ACC vs Big East Recruiting

[bluedevil2012]

According to ESPN's team recruiting rankings, The ACC has 5 of the top 15 classes in the nation (UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, Florida St, NC St) compared to just 1 for the Big East (Syracuse).

If you look at the top 25, the ACC has 7, and the Big East only has 3.

Is this a sign of good things to come for the ACC? Perhaps a return to its former status as the best conference in the nation? State and UVA both have top 25 classes, and these are teams that have not been the cream of the crop in the ACC lately. Maybe we will see a better conference from top to bottom soon.

[Indoor66]

Look at the record: 5 National Championships for the ACC from '01-'10! Where has the ACC been down, except for those BS loving pundits who love the "eye test" -- whatever that means. The test in BB is winning the game and the ACC does that quite well, thank you!

[bluedevil2012]

Look at the record: 5 National Championships for the ACC from '01-'10! Where has the ACC been down, except for those BS loving pundits who love the "eye test" -- whatever that means. The test in BB is winning the game and the ACC does that quite well, thank you!

Well I agree with that, but the point is that those 5 championships were from 3 teams, and 4 of them from 2. I'm talking about top to bottom strength.

[Jderf]

I'm talking about top to bottom strength.

I think you're actually talking about top to upper-middle strength. I'll take our bottom teams over the bottom Big East teams, thank you.

[D.C. Devil]

I think you're actually talking about top to upper-middle strength. I'll take our bottom teams over the bottom Big East teams, thank you.

So true, although even well-educated Dukie pundits like Bilas claim they care about top-to-bottom strength, what they really care about is the absolute number of quality to elite teams. By this metric, the ACC has something of a down year, but it will always struggle against the big east.

And to be clear, this is a defensible metric; I just wish pundits would be a little more accurate in describing their criteria. ACC has been the top-to-bottom leader for years.

[Newton_14]

Well I agree with that, but the point is that those 5 championships were from 3 teams, and 4 of them from 2. I'm talking about top to bottom strength.

I hear you but the fact that the ACC has had 3 different teams win titles in the last 10 years is a positive not a negative. And we clearly saw that this year the top 8 teams in the Big East were not nearly as good as advertised. In truth they had 2 power teams in Syracuse and WVU and 5 or 6 top 30 teams who were made out to be top 10 teams when they weren't.

The 12 teams in the ACC on whole were better by a good margin than the top 12 Big East teams.

In the 2009 season the Big East was really strong, deserved the hype, yet still could not finish the job. This year they were just plain overrated.

[CampbellBlueDevil]

ACC most have gotten really lucky this decade in the tournament... I mean how else would the ACC win against the physical and tough game play of the Big East.

The media sells the ACC short because they believe we are too weak to hang with the big boys in the Big East... how many times do they have to be proven wrong in the NCAA tournament?

[ScreechTDX1847]

ACC most have gotten really lucky this decade in the tournament... I mean how else would the ACC win against the physical and tough game play of the Big East.

The media sells the ACC short because they believe we are too weak to hang with the big boys in the Big East... how many times do they have to be proven wrong in the NCAA tournament?

The ACC has had the best team in the country half of the last decade but the ACC has taken its fair share of early Ls in the tourney...and against some "inferior" competition.

[CampbellBlueDevil]

The ACC has had the best team in the country half of the last decade but the ACC has taken its fair share of early Ls in the tourney...and against some "inferior" competition.

Did the Big East not take SEVERAL early losses this year to "inferior" competition?

E.g. Syracuse, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, West Virginia (everyone knows they lost to a "bad" Duke team that had the easiest bracket to the Final Four)

[Class of '94]

Look at the record: 5 National Championships for the ACC from '01-'10! Where has the ACC been down, except for those BS loving pundits who love the "eye test" -- whatever that means. The test in BB is winning the game and the ACC does that quite well, thank you!

The Big East only has 2 championships from just 2 teams during that same span of time. And let's not forget that the Big East is comprised of 16 teams vs 12 teams from the ACC. If the pundits were really honest with themselves, the ACC is the better conference from top to bottom; and we have the national success to prove that. The ACC's success in recruiting further confirms that point.

[bluedevil2012]

Let's not forget that the ACC champion beat the Big East Champion in the tourney this year! :D

[flyingdutchdevil]

I don't think that any experts believe that the cream of the crop of the ACC is historically (modern history) better than the cream of the crop of the Big East. There is very little to prove otherwise (the 5 NC in 10 years speaks for itself). However, I think that year in and year out, the Big East has more "quality teams," ie tourney teams that can compete for the NC. The ACC is very top heavy while, IMO, the Big East has more quality teams. That doesn't mean the average is higher in the Big East, but the number of above average teams is higher (did that make sense to anyone?)

[Jderf]

It has to be said, if the ACC is severely outrecruiting the Big East this year, it is not a sign of a return to dominance, but a sign of our continued dominance. Think about it, if someone told you they were going to pick one ACC team and on Big East team at random, who would you choose to win? (This question works if we look only at last year or at the last decade, but I'm considering the decade, thinking really about programs than specific teams since that would be far too hard to evaluate.) If you're being charitable to the Big East (very, very charitable), you could call it a draw between the top teams. The middle of the pack would fairly easily go to the ACC. And the bottom-dwellers? Please. Show me somebody who wouldn't take one of our bad NC State teams over DePaul or Rutgers.

Consider what happens if we take the worst teams from the Big East and insert them into the ACC. They win 3 (maybe 4, and I'm being nice) games a season, our other teams get to pad their records, the pundits start lauding the stunning depth of the league, and the top two would both be one seeds in multiple years. Ironically, you could make the conference "better" by actually diluting it.

[Jderf]

However, I think that year in and year out, the Big East has more "quality teams," ie tourney teams that can compete for the NC. The ACC is very top heavy while, IMO, the Big East has more quality teams. That doesn't mean the average is higher in the Big East, but the number of above average teams is higher (did that make sense to anyone?)

I agree with you here, with one qualification. I guess I just can't understand why that would be the metric (pure number of solid teams), when the pure number of teams in the conference is not equal. Yes, their number of above average teams is higher, just as their number of below average teams is higher. That doesn't reflect different talent levels in the conference; it reflects different numbers of teams. It just seems terribly flawed to me. I don't know, maybe I'm just biased.

[camion]

I don't think that any experts believe that the cream of the crop of the ACC is historically (modern history) better than the cream of the crop of the Big East. There is very little to prove otherwise (the 5 NC in 10 years speaks for itself). However, I think that year in and year out, the Big East has more "quality teams," ie tourney teams that can compete for the NC. The ACC is very top heavy while, IMO, the Big East has more quality teams. That doesn't mean the average is higher in the Big East, but the number of above average teams is higher (did that make sense to anyone?)

If you ignore the top two teams in each league (generally Duke and UNC in the ACC),
If you only look at teams three through eight (top half of BE, top 2/3 of ACC),
If you look only at the opinion polls and not the dork polls,
If you consider only teams who make it to the elite 8 and final four,
If you consider only numbers and not percentages, ignoring that the BE has 4 more teams,
then you can make a solid argument that the Big East is often superior.

By most other metrics, number of championships, average strength, median strength, the ACC usually has the edge.

[Chitowndevil]

I realize this will sound trite, but I don't put much stock in team recruiting rankings. Of the first team all Big East this season, coming out of high school:

Syracuse's Wes Johnson, conference PoY and transfer from Iowa State, was rated as a 2 star recruit.

WVU's Desean Butler was rated 68th overall (#15 SF) by Scout.com.

USF's Dominique Jones was rated a three star recruit by Rivals.com. I don't believe he was ranked nationally.

Luke Harangody was ranked as the #13 C in the class of 2006 by Scout.com.

Scottie Reynolds was ranked 76th overall (#14 PG) in the class of 2006 by Rivals.com.

In other words, Greg Monroe was the lone member of the conference's first team to be highly rated as a recruit. We can repeat the exercise for the second team (e.g., Lazar Hayward was rated the #13 player at his position by Scout) but you get the point.

[Class of '94]

I don't think that any experts believe that the cream of the crop of the ACC is historically (modern history) better than the cream of the crop of the Big East. There is very little to prove otherwise (the 5 NC in 10 years speaks for itself). However, I think that year in and year out, the Big East has more "quality teams," ie tourney teams that can compete for the NC. The ACC is very top heavy while, IMO, the Big East has more quality teams. That doesn't mean the average is higher in the Big East, but the number of above average teams is higher (did that make sense to anyone?)

I think I get what you're saying; but I still think you have to take into account the total number of teams that are in each conference. Sure, for the sake of argument, maybe the Big East has more quality teams; but that's because they have more teams to work with compared to the ACC.

I think you have to factor in percentages when comparing the two conferences based on the number of "quality" teams....i.e., 6 out 12 ACC teams went to the NCAA tournament compared to 8 out of 16 teams went to the tourney, which translates to an even 50% entry participation for both leagues in the tournament this past year; and if you compare the leagues since both expanded, I believe, percentage wise, the ACC has been at least even with the bigger Big East. If anyting, it took the Big East expanding to 16 teams to become at best even with the ACC.

And I don't believe the hype that the Big East has multiple championship contenders every year. In any given year, I think they really have only 1 or 2 at best; whereas, I believe most years the ACC has 2 strong contenders (Duke and UNC) and when the ACC has a 3rd legit contender (like a MD in 2001-2002 and G-tech in 2004), that's when the ACC becomes really special.

[SCMatt33]

I realize this will sound trite, but I don't put much stock in team recruiting rankings.

I agree. That top 3 recruiting class for UNC last year really filled in the holes (no pun intended) that were left after '09.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think I get what you're saying; but I still think you have to take into account the total number of teams that are in each conference. Sure, for the sake of argument, maybe the Big East has more quality teams; but that's because they have more teams to work with compared to the ACC. If anyting, it took the Big East to expand to 16 teams to become at best even with the ACC.

I think you have to factor in percentages when comparing the two conferences based on the number of "quality" teams....i.e., 6 out 12 ACC teams went to the NCAA tournament compared to 8 out of 16 teams went to the tourney, which translates to an even 50% entry participation for both leagues in the tournament this past year; and if you compare the leagues since both expanded, I believe, percentage wise, the ACC has been at least even with the bigger Big East.

And I don't believe the hype that the Big East has multiple championship contenders every year. In any given year, I think they really have only 1 or 2 at best; whereas, I believe most years the ACC has 2 strong contenders (Duke and UNC) and when the ACC has a 3rd legit contender (like a MD in 2001-2002 and G-tech in 2004), that's when the ACC becomes really special.

Agree for the most part to what you're saying. Agree that percentage is a huge factor. But a lot of people never take that into consideration - they merely look at numbers. And based on this argument we are in agreement - the average quality is not higher in either conference, but there are more above average teams in the Big East due to them having more teams.

The only part I disagree with is the Big East champion contender part. I think nearly every year, the Big East has challengers but things don't work out. WVU could have won the title this year, as could Cuse and others. The one-and-done tournament system doesn't crown the best overall team but the team that played best during the tournament (for the record, I am not arguing that Duke wasn't the best overall team. I'm merely stating that's how one and done tourneys work. That's why the NBA rarely sees any surprises).

[bluedevil2012]

I realize this will sound trite, but I don't put much stock in team recruiting rankings. Of the first team all Big East this season, coming out of high school:

Syracuse's Wes Johnson, conference PoY and transfer from Iowa State, was rated as a 2 star recruit.

WVU's Desean Butler was rated 68th overall (#15 SF) by Scout.com.

USF's Dominique Jones was rated a three star recruit by Rivals.com. I don't believe he was ranked nationally.

Luke Harangody was ranked as the #13 C in the class of 2006 by Scout.com.

Scottie Reynolds was ranked 76th overall (#14 PG) in the class of 2006 by Rivals.com.

In other words, Greg Monroe was the lone member of the conference's first team to be highly rated as a recruit. We can repeat the exercise for the second team (e.g., Lazar Hayward was rated the #13 player at his position by Scout) but you get the point.

True, but I think the point was not that the Big East wasn't getting quality players, but that the highest rated recruits are choosing to play in the ACC.

[Mal]

Agree with the general consensus being reached above, but there's one place where the ACC has fallen flat in recent years - the performance of the second tier (i.e. not Duke and Carolina) in the NCAA tournament. I'd be willing to bet that half the Big East has made the second week of the dance in the last 6 or 7 years, but we're lacking there. Louisville, West Virginia, Georgetown, UConn and Villanova have all made the Final Four in the last 4 or 5 years, while we've had our two traditional powers win it all but no one else even threaten outside of GT's fluky run back in '04. Furthermore, all of those teams, as well as Pitt and Syracuse, have made multiple trips to the Sweet Sixteen and seem like fixtures there these days, whereas our second tier of Wake, Clemson, and Maryland are repeatedly failing to get past the second round of the tourney and make any noise at all.

[4decadedukie]

I wonder if any of the current discussions and conjecture regarding the Big East’s potential demise and fewer, larger conferences will have any adverse impact on recruiting (now or during the next few years)? I would speculate that at established Big East powerhouses (for example, UConn and Syracuse), there will be little impact. However, will schools such as Louisville or Notre Dame find it more difficult to attract quality recruits, if they fear their potential university’s television exposure will be reduced through a general consolidation in Division I?

[Jderf]

Agree with the general consensus being reached above, but there's one place where the ACC has fallen flat in recent years - the performance of the second tier (i.e. not Duke and Carolina) in the NCAA tournament. I'd be willing to bet that half the Big East has made the second week of the dance in the last 6 or 7 years, but we're lacking there. Louisville, West Virginia, Georgetown, UConn and Villanova have all made the Final Four in the last 4 or 5 years, while we've had our two traditional powers win it all but no one else even threaten outside of GT's fluky run back in '04. Furthermore, all of those teams, as well as Pitt and Syracuse, have made multiple trips to the Sweet Sixteen and seem like fixtures there these days, whereas our second tier of Wake, Clemson, and Maryland are repeatedly failing to get past the second round of the tourney and make any noise at all.

But the gamut of Big East teams that you list that have been title contenders were spread over various years. In a given season, the Big East has only ever had 2 (or occasionally 3) teams which were truly considered contenders. Does the fact that they have a rotation of teams going in and out of the top while the ACC has a couple teams which remain there consistently make the Big East a better conference? Personally, I don't see it.

[Nugget]

I think Mal is right, that the perception of the ACC being down over the last 5years as compared to the Big East is primarily due to a marked decrease in the number (and variety) of ACC teams making it to the Sweet 16 and beyond.

The ACC Sports Journal (aka "The Poop Sheet") did a long story about this in their last issue, essentially blaming the teams that should be forming a strong second tier behind Duke and Carolina for historically poor performance over the past 5 seasons -- namely, Maryland, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake and Virginia.

In the last 5 years the Big East has put 4, 2, 3, 5 and 2 teams in the Sweet 16 compared to the ACC only getting 2, 1, 1, 2 and 1.

So, the Big East averaged 3.2 teams each year vs. a putrid 1.4 for the ACC.

Worse, only 1 ACC school except Duke or Carolina had a single Sweet 16 appearance the last 5 years, Boston College in 2006.

In contrast, the Big East has had much more visible balance, spreading their Sweet 16s among 7 teams: West Virginia (3), Villanova (3), Georgetown (2), Syracuse (2), U.Conn (2), Pitt (2), and Louisville (2).

Think about how many times over the last 5 years we've seen embarassing losses by Wake and Maryland to lower seeds, bad early losses (or not even making the tournament) by Georgia Tech -- which should be a powerhouse --and NC State's inexplicable 15 year run of futility in the NCAAs.

[Olympic Fan]

Good story in Basketball Times about this subject ...

The point was that between 1980 (when more than two teams per conference were allowed in the tourney) and 2005 (when UNC won the title), the ACC was indisputably the best conference in the country -- in that 26 year span, the ACC won more titles, won more tourney games, had the best tourney winning percentage, produced the most Final Four teams and the most Sweet 16 teams.

But since 2005, that has changed. From 2006 to 2010, the ACC has been the fifth best conference in NCAA play (measured in terms of overall wins and winning percentage). Part of that is the fact that Duke and UNC have alternated great runs and not been great the same year ... and the rest of it is that the league's secondary programs have not been successful at all (BC in 2006 is the only ACC team other than UNC and Duke to reach the Sweet 16 in the last five seasons).

The titles that UNC (2009) and Duke (2010) have won have covered up the league's slump -- the SEC has two titles in that span too (Florida in 2006 and 2007), the BIg 12 one (Kansas in 2008). Interesting that the "mighty" Big East has not won a title since UConn in 2004.

The article points out that in regular season play the ACC remains No. 1 -- its cumulative rank in the three main computer polls (RPI, Pomeroy and Dagarin) is the best of any league ... it's non-conference winning percentage is the best of any league and it's head-to-head winning percentage against the other five BCS leagues is the best of any league (plus the ACC has a winning head-to-head record over the last five years against every other major conference).

But the ACC's NCAA slump is real ... in the 1980s and 1990s, the ACC would routinely put four teams in the Sweet 16. In the early days of this century, Maryland and Georgia Tech bolstered the big two with Final Four runs ... in the last four seasons, no one other that Duke or UNC has survived the first weekend.

The ACC needs Duke AND UNC to be good. Then it needs two or three other teams -- Maryland, NC State, Wake, Clemson?? -- to make decent NCAA runs.

FWIW, the Big East had a great NCAA Tournament showing in 2009 ... but other than that, it has been nothing special in NCAA play over the last five years. All the hype is unjustified.

[Jderf]

Good story in Basketball Times about this subject ...

Do you have a link, by any chance?