PDA

View Full Version : This Week in the ACC - 2/10-2/16



pfrduke
02-09-2014, 11:44 PM
Can we get 6 teams (out of 15, ugh) into the NCAAs? Clemson and FSU both look to be on the outside looking in with a healthy amount of work to do for the rest of the season. The top of the lead is completely locked (although Pitt had some shaky performances this week). Carolina suddenly looks like a real basketball team again, although they haven't played anyone of much note in their recent 5-game stretch. But the Tigers and Noles have not been able to put any kind of consistent stretch together. One of those two teams will need to get hot if the ACC wants to expand its tournament presence.

Monday has a couple of ACC contests. In the early game, FSU looks to right the ship hosting in state rival Miami. FSU won comfortably in Coral Gables in a slow, low-scoring game - expect more of the same in Tallahassee. In later action, Virginia (it's third Big Monday tilt of the season already) hosts the Terps for the last time (at least as conference foes). Maryland has a tough week, playing on the road against two of the conference's best 3 teams. They've not had a lot of recent luck in Charlottesville and this year's team lacks the kind of offensive firepower necessary to take down the 'Hoos.

[31]Florida State hosts [83]Miami (7, ESPN)
[7]Virginia hosts [59]Maryland (9, ESPNU)

Tuesday has a warm-up version of the Tobacco Road rivalry with Wake traveling to Raleigh to take on the Pack. Wake nipped them at the buzzer at the Joel, but doing it on the road will be tougher. Also Tuesday Clemson travels to Notre Dame. This is the kind of game Clemson needs to win if it has any hope of an at-large bid.

[84]NC State hosts [99]Wake Forest (7, ESPNU)
[91]Notre Dame hosts [49]Clemson (7, ESPN3)

Wednesday is Duke-UNC round 1 - hooray! And a heck of an undercard to boot - Syracuse heads to the Pete to take on Pitt. As mentioned, the Panthers have been unsteady lately (I don't understand how Virginia Tech took them to double OT at home), but they should be up for this one. 24-0 is very much in jeopardy. Also Wednesday, for the masochistic among us, Georgia Tech and Boston College play.

[15]Pittsburgh hosts [3]Syracuse (7, ESPN)
[128]Georgia Tech hosts [151]Boston College (7, ESPN3)
[27]North Carolina hosts [2]Duke (9, ESPN)

Thursday and Friday are dark.

Saturday has 6 games, and a healthy amount look to be pretty good. Carolina caps a big week in Chapel Hill with a visit from Pitt - if the Heels win they could start to sneak into the top 4 picture in the conference regular season. UVA has their toughest road game remaining with a trip to Clemson - again, if the Tigers want to make some noise, this would be a great game to win, and Tony Bennet Virginia teams have never won in Clemson. Maryland makes their final trip to Durham, and I would really like the Devils to send them packing with a substantial spanking. In other action, Syracuse hosts State, Virginia Tech hosts Miami, and Wake hosts FSU. The Deacs have been very tough at home and FSU has struggled on the road, losing its last 4 after starting out 2-0.

[49]Clemson hosts [7]Virginia (12, ESPN2)
[27]North Carolina hosts [15]Pittsburgh (1, CBS)
[3]Syracuse hosts [84]NC State (3, ESPN3)
[2]Duke hosts [59]Maryland (6, ESPN)
[210]Virginia Tech hosts [83]Miami (6, ESPN3)
[99]Wake Forest hosts [31]Florida State (8, ESPN3)

Sunday there was a run of good Sunday night ACC games, but that's done now. BC hosts Notre Dame. Yawn.

[151]Boston College hosts [91]Notre Dame (6, ESPNU)

ACC Non-Conference Record: 139-53
ACC Record vs. BCS: 29-33

pfrduke
02-10-2014, 10:00 PM
In the early game, FSU looks to right the ship hosting in state rival Miami.

Nope. Sigh. Maybe Clemson can go on a run.

davekay1971
02-11-2014, 12:08 AM
NCSU has a big, winnable game. They've been playing better (except for their usual debacle against UNC), and host a Wake team that is not a bad team, but not nearly as strong on the road as they've been at home. If NCSU can get the win, they set themselves up pretty well to finish above .500 for the ACC season. TJ Warren has been having an awesome season. NCSU has struggled with point guard play (Lewis is a liability on defense, Barber is too inconsistent on offense). But Warren, Vandenberg, Lee, and Ralston Turner have been good for them.

Given that State's next game is at Syracuse, the WFU game is one the Pack can't afford to drop.

Olympic Fan
02-11-2014, 01:15 AM
NCSU has a big, winnable game. They've been playing better (except for their usual debacle against UNC), and host a Wake team that is not a bad team, but not nearly as strong on the road as they've been at home. If NCSU can get the win, they set themselves up pretty well to finish above .500 for the ACC season. TJ Warren has been having an awesome season. NCSU has struggled with point guard play (Lewis is a liability on defense, Barber is too inconsistent on offense). But Warren, Vandenberg, Lee, and Ralston Turner have been good for them.

Given that State's next game is at Syracuse, the WFU game is one the Pack can't afford to drop.

I actually think NC State has almost no chance of being even a bubble team ... but at 15-8 (5-5 ACC) and No. 58 in the RPI, you can't count them out yet.

I don't think they need to beat Syracuse next week to keep their hopes alive, but I agree that the Wake game at home would be a killer to lose.

Clemson is also in the picture (15-7, 6-4 ACC, No. 64 RPI). They have a big one Tuesday night at Notre Dame -- they really need that one, then they need to pop Virginia in Littlejohn Saturday. Do that and they have a real shot at an NCAA vid.

FSU didn't help themselves Monday night -- they are on the verge of playing themselves out. And Maryland is all but out after losing at Uva. Duke can put the final nail in their coffin Saturday in Cameron.

On the other hand, UNC has put themselves in position where they don't have to beat Duke Wednesday to be a tournament team.

pfrduke
02-11-2014, 08:31 AM
I actually think NC State has almost no chance of being even a bubble team ... but at 15-8 (5-5 ACC) and No. 58 in the RPI, you can't count them out yet.

I don't think they need to beat Syracuse next week to keep their hopes alive, but I agree that the Wake game at home would be a killer to lose.

Clemson is also in the picture (15-7, 6-4 ACC, No. 64 RPI). They have a big one Tuesday night at Notre Dame -- they really need that one, then they need to pop Virginia in Littlejohn Saturday. Do that and they have a real shot at an NCAA vid.

FSU didn't help themselves Monday night -- they are on the verge of playing themselves out. And Maryland is all but out after losing at Uva. Duke can put the final nail in their coffin Saturday in Cameron.

On the other hand, UNC has put themselves in position where they don't have to beat Duke Wednesday to be a tournament team.

State has to travel to Syracuse, Clemson, and Pittsburgh, and host Carolina in their last 8 games. If they somehow - somehow - go 3-1 for that stretch and don't drop another game, then they could play themselves into the tournament picture (21-9, 12-6, and wins over at least 2 of Syracuse, Pitt, and UNC). I have about zero faith in that happening.

Clemson got roughed up by the schedule early but has a really favorable finish - their only remaining road games are Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and Wake, they play 5 of their last 7 at home, and they have Virginia and Pitt coming to town, which gives them chances to pick up another quality win. Their non-conference resume is atrocious, though - the best win is either Davidson or South Carolina, and they lost to a very bad Auburn team. Going 6-2 down the stretch could be enough, but if the 2 losses are the 2 games against UVA and Pitt, even a 21-9, 12-6 record with a win over Duke may not get them off the bubble.

FSU, I think, needs to win out - at the very least, 5-1. That could be tricky, as they play UNC, Syracuse, and Pitt down the stretch. At least the first two of those are at home. Their resume would look a lot different if the 1-point loss to Florida had turned out the other way, or if they could have held a healthy second-half lead over Michigan.

For Carolina, I think their resume is good enough that even if they get swept by Duke and lose at home to Pitt this weekend, they could get in by winning the rest. That would put them at 21-10, 11-7, with the best set of non-conference wins that any bubble-ish team is going to have. They might even be able to afford losing one more.

Kedsy
02-11-2014, 10:06 AM
For Carolina, I think their resume is good enough that even if they get swept by Duke and lose at home to Pitt this weekend, they could get in by winning the rest. That would put them at 21-10, 11-7, with the best set of non-conference wins that any bubble-ish team is going to have. They might even be able to afford losing one more.

Yeah, I think UNC makes it with a 10-8 league record. Not so sure if they end up 9-9 or 8-10.

arnie
02-11-2014, 12:24 PM
State has to travel to Syracuse, Clemson, and Pittsburgh, and host Carolina in their last 8 games. If they somehow - somehow - go 3-1 for that stretch and don't drop another game, then they could play themselves into the tournament picture (21-9, 12-6, and wins over at least 2 of Syracuse, Pitt, and UNC). I have about zero faith in that happening.

Clemson got roughed up by the schedule early but has a really favorable finish - their only remaining road games are Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and Wake, they play 5 of their last 7 at home, and they have Virginia and Pitt coming to town, which gives them chances to pick up another quality win. Their non-conference resume is atrocious, though - the best win is either Davidson or South Carolina, and they lost to a very bad Auburn team. Going 6-2 down the stretch could be enough, but if the 2 losses are the 2 games against UVA and Pitt, even a 21-9, 12-6 record with a win over Duke may not get them off the bubble.
.
So Clemson doesn't have any average OOC wins as both Davidson and the Cocks are weak this year. Sounds like a Seth Greenburg moment when they don't make it with an 11-7 conf record.

pfrduke
02-11-2014, 12:29 PM
So Clemson doesn't have any average OOC wins as both Davidson and the Cocks are weak this year. Sounds like a Seth Greenburg moment when they don't make it with an 11-7 conf record.

At least according to Pomeroy's numbers, in the non-conference schedule Clemson has a grand total of 0 top 100 wins and 3 top 200 wins. It's a bad schedule.

Olympic Fan
02-11-2014, 01:20 PM
Agreed -- Clemson's weak non-conference schedule is a problem.

The best comparison is Virginia last year -- 21-11 (11-7 ACC) but a non-conference SOS of 300 and an overall RPI of 74.

They didn't get in.

Clemson's non-conference SOS is currently 290 (it changes slightly as teams the Tigers played win and lose) and their RPI is 64 ... so they are in a little better shape than the 2013 Cavs.

I think they still have work to do. They've got to take care of business at home -- and that means beating Virginia and Pitt. Finish 6-2 with at least one of those too 25 wins (to go with their victory over Duke) would get them to 21-9 12-6 going into the ACC Tournament. Add a win or two in Greensboro and I think the Tigers would make it.

It's going to be tough -- that's why they are a bubble team -- but it's not all that far-fetched.

Bob Green
02-11-2014, 07:49 PM
A good game in Raleigh with State up over Wake 46-38 at the half. T.J. Warren has scored 23 points so far. Cody Miller-McIntyre picked up his 3rd foul with 7.3 seconds left in the half. I'm looking forward to the 2nd half.

FerryFor50
02-11-2014, 09:13 PM
TJ Warren drops 34 points and 10 boards on Wake. Front runner for ACC POY.

ND blows late leads twice (regulation and OT) and is in a 2nd overtime with Clemson.

CDu
02-11-2014, 09:31 PM
And with Clemson's loss, it is looking a heck of a lot like this will be a 5-bid ACC this year.

vick
02-11-2014, 09:43 PM
TJ Warren drops 34 points and 10 boards on Wake. Front runner for ACC POY.

ND blows late leads twice (regulation and OT) and is in a 2nd overtime with Clemson.

You think so? I haven't seen any midseason lists this year, but I feel like C. J. Fair has dominated the conversation. I don't actually agree with either of those choices, personally (though certainly Warren's game tonight helps his case), it's just what I've heard.

FerryFor50
02-11-2014, 10:08 PM
You think so? I haven't seen any midseason lists this year, but I feel like C. J. Fair has dominated the conversation. I don't actually agree with either of those choices, personally (though certainly Warren's game tonight helps his case), it's just what I've heard.

Warren is top 10 in the country in scoring and has barely any help. Fair has an actual team around him.

Both have had bad games (Warren against UVA, Fair against Notre Dame). But Fair had only one great game (against Duke). Warren has had several and is shooting a higher % from the field (51.5% to 44%). Both are pretty mediocre from 3. Warren also beats Fair on the boards (7.3 to 5.9).

The other contenders, IMO:

Marcus Paige
Jabari Parker
Rodney Hood
Jerami Grant
Tyler Ennis
Olivier Hanlan
Joe Harris
Malcolm Brogden
Lamar Patterson
KJ McDaniels

I can't make a compelling case for any of them over Warren, but if Parker keeps up his recent play, he'd be in the conversation.

vick
02-11-2014, 10:30 PM
Warren is top 10 in the country in scoring and has barely any help. Fair has an actual team around him.

Both have had bad games (Warren against UVA, Fair against Notre Dame). But Fair had only one great game (against Duke). Warren has had several and is shooting a higher % from the field (51.5% to 44%). Both are pretty mediocre from 3. Warren also beats Fair on the boards (7.3 to 5.9).

The other contenders, IMO:

Marcus Paige
Jabari Parker
Rodney Hood
Jerami Grant
Tyler Ennis
Olivier Hanlan
Joe Harris
Malcolm Brogden
Lamar Patterson
KJ McDaniels

I can't make a compelling case for any of them over Warren, but if Parker keeps up his recent play, he'd be in the conversation.

I think that's a decent list, though I would probably swap a couple of names in my top 12. My personal top 5 right now would probably be: Brogdon, McDaniels*, Ennis, Patterson, Harris, but I am much more efficiency-obsessed than the average voter. Brogdon is vastly more efficient than either Warren or Fair.

* Seriously, just how awful would Clemson's offense be without McDaniels? He's the only guy averaging more than 8 points on their team!

OldPhiKap
02-11-2014, 10:41 PM
TJ Warren drops 34 points and 10 boards on Wake. Front runner for ACC POY.

ND blows late leads twice (regulation and OT) and is in a 2nd overtime with Clemson.


You think so? I haven't seen any midseason lists this year, but I feel like C. J. Fair has dominated the conversation. I don't actually agree with either of those choices, personally (though certainly Warren's game tonight helps his case), it's just what I've heard.


Warren is top 10 in the country in scoring and has barely any help. Fair has an actual team around him.

Both have had bad games (Warren against UVA, Fair against Notre Dame). But Fair had only one great game (against Duke). Warren has had several and is shooting a higher % from the field (51.5% to 44%). Both are pretty mediocre from 3. Warren also beats Fair on the boards (7.3 to 5.9).

The other contenders, IMO:

Marcus Paige
Jabari Parker
Rodney Hood
Jerami Grant
Tyler Ennis
Olivier Hanlan
Joe Harris
Malcolm Brogden
Lamar Patterson
KJ McDaniels

I can't make a compelling case for any of them over Warren, but if Parker keeps up his recent play, he'd be in the conversation.


I think that's a decent list, though I would probably swap a couple of names in my top 12. My personal top 5 right now would probably be: Brogdon, McDaniels*, Ennis, Patterson, Harris, but I am much more efficiency-obsessed than the average voter. Brogdon is vastly more efficient than either Warren or Fair.

* Seriously, just how awful would Clemson's offense be without McDaniels? He's the only guy averaging more than 8 points on their team!

Interesting thing is -- you could argue that Duke does not have a first team all-ACC player yet is the best team.

Maybe the coach has something to do with it.

ice-9
02-12-2014, 01:35 AM
Interesting thing is -- you could argue that Duke does not have a first team all-ACC player yet is the best team.

Maybe the coach has something to do with it.


We do have a top 3 NBA draft pick and a lottery-ish player though, and probably more pros on the team in a couple years time. :)

And yeah our coach rocks!

Olympic Fan
02-12-2014, 02:34 AM
Amazed at the lack of love for Jabari Parker in the POY discussion.

Len Elmore, hardly the biggest Duke fan in the world, revealed his POY formula during the State game last night -- he had Parker at No. 1. Vick, you claim to best more efficiency oriented that other voters -- well, check out Pomeroy, who currently lists Parker as his No. 2 National Player of the Year (behind McDermott). He's the only ACC guy in the top five.

Going into the Carolina game, Parker is leading the ACC in rebounding, No. 2 in scoring, No. 4 in field goal percentage and has more double-doubles than anyone else in the league. And Ferryfor50, "if he keeps up his recent play, he'll be in the conversation."

Can't you say that about anyone? Two weeks ago, Lamar Patterson was the frontrunner for ACC POY, but after three terrible games in his last four, he's lost some ground.

Parker went through a four-game rough stretch to start conference play, but over the last seven games, he's averaged 20.0 ppg and 11.3 rebounds. Yeah, if he keeps that up, I think he'll be in the conversation.

jv001
02-12-2014, 08:56 AM
Pitt favored by 1 point against Syracuse. Home court at it's best. GoDuke!

flyingdutchdevil
02-12-2014, 09:07 AM
We do have a top 3 NBA draft pick and a lottery-ish player though, and probably more pros on the team in a couple years time. :)

This. Parker and Hood are guaranteed first round picks, and I'd argue that Sulaimon is as well. Jefferson is also a possible first round pick. Dawkins and Cook are second rounds picks that have a strong chance of sticking around in the league (btw, does any college team do better with second round picks than Duke? Boozer, Duhon, Kelly, Ewing... the list goes on!)

jv001
02-12-2014, 09:12 AM
This. Parker and Hood are guaranteed first round picks, and I'd argue that Sulaimon is as well. Jefferson is also a possible first round pick. Dawkins and Cook are second rounds picks that have a strong chance of sticking around in the league (btw, does any college team do better with second round picks than Duke? Boozer, Duhon, Kelly, Ewing... the list goes on!)

This, this. Duke has a good record of successful 2nd round picks. Was Singler a first or 2nd round pick? My memory isn't what it used to be. GoDuke!

flyingdutchdevil
02-12-2014, 09:27 AM
This, this. Duke has a good record of successful 2nd round picks. Was Singler a first or 2nd round pick? My memory isn't what it used to be. GoDuke!

Singler was a second round pick as well. Wow! So was McBob.

Unfortunately, the track record for players succeeding who weren't not drafted isn't that great. But that's not really surprising, because it's pretty bad for every team.

jv001
02-12-2014, 09:29 AM
Singler was a second round pick as well. Wow! So was McBob.

Unfortunately, the track record for players succeeding who weren't not drafted isn't that great. But that's not really surprising, because it's pretty bad for every team.

McBob had a good game for the Bobcats last night, as they beat the Mavs at home. He had 9 points and 13 assists. Hendo had 15 points. GoDuke!

vick
02-12-2014, 09:36 AM
Amazed at the lack of love for Jabari Parker in the POY discussion.

Len Elmore, hardly the biggest Duke fan in the world, revealed his POY formula during the State game last night -- he had Parker at No. 1. Vick, you claim to best more efficiency oriented that other voters -- well, check out Pomeroy, who currently lists Parker as his No. 2 National Player of the Year (behind McDermott). He's the only ACC guy in the top five.

Going into the Carolina game, Parker is leading the ACC in rebounding, No. 2 in scoring, No. 4 in field goal percentage and has more double-doubles than anyone else in the league. And Ferryfor50, "if he keeps up his recent play, he'll be in the conversation."

Can't you say that about anyone? Two weeks ago, Lamar Patterson was the frontrunner for ACC POY, but after three terrible games in his last four, he's lost some ground.

Parker went through a four-game rough stretch to start conference play, but over the last seven games, he's averaged 20.0 ppg and 11.3 rebounds. Yeah, if he keeps that up, I think he'll be in the conversation.

The thing about Pomeroy you have to remember, though, is that his player rankings are for the whole year, but the ACC POY is about the conference season--otherwise Mason would have probably won last year, Scheyer would have certainly won in 2010, etc.. Even his conference top-5 players works like this, so his all-kenpom team right now is (in order) Parker, Patterson, Fair, McDaniels, Ennis. I think that's perfectly plausible for the season as a whole but less so for the ACC-only. That said, you're absolutely right that if Parker plays the next seven games like the last seven (or for that matter the nonconference), he will definitely be on the very short list, and deservedly so.

flyingdutchdevil
02-12-2014, 09:44 AM
The thing about Pomeroy you have to remember, though, is that his player rankings are for the whole year, but the ACC POY is about the conference season--otherwise Mason would have probably won last year, Scheyer would have certainly won in 2010, etc.. Even his conference top-5 players works like this, so his all-kenpom team right now is (in order) Parker, Patterson, Fair, McDaniels, Ennis. I think that's perfectly plausible for the season as a whole but less so for the ACC-only. That said, you're absolutely right that if Parker plays the next seven games like the last seven (or for that matter the nonconference), he will definitely be on the very short list, and deservedly so.

This. Jabari has been dominant of late, but Jabari really struggled in the beginning of ACC play. That's a massive knock against him. In Jabari's first 4 ACC games, he averaged only 10.5 ppg (off 30.4% FG) and 5.0 rpg.

Since then? No one has been better in the ACC, and I don't think it's been close. If Jabari continues this play, I think he'll get the award. But those first 4 games aren't great for Jabari's ACC POY resume, just like Patterson's recent struggles.

Slackerb
02-12-2014, 10:10 AM
I really think it's debatable that no one has played as well as Jabari since the first 4 games.

You can't really play the "if" game with Warren's recent streak. I don't think people realize how good he's been recently. Since he missed the Maryland game, he's averaged 26.4 points over those five games while shooting 58.4 percent and 55.6 percent 3-point range. Those aren't ACC POY numbers, those are NCAA POY numbers.

Of course, he's unlikely to get either because he plays on a mediocre team.

vick
02-12-2014, 10:34 AM
I really think it's debatable that no one has played as well as Jabari since the first 4 games.

You can't really play the "if" game with Warren's recent streak. I don't think people realize how good he's been recently. Since he missed the Maryland game, he's averaged 26.4 points over those five games while shooting 58.4 percent and 55.6 percent 3-point range. Those aren't ACC POY numbers, those are NCAA POY numbers.

Of course, he's unlikely to get either because he plays on a mediocre team.

But there's a difference here, in that Parker's numbers are only a slight improvement over what how he was playing before his January slump. Warren's are very likely unsustainable--he hasn't transformed himself into the best long-distance shooter in the history of the sport after all. Note also that in the only game against a likely tournament team during his five-game streak, Warren put up 21 points--but I believe 13 came after they fell behind by about 20 points. With games at Syracuse, at Clemson, and at Pittsburgh, plus a home game against UNC in their next 7, I think it's highly unlikely that Warren keeps up close to that streak.

flyingdutchdevil
02-12-2014, 10:44 AM
But there's a difference here, in that Parker's numbers are only a slight improvement over what how he was playing before his January slump. Warren's are very likely unsustainable--he hasn't transformed himself into the best long-distance shooter in the history of the sport after all. Note also that in the only game against a likely tournament team during his five-game streak, Warren put up 21 points--but I believe 13 came after they fell behind by about 20 points. With games at Syracuse, at Clemson, and at Pittsburgh, plus a home game against UNC in their next 7, I think it's highly unlikely that Warren keeps up close to that streak.

Jabari had his best game against arguably the worst team in the ACC. Does that negate Jabari's game? Of course not. I give Warren mad props for his play and agree that, right now, he is the front runner.

Olympic Fan
02-12-2014, 12:53 PM
And where is it written that the ACC POY vote is based on just ACC play?

I'm sure some voters consider that, but not all do.

Again, my point is that as of this moment, Parker is as viable an ACC POY candidate as there is in the leaque. Is he a lock? No. But neither is CJ Fair or Warren or anybody else.

Bob Green
02-15-2014, 12:59 PM
Clemson is playing Virginia tough, but the Cavaliers have a 31-28 halftime lead on the strength of Mike Tobey's 10 points. Tobey tipped in a Joe Harris miss at the buzzer in a very nice play.

El_Diablo
02-15-2014, 02:31 PM
Some friendly officiating is helping UNC stay in front of Pitt. Neither team is looking very sharp though.

vick
02-15-2014, 02:31 PM
Clemson's tournament hopes probably took a huge hit as UVa's lucky scheduling continued. Is their game against us really their only win over a probable tournament team?

GGLC
02-15-2014, 02:36 PM
Some friendly officiating is helping UNC stay in front of Pitt. Neither team is looking very sharp though.

These announcers are beyond annoying.

El_Diablo
02-15-2014, 02:42 PM
Some friendly officiating is helping UNC stay in front of Pitt. Neither team is looking very sharp though.

UNC pulling away now...pretty much every offensive possession seems to be ending in a basket or a foul or both.

devildeac
02-15-2014, 02:53 PM
UNC pulling away now...pretty much every offensive possession seems to be ending in a basket or a foul or both.

Pitt has cut it to 4 but I'm not holding much hope for the Panthers.

DukeWarhead
02-15-2014, 03:08 PM
Pitt has cut it to 4 but I'm not holding much hope for the Panthers.

Looks like it will be up to the Blue Devils to put the 'Holes back in their place this coming Thursday. Not sure if FSU will do it first. Sure, they are playing better but yeesh other teams seem to stink it up pretty badly when they play them.

royalblue
02-15-2014, 03:28 PM
If you play on the Road
Shoot under 41%
Get out rebounded
Have more turnovers
Keep a really bad comb over haircut
You likely lose

gofurman
02-15-2014, 03:46 PM
Clemson is playing Virginia tough, but the Cavaliers have a 31-28 halftime lead on the strength of Mike Tobey's 10 points. Tobey tipped in a Joe Harris miss at the buzzer in a very nice play.

Again KJ McDaniels with all_ACC play. That guy is a monster. Unfortunately, his 20 points, 12 boards, 5 blocks and 4 steals or so just mean Clemson loses 60-50 in most games. Brownell can coach some serious defense (Clemson and UVA keep switching as allowing least points in the nation) but they need another athlete to help KJ with offense. At least a legitimate 3 point threat or something... anything

Bob Green
02-15-2014, 05:00 PM
Again KJ McDaniels with all_ACC play.

You are absolutely correct. Without question, K.J. McDaniels will be All ACC. I don't see him in the ACC POY conversation, but he is a dynamic talent who deserves All ACC recognition.

El_Diablo
02-15-2014, 09:06 PM
Wolfpack choked away that one somehow.

vick
02-15-2014, 09:09 PM
Wild end in the NCSU-Syracuse game, though all the calls (the offensive foul on Ennis, the goaltend on Fair's shot, etc.) seemed good to me. In the POY race, ample evidence for both my anti-Fair position (11 points on 17 true shot attempts) and FerryFor50's pro-Warren position.

FerryFor50
02-15-2014, 10:20 PM
Wild end in the NCSU-Syracuse game, though all the calls (the offensive foul on Ennis, the goaltend on Fair's shot, etc.) seemed good to me. In the POY race, ample evidence for both my anti-Fair position (11 points on 17 true shot attempts) and FerryFor50's pro-Warren position.

The Warren non-continuation call was brutal. Like, "Rodney Hood no call on dunk foul" brutal. Cuse has gotten some generous home cooking this season.

But yes, TJ Warren is a beast. :)

jv001
02-16-2014, 04:18 PM
The Warren non-continuation call was brutal. Like, "Rodney Hood no call on dunk foul" brutal. Cuse has gotten some generous home cooking this season.

But yes, TJ Warren is a beast. :)

Against Duke, the official swallowed his whistle and in the State game, it looked like the ref gave the good basket sign and then changed his call. Agree Cuse is due for a butt whooping. (see game on Feb 22nd)GoDuke!

Des Esseintes
02-16-2014, 04:38 PM
God, ref bias complaints are tiresome.

FerryFor50
02-16-2014, 05:40 PM
God, ref bias complaints are tiresome.

Pretty sure no one is claiming ref bias here.

Refs blow calls. Usually it happens when they are in front of a loud and boisterous crowd, as they get caught up in the excitement. It's more human bias than anything.

OldPhiKap
02-16-2014, 05:51 PM
Pretty sure no one is claiming ref bias here.

Refs blow calls. Usually it happens when they are in front of a loud and boisterous crowd, as they get caught up in the excitement. It's more human bias than anything.

And especially on the last play. And we have been on both ends of that (was it Boozer who got mugged against Indiana in the tourney a dozen or so years ago?)

FerryFor50
02-16-2014, 05:57 PM
And especially on the last play. And we have been on both ends of that (was it Boozer who got mugged against Indiana in the tourney a dozen or so years ago?)

Yep.

Too often refs screw up final plays, regardless of your own rooting interests.

Maybe we should allow coaches to challenge plays? :)

Or better yet, robot refs.

Newton_14
02-16-2014, 08:05 PM
God, ref bias complaints are tiresome.
I generally agree and more often then not players, then coaches, decide the outcome of games. That said I do find it fair to critique the performance of ref's after each game, judging their overall performance for the full 40 minutes, as well as judging a critical call that has a huge impact on the game. I have long felt college refs in the ACC have been very poor, and very inconsistent, and it drives me nuts. The game deserves better. I have seen 3 games in the past two weeks where the little white, bald headed ref that worked the Duke/Maryland game yesterday, was one of the 3 refs. In all 3 games (2 involving Duke, the other involving UVa and Notre Dame) he was... in a word... horrible. in the Duke/Wake game, and UVA/ND game there was an abnormous amount of fouls called that totally disrupted the flow of the game and confused the heck out of the players.

So while it can be boorish to just simply blame a ref for "Losing the game for team x", it is healthy and fair to discuss the performance of the ref's in any given game provided the gist of it is not the tired ol "the refs were definitely favoring team x tonight". I don't believe for a minute they conspire to screw one particular team.. What they do do is have poor quality games and at times blow a critical call at a critical time of the game that absolutely impacts the outcome.

The no call on the Hood dunk, and the bad calll yesterday on Warren are two prime examples. The NCAA and ACC need to do something to address it. The game deserves quality officiating, and like I said with the Karl Hess thing last week, the first thing they need to do is regulate how many games a ref can officiate per week, and as the season on whole. There has to be limits to ensure that each ref has had adequate rest between games and is fresh enough to be on top of his game.

Des Esseintes
02-17-2014, 01:15 AM
I generally agree and more often then not players, then coaches, decide the outcome of games. That said I do find it fair to critique the performance of ref's after each game, judging their overall performance for the full 40 minutes, as well as judging a critical call that has a huge impact on the game. I have long felt college refs in the ACC have been very poor, and very inconsistent, and it drives me nuts. The game deserves better. I have seen 3 games in the past two weeks where the little white, bald headed ref that worked the Duke/Maryland game yesterday, was one of the 3 refs. In all 3 games (2 involving Duke, the other involving UVa and Notre Dame) he was... in a word... horrible. in the Duke/Wake game, and UVA/ND game there was an abnormous amount of fouls called that totally disrupted the flow of the game and confused the heck out of the players.

So while it can be boorish to just simply blame a ref for "Losing the game for team x", it is healthy and fair to discuss the performance of the ref's in any given game provided the gist of it is not the tired ol "the refs were definitely favoring team x tonight". I don't believe for a minute they conspire to screw one particular team.. What they do do is have poor quality games and at times blow a critical call at a critical time of the game that absolutely impacts the outcome.

The no call on the Hood dunk, and the bad calll yesterday on Warren are two prime examples. The NCAA and ACC need to do something to address it. The game deserves quality officiating, and like I said with the Karl Hess thing last week, the first thing they need to do is regulate how many games a ref can officiate per week, and as the season on whole. There has to be limits to ensure that each ref has had adequate rest between games and is fresh enough to be on top of his game.

Newton, I hear you and respect everything you're saying here. But I keep thinking two things when I hear most whinging about refs:

1) People often don't know the rules. What they think should have been called, in many cases shouldn't. Refs make mistakes, certainly. More frequently (I would suggest), people with an incomplete relationship with the rule book fire away with impunity for post after post after post.

2) We're the Death Star of college hoops. Other fans complain constantly that we get the benefit of bogus calls. We find that ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous for *us* to kvetch about perceived referee bias.

Again, bad, incorrect calls definitely exist, and sometimes they change game outcomes. Those phantom Christmas fouls and the Hood "block" against Cuse were awful. These are in the stark minority, though. Most of the time, talk of referees "swallowing whistles" strikes me as lazy and the exact kind of rhetoric for which Duke fans generally feel contempt.

ice-9
02-17-2014, 05:32 AM
I agree that whining about bad calls in itself doesn't add much to the conversation and can make Duke fans look hypocritical. I do think we should try to keep it to a minimum.

But I have also learned a lot when posters went deep and analyzed what referees missed or misjudged. About the game itself and about the game of basketball. Refereeing is as integral a part of basketball as is shooting, rebounding, defending and everything else.

Most of us don't have a complete grasp of the rules, and I for one would love to learn more through conversations about refereeing in games here on DBR.

Sure, some complaints about a bad call that went against us can seem intensely or excessively emotional, especially in in-game threads and after a loss, but this is just par the course of being a regular fan. Not everyone can view a Duke game dispassionately -- whining about bad calls isn't abnormal and can even be cathartic for some.

So I guess what I'm saying is that overall I'm OK with whining about referees, as long as it doesn't become part of our identity (hello Maryland) and as long as they continue to yield insights.

Wheat/"/"/"
02-17-2014, 07:24 AM
Comparing team foul stats always seemed a waste of time to me when fans claim Ref bias. Example:Team X got called for more fouls than team Y.

Most of the time that is easily explained.

Teams that attack inside either off the dribble or through a pass to the post tend to get fouled a lot.

Teams that shoot more threes or rely on midrange shots tend to get fouled less.

Some teams also have offensive players...especially a big man... who have a feel for space and angle, and are good at drawing fouls. Look for that guy first when there's a big difference in number of fouls called.

What I hate is the Refs making the tricky tack calls, the ones that barely qualify as a foul and have no impact on the play.

FerryFor50
02-17-2014, 08:50 AM
Newton, I hear you and respect everything you're saying here. But I keep thinking two things when I hear most whinging about refs:

1) People often don't know the rules. What they think should have been called, in many cases shouldn't. Refs make mistakes, certainly. More frequently (I would suggest), people with an incomplete relationship with the rule book fire away with impunity for post after post after post.

2) We're the Death Star of college hoops. Other fans complain constantly that we get the benefit of bogus calls. We find that ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous for *us* to kvetch about perceived referee bias.

Again, bad, incorrect calls definitely exist, and sometimes they change game outcomes. Those phantom Christmas fouls and the Hood "block" against Cuse were awful. These are in the stark minority, though. Most of the time, talk of referees "swallowing whistles" strikes me as lazy and the exact kind of rhetoric for which Duke fans generally feel contempt.

The complaint in this thread, which prompted your original gripe about ref bias, was about TJ Warren's basket and whether it should have been waved off.

Do you think it was a good call?

I find that I know the rules fairly well and thought that the foul came during the shot, particularly since the charge rule states that the start of a shot is on the gather and upwards motion of the arms.

I don't know that the other option was a clear path foul, but I can see why people would say that one could have been called.

Either way, it's not ref bias to say they blew the call, especially since he signaled the basket was good FIRST then immediately changed his mind.

FerryFor50
02-17-2014, 08:54 AM
Comparing team foul stats always seemed a waste of time to me when fans claim Ref bias. Example:Team X got called for more fouls than team Y.

Most of the time that is easily explained.

Teams that attack inside either off the dribble or through a pass to the post tend to get fouled a lot.

Teams that shoot more threes or rely on midrange shots tend to get fouled less.

Some teams also have offensive players...especially a big man... who have a feel for space and angle, and are good at drawing fouls. Look for that guy first when there's a big difference in number of fouls called.

What I hate is the Refs making the tricky tack calls, the ones that barely qualify as a foul and have no impact on the play.

In most cases, yes.

But there are plenty of times you can cite foul or ft discrepancy and the team on the short end drove and played through the post plenty. And it becomes more egregious when you look up the season averages for both teams of fouls and free throws taken per game.

Teams don't randomly change play style per game on a whim in most cases.

Fouls and FTs are just another stat to ponder when analyzing reasons a team lost a game. Ref bias is conjecture unless you watch the game. Then you can make valid arguments about foul discrepancy.

Matches
02-17-2014, 09:25 AM
I think it's fair to critique the performance of the refs just like it's fair to critique anything else about a basketball game. I agree with Wheat that reducing it to a comparison of the number of fouls called against each team, or FTs shot by each team, is overly reductive and a bad standard to use.

Often, though, it's hard to separate the critique from the critiquer. (Is that a word? Spellcheck seems to say no, but spellcheck also says "spellcheck" is not a word.) Most of the time it seems the person doing the critiquing is a fan of a team that has just lost, and it comes off as terping. (Spellcheck doesn't think "terping" is a word either, but on that point it clearly is wrong.)

And for whatever it's worth, I find the performance of college bball refs to be uneven at best. I think they've, as a group, missed the point of the emphasis on curtailing physical play - we still have wrestling matches in the post, but we're seeing tons of ticky-tack handchecking calls on the perimeter. I think we see pretty frequent "make-up calls" which should not be a thing that happens. The block-charge calls are still a mess. It's been kind of an ugly season, highlighted by some high-profile missed calls. (And yeah, I think Warren should have been shooting an and-1.)