but they made it to the Sweet 16. I am not even convinced they were better than Cal, for that matter. This is proof to me that arguing Tourney results to prove your team/conference is better is pretty much bogus. It takes luck in who they seed you against in the 1st round, how your pod turns out if upsets occur, and how you fare against certain match-ups. Arizona is not one of the best 16 teams in the Nation. I still don't think they deserved an invite to the Big Dance, no matter how far they go.

So this Big East vs ACC argument just doesn't hold much water, in my opinion. I mean didn't the RPI during the regular season have us rated higher than the Big East? Does the first weekend of the Tourney negate the whole season? This argument is circular and proves nothing. But then again, all I care about is that Duke is crowned the NCAA Champion for 2009. But if we or the Tarholes win it all, it still won't prove who the best Conference is. That's all I am saying.

pfrduke
03-22-2009, 10:56 PM
I agree with your point about conference strength, but disagree about Wake. That was more than an off game; it was a beatdown from start to finish. It wasn't close and it wasn't a fluke. If Wake were truly a top 10-15 team, that wouldn't have happened IMO. The game revealed signficant problems with the way Wake was playing away from home. Look also at their loss to Maryland in the ACC Tournament.

Right, because no top 10-15 teams could ever have a poor game where they suffer a beatdown from start (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=290350228)to finish (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=290430087).

roywhite
03-22-2009, 11:34 PM
Right, because no top 10-15 teams could ever have a poor game where they suffer a beatdown from start (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=290350228)to finish (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=290430087).

Sorry, don't buy the comparison of a regular season game to a tournament game.

Did any of the top 6 seeds in any region have a game like Wake did?

This is a team that was ranked #1 in the country at one time, and has at least 3 potential high draft choices.

It was more than an off-night.

Spret42
03-23-2009, 08:58 AM
Right now the Big 12 and Big East are the best conferences based on results. Going in I thought for the most part it would break out fairly even, three to four teams for the ACC, Big East and Big 12 because I convinced myself they were all fairly equal. I was dead wrong.

The Big East came within a few bounces of putting six teams in the sweet sixteen. (Marquette is probably a sweet 16 team if they didn't have to play without James for part of the year. They got him back but not in time to really work him back in and he only played 17 minutes.) The Big 12 came close to putting in 4 maybe 5 with Texas or OK State.

The ACC came within a few great plays late of only putting in 1 and the teams that lost got pretty solidly beat. Then again, the tournament isn't over and the ACC has a strong chance of putting 2 teams in the Final Four.

I don't give a darn about the "top to bottom" arguments. I would argue anyone making that argument is really reaching at this point. When it comes to tournament level teams in the conferences the Big East and Big 12 are better. Who cares the Georgia Tech could beat Depaul, St. Johns or Nebraska?

pfrduke
03-23-2009, 11:52 AM
Sorry, don't buy the comparison of a regular season game to a tournament game.

Did any of the top 6 seeds in any region have a game like Wake did?

This is a team that was ranked #1 in the country at one time, and has at least 3 potential high draft choices.

It was more than an off-night.

Fine (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/games/boxscore.php?gameid=19900402). See also (http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2007-2008/ncaa02.html).

One game against one opponent is not sufficient evidence to make broad conclusory statements about whether a team is or is not a top 10-15 teams. Is Wake Forest a flawed team? Absolutely. Did they earn and deserve their 4 seed this season, ranking them as one of the top 10-15 teams? Absolutely. Those two things are not mutually incompatible.

pfrduke
03-23-2009, 11:58 AM
Sorry, don't buy the comparison of a regular season game to a tournament game.

Did any of the top 6 seeds in any region have a game like Wake did?

This is a team that was ranked #1 in the country at one time, and has at least 3 potential high draft choices.

It was more than an off-night.

Oh, and UCLA's loss to Villanova, Utah's loss to Arizona, and Arizona State's loss to Syracuse were as lopsided as Wake's loss to Cleveland St.

No one's arguing Wake didn't have a bad game - they did. They played very poorly. And it happened at a terrible time. But it was an aberrant performance, not an indicator that Cleveland State is a better team on any given night (which they aren't), or that Wake is not among the best 16 teams in the country (which they are).

Wander
03-23-2009, 12:08 PM
Oh, and UCLA's loss to Villanova, Utah's loss to Arizona, and Arizona State's loss to Syracuse were as lopsided as Wake's loss to Cleveland St.


And Villinova is better than UCLA, Arizona is better than Utah, and Syracuse is better than ASU.


or that Wake is not among the best 16 teams in the country (which they are).

Here are teams that are better than Wake Forest: every team still alive, Washington, Marquette. That's 18 teams just off the top of my head, and there's certainly more that are arguable.

pfrduke
03-23-2009, 12:18 PM
And Villinova is better than UCLA, Arizona is better than Utah, and Syracuse is better than ASU.



Here are teams that are better than Wake Forest: every team still alive, Washington, Marquette. That's 18 teams just off the top of my head, and there's certainly more that are arguable.

I'd argue with both Arizona and Xavier, definitely dispute Washington, and think Marquette is borderline w/o a healthy James.

Duvall
03-23-2009, 12:29 PM
Here are teams that are better than Wake Forest: every team still alive, Washington, Marquette. That's 18 teams just off the top of my head, and there's certainly more that are arguable.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "are" is. Judging the season as a whole, Wake Forest was better than Arizona. Judging from last weekend, Arizona was better than Wake Forest. But that's a comparision based on three games, not sixty.

roywhite
03-23-2009, 12:30 PM
Oh, and UCLA's loss to Villanova, Utah's loss to Arizona, and Arizona State's loss to Syracuse were as lopsided as Wake's loss to Cleveland St.

No one's arguing Wake didn't have a bad game - they did. They played very poorly. And it happened at a terrible time. But it was an aberrant performance, not an indicator that Cleveland State is a better team on any given night (which they aren't), or that Wake is not among the best 16 teams in the country (which they are).

My last word on this (which is an opinion, but supported by observations)

Wake, a #4 seed, got smoked by a #13 seed, by a margin which tied the second largest margin ever for a #13 over a #4. The other examples of big margins were not upsets of this magnitude.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21wakeforest.html?_r=3&hp

As this NYT piece indicates, Dino Gaudio "looked overmatched on the sidelines" and the loss was so bad that it "brings up the coaching credentials of Gaudio".

"The Wake Forest offense was never in sync, the defensive adjustments were too little, too late and the Demon Deacons were consistently scorched on inbound plays."

A bad night?....

No, more than that. Wake has "issues".

Wander
03-23-2009, 12:33 PM
It depends on what the meaning of the word "are" is. Judging the season as a whole, Wake Forest was better than Arizona. Judging from last weekend, Arizona was better than Wake Forest. But that's a comparision based on three games, not sixty.

I know what you mean - Wake has had a better season overall then Arizona. What I am saying is that if Wake and Arizona played a 7 game series on neutral courts starting tomorrow, Arizona would win.

bird
03-23-2009, 12:45 PM
No way to sweeten this, guys. There's Duke and UNC, and Gary is a big-time coach (albeit a flawed one). After that the ACC's teams, and the ACC's coaching crew, are middlin'. Clemson and Wake way underperformed the talent level. Florida State is good but not good enough by the NCAA-tourney-performance test. BC is smoke and mirrors, and next year the smoke goes away. NC State and VA Tech are interesting failures. Miami is the weakest contributor to ACC basketball culture. UVA plain stinks. I really don't want to hear anything from the rest of the ACC right now. They need to shut up and do better.

gumbomoop
03-23-2009, 03:48 PM
No way to sweeten this, guys. There's Duke and UNC, and Gary is a big-time coach (albeit a flawed one). After that the ACC's teams, and the ACC's coaching crew, are middlin'. Clemson and Wake way underperformed the talent level. Florida State is good but not good enough by the NCAA-tourney-performance test. BC is smoke and mirrors, and next year the smoke goes away. NC State and VA Tech are interesting failures. Miami is the weakest contributor to ACC basketball culture. UVA plain stinks. I really don't want to hear anything from the rest of the ACC right now. They need to shut up and do better.

Reluctantly, I must agree, most particularly on the "shut up and do better" bottom line. In this thread I've posted several times, and here repeat for the last time [for the time being, and until it comes up next year] my intuitive-and-thus-semi-flaky hypothesis: teams that beat and/or play ferociously against Duke are always overrated, because that's the most important game to every one of them - repeat: every one of them. Their emotional fierceness and relentless focus against Duke is ephemeral. The single exception is UNC, who are real, real good.

ice-9
03-24-2009, 02:57 AM
I've been one of the biggest ACC proponents over the regular season, and based on how the post-season has gone, I have to say I was wrong. The ACC really IS overrated.

I expected the ACC to have four teams in the Sweet 16 based on seeding, and potentially more if a couple of teams proved to be giant slayers. I counted Duke, UNC, Wake and FSU as the four (the thinking was that FSU could take an Xavier that hasn't been playing all that well), and thought BC, Maryland, and Clemson had a chance of upsetting a high seed in the second round.

Instead, what did we get? BC and Clemson, my "giant slayers," were themselves slayed in the first round. FSU lost to a Wisconsin team that barely made the tournament. Wake was just killed by a 13 seed. Maryland was the only team aside from UNC and Duke that didn't embarrass, but in turn was slaughtered by a Memphis team that "wouldn't have a winning record in the ACC." Har har har.

I'd also point to the NIT as additional evidence that the ACC is overhyped: Virginia Tech and Miami were both beaten soundly by Florida and Baylor respectively in the second round of the NIT.

Yikes.

On the other hand, it's also apparent that the Big 12 is vastly underrated. In fact, I'd say that so far the Big 12 has done better than the Big East, considering the Big East has a higher overall seed and thus faced easier opponents. We'll see what happens in the next round where we'll learn a lot in the Oklahoma-Syracuse match-up.

bjornolf
03-24-2009, 09:15 AM
7/8 elite 8 teams could potentially be Big East (4 or 5) and Big XII (2 or 3). I don't think it'll happen, but there is a decent shot. That's scary.

shoutingncu
03-24-2009, 04:24 PM
http://www.850thebuzz.com/blog/?p=8705

Gold argues that the ACC flameout in the tourney is directly related to coaching. A lot of coaches tied for last. Guess where the Coach of the Year lands?

(apologies if this is in another thread, I hadn't noticed it)

tendev
03-24-2009, 08:12 PM
I think we can say with some confidence that the top half of the Big East was stronger than the top half of the ACC this year. This does change the fact that the bottom half of the Big East was and remains astonishingly terrible, to an extent that the bottom half of the ACC simply isn't.

And which half would you rather have to support the argument that the Big East has been a better conference this year? I simply don't understand why folks just can't concede the point and move on. Do you have money on this?

Duvall
03-24-2009, 11:08 PM
And which half would you rather have to support the argument that the Big East has been a better conference this year?

What does this even mean? The conference is the conference; either count all the teams or ignore the question. But don't look at half a league and say you're assessing an entire league, that's just dishonest.


I simply don't understand why folks just can't concede the point and move on. Do you have money on this?

Not money; a gentleman's wager. We considered racing around the world in hot-air balloons but decided it would be impractical to risk poor TV reception during tournament time.

UrinalCake
03-25-2009, 08:57 AM
Embarrassing. Maybe Dickie V was right.. St. Mary's and some of the little guys should have gotten in? He's probably smirking right now. And I wouldn't blame him one bit.

The funny thing is, the last ACC team in was Maryland, and they won their first round game. So from that standpoint it's hard to argue that the ACC should have had one less team, in favor of a mid-major.

A bit off-topic here, but if we could go back in time five-ish years, I wonder if VT, Miami, and BC would still want to join the ACC? The net effect seems to be that the move has hurt the ACC in basketball and not really helped it that much in football. For the Big East it has skyrocketed them in basketball (indirectly) and not really hurt them in football.

gotham devil
03-27-2009, 09:57 AM
And by the way, I think the ACC is better top to bottom than the Big LEAST. Teams 4-6 there would likely get crushed in the ACC and would end up in the bottom 2-3 here.
Fellow ACC Kool-Aid drinker Vasquez couldn't have written it any better.