This Week in the ACC: 2/1-2/7

[pfrduke]

Just a very quick rundown this week

Monday
[8]Louisville hosts [4]UNC (7:00, ESPN)
[40]Florida State hosts [66]NC State (9:00, ESPNU)

Tuesday
[35]Syracuse hosts [109]Virginia Tech (8:00, ESPN3)
[122]Wake Forest hosts [57]Clemson (8:00, ESPN3)
[52]Georgia Tech hosts [19]Duke (9:00, ESPNU)

Wednesday
[17]Miami hosts [31]Notre Dame (7:00, ESPN2)
[5]Virginia hosts [257]Boston College (7:00, ESPN3)

Thursday is dark

Friday is dark

Saturday
[49]Pittsburgh hosts [5]Virginia (12:00, ESPN3)
[122]Wake Forest hosts [40]Florida State (12:00, ESPN3)
[8]Louisville hosts [257]Boston College (12:00, ESPN3)
[19]Duke hosts [66]NC State (2:00, ESPN)
[109]Virginia Tech hosts [57]Clemson (4:00, ESPN3)
[31]Notre Dame hosts [4]North Carolina (7:00, ESPN)

Sunday
[52]Georgia Tech hosts [17]Miami (1:00, ESPNU)

[Newton_14]

Oh look! unc@CHeat finally played a good team, and what do you know, they lost! Imagine that. The announcer gave some quick stats right after the game and I remember the numbers but not the exact context.. It was 6 in a row and 10 of last 11, of road losses against ranked teams? Something to that effect... I'm sure one of the resident guru's here will correct me if I got it wrong... and thank you ol roy, for once again trotting out your marginal players late in the 2nd half of a tough game. Much appreciated buddy;)

Love it.

[RepoMan]

I can't recall a season where every team in the country piled up so many losses this early in the season. Has there ever been more parity? The tournament season is going to be completely wild.

UNC finishes:

@ Notre Dame

@ Boston College

Pittsburgh

Duke

Miami (FL)

@NC State

@ Virginia

Syracuse

@ Duke


I'd be surprised if they didn't lose 4 of those games -- and, nonetheless, they could remain in the top 10

[CDu]

Always fun to see UNC lose.

[jipops]

Always fun to see UNC lose.

I didn't see the game. But it's also fun to see the box score when they lose as well.

[Newton_14]

I didn't see the game. But it's also fun to see the box score when they lose as well.

I watched it for you! You were there in spirit! :)

[CDu]

On an aside, how weird has Marcus Paige's career been? After his sophomore year he seemed like an early entry candidate. But he has gotten worse each year since.

[Green Wave Dukie]

Oh look! unc@CHeat finally played a good team, and what do you know, they lost! Imagine that. The announcer gave some quick stats right after the game and I remember the numbers but not the exact context.. It was 6 in a row and 10 of last 11, of road losses against ranked teams? Something to that effect... I'm sure one of the resident guru's here will correct me if I got it wrong... and thank you ol roy, for once again trotting out your marginal players late in the 2nd half of a tough game. Much appreciated buddy;)

Love it.

And I think Sean added "this is the first ranked team they have played this year"

[OldPhiKap]

On an aside, how weird has Marcus Paige's career been? After his sophomore year he seemed like an early entry candidate. But he has gotten worse each year since.

It's called "coaching."

Great job, Roy.

[77devil]

It's called "coaching."

Great job, Roy.

At least Roy used all but one timeout tonight. That's improvement.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

On an aside, how weird has Marcus Paige's career been? After his sophomore year he seemed like an early entry candidate. But he has gotten worse each year since.

Paige is just going through a mental funk scoring the ball. So is Jackson. Their talent has not left them, their confidence...at least to the level it needs to be to finish contested plays...has room to improve.

These things happen in the course of a season, and usually work themselves and players play to their talent level. I don't think anybody thinks Paige or Jackson have been playing to their proven potential for about the past five games.

Berry had a sub par game tonight too. Guard/wing play was not strong enough tonight for UNC.

[brevity]

On an aside, how weird has Marcus Paige's career been? After his sophomore year he seemed like an early entry candidate. But he has gotten worse each year since.

Regression like this is a little unusual for college basketball, but quite normal for the Carolina program.


And I think Sean added "this is the first ranked team they have played this year"

They played Maryland. Maybe the first ranked ACC team?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Here's that other post for the right thread...

That was a slugfest. I enjoyed the game, just not the outcome.

Two strong teams probing and testing each other with the ball against good defense.

Louisville made mistakes, but they also made plays. Winning plays. They finished shots and the contested possession plays. Nobody gave them anything, they took that win at home.

UNC really struggled with Lee's strength and athleticism. That kid is a player.

The Heels didn't finish at the rim enough, lots of shots rimmed out, and they made some untimely...mainly mental... mistakes. Both defensively and with passing the ball.

They just have to play better to expect to win a game like that on the road.

There's still clearly some confidence issues shooting and scoring the ball for UNC. The rim seemed awful tight again tonight for them. I do think it got better than the past few games so hopefully they get out of that funk soon.

I also like how Roy coached this game. He was tactical with the bench and had them in position to win all night against a good team on the road. Players gotta make plays at some point.

On to the next one...

[CameronDuke]

The way Virginia looked Saturday, they're the favorites to take the ACC regular season title for me right now. They get Duke, Pitt, Clemson, and Miami on the road but I think they'll take three of those four. I think Virginia will take care of business vs UNC and Louisville at home, too. I think UNC will lose at Notre Dame, at Virginia, and at Duke. I think Louisville loses 3 of 4 at Duke, Virginia, Pitt, and Miami.

The game that changed me for Virginia was their miracle comeback at Wake Forest. They could have been 4-4 very easily after that game but banked in a three from near the corner at the buzzer to get to 5-3 then dismantled Louisville at Louisville. That was a season altering and potentially season changing shot and win. I wouldn't be surprised to see Virginia, who was 4-3, reel off 10 of their last 11 and finish 14-4.

[freshmanjs]

The way Virginia looked Saturday, they're the favorites to take the ACC regular season title for me right now. They get Duke, Pitt, Clemson, and Miami on the road but I think they'll take three of those four. I think Virginia will take care of business vs UNC and Louisville at home, too. I think UNC will lose at Notre Dame, at Virginia, and at Duke. I think Louisville loses 3 of 4 at Duke, Virginia, Pitt, and Miami.

The game that changed me for Virginia was their miracle comeback at Wake Forest. They could have been 4-4 very easily after that game but banked in a three from near the corner at the buzzer to get to 5-3 then dismantled Louisville at Louisville. That was a season altering and potentially season changing shot and win. I wouldn't be surprised to see Virginia, who was 4-3, reel off 10 of their last 11 and finish 14-4.

recency bias.

[77devil]

I also like how Roy coached this game.

On to the next one...

Excellent use of timeouts.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

For perspective, I'd note UNC lost their first conference game on the road in a tight one to the leagues's #2 team.

Not shameful.

UNC is good, and can play much better. They aren't close to the level of play they showed they are capable of in the early Maryland game at the moment.

Roy still coaching for the post season too. Going deep into the bench even in the tightest moments. Putting every player on the spot to make plays. For example, Luke Maye had some good minutes, but a key mistake on a full court pass he could make against a lessor team, but not against a player with Lee's athleticism to steal it. The freshman learned a valuable lesson under fire tonight.

Lots of prime time ball to be played and UNC will be in the thick of it.

[OldPhiKap]

Given that we have four of our remaining ten conference games (IIRC) against these two teams, it's hard for me to really get enthused. Always like to see the Heels lose, but -- we need to play a heck of a lot better than we have been to finish above .500 in the conference.

[westwall]

I watched it for you! You were there in spirit! :)

Thanks. Well, I listened to the first half while driving in heavy (Tyson's beltway for you N Virginians) traffic. The announcers were Louisville's group and they talked from the beginning throughout the half about what a poor 3-pt shooting team UNC is. I haven't cared to watch UNC often this season, but their comments were intriguing. So, arriving home I watched the second half and and realized the announcers had a POINT. 3 for 17 is pitiful; Carolina is very vulnerable.

[rsvman]

satisfying day for me. got to play nine holes of golf in February, then watch the Heels lose. nice.

I agree with OPK, though. Duke is going to have to really step it up. I thought both teams tonight looked pretty good and did a lot of things right.

[Wahoo2000]

The way Virginia looked Saturday, they're the favorites to take the ACC regular season title for me right now. They get Duke, Pitt, Clemson, and Miami on the road but I think they'll take three of those four. I think Virginia will take care of business vs UNC and Louisville at home, too. I think UNC will lose at Notre Dame, at Virginia, and at Duke. I think Louisville loses 3 of 4 at Duke, Virginia, Pitt, and Miami.

The game that changed me for Virginia was their miracle comeback at Wake Forest. They could have been 4-4 very easily after that game but banked in a three from near the corner at the buzzer to get to 5-3 then dismantled Louisville at Louisville. That was a season altering and potentially season changing shot and win. I wouldn't be surprised to see Virginia, who was 4-3, reel off 10 of their last 11 and finish 14-4.

I don't think the last 1:30 of the Wake game and one (albeit very well played) game at Louisville is enough to say we've turned the corner. Our focus and intensity on defense has been VERY inconsistent this year. I'll need to see similar effort and execution of how we played at Louisville over the next 3-4 games before I buy into the idea that this is a possibility.

We've certainly demonstrated the last 2 years that we're capable of ripping off huge runs in conference (15-1 starts both years), but until I see these guys play with a little more fire and focus consistently.... I just don't know that we're capable of doing something like going 8-1 (or even 7-2) from here on out.

[Olympic Fan]

So, arriving home I watched the second half and and realized the announcers had a POINT. 3 for 17 is pitiful; Carolina is very vulnerable.

The 3-for-17 is pitiful, but it's typical -- UNC is hitting just 30.4 percent from 3-point range -- the worst in the ACC by a fairly wide margin (Wake is 14th at 32.0 percent). In conference play, it's even worse -- . UNC is converting 23.5 percent from 3. UNC is averaging exactly 4.0 made 3-pointers a game in ACC play -- far less than anybody else in the league (14th place Virginia is at 5.1 a game, but the Cavs are hitting 37.4 percent ... they just don't take a lot).

UNC is very good in a lot of areas, but there is a huge hole in their game. A year ago, UNC was regarded as a poor 3-point team, yet they hit 35.8 percent (37.0 in ACC play).

The biggest dropoff, of course, is Marcus Paige. A year ago, even with the foot injury, he hit a very respectable 39.5 percent on 238 attempts. This year he is at 32.2 percent on 90 attempts. In ACC play, he's at a horrid 23.7 percent on 53 3-point attempts -- the most attempts (by far) on the team. UNXC also misses Tokoto, who was their second best 3-point shooter a year ago.

Again, not saying UNC is a bad team or anything -- they do many things very well. But they have a HUGE hole in their game ... and that hole has been hidden by the favorable schedule they've played so far. But I think that's one reason why they won't win the national title or even reach the Final Four. They're likely to have another 3-for-17 night at some point in the tournament, when they're playing somebody that is good enough to play with them.

[Wander]

UNXC also misses Tokoto, who was their second best 3-point shooter a year ago.


Tokoto was not their second best 3-point shooter a year ago, or even close to it. That said I agree that 3-point shooting is a huge flaw of UNC's. Arizona last year is a good example of a team that was good at a lot of things, but being bad at 3-point shooting kept them from being at the very top level with Duke/Kentucky/Wisconsin.

[Saratoga2]

The 3-for-17 is pitiful, but it's typical -- UNC is hitting just 30.4 percent from 3-point range -- the worst in the ACC by a fairly wide margin (Wake is 14th at 32.0 percent). In conference play, it's even worse -- . UNC is converting 23.5 percent from 3. UNC is averaging exactly 4.0 made 3-pointers a game in ACC play -- far less than anybody else in the league (14th place Virginia is at 5.1 a game, but the Cavs are hitting 37.4 percent ... they just don't take a lot).

UNC is very good in a lot of areas, but there is a huge hole in their game. A year ago, UNC was regarded as a poor 3-point team, yet they hit 35.8 percent (37.0 in ACC play).

The biggest dropoff, of course, is Marcus Paige. A year ago, even with the foot injury, he hit a very respectable 39.5 percent on 238 attempts. This year he is at 32.2 percent on 90 attempts. In ACC play, he's at a horrid 23.7 percent on 53 3-point attempts -- the most attempts (by far) on the team. UNXC also misses Tokoto, who was their second best 3-point shooter a year ago.

Again, not saying UNC is a bad team or anything -- they do many things very well. But they have a HUGE hole in their game ... and that hole has been hidden by the favorable schedule they've played so far. But I think that's one reason why they won't win the national title or even reach the Final Four. They're likely to have another 3-for-17 night at some point in the tournament, when they're playing somebody that is good enough to play with them.

Both Louisville and UNC are blessed with multiple talented bigs. I can't see how Duke can deal with teams like them and there are others in that category. Even with Amile, we remain thin in the front court. Hope is for one of Sean, Vrank or Chase to show something and soon.

[tbyers11]

Tokoto was not their second best 3-point shooter a year ago, or even close to it. That said I agree that 3-point shooting is a huge flaw of UNC's. Arizona last year is a good example of a team that was good at a lot of things, but being bad at 3-point shooting kept them from being at the very top level with Duke/Kentucky/Wisconsin.

By percentage, Tokoto was the 2nd best 3pt shooter at 37.5% last year. However, he had 32 attempts (less than 1 3FGA/game). Besides the aforementioned Paige, only Jackson (92 3FGA), Britt (71 3FGA) and Berry (48 3FGA) attempted at least 1 3FGA/game and they shot 30.4, 36.6, and 35.4, respectively.

I do agree that UNC was a bad 3pt shooting team last year, and that so far this year they are worse

[Olympic Fan]

Tokoto was not their second best 3-point shooter a year ago, or even close to it. That said I agree that 3-point shooting is a huge flaw of UNC's. Arizona last year is a good example of a team that was good at a lot of things, but being bad at 3-point shooting kept them from being at the very top level with Duke/Kentucky/Wisconsin.

Why do people keep ignoring the evidence?

Tokoto hit 37.5 percent on his 3-point tries -- easily the second best on the team (behind Paige)

UNC 3-point shooting in 2015: Paige 39.5; Tokoto 37.5; Britt 36.6; Berry 35.4; Jackson 30.4; Pinson 26.9 ... several layers were 0-for-1, while walkon Justin Coleman was 0-for-4.

Tokoto was UNC's second-best 3-point shooter in 2015 ... undeniably.

[Wander]

Why do people keep ignoring the evidence?

Tokoto hit 37.5 percent on his 3-point tries -- easily the second best on the team (behind Paige)

UNC 3-point shooting in 2015: Paige 39.5; Tokoto 37.5; Britt 36.6; Berry 35.4; Jackson 30.4; Pinson 26.9 ... several layers were 0-for-1, while walkon Justin Coleman was 0-for-4.

Tokoto was UNC's second-best 3-point shooter in 2015 ... undeniably.

I'm not "ignoring the evidence." Tokoto was not even close to UNC's second best three point shooter last year. Seriously, it's not close. He was a far inferior shooter to Nate Britt, and probably also worse than Jackson and Berry. Your assertion that they "miss" him making less than one 3-pointer every three games is ridiculous. Do you think Marshall Plumlee was the best 3-point shooter for Duke last year? Do you think Sean Dockery was a better 3 point shooter than JJ Redick their junior year? Is Stephen Curry only the 4th best 3-point shooter in the NBA this year? Using 3-point percentages blindly like this is beyond silly.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not "ignoring the evidence." Tokoto was not even close to UNC's second best three point shooter last year. Seriously, it's not close. He was a far inferior shooter to Nate Britt, and probably also worse than Jackson and Berry. Your assertion that they "miss" him making less than one 3-pointer every three games is ridiculous. Do you think Marshall Plumlee was the best 3-point shooter for Duke last year? Do you think Sean Dockery was a better 3 point shooter than JJ Redick their junior year? Is Stephen Curry only the 4th best 3-point shooter in the NBA this year? Using 3-point percentages blindly like this is beyond silly.

Yeah, his 37.5 percent was not even close to Britt's 36.6 percent and is worse than Jackson's 30.4 percent.:rolleyes:

The only thing those guys did was shoot a lot more often -- and that's a testimony to Roy's incompetence as a coach -- if you believe Tokoto, one of the reasons he left was Roy's insistence that he NOT shoot, so that the great Justin Jackson could continue to launch 3s at a 30 percent rate -- Jackson is actually down to 21.3 percent this year. Wander ... is that your internet moniker, Roy?

Or are you confusing "prolific" with "best" -- which brings to mind an old Jim Valvano quote: Asked if one of his players could shoot the 3, he answered "Yeah, you can shoot it ... but that doesn't mean he can make it?"

If you'll read my post, I clearly stated that UNC's failure from 3-point range this year was mainly due to Paige's dropoff. I merely offered Tokoto's departure as a factor. He did leave, taking 37.5 percent accuracy from 3. I don't see where they have replaced him. Britt is almost exactly the same this year and Berry has increased his 3-point accuracy by a fraction. Jackson, Paige and Pinson are all worse. The two newcomers are a combined 1-for-16 from 3-point range for the season.

And after going 0-for-7 from 3 point range this year, UNC's walk-ons are 0-for-12 this year ... that drags down their team percentage a bit (although just one of those misses came in ACC play).

[Wander]

Yeah, his 37.5 percent was not even close to Britt's 36.6 percent and is worse than Jackson's 30.4 percent.:rolleyes:

The only thing those guys did was shoot a lot more often -- and that's a testimony to Roy's incompetence as a coach -- if you believe Tokoto, one of the reasons he left was Roy's insistence that he NOT shoot, so that the great Justin Jackson could continue to launch 3s at a 30 percent rate -- Jackson is actually down to 21.3 percent this year. Wander ... is that your internet moniker, Roy?

I don't know why you keep insisting that blindly using 3-point percentage to order players is a good idea and making these stupid little snide remarks about something that's very clearly wrong. It's very obviously not a good metric when you get down to low sample sizes. I will repeat my questions above, asking if you think Marshall Plumlee was the best 3 point shooter for Duke last year, or if Sean Dockery was ever a better 3 point shooter than JJ Redick, or if Stephen Curry isn't one of the three best 3 point shooters in the NBA this year.

You're probably the only person alive - including opposing coaches, Roy, and NBA scouts - who thinks JP Tokoto was a better long range shooter than Nate Britt. Tokoto was just a horrible jump shooter.

[freshmanjs]

I don't know why you keep insisting that blindly using 3-point percentage to order players is a good idea and making these stupid little snide remarks about something that's very clearly wrong. It's very obviously not a good metric when you get down to low sample sizes. I will repeat my questions above, asking if you think Marshall Plumlee was the best 3 point shooter for Duke last year, or if Sean Dockery was ever a better 3 point shooter than JJ Redick, or if Stephen Curry isn't one of the three best 3 point shooters in the NBA this year.

You're probably the only person alive - including opposing coaches, Roy, and NBA scouts - who thinks JP Tokoto was a better long range shooter than Nate Britt. Tokoto was just a horrible jump shooter.

In addition to the low sample size issue, there is also the complication that good 3 point shooters take shots with higher degree of difficulty (both because they select tougher shots and because they get more defensive attention). That means the comparison of percentages is not apples to apples.

[Wander]

In addition to the low sample size issue, there is also the complication that good 3 point shooters take shots with higher degree of difficulty (both because they select tougher shots and because they get more defensive attention). That means the comparison of percentages is not apples to apples.

Exactly right. Sean Dockey and Daniel Ewing have both had higher 3-point percentages than JJ Redick during single seasons, even with sample sizes that were not low. But JJ Redick was always a superior shooter to those guys. So even with high sample sizes, it doesn't make sense to rank shooters by just blindly listing their percentages. But I think everyone should be able to agree that it DEFINITELY doesn't make sense to blindly rank shooters that way with low sample sizes.

[Olympic Fan]

I don't know why you keep insisting that blindly using 3-point percentage to order players is a good idea and making these stupid little snide remarks about something that's very clearly wrong. It's very obviously not a good metric when you get down to low sample sizes. I will repeat my questions above, asking if you think Marshall Plumlee was the best 3 point shooter for Duke last year, or if Sean Dockery was ever a better 3 point shooter than JJ Redick, or if Stephen Curry isn't one of the three best 3 point shooters in the NBA this year.

You're probably the only person alive - including opposing coaches, Roy, and NBA scouts - who thinks JP Tokoto was a better long range shooter than Nate Britt. Tokoto was just a horrible jump shooter.

Please cite me an NBA scout (and I'm not accepting Wheat as a source) who thinks Nate Britt is anything other than a mediocre to poor jump shooter.

Britt is a career 35.6 3-point shooter (so-so) ... and a career 38.2 percent from the field (which is terrible).

And while I agree that Tokoto's 2015 numbers are a small sample size, it's not a Marshall Plumlee 1-for-1 ... hit did attempt almost one 3 per game and he DID bring up the UNC's team average with his 37.5 percent average.

We can argue about who is innately a better shooter -- Tokoto of Britt -- but it's clear that last year at least, Tokoto was a more effective 3-point shooter ... more effective than any UNC plyer other than Paige.


Not trying to change the subject (I love debating this stuff), but I was looking at the ACC schedule this morning and I think I might change my mind about Clemson's NCAA chances ... if the Tigers win at Wake tonight.

Yesterday, I didn't think they will make it. Then I looked at their schedule remaining. BC is 6-3 in ACC play at the moment. They have good wins (at home) over Duke, Louisville, Pitt and Miami, plus a good road win at Syracuse, They also have two almost sure ACC wins coming with two games against BC on the schedule. That gets them to eight ACC wins. If they win at Wake tonight, they are at nine ... how many more would they have to get to make the NCAA field.

A year ago, Miami went 10-8 in the ACC (and 21-12 on Selection Sunday) and didn't get a bid. They are similar to Clemson this year in that both have a lot of issues with their pre-ACC results. But Clemson has more good ACC wins already than Miami had a year ago -- the Canes beat Duke at Duke, but the only other NCAA team they beat in the league was a homecourt win over NC State. Clemson already has wins over five or maybe six NCAA teams (depending on whether FSU gets in).

Still, with their mediocre preseason performance, I doubt that 10-8 in ACC play gets them in. Can they get to 11 or 12 or even 13 ACC wins?

I've got them at nine if they win tonight (the two BC games are gimmies). They also have:
at Virginia Tech
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
at NC State
at Georgia Tech
Virginia

That's six chances to get two more ACC wins and they'll be favored at home against Georgia Tech and have a real good chance at VPI, at Georgia Tech and at NC State. Considering their other home wins, Notre Dame is not a big hurdle and even Virginia is a possibility.

Okay, 11-7 in the ACC gets them to 18-12 going into the ACC Tournament. They may need to get to 12-6 (19-11) ... but it's hard to see an 11 or 12-win ACC team -- with th quality wins they already have -- not making the field.

Not saying they make it ... but they have a MUCH better shot than I thought. That's why the Clemson at Wake game tonight is really big. A loss really hurts their chances,

[freshmanjs]

Please cite me an NBA scout (and I'm not accepting Wheat as a source) who thinks Nate Britt is anything other than a mediocre to poor jump shooter.

Britt is a career 35.6 3-point shooter (so-so) ... and a career 38.2 percent from the field (which is terrible).

And while I agree that Tokoto's 2015 numbers are a small sample size, it's not a Marshall Plumlee 1-for-1 ... hit did attempt almost one 3 per game and he DID bring up the UNC's team average with his 37.5 percent average.

We can argue about who is innately a better shooter -- Tokoto of Britt -- but it's clear that last year at least, Tokoto was a more effective 3-point shooter ... more effective than any UNC plyer other than Paige.


Not trying to change the subject (I love debating this stuff), but I was looking at the ACC schedule this morning and I think I might change my mind about Clemson's NCAA chances ... if the Tigers win at Wake tonight.

Yesterday, I didn't think they will make it. Then I looked at their schedule remaining. BC is 6-3 in ACC play at the moment. They have good wins (at home) over Duke, Louisville, Pitt and Miami, plus a good road win at Syracuse, They also have two almost sure ACC wins coming with two games against BC on the schedule. That gets them to eight ACC wins. If they win at Wake tonight, they are at nine ... how many more would they have to get to make the NCAA field.

A year ago, Miami went 10-8 in the ACC (and 21-12 on Selection Sunday) and didn't get a bid. They are similar to Clemson this year in that both have a lot of issues with their pre-ACC results. But Clemson has more good ACC wins already than Miami had a year ago -- the Canes beat Duke at Duke, but the only other NCAA team they beat in the league was a homecourt win over NC State. Clemson already has wins over five or maybe six NCAA teams (depending on whether FSU gets in).

Still, with their mediocre preseason performance, I doubt that 10-8 in ACC play gets them in. Can they get to 11 or 12 or even 13 ACC wins?

I've got them at nine if they win tonight (the two BC games are gimmies). They also have:
at Virginia Tech
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
at NC State
at Georgia Tech
Virginia

That's six chances to get two more ACC wins and they'll be favored at home against Georgia Tech and have a real good chance at VPI, at Georgia Tech and at NC State. Considering their other home wins, Notre Dame is not a big hurdle and even Virginia is a possibility.

Okay, 11-7 in the ACC gets them to 18-12 going into the ACC Tournament. They may need to get to 12-6 (19-11) ... but it's hard to see an 11 or 12-win ACC team -- with th quality wins they already have -- not making the field.

Not saying they make it ... but they have a MUCH better shot than I thought. That's why the Clemson at Wake game tonight is really big. A loss really hurts their chances,


Conference record (distinct from overall record) is irrelevant to selection. Even overall record really doesn't matter that much. It's about quality wins and bad losses.

[Olympic Fan]

Conference record (distinct from overall record) is irrelevant to selection. Even overall record really doesn't matter that much. It's about quality wins and bad losses.

believe me, I know the criteria ... I also know the difference between the official criteria and what the committee does (and how that changes with change in the selection Committee).

I also know that what has gotten ACC teams in over the years and what doesn't.

Clemson is piling up the quality wins ... enough to offset their bad pre-ACC losses (only the loss to UMass was really a bad loss).

I don't have time to check it now (I will later), but I don't think we've ever had a team in the 64-year NCAA era (since 1984) finish four games over .500 in the league (which is what Clemson would be at 11-7) and not get a bid.

[freshmanjs]

believe me, I know the criteria ... I also know the difference between the official criteria and what the committee does (and how that changes with change in the selection Committee).

I also know that what has gotten ACC teams in over the years and what doesn't.

Clemson is piling up the quality wins ... enough to offset their bad pre-ACC losses (only the loss to UMass was really a bad loss).

I don't have time to check it now (I will later), but I don't think we've ever had a team in the 64-year NCAA era (since 1984) finish four games over .500 in the league (which is what Clemson would be at 11-7) and not get a bid.

correlation does not imply causality.

[CameronDuke]

I don't think the last 1:30 of the Wake game and one (albeit very well played) game at Louisville is enough to say we've turned the corner. Our focus and intensity on defense has been VERY inconsistent this year. I'll need to see similar effort and execution of how we played at Louisville over the next 3-4 games before I buy into the idea that this is a possibility.

We've certainly demonstrated the last 2 years that we're capable of ripping off huge runs in conference (15-1 starts both years), but until I see these guys play with a little more fire and focus consistently... I just don't know that we're capable of doing something like going 8-1 (or even 7-2) from here on out.

Virginia gets Boston College, Virginia Tech, and NC State at home. BC and NCSU are terrible this year. Virginia will be ready to exact revenge against VT after losing at VT. I don't see any reason Virginia loses those three games. Virginia also hosts UNC at home. Virginia will be ready for that one too, sold out arena most likely, and I'll be surprised if they don't get the job done in that setting either. They already dismantled Louisville and get them at home too. In short, Virginia is tough to beat at home and I think they go undefeated at home the rest of the season.

At Pitt is a toss up that they could lose, as well as Duke but I think they win one of those. And I'm still not sold on Miami or Clemson, where Virginia has to go to. I think 8-1 in their final 9 is extremely possible. They match up well with anyone if they play the kind of defense they did at Louisville.

[CDu]

believe me, I know the criteria ... I also know the difference between the official criteria and what the committee does (and how that changes with change in the selection Committee).

I also know that what has gotten ACC teams in over the years and what doesn't.

Clemson is piling up the quality wins ... enough to offset their bad pre-ACC losses (only the loss to UMass was really a bad loss).

I don't have time to check it now (I will later), but I don't think we've ever had a team in the 64-year NCAA era (since 1984) finish four games over .500 in the league (which is what Clemson would be at 11-7) and not get a bid.

The problem for Clemson is that they have two bad (RPI-150+) losses and an RPI of 83. That RPI number could be a problem for them in spite of their 6-5 record against the RPI top-50. That #336 non-con RPI is not going to be looked on favorably (just ask Seth Greenberg). Maybe they win enough to get the RPI number up (those BC games will hurt), but they could very well end up a glorified Va Tech of yore.

[sagegrouse]

correlation does not imply causality.


Except in predicting decisions by organizations that appear to be heavily influenced by precedent. :)

[CDu]

believe me, I know the criteria ... I also know the difference between the official criteria and what the committee does (and how that changes with change in the selection Committee).

I also know that what has gotten ACC teams in over the years and what doesn't.

Clemson is piling up the quality wins ... enough to offset their bad pre-ACC losses (only the loss to UMass was really a bad loss).

I don't have time to check it now (I will later), but I don't think we've ever had a team in the 64-year NCAA era (since 1984) finish four games over .500 in the league (which is what Clemson would be at 11-7) and not get a bid.

Also, just FYI - Va Tech missed the tourney with a 10-6 ACC record in 2010. An 11-7 Clemson team can absolutely still miss the tourney.

[Olympic Fan]

Except in predicting decisions by organizations that appear to be heavily influenced by precedent. :)

My point, exactly.

I just checked and since 1985 (the 64-team era), 28 ACC teams have finished exactly four games over .500 in the league (either 9-5, 10-6 or 11-7, depending on the number of games).

Of that number, 27 have received NCAA bids ... one did not. If you expand it to include 1980 to 1984 (unlimited teams per conference, but just a 48-team field), the ratio goes up to 32-to-1.

While that's no guarantee, it's pretty good evidence. And I noted in my original post, they may need to get to 12-6 (no team six games over .500 has missed in the multi-team era). But even at 11-7, they certainly have the odds in their favor (and their quality wins over Louisville, Duke, Miami, Syracuse ad FSU would certainly help ... if they add a home win over Virginia, I can't see them missing).

I agree that their 83 RPI is an issue, but they were at No. 97 just one week ago. If they keep winning at a reasonable rate, they'll be in the 50's or 60s by Selection Sunday.

[freshmanjs]

My point, exactly.

I just checked and since 1985 (the 64-team era), 28 ACC teams have finished exactly four games over .500 in the league (either 9-5, 10-6 or 11-7, depending on the number of games).

Of that number, 27 have received NCAA bids ... one did not. If you expand it to include 1980 to 1984 (unlimited teams per conference, but just a 48-team field), the ratio goes up to 32-to-1.

While that's no guarantee, it's pretty good evidence. And I noted in my original post, they may need to get to 12-6 (no team six games over .500 has missed in the multi-team era). But even at 11-7, they certainly have the odds in their favor (and their quality wins over Louisville, Duke, Miami, Syracuse ad FSU would certainly help ... if they add a home win over Virginia, I can't see them missing).

I agree that their 83 RPI is an issue, but they were at No. 97 just one week ago. If they keep winning at a reasonable rate, they'll be in the 50's or 60s by Selection Sunday.

Providing additional evidence of correlation is hardly a rebuttal to the idea that correlation does not imply causality. Unless the committee is using conference record as a criteria, none of this is very relevant.

[Olympic Fan]

Providing additional evidence of correlation is hardly a rebuttal to the idea that correlation does not imply causality. Unless the committee is using conference record as a criteria, none of this is very relevant.

No one (except you) is talking about causation.

We're talking about trying to observe and predict what a secretive and often erratic organization is going to do. It's like projecting court rulings based on precedent ... or trying to predict Baseball's Hall of Fame voting -- there is no rule that steroid users can't get voted in, but a decade of observation suggests that an A-Roid will not be voted in when he becomes eligible.

Is that causation -- steroid use = non-election? Or is it merely observation of precedent.

The precedent is that an ACC school that finishes four games over .500 in the league has a 94.1 percent chance of getting a bad (my bad on VPI in 2010 ... the correct number is 32 of 34 previous teams that were plus four in the league).

Clemson absolutely CAN miss the NCAA at 11-7 ... but probably won't.

[freshmanjs]

Is that causation -- steroid use = non-election? Or is it merely observation of precedent.


In that case, it is causal.

[Newton_14]

The problem for Clemson is that they have two bad (RPI-150+) losses and an RPI of 83. That RPI number could be a problem for them in spite of their 6-5 record against the RPI top-50. That #336 non-con RPI is not going to be looked on favorably (just ask Seth Greenberg). Maybe they win enough to get the RPI number up (those BC games will hurt), but they could very well end up a glorified Va Tech of yore.

I'm with Oly on this one. First, this is actually a good Clemson team vs some of the frauds of the past. If they finish 11-7 in Conference I think they absolutely get in. They will have done enough. Plus all the noise among the pundits this season is how much quality depth the ACC has. That meme will carry over into decisions on Selection Sunday by the committee.

[Wander]

An 11-7 Clemson team is definitely not a lock. Their non-conference schedule is 335, yet they still somehow managed to lose 5 games in it. The 10-6 Virginia Tech team that got left out had a similarly atrocious non-conference schedule but only lost 1 game in it.

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting night in the ACC.

The three teams that are contending for NCAA berths (Duke, Syracuse and Clemson) all trailed at the half to non-contenders (Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest).

But all three NCAA contenders rallied to win -- Duke and Clemson on the road, Syracuse in overtime at home.

I'm glad Duke won for many reasons, but mostly to shut up pundits who have been playing with the idea that Duke might become a bubble team. That was a subject on PTI today (although Tony and Michael admitted that Duke is not yet a bubble team). I just wish they would have at least mentioned in passing that part of Duke's recent issues was the absence of the team's best senior ... and that he's due to return shortly.

As for Clemson ... Wander, I never suggested they would be "a lock" at 11-7 ... only that the historical odds would be strongly in their favor. And in the interest of fairness, you should note that while their nonconference RPI is low, their overall RPI is a much more respectable 79. They have six top 50 RPI wins (three times as many as Duke) and five of their eight losses are to top 50 opponents.

It's actually a fairly solid resume ... if they can finish 4-4 in the ACC (which gets them to 11-7), I think they have a better than 50-50 chance ... if they can finish 5-3 down the stretch (12-6), then I think they are in.

Two games tonight -- if Virginia doesn't murder BC in Charlottesville, I will be stunned ... but the Notre Dame at Miami game has interest. The Hurricanes have been pretty tough at home (4-0 in the ACC). It's kind of a push game for the ACC as far as its bid to get 10 bids.

The Irish get UNCheat in South Bend Saturday night, so I'm hoping no injuries.

[Wander]

As for Clemson ... Wander, I never suggested they would be "a lock" at 11-7 ... only that the historical odds would be strongly in their favor. And in the interest of fairness, you should note that while their nonconference RPI is low, their overall RPI is a much more respectable 79. They have six top 50 RPI wins (three times as many as Duke) and five of their eight losses are to top 50 opponents.

It's actually a fairly solid resume ... if they can finish 4-4 in the ACC (which gets them to 11-7), I think they have a better than 50-50 chance ... if they can finish 5-3 down the stretch (12-6), then I think they are in.


Not saying you were, that was more a response to Newton_14. I think we are close to the same page here - my stab at guessing the probability is that I agree with you they'd have better than a 50/50 chance in this scenario, but it would be closer to 50% than to the 94% your historical analysis would suggest because of the really bad nonconference performance.

[Olympic Fan]

Miami continues to dominate at home -- beating Notre Dame to go 5-0 in ACC play at home. Of course, they are only 1-3 on the road in the league (and that win was the gimmie at Boston College).

They go to Georgia Tech Sunday, then get another home game (vs. Pittsburgh).

As expected, Virginia coasted past BC at home tonight.

Not a very interesting night in the ACC ... but six games Saturday and five of them are interesting (all except BC at Louisville).

[devildeac]

Miami continues to dominate at home -- beating Notre Dame to go 5-0 in ACC play at home. Of course, they are only 1-3 on the road in the league (and that win was the gimmie at Boston College).

They go to Georgia Tech Sunday, then get another home game (vs. Pittsburgh).

As expected, Virginia coasted past BC at home tonight.

Not a very interesting night in the ACC ... but six games Saturday and five of them are interesting (all except BC at Louisville).

Well, is BC going to "run the table" (and not in the good way)?:eek:

[JasonEvans]

Thursday is dark

Am I forgetting something or is this the first time the ACC has not scheduled a single game on a Thursday during the conference season? I swear, it used to be that Thursday night games were practically the norm.

-Jason "But, TV wants us on Mondays so now we don't play nearly as much on Thursdays" Evans

[pfrduke]

Am I forgetting something or is this the first time the ACC has not scheduled a single game on a Thursday during the conference season? I swear, it used to be that Thursday night games were practically the norm.

-Jason "But, TV wants us on Mondays so now we don't play nearly as much on Thursdays" Evans

I think this happened once or twice last year too.

[Olympic Fan]

Am I forgetting something or is this the first time the ACC has not scheduled a single game on a Thursday during the conference season? I swear, it used to be that Thursday night games were practically the norm.

It's not the first time this season. Although we do play most Thursday's, we didn't have any ACC games on Thursday, Jan. 21. And even though it was before the ACC season started, there were several dark Thursday's in November/December (including New Year's eve). We'll also miss Thursday, Feb. 18, and Thursday, Mar. 3, coming up.

It was much worse last year -- we only had Thursday ACC games ONCE during the conference season -- eight Thursdays were dark in 2015.

Personally, I wish they would spread the games out more -- I will watch almost every ACC game that's available. I hate it when two of even three ACC games overlap (Tuesday, I had to miss the second halves of the Clemson at Wake and VPI at Syracuse -- two great games -- when the Duke game came on at nine).

However, I think the coaches like it since when you have a lot of Thursday games, you invariably have at least one game with a team making the Thursday/Saturday turnaround while its opponent has a Wednesday/Saturday situation -- and that extra day makes a big difference (with the many Monday games, you always have teams making the same Saturday/Monday turnaround). It would be great if all the teams that play on Thursday could get Sunday games that week, but since you don't play the same teams, that's very tough to do).

[Bob Green]

Saturday
[49]Pittsburgh hosts [5]Virginia (12:00, ESPN3)
[122]Wake Forest hosts [40]Florida State (12:00, ESPN3)
[8]Louisville hosts [257]Boston College (12:00, ESPN3)
[19]Duke hosts [66]NC State (2:00, ESPN)
[109]Virginia Tech hosts [57]Clemson (4:00, ESPN3)
[31]Notre Dame hosts [4]North Carolina (7:00, ESPN)



I'm looking forward to a full day of ACC hoops starting with Virginia at Pittsburgh, which is being broadcast on Channel 507 (Verizon FIOS) in Hampton Roads. Both teams are one game ahead of Duke in the conference standings, which frees me up to pull for Virginia my second favorite ACC team.

It benefits Duke if VT beats Clemson, but I can't root for the Hokies. Notre Dame knocking off North Carolina would be a nice way to end today's conference schedule.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm looking forward to a full day of ACC hoops starting with Virginia at Pittsburgh, which is being broadcast on Channel 507 (Verizon FIOS) in Hampton Roads. Both teams are one game ahead of Duke in the conference standings, which frees me up to pull for Virginia my second favorite ACC team.

It benefits Duke if VT beats Clemson, but I can't root for the Hokies. Notre Dame knocking off North Carolina would be a nice way to end today's conference schedule.

The most important ACC outcome is obviously Duke over State. We need that to get to 6-4 in ACC play.

After that, the outcomes that help is most -- VPI over Clemson (currently 7-3); Virginia over Pitt (currently 6-3); and North Carolina over Notre Dame (currently 6-4).

Unfortunately, I can't pull for the Cheats, so I'll worry about knocking Notre Dame back later -- Go Irish!

the Virginia-Pitt one is a toughie -- Virginia is 7-3 and we could stand to see them knocked back ... but in the long run, I think Pitt is the one we have the best chance of catching, so for today, I'm pulling for the Cavs.

[Bob Green]

Entertaining 1st half of basketball in Pittsburgh. It looked like Virginia might open it up a bit but Pitt finished strong to cut their deficit to two points at 29-27.

[Wahoo2000]

Entertaining 1st half of basketball in Pittsburgh. It looked like Virginia might open it up a bit but Pitt finished strong to cut their deficit to two points at 29-27.

We had a couple of really good defensive stretches in the second to pull away and win comfortably. This team looks nothing like the squad that lost @VT, @GT, and @FSU. We were quite honestly awful in those games from an effort/focus standpoint on D. Never seen anything like it over the last 2 seasons. Thankfully, looks like the guys finally got the message and we're playing much more like our "old" selves (though probably too little too late to grab a regular season "threepeat").

Looking forward to a good/great game with you guys next weekend. Duke has been the biggest regular season challenge for us over the last couple years, and I expect Jefferson to be suited up for the game next Saturday. Seems like that one could be a REAL springboard for whoever wins. Good luck today and Monday!

[CDu]

Clemson didn't do themselves any favors today losing to Va Tech in Blacksburg. FSU survived a scary first half at Wake before winning in blowout fashion. Louisville walloped BC and UVa walloped Pitt. Now Notre Dame gets their chance at a signature win against the Heels. We could be in a tie for (effectively) 5th in the ACC tourney standings by tonight (won't be if ND wins, wil be if not).

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Surprised Roy didn't take his starters to the locker room before the end of the game. Yahooooo!

[devildeac]

Boo-freaking-hoo.

[Doria]

Good win for Notre Dame! Or more to the point, great loss for UNC!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Good win for Notre Dame! Or more to the point, great loss for UNC!

Again, I like the way you think.

[Newton_14]

Boo-freaking-hoo.

LOL. unc-cheat... so overrated! This two loss week should take them back closer to where they belong. Their collection of bigs are soft, and none of them want to guard. They just want to score. Funny there at the end when ol roy put Luke Maye in for Meeks with the game on the line, then panicked during the ensuing timeout and after much knawing of nails and knashing of teeth over the decision, sent Hicks in for Maye.

ND outhustled and outplayed them down the stretch.

A great day! Duke wins! unc@chapelcheat lost. Doesn't get much better than that.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

It's got to be frustrating to coach this group of kids for Roy. They have the talent, they just play soft and don't take the game to the other team very often. Roy calls them out on it every time and it still happens. Brey was talking about the nucleus of his team was just tough kids. The core of UNC the past few seasons is just not. These UNC kids are wired to react, not dictate. Paige, the notable exception.

Tonight, they turned it over way too much and allowed ND to come at them. Time and again Bilas called out Johnson for not playing the man before the ball got to him and he was absolutely right. A kid with his talent should be much more active when his man is without the ball. It put him in bad defensive position and he gave up way too much. Meeks was the same. They have somehow got to understand to work harder on the floor to be elite.

At any rate, it was good to see Paige break his shooting slump. Now Jackson has to break his offensive funk.

Good news is I see this team playing at about 60% of their abilities the past few games. And they've been right in there still at the end. Unfortunately, they struggled to close games last season and it's happening again.

They must play harder...and smarter.

I blame this loss on Britt being out with a back injury. :)

[OldPhiKap]

It's got to be frustrating to coach this group of kids for Roy. They have the talent, they just play soft and don't take the game to the other team very often. Roy calls them out on it every time and it still happens. Brey was talking about the nucleus of his team was just tough kids. The core of UNC the past few seasons is just not. These UNC kids are wired to react, not dictate. Paige, the notable exception.

Tonight, they turned it over way too much and allowed ND to come at them. Time and again Bilas called out Johnson for not playing the man before the ball got to him and he was absolutely right. A kid with his talent should be much more active when his man is without the ball. It put him in bad defensive position and he gave up way too much. Meeks was the same. They have somehow got to understand to work harder on the floor to be elite.

At any rate, it was good to see Paige break his shooting slump. Now Jackson has to break his offensive funk.

Good news is I see this team playing at about 60% of their abilities the past few games. And they've been right in there still at the end. Unfortunately, they struggled to close games last season and it's happening again.

They must play harder...and smarter.

I blame this loss on Britt being out with a back injury. :)

This is the main disagreement we have had over the years. We both see that this same failing happens year after year after year. I think that must be a reflection of bad coaching, you think it's just kids who fail to perform. At what point does this pattern ultimately fall at Roy's feet for you?

Serious question, I generally agree with your breakdowns of your team. I just don't see how none of this can be Roy's fault.

[CameronDuke]

The way Virginia looked Saturday, they're the favorites to take the ACC regular season title for me right now. They get Duke, Pitt, Clemson, and Miami on the road but I think they'll take three of those four. I think Virginia will take care of business vs UNC and Louisville at home, too. I think UNC will lose at Notre Dame, at Virginia, and at Duke. I think Louisville loses 3 of 4 at Duke, Virginia, Pitt, and Miami.

The game that changed me for Virginia was their miracle comeback at Wake Forest. They could have been 4-4 very easily after that game but banked in a three from near the corner at the buzzer to get to 5-3 then dismantled Louisville at Louisville. That was a season altering and potentially season changing shot and win. I wouldn't be surprised to see Virginia, who was 4-3, reel off 10 of their last 11 and finish 14-4.

I'm just gonna leave this right here...

[MarkD83]

I'm just gonna leave this right here...

CameronDuke is quite the prophet and I like the rest of the prediction...so who is going to win the Super Bowl?

[CameronDuke]

CameronDuke is quite the prophet and I like the rest of the prediction...so who is going to win the Super Bowl?

Haha was just having a bit of fun. Mainly just celebrating the fact that UNC lost!

I'm a big Peyton Manning fan but I think the Panthers get it done tomorrow.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

This is the main disagreement we have had over the years. We both see that this same failing happens year after year after year. I think that must be a reflection of bad coaching, you think it's just kids who fail to perform. At what point does this pattern ultimately fall at Roy's feet for you?

Serious question, I generally agree with your breakdowns of your team. I just don't see how none of this can be Roy's fault.

No coach should have to coach intensity. Players have to own that responsibility.

The past few seasons, the core of Roy's teams have not had the personalities to be as aggressive as they should be. There have been too many reactionary personalities. Johnson, Meeks, Tokoto...it all started with that '13 class of recruits.

I don't think we had this discussion very often with the Marshall, Zeller, Barnes, core, certainly not with the Hansbrough, Lawson teams...or even back in the McCants, Noel, Manuel, May years. Roy coached them too.

It's not Roy. Kids gotta play hard.

I just heard Roy's presser and it was predictable. He fell on the sword, again, saying he has to do a better job getting them to play harder...yada, yada, yada...he's trying to make them feel guilty this time. Many times, particularly with Johnson and Meeks, he's flat out called them out...he's trying to get their attention someway, somehow.

This is still a really good team that's just not playing very well right now. Plenty of time to "get it" and step up.

[DukieTiger]

No coach should have to coach intensity. Players have to own that responsibility.

The past few seasons, the core of Roy's teams have not had the personalities to be as aggressive as they should be. There have been too many reactionary personalities. Johnson, Meeks, Tokoto...it all started with that '13 class of recruits.

I don't think we had this discussion very often with the Marshall, Zeller, Barnes, core, certainly not with the Hansbrough, Lawson teams...or even back in the McCants, Noel, Manuel, May years. Roy coached them too.

It's not Roy. Kids gotta play hard.

I just heard Roy's presser and it was predictable. He fell on the sword, again, saying he has to do a better job getting them to play harder...yada, yada, yada...he's trying to make them feel guilty this time. Many times, particularly with Johnson and Meeks, he's flat out called them out...he's trying to get their attention someway, somehow.

This is still a really good team that's just not playing very well right now. Plenty of time to "get it" and step up.

I think there are plenty of coaches who do in fact coach intensity. And even if it's not coachable, are we going to say it's not recruitable?

[OldPhiKap]

No coach should have to coach intensity. Players have to own that responsibility.

The past few seasons, the core of Roy's teams have not had the personalities to be as aggressive as they should be. There have been too many reactionary personalities. Johnson, Meeks, Tokoto...it all started with that '13 class of recruits.

I don't think we had this discussion very often with the Marshall, Zeller, Barnes, core, certainly not with the Hansbrough, Lawson teams...or even back in the McCants, Noel, Manuel, May years. Roy coached them too.

It's not Roy. Kids gotta play hard.

I just heard Roy's presser and it was predictable. He fell on the sword, again, saying he has to do a better job getting them to play harder...yada, yada, yada...he's trying to make them feel guilty this time. Many times, particularly with Johnson and Meeks, he's flat out called them out...he's trying to get their attention someway, somehow.

This is still a really good team that's just not playing very well right now. Plenty of time to "get it" and step up.

I would argue that Coach K coaches intensity more than anything else he does.

[yancem]

No coach should have to coach intensity. Players have to own that responsibility.

The past few seasons, the core of Roy's teams have not had the personalities to be as aggressive as they should be. There have been too many reactionary personalities. Johnson, Meeks, Tokoto...it all started with that '13 class of recruits.

I don't think we had this discussion very often with the Marshall, Zeller, Barnes, core, certainly not with the Hansbrough, Lawson teams...or even back in the McCants, Noel, Manuel, May years. Roy coached them too.

It's not Roy. Kids gotta play hard.

I just heard Roy's presser and it was predictable. He fell on the sword, again, saying he has to do a better job getting them to play harder...yada, yada, yada...he's trying to make them feel guilty this time. Many times, particularly with Johnson and Meeks, he's flat out called them out...he's trying to get their attention someway, somehow.

This is still a really good team that's just not playing very well right now. Plenty of time to "get it" and step up.

But didn't O'Roy recruit the kids? I agree that coaching intensity is difficult but that is why you have to recruit kids that are tougher. You have to recruit some tough/intense kids to go along with the skilled ones. Duke has certainly had some very talented but not tough/intense teams recently. I think that is partly due to how young some of those teams have been but also partly because K hadn't recruited enough tough, glue type players.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I would argue that Coach K coaches intensity more than anything else he does.

I agree. It's his style of coaching. He recruits players for that aggressive style and gives them plenty of freedom to attack.

Roy is a more tactical coach. He recruits players with skill sets to fit his system, which does require more discipline and temper some aggressiveness on offense.

But there is no excuse for players on the floor for either coach to not play with intensity. K is probably better at firing his team up with his outbursts...where Roy is more prone to expect them to step up on their own.

My point is neither should ever have to coach intensity. Players should come to play. Every game.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I think there are plenty of coaches who do in fact coach intensity. And even if it's not coachable, are we going to say it's not recruitable?

Sure, coaches have to own who they recruit. K is facing his issues with depth, like Roy is with intensity.

Intensity can be coached, not trying to say it can't...just that it shouldn't have to be.
Johnson for instance is much more intense this year than ever before, Roy has gotten him to play harder, but he still doesn't get it. At some point after continually highlighting lack of intensity...the responsibility to play with intensity has to fall on the player.

“You can talk about it all day, but inside that 94 by 50, you have to do it,” Paige said. “And we didn’t do it. We’re going to have to find some combination of guys that are willing to do it for the entire game, whether it’s five point guards or five centers. We’ve just got to find five guys ready to compete for the whole game.”- Marcus Paige after ND game

[timmy c]

I would argue that Coach K coaches intensity more than anything else he does.

I would argue that Coach K develops discipline more that intensity. A disciplined player will play with intensity all the time. I wouldn’t expect anything else from a West Point grad.


I agree. It's his style of coaching. He recruits players for that aggressive style and gives them plenty of freedom to attack.

Roy is a more tactical coach. He recruits players with skill sets to fit his system, which does require more discipline and temper some aggressiveness on offense.

But there is no excuse for players on the floor for either coach to not play with intensity. K is probably better at firing his team up with his outbursts...where Roy is more prone to expect them to step up on their own.

My point is neither should ever have to coach intensity. Players should come to play. Every game.

I would disagree with the bolded above. Roy hasn’t recruited disciplined players, nor has he taught the players he recruits discipline. Discipline and intensity are not opposites—players need to exhibit both traits to be successful. The key to the game last night was that UNC was not disciplined enough to beat the defensive assignment to spots. Nor did they have the discipline to value each possession or finish defensive plays by grabbing rebounds.

On a macro level, UNC has consistently discouraged discipline in the athletic department by encouraging athletes to avoid real academic rigor or refusing to offer behavior changing punishments when athletes break rules.

While you can argue that this is just semantics, I am suggesting that discipline is a key ingredient needed to beget intensity. Roy might be preaching discipline in practices, but if he and his administration aren’t practicing what they preach, it isn’t a surprise that their charges are not getting the message.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I would argue that Coach K develops discipline more that intensity. A disciplined player will play with intensity all the time. I wouldn’t expect anything else from a West Point grad.



I would disagree with the bolded above. Roy hasn’t recruited disciplined players, nor has he taught the players he recruits discipline. Discipline and intensity are not opposites—players need to exhibit both traits to be successful. The key to the game last night was that UNC was not disciplined enough to beat the defensive assignment to spots. Nor did they have the discipline to value each possession or finish defensive plays by grabbing rebounds.

On a typical 1/2 court possession, UNC will run a set play, set multiple picks, to get the ball to a specific player in a specific spot.

Duke will typically run motion and give the players the freedom to attack or shoot when they feel an advantage or simply clear out and depend on the player to create the play.

Polar opposite styles of coaching, both very successful.

It takes more discipline for players to run Roy's system and stay within the offense...that's the discipline I'm talking about.

[CameronBlue]

My point is neither should ever have to coach intensity. Players should come to play. Every game.

That's not realistic and if Roy approaches the game that way then Duke will always have a chance against UNC no matter the talent disparity. Perhaps Jay Bilas tells it best when he relates the story from his Freshman? season that is now widely known: K enters the locker room prior to the Louisville game, his face illuminated by candle light. The team is a little freaked initially until K delivers a simple message "we come not to praise Louisville, but to bury them." Jay was probably more geeked to hear K riff on Shakespeare but he recalls how energized the team was when they left the locker room. Duke put up a good fight for a while before the aptly named "Drs. of Dunk" ran away from Duke's freshmen dominated team. But it illustrates K's belief in esprit d'corps, his recognition that you need something more than a gameplan to be successful. You need emotional commitment. It's the reason for all the floor-slapping, the chest bumping, the "and-1" screaming. To play for Duke you have to be emotionally vested in the success of your teammates equal to or more than the investment in your own success. It flows organically and yet is synthesized into a team ethic.

K doesn't "know" more basketball than Roy. These guys draw from the same body of knowledge, they attend the same clinics, watch the same film. Nothing K does tactically on the court is going to surprise Roy and vice versa. Timing is critical, matching strengths to weaknesses critical. But usually the opponent's 5 guys are going to try to win just as badly as your 5 guys. Talent is not all that disparate among the top 10 to 15 teams in the country. The difference is whether your 5 guys are more committed to winning the game, more emotionally invested, more focused on achieving a goal. K's not willing to leave that to chance. It showed up in some measure on UNC's campus when Tyler Hansbrough landed in Chapel Hill. Not surprising that Duke has owned UNC since he left.

[Olympic Fan]

Real good win for Miami today at Georgia Tech.

I know it's to be expected, but the 'Canes had shown some serious flaws on the road. They were 5-0 at home, but just 1-3 on the road (and the one win was at Boston College, which barely counts).

I know that beating Georgia Tech is not a huge deal, but it's an important step for Miami (just as winning there Tuesday night was huge for Duke!)

Interesting that some of the ACC also-rans that seemed to be putting up a fight early in the conference seasons have collapsed.

Georgia Tech and Wake Forest were tough outs early in January ... not so much now.

Virginia Tech is the one upstart that is still dangerous.

NC State, I'm not sure about. They followed their home win over Miami (and they dominated the 'Canes) with road losses at Florida State and Duke ... but in both games, they showed a lot of fight and made it interesting. I'm going to be very interested to see what they do going forward. They have a week off before they play Wake Forest in Raleigh Saturday. Then they go to Virginia ... that's almost certainly a win and a loss for the Pack. Then they get Clemson and UNC at home. Those two games will tell is if there's any life left in Gottfried's team.

I think it's pretty clear that the four teams that will be playing Tuesday at the ACC Tournament are BC, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and NC State. I doubt any of those four teams can catch Virginia Tech in the standings (VPI has five ACC wins already -- none of the four I listed have more than two ACC wins).

[Furniture]

Does Duke pop back into the top 25 this week after the two wins?

[CameronDuke]

Does Duke pop back into the top 25 this week after the two wins?

I don't think the level of competition Duke faced in their two wins warrants them being in the top 25 this week. Winning on the road is tough, so the win at Georgia Tech was a good one for the squad (without Coach K too), but Georgia Tech is terrible this season. North Carolina State is even more atrocious.

If Duke beats Louisville and Virginia at home this week, yeah, then I think Duke will be ranked again.

[tbyers11]

Does Duke pop back into the top 25 this week after the two wins?

In the Coaches poll, I bet we do. We were 27th and all of the teams ranked 21-26 (Indiana, Wichita St, South Carolina, Dayton, Saint Mary's, and Pitt) lost except for Dayton with the losses for Indiana and Wichita St being fairly bad.

In the AP poll, I doubt it because we were 33rd and while all of the teams above lost and some others in the 26-33 range (VCU, Utah, Michigan) lost I think there are too many spots to jump to get back in the top 25.