Relative Decline of ACC MBB in recent years

[hq2]

The article points this out, and I think this is topic worthy of discussion. A lot of people have noticed that in the past five years or so, basically no one except Duke and Carolina have done much of anything. As I recall, the last non D or C ACC team to make the Final Four was Georgia Tech, and that was a 10 loss team to boot, in '04. Used to be, for a long, time, besides the big 2, someone else would also step up. It was State and Maryland in the early 70s, Virginia in the early 80s, Tech in the late 80s, Florida State wasn't bad in the early 90s, Wake had Duncan in the mid-late 90s, and Maryland was pretty good about 10 years ago.

But since then, it hasn't been much of anyone. The other teams have sort of bounced in and out of the top 25 without winding up very high at the end, or doing anything in the NCAAs. So what do people think? Why has this happened? Is the league too diluted to have good rivalries any more? Are any of the other schools capable of challenging the big 2 any time soon? Be nice if there was better comp in the conference...

[Newton_14]

The article points this out, and I think this is topic worthy of discussion. A lot of people have noticed that in the past five years or so, basically no one except Duke and Carolina have done much of anything. As I recall, the last non D or C ACC team to make the Final Four was Georgia Tech, and that was a 10 loss team to boot, in '04. Used to be, for a long, time, besides the big 2, someone else would also step up. It was State and Maryland in the early 70s, Virginia in the early 80s, Tech in the late 80s, Florida State wasn't bad in the early 90s, Wake had Duncan in the mid-late 90s, and Maryland was pretty good about 10 years ago.

But since then, it hasn't been much of anyone. The other teams have sort of bounced in and out of the top 25 without winding up very high at the end, or doing anything in the NCAAs. So what do people think? Why has this happened? Is the league too diluted to have good rivalries any more? Are any of the other schools capable of challenging the big 2 any time soon? Be nice if there was better comp in the conference...

To me it starts here: Coaching. The coaching in the ACC in much of the last decade has been terrible imo. It was a mix of coaches that were good/great recruiters but terrible at program management and game day coaching (Hewitt/Lowe/Gaudio), and coaches that were good/great at coaching, but not good at recruiting (G. Williams/Al Skinner).

Oliver Pernell was a good coach but just could not win the big games in the ACC or NCAA Tourney games. Dave Leito at UVA was terrible imo, as was Frank Haith.

The good news is, every name I just typed is now gone. I did hate to see Gary Williams leave, but if he had recruited better, he likely would still be there. We have started a new era in the ACC with the recent coaching turnover, so we will need 5 years or so of data before we can make a judgment on the newbies.

I am optimistic these guys can get the ship righted, but it will take work. K has spoken out very strongly on this very subject since March. I have heard him mention this in at least 4 interviews since then including his recent Summer Press Conference.

I think the pressure is also on Swofford to step up and market the league the way it should be marketed. There should be better TV deals, with an "ACC Night" on ESPN during the week, and big games on Saturday afternoon's/evenings that are promoted heavily. In the age we live in there is no logical reason why we do not have a "ACC Sports Network" Channel dedicated 100% to ACC coverage. 24/7 ACC Sports, coaching shows, recruiting shows, games in all Men's and Women's sports shown, etc. The Channel should be on Time Warner Cable, Direct TV, and Dish Network. Would be a perfect place to show the upcoming Duke games in China and Dubai for example.

Finally, like K said, from top to bottom the league has to schedule better. Play somebody Seth Greenburg! Then that 10-6 League Record will actually get you into the Big Dance.

Examples, NC State vs Kansas, Wake vs Notre Dame, Clemson vs Kentucky, Maryland vs Georgetown, UVA vs Villanova, BC vs Arizona, etc, etc

The time to step up and fix this is now. The outside world needs to be intrigued enough to watch ACC games other than Duke vs UNC.

[SCMatt33]

I'll post later about the conversation on "how to fix" the ACC (as this is long enough as it is), but I think it's important to define exactly what has declined in the ACC as right now, the conversation is too general. A lot of people talk about other teams not making Final Fours, but I don't think that the top end has much to do with it.

I think "relative" decline is a good way to put it, because the ACC has always been a top heavy conference. Duke's rise from very good program to all time great program in the last 25 years has just exacerbated the issue. This issue of decline though, really only exists in the middle, where the rest of the ACC has simply gone from pretty good to pretty bad. The middle of the conference has gone from regularly making the tournament and winning a game or two, to struggling just to get in. At the top end the ACC has never been that great outside of Duke and UNC, the accomplishments of the ACC's other 10 ten teams are less than that of either Duke or UNC:

Duke: 4 NCAA Titles, 14 Final Fours, 18 ACC Titles
UNC: 5 NCAA Titles, 18 Final Fours, 17 ACC Titles
Other 10 Combined: 3 NCAA Titles, 11* Final Fours, 21 ACC Titles
* Florida State's Final Four came well before it joined the ACC.

Since FSU didn't earn one in the ACC, we can say that non Duke and UNC teams have earned 10 Final Fours. Of those 10, 6 (including 2 of the 3 Titles) came in two very short bursts of 4 years each between 1981-1984 and 2001-2004. During the other 50 years of ACC history, schools other than Duke and UNC have been to a grand total of 4 Final Fours (plus FSU's), winning the title just once. This isn't all that surprising given that there is only so much room for conferences to produce top end teams. Before at large bids, conferences literally only had room for one great team on a national level. Even in the at-large era, there is only so much success to go around. I highly doubt that it is a coincidence that those two bursts came during big time down periods for Duke in the early 80's and UNC in the early 00's.

At the low end, the conference hasn't been that bad, and that hasn't changed much in recent years. From 2005-2011, the ACC has only had two teams ranked outside KenPom's top 100 at the end of the year. 2009 Virginia was 104 and 2011 Wake was 251. So over the last 7 years, with 2009 UVA not really being that bad, the ACC has only had 1 truly awful team. Of course, having a good bottom does as much to hurt a conference as it does help it. As much as having good low end teams keeps RPI poison pills off the schedule, it also means that those teams are likely to steal games from those challenging for bids at the wrong time. Throw in the media invisibility of those teams and the strength of a conferences bottom doesn't do much to tip the scales one way or the other regarding a conferences success.

The real squeeze on the conference has occurred in the middle. Compare how the conference fared in the last 7 years of 8 team competition from 1985-1991 vs. the first 7 years of the 12 team ACC (plus the 11 team year) from 2005-2011. In the late 80's, non Duke or UNC teams earned a total of 25 NCAA bids, averaging 3.57 bids per year. in the 00's, those teams (including the new guys) earned a total of 24 bids, averaging 3.42 bids per year. Even with four extra teams, the conference had one fewer bid over 7 years. This trend gets worse once you consider how those teams have done once in the tourney. From '85-'91, Non D or C teams went 32-25 in the tourney with 9 S16's, 5 E8's and Final Four (GTech '90). From '05-'11, non D or C teams went 19-24 in the tourney with just 3 S16's and no E8's.

So its pretty clear that only the "middle" has fallen out of the ACC, as the top was rarely that good, and the bottom is still pretty good. Unfortunately for the conference, this is where the litmus test for a good conference lies. Fans look for how many teams a conference gets in, and how many of those teams win a couple of games once there. They don't really care about the high end because the sample size is too small, and the low end is simply irrelevant.

[uh_no]

I think part of this is the further propagation of big TV

As TV becomes more national, Duke and UNC (and kansas, UK...whomever) are glorified. As such, it becomes a monumentous task for other teams in the ACC to not only compete against the big 2, but to also compete against the media perception that they are the only two schools who can be competitive. Unfortunately, its a vicious cycle.

Also with the big media you see cinderella teams (butler, VCU) get tons of publicity where they might not have had nearly as much in older times. With the increased publicity, the university sees dollar signs. Butler keeping brad stevens is worth a ton in terms of good press for the school (and they likely have more people looking at them for academic reasons just from the name recognition....a similar effect was seen at davidson after curry came through)....so in older times, those coaches might ahve taken the opportunity to head out to NCSU, but as we just saw, its a lot harder to draw the up and coming coaches to the powerhouse schools

[JasonEvans]

So its pretty clear that only the "middle" has fallen out of the ACC, as the top was rarely that good, and the bottom is still pretty good. Unfortunately for the conference, this is where the litmus test for a good conference lies. Fans look for how many teams a conference gets in, and how many of those teams win a couple of games once there. They don't really care about the high end because the sample size is too small, and the low end is simply irrelevant.

First of all, that was a high quality post you wrote. I disagree with some of your points, but will still be giving you pitchfork points for your post. Good stuff.

The thing I disagree with is the above about the top rarely being that good. In fact, I believe the opposite and think that is where the ACC has seen a real decline in recent years.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "good." If you define it by Final Fours, then you are correct that the ACC has not had many good teams outside of Duke and UNC. But, I think that is too narrow of a definition.

Look at the Big East the past couple years. Almost everyone has sung its praises and it has sent gobs of teams to the NCAA tourney. But, it only sent 1 team to the Final Four in each of the past 2 years.

Perception of a league is built as much in the regular season as it is in the NCAA tourney. The place where the ACC has fallen in recent years is in those teams after Duke and UNC being top 10 or even top 25 teams. I vividly recall the mid-80s (when I was at Duke) when Duke, UNC, and Ga Tech were staples in the top 10. There was a nice stretch where all 3 of them were in the Top 5.

Up until the mid-2000s, you could pretty much book a third ACC team to be a top 10 contender. Virginia (early 80s), Ga Tech (mid-1980s and mid-90s), NC State (late 1980s) Maryland (early 90s and early 00s), and Wake (mid 90s) each took a turn as the #3 team and were definite forces on the national scene. Heck, they sometimes even rose to the #1 ranking in the land.

But, since Maryland fell back following their national title, there has not been any other program in the conference to rise up. That is a major part of the perception taht the ACC is down.

I might add that the middle of the conference has also fallen back a bit. It used to be that the ACC had 3 top 10 teams and then another 3 or so teams among the next 15-20 teams in the land. That has simply not been the case in recent seasons. I agree with above posters that coaching has been a major part of it. The middle tier seems to have had a long run of poor coaching. Guys who looked like they were the real deal (like Hewitt at Tech) have shown themselves to be more flash in the pan than sustained excellence. I am hoping the many coaching changes the league has seen in recent seasons will produce a couple solid finds who will produce solid season after solid season for their programs.

Of course, the big problem remains the fact that all the rest of the conference pales in comparison to Duke and UNC. Good coaches can tire of competing with the boys in blue and depart for something easier (I am looking at you, Rick Barnes!). It must also be tough from a recruiting standpoint. Any kid you look at is going to know that you aer laregly playing for 3rd place in the conference most seasons. And god forbid you get in tight with a kid and then Duke or UNC decide they want him! It is pretty unusual for an ACC team to win a recruiting war with Duke or UNC where either of the boys in blue really wanted the kid.

I am just rambling now -- so I'll stop. My main point is to say that I hope the new coaches can get their programs back to the point of competing with Duke and UNC. The conference rep does need some help.

--Jason "the bottom of the ACC is almost always waaay better than the bottom of other conferences -- that has been a hallmark of the league forever!" Evans

[uh_no]

Look at the Big East the past couple years. Almost everyone has sung its praises and it has sent gobs of teams to the NCAA tourney. But, it only sent 1 team to the Final Four in each of the past 2 years.

You conveniently place the cutoff the year after the big east had 2 teams in...making 4 in the last 3 years...

[JohnGalt]

You conveniently place the cutoff the year after the big east had 2 teams in...making 4 in the last 3 years...

OK, but in the 3 years prior they had exactly 1...there has to be a cutoff somewhere.

[Nugget]

The real squeeze on the conference has occurred in the middle. . . . This trend gets worse once you consider how those teams have done once in the tourney. From '85-'91, Non [Duke/Carolina] teams went 32-25 in the tourney with 9 S16's, 5 E8's and Final Four (GTech '90). From '05-'11, non D or C teams went 19-24 in the tourney with just 3 S16's and no E8's.

So its pretty clear that only the "middle" has fallen out of the ACC, as the top was rarely that good, and the bottom is still pretty good.

I think you nailed it. The biggest problem for the ACC has been the collapse of the NC St. program and the massive underachievement, relative to how they should have been doing given their access to talent, of Georgia Tech over the past decade. Those schools simply have no excuse for not having put together resumes like Syracuse or Pitt over the past 10 years. I think you've got to blame the coaches first and foremost.

[JasonEvans]

You conveniently place the cutoff the year after the big east had 2 teams in...making 4 in the last 3 years...

I actually picked the last 2 years because those are the years where it seems like the Big East has vaulted so much ahead of everyone else in terms of national reputation.

But, a better point might have been if I had mentioned team like Syracuse or Louisville -- teams that have contributed nicely to the BEast reputation in recent years but who have not been to the Final Four in about a half a decade or longer.

-Jason "it is not FFours that the ACC needs, though that helps, it is more teams making the Top 25 and the dance" Evans

[hq2]

think you nailed it. The biggest problem for the ACC has been the collapse of the NC St. program and the massive underachievement, relative to how they should have been doing given their access to talent, of Georgia Tech over the past decade. Those schools simply have no excuse for not having put together resumes like Syracuse or Pitt over the past 10 years. I think you've got to blame the coaches first and foremost.



State and Tech have clearly underachieved recently. But what about Virgina and Clemson? Historically, they have had decent teams, but have done almost nothing in recent years. And how about Wake? They had some highly rated teams a few years ago that completely folded. It's been an across the board failure, not just one or two teams.

[JasonEvans]

State and Tech have clearly underachieved recently. But what about Virgina and Clemson? Historically, they have had decent teams, but have done almost nothing in recent years. And how about Wake? They had some highly rated teams a few years ago that completely folded. It's been an across the board failure, not just one or two teams.

Clemson? Did you just talk about Clemson as a team with some history of basketball success? Dude, you need a history lesson ;)

Never, in Clemson's history, have they won more than 25 games in a season. They have only made the Sweet 16 3 times in their history, the last time being 1997. I am fairly sure they have never won an ACC Tournament title. They won the regular season ACC title exactly one time, in 1990.

Wake, Virginia, Ga Tech, NC State, Maryland... all these longtime ACC teams have histories of success in the regular season and post-season. Clemson... not so much.

-Jason "FSU actually has a decent hoops history too" Evans

[hq2]

Clemson had a few years in the 80s and 90s where they were at least respectable and ranked. If they were that good now, they'd be easily the third best team in the conference. The point is, none of the other teams are any good now. That's a definite change from 15 to 20 years ago.

[OldPhiKap]

Agree on the concept that the middle fell out, although it was for different reasons. Coaching is, agreed, a pretty big part.

GT -- Hewitt was one of the worst coaches in the conference, and the school has more emphasis on football that basketball. So they've been money-whipped by a bad football coach and a bad hoops coach, and couldn't afford to buy them both out at the same time.

NCState -- haven't recovered from the scandal/wreck that was the end of the Valvano Years. Tried to pick up coaches on the cheap.

Wake -- Skip had them rebounding, big loss for the conference. Had to pay a lot to keep their football coach, which may be a factor too.

Md -- Gary could coach the big games but not get consistent play. Crazy AD.

VT -- holds their own, but weak non-con scheduling has burned them over and over and over and over. Beamer is still king in Blacksburg.

UVa -- what the heck happened here? Can't keep blaming it all on Pete Gillen. Bad at both sports.

Clemson/FSU/Miami/BC -- sometimes compete, but football is king.

You could argue that expansion -- and the push for football bucks -- has as much to do with the decline as anything.

[hq2]

You could argue that expansion -- and the push for football bucks -- has as much to do with the decline as anything.

In theory, expansion should have helped by bringing more teams in, but it hasn't turned out that way. BC, in fact, wasn't that bad about 5-6 years ago, but hasn't done anything lately. I also think, however, that expansion has diluted some of the rivalries. Back in the 70s, when there were only 7 teams, at least half of them were usually good, and you played each other home and home every year. Every conference game really seemed to matter back then.

Now, it's like one for each member per year, with a couple of local rivals tossed in twice (why isn't home and home mandated for the Big Four? That's really hurt State and Wake.), so the rivalries haven't developed, and the games don't seem to mean as much. For Duke and Carolina, it's a long row of punching-bag mediocre teams that don't excite fan interest. And, since the lousy teams only play the top guys once a year, there's less incentive for them to play at the level of the top ones. They only have to be embarrassed on their home floor every other year.

[SCMatt33]

Here's Parts 1.5 of 2 of my earlier message (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?25724-Relative-Decline-of-the-ACC-in-recent-years&p=509587#post509587). I intended to do this plus my thoughts and scheduling and coaching and stuff, but it got too long again, so I'll do that later.

I feel like I should add a part 1.5 to my earlier post in response to some issues that came up as a result. Breaking down the ACC into the high end (those competing for titles and making deep tourney runs) and the low end (those who don't even sniff postseason play) is easy. The hard part comes (much like in real life) in defining the middle class. Earlier, I used the standard of earning NCAA bids and how far they went once there. I still feel that it is a fine way to look at it, but perhaps I should look at another standard...seeding. NCAA seeding can help separate the "middle class" from the "upper middle class." One of the things that was said to be lost is the third or fourth team that regularly appears in the top ten or fifteen. I looked at doing poll analysis, but I couldn't find a reliable source that let me analyze teams on a year by year basis. Collegepollarchive.com is a really good poll site, but I could only analyze by decade there, so unless I look at every single poll, it doesn't work too well. Statsheet.com also has some poll trends, but really only works if I want to look at a single year, or final polls for multiple years. If someone has a good way to analyze total poll appearances (or top 10 appearances) for a team over a custom number of years, let me know.

Anyway, although seeding can be somewhat inconsistent, it does provide a pretty good picture of how a team performed over the entire regular season. The teams who are in the upper part of the top 25 are generally 1-3 seeds, the lower half is 4-6 seeds, and those just outside are 7-10 seeds. Any lower, and you're looking at bubble teams. Sticking with the same two periods from my other post ('85-91 and '05-'11) let's look at how the ACC did with teams other than Duke and UNC. In the late 80's period, non-Duke and UNC teams earned a total of 25 bids with an average seed of 5.48. During this time, they earned 4 top 3 seeds (GTech and NC State each got 2), 14 4-6 seeds, 6 7-10 seeds, and 1 seed of 11 or higher. In the 00's period, the ACC earned a total of 24 bids, with an average seed of 6.96, about 1.5 seed lines worse than in the 80's. That's a huge drop. During this period, there was just 1 top 3 seed (Wake in '05), 9 4-6 seeds, 13 7-10 seeds, and 1 11+ seed.

The big shift here is that the were 8 fewer 1-6 seeds in the 00's and 7 more 7-10 seeds. It's no big surprise that with so many 7-10 seeds, that sweet 16 appearances were down, as they have to go through 1 and 2 seeds to make it there. It should be noted though that 2 of the 3 ACC Sweet 16 teams in this era were 10 seeds. So while the drop in seeding could play a role, it doesn't totally account for the drop off in ACC tourney results.

If we analyze NCAA results independent of seeding, it's still clear the ACC is doing worse in the modern era. Using Pete Tiernan's Bracketmaster (http://bracketscience.com/bracketmaster.asp), I analyzed the ACC's PASE (if you don't know about PASE, read up on it, but the short version is that it's how many games on average you win above or below what you should have won based on seed). I had to manually subtract out Duke and UNC's results and add in 2011's results manually as they are not in there yet based on conference. What I found is that in the from '85-'91, the ACC wasn't that great, but it did perform to seed expectations, with a +.047 PASE. From '05-'11, though, the ACC has been well below seed expectations with a PASE of -.248 or -.256. The two possibilities are based on how you treat last year's Clemson team. Officially, the play-in game has no effect on PASE (UAB and USC aren't even credited with a tourney appearance in Tiernan's system). This assumes that Clemson is like any other 12 seed an was given no credit for wins. The -.248 comes from simply ignoring Clemson's 2011 appearance since there is no proper way to assess what a play in team should do as a 12 seed without a good sample size. Anyway, even if you ignore Clemson '11, The ACC is about .3 games worse per appearance compared to 20 years ago. That is a big deal over a large sample size.

To further emphasize this problem existing in the "upper middle class," I broke it down a bit further and found that since 2005, the 7-10 seeds in the ACC have actually just about played to expectations with a PASE of +.059, about the same as the ACC 20 years ago. The 1-6 seeds though, have a PASE of -.647 over the same period. While the "true middle" is dropping the ball in the regular season by coming up short on bids and getting lower seeds, what remains of the "upper middle" is really dropping the ball come tourney time. Of course, 10 tournament appearances for the "upper middle" is hardly a large enough sample to prove how good or bad they were, but it is a large enough sample for perception (and the fact that the sample is so small also says something).

[ACCBBallFan]

Not a lot to hang your ACC hat on other than UNC and Duke, but perhaps FSU this year too can be a ranked basketball team, not as high as this draft express analysis would suggest.

http://www.draftexpress.com/rankings/NCAA-Seniors/

If you go by Draft Express, who ranks more on pro potential than college effectiveness, an argument can be made that Duke and FSU are underrated.

If you rank order and weight seniors at 4, juniors @3, Sophs @ 2 and frosh @1, so much for it being a down year for ACC who has the top 3 scores:

UNC on talent more than seniority,
Duke on 6 upperclassmen plus Rivers #7 frosh,
FSU with 3 seniors, 1 junior and two sophs ranked fairly hihgly :

01UNC -1 1254

06Duke -2 1022

34FSU -3 936
05Syracuse -4 934

03Ohio St. -1 825
02Kentucky-3(E-2)814

07Vandy -3 (E-2)791
15Kansas -1 726

16Baylor -6 697
32Villanova -9 657
11Pittsburgh -1 634
04UCONN - 9 631
10Florida -1(E-1)629

09Memphis -4 575
12Alabama-2(W-1) 541

08Louisville -3 457

FSU and Nova much higher than Dick Vitale's rankings and Wisc and Xavier not in top 16, bugt other 14 of 16 are, but often in a different order.

With respect to Sporting News rankings, FSU, Nova and Alabama replace Arizona, Wisc and UCLA in top 16 using Draft Express.

I realize some will say weighting seniors at 4 and juniors @ 3 has a flaw in that early NBA entrants would have been higher if they had not jumped.

However, even if I remove the wieghts. UNC still tops and Duke and FSU both also in top 7. Same top 16 just in a different order:

01UNC -1 564
02Kentucky-3(E-2)505

06Duke -2 492
03Ohio St. -1 424
05Syracuse -4 418

04UCONN - 9 360
34FSU -3 310
10Florida-1(E-1)304
16Baylor -6 304

08Louisville -3 272
09Memphis -4 272
11Pittsburgh -1 268
32Villanova -9 258
15Kansas -1 256
07Vandy -3 (E-2)252
12Alabama -2 (W-1) 222

Again flaws such as VA Tech's Dorenzo Hudson and JT Thompson who redshirted last year are not in the list of seniors, Marshall Plumlee who will either redshirt or play very sparingly rated #23 frosh pro prospect, Ausitn Rivers only #7, etc.

I ingored guys like Larry Drew II, Tony Woods and Ari Stewart who have to sit out this year due to transfer or LMac due to injury.

[laxbluedevil]

Reason other schools can't step up and Duke and UNC dominate is because 48 of 58 ACC MBB tourneys have been in NC, and 50 of 58 have been won by schools in NC. Over the years, ACC schools outside NC lost all hope of a level playing field or success in basketball and stopped caring with the exception of UMD which also complains loudest about ACC tourney locations with good reason. The ACC schools outside NC should get together and leave the ACC and maybe invite Duke and UNC with the understanding that new conference tourneys in every sport will move around instead of being in NC every year. Shouldn't hurt Duke MBB which dominates NJ/NYC and has fans all over the east and USA.

Atlantic League with Syracuse, UConn, Penn State, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, would double the number of MBB powers to 4 or 5 and be the best in mens and womens hoops, as well as mens and womens soccer, lacrosse, baseball, field hockey, etc. Other conferences seem concerned with only being good at football with Big 10/11/12 adding Nebraska instead of UConn or UMD when football is the one sport leagues should definitely NOT want to be too strong at. Big 10/11/12 has only won 1.5 national titles in 43 years! Penn State football won national titles by easy scheduling as did FSU in a weak 9 team ACC and Miami in Big East, etc., none of them have done anything in tougher leagues and Duke or UNC football as well as all others fared even worse. 12 team ACC hasn't won anything in football and looks like they never will. A League tourneys in all sports could move between NY/NJ, Philaldelphia, DC which would be in the middle of A League schools as well as tourney locations to be fair, NC, and Atlanta, and maybe Boston and St Peteresburg as well. The ultimate in fairness as well as basketball and overall sports. And scheduling home and home in basketball and playing all others every year in football and all sports,is the only way to determine a true league champ, preserve real rivalries instead of playing fellow ACC teams every 2 or 3 or more years, and be in a region that makes sense like the whole Atlantic Coast instead of just half of it.

[uh_no]

Atlantic League with Syracuse, UConn, Penn State, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, would double the number of MBB powers to 4 or 5 and be the best in mens and womens hoops, as well as mens and womens soccer, lacrosse, baseball, field hockey, etc. Other conferences seem concerned with only being good at football with Big 10/11/12 adding Nebraska instead of UConn or UMD when football is the one sport leagues should definitely NOT want to be too strong at. Big 10/11/12 has only won 1.5 national titles in 43 years! Penn State football won national titles by easy scheduling as did FSU in a weak 9 team ACC and Miami in Big East, etc., none of them have done anything in tougher leagues and Duke or UNC football as well as all others fared even worse. 12 team ACC hasn't won anything in football and looks like they never will. A League tourneys in all sports could move between NY/NJ, Philaldelphia, DC which would be in the middle of A League schools as well as tourney locations to be fair, NC, and Atlanta, and maybe Boston and St Peteresburg as well. The ultimate in fairness as well as basketball and overall sports. And scheduling home and home in basketball and playing all others every year in football and all sports,is the only way to determine a true league champ, preserve real rivalries instead of playing fellow ACC teams every 2 or 3 or more years, and be in a region that makes sense like the whole Atlantic Coast instead of just half of it.

I've already had to read this in about 4 other threads....can we keep it out of another please? thanks.

[laxbluedevil]

This thread is about why Duke and UNC are the only consistently good MBB programs in ACC, I provided the obvious answer to why the best players and coaches and fans went to the NC schools which had homecourt type advantages in ACC tourneys. I also provided the solution to doubling the number of power programs in MBB and WBB and dominating in overall sports and exposure and revenue and stability, etc., while greatly improving scheduling and fairness, etc. What other way is there to do any of that let alone all of it?

[CDu]

This thread is about why Duke and UNC are the only consistently good MBB programs in ACC, I provided the obvious answer to why the best players and coaches and fans went to the NC schools which had homecourt type advantages in ACC tourneys. I also provided the solution to doubling the number of power programs in MBB and WBB and dominating in overall sports and exposure and revenue and stability, etc., while greatly improving scheduling and fairness, etc. What other way is there to do any of that let alone all of it?

But your answer isn't remotely accurate.

For reference, the Big East has the tournament every year in New York City. Shouldn't that mean that teams like Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Notre Dame, and Georgetown should have given up too? I mean, St. John's has a HUGE advantage by having it practically on their home court! Seton Hall is right down the street! How can those other schools from outside the area ever hope to compete? Similarly, if all that talent is going to the NC schools, why aren't Wake and NC State also consistently strong?

The dropoff of the quality of the ACC has nothing to do with the location of the ACC tournament. If that were the case, then there never would have been good ACC teams (since it has historically been predominantly hosted in the ACC). It has more to do with the quality of the coaches in the conference, which had fallen off dramatically over the last decade.

There appear to be some talented young coaches coming in. If they can start recruiting nationally relevant talent again and then turn that talent into wins, the conference will be strong again. But it has nothing to do with the location of the ACC tournament.

[jimsumner]

Reason other schools can't step up and Duke and UNC dominate is because 48 of 58 ACC MBB tourneys have been in NC, and 50 of 58 have been won by schools in NC. Over the years, ACC schools outside NC lost all hope of a level playing field or success in basketball and stopped caring with the exception of UMD which also complains loudest about ACC tourney locations with good reason. The ACC schools outside NC should get together and leave the ACC and maybe invite Duke and UNC with the understanding that new conference tourneys in every sport will move around instead of being in NC every year. Shouldn't hurt Duke MBB which dominates NJ/NYC and has fans all over the east and USA.



At least one Big Four team has finished first or shared first in the regular season all but seven of the ACC seasons; the exceptions were 1970, 1975, 1980, 1981, 1990, 1996 and 2002.

Lots of ties. Total regular-season titles/first places by schools.

UNC-28
Duke-19
NC State-7
Virginia-5
Maryland-5
Wake Forest-4
Georgia Tech-2
South Carolina-1
Clemson-1

So, the tally is Big Four 58, non Big-Four 14.

This has nothing to do with the site of the tournament. The regular-season is a level playing field. Since the expansion of the NCAA Tournament in 1975, every ACC regular-season champion has received an NCAA invite, regardless of what happened in the tournament.

Seems like a pretty good incentive to me.

Maybe, the Big Four schools, in the aggregate, have just been better than the rest. With Duke and Carolina providing most of that edge,

[Indoor66]

This thread is about why Duke and UNC are the only consistently good MBB programs in ACC, I provided the obvious answer to why the best players and coaches and fans went to the NC schools which had homecourt type advantages in ACC tourneys. I also provided the solution to doubling the number of power programs in MBB and WBB and dominating in overall sports and exposure and revenue and stability, etc., while greatly improving scheduling and fairness, etc. What other way is there to do any of that let alone all of it?

I think the answer is quite simple: Coaching. At the formation of the ACC, Everett Case and State was the big cheese. Then Mcguire came to unc, then Bubas came to Duke and Dean to unc. Then K to Duke, Then Williams to unc. That covers the period from 1953 to the present. Any more questions?

[sagegrouse]

This thread is about why Duke and UNC are the only consistently good MBB programs in ACC, I provided the obvious answer to why the best players and coaches and fans went to the NC schools which had homecourt type advantages in ACC tourneys. I also provided the solution to doubling the number of power programs in MBB and WBB and dominating in overall sports and exposure and revenue and stability, etc., while greatly improving scheduling and fairness, etc. What other way is there to do any of that let alone all of it?

I think most of us would agree that what is "obvious" to LaxBlueDevil is not necessarily obvious to anyone else who participates here. There is also a difference between "certitude" and "certainty."

sagegrouse
'I guess the accent here is on the second sylLABle of my name'

[A-Tex Devil]

I think the answer is quite simple: Coaching. At the formation of the ACC, Everett Case and State was the big cheese. Then Mcguire came to unc, then Bubas came to Duke and Dean to unc. Then K to Duke, Then Williams to unc. That covers the period from 1953 to the present. Any more questions?

This is the answer, everyone. There have been whiffs, tragedy, schools stuck with coaches, etc. But the league has consistently missed on coaches, and, excluding hires of the last three years which we can't judge yet, the only hires that can be considered even mildly successful after Gary Williams was hired are Dave Odom and Herb Sendek, (who both plateaued and left for a lesser job), maybe Oliver Purnell, Paul Hewitt (who flamed out), maybe Skip Prosser (RIP), and Leonard Hamilton, who I don't believe has made the sweet 16 with FSU. I am sure I have missed someone but you get my point.

There's been HUGE turnover -- everyone but Duke, UNC and FSU has had a new coach in he last 4 years. I think this new generation may put out 2 or 3 guys that can get some tenure, but this is no longer Dean, K, Cremins, Gary/Lefty, Holland, Valvano of the '80s into the '90s.

[jimsumner]

This is the answer, everyone. There have been whiffs, tragedy, schools stuck with coaches, etc. But the league has consistently missed on coaches, and, excluding hires of the last three years which we can't judge yet, the only hires that can be considered even mildly successful after Gary Williams was hired are Dave Odom and Herb Sendek, (who both plateaued and left for a lesser job), maybe Oliver Purnell, Paul Hewitt (who flamed out), maybe Skip Prosser (RIP), and Leonard Hamilton, who I don't believe has made the sweet 16 with FSU. I am sure I have missed someone but you get my point.

There's been HUGE turnover -- everyone but Duke, UNC and FSU has had a new coach in he last 4 years. I think this new generation may put out 2 or 3 guys that can get some tenure, but this is no longer Dean, K, Cremins, Gary/Lefty, Holland, Valvano of the '80s into the '90s.

Florida State made the Sweet Sixteen last season.

I think it's interesting to look at the coaching competition Mike Krzyzewski faced during his first years at Duke. Dean Smith. Lefty Driesell. Jim Valvano. Terry Holland. Bob Cremins. Carl Tacy. Cliff Ellis.

How many of these schools can say with absolute certainty that they've upgraded the quality of their head coaches since then? Any?

[A-Tex Devil]

Florida State made the Sweet Sixteen last season.

I think it's interesting to look at the coaching competition Mike Krzyzewski faced during his first years at Duke. Dean Smith. Lefty Driesell. Jim Valvano. Terry Holland. Bob Cremins. Carl Tacy. Cliff Ellis.

How many of these schools can say with absolute certainty that they've upgraded the quality of their head coaches since then? Any?

I stand corrected, and I think LHam may be starting something down there. I also forgot Seth Greenberg has been around for a while, but certainly seemed to have plateaued. With his recruiting class and returning players, he's gotta make the tourney this year, right?

I'll be interested to see if any of Donahue, Bennett, Turgeon, Gottfried or Gregory can come up like K/Cremins/Valvano did in the '80s.

[jimsumner]

I stand corrected, and I think LHam may be starting something down there. I also forgot Seth Greenberg has been around for a while, but certainly seemed to have plateaued. With his recruiting class and returning players, he's gotta make the tourney this year, right?

I'll be interested to see if any of Donahue, Bennett, Turgeon, Gottfried or Gregory can come up like K/Cremins/Valvano did in the '80s.

I was very impressed with Brad Brownell last season. But can he recruit at a level to threaten Duke/UNC? Early returns are incomplete, at best.

VT? They did lose Delaney and Allen from last season. Hudson and Thompson come back from injury and they had a pretty good recruiting class. Finney-Smith is supposed to be a stud.

Still, it's hard to argue that they have more talent than recent seasons. Beating a non-ACC team (or two) of consequence might impress the NCAAs. Hey, it's worth a try.

[Jderf]

VT? They did lose Delaney and Allen from last season. Hudson and Thompson come back from injury and they had a pretty good recruiting class. Finney-Smith is supposed to be a stud.

Still, it's hard to argue that they have more talent than recent seasons. Beating a non-ACC team (or two) of consequence might impress the NCAAs. Hey, it's worth a try.

That is just crazy-talk. Crazy-talk, I say.

[Nugget]

Florida State made the Sweet Sixteen last season.

I think it's interesting to look at the coaching competition Mike Krzyzewski faced during his first years at Duke. Dean Smith. Lefty Driesell. Jim Valvano. Terry Holland. Bob Cremins. Carl Tacy. Cliff Ellis.

How many of these schools can say with absolute certainty that they've upgraded the quality of their head coaches since then? Any?


One factor to consider, however, is that it may not necessarily have been the case that the ACC coaching was so much better in the 70's/early 80's than it is now, but that the ACC's main competitors (the schools in the Big East and SEC) were substantially weaker basketball leagues at that time then they are now.

Before the Big East took off in the early 80's, other than Pistol Pete and the Bernie & Earnie years at Tennessee, it is hard to think of any place in the Eastern time zone other than Kentucky that the ACC would lose any big time recruits that it wanted.

[jimsumner]

One factor to consider, however, is that it may not necessarily have been the case that the ACC coaching was so much better in the 70's/early 80's than it is now, but that the ACC's main competitors (the schools in the Big East and SEC) were substantially weaker basketball leagues at that time then they are now.

Before the Big East took off in the early 80's, other than Pistol Pete and the Bernie & Earnie years at Tennessee, it is hard to think of any place in the Eastern time zone other than Kentucky that the ACC would lose any big time recruits that it wanted.

Certainly there was no conference on the East Coast to challenge the ACC for much of this time period. But ACC schools lost priority recruits all the time to schools like Villanova, St. John's, Penn, Temple, St. Joe's, Providence, Rutgers, et. al. A good many Eastern schools have great hoops traditions and they didn't get them by playing with guys who showed up for try-outs.

And 1985, right in the middle of the time period I referenced, is the year the BE put three schools in the Final Four, all of whom beat ACC teams in regional finals to get there. And with guys like Patrick Ewing, Reggie Williams, Chris Mullin, Bill Wennington and Ed Pinckney, all of whom were hotly recruited nationally.

And I won't mention Black Sunday, if you don't.

Or Bill Bradley.

The ACC was at war with Eastern schools--metaphorically speaking of course--from the beginning and it did't win all the recruiting battles or all the big games. Nowhere close.

[CameronBlue]

For a moment consider brand and name recognition apart from the other aspects that have perpetuated Duke and UNC's rise to dominance which has coincided with a slide in the competitiveness of the mid-tier programs. Coaches at other ACC programs not only have to out-compete Duke and UNC on the court but have to deal with the pervasive influence of the programs alumni-ambassadors off the court and during the off-season. For Duke and UNC brand recognition is a self-replenishing machine as icon follows icon: JJ, Battier, Jason Williams, Hurley, Hill, Laettner, Ferry, Dawkins, Bilas, G-Man, Banks... Most of these guys wind up in positions of influence whether in the media or the sport's executive establishement after their playing days are through and their championships won.

Pick Maryland and NC State arguably the next two in the line of storied programs in the conference. What iconic figures can you identify, who rates? NC State: Burleson, Thompson, Towe...who else? Corchiani and Monroe? Whittenburg, Bailey and Lowe? All players of long-passed generations. K and Williams are sincere, no doubt, when they promote the ACC brand but surely will resist anything that erodes their program's influence and brand recognition and it may be one reason for the continued decline in coaching talent. The ACC offers a lot but to a young coach trying to get established but in the final analysis it may be easier to compete against the brand from outside the conference than from within.

[jimsumner]

For a moment consider brand and name recognition apart from the other aspects that have perpetuated Duke and UNC's rise to dominance which has coincided with a slide in the competitiveness of the mid-tier programs. Coaches at other ACC programs not only have to out-compete Duke and UNC on the court but have to deal with the pervasive influence of the programs alumni-ambassadors off the court and during the off-season. For Duke and UNC brand recognition is a self-replenishing machine as icon follows icon: JJ, Battier, Jason Williams, Hurley, Hill, Laettner, Ferry, Dawkins, Bilas, G-Man, Banks... Most of these guys wind up in positions of influence whether in the media or the sport's executive establishement after their playing days are through and their championships won.

Pick Maryland and NC State arguably the next two in the line of storied programs in the conference. What iconic figures can you identify, who rates? NC State: Burleson, Thompson, Towe...who else? Corchiani and Monroe? Whittenburg, Bailey and Lowe? All players of long-passed generations. K and Williams are sincere, no doubt, when they promote the ACC brand but surely will resist anything that erodes their program's influence and brand recognition and it may be one reason for the continued decline in coaching talent. The ACC offers a lot but to a young coach trying to get established but in the final analysis it may be easier to compete against the brand from outside the conference than from within.

You're forgetting our old favorite, Len Elmore. :)

What's interesting to me is how Duke and UNC have pulled away from the competition over the last couple of decades. Remember when Maryland was going to be the UCLA of the East? Or Terry Holland's run from 1976 through 1984? Cremins had a nice run from '84 through '96 and the Deacs had guys like Childress and Duncan to brag about.

But none of these schools could sustain that level of excellence.

Then there's NC State. When they won the 1987 ACC Tournament, a case (no pun intended) could be made that State was no worse than Duke's equal, in historical terms. Duke had more total wins and more Final Fours, but State had two NCAA titles to Duke's "Can't win the Big One," and State had a 10-7lead in ACC Tournament titles. State had Reynolds Coliseum, the Cardiac Pack, a charismatic, young coach, the best player in ACC history and arguably the best team in ACC history. Lots to build on.

But they not only couldn't build on it, they couldn't sustain it. It's really, really tough to be good all the time, even with a history and a name brand. Look at Indiana's recent woes.

It should be noted that K, Valvano and Cremins were all in their mid-30s when they took on Dean Smith, Lefty Driesell and Terry Holland and did pretty well for themselves. Maybe that's a trio impossible to duplicate but it has been done before.

[hq2]

Then there's NC State. When they won the 1987 ACC Tournament, a case (no pun intended) could be made that State was no worse than Duke's equal, in historical terms. Duke had more total wins and more Final Fours, but State had two NCAA titles to Duke's "Can't win the Big One," and State had a 10-7lead in ACC Tournament titles. State had Reynolds Coliseum, the Cardiac Pack, a charismatic, young coach, the best player in ACC history and arguably the best team in ACC history. Lots to build on.

Yes, I think it may be State's demise in the last 20 years more than anything that has shifted the non big 2 (D &C) power situation. From the 50s through the 80s, they were always in the mix, arguably being about Duke's equal overall during that time period. The fact that they haven't been in the past 20 years has led more than anything to the current top heavy situation. Since there were many (still unanswered) questions about the State program in the 80s, it begs the question about what was happening before then too, although besides the point shaving scandal of the late 50s, there have been no other credible allegations about the Sloan or Case programs to my knowledge. It could be that things just changed in the past 20 years; state lost the Indiana player pipeline that had always been good to them and the in-state recruits they might have gotten now go to Carolina, and Duke somehow found a way to consistently find the rare combination of top student athletes that had often eluded them before. The other two programs adapted to changing times, and State didn't find a way to respond.

[CameronBlue]

The other two programs adapted to changing times, and State didn't find a way to respond.

State's response to the Valvano "scandal" and Peter Gollenbach's book (a scandalous piece of literature in so many ways) had a lasting effect I think it's safe to say if for no other reason than it led to a bad coaching hire. The lovable, affable, hugable Les Robinson, was probably right for State circa 1950 but the wrong choice to lead a modern-era basketball program. The Administration probably had to act the way it did when it tightened entrance requirements for athletes and took a more low-key approach in promoting the BB program, requiring the coach to drop (if memory serves, could be wrong) his shoe and apparel company contracts. (A couple of years after the scandal I remember seeing one list of each school's cumulative, player GPAs with State at the top.) But the hire of Robinson was just bad and sent the program off a cliff. In any event at a key time when the business that is college basketball exploded, State hesitated and withdrew, wounded, its image tarnished.

[hq2]

Yes, it's no doubt that Les Robinson didn't help them win many games (remember how the play-in game got to be known as the "Les Robinson
game" because State was always in it?) , but in the tarnished post-Valvano era, it's hard to say who would have done better.. They were due
for a down period as they re-adjusted to having to run a program with some integrity. It's just that they never seemed to find some way of being both
clean and good.

[CameronBlue]

They were due
for a down period as they re-adjusted to having to run a program with some integrity.


I think State suffered from the appearance of impropriety as much as actual improper conduct. A lot of allegations were tossed at the program--drug use, fixing games, selling shoes, grade fixing--but if memory serves the only charge that was proven true was that the players sold shoes. One has to wonder whether or not Valvano would have survived the ramifications of Golenbock's book in 2011. That stated, yeah, State's program needed some cleaning up.

[jimsumner]

Yes, I think it may be State's demise in the last 20 years more than anything that has shifted the non big 2 (D &C) power situation. From the 50s through the 80s, they were always in the mix, arguably being about Duke's equal overall during that time period. The fact that they haven't been in the past 20 years has led more than anything to the current top heavy situation. Since there were many (still unanswered) questions about the State program in the 80s, it begs the question about what was happening before then too, although besides the point shaving scandal of the late 50s, there have been no other credible allegations about the Sloan or Case programs to my knowledge. It could be that things just changed in the past 20 years; state lost the Indiana player pipeline that had always been good to them and the in-state recruits they might have gotten now go to Carolina, and Duke somehow found a way to consistently find the rare combination of top student athletes that had often eluded them before. The other two programs adapted to changing times, and State didn't find a way to respond.

State was on probation twice during Case's tenure, the first time for recruiting violations involving Ronnie Shavlik and the second time for recruiting violations involving Jackie Moreland. The point-shaving scandal did not result in NCAA censure but there were internal sanctions involving scholarships, scheduling and the termination of the Dixie Classic. State was on probation once during Sloan's tenure, for violations in the recruitment of David Thompson. State won the ACC Tournament in 1955, 1958 and 1973 but was prohibited from participating in the NCAA Tournament those three seasons due to probation. In fact, Duke's first NCAAT appearance, in 1955, was the result of State being on probation. The 1973 NCSU team was 27-0.

In fact, every State coach from 1947 through 1990, with the exception of Press Maravich, somehow managed to get the program on probation. Thus, the hiring of Les Robinson has to be seen in the context of a university trying to gain control of a basketball program viewed by many as less then pure.

[Newton_14]

State was on probation twice during Case's tenure, the first time for recruiting violations involving Ronnie Shavlik and the second time for recruiting violations involving Jackie Moreland. The point-shaving scandal did not result in NCAA censure but there were internal sanctions involving scholarships, scheduling and the termination of the Dixie Classic. State was on probation once during Sloan's tenure, for violations in the recruitment of David Thompson. State won the ACC Tournament in 1955, 1958 and 1973 but was prohibited from participating in the NCAA Tournament those three seasons due to probation. In fact, Duke's first NCAAT appearance, in 1955, was the result of State being on probation. The 1973 NCSU team was 27-0.

In fact, every State coach from 1947 through 1990, with the exception of Press Maravich, somehow managed to get the program on probation. Thus, the hiring of Les Robinson has to be seen in the context of a university trying to gain control of a basketball program viewed by many as less then pure.

I think it is important to note that the violation with David Thompson, was an assistant coach watching DT play a pickup game in Reynolds during the summer. Against the rules for sure, but it was not some sordid deal or anything. Had a huge impact though as it cost them big time in 1973 when they went undefeated but could not play in the NCAA Tourney. That two year record in 72-73/73-74 is still remarkable to me. I think they went something like 56-1 in those two years. Incredible team

[jimsumner]

I think it is important to note that the violation with David Thompson, was an assistant coach watching DT play a pickup game in Reynolds during the summer. Against the rules for sure, but it was not some sordid deal or anything. Had a huge impact though as it cost them big time in 1973 when they went undefeated but could not play in the NCAA Tourney. That two year record in 72-73/73-74 is still remarkable to me. I think they went something like 56-1 in those two years. Incredible team

The assistant coach--Eddie Biedenbach--did more than just watch the pick-up game. He participated in the pick-up game. It also was determined that State gave improper aid to two prospects to attend summer school, allowed a prospect to stay in a dorm used by camp counselors and hired prospects as counselors for summer camp. All against the rules. Some of these other violations involved Jerry Hunt, a friend of Thompson, from Shelby. State didn't have a lot of African American athletes in those days and State felt that bringing in Hunt would help DT's acclimation at State.

[Newton_14]

The assistant coach--Eddie Biedenbach--did more than just watch the pick-up game. He participated in the pick-up game. It also was determined that State gave improper aid to two prospects to attend summer school, allowed a prospect to stay in a dorm used by camp counselors and hired prospects as counselors for summer camp. All against the rules. Some of these other violations involved Jerry Hunt, a friend of Thompson, from Shelby. State didn't have a lot of African American athletes in those days and State felt that bringing in Hunt would help DT's acclimation at State.

Thanks Jim. I was not aware of the things above and beyond the pickup game. The dorm thing seems sort of benign, but hiring the prospects was a big no no. Add all of those together for sure justifies the one year tourney ban. Assistant coach was an idiot to play in that game. I always heard he had just watched.

Ironically, wasn't there a Duke issue with DT? I remember something about a suit jacket for a dinner, that ended up causing issues. Can you provide details on that story?

Thanks

[jimsumner]

Thanks Jim. I was not aware of the things above and beyond the pickup game. The dorm thing seems sort of benign, but hiring the prospects was a big no no. Add all of those together for sure justifies the one year tourney ban. Assistant coach was an idiot to play in that game. I always heard he had just watched.

Ironically, wasn't there a Duke issue with DT? I remember something about a suit jacket for a dinner, that ended up causing issues. Can you provide details on that story?

Thanks

A Shelby local purchased a sports coat for Thompson--IIRC--to wear to a visit to Duke, perhaps a meeting with admissions. The NCAA regarded this gentleman as a representative of Duke.

No one from the school knew of this or was involved in this.

Duke was on probabation for the 1973 season. Only blemish on the program, indeed the entire sports program. A sore subject still for many in the Gothic Wonderland.

[Newton_14]

A Shelby local purchased a sports coat for Thompson--IIRC--to wear to a visit to Duke, perhaps a meeting with admissions. The NCAA regarded this gentleman as a representative of Duke.

No one from the school knew of this or was involved in this.

Duke was on probabation for the 1973 season. Only blemish on the program, indeed the entire sports program. A sore subject still for many in the Gothic Wonderland.

Yeah, that stinks. A fan gets a school on probation for something the school knows nothing about, and could not possibly have prevented. Your typical NCAA rule...

[hq2]

But returning to the topic at hand; can State return to the top of the conference and run a quality program? Who knows. They've had moments where
they appear to be coming back (some top 25 appearances a few years back, ACC (almost) championship a while ago, derailed by none other than J.J.
in an incredible shooting performance), and they never seem to quite make it. Plus, they just can't seem to recruit the superstar level players that routinely
go to Duke and North Carolina, instead having to field teams with lots of decent but not great players. They always seem to be one star player away from
making it back, but never do. Who knows if/when they will again.

[jimsumner]

But returning to the topic at hand; can State return to the top of the conference and run a quality program? Who knows. They've had moments where
they appear to be coming back (some top 25 appearances a few years back, ACC (almost) championship a while ago, derailed by none other than J.J.
in an incredible shooting performance), and they never seem to quite make it. Plus, they just can't seem to recruit the superstar level players that routinely
go to Duke and North Carolina, instead having to field teams with lots of decent but not great players. They always seem to be one star player away from
making it back, but never do. Who knows if/when they will again.

Well, they do have a new coach and a 20,000-seat arena. Of course, that was the case five years ago. And we know how that turned out.

A few weeks ago, State fans were relishing the idea of a Rodney Purvis-Torian Graham-T.J. Warren superclass. Now they may not get any of these guys. Valvano had some under-the-radar-guys--Charles, Del Negro, Gugliotta, et. al.--pan out in a big way. But he also recruited guys like Ernie Myers, Chris Washburn [a mixed blessing, perhaps] Rodney Monroe and Chris Corchiani, highly-touted national recruits. Since then they've had the ocasional Julius Hodge or Brandon Costner but not enough to compete day in and day out with the Dukes and Carolinas of the world.

Unlike Lowe, Gottfried comes to State as an experienced coach, familar with the ins and outs of college hoops and recruiting. We've seen nothing to suggest that he's at the Gary Williams level as a talent developer or in-game strategist and the manner of his parting from Alabama is disquieting. I think it's got to start happening on the recruiting trail.

[Olympic Fan]

A Shelby local purchased a sports coat for Thompson--IIRC--to wear to a visit to Duke, perhaps a meeting with admissions. The NCAA regarded this gentleman as a representative of Duke.

No one from the school knew of this or was involved in this.

Duke was on probabation for the 1973 season. Only blemish on the program, indeed the entire sports program. A sore subject still for many in the Gothic Wonderland.

Jim,

Not to be argumentative, but the Shelby businessman who bought DT a $35 sports coat and gave him man illegal ride to the ACC Tournament WAS a representitive of Duke.

He wasn't a Duke alumn (as is sometimes reported), but he had helped Carl James recruit the Shelby area, back when James was the team's football recruiter. When young coach Bucky Waters asked his athletic director -- Carl James -- if he knew anybody who could help him with Thompson, James put him in touch with the businessman.

Now, let me make this clear -- Bucky was not doing anything illegal and he didn't ask or know that the businessman helping him had done anything illegal. But because the businessman DID do something illegal (albiet very minor), whiloe working with Dukie, Duke deserved a penalty.

That said, almost exactly the same thing happened in the mid-1990s when Wake Forest recruited a Nigerian kid who was playing one year in a US prep school before going to college. Dave Odom contacted a Nigerian living in Greensboro and asked him to help in the recruitment of Makhtar Ndiaye. It was later revealed that the Greensboro "agent" for Wake Forest had provided Ndiaye with illegal benefits (far more than what DT got from Duke's guy). Wake's punishment was significantly lighter than what Duke got in 1973 -- the Deacs did get a year's probation, but no postseason ban. And they were not allowed to recruit Ndiaye, who went to Michigan (before transferring to UNC).

Ndiaye was supposed to be the centerpiece of a three-man foreign recruiting class at Wake that also included Ricardo Peral from Spain and some gangling unknown kid from the Virgin Islands. Jim Duncan or something like that ...

I just wanted to post in response of anyone who uses the 1973 Duke probation to bash the NCAA. Now, the NCAA does some crazy stuff, but this isn't one of them. When you involve a citizen -- whether an alum or not -- in your recruiting efforts, it's your responsibility to make sure he obeys the rules. You can't ask Joe Businessman to help you recruit Sammy Stud and then act shocked when he provides illegal benefits under the table. Imagine the can of worms that would open up if the NCAA allowed schools to employ outsiders and then no be responsible for violations they commit!

I repeat -- Duke deserved its penalty in 1973 even though Bucky and the rest of the Duke administration didn't know what their representative did. And while I might debate the severity of the penalty (although the one-year postseason ban in 1973 came when Duke was 12-14 ... State's ban cost them a potential national title) the penalty is well deserved.

[blazindw]

Reason other schools can't step up and Duke and UNC dominate is because 48 of 58 ACC MBB tourneys have been in NC, and 50 of 58 have been won by schools in NC. Over the years, ACC schools outside NC lost all hope of a level playing field or success in basketball and stopped caring with the exception of UMD which also complains loudest about ACC tourney locations with good reason. The ACC schools outside NC should get together and leave the ACC and maybe invite Duke and UNC with the understanding that new conference tourneys in every sport will move around instead of being in NC every year. Shouldn't hurt Duke MBB which dominates NJ/NYC and has fans all over the east and USA.

Let's take a look at the last 4 ACC Tourneys that have been played outside of NC (not counting the upcoming ACC Tourney, which will be in Atlanta):

2009 in Atlanta - Winner: Duke
2007 in St. Pete - Winner: UNC
2005 in DC - Winner: Duke
2001 in Atlanta - Winner: Duke

That's 4 ACC Tourneys in 10 years played outside NC...that's about as much as you can ask for. Pretty much one every other year. And all of them were won by us or UNC. By the way, the last non-NC team to win the ACC Tourney: Maryland in 2004...in Greensboro (will never forget that game...that was ours). So, the mere fact that most of them are played in NC doesn't preclude non-NC teams from winning nor does having it outside the state mean that they have a better chance of winning.

[jimsumner]

Jim,

Not to be argumentative, but the Shelby businessman who bought DT a $35 sports coat and gave him man illegal ride to the ACC Tournament WAS a representitive of Duke.

He wasn't a Duke alumn (as is sometimes reported), but he had helped Carl James recruit the Shelby area, back when James was the team's football recruiter. When young coach Bucky Waters asked his athletic director -- Carl James -- if he knew anybody who could help him with Thompson, James put him in touch with the businessman.

Now, let me make this clear -- Bucky was not doing anything illegal and he didn't ask or know that the businessman helping him had done anything illegal. But because the businessman DID do something illegal (albiet very minor), whiloe working with Dukie, Duke deserved a penalty.

That said, almost exactly the same thing happened in the mid-1990s when Wake Forest recruited a Nigerian kid who was playing one year in a US prep school before going to college. Dave Odom contacted a Nigerian living in Greensboro and asked him to help in the recruitment of Makhtar Ndiaye. It was later revealed that the Greensboro "agent" for Wake Forest had provided Ndiaye with illegal benefits (far more than what DT got from Duke's guy). Wake's punishment was significantly lighter than what Duke got in 1973 -- the Deacs did get a year's probation, but no postseason ban. And they were not allowed to recruit Ndiaye, who went to Michigan (before transferring to UNC).

Ndiaye was supposed to be the centerpiece of a three-man foreign recruiting class at Wake that also included Ricardo Peral from Spain and some gangling unknown kid from the Virgin Islands. Jim Duncan or something like that ...

I just wanted to post in response of anyone who uses the 1973 Duke probation to bash the NCAA. Now, the NCAA does some crazy stuff, but this isn't one of them. When you involve a citizen -- whether an alum or not -- in your recruiting efforts, it's youre responsibility to make sure he obeys the rules. You can't ask Joe Businessman to help you recruit Sammy Stud and think act horrified when he provides illegal benefits under the table.

I repeat -- Duke deserved its penalty in 1973 even though Bucky and the rest of the Duke administration didn't know what their representative did. And while I might debate the severity of the penalty (although the one-year postseason ban in 1973 came when Duke was 12-14 ... State's ban cost them a potential national title) the penalty is well deserved.

OF, thanks for the clarification. My point was that the gentleman in question was not an institutional representative of Duke, i.e. he was not in Duke's employment nor did he make his gift with Duke's knowledge or consent.

It seems possible to accept that the NCAA was correct in defining him as a representative of Duke and that Duke deserved a penalty but not the penalty it received. Compared to what Clemson boosters were buying recruits, this seems to me like a slap-on-the-wrist kind of violation.

Fair enough?

[OldPhiKap]

1. The decline in the quality of coaches conference-wide has been the main culprit in the decline over the last 15 years.

2. We have an infux of new blood -- both at existing schools and apparently some new teams coming -- that should prove quite the challenge. Jim Boehiem in the ACC? Fun! (I'll ignore the Rick Barnes returns comments until that happens, if at all).

[jimsumner]

1. The decline in the quality of coaches conference-wide has been the main culprit in the decline over the last 15 years.

2. We have an infux of new blood -- both at existing schools and apparently some new teams coming -- that should prove quite the challenge. Jim Boehiem in the ACC? Fun! (I'll ignore the Rick Barnes returns comments until that happens, if at all).

Pitt's Jamie Dixon is very respected.

[OldPhiKap]

Pitt's Jamie Dixon is very respected.

True dat, as the kids say. Both are quality BB and FB programs.

I am not a fan of expansion, but that ship sailed a long time ago. These would be two good additions.

[loldevilz]

1. The decline in the quality of coaches conference-wide has been the main culprit in the decline over the last 15 years.

2. We have an infux of new blood -- both at existing schools and apparently some new teams coming -- that should prove quite the challenge. Jim Boehiem in the ACC? Fun! (I'll ignore the Rick Barnes returns comments until that happens, if at all).

Boeheim will probably never coach in the ACC or if he does, it will only be for a year or two and then they will need to replace him. I'm not sure you can just assume that Cuse will be good in the ACC.

The future of the ACC is in coachs like Gregory and GT, Bennett at UVA, Turgeon at Maryland. Not Boehim or K.

[OldPhiKap]

Boeheim will probably never coach in the ACC or if he does, it will only be for a year or two and then they will need to replace him. I'm not sure you can just assume that Cuse will be good in the ACC.

The future of the ACC is in coachs like Gregory and GT, Bennett at UVA, Turgeon at Maryland. Not Boehim or K.

True, Syracuse and Duke are going to suck for years. Bummer.

[loldevilz]

True, Syracuse and Duke are going to suck for years. Bummer.

They won't suck, but they probably won't be able to replace a hall of fame coach as easily as you might think.

[OldPhiKap]

They won't suck, but they probably won't be able to replace a hall of fame coach as easily as you might think.

I don't think it will be easy. History shows that it is not. But I don't think either coach is going anywhere for awhile, and I think both will leave strong programs that can continue to challenge beyond their tenures.