This Week in the ACC: 1/26-2/1

[pfrduke]

Keeping up with the ACC tiers - the top 5 remains a solid top 5 that, barring catastrophes, will all be tournament teams. Miami had a great week for itself, knocking off ACC bubble foes NC State and Syracuse and pushing itself to the solidly in side of the equation for the time being. Syracuse and NC State (oh, NC State, such a fitting week) had a rougher go of it and are, at least in my view, on the wrong side of the fence. State has a chance to get healthy right away, with Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Wake on the horizon - these are the games that the Pack must win. Pitt has now joined the bottom tier of the league in needing a miracle to make the dance. This little data point, more than anything else, I think illustrates the gulf between the top of the conference and the bottom - the bottom 7 teams have a total of 10 conference wins (against 37 losses) and 9 of those 10 wins are against each other (Clemson beating Syracuse is the outlier).

This is a big sorting week at the top of the conference, particularly for the Tobacco Road squads.

Monday starts things off in Chapel Hill. Carolina is a healthy favorite over a thin Orange squad. However, Boeheim's defense is the ideal against a team that is woeful from behind the arc. Carolina's ability to beat the zone in the interior (and in transition) could be key to this game.

[10]North Carolina hosts [74]Syracuse (7:00, ESPN)

Tuesday

[175]Virginia Tech hosts [100]Pittsburgh (7:00, ESPNU*)

*Yes, this game really is getting a national broadcast slot. We apologize in advance on behalf of the ACC.

Wednesday has a big matchup in South Bend. With both teams boasting stellar offenses and more pedestrian defenses, take the over.

[132]Florida State hosts [113]Wake Forest (7:00, ESPN3)
[13]Notre Dame hosts [8]Duke (7:30, ESPN2)
[41]NC State hosts [121]Clemson (9:00, ESPN3)
[115]Boston College hosts [14]Louisville (9:00, ESPN3)
[44]Miami hosts [112]Georgia Tech (9:00, ESPN3)

Thursday is dark

Friday is dark

Saturday boasts what may well be the game of the year in the conference (side note - this weekend last season was Duke-Syracuse in the Carrier Dome, which definitely was the game of the year in ACC play) when Duke and Virginia square off for the one and only time. Virginia eked out a win by the skin of their teeth in Blacksburg, but now has all week to rest up and prepare for the Devils coming to town. Just a little ways down I-64, Louisville will be playing host to UNC. 4 top-15 teams squaring off against each other is a fantastic way to spend a Saturday.

[112]Georgia Tech hosts [41]NC State (12:00, ESPN3)
[121]Clemson hosts [115]Boston College (12:00, ESPN3)
[100]Pittsburgh hosts [13]Notre Dame (12:00, ESPN3)
[113]Wake Forest hosts [175]Virginia Tech (2:00, ESPN3)
[14]Louisville hosts [10]North Carolina (4:00, ESPN)
[2]Virginia hosts [8]Duke (7:00, ESPN)

Sunday has a small Florida-based Super Bowl appetizer as the 'Canes head to Tallahassee.

[132]Florida State hosts [44]Miami (12:30, ESPNU)

ACC Non-Conference Record: 146-45
ACC Record vs. BCS: 27-26 (Duke's win against St. John's not only gave Coach K #1000, it meant that the ACC will have a regular season record of above .500 against the Big East, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC)

[OldPhiKap]

Thanks as always for these threads, great resource and break-down.

Carolina versus the zone -- could be a fun game.

Go Jimmy B!

[Olympic Fan]

(1) Huge week for Duke. If the Devils have a realistic chance to win the regular season title, they almost have to go 2-0 this week -- which means sweeping two top 10 teams on the road.

(2) Saturday is one of the most important regular season days of the season. Beyond Duke at Virginia and UNC at Louisville, the Notre Dame at Pitt game is huge for the Panthers. If they are going to make a run at winning an NCAA Tournament bid, they need a quality win (which they don't have now). And NC State, which does have a quality win, needs a road win -- even if it is just at Georgia Tech. The Pack is 1-4 outside Raleigh and that will hurt on selection Sunday unless they turn it around. Ga Tech is pretty bad, but it would still be a road win.

(3) Tuesday's game is interesting to me -- Virginia Tech is 0-6 in the ACC, but in three home games, they've come within a last-second 3-point attempt of beating Syracuse and another last-second 3 of of tying Virginia. They've been routed in three ACC road game, but at home they can be dangerous (and Duke has to play there in February)

[CDu]

Watching this UNC/Cuse game, and it is atrocious. If we don't play zone against UNC, I will be salty. The Cuse is short on weaponry and manpower, but their zone (and a big night from Cooney) is keeping them afloat.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Watching this UNC/Cuse game, and it is atrocious. If we don't play zone against UNC, I will be salty. The Cuse is short on weaponry and manpower, but their zone (and a big night from Cooney) is keeping them afloat.

UNC back to playing tentative and soft in the first half in this one. I had hoped that they were past that. They need to ratchet up the intensity if they want to win this one.

[CDu]

UNC back to playing tentative and soft in the first half in this one. I had hoped that they were past that. They need to ratchet up the intensity if they want to win this one.

Agreed. Fortunately, they've shot exceptionally well so far. Otherwise, this would be a blowout. They better play a lot better in the second half, because I doubt that they keep shooting this well for the whole game.

[CDu]

Agreed. Fortunately, they've shot exceptionally well so far. Otherwise, this would be a blowout. They better play a lot better in the second half, because I doubt that they keep shooting this well for the whole game.

I take it back. Maybe UNC will just keep shooting out of their mind...

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Ref induced meltdown...

[dukelifer]

I take it back. Maybe UNC will just keep shooting out of their mind...

UNC almost scored 60 pts in a half. I don't understand why folks do not think they are among the best teams in the country. They seem to be winning every game they play lately.

[Duvall]

I don't understand why folks do not think they are among the best teams in the country. They seem to be winning every game they play lately.

With wins against teams like Virginia Tech, Florida State and a depleted Syracuse team, how could they not?

[roywhite]

UNC almost scored 60 pts in a half. I don't understand why folks do not think they are among the best teams in the country. They seem to be winning every game they play lately.

Well, they seem to turn the ball over a lot (20 tonight) and do not shoot well from outside in many games.

Still, yes, I think they look formidable and seem to be improving. Lots of depth and size; can defend well; some younger players like Britt are coming on.

[CDu]

UNC almost scored 60 pts in a half. I don't understand why folks do not think they are among the best teams in the country. They seem to be winning every game they play lately.

I have never said they aren't good. But they are not a good shooting team. They are a good defensive team and an amazing offensive rebounding team. But they are not a good shooting team.

Tonight, though, they shot out of their minds (55% overall and 56% from 3). I think it is reasonable to note when a good team shoots way above their heads in a game.

[CDu]

I think people should start realizing soon that Syracuse is a bubble team. Their only win of any consequence this season is a neutral court win over Iowa back in November. And that was before McCullogh was lost for the season. Their ACC schedule is VERY backloaded. They could conceivably reach 15 losses this year.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

UNC almost scored 60 pts in a half. I don't understand why folks do not think they are among the best teams in the country. They seem to be winning every game they play lately.

This is a good team, probably a top 5 to me, that is still only at about 60-70% of their potential, IMO.

This is not a great shooting team, but it is a very good scoring team that shares the ball.

The injuries are setting them back, and they still have issues with focus as evidenced by all the unforced TO's tonight.

Remember, the only losses were early to a very good ND team by one, to good Iowa St./ Butler teams when Roy was developing/preparing his freshmen and playing 10-11 players. And #1 KY team where they were not outclassed.

Nice game by the sopomore Britt. The kid is undersized but can play and always shows hustle, which is sometimes lacking from his teammates in stretches,(excluding Paige).

Christmas was a load inside. He was impressive.

Cooney made some really tough shots in the first half, got to give him credit for his play. Second half defense tightened up on him, mainly by Tokoto, and he was not a factor much late.

Good teams win ugly as they say....

[dukelifer]

With wins against teams like Virginia Tech, Florida State and a depleted Syracuse team, how could they not?

True- but they beat State and Louisville and they just find ways to win. In a season where there is KY and then everyone else- UNC is built to make a run. Not happy about that.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

With wins against teams like Virginia Tech, Florida State and a depleted Syracuse team, how could they not?

I don't think you want to go there.

Take a look at UNC's strength of schedule and compare it to, say, a team like Duke and get back to me.

[CDu]

This is a good team, probably a top 5 to me, that is still only at about 60-70% of their potential, IMO.

This is not a great shooting team, but it is a very good scoring team that shares the ball.

The injuries are setting them back, and they still have issues with focus as evidenced by all the unforced TO's tonight.

Remember, the only losses were early to a very good ND team by one, to good Iowa St./ Butler teams when Roy was developing/preparing his freshmen and playing 10-11 players. And #1 KY team where they were not outclassed.

Nice game by the sopomore Britt. The kid is undersized but can play and always shows hustle, which is sometimes lacking from his teammates in stretches,(excluding Paige).

Christmas was a load inside. He was impressive.

Cooney made some really tough shots in the first half, got to give him credit for his play. Second half defense tightened up on him, mainly by Tokoto, and he was not a factor much late.

Good teams win ugly as they say....

Iowa, not Iowa St. That is a substantial difference.

I don't think UNC is nearly a top-5 team. Kentucky, UVa, Duke, Wisconsin, Gonzaga, Arizona, Villanova, Kansas, and Notre Dame are better. And I think they are much closer to their ceiling than you do. But I do think they are a top-15 team with a chance to make some noise if the matchups are right come tourney time.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Iowa, not Iowa St. That is a substantial difference.

I don't think UNC is nearly a top-5 team. Kentucky, UVa, Duke, Wisconsin, Gonzaga, Arizona, Villanova, Kansas, and Notre Dame are better. And I think they are much closer to their ceiling than you do. But I do think they are a top-15 team with a chance to make some noise if the matchups are right come tourney time.

Thanks for the correction, again. I don't know why I keep confusing the Iowa's on this year's UNC schedule, but I have.

[Wander]

If basketball was played 4 on 4 with no bench players, UNC would be a top 5 team. Their biggest problem is a lack of a 5th guy to go with Paige, Tokoto, Johnson, and Meeks. They are hurting because all the guys who COULD be a good 5th starter or backup are either young, hurt, mediocre, terrible, or some combination of the above. Obviously, Britt played well tonight and that makes them a lot better, but he's been solidly in the mediocre category for most of ACC play as we all predicted (honestly, below that). As I've said before, UNC is dying for a player like Tyler Thornton - someone who can hit the open 3, do little things well, allow Paige to play off the ball sometimes. On nights when someone else plays really well, they're elite. On other nights, they're good, but there's always a matchup for an opponent to exploit.

Syracuse's signature win is, what, Iowa? Yawn.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

If basketball was played 4 on 4 with no bench players, UNC would be a top 5 team. Their biggest problem is a lack of a 5th guy to go with Paige, Tokoto, Johnson, and Meeks. They are hurting because all the guys who COULD be a good 5th starter or backup are either young, hurt, mediocre, terrible, or some combination of the above. Obviously, Britt played well tonight and that makes them a lot better, but he's been solidly in the mediocre category for most of ACC play as we all predicted (honestly, below that). As I've said before, UNC is dying for a player like Tyler Thornton - someone who can hit the open 3, do little things well, allow Paige to play off the ball sometimes. On nights when someone else plays really well, they're elite. On other nights, they're good, but there's always a matchup for an opponent to exploit.

Syracuse's signature win is, what, Iowa? Yawn.

Roy must be an amazing coach to be 7-1 in the ACC with all those "mediocre" and "serviceable" players Duke fans keep saying he has to put on the court, wouldn't you say?

[CDu]

Roy must be an amazing coach to be 7-1 in the ACC with all those "mediocre" and "serviceable" players Duke fans keep saying he has to put on the court, wouldn't you say?

It has been a combination of good coaching and favorable schedule so far in the ACC, as UNC hasn't faced any of the better teams in conference on the road, and only two of the good teams in the conference at all. Still, it has been a pretty good coaching job by Williams so far.

[Wander]

Roy must be an amazing coach to be 7-1 in the ACC with all those "mediocre" and "serviceable" players Duke fans keep saying he has to put on the court, wouldn't you say?

Roy is a good coach, but as I said you guys have 4 really really good players. So, no, I don't find it surprising at all that a team with 4 really good players and a good coach ends up being a top 20 team. I'm saying the lack of good players behind that is what's keeping you from being a top 5 team. Here's a mental exercise: compare whoever you think the 5th best player on UNC is to the 5th best player on Duke, Kentucky, or Arizona. It's not close.

[jipops]

Roy must be an amazing coach to be 7-1 in the ACC with all those "mediocre" and "serviceable" players Duke fans keep saying he has to put on the court, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't know, I've refused to watch a single game this so-called "college" program has played this year. But looking at the W-L they are obviously doing well with their experienced lineup. I wouldn't get all celebratory regarding a win at home vs. a bubble team like Syracuse, however. Your guys did allow them to score 83. Still, a win is a win.

Many local writers had this team picked to finish 1st in the ACC by the way. So Roy is obviously working with something.

[#1Duke]

Roy is a good coach, but as I said you guys have 4 really really good players. So, no, I don't find it surprising at all that a team with 4 really good players and a good coach ends up being a top 20 team. I'm saying the lack of good players behind that is what's keeping you from being a top 5 team. Here's a mental exercise: compare whoever you think the 5th best player on UNC is to the 5th best player on Duke, Kentucky, or Arizona. It's not close.

Jackson is pretty good for a freshman. Next year he could be a monster.

[#1Duke]

I wouldn't know, I've refused to watch a single game this so-called "college" program has played this year. But looking at the W-L they are obviously doing well with their experienced lineup. I wouldn't get all celebratory regarding a win at home vs. a bubble team like Syracuse, however. Your guys did allow them to score 83. Still, a win is a win.

Many local writers had this team picked to finish 1st in the ACC by the way. So Roy is obviously working with something.

Wednesday against ND will be a test for us. Fingers crossed.

[Duvall]

I don't think you want to go there.

Take a look at UNC's strength of schedule and compare it to, say, a team like Duke and get back to me.

UNC's conference slate is significantly weaker than Duke's. No serious person, or message board poster, could disagree with that point.

Duke screwed itself in the nonconference with uncharacteristically moronic scheduling of bottom tier opponents. It will probably cost them a shot at the Final Four, but what are you going to do?

[Furniture]

Roy is a good coach, but as I said you guys have 4 really really good players. So, no, I don't find it surprising at all that a team with 4 really good players and a good coach ends up being a top 20 team. I'm saying the lack of good players behind that is what's keeping you from being a top 5 team. Here's a mental exercise: compare whoever you think the 5th best player on UNC is to the 5th best player on Duke, Kentucky, or Arizona. It's not close.

I think I know the four you mean but they have some other guys that aren't bad and they do play them.
That's got to be an advantage but I'm no expert. Anyway, I am not going to be cocky about Dukes chances. They will be tough games and I hope I am wrong....

[NSDukeFan]

UNC's conference slate is significantly weaker than Duke's. No serious person, or message board poster, could disagree with that point.

Duke screwed itself in the nonconference with uncharacteristically moronic scheduling of bottom tier opponents. It will probably cost them a shot at the Final Four, but what are you going to do?

I think your last sentence is a bit harsh. I think there are a lot of things that are more important (losses, health, match ups, luck, improvement) for Duke's chances at making the Final Four than the effect playing some 300 ranked opponents instead of 200 ranked opponents will have on their strength of schedule and slight potential of a change in seeding.
I agree the scheduling of bottom tier opponents does not help and Duke has typically done a better job avoiding those games.

[Bob Green]

If basketball was played 4 on 4 with no bench players, UNC would be a top 5 team. Their biggest problem is a lack of a 5th guy to go with Paige, Tokoto, Johnson, and Meeks. They are hurting because all the guys who COULD be a good 5th starter or backup are either young, hurt, mediocre, terrible, or some combination of the above.

I completely disagree. Justin Jackson is young but very talented and more important for the Tar Heels he is getting better as the season progresses. Take a look at Jackson's numbers: 10 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.3 tpg. He averages double digit points and has a 2:1 assists to turnover ratio. That's not shabby. Jackson also has excellent court awareness/basketball IQ. Carolina has a very solid starting five.

Isaiah Hicks also brings talent onto the court. He struggled as a freshman just like freshman tend to do but he is developing into a solid back up in his second season, which gives Carolina depth. Throw in Nate Britt, who I admit is inconsistent and Joel James who is just a big body that provides a few minutes, and Carolina has a solid eight man rotation.

Any Duke fan who is already chalking up the Carolina games as wins is seriously counting their chickens before the eggs hatch. As painful as it is to admit, the boys in baby blue are a talented team.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

Just so we're clear, Virginia gets an entire week off to prepare for the Duke game at home, while we go to Notre Dame to face the #8 team in the country after just playing a physically grueling big east opponent seems fair. If Duke can find a way to win both of these games this week it would be a huge deal. With VA having a full week to prepare and being at home the odds are stacked against us. ND just came off that big comeback, will be interesting to see which team we get, the one who was getting spanked by NCST or the one who stormed to a comeback. These are exactly the types of games that I love to see us play in and win. This type of game and the atmosphere that will be in those stadiums is why Duke basketball is so special. I am pumped. LETS GO DUKE!!!!

[jv001]

The Orange are pretty rotten:cool: this year. They basically have two players that would be in Duke, VA, ND, Louisville and the Cheaters rotation. That's Christmas and Cooney. The rest are role players. Injuries have them on the bubble for the NCAAT. Last night those two players, Christmas 22 and 12. Cooney 28 on 10/26 shooting. The Cheaters should have won this game going away. For those that say the cheaters are not a good team, I disagree. They don't have a good shooting team, but they play very good defense and rebound the ball very well. However, I disagree with those that think old roy is a great coach. He's an average coach(X/O) but he is a good recruiter. Seeing how the cheaters have been exposed, it's going to be interesting to see if he can recruit with the cloud of NCAA probation and loss of scholarships hanging over their heads. On the other hand, if things go as usual, they will get a pass and receive only a reprimand:confused:. Personally I hope they get the "death penalty". GoDuke!

[W&LHoo]

Just so we're clear, Virginia gets an entire week off to prepare for the Duke game at home, while we go to Notre Dame to face the #8 team in the country after just playing a physically grueling big east opponent seems fair. If Duke can find a way to win both of these games this week it would be a huge deal. With VA having a full week to prepare and being at home the odds are stacked against us. ND just came off that big comeback, will be interesting to see which team we get, the one who was getting spanked by NCST or the one who stormed to a comeback. These are exactly the types of games that I love to see us play in and win. This type of game and the atmosphere that will be in those stadiums is why Duke basketball is so special. I am pumped. LETS GO DUKE!!!!

I'm not sure that's an advantage. We're winning our games right now in rhythm - a game every few days. A week without a game could easily screw us up as it has in the past when we've come out flat. Obviously the kids will get up to play duke (like most teams do), but that's a lot easier to do when you're an underdog. Ideally, we'd play a cupcake a few nights beforehand.

The flip side is that while our guys are doing hum drum practices in cville, your squad could be headed to face off against a top ten team in a crazy environment and can storm in to Charlottesville hot off of that victory/stinging from a defeat and looking to prove something. Neither is great for us.

[Wander]

I completely disagree. Justin Jackson is young but very talented and more important for the Tar Heels he is getting better as the season progresses. Take a look at Jackson's numbers: 10 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.3 tpg. He averages double digit points and has a 2:1 assists to turnover ratio. That's not shabby. Jackson also has excellent court awareness/basketball IQ. Carolina has a very solid starting five.

Isaiah Hicks also brings talent onto the court. He struggled as a freshman just like freshman tend to do but he is developing into a solid back up in his second season, which gives Carolina depth. Throw in Nate Britt, who I admit is inconsistent and Joel James who is just a big body that provides a few minutes, and Carolina has a solid eight man rotation.

Any Duke fan who is already chalking up the Carolina games as wins is seriously counting their chickens before the eggs hatch. As painful as it is to admit, the boys in baby blue are a talented team.

I don't know why you guys are interpreting my statements as "Carolina is a horrible team that we're guaranteed to win against." I agree they are a top 20 team who has a very good chance of beating us. But to understand why they're not a top 5 team, compare Justin Jackson to Justice Winslow, Amile Jefferson, TJ McConnell, Kaleb Tarczewski, Tyler Ulis, Devin Booker, Anthony Gill, or Darion Atkins. If you guys don't like my use of the word "mediocre" then pick another adjective of your choosing, but the point is that the 5th-9th guys on UNC are not nearly as good as the 5th-9th guys on Duke or Kentucky. Compare Joel James to Marshall Plumlee. UNC's freshmen class is talented so it's possible one of the guys will step up to be a consistent good player by the end of the season, but they are not there yet and that possibility has become less likely recently due to injuries.

[DukieInBrasil]

UNC's conference slate is significantly weaker than Duke's. No serious person, or message board poster, could disagree with that point.

Duke screwed itself in the nonconference with uncharacteristically moronic scheduling of bottom tier opponents. It will probably cost them a shot at the Final Four, but what are you going to do?

That's partly true, but more true that some of the teams we played are not as strong this year as may have been expected. Ucons, for example, is an historically great program, but not nearly as good this year as say last year. Mich. St. has collapsed, Temple is another historically solid program that is not doing so well, of course K is gonna schedule Army or another military school if he can, Stanford is a potential top-25 team this year (4 non-Duke losses), both Wofford and Toledo are possible Tourney teams, St John's is a decent team (as we discovered). That leaves 3 games on our schedule that were not strong nor were they expected to be.

[gumbomoop]

I agree they are a top 20 team who has a very good chance of beating us. If you guys don't like my use of the word "mediocre" then pick another adjective of your choosing, but the point is that the 5th-9th guys on UNC are not nearly as good as the 5th-9th guys on Duke or Kentucky. UNC's freshmen class is talented so it's possible one of the guys will step up to be a consistent good player by the end of the season, but they are not there yet....

I enter this conversation late, and I don't comment here to berate anything you or anyone else has said in this thread. But I do disagree a little with these points.

I'd put them closer to 8-10 than top 15-20. They're moving up, not down. Hope they falter, but I don't count on it.

Rather than "mediocre," their bench is filled with "talented but inconsistent" guys, a point you note in your comment about their frosh. But this talent/inconsistency label applies to our 4-man bench, too. I suppose an objective observer would probably rate Rasheed the best of the Duke/UNC benches, but after that it's a toss-up, game to game, between Hicks, Britt, Matt, and Marshall. Britt was superb last evening, and we should hope that will turn out to have been his one excellent game all season. Hard to know when Pinson or Berry will return. Although neither very talented nor consistent, James can help them a little, more than Grayson is likely to feature for us.

[FerryFor50]

Jackson is pretty good for a freshman. Next year he could be a monster.

I agree re: Jackson. However, I also thought Brice Johnson had the same look as a freshman. And James Michael McAdoo.

Then they turned out to be just decently good players.

I feel like players don't develop very well at UNC.

[CDu]

I don't know why you guys are interpreting my statements as "Carolina is a horrible team that we're guaranteed to win against." I agree they are a top 20 team who has a very good chance of beating us. But to understand why they're not a top 5 team, compare Justin Jackson to Justice Winslow, Amile Jefferson, TJ McConnell, Kaleb Tarczewski, Tyler Ulis, Devin Booker, Anthony Gill, or Darion Atkins. If you guys don't like my use of the word "mediocre" then pick another adjective of your choosing, but the point is that the 5th-9th guys on UNC are not nearly as good as the 5th-9th guys on Duke or Kentucky. Compare Joel James to Marshall Plumlee. UNC's freshmen class is talented so it's possible one of the guys will step up to be a consistent good player by the end of the season, but they are not there yet and that possibility has become less likely recently due to injuries.

For what it is worth, I mostly agree with you. UNC has a terrific star player who is finally starting to find his shot, two terrific post scorers in Johnson and Meeks, and a much-improved "do it all" wing in Tokoto. At those four spots, they can certainly hang with anyone in the country talent-wise. But from there, the dropoff is substantial. Jackson and Hicks certainly have the high school pedigree to join the guys above, as both were top-15 (Jackson was top-10) recruits. But both have had their growing pains so far (Jackson as a frosh; Hicks into his sophomore year now) and are not on the level that the other four are yet.

However, it is worth noting that in ACC play Jackson is putting up the following numbers: 10.75 ppg, 54.9 fg%. He's not a 3pt shooter (25% on 3s in ACC play), but he's been very productive for them since ACC play started. He has certainly outplayed Winslow over that stretch.

As for Hicks, well, he has remained mostly disappointing for the Heels this year. And aside from last night's heroics, Britt has been pretty mediocre. And James has been mostly bad.

So I think that if Jackson continues to play the way he has for most of the ACC schedule, they are closer to top-10 than they are to #20. There are still definite holes (most notably outside shooting), but I think they may be closer to having that 5th guy than you are giving credit.

[CDu]

I agree re: Jackson. However, I also thought Brice Johnson had the same look as a freshman. And James Michael McAdoo.

Then they turned out to be just decently good players.

I feel like players don't develop very well at UNC.

To be fair, Jackson has done a lot more as a freshman than McAdoo did.

[FerryFor50]

I enter this conversation late, and I don't comment here to berate anything you or anyone else has said in this thread. But I do disagree a little with these points.

I'd put them closer to 8-10 than top 15-20. They're moving up, not down. Hope they falter, but I don't count on it.

Rather than "mediocre," their bench is filled with "talented but inconsistent" guys, a point you note in your comment about their frosh. But this talent/inconsistency label applies to our 4-man bench, too. I suppose an objective observer would probably rate Rasheed the best of the Duke/UNC benches, but after that it's a toss-up, game to game, between Hicks, Britt, Matt, and Marshall. Britt was superb last evening, and we should hope that will turn out to have been his one excellent game all season. Hard to know when Pinson or Berry will return. Although neither very talented nor consistent, James can help them a little, more than Grayson is likely to feature for us.

I think the UNC inconsistency issue is Roy's fault. He plays too many players and plays them inconsistent minutes.

UNC is going to be tested down the stretch.

They have two tough games coming up.

1/31 @L'vill
2/2 vs UVA

Then two games that should be winnable, but who knows in the ACC. Pitt has "trap game" written all over it.

@BC
@Pitt

Then:

@Duke
vs GT
vs NCSU
@Miami
@GT
vs Duke

We'll know what UNC is made of after that stretch. Up until now, however, they haven't played a real tough ACC schedule. Out of their 8 ACC opponents, only 3 could be considered "good" teams.

[CDu]

We'll know what UNC is made of after that stretch. Up until now, however, they haven't played a real tough ACC schedule. Out of their 8 ACC opponents, only 3 could be considered "good" teams.

UNC actually has a pretty favorable schedule throughout. Only 6 games out of 18 against sure tournament teams. And so far, I'd say that considering 3 to be "good" might be stretching it. I don't think Syracuse (without McCullogh) is good. Notre Dame appears to be pretty good. It is hard to say with Louisville, as they have played a pretty bad non-con schedule and have just one or two (depending on how you feel about Indiana) meaningful wins on their resume. But in theory they are good too. So I'd say that just two of UNC's 8 conference games would be against good teams, and both have been at home. Two have been against borderline tourney teams (State and Cuse), and the rest have been against bad teams. So their 7-1 record so far is about what they should have done so far, splitting the two tougher games at home.

Their remaining schedule looks fairly favorable, as they get just 4 of their last 10 against really tough opponents (and two of them are at home). I'd put Miami in that category of bubblicious teams like Cuse and State (and that might be generous with regard to Cuse).

And yes, I realize that, by my criteria, our schedule to date has had just one tough opponent (at Louisville) and just 5 remaining big-time opponents. Though it is at least worth noting that 4 of our 6 tough games are on the road, whereas 4 of UNC's 6 tough ones are at home.

[FerryFor50]

UNC actually has a pretty favorable schedule throughout. Only 6-7 games out of 18 against sure tournament teams. And so far, I'd say that considering 3 to be "good" might be stretching it. I don't think Syracuse (without McCullogh) is good. Notre Dame appears to be pretty good. It is hard to say with Louisville, as they have played a pretty bad non-con schedule and have just one or two (depending on how you feel about Indiana) meaningful wins on their resume. But in theory they are good too. So I'd say that just two of UNC's 8 conference games would be against good teams, and both have been at home. Two have been against borderline tourney teams (State and Cuse), and the rest have been against bad teams. So their 7-1 record so far is about what they should have done so far, splitting the two tougher games at home.

Their remaining schedule looks fairly favorable, as they get just 4 of their last 10 against really tough opponents (and two of them are at home). I'd put Miami in that category of bubblicious teams like Cuse and State (and that might be generous with regard to Cuse).

Well, considering what State and Miami did to Duke, as well as the fact that State has managed to at least come close to beating other good teams, I put them in the "good" category for now.

But I do agree with your overall assessment. I was being generous with the schedule analysis. :)

[CDu]

Well, considering what State and Miami did to Duke, as well as the fact that State has managed to at least come close to beating other good teams, I put them in the "good" category for now.

But I do agree with your overall assessment. I was being generous with the schedule analysis. :)

I would call the Duke losses to State and Miami evidence that Duke's defense was flawed rather than that those two teams are good. Their losses (Miami has lost to Green Bay, to Eastern Kentucky by 28!, and to Providence; State has lost to Purdue, Wofford, and Cincy) suggest that they are a big step down from the next tier, and that Duke just didn't play well in those games.

In other words, I think those losses are more a reflection of Duke's play in those games than the quality of those two teams.

But yeah, it is all in how you define "good." If you're being generous and expanding the list of "good" to include borderline bubble teams, then I certainly agree that State, Miami, and Syracuse qualify.

[FerryFor50]

I would call the Duke losses to State and Miami evidence that Duke's defense was flawed rather than that those two teams are good. Their losses (Miami has lost to Green Bay, to Eastern Kentucky by 28!, and to Providence; State has lost to Purdue, Wofford, and Cincy) suggest that they are a big step down from the next tier, and that Duke just didn't play well in those games.

In other words, I think those losses are more a reflection of Duke's play in those games than the quality of those two teams.

But yeah, it is all in how you define "good." If you're being generous and expanding the list of "good" to include borderline bubble teams, then I certainly agree that State, Miami, and Syracuse qualify.

I wasn't calling Syracuse good, for the record. I was referring to L'ville, ND and NCSU as the "good" teams. :)

[CDu]

I wasn't calling Syracuse good, for the record. I was referring to L'ville, ND and NCSU as the "good" teams. :)

Ah, I see. Okay, I can get on board in theory with a road game against State as "good" by your definition. I agree that they are more tourney-worthy than Syracuse for sure.

[DarkstarWahoo]

If basketball was played 4 on 4 with no bench players, UNC would be a top 5 team. Their biggest problem is a lack of a 5th guy to go with Paige, Tokoto, Johnson, and Meeks. They are hurting because all the guys who COULD be a good 5th starter or backup are either young, hurt, mediocre, terrible, or some combination of the above. Obviously, Britt played well tonight and that makes them a lot better, but he's been solidly in the mediocre category for most of ACC play as we all predicted (honestly, below that). As I've said before, UNC is dying for a player like Tyler Thornton - someone who can hit the open 3, do little things well, allow Paige to play off the ball sometimes. On nights when someone else plays really well, they're elite. On other nights, they're good, but there's always a matchup for an opponent to exploit.

Syracuse's signature win is, what, Iowa? Yawn.

I think Justin Jackson will be that guy for them by the end of the year.

[gumbomoop]

I would call the Duke losses to State and Miami evidence that Duke's defense was flawed rather than that those two teams are good.

This reminds me to ask about a larger point I wondered aloud about in some thread recently. It concern the commonplace observation that "Duke gets everybody's best shot." Calipari, saluting Krzyzewski, said, "Duke is everybody's Super Bowl."

I don't know how long ago that became a common view, but it's been more than a few years. And I tend to believe it. But very recently, last season and now after the Wake win and the 2 losses mentioned here, I begin to think Duke too often helps opponents give us their best shot by playing shoddy defense. If our D-skills matched our O-skills, Duke would have better weathered State's and Miami's best shot. Yes?

[W&LHoo]

I would call the Duke losses to State and Miami evidence that Duke's defense was flawed rather than that those two teams are good. Their losses (Miami has lost to Green Bay, to Eastern Kentucky by 28!, and to Providence; State has lost to Purdue, Wofford, and Cincy) suggest that they are a big step down from the next tier, and that Duke just didn't play well in those games.

In other words, I think those losses are more a reflection of Duke's play in those games than the quality of those two teams.

But yeah, it is all in how you define "good." If you're being generous and expanding the list of "good" to include borderline bubble teams, then I certainly agree that State, Miami, and Syracuse qualify.

State came to the JPJ and played us VERY hard. Miami took us to 2OT in their house. Everyone on this board knows how they played you guys. I think it's fair to call both teams good. Cuse is coasting on their name and history.

[Bob Green]

I don't know why you guys are interpreting my statements as "Carolina is a horrible team that we're guaranteed to win against."

I didn't mean to spin you up so my apologies if my post came across like I was calling you out. That was not my intention. Discussing other ACC teams is enjoyable so I opted to join the Carolina analyses by quoting your post. I have a pretty high opinion of Justin Jackson. Obviously, others disagree with my assessment.

[Wander]

So I think that if Jackson continues to play the way he has for most of the ACC schedule, they are closer to top-10 than they are to #20. There are still definite holes (most notably outside shooting), but I think they may be closer to having that 5th guy than you are giving credit.



I think Justin Jackson will be that guy for them by the end of the year.



That's fair. If Jackson continues to play well for the rest of the ACC season, I admit that changes things a bit. He's still not the perfect fit for UNC - that would be a spot-up shooter who could also handle the ball - but it would make UNC much better.

[CDu]

That's fair. If Jackson continues to play well for the rest of the ACC season, I admit that changes things a bit. He's still not the perfect fit for UNC - that would be a spot-up shooter who could also handle the ball - but it would make UNC much better.

Right. In theory, Nate Britt or Joel Berry (though he's injured and will miss several weeks) would be the guys to fill that role. But both have been mediocre at best (aside from Britt's awesome shooting night against the 'Cuse). If Britt plays more like he did last night than he has for his first 1.5 years, he certainly fills that role for them. But that's a big "if" for sure.

[#1Duke]

I agree re: Jackson. However, I also thought Brice Johnson had the same look as a freshman. And James Michael McAdoo.

Then they turned out to be just decently good players.

I feel like players don't develop very well at UNC.

I think Brice Johnson is very good and getting better unlike McAdoo who peaked early in his college career and then went down hill. I said last year that McAdoo leaving was good for UNC and I stand by that. I think Brice Johnson is superior to McAdoo.

As far as UNC developing players, I'm not sure how you can say they don't develop players very well. I think Roy does OK in this regard. I think Lawson is a good example of someone Roy developed and there are others.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I'll give you guys my quick assesment of UNC's key players at about the mid point of the season...

*BB IQ score= understanding of pace, space, flow, situational awareness and other intangibles.

Meeks- Great hands. Not good hands, great. That goes a long way for a big man. He's crafty around the basket and has excellent rebounding instincts. Needs to finish better. Misses a lot of bunnies, but still scores in traffic. I think that he will only get better as an inside scorer as he continues to get in better shape. Excellent outlet passer. Good positional defender and surprisingly good shot blocker considering he lacks "bounce". One of the best players in the ACC inside. BB IQ score-8

Johnson- Loads of natural talent that he's still learning how to use. Bouncy with good hands. Very quick turnaround shot that he can finish with touch. Good face up shooter to mid-range. Is becoming an elite rebounder since he has embraced rebounding. Soft as a defender. Relies on his length too much and is prone to reaching instead of moving his feet, but showing some improvement recently. Mentally drifts at times if not getting touches. BB IQ score=7

Hicks- young, big, strong elite/explosive athlete still learning how to play at the highest level. Nice touch, but fights hesitation inside to become a much better scorer. Tweener skills. Inside game coming along but must work on his handle to become as dangerous as he can be. Solid defender, active rebounder. BB IQ score-6

James- big, strong, active. Moves his feet well and owns his space as a defender. Often rushes too much to score under pressure, but has nice touch to mid range and inside in 1-1 situations. Weak rebounding instincts, but works hard at blocking out. Understands his role and sets solid screens for teammates. BB IQ =6

Paige- Warrior. One of the best PG's in the country. Offensively and defensively.No real weakness. BB IQ =9

Tokoto- Elite athlete, much improved shooter. Excellent defender, solid rebounder. Has the skills to become an elite college player with more aggression. Can get to the rim anytime, but is often timid. Tends to coast and react, wait for a seem, instead of being proactive with the ball. Good handle but needs to have better focus at times with his passing. Often too casual with the ball. Excellent court vision, average decision making. BB IQ=7

Britt- quick but undersized playmaker. Excellent ball handler and FT shooter. Improving outside shooter. Can get to the rim, but needs to work on finishing against the big guys. Very good, active defender with quick hands and feet but struggles with big guards shooting over him. Mentally tough with leadership skills. BB IQ = 8

Jackson- Underdeveloped body as a freshman for this level of competition, but excellent skills. Must get stronger. Good ballhandler. Good passer with vision. Nice mid range scorer and active rebounder. Needs to work on his deep shooting. Good, long, positional defender, but struggles inside against stronger players. BB IQ = 7

Berry- Strong PG. Good ballhandler, has vision, and has ability to finish at the rim. Average shooter and defender that needs to work on moving his feet. Typical freshman season so far but has the talent to get quality minutes as season progresses. BB IQ = 6

Pinson- Good, long, quick, active defender. Weak shooter, average finisher at the rim. Good rebounding instincts, good passer. BB IQ= 7

[gumbomoop]

I'll give you guys my quick assesment of UNC's key players at about the mid point of the season...

*BB IQ score= understanding of pace, space, flow, situational awareness and other intangibles.

Meeks- Great hands. Not good hands, great. That goes a long way for a big man. He's crafty around the basket and has excellent rebounding instincts. Needs to finish better. Misses a lot of bunnies, but still scores in traffic. I think that he will only get better as an inside scorer as he continues to get in better shape. Excellent outlet passer. Good positional defender and surprisingly good shot blocker considering he lacks "bounce". One of the best players in the ACC inside. BB IQ score-8

Johnson- Loads of natural talent that he's still learning how to use. Bouncy with good hands. Very quick turnaround shot that he can finish with touch. Good face up shooter to mid-range. Is becoming an elite rebounder since he has embraced rebounding. Soft as a defender. Relies on his length too much and is prone to reaching instead of moving his feet, but showing some improvement recently. Mentally drifts at times if not getting touches. BB IQ score=7

Hicks- young, big, strong elite/explosive athlete still learning how to play at the highest level. Nice touch, but fights hesitation inside to become a much better scorer. Tweener skills. Inside game coming along but must work on his handle to become as dangerous as he can be. Solid defender, active rebounder. BB IQ score-6

James- big, strong, active. Moves his feet well and owns his space as a defender. Often rushes too much to score under pressure, but has nice touch to mid range and inside in 1-1 situations. Weak rebounding instincts, but works hard at blocking out. Understands his role and sets solid screens for teammates. BB IQ =6

Paige- Warrior. One of the best PG's in the country. Offensively and defensively.No real weakness. BB IQ =9

Tokoto- Elite athlete, much improved shooter. Excellent defender, solid rebounder. Has the skills to become an elite college player with more aggression. Can get to the rim anytime, but is often timid. Tends to coast and react, wait for a seem, instead of being proactive with the ball. Good handle but needs to have better focus at times with his passing. Often too casual with the ball. Excellent court vision, average decision making. BB IQ=7

Britt- quick but undersized playmaker. Excellent ball handler and FT shooter. Improving outside shooter. Can get to the rim, but needs to work on finishing against the big guys. Very good, active defender with quick hands and feet but struggles with big guards shooting over him. Mentally tough with leadership skills. BB IQ = 8

Jackson- Underdeveloped body as a freshman for this level of competition, but excellent skills. Must get stronger. Good ballhandler. Good passer with vision. Nice mid range scorer and active rebounder. Needs to work on his deep shooting. Good, long, positional defender, but struggles inside against stronger players. BB IQ = 7

Berry- Strong PG. Good ballhandler, has vision, and has ability to finish at the rim. Average shooter and defender that needs to work on moving his feet. Typical freshman season so far but has the talent to get quality minutes as season progresses. BB IQ = 6

Pinson- Good, long, quick, active defender. Weak shooter, average finisher at the rim. Good rebounding instincts, good passer. BB IQ= 7

All depends heavily on one's grading standards, and somewhat on one's biases.

As to the former, an acquaintance of mine used to laugh that when he was marking exams and papers, his spouse would say, "She tried. Give her a B+."

IMO, your analysis is generally sound, but the BB IQ marks are too high in many cases. Not surprisingly, Britt and James get marks too high. Also Pinson, Berry. I do think you're right that Britt is a "good" backup PG. But 8 suggests very, very good, close to excellent.

You'd almost have to do a similar analysis of another strong team - maybe UVa or ND rather than Duke -- for readers to judge your grading standards.

[jv001]

All depends heavily on one's grading standards, and somewhat on one's biases.

As to the former, an acquaintance of mine used to laugh that when he was marking exams and papers, his spouse would say, "She tried. Give her a B+."

IMO, your analysis is generally sound, but the marks are too high in many cases. Not surprisingly, Britt and James get marks too high. Also Pinson, Berry. I do think you're right that Britt is a "good" backup PG. But 8 suggests very, very good, close to excellent.

You'd almost have to do a similar analysis of another strong team - maybe UVa or ND rather than Duke -- for readers to judge your grading standards.

All very good points. Especially the last sentence. GoDuke!

[brevity]

*BB IQ score= understanding of pace, space, flow, situational awareness and other intangibles.

But what's their BBQ score? Now I'm hungry.

[sagegrouse]

I would call the Duke losses to State and Miami evidence that Duke's defense was flawed rather than that those two teams are good. Their losses (Miami has lost to Green Bay, to Eastern Kentucky by 28!, and to Providence; State has lost to Purdue, Wofford, and Cincy) suggest that they are a big step down from the next tier, and that Duke just didn't play well in those games.

In other words, I think those losses are more a reflection of Duke's play in those games than the quality of those two teams.

But yeah, it is all in how you define "good." If you're being generous and expanding the list of "good" to include borderline bubble teams, then I certainly agree that State, Miami, and Syracuse qualify.

you're probably right about Duke's defense, but I would submit that State was.... "unconsciously hot" against Duke. For one afternoon, they were really, really good. The Pack's effective shooting percentage was 71.7% and while the defensive may have been unenergetic, there was defense. Is one hot shooting game evidence that a team is really good, or just that it's dangerous?

Much the same with Miami, although we clearly had trouble with their guards. Miami was 10-20 from three (well above their season average of around 37%) and had an effective shooting percentage of 70%. For that night at least, I was watching a really good Miami team.

[CDu]

All depends heavily on one's grading standards, and somewhat on one's biases.

As to the former, an acquaintance of mine used to laugh that when he was marking exams and papers, his spouse would say, "She tried. Give her a B+."

IMO, your analysis is generally sound, but the BB IQ marks are too high in many cases. Not surprisingly, Britt and James get marks too high. Also Pinson, Berry. I do think you're right that Britt is a "good" backup PG. But 8 suggests very, very good, close to excellent.

You'd almost have to do a similar analysis of another strong team - maybe UVa or ND rather than Duke -- for readers to judge your grading standards.

Well said. I think basketball IQ is such a subjective term that it almost is meaningless. But I'd agree that the assessment of the backups seems... rather generous. Especially in the case of James, but certainly in the case of Britt, Pinson, and Berry.

I mean, with all of these fantastic basketball IQs on the squad, how could they have lost to Iowa (at home) and Butler? And how did they commit 20 turnovers against a bad Syracuse team (again, at home)?

If I were to assess, I'd skip the IQ ratings, as again they are really vague and subjective. That is especially true when you start changing the scale for the role that the player is playing (which appears to be what Wheat is doing with the backups). As a quality of player, I'd say:

Paige: 9-9.5 (the only quibble is that he is really a SG forced to play PG; he's not really a great PG so much as he is a great shooter/scorer)
Meeks: 8-9 (the biggest knock on him is just his fitness; he's becoming quite a player)
Tokoto: 8 (the only questions are his shooting and his decision-making, but he has improved dramatically across the board since coming to UNC)
Johnson: 7 (as Wheat says, all the tools are there; consistency, focus, toughness, and effort are the only questions)
Jackson: 6-7 (very talented kid; a lot of the same comments as Tokoto, only he is a bit more raw right now)
Hicks: 5 (another talented kid for whom the game hasn't slowed down yet)
Britt: 4 (a kid who doesn't make a ton of mistakes, but only occasionally does much to the positive; a solid backup PG, but hasn't shown consistently anything above that)
James: 2 (he tries hard, and occasionally his big body causes problems for the opposition; but he's not a very good basketball player for an ACC team)
Berry: incomplete (just not enough data on the kid yet)
Everyone else on team: irrelevant other than minutes-filler

Again, that is all based on the same player scale (i.e., not shifting the bar to account for a kid being a backup). But that's how I view these guys on the spectrum of quality.

[CDu]

you're probably right about Duke's defense, but I would submit that State was.... "unconsciously hot" against Duke. For one afternoon, they were really, really good. The Pack's effective shooting percentage was 71.7% and while the defensive may have been unenergetic, there was defense. Is one hot shooting game evidence that a team is really good, or just that it's dangerous?

Much the same with Miami, although we clearly had trouble with their guards. Miami was 10-20 from three (well above their season average of around 37%) and had an effective shooting percentage of 70%. For that night at least, I was watching a really good Miami team.

Yeah, I guess the question is how much do you credit their hot shooting/scoring nights to hot shooting and how much due to bad defense?

In the Miami game, they were getting wide open looks from 3 because of the perimeter breakdowns, and they were getting easy baskets at the rim due to dribble penetration. So I'd say the Miami result was a direct function of their guards torching us. And since they haven't had similar success throughout the year, I'd say that is more of an "us" problem that night.

The State game is a bit more mixed. We certainly challenged a fair number of their makes from 3, but they also got a fair number of open looks. And we didn't do a good job inside the arc either, as they were 23-44 from inside the arc. So that game was at least less clearly our failure, but I think that we contributed substantially to their success in that game as well.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

*BB IQ score= understanding of pace, space, flow, situational awareness and other intangibles.

Above was my definition of what I base BB IQ on, with 10 being the best possible score.

Some of you seem to think I gave Britt and James too high of marks.

This was not a talent evaluation in my mind, just a grade on the question of whether the player understands what he is supposed to do on the floor and does he have the feel for making it happen. Does he understand the game? (You'd be surprised how many talented players have weak BB IQ's)

Britt has very good court awareness. He controls the pace with his dribble, directs the offense, knows when and when not to gamble on a steal, rarely gets caught up in screens. He handles tight, late game situations well. I gave him an 8 because I think he has good BB IQ using the above metrics.

I gave James a 6 which is almost average, which I don't consider very good. When he is on the floor, he does know where he's supposed to be and what he's supposed to do in the UNC offense, which can be complicated with the many set plays and multiple screening that his position requires. I give him credit for that.

When I get a chance I'll offer the same evaluation of Duke players...that should be fun around here.

[jv001]

*BB IQ score= understanding of pace, space, flow, situational awareness and other intangibles.

Above was my definition of what I base BB IQ on, with 10 being the best possible score.

Some of you seem to think I gave Britt and James too high of marks.

This was not a talent evaluation in my mind, just a grade on the question of whether the player understands what he is supposed to do on the floor and does he have the feel for making it happen. Does he understand the game? (You'd be surprised how many talented players have weak BB IQ's)

Britt has very good court awareness. He controls the pace with his dribble, directs the offense, knows when and when not to gamble on a steal, rarely gets caught up in screens. He handles tight, late game situations well. I gave him an 8 because I think he has good BB IQ using the above metrics.

I gave James a 6 which is almost average, which I don't consider very good. When he is on the floor, he does know where he's supposed to be and what he's supposed to do in the UNC offense, which can be complicated with the many set plays and multiple screening that his position requires. I give him credit for that.

When I get a chance I'll offer the same evaluation of Duke players...that should be fun around here.

I believe a poster asked you to give an evaluation on teams other than Duke. Doing it that way will probably save us 6 or 7 pages of heated discussion. God bless and GoDuke!

[devildeac]

All depends heavily on one's grading standards, and somewhat on one's biases.

As to the former, an acquaintance of mine used to laugh that when he was marking exams and papers, his spouse would say, "She tried. Give her a B+."

IMO, your analysis is generally sound, but the BB IQ marks are too high in many cases. Not surprisingly, Britt and James get marks too high. Also Pinson, Berry. I do think you're right that Britt is a "good" backup PG. But 8 suggests very, very good, close to excellent.

You'd almost have to do a similar analysis of another strong team - maybe UVa or ND rather than Duke -- for readers to judge your grading standards.

Debby Crowder grading standards perhaps?:rolleyes:;)

[gumbomoop]

*BB IQ score= understanding of pace, space, flow, situational awareness and other intangibles.

Above was my definition of what I base BB IQ on, with 10 being the best possible score.

Some of you seem to think I gave Britt and James too high of marks.

This was not a talent evaluation in my mind, just a grade on the question of whether the player understands what he is supposed to do on the floor and does he have the feel for making it happen.

I read your original post twice to understand that you were doing 2 quite distinct evaluations. It can be done, but it might require up front an explicit caution that the reader should not connect the number at the end of each player's talent-evaluation to that evaluation. You're doing two distinct things. To save time, you put it in a single post. You know it might be easy to mix the two, so maybe warn the reader to beware the confusion that the structure of your list might cause.

Still plenty to debate, both talent evaluation -- to which you do not attach a grade number -- and BB IQ evaluation, for which you give only a grade number.

A similar post about another team's players would be interesting, though I still recommend ND or UVa, at least for the next one. Just now that might be especially useful, as Krzyzewski has called on DBR fanatics to help him get our guys ready for these two talented, smart teams.

[gumbomoop]

Debby Crowder grading standards perhaps?:rolleyes:;)

Without making any comment whatsoever as to this zinger zinged in Wheat's direction, I am still truly fascinated by the fact that apparently Crowder did have some bizarre way to distinguish an A from an A- from a B+ from a B. Did she actually give any B's or lower? Unlikely, I guess.

Did her marks depend on the appearance of the "paper," the close-enough spelling of the prof's name, the failure to include a title page, or a title, the presence and/or number of paragraphs? I'd love to know how one plagiarized paper got an A while another got a B+.

I realize this constitutes thread hijack, so please, no response other than zinger directed at me or Debby.

[gumbomoop]

I have nothing against VT, yet I am pulling for Pitt tonight. Pitt is a team that just might beat one or two of our competitors for ACC bye, as they have home games with ND, Syracuse, UNC, and Miami. Biggest plus with a Pitt win tonight is a little momentum for Sat v. ND.

[Newton_14]

I'll give you guys my quick assesment of UNC's key players at about the mid point of the season...

*BB IQ score= understanding of pace, space, flow, situational awareness and other intangibles.

Meeks- Great hands. Not good hands, great. That goes a long way for a big man. He's crafty around the basket and has excellent rebounding instincts. Needs to finish better. Misses a lot of bunnies, but still scores in traffic. I think that he will only get better as an inside scorer as he continues to get in better shape. Excellent outlet passer. Good positional defender and surprisingly good shot blocker considering he lacks "bounce". One of the best players in the ACC inside. BB IQ score-8

Johnson- Loads of natural talent that he's still learning how to use. Bouncy with good hands. Very quick turnaround shot that he can finish with touch. Good face up shooter to mid-range. Is becoming an elite rebounder since he has embraced rebounding. Soft as a defender. Relies on his length too much and is prone to reaching instead of moving his feet, but showing some improvement recently. Mentally drifts at times if not getting touches. BB IQ score=7

Hicks- young, big, strong elite/explosive athlete still learning how to play at the highest level. Nice touch, but fights hesitation inside to become a much better scorer. Tweener skills. Inside game coming along but must work on his handle to become as dangerous as he can be. Solid defender, active rebounder. BB IQ score-6

James- big, strong, active. Moves his feet well and owns his space as a defender. Often rushes too much to score under pressure, but has nice touch to mid range and inside in 1-1 situations. Weak rebounding instincts, but works hard at blocking out. Understands his role and sets solid screens for teammates. BB IQ =6

Paige- Warrior. One of the best PG's in the country. Offensively and defensively.No real weakness. BB IQ =9

Tokoto- Elite athlete, much improved shooter. Excellent defender, solid rebounder. Has the skills to become an elite college player with more aggression. Can get to the rim anytime, but is often timid. Tends to coast and react, wait for a seem, instead of being proactive with the ball. Good handle but needs to have better focus at times with his passing. Often too casual with the ball. Excellent court vision, average decision making. BB IQ=7

Britt- quick but undersized playmaker. Excellent ball handler and FT shooter. Improving outside shooter. Can get to the rim, but needs to work on finishing against the big guys. Very good, active defender with quick hands and feet but struggles with big guards shooting over him. Mentally tough with leadership skills. BB IQ = 8

Jackson- Underdeveloped body as a freshman for this level of competition, but excellent skills. Must get stronger. Good ballhandler. Good passer with vision. Nice mid range scorer and active rebounder. Needs to work on his deep shooting. Good, long, positional defender, but struggles inside against stronger players. BB IQ = 7

Berry- Strong PG. Good ballhandler, has vision, and has ability to finish at the rim. Average shooter and defender that needs to work on moving his feet. Typical freshman season so far but has the talent to get quality minutes as season progresses. BB IQ = 6

Pinson- Good, long, quick, active defender. Weak shooter, average finisher at the rim. Good rebounding instincts, good passer. BB IQ= 7

You have way overrated 80% of the team. Joel James is one of the worst players in the ACC. Even most Cheater fans state this openly. The guy is terrible. . His basketball IQ is about a 1.5. Britt is slow and mediocre at best and can' figure out which hand he should shoot with, and Berry couldn't beat Britt out for minutes. Pinson did nothing before getting hurt.
They are 7-1 because they have played a cream puff conference schedule.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I read your original post twice to understand that you were doing 2 quite distinct evaluations. It can be done, but it might require up front an explicit caution that the reader should not connect the number at the end of each player's talent-evaluation to that evaluation. You're doing two distinct things. To save time, you put it in a single post. You know it might be easy to mix the two, so maybe warn the reader to beware the confusion that the structure of your list might cause.

Still plenty to debate, both talent evaluation -- to which you do not attach a grade number -- and BB IQ evaluation, for which you give only a grade number.

A similar post about another team's players would be interesting, though I still recommend ND or UVa, at least for the next one. Just now that might be especially useful, as Krzyzewski has called on DBR fanatics to help him get our guys ready for these two talented, smart teams.

Sorry it wasn't more clear that I viewed BB IQ separately than talent in my original post. Keep in mind that was also a "grade" for mid season. They can improve and I sure hope they do.

Overall, I guess you can see I'm not all that impressed with UNC's BB IQ as a team. They make a lot of unforced mistakes at times. A lot of that is due to youth, but I expect more, especially from Jr.'s Tokoto and Johnson.

Unfortunately, I don't get to watch the other teams nearly enough to really make an informed evaluation in my mind. I try to watch every Duke and UNC game I can every year so I feel I have a better sense of those players.

[gumbomoop]

Unfortunately, I don't get to watch the other teams nearly enough to really make an informed evaluation in my mind. I try to watch every Duke and UNC game I can every year so I feel I have a better sense of those players.

Yes, it was a little presumptuous of me to suggest you study ND and/or UVa. I know from your posts that it's UNC and Duke that you follow. Forget my suggestion.

As to a similar post about Duke, ok, it's your neck. You might be able to pull it off.

[W&LHoo]

you're probably right about Duke's defense, but I would submit that State was.... "unconsciously hot" against Duke. For one afternoon, they were really, really good. The Pack's effective shooting percentage was 71.7% and while the defensive may have been unenergetic, there was defense. Is one hot shooting game evidence that a team is really good, or just that it's dangerous?

Much the same with Miami, although we clearly had trouble with their guards. Miami was 10-20 from three (well above their season average of around 37%) and had an effective shooting percentage of 70%. For that night at least, I was watching a really good Miami team.

I think both NC State and Miami took a while to coalesce, but at this point they're both good teams, with Miami the clearly superior team.

Miami absolutely owned their game with you kids and beat NC State without too much difficulty. Even in their two ACC losses, they took us to 2OT and only lost to Notre Dame by 5 in South Bend.

NC State murdered Pitt, gave us fits in the JPJ, and only barely lost to UNC and lost to ND in overtime.

[gumbomoop]

Didn't get my wish. Pitt blew it in OT at Blacksburg. No momentum for ND this weekend. Still Hope Pitt can help us, but looks unlikely.

[gumbomoop]

Overall, I guess you can see I'm not all that impressed with UNC's BB IQ as a team. They make a lot of unforced mistakes at times.

I didn't see this, didn't think you were unimpressed. The absence of any comparable standard causes the problem. I myself honestly thought the numbers implied that you think they have a pretty good team BB IQ. And look at another response:


You have way overrated 80% of the team.

I intend no snark here. Because we've no way of knowing whether, say, a 6 is "pretty decent" or "pretty lousy," the numbers are subject to misinterpretation, confusion, talking past each other. You're speaking Greek, Newton_14 speaks Russian, and I'm talkin Cajun.

To some extent -- UNC fanatic posting to Duke nutters -- the default likelihood is misinterpretation, at least a little suspicion, anyway. And the numbers, absent any defined standard, are almost bound to be fodder for major disagreement.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I think both NC State and Miami took a while to coalesce, but at this point they're both good teams, with Miami the clearly superior team.

Miami absolutely owned their game with you kids and beat NC State without too much difficulty. Even in their two ACC losses, they took us to 2OT and only lost to Notre Dame by 5 in South Bend.

NC State murdered Pitt, gave us fits in the JPJ, and only barely lost to UNC and lost to ND in overtime.

Yep, Miami is looking strong and their guards are a handful.

The quality of play is getting better every week all around the conference, or it better be, if a team doesn't want to be left behind.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I didn't see this, didn't think you were unimpressed. The absence of any comparable standard causes the problem. I myself honestly thought the numbers implied that you think they have a pretty good team BB IQ. And look at another response:



I intend no snark here. Because we've no way of knowing whether, say, a 6 is "pretty decent" or "pretty lousy," the numbers are subject to misinterpretation, confusion, talking past each other. You're speaking Greek, Newton_14 speaks Russian, and I'm talkin Cajun.

To some extent -- UNC fanatic posting to Duke nutters -- the default likelihood is misinterpretation, at least a little suspicion, anyway. And the numbers, absent any defined standard, are almost bound to be fodder for major disagreement.

Average doesn't impress me.

On that scale, a 5 would be average.

So the guys with a score of 6 or 7 are doing Ok, but need to do much better.

Only Meeks, Paige, and Britt have scored in the upper range of the Wheat/"/"/" BB IQ scale out of the entire team, so it's safe to conclude I think they need to improve their overall BB IQ.

[Wander]

Average doesn't impress me.

On that scale, a 5 would be average.

So the guys with a score of 6 or 7 are doing Ok, but need to do much better.

Only Meeks, Paige, and Britt have scored in the upper range of the Wheat/"/"/" BB IQ scale out of the entire team, so it's safe to conclude I think they need to improve their overall BB IQ.

If you think Joel James has a higher than average basketball IQ, then this metric is pointless.

[pfrduke]

Thanks to an overtime victory, Virginia Tech wins now leads Virginia losses 1-0. I think 3 is going to be the magic number there - I don't think that both VT will win 3 conference games and UVA will lose 3 conference games, but I do think one will happen.

[TruBlu]

If you think Joel James has a higher than average basketball IQ, then this metric is pointless.

Thanks for spelling out "basketball". Every time I see "BB IQ, I think I'm in the Duke vs Kentucky thread and get hungry.

[CDu]

Must really be eating you up when you look at the conference standings and see that lucky, inferior, UNC team full of mediocre and terrible players ahead of Duke in the standings.

Not really. With unbalanced schedules and a LONG season, the standings today are somewhat meaningless. Plenty of time before one should be worried about the standings.

[CDu]

If you think Joel James has a higher than average basketball IQ, then this metric is pointless.

Yup. I mean, one could say that the basketball IQ grade was pointless without the James estimate (given how vague and subjective it is). But the James grade just seems silly.

[devil84]

Can we please keep it civil? Let's not sling snark. Constructive dialog, please.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat is in a special category all by himself... the "I don't pay attention to that stuff so I can't comment on it" category.

For now, I'm choosing to ignore all the childish language, accusations and uninformed, speculative commentary I see from many who who don't know squat about what really went on with the AFAM department.

I will comment when the report is in from the NCAA.

[CDu]

For now, I'm choosing to ignore all the childish language, accusations and uninformed, speculative commentary I see from many who who don't know squat about what really went on with the AFAM department.

I will comment when the report is in from the NCAA.

AKA, the ostrich approach.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Yup. I mean, one could say that the basketball IQ grade was pointless without the James estimate (given how vague and subjective it is). But the James grade just seems silly.

I think that some are letting James's sometimes less than fluid movements around the court interfere with seeing how he understands what he's supposed to be doing out there, which is what the BB IQ is trying to rate.

[CDu]

I think that some are letting James's sometimes less than fluid movements around the court interfere with seeing how he understands what he's supposed to be doing out there, which is what the BB IQ is trying to rate.

And I'm saying that your estimated basketball IQ is a completely subjective and meaningless assessment, as you have no idea how well he (or any other player) understands what he's supposed to be doing.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

For now, I'm choosing to ignore all the childish language, accusations and uninformed, speculative commentary I see from many who who don't know squat about what really went on with the AFAM department.

I will comment when the report is in from the NCAA.
Wheat, with all due respect, the report is already in. UNC paid for it, published it and acknowledged it. Everyone knows EXACTLY what happened in AFAM. The real question is what UNC does about it and how its fans choose to acknowledge it... with a flip of their noses and a flick of their middle fingers, or with disgust for the systemic and long running cheating and lies that have soured the reputation of a great university.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

So what is the most meaningful game tonight besides the Duke at ND game? Any games we should keep an eye on?

Maybe the GT at Miami game? Could be helpful to us for Miami to lose a few games to lesser opponents.

[BigWayne]

Wheat, with all due respect, the report is already in. UNC paid for it, published it and acknowledged it. Everyone knows EXACTLY what happened in AFAM. The real question is what UNC does about it and how its fans choose to acknowledge it... with a flip of their noses and a flick of their middle fingers, or with disgust for the systemic and long running cheating and lies that have soured the reputation of a great university.
If anything is unknown about the AFAM department activity now, I am sure the unknown part is associated with even more wrongdoing.

[BigWayne]

So what is the most meaningful game tonight besides the Duke at ND game? Any games we should keep an eye on?

Maybe the GT at Miami game? Could be helpful to us for Miami to lose a few games to lesser opponents.

Three of the other four games on paper are heavy mismatches. If any of the lesser regarded teams is able to pull an upset, it would be news. Only one of them (BC) is at home, so I would guess that is the most likely.

[CDu]

Wheat, with all due respect, the report is already in. UNC paid for it, published it and acknowledged it. Everyone knows EXACTLY what happened in AFAM. The real question is what UNC does about it and how its fans choose to acknowledge it... with a flip of their noses and a flick of their middle fingers, or with disgust for the systemic and long running cheating and lies that have soured the reputation of a great university.

Yeah, unless you are going with the "ostrich approach", it's pretty clear what happened. There was widespread manufacturing of grades for athletes in the football and basketball programs for well over a decade in the form of fake independent study classes. It was explicitly done through extensive communications between the academic advisors for those athletic programs and a few particular faculty/staff members in the AFAM department. These are facts that have been presented in multiple reports now. The NCAA is aware of them and is deciding how to act on them.

The only things that are in doubt are:
- Were the academic advisors doing so under the knowledge of the coaches and AD (i.e., where the heads of the athletic programs actively involved in the cheating)? Or were the coaches and AD unaware (i.e., was there a lack of institutional control)?
- Was this cheating limited to the AFAM department (some of the more recent reports suggest it was more pervasive)?
- When exactly did the cheating start, and when did it end (again, each new investigation has extended the window over which the cheating occurred)?

The only speculation going on at this point is with regard to how involved/aware the coaches were. But there are plenty of facts that prove the cheating was going on. So it is not a question of whether players were playing who shouldn't have been eligible; it is only speculation on how involved/aware the coaches/AD were that they were playing guys that shouldn't have been eligible.

[cato]

I'm strongly considering a gluten free diet. I wonder if I'm coming down with celiac disease?

[Bob Green]

So what is the most meaningful game tonight besides the Duke at ND game? Any games we should keep an eye on?

Maybe the GT at Miami game? Could be helpful to us for Miami to lose a few games to lesser opponents.

No games to get excited about until the weekend when North Carolina travels to Louisville and Miami travels to Florida State. As far as tonight goes, I have zero expectation the 0-7 Yellow Jackets will be competitive in Miami.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

No games to get excited about until the weekend when North Carolina travels to Louisville and Miami travels to Florida State. As far as tonight goes, I have zero expectation the 0-7 Yellow Jackets will be competitive in Miami.

They gotta win one eventually right, might as well be tonight!! Ok highly doubtful but sure would be helpful.

[crdaul]

For now, I'm choosing to ignore all the childish language, accusations and uninformed, speculative commentary I see from many who who don't know squat about what really went on with the AFAM department.

I will comment when the report is in from the NCAA.

And the established fact that the AFAM department chairman had a seat right behind the basketball bench is just a random coincidence ????

[gofurman]

No games to get excited about until the weekend when North Carolina travels to Louisville and Miami travels to Florida State. As far as tonight goes, I have zero expectation the 0-7 Yellow Jackets will be competitive in Miami.

The ACC is brutal this year. It's a fine line of separation. Check scores tonight. I wouldn't have predicted it - not saying I told you so at all.... Not at all. Just that anything can happen in ACC this year

Clemson over NC state and GT winning over Miami - either would help. Duke were they to end that way. Particularly if Miami were to lose. That would be bonus in ACC standings. I hope we go 12-6. Brutal sched - how does a ranked ACC team have 6 ranked conference opponents. Not being able to play yourself (duke can't play duke) the ranked teams should face less ranked opponents than say Clemson who should hit all the ranked opponents. We can't play ourselves. Yet we play 6 ranked teams. I don't know of any team that plays more ranked conference opponents?

[freshmanjs]

The ACC is brutal this year. It's a fine line of separation. Check scores tonight. I wouldn't have predicted it - not saying I told you so at all.... Not at all. Just that anything can happen in ACC this year



i don't understand why people keep saying this. the ACC is tough at the top this year. the bottom is weak. 7 teams outside the top 100 is not a "brutal" bottom half. at all. and syracuse at #70 is not impressing anyone either.

[gofurman]

i don't understand why people keep saying this. the ACC is tough at the top this year. the bottom is weak. 7 teams outside the top 100 is not a "brutal" bottom half. at all. and syracuse at #70 is not impressing anyone either.

UVA escapes 'horrible' vt by 3. Clemson beating State at state. Not over but they lead . Clemson smoked Syracuse. Miami losing to 'bad' GTech. The bottom teams aren't great but heck BC is scaring top ten Louisville. No easy games. When the yr started I thought maybe VT was a gimme. A twenty pt win. Not turning out that way. Great teams at top. Well coached tough teams below that. I wouldn't call the teams at the bottom that I see now as weak. Maybe a month ago. But not now.

[Duvall]

Miami quitting pretty hard against Georgia Tech at home. Hey, that's a shame.

[devildeac]

Nice job, NCSU. :rolleyes:

[devildeac]

Nice job, NCSU. :rolleyes:

Even better job by Miami. At home. Against previously 9-10, 0-7 GT. Rodriguez had an even "better" game tonight with 0-8 and 0 (no typo) points.

[gumbomoop]

Hope we can play wonderfully from here on out and get 2d or even 1st in ACC, but I'm not counting on it. Right now I'm thinking more like 3d-4th. To that end, I'm inclined to root for UVa after Saturday. They play UL twice, so I'm hoping they sweep the Cards. Probably root for Syracuse to win at home v. UL, too.

[Karl Beem]

No games to get excited about until the weekend when North Carolina travels to Louisville and Miami travels to Florida State. As far as tonight goes, I have zero expectation the 0-7 Yellow Jackets will be competitive in Miami.

(cough)

[Bob Green]

(cough)

I struck out looking with that comment!

[devildeac]

I struck out looking with that comment!

One of these for dinner tonight?

4674

Perhaps with a pale ale?

(kidding, kidding)

[sagegrouse]

Nice job, NCSU. :rolleyes:

News Bulletin:

Assistant Sports Information Director Harry Wolf has resigned, according to Annabelle Myers, NC State Assistant Athletic Director for Communications. "His job was clear," said Myers, "and he didn't do it. Whenever Clemson plays at PNC Arena, we hang a sign that says 'Dean E. Smith Center' over the visiting players' entrance, which ensures a Wolfpack victory. Harry Wolf forgot, and he has resigned out of a sense of duty and obligation. We thank him for his service."

-30-

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

I pretty much called the GT win over Miami, this is my proudest moment on this board. Even if I did later state that it would be highly doubtful. Still counts baby!!!

You guys want my super bowl predictions now?

[devildeac]

I pretty much called the GT win over Miami, this is my proudest moment on this board. Even if I did later state that it would be highly doubtful. Still counts baby!!!

You guys want my super bowl predictions now?

Sure, but you're under no pressure from us with this one.;)

[pfrduke]

State and Miami losing at home to Clemson and Georgia Tech is just awful. I'm a firm proponent of getting as many ACC teams into the NCAAs as possible, and last night's results did not help. State, in particular, with 9 losses already, really needs to have a strong February (and early March) - their margin for error is extremely slim.

[CDu]

State and Miami losing at home to Clemson and Georgia Tech is just awful. I'm a firm proponent of getting as many ACC teams into the NCAAs as possible, and last night's results did not help. State, in particular, with 9 losses already, really needs to have a strong February (and early March) - their margin for error is extremely slim.

I'll go a step further and say that State has to pull some upsets to make it. They really only have the Duke win at home as a plus on their resume, and that is offset by the loss to Wofford. They have three likely losses left (vs UVa, @Louisville, @UNC) and the tournament. Not to mention that they could certainly lose in any of their road games against weaker foes (Clemson, Wake, GT, BC). If they are sitting at 13 or 14 losses on selection Sunday (I'm assuming they won't win the ACC Tournament), they are not getting in.

Miami has fewer losses, but their resume might be worse that State's. Double-digit losses to Providence, Green Bay, Georgia Tech (by 20!), and Eastern Kentucky (by 28!) more than offset the road wins over Duke and Florida. Like State, they have only 3 games left in which they'll clearly be the underdog. They probably need to win one of those to feel comfortable, and they can't fall asleep against the bottom feeders again.

Outside of the top 4 or 5 teams, this conference is looking pretty "blah" this year. There is a lot of crap and mediocrity floating around.

[devildeac]

State and Miami losing at home to Clemson and Georgia Tech is just awful. I'm a firm proponent of getting as many ACC teams into the NCAAs as possible, and last night's results did not help. State, in particular, with 9 losses already, really needs to have a strong February (and early March) - their margin for error is extremely slim.

(One of) our nice UVa visitors appears to be worried about their trip to play NCSU. I think we need to all re-assure them that the wolfpups are likely to provide little meaningful resistance during that game unless, of course, the 'Hoos show up wearing Duke jerseys:rolleyes::mad:.

[devildeac]

I'll go a step further and say that State has to pull some upsets to make it. They really only have the Duke win at home as a plus on their resume, and that is offset by the loss to Wofford. They have three likely losses left (vs UVa, @Louisville, @UNC) and the tournament. Not to mention that they could certainly lose in any of their road games against weaker foes (Clemson, Wake, GT, BC). If they are sitting at 13 or 14 losses on selection Sunday (I'm assuming they won't win the ACC Tournament), they are not getting in.

Miami has fewer losses, but their resume might be worse that State's. Double-digit losses to Providence, Green Bay, Georgia Tech (by 20!), and Eastern Kentucky (by 28!) more than offset the road wins over Duke and Florida. Like State, they have only 3 games left in which they'll clearly be the underdog. They probably need to win one of those to feel comfortable, and they can't fall asleep against the bottom feeders again.

Outside of the top 4 or 5 teams, this conference is looking pretty "blah" this year. There is a lot of crap and mediocrity floating around.

And, if either/both of those teams are "bubbling" around early to mid-March, I'd guess they both apply the Greenburg Principle/Law and claim they should be NCAAT bound because (drum roll, please), "We beat Duke." :rolleyes:

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

And, if either/both of those teams are "bubbling" around early to mid-March, I'd guess they both apply the Greenburg Principle/Law and claim they should be NCAAT bound because (drum roll, please), "We beat Duke." :rolleyes:

Yea but did they have a family cry together at mid court for dramatic effect????

[Bob Green]

Saturday boasts what may well be the game of the year in the conference (side note - this weekend last season was Duke-Syracuse in the Carrier Dome, which definitely was the game of the year in ACC play) when Duke and Virginia square off for the one and only time. Virginia eked out a win by the skin of their teeth in Blacksburg, but now has all week to rest up and prepare for the Devils coming to town. Just a little ways down I-64, Louisville will be playing host to UNC. 4 top-15 teams squaring off against each other is a fantastic way to spend a Saturday.

[112]Georgia Tech hosts [41]NC State (12:00, ESPN3)
[121]Clemson hosts [115]Boston College (12:00, ESPN3)
[100]Pittsburgh hosts [13]Notre Dame (12:00, ESPN3)
[113]Wake Forest hosts [175]Virginia Tech (2:00, ESPN3)
[14]Louisville hosts [10]North Carolina (4:00, ESPN)
[2]Virginia hosts [8]Duke (7:00, ESPN)


A big day of ACC hoops awaits us on this Saturday. Before the two Top 10 match-ups, NC State heads to Atlanta desperate for a victory and Notre Dame heads to Pittsburgh looking to avoid a post Duke victory letdown. Can the Wolfpack and Irish pull it off?

N.C. State is reeling having lost four of their last five games. A defeat at the hands of the 1-7 Yellow Jackets might put a fork in their NCAAT chances. I'll be pulling for the Wolfpack to survive, which is probably another factor going against them.

Pittsburgh has lost three games in a row with a fourth straight loss imminent.

At 4 pm, Louisville hosts the hot Tar Heels who have won 11 of their last 12 games a stretch that includes a one point loss at Notre Dame and a one point home victory over Louisville. Can the Tar Heels beat a quality opponent on the road? We will find out today.

[Bob Green]

A very entertaining 1st half between ND and Pitt with the Irish up one at the break. Both teams are making shots.

[Bluedog]

Of course ND misses the wide open three to win the game vs. Pitt. Why couldn't they have done that against us? ;) Grant had three defenders converge on him in the lane and had a great pass for a wide open look.

[FerryFor50]

Irish luck finally runs out...

[jv001]

Irish luck finally runs out...

We could've called this before the ball went up for a tip. See Miami and State. GoDuke!

[Devilwin]

Pitt just beat Notre Dame, 77-72. Beat Duke, lose your next game jinx..lol!!!!

[pfrduke]

Of course ND misses the wide open three to win the game vs. Pitt. Why couldn't they have done that against us? ;) Grant had three defenders converge on him in the lane and had a great pass for a wide open look.

Same shooter and same shot that went down against us. Sometimes, that's how the ball bounces.

[roywhite]

The Duke Hangover claims another victim.

[jipops]

Pitt just beat Notre Dame, 77-72. Beat Duke, lose your next game jinx..lol!!!!

It may not be looking good for UVA vs. unc if they beat Duke today. Actually, I will guarantee UVA's first loss will come in one of these next two games.

[Bob Green]

NC State and Georgia Tech are headed to overtime.

[jv001]

The Duke Hangover claims another victim.

The loss probably keeps ND from jumping over us in the polls, if we can pull out a win today. GoDuke!

[wgl1228]

If Louisville and Duke win today, things get interesting!

[sagegrouse]

NC State and Georgia Tech are headed to overtime.

Holy ______!!!! Did you see that finish? GT at the FT-line with a two-point lead, two shots and under five seconds. Misses both shots, and State wins on a three-pointer at the buzzer.

[FerryFor50]

Holy ______!!!! Did you see that finish? GT at the FT-line with a two-point lead, two shots and under five seconds. Misses both shots, and State wins on a three-pointer at the buzzer.

State finally caught a break in a close game.

Was looking like they had lost in classic State fashion again.

[brevity]

Holy ______!!!! Did you see that finish? GT at the FT-line with a two-point lead, two shots and under five seconds. Misses both shots, and State wins on a three-pointer at the buzzer.


State finally caught a break in a close game.

Was looking like they had lost in classic State fashion again.

The Wolfpack are discovering what their world can be like without Karl Hess.

[bedeviled]

Holy ______!!!! Did you see that finish? GT at the FT-line with a two-point lead, two shots and under five seconds. Misses both shots, and State wins on a three-pointer at the buzzer.Even luckier than that. GT should have been put on the foul line with the game tied and a second to go in regulation. However, Georges-Hunt was called for an offensive foul, which even the tv announcers declared was "not even close" to the correct call. Won't stop Pack fans from blaming an ACC reffing conspiracy for future losses, though ;)

[Duvall]

Even luckier than that. GT should have been put on the foul line with the game tied and a second to go in regulation. However, Georges-Hunt was called for an offensive foul, which even the tv announcers declared was "not even close" to the correct call. Won't stop Pack fans from blaming an ACC reffing conspiracy for future losses, though ;)

I doubt State is hurt by the fact that every ACC official knows that Debbie Yow is willing and able to whine them into ending up on double secret probation.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Watching the unc-Louisville game...I can't figure out how in the world Louisville is in the top 10. They're awful in almost every aspect of the game.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Watching the unc-Louisville game...I can't figure out how in the world Louisville is in the top 10. They're awful in almost every aspect of the game.
Agreed. They are bad. Or is the defense that good? I want to believe it's Louisville that just stinks.

[mph]

Pitino must have heard that we're relaxing travel restrictions to Cuba because he's one straw hat and mojito away from boarding a plane to Havana.

[gumbomoop]

I'm inclined to think of UL v. UNC as no-lose. Although I won't say I prefer that UNC win, a UL loss helps Duke a bit in securing an ACCT bye. A loss by Heels provides its own considerable delight.

Although Duke could go undefeated and win or tie for ACC #1, I'm not counting on it. With a depleted squad, and that bad loss to Miami, my priority is a top 3-4 finish. Pitt helped us today by beating ND. Syracuse has a tough backloaded schedule, including 2 with us. UL is a top-4 threat. Maybe Miami.

Duke could wind up 15-3, 14-4, # 1 or 2. But we could also lose, say, 6. So, if AACT bye is important as a "consolation" to not finishing first, then every loss by UL, ND, 'Cuse, Miami helps us.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Pitino must have heard that we're relaxing travel restrictions to Cuba because he's one straw hat and mojito away from boarding a plane to Havana.
Might be good for him. He needs to get outside. Hard to see where his face and neck stop and the white suit begins.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Agreed. They are bad. Or is the defense that good? I want to believe it's Louisville that just stinks.

Unfortunately, I think it's both. Joel James is knocking down elbow jumpers, Britt is improved shooter. They look confident, and Louisville has done nothing to deflate them.

[Wander]

They look confident, and Louisville has done nothing to deflate them.

Maybe Pitino should call up Tom Brady for the 2nd half then?

[Furniture]

UNC are killing them...

[Tripping William]

A Ville run. Maybe Pitino threatened that his players would have to go out on the town dressed like him if they lost.

[sagegrouse]

A Ville run. Maybe Pitino threatened that his players would have to go out on the town dressed like him if they lost.

Wha' hoppen? Wha' hoppen?

I gave up when it was 41-25 and ran an errand, and I come back and it's a two-point game -- now tied.

Sage

[Wander]

Both UNC and Louisville have used their "let's not actually try to play any offense" strategy on their last few possessions. Bold move.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Maybe Pitino should call up Tom Brady for the 2nd half then?

Whatever works😉

[mattman91]

Yeah! Gthc,gth!

[devildeac]

Great day for the ACC MBB teams from North Carolina, including Duke, NCSU, WFU and our honorary guest, Lou-ville.;)

[Furniture]

UNC are killing them...

Nobody noticed my jinx!!

[hudlow]

Nobody noticed my jinx!!


I did, but didn't want to jinx the jinx.

[CDu]

After a horrid weekend of results last weekend, yesterday was the opposite: just about everything went right! Now we completely control our own destiny for 2nd in the ACC and have a remote shot at first. Always fun to win on the road in the ACC, and always fun to watch UNC lose! Yesterday was a good day.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I honestly cannot remember how long it's been since the conference felt this competitive. It's heartburn inducing. But it's so much more fun when every game means so much. I've been up and down in way that I haven't felt in at least several years. Might be losing years off my life but I am loving this season.

[freshmanjs]

I honestly cannot remember how long it's been since the conference felt this competitive. It's heartburn inducing. But it's so much more fun when every game means so much. I've been up and down in way that I haven't felt in at least several years. Might be losing years off my life but I am loving this season.

it is very competitive among the top 5 (maybe 6 if you include Miami). the rest is between mediocre and terrible -- and much less competitive than it used to be.

[Olympic Fan]

it is very competitive among the top 5 (maybe 6 if you include Miami). the rest is between mediocre and terrible -- and much less competitive than it used to be.

Really?

How competitive was NC State (not in your top 5 or 6) when they beat Duke? And sure they blew the game against Notre Dame, but they led almost all the way ... I'd say that was competitive.

Then there is Georgia Tech, dead last in the ACC -- they were pretty competitive in a two OT loss AT Notre Dame (and in a 3-point loss when the Irish played in Atlanta). They were competitive in a one-point loss to Syracuse and in Saturday's thrilling OT loss to NC State.

Wake Forest is near the bottom of the ACC -- they were certainly competitive in homecourt losses to Louisville and Duke. I'd also add a 2OT loss to FSU, at OT loss at Syracuse and a two-point loss at Clemson ... except you wouldn't count those as competitive teams.

Virginia Tech is terrible, but they were competitive enough to come down to a missed 3-pointer at the buzzer to beat Syracuse and tie No. 2 Virginia. They finally hit that 3-pointer at the buzzer to tie Pitt and win in OT.

BC is also terrible, but they are much more competitive than they've been at any time since Al Skinner was the coach. Clemson got off to a terrible start, but they've been the hottest team in the league recently (at least they are tied with Louisville for the longest active winning streak in the ACC). FSU has taken its lumps, but since losing its best player, the 'Noles have beaten Florida, won three ACC games and took UNC to the wire in Chapel Hill.

I'd say that was competitive. There are games when ACC teams lose badly -- Duke did to Miami -- but every team -- and I mean every team -- is capable to playing a competitive game against even the top teams. This is far and away the most competitive the ACC has been since the 1980s -- from top to bottom.

[freshmanjs]

This is far and away the most competitive the ACC has been since the 1980s -- from top to bottom.

strongly disagree. anecdotal evidence that teams ranked 100-150 play well or occasionally beat higher ranked teams does not make those teams better than 100-150. the bottom of the acc is worse and less competitive than the bottom of other conferences (e.g., Big12)

edited to add: last year, the acc ended with 4 teams in the top 20 and 4 outside the top 100. right now, it's 5 in the top 20 and 4 outside the top 100. not that different.

in 2006, the acc had only 1 team outside the top 100. how is the bottom stronger this year?

[Olympic Fan]

strongly disagree. anecdotal evidence that teams ranked 100-150 play well or occasionally beat higher ranked teams does not make those teams better than 100-150. the bottom of the acc is worse and less competitive than the bottom of other conferences (e.g., Big12)

edited to add: last year, the acc ended with 4 teams in the top 20 and 4 outside the top 100. right now, it's 5 in the top 20 and 4 outside the top 100. not that different.

in 2006, the acc had only 1 team outside the top 100. how is the bottom stronger this year?


Your quote was the ACC was "much less competitive than it used to be"

That's absolutely wrong ... they bottom teams may rank low, but they've clearly been competitive with even the best ACC teams -- much more competitive than they bottom of the league has been in a long, long time.

[freshmanjs]

Your quote was the ACC was "much less competitive than it used to be"

That's absolutely wrong ... they bottom teams may rank low, but they've clearly been competitive with even the best ACC teams -- much more competitive than they bottom of the league has been in a long, long time.

per above that just isn't backed up by facts. pick any metric you want (and feel free to suggest others). if you look at wins by the bottom teams, efficiency rankings of the bottom teams, close games involving the bottom teams --- you see that this year is not the most competitive in recent history (or even close to it).

[BigWayne]

Both UNC and Louisville have used their "let's not actually try to play any offense" strategy on their last few possessions. Bold move.
Only caught the highlights on Sportscenter last night. They show the game getting tied at 59 with 3:55 to go. Then the end of regulation is a tie at 60, so each team scored one point in the last 3:55 it seems. Must have been some pretty miserable basketball to watch.

[CDu]

Your quote was the ACC was "much less competitive than it used to be"

That's absolutely wrong ... they bottom teams may rank low, but they've clearly been competitive with even the best ACC teams -- much more competitive than they bottom of the league has been in a long, long time.


per above that just isn't backed up by facts. pick any metric you want (and feel free to suggest others). if you look at wins by the bottom teams, efficiency rankings of the bottom teams, close games involving the bottom teams --- you see that this year is not the most competitive in recent history (or even close to it).

Gotta agree with the freshman here. The bottom of the league has never been weaker than it is right now. The bad teams were always capable of competing with the big boys on a given night. But there have arguably never been this high a percentage of the bad teams being really bad before.

[Wander]

There are games when ACC teams lose badly -- Duke did to Miami -- but every team -- and I mean every team -- is capable to playing a competitive game against even the top teams. This is far and away the most competitive the ACC has been since the 1980s -- from top to bottom.

The phrase "every team is capable of playing a competitive game against even the top teams" is true of every conference every year, so I don't know how meaningful of a statement that is. Consider a couple years ago when Kansas, a national title contender, lost to TCU, possibly the worst team in a power conference.

I don't know where you're coming up with the 1980s. The ACC was at least as good and probably better top-to-bottom in the mid 2000s. For example, 2005, in which it had three teams competing for 1 seeds, one of whom would go on to win the national title, and those three teams didn't even include the previous year's national runner up or a fourth ACC team that would make the Sweet 16. The ACC's worst team finished in the kenpom top 100 and had victories over two ACC teams that would make the tournament.

All that being said, there HAVE been an unusually high number of close games in the ACC this year. I guess it all depends on if one thinks that is a statistical fluke or not. It will be interesting to see if it continues.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Hmmmm, when I said the league felt more competitive than it has in a while, I was describing a feeling, not a statistical certainty. I've just had a really different feeling watching our and other teams' games this seasons. Right now there are 6 teams in the top 25 and the next "tier" (Cuse, Clemson, Pitt, State) have been pretty competitive as well. We're currently #4 in the polls but sitting at just 5th in the league. UVA certainly has a leg up on everyone else right now but it's not like it's a clear 2 or 3 horse race this year. And landing a first round bye in the ACCT feels more important than ever (unless you are Roy b/c you don't give a damn about the ACCT).

But since this board loves to try to prove (or disprove) just about everything using numbers, here's what I found when I looked at avg differential of all ACC regular seasons game played going back to 2001 (no significance there, just too lazy to go back further). Someone with a statistics degree can weigh in. But for the moment, it does show that league games have been closer this year. We'll see if that holds up.



ACC Season
Games Played
Avg Differential


2001
72.00
15.14


2002
72.00
15.44


2003
72.00
11.25


2004
72.00
10.06


2005
88.00
11.57


2006
96.00
9.48


2007
96.00
11.09


2008
96.00
10.09


2009
96.00
10.15


2010
96.00
10.24


2011
96.00
11.67


2012
96.00
10.78


2013
108.00
10.88


2014
135.00
10.29


2015*
62.00
9.02



*Thru 1/31/15

[Bob Green]

But for the moment, it does show that league games have been closer this year. We'll see if that holds up.

Florida State 55, Miami 54 so February is off to a close start.

[JohnJ]

Hmmmm, when I said the league felt more competitive than it has in a while, I was describing a feeling, not a statistical certainty. I've just had a really different feeling watching our and other teams' games this seasons. Right now there are 6 teams in the top 25 and the next "tier" (Cuse, Clemson, Pitt, State) have been pretty competitive as well. We're currently #4 in the polls but sitting at just 5th in the league. UVA certainly has a leg up on everyone else right now but it's not like it's a clear 2 or 3 horse race this year. And landing a first round bye in the ACCT feels more important than ever (unless you are Roy b/c you don't give a damn about the ACCT).

But since this board loves to try to prove (or disprove) just about everything using numbers, here's what I found when I looked at avg differential of all ACC regular seasons game played going back to 2001 (no significance there, just too lazy to go back further). Someone with a statistics degree can weigh in. But for the moment, it does show that league games have been closer this year. We'll see if that holds up.



ACC Season
Games Played
Avg Differential


2001
72.00
15.14


2002
72.00
15.44


2003
72.00
11.25


2004
72.00
10.06


2005
88.00
11.57


2006
96.00
9.48


2007
96.00
11.09


2008
96.00
10.09


2009
96.00
10.15


2010
96.00
10.24


2011
96.00
11.67


2012
96.00
10.78


2013
108.00
10.88


2014
135.00
10.29


2015*
62.00
9.02



*Thru 1/31/15

Q.E.D. Olympic Fan wins.:)

[Newton_14]

it is very competitive among the top 5 (maybe 6 if you include Miami). the rest is between mediocre and terrible -- and much less competitive than it used to be.

Agree, but the maddening part is, that most of those teams below 5th have talent, and the ability to rise up and both compete with and even win against those top 5 teams. Miami and NC State for example ought to have their collective fannies spanked for having so much talent, blowing out Duke for example, yet losing to the likes of Wofford, Eastern Michigan, etc and in some of those games getting absolutely blown out.

The thing I hate the most about the ACC is we have too many teams that only bring it and fully commit to winning when they are playing Duke, and in the old days unc. I am sorry, but Miami does not run Duke out of Cameron without having really good talent. They just don't, so it is totally unacceptable to me for that same team to lose by 20 at Ga Tech. If they brought the same effort they brought against Duke every game, they would not lose to those terrible, inferior teams, especially not the teams State and Miami lost to in non-conference.

VaTech is the only terrible team. All the rest of those teams have talent and should only be losing to top level teams and even there, not every single time. NC State should realistically have at worst 4 losses.

It's maddening.

[jv001]

Agree, but the maddening part is, that most of those teams below 5th have talent, and the ability to rise up and both compete with and even win against those top 5 teams. Miami and NC State for example ought to have their collective fannies spanked for having so much talent, blowing out Duke for example, yet losing to the likes of Wofford, Eastern Michigan, etc and in some of those games getting absolutely blown out.

The thing I hate the most about the ACC is we have too many teams that only bring it and fully commit to winning when they are playing Duke, and in the old days unc. I am sorry, but Miami does not run Duke out of Cameron without having really good talent. They just don't, so it is totally unacceptable to me for that same team to lose by 20 at Ga Tech. If they brought the same effort they brought against Duke every game, they would not lose to those terrible, inferior teams, especially not the teams State and Miami lost to in non-conference.

VaTech is the only terrible team. All the rest of those teams have talent and should only be losing to top level teams and even there, not every single time. NC State should realistically have at worst 4 losses.

It's maddening.

And Va. Tech gave the Cavaliers a scare. Yes, it's maddening. GoDuke!

[gumbomoop]

.... the maddening part is .... Miami does not run Duke out of Cameron without having really good talent. They just don't, so it is totally unacceptable to me for that same team to lose by 20 at Ga Tech.... It's maddening.

Maddening, you don't know the half of it. Miami lost at home to GT.

[devil84]

Gotta agree with the freshman here. The bottom of the league has never been weaker than it is right now. The bad teams were always capable of competing with the big boys on a given night. But there have arguably never been this high a percentage of the bad teams being really bad before.

There are twice as many bad teams as before. And there are twice as many good teams, too. Mostly because there are twice as many teams as there were in the 80s.

Not really sure how to compare an 8-9 team league (with a wonderful round robin and so many rematches with a touch of revenge) to a 15 team league (with unbalanced scheduling and far fewer rematches in the season). As the league has grown, it stands to reason that it could be more competitive even with the bottom teams stretching past the top 100, only because we have more teams in the top 100. To put it differently, in the early 80s, we could have garnered 8% of the top 100. Right now, with four teams outside the top 100 (only Va Tech at 160 is outside the top 125), we have 11% of the top 100 teams. And if "really bad" is all but one in the top 35% of DI teams with that last team in the top 46%, yeah, I guess that's really bad.

More competitive with a higher percentage of the top 100 teams? Less competitive because the bottom teams are lower than before? It's in whatever yardstick you're using.

I'm thinking that it's more competitive this year. Here's my yardstick: looking at the current conference win/loss streaks (source: ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/conferences/standings/_/id/2/acc-conference)), the longest winning streak is 3 games, the longest losing streak is 2 games. With teams having played 8-10 games each, seems like if it wasn't competitive, there would be longer winning/losing streaks. (It does help that Duke just busted a 7 game winning streak!)

[freshmanjs]

There are twice as many bad teams as before. And there are twice as many good teams, too. Mostly because there are twice as many teams as there were in the 80s.

Not really sure how to compare an 8-9 team league (with a wonderful round robin and so many rematches with a touch of revenge) to a 15 team league (with unbalanced scheduling and far fewer rematches in the season). As the league has grown, it stands to reason that it could be more competitive even with the bottom teams stretching past the top 100, only because we have more teams in the top 100. To put it differently, in the early 80s, we could have garnered 8% of the top 100. Right now, with four teams outside the top 100 (only Va Tech at 160 is outside the top 125), we have 11% of the top 100 teams. And if "really bad" is all but one in the top 35% of DI teams with that last team in the top 46%, yeah, I guess that's really bad.

More competitive with a higher percentage of the top 100 teams? Less competitive because the bottom teams are lower than before? It's in whatever yardstick you're using.

I'm thinking that it's more competitive this year. Here's my yardstick: looking at the current conference win/loss streaks (source: ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/conferences/standings/_/id/2/acc-conference)), the longest winning streak is 3 games, the longest losing streak is 2 games. With teams having played 8-10 games each, seems like if it wasn't competitive, there would be longer winning/losing streaks. (It does help that Duke just busted a 7 game winning streak!)

agree on the expansion points. on the winning streak point, we'd need to know what typical winning streaks were. since the overall conference win-loss records dont look much different from normal, wouldnt you expect that win-streaks would be normal as well? overall records are just a collection of win streaks.

[Duvall]

Okafor's long ROW drought is over. (http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-basketball-players-of-the-week-announced-02-02-2015)


Clemson’s Jordan Roper and Louisville’s Terry Rozier have been selected as the Atlantic Coast Conference Basketball Co-Players of the Week in a vote by a select media panel, while Duke’s Jahlil Okafor was selected as the ACC Rookie of the Week.

[devil84]

agree on the expansion points. on the winning streak point, we'd need to know what typical winning streaks were. since the overall conference win-loss records dont look much different from normal, wouldnt you expect that win-streaks would be normal as well? overall records are just a collection of win streaks.

I admit, I don't really know what "average" looks like. But, it does seem like there's always someone towards the top that has around 5ish wins, similar for losses for those at the bottom of the league. If we're about half-way through the season, and there will be 1-2 win teams at the end of the year, perhaps at least one team might have a 4-5 losses in a row at this point? Similarly, shouldn't there be a longer win streak by at least one team? With no team having lost more than two and no team has won more than three, doesn't that mean there's quite a bit of parity/upsets? Louisville (ACC#4, 6-2) and Clemson (ACC#7, 5-4) have the longest win streaks at 3, and three teams have 2 consecutive losses (#6 Syracuse, 5-3; #8 Miami, 4-4; and #13 BC, 1-7). Don't you think that VaTech or GaTech with only one win and 7 or 8 losses respectively, would have more consecutive losses at this point?

It probably means that there were a bunch of upsets this past weekend -- nothing more than that. But it does seem like with a lot of parity, there wouldn't be long winning or losing streaks for anyone.

[Wander]

There are twice as many bad teams as before.


No, that's just not true. There were quite a few years from 2010 on backwards where the ACC's worst team hovered around the top 100, which is remarkable. In the past 5 years, Wake, BC, and Virginia Tech have taken turns being truly atrocious.

[gumbomoop]

This should be an excited crowd, roughly like Duke @ UVa. And the Heel fans do sometimes cheer, or moan. But it doesn't sound or feel like an exciting game yet. Maybe they'll wake up in the second half. Do they get loud over there for anyone but Duke?

The Duke-ND and Duke-UVa games were tense and exciting. These two good teams tonight are playing in front of a bunch of dull fans.

[gumbomoop]

Don't recall Bennett being as angry as he was at end of first half. Horrendous charge call on UVa's late possession, as shown 3 times on replay, and as mentioned 5-6 times by Shulman and Bilas. Laughably bad, so they could only laugh. Bennett not amused. Charged one of the refs, restrained. Heels caught the break, took lead on last-second tip-in. Crowd made some noise, for once. Bennett very agitated in his quick exit interview with ESPN.

Maybe it'll get tense and exciting in second half. Big game, but maybe Heel fans are still emotionally hung over from last night's super episode of Downton Abbey.

[Olympic Fan]

Guys, this is the wrong thread -- it's last week's ACC roundup (1/26-2/1). There is a thread for this week's ACC games.

[freshmanjs]

I admit, I don't really know what "average" looks like. But, it does seem like there's always someone towards the top that has around 5ish wins, similar for losses for those at the bottom of the league. If we're about half-way through the season, and there will be 1-2 win teams at the end of the year, perhaps at least one team might have a 4-5 losses in a row at this point? Similarly, shouldn't there be a longer win streak by at least one team? With no team having lost more than two and no team has won more than three, doesn't that mean there's quite a bit of parity/upsets? Louisville (ACC#4, 6-2) and Clemson (ACC#7, 5-4) have the longest win streaks at 3, and three teams have 2 consecutive losses (#6 Syracuse, 5-3; #8 Miami, 4-4; and #13 BC, 1-7). Don't you think that VaTech or GaTech with only one win and 7 or 8 losses respectively, would have more consecutive losses at this point?

It probably means that there were a bunch of upsets this past weekend -- nothing more than that. But it does seem like with a lot of parity, there wouldn't be long winning or losing streaks for anyone.

sorry, I'm not following. if the best team is going to be 15-3, what difference does it make if they win 15 in a row and then lose 3 in a row or if their losses are exactly evenly spaced? i think that is just randomness and scheduling.