PDA

View Full Version : Bilas Predicted ACC Finish



gw67
08-25-2007, 08:09 AM
I read the DBR link on Gavin Grant and there was much more in the article related to the ACC, including a predicted finish by Jay Bilas (see below):

1. UNC
2. Duke
3. Maryland
4. N.C. State
5. Clemson
6. Florida State
7. BC
8. Georgia Tech
9. Virginia
10. Wake Forest
11. Miami
12. Virginia Tech

We have discussed the predicted finish in several threads so far. It is interesting to see how Jay rates the teams. I think he has the Terps too high and Georgia Tech too low but I haven't looked at the ACC schedules.

gw67

cspan37421
08-25-2007, 08:40 PM
So much for Jay going out of his way to downplay Duke? I don't know anyone who thinks we'll win the ACC this year (hope we do of course) but to have us on top of everyone else is high praise and esteem. I definitely think we have talent, maybe he does too. But we did last year too. Perhaps it is the team chemistry that will be so much better.

I sure hope Johnny D and the boys are forging a tight-knit group because obviously Coach K has another job to do at the moment.

JasonEvans
08-26-2007, 08:15 AM
Seeing as Coach K, JD, and the other coaches are extremely limited in what they are allowed to do with the kids at this point, I don't think it is much of a big deal that K is not around right now.

As for Jay's pick of us to be second... who else would you pick for second in the ACC? Are you gonna go with Clemson or NCState, two teams that appear to have nice talent but have not been an ACC contender in... well... a loooong time? Jay picked Maryland 3rd and nearly all of us did a double-take on that one because the Terps lot a ton to graduation and don't bring in a very impressive recruiting class.

So, I ask, if not Duke for 2nd in the ACC... who?

-Jason "when was the last time Clemson or NC State had even a .500 record in the ACC? Feels like forever" Evans

Olympic Fan
08-26-2007, 10:04 AM
-Jason "when was the last time Clemson or NC State had even a .500 record in the ACC? Feels like forever" Evans

Well, you are half right.

Clemson's last .500 ACC season was when they went 9-7 in the league under Rick Barnes in 1997. They finished tied for fourth that season.

Before that, you have to go back to 1990, when the Tigers won the first officially recognized ACC "regular season title" with a 10-4 mark under Cliff Ellis.

So that's one .500 or better season in the last 17 years -- and just nine in the 54-year history of the league.

On the other hand, NC State's last .500 or better season in the league was just two years ago. The Pack was 10-6 in the ACC in 2006 -- Herb Sendek's last season. Sendek was over .500 in the league (and in the first division) four times in his last five years, including an 11-5 second-place finish in 2004.

I agree, picking Duke second is no stretch. And I too was surprised by the choice of Maryland third. I think that even without a proven point guard, Georgia Tech has a chance to be better than Bilas thinks -- that's a pretty veteran core, plus they add Clinch, Lawal and a healthy Morrow. If the kid from Tennessee is even half-way decent at the point, they could give Duke a real run for No. 2 in the league (especially with the easiest ACC schedule of anybod ... that sure helped Virginia last season).

cspan37421
08-26-2007, 10:34 AM
I guess in a way we expect to benefit not only from being a year older (and hopefully better chemistry, if you know what I mean), but also special and sometimes tragic circumstances of other schools. Va Tech has given us trouble lately, but they have 2 unexpected departures plus the campus tragedy. Ga Tech - there's the academic ineligibility of a key player. WFU - lost their coach, tragically. MD has given us trouble lately too and it seems to me they still have a great backcourt. UVA was very good last year and unless Leitao can't reload.... I dunno, proof is in the pudding I guess.

mapei
08-26-2007, 01:10 PM
Basically, it's a weak league this year.

VaDukie
08-26-2007, 06:36 PM
Basically, it's a weak league this year.

Very much so. Weakest year since 2003, maybe even 2000.

SilkyJ
08-26-2007, 07:11 PM
Basically, it's a weak league this year.

well, its a league thats pretty desimated from outgoing players and inexperience, but I think this is a broader trend, so I'm inclined to give the ACC the benefit of the doubt and give ourselves a chance to show we could be a strong league, and I think we can be a strong team both in this league and in the rest of the country b/c this is happening everywhere, and I think the fact that it has caught up to us, when we were the pinnacle for graduating players and not losing players early, shows that all teams are being affected by this.

Four year seniors dont exist anymore, and while Duke had bucked that trend for a while, even we have gotten swept up in everyone moving to the L early. 10, maybe even 5 years ago, Livingston comes to duke for at least 1-2 years, and Luol definitely stays for 2, maybe even 3 more years (that would have meant just one 1 more year of sheld & JJ with Luol, after they tasted the final four and knew what it would take to get back...and those guys improved every year. JJ averaged 22ppg in his next year! those are jwill numbers...and then he did smoked that his senior year)

Personally I think coach k had it figured out for a little while, since he planned for it before it ever happened to us: In '99 we lost our first players to the L early EVER, and who did coach k have sitting on the back burner for the following year: Jwill, Boozer, and Dunleavy. Whats more? We lost 3 early entry guys to the league that year (trajan left, but was a senior) and what position did they play: PG(avery), C (brand), WF(maggette), and thats exactly what we bring in. And two years later, we win the championship. His thought was to bring in a star class like that, every 2-3 years and supplement it with smaller classes to round out the team (see: duhon the next year, ewing, Luol and livingston to round out the JJ/Sheld threat the) but then things changed when livingston and humphries didnt come. and we've lost guys it seems like every year to the L, who wouldnt have left only a few years back: shav. i mean come on. josh? maybe. and we lost guys like boateng/thompson/burgess, who were both AA's in HS but couldnt cut it in one way or another to coach k's liking.

So I think coach K's strategy is to just load up on weapons and bring in star classes every year instead of every couple of years, without sacrificing quality for quantity . This will provide a lot of competition in practice on the plus side, but obviously it seems as though we are losing quite a few to transfers...not to mention they are all big men...But coach K has finally started to really load up. In 3 years he has brought in the following BIG names: Paulus/Josh/Boateng/Boykin (along with marty), Henderson/Scheyer/thomas/zoubek. And NOW he brings in Singler/Smith/King. Thats a helluva lot of talent. Now we have to hope coach K can A) sustain this and B) use what we all know are his superior coaching skills to train such young guys, b/c we arent winning a NC when all our guys are fresh/sophs and no senior leader...even jwill couldn't do it w/o battier...and now we have demarcus who i think can be a solid leader, along with greg. But the best way to get experience is play, and while scheyer seemed to tire last year he played 30 min a game, mostly as a starter and endured an entire ACC season. and for someone so seemingly frail, he did it without getting a serious injury I can think of, and proved he his definitely a good player. So I think we are in solid shape, and if coach k can work a just a little magic (and no one else gets injured) then I think we'll have a potential top 10 team.

all you can do is do what we've done for over 25 years now. just trust coach k. with all this talent I think he can do something special. I think he is learning from the USA bball experience, and should be able to apply several things he learns there when dealing with 10-11 guys who legitimately deserve to be on the floor. We'll be a much better team this year.

(sorry that went from the ACC to us...can't help it)

just_wondering
08-26-2007, 08:53 PM
Seeing as Coach K, JD, and the other coaches are extremely limited in what they are allowed to do with the kids at this point, I don't think it is much of a big deal that K is not around right now.

As for Jay's pick of us to be second... who else would you pick for second in the ACC? Are you gonna go with Clemson or NCState, two teams that appear to have nice talent but have not been an ACC contender in... well... a loooong time? Jay picked Maryland 3rd and nearly all of us did a double-take on that one because the Terps lot a ton to graduation and don't bring in a very impressive recruiting class.

So, I ask, if not Duke for 2nd in the ACC... who?

-Jason "when was the last time Clemson or NC State had even a .500 record in the ACC? Feels like forever" Evans

The Terps have replaced D.J. Strawberry once before. Going into last season he was the starting point guard. Vasquez and Hayes replaced him and improved the position. Last year Strawberry again played slightly out of position as the third guard/small forward. I think that once again the Terps will be able to replace him rather seamlessly.

Maryland might have lost a ton of experience but what other teams in the ACC have experienced point guards and experienced inside scorers? Maryland will be a much better balanced team than they were last year. I belief that the Jay Bilas rating is based on the balance and the superior guard play.

JasonEvans
08-27-2007, 10:13 AM
Basically, it's a weak league this year.

I agree, but I wonder which are the strong leagues this year? The nation's consensus #1 team (Memphis) does not come from a major conference. The ACC is not as strong as in years past, no question about it, but many other leagues are down too.

The Pac-10 is almost certainly the best conference in the land, in my opinion (UCLA, Wash State, Arizona, Stanford, and Oregon are all top-20 teams and USC with Mayo is very intriguing). The Big East (led by Louisvile, GTown, Marquette, Pitt, and Syracuse) will have more tournament teams than the ACC, I think, but they have more really mediocre teams too. The SEC is down (Tennessee and then who? Miss State?). The Big Ten is godawful (Indiana, Michigan State and then a bunch of so-so teams). The Big 12 is just Kansas and a bunch of bad teams (Texas and Texas A&M may be next, even though each were just wiped out by departures to the NBA and to Kentucky).

In any event, I see the ACC as down, but most of the other conferences are also down quite a bit. I still see the conference getting 5 or 6 teams into the dance (UNC, Duke, Clemson, NC State, and one or two of Maryland, Ga Tech, Virginia, and maybe BC). I still think we will see the ACC as one of the top 2 or 3 conferences in the Sagarin and RPI rankings when we reach March.

-Jason "I forgot to mention Washington in the Pac 10... that conference is loaded this year!" Evans

Olympic Fan
08-27-2007, 10:23 AM
I guess in a way we expect to benefit not only from being a year older (and hopefully better chemistry, if you know what I mean), but also special and sometimes tragic circumstances of other schools. Va Tech has given us trouble lately, but they have 2 unexpected departures plus the campus tragedy. Ga Tech - there's the academic ineligibility of a key player. WFU - lost their coach, tragically. MD has given us trouble lately too and it seems to me they still have a great backcourt. UVA was very good last year and unless Leitao can't reload.... I dunno, proof is in the pudding I guess.

Guys keep talking about the Ra'Sean Dickey suspension like it's a big deal -- it's not. He's going to sit out the first semester. He'll miss 6-7 games. Unless he really screws up in class this fall, he'll be back on the team by mid-December. His absence will have little or no impact on the ACC race.

I'm not willing to concede that the ACC will be down this season. Certainly there will be a reshuffling of the power teams, but that happens every year. The league was painfully young last year -- yet finished as the top-rated RPI conference with the best non-conference winning percentage. The only reason anybody thinks it was down was because for once -- and this is a real rarity -- the league underperformed in the NCAA.

I think a number of teams benefit from the experience they gained last year. North Carolina, despite losing Wright and Terry (no big loss in the second case), should benefit a lot from having Lawson and Ellington starting for a second year. In addition, they'll benefit from having a healty Bobby Fraser all year -- he was hobbled much worse than Paulus by his foot injury.

We all know that Duke expects to be better with its added experience, the addition of three quality recruits and a healthy Paulus.

Wake has to deal with the loss on Prosser, but on the court, they are another team that paid the price for being too young last year -- guys like Smith, Skeen and Williams should be a lot better this season. I know they lose Visser, but while he put up good numbers, he was never a difference-maker and he slowed down a team that could really run.

Clemson has almost everybody back from a team that won 25 games last year and added a a trio of good recruits. Plus they'll get a healthy Julius Powell back (he was very solid in 2006, but could barely play last year).

As I said before Georgia Tech has a great core. Losing Clinch at midseason last year was a HUGE blow last year -- much more significant than losing Dickey for 6-7 games this year. Plus, Morrow was recovering from a bad back and was not the same player he was two years ago until very late in the season. If they get half-decent point guard play, they're better than last year.

The same goes for NC State, which started either three or four newcomers all last year. Sidney Lowe developed a wonderful core group (check out their play in the ACC Tournament), plus he adds two frontcourt studs. The key is whether any of the three PG candidates can replace Atsur ...

I think State, Georgia Tech and Maryland are the three real question marks in the league. They can be very good (if State and GTech get decent PG play). Maryland is interesting -- two fine young guards, both of which can play the point, and two solid, veteran post players -- then nothing else returning. Gary's got to fill the gaps with a bunch of unheralded newcomers. We'll see.

Virginia Tech is facing the big dropoff, especially after the off-season decision of Munson to transfer. BC should also fall a long way too.

Virginia probably drops off without Reynolds and Cain, but they do return the best PG in the league in Singletary and a lot of guys who played a lot last year. I expect a drop, but I wouldn't write them off.

The two Florida schools are also interesting. FSU is right where they've been for the last two years -- right on the bubble. Losing Thornton hurts, but they return four other starters -- including a bunch of decent perimeter scorers (Douglas, Rich, Swann) plus they add two big men to solve their post weakness.

Miami went through an unbelievable bad luck year last season, but finished fairly strong, especially after they kicked off Clemente and got a couple of big man back from injury. Anthony King winning a hardship year was big. Rios should replace Harris ... To me, Miami is like Wake -- I don't think they challenge for the ACC title, but they'll be a lot tougher out this season.

Sure, some things will go wrong. There will be injuries -- although I doubt that as many key players are hurt as last year when such key players as Paulus, Morrow, King, Fraser, Powell were all hobbled to some degree (plus Clinch was suspended for most of the year). Some of the teams filling holes will fail to fill them -- maybe State or Georgia Tech can't find a point guard or Gary can't find a quality wing?

But some of those questions will be answered in the positive. A lot of ACC teans have a chance to be as good or better this year than last year. I'd wait before writing the league off.

Clipsfan
08-27-2007, 11:55 AM
I agree, but I wonder which are the strong leagues this year? The nation's consensus #1 team (Memphis) does not come from a major conference. The ACC is not as strong as in years past, no question about it, but many other leagues are down too.

The Pac-10 is almost certainly the best conference in the land, in my opinion (UCLA, Wash State, Arizona, Stanford, and Oregon are all top-20 teams and USC with Mayo is very intriguing). The Big East (led by Louisvile, GTown, Marquette, Pitt, and Syracuse) will have more tournament teams than the ACC, I think, but they have more really mediocre teams too. The SEC is down (Tennessee and then who? Miss State?). The Big Ten is godawful (Indiana, Michigan State and then a bunch of so-so teams). The Big 12 is just Kansas and a bunch of bad teams (Texas and Texas A&M may be next, even though each were just wiped out by departures to the NBA and to Kentucky).

In any event, I see the ACC as down, but most of the other conferences are also down quite a bit. I still see the conference getting 5 or 6 teams into the dance (UNC, Duke, Clemson, NC State, and one or two of Maryland, Ga Tech, Virginia, and maybe BC). I still think we will see the ACC as one of the top 2 or 3 conferences in the Sagarin and RPI rankings when we reach March.

-Jason "I forgot to mention Washington in the Pac 10... that conference is loaded this year!" Evans

The ACC is definitely the most loaded this year and I expect that they will easily have the highest RPI although I think that they will beat each other up quite a bit and therefore will have high individual RPIs but lower poll rankings due to losses. I just hope UCLA smacks down USC.

JasonEvans
08-27-2007, 12:28 PM
The ACC is definitely the most loaded this year and I expect that they will easily have the highest RPI although I think that they will beat each other up quite a bit and therefore will have high individual RPIs but lower poll rankings due to losses. I just hope UCLA smacks down USC.

You mean the Pac-10, not ACC, right?