This Week in the ACC: 12/12-12/18

[pfrduke]

A pretty good week, as the ACC won almost all of the important out of conference games (and Notre Dame looked pretty good in its matchup against Villanova before going cold the last ten minutes). Now we're in the thick of exams with a very slow week before some fun matchups on the weekend.

Monday
[218]Boston College vs. [99]Auburn in Madison Square Garden (6:30, FS1)

Tuesday
[25]Clemson hosts [320]South Carolina State (7:00, ESPNU)

Wednesday is dark

Thursday
[65]NC State hosts [285]Appalachian State (7:00, ESPNU)

Friday
[26]Miami hosts [221]Florida Atlantic (7:00, ACCN)

Saturday
[27]Syracuse hosts [58]Georgetown (12:00, ESPN)
[7]Louisville hosts [201]Eastern Kentucky (12:00, ACCN)
[37]Virginia Tech hosts [308]The Citadel (1:00, ACCN)
[25]Florida State hosts [226]Manhattan (1:30, FS2)
[24]Notre Dame vs. [11]Purdue in Indianapolis (2:00, ESPN2)
[5]Virginia hosts [291]Robert Morris (4:30, ESPNU)
[6]North Carolina vs. [3]Kentucky in Las Vegas (5:45, CBS)
[59]Pittsburgh hosts [97]Rice (7:00, ACCN)
[52]Wake Forest at [19]Xavier (8:00, FS1)

Sunday
[218]Boston College hosts [317]Sacred Heart (1:00, ACCN)
[117]Georgia Tech hosts [344]Alcorn State (2:00, ACCN)
[65]NC State hosts [173]Fairfield (2:00, ACCN)
[28]Clemson vs. [82]Alabama in Birmingham (4:00, ESPNU)

ACC Non-Conference Record: 115-28
ACC Record vs. Power 6*: 26-19
America East: 3-1
American Athletic: 3-3
Atlantic Sun: 2-0
Atlantic Ten: 6-2
Big 12: 1-6
Big East: 2-4
Big Sky: 1-0
Big South: 8-0
B1G Ten: 16-5
Big West: 3-0
Colonial: 4-0
Conference USA: 4-0
Horizon: 1-0
Ivy: 4-1
MAAC: 3-0
MAC: 2-1
MEAC: 6-0
MVC: 4-0
MWC: 2-0
Northeast: 3-0
Ohio Valley: 3-0
Pac 12: 2-0
Patriot: 6-0
SEC: 5-4
Southern: 7-0
Southland: 2-1
Summit: 1-0
Sun Belt: 2-0
SWAC: 3-0
WAC: 4-0
Non-D1: 1-0

*Big XII, B1G, Big East, Pac-12, SEC

[Olympic Fan]

Exam time means a very thin schedule

About the only interesting game during the week will be App State at NC State -- not so much for the game, but for the first chance to see Omer Yurtseven.

GREAT day Saturday (well, as great as it can be without Duke in action). UNC-Kentucky is huge, but also Notre Dame-Purdue and Syracuse-Georgetown. Wake is a big underdog, but they have a chance to make a statement at Xavier.

Sunday's lineup stinks, excepts for Clemson at Bama ... but next week opens with a big one -- Harry Giles day in Cameron (we hope)!

[CDu]

Exam time means a very thin schedule

About the only interesting game during the week will be App State at NC State -- not so much for the game, but for the first chance to see Omer Yurtseven.

GREAT day Saturday (well, as great as it can be without Duke in action). UNC-Kentucky is huge, but also Notre Dame-Purdue and Syracuse-Georgetown. Wake is a big underdog, but they have a chance to make a statement at Xavier.

Sunday's lineup stinks, excepts for Clemson at Bama ... but next week opens with a big one -- Harry Giles day in Cameron (we hope)!

Syracuse vs Georgetown is a big game in name, but possibly name only. Georgetown has already lost to Arkansas State and gotten blown out by Wisconsin and Oklahoma State. They did inexplicably beat Oregon, but otherwise their resume reads more like an Arizona St resume than a typical Georgetown resume.

It's an important one for Syracuse to win, though, given that Georgetown is down this year.

[Olympic Fan]

Syracuse vs Georgetown is a big game in name, but possibly name only. Georgetown has already lost to Arkansas State and gotten blown out by Wisconsin and Oklahoma State. They did inexplicably beat Oregon, but otherwise their resume reads more like an Arizona St resume than a typical Georgetown resume.

It's an important one for Syracuse to win, though, given that Georgetown is down this year.

Agree that Georgetown is down -- wa-a-a-y down -- but so is Syracuse. After beating four patsies at home to open the season, they lost three of four to good, but not great opponents. The last time out, they struggled with Boston University for a half -- then rolled in the second half.

Was that second-half explosion the turning point? Or are the Orange the same weak team that lost to UConn (not so great this year) and barely beat North Florida?

That's why I say the Syracuse-Georgetown game is significant.

[SCMatt33]

BC actually picked up a decent win, beating Auburn at MSG on a tip in by freshman center Nik Popovic with .2 left. BC led most of the game, but a late Auburn run saw BC down 69-65 before ending on a 7-2 run. This was really the first time I saw BC this year, and while BC doesn't look like they'll be much more competitive in ACC play this year, they may have some pieces going forward. This Popovic kid didn't just hit the last shot, but really looked good for the whole second half, showing off some old school post moves and controlling the defensive glass. At 6-11, 243, that stuff could certainly translate to conference play.

[Olympic Fan]

Great -- and unexpected -- win for the Eagles.

That evens their record at 5-5. They should get over .500 Sunday when they play Sacred Heart at home.

[SCMatt33]

Great -- and unexpected -- win for the Eagles.

That evens their record at 5-5. They should get over .500 Sunday when they play Sacred Heart at home.

They should...but then again, they lost to Hartford at home, and they're below Sacred Heart according to KenPom.

[Olympic Fan]

They should...but then again, they lost to Hartford at home, and they're below Sacred Heart according to KenPom.

True ... but that Hartford game was a bit of a fluke -- Jerome Robinson, the team's best play (by far) was hurt early in the Hartford game and was a non-factor in a game they lost by two on a 3-pointer at the buzzer.

BC is ranked higher by Pomeroy than Sacred Heart -- he gives them an 83 percent chance to win.

It' not a lock -- nothing is for BC this year -- but it is a game the Eagles should win. There aren't many of them left -- in fact, Sunday is the last game left that KenPom favors the Eagles (although his overall projection is 9-22 (and 2-16).

It's interesting that his projections in the ACC have BC's best chance to win on Jan. 11 at home against NC State -- and that's just 29 percent.

Personally, I do think BC will win again after Sacred Heart, but I think 9-22 (2-16) is a bit optimistic. I think there is a reasonable chance that the Eagles go another season without an ACC win.

[Faison1]

ACC Non-Conference Record: 115-28
ACC Record vs. Power 6*: 26-19
America East: 3-1
American Athletic: 3-3
Atlantic Sun: 2-0
Atlantic Ten: 6-2
Big 12: 1-6
Big East: 2-4
Big Sky: 1-0
Big South: 8-0
B1G Ten: 16-5
Big West: 3-0
Colonial: 4-0
Conference USA: 4-0
Horizon: 1-0
Ivy: 4-1
MAAC: 3-0
MAC: 2-1
MEAC: 6-0
MVC: 4-0
MWC: 2-0
Northeast: 3-0
Ohio Valley: 3-0
Pac 12: 2-0
Patriot: 6-0
SEC: 5-4
Southern: 7-0
Southland: 2-1
Summit: 1-0
Sun Belt: 2-0
SWAC: 3-0
WAC: 4-0
Non-D1: 1-0

YIKES!! What happened against the Big 12? The Big East record is explainable with Syracuse and BC being mediocre to bad.

[DukieInBrasil]

YIKES!! What happened against the Big 12? The Big East record is explainable with Syracuse and BC being mediocre to bad.

Duke lost to Kansas, for one.

[Olympic Fan]

YIKES!! What happened against the Big 12? The Big East record is explainable with Syracuse and BC being mediocre to bad.

(1) Duke lost to Kansas
(2) Boston College lost to Kansas State
(3) Clemson lost to Oklahoma
(4) Louisville lost to Baylor
(5) Miami lost to Iowa State
(6) Virginia Tech lost to Texas A&M

The Cheats beat Oklahoma State

Amazing, all seven ACC-Big 12 matchups were on neutral courts

[wilson]

...(6) Virginia Tech lost to Texas A&M

Amazing, all seven ACC-Big 12 matchups were on neutral courtsRemember, A&M is in the SEC now. The last ACC loss to the Big 12 is West Virginia over Virginia (which is rightly being cited as one of the B12's marquee wins to date).

[-jk]

YIKES!! What happened against the Big 12? The Big East record is explainable with Syracuse and BC being mediocre to bad.

Maybe that's why the worldwide leader is proclaiming them the best...

-jk

[Indoor66]

Maybe that's why the worldwide leader is proclaiming them the best...

-jk


...and who would ever question the worldwide leader?

[Ichabod Drain]

Maybe that's why the worldwide leader is proclaiming them the best...

-jk

So is Kenpom.

Though in Kenpom the bad teams are weighted the same as good teams. The Big 12 has every team in the top 75 so they're ranked higher even though I believe the best ACC teams are better than the best Big 12 teams.

ETA:

The big 12's ten teams (I know) have an average ranking of 33.2

The ACC's top 10 ten have an average ranking of 18.6

But then you have to factor in teams like BC and GT for the ACC.

[CDu]

I think it is absolutely fair to say that the Big 12's bottom feeders are FAR better than the ACC's bottom feeders. I think it's also fair to say that the ACC's top teams are on average better than the Big 12's top teams. And I think it's fair to say that the average Big 12 team is better than the average ACC team.

How one chooses to define "best conference" makes a big difference in whether one thinks the ACC is better than the Big 12 or vice versa.

[Faison1]

(1) Duke lost to Kansas
(2) Boston College lost to Kansas State
(3) Clemson lost to Oklahoma
(4) Louisville lost to Baylor
(5) Miami lost to Iowa State
(6) Virginia Tech lost to Texas A&M

The Cheats beat Oklahoma State

Amazing, all seven ACC-Big 12 matchups were on neutral courts

Well, DARN IT!!

For entertainment value, maybe we should cancel the ACC/BIG 10 Challenge and move it to the Big-12. Playing the Big 10 is getting kinda stale, IMHO.

As long as we are talking about the WorldWide Leader, maybe they should rotate all the conference challenges every other year...that would be interesting.

[pfrduke]

I think it is absolutely fair to say that the Big 12's bottom feeders are FAR better than the ACC's bottom feeders. I think it's also fair to say that the ACC's top teams are on average better than the Big 12's top teams. And I think it's fair to say that the average Big 12 team is better than the average ACC team.

How one chooses to define "best conference" makes a big difference in whether one thinks the ACC is better than the Big 12 or vice versa.

It's not just the ACC's top teams on average being better than the Big 12's. If you go down the list from 1-10, I think the ACC is better than or equal to the Big 12 counterpart in every matchup. The ACC has 4 teams (Duke, UNC, UVA, Louisville) at roughly the same level as the Big 12's top 3 (Kansas, West Virginia, Baylor). The ACC's next six teams are at roughly the same level or better than the Big 12's next 5. And then the ACC has 3 more teams at roughly the same level or better than the Big 12's bottom 2. So that's 13 teams in the ACC at least as good as the Big 12's 10 teams. Even the average of the ACC's best 13 teams against the Big 12's 10 teams would, I think, be in the ACC's favor, possibly even dramatically so.

There is also no question that Georgia Tech and Boston College, at least right now, are worse than anything the Big 12 has to throw out there. So the question in comparing conferences is how much Georgia Tech and Boston College should matter in the equation. It's definitely cherry picking to just throw them out. And it will be at least slightly easier for the top ACC teams to have 2-4 games against those schools in their 18-game lineup. But the ACC has more better teams than the Big 12 and, in my view, will end up with more tournament bids both in raw and weighted (i.e., as a percentage of the conference) than the Big 12 does (for me to win that, either the Big 12 has to end up with 6 or the ACC with 11; I don't think the Big 12 will get 8, but I'd definitely lose the weighted bet there because I think there's no way the ACC is getting 12).

[NSDukeFan]

Well, DARN IT!!

For entertainment value, maybe we should cancel the ACC/BIG 10 Challenge and move it to the Big-12. Playing the Big 10 is getting kinda stale, IMHO.

As long as we are talking about the WorldWide Leader, maybe they should rotate all the conference challenges every other year...that would be interesting.

The problem is that the Big 12 doesn't have enough teams to match up with most of the ACC, while the Big 10 does. Huh?

[Kfanarmy]

Remember, A&M is in the SEC now. The last ACC loss to the Big 12 is West Virginia over Virginia (which is rightly being cited as one of the B12's marquee wins to date).

always tough when one team is playing football while the other is trying to play basketball.

[sagegrouse]

The problem is that the Big 12 doesn't have enough teams to match up with most of the ACC, while the Big 10 does. Huh?

How can that be? The Big 12 surely has 12 teams, and the Big Ten must have ten teams -- right?

[English]

Well, DARN IT!!

For entertainment value, maybe we should cancel the ACC/BIG 10 Challenge and move it to the Big-12. Playing the Big 10 is getting kinda stale, IMHO.

As long as we are talking about the WorldWide Leader, maybe they should rotate all the conference challenges every other year...that would be interesting.

There currently exists a Big12/SEC challenge, although your second thought would address the logistics of that. As someone mentioned, the number of teams would impact whether the conference leadership and moneymakers would be amenable to less games (and teams sitting at home) for the purposes of "freshness." But to your idea of a revolving challenge, if you think the ACC/B1G Challenge is stale, imagine the ACC/SEC Challenge...after the top 2-3 matchups, is there a single game you'd be excited to see? Same goes for the ACC/BigEast Challenge or the ACC/PAC12 Challenge. At least the B1G has consistently had a handful of teams in the top-25 or close lately. An ACC/B12 Challenge would be fun, but (this season anyway) we've actually seen something resembling this idea.

Personally, I like the Challenge because it's one of the few opportunities we get to see Duke (and other top teams) match up with top competition in true road games out of conference. If we can get that elsewhere, I'd be fine abandoning the Challenge. Of course, my suspicion is that without an alternate challenge, I don't see that matchup consistently happening.

[Olympic Fan]

I think it is absolutely fair to say that the Big 12's bottom feeders are FAR better than the ACC's bottom feeders. I think it's also fair to say that the ACC's top teams are on average better than the Big 12's top teams. And I think it's fair to say that the average Big 12 team is better than the average ACC team.How one chooses to define "best conference" makes a big difference in whether one thinks the ACC is better than the Big 12 or vice versa.

Absolutely disagree with this statement.

The bottom feeders -- yes, the worst teams in the Big 12 are better than the bottom two of the ACC.

But there are still 13 ACC teams to match with 10 Big 12 teams. As you note, the ACC (with six teams in the top 25) is better at the top. But what about the middle?

Let's look at KenPom for a second -- the middle teams in the Big 12 -- (teams 4-7) are ranked No. 29, No. 30, No. 33, and No. 24.

Take 4-though-7 in the ACC and you get: No. 7, No. 24, No. 25 and No. 26 ... and keep going and you get No. 27 and No. 28. That means that the ACC has NINE teams ranked higher than the 4-7 teas in the Big East.

The ACC is better at the top and in the middle. Yeah, BC and probably Georgia Tech are probably worst than anybody in the Big 12, but I'd love to see the matchup with the ACC's other "bottom feeders" and the Big 12's worst teams. Look at it this way -- their No. 9 and No. 10 teams (TCU and Texas) are No. 55 and No. 72 in Pomeroy. The ACC's No. 9 and No. 10 teams are 28 and 37 ... No. 11 and No. 12 are 52 and 59. You have to get to No 13 to fall below the Big 12's bottom 2 -- and No. 66 NC State is about to get a major boost with the addition of as lottery pick big man.

Of course, the true measure of conference strength is in postseason. The ACC has demonstrated its superiority in the last two NCAA Tournaments, while the Big 12 -- touted as the best conference both seasons -- has failed miserably in postseason play.

Let's see how the two leagues look in March.

[CDu]

Absolutely disagree with this statement.

The bottom feeders -- yes, the worst teams in the Big 12 are better than the bottom two of the ACC.

But there are still 13 ACC teams to match with 10 Big 12 teams. As you note, the ACC (with six teams in the top 25) is better at the top. But what about the middle?

Let's look at KenPom for a second -- the middle teams in the Big 12 -- (teams 4-7) are ranked No. 29, No. 30, No. 33, and No. 24.

Take 4-though-7 in the ACC and you get: No. 7, No. 24, No. 25 and No. 26 ... and keep going and you get No. 27 and No. 28. That means that the ACC has NINE teams ranked higher than the 4-7 teas in the Big East.

The ACC is better at the top and in the middle. Yeah, BC and probably Georgia Tech are probably worst than anybody in the Big 12, but I'd love to see the matchup with the ACC's other "bottom feeders" and the Big 12's worst teams. Look at it this way -- their No. 9 and No. 10 teams (TCU and Texas) are No. 55 and No. 72 in Pomeroy. The ACC's No. 9 and No. 10 teams are 28 and 37 ... No. 11 and No. 12 are 52 and 59. You have to get to No 13 to fall below the Big 12's bottom 2 -- and No. 66 NC State is about to get a major boost with the addition of as lottery pick big man.

Of course, the true measure of conference strength is in postseason. The ACC has demonstrated its superiority in the last two NCAA Tournaments, while the Big 12 -- touted as the best conference both seasons -- has failed miserably in postseason play.

Let's see how the two leagues look in March.

Well, you can "absolutely disagree" all you want, but the math is straightforward. The average ACC team is 45.8 in KenPom. The average Big 12 team is 33.2. There are 15 teams in the ACC vs 10 in the Big 12, so counting down from the top is an entirely different discussion. That's not how averages work. If you go about it the way you are going about it, you are giving an inherent advantage to the bigger conference.

If you want to make the argument that the median ACC team is better than the median Big 12 team, that's a debatable point. Numerically, it's 27 (the #8 ACC team) for the ACC and 30 or 33 (the #5 or #6 team) for the Big 12. Which, given the noise in KenPom's early-season rankings, is basically no difference.

If you want to argue that the ACC has more really good teams? I'd absolutely agree with you. We have 4 of the top 6, whereas the Big 12 has just 3 of the top 11. Want to argue that the ACC has more tourney-caliber teams? Again, I agree. We have anywhere from 10 (including only top-40 teams) to 13 (top-75), whereas the Big 12 has anywhere from 6 to 10.

But if we are talking about average (which is the comment you highlighted of mine), then the Big 12 takes it.

[Indoor66]

Thank the Lord for the first good pissing contest of the '16-'17 season.😠😎

[CDu]

Thank the Lord for the first good pissing contest of the '16-'17 season.����

Pissing contest? Hardly. I made a statement. Olympic disagreed and provided his rationale. I defended my statement with my rationale. I'd call that good ole fashioned, healthy, reasoned discussion.

If that constitutes a pissing contest, I'd hate to think of what you'd call it when things really get heated.

[-jk]

I think it's like ranking recruiting classes - how do you account for the bench players when you have a some top 10 recruits?

Some take the average of the first x players. Others the entire class. No wrong answer.

-jk

[budwom]

not to get embroiled in the whose better than whom dispute, I assert that any conference where only one team ever wins the championship
could use some more good programs.

p.s. I'm a big fan of KenPom, but don't think the stats mean a whole lot until we get a few weeks into conference play. Lots of teams now
fattening up on stiffs....I know there are adjustments for that, but I really like the numbers come Feb 1 or so...

[Ichabod Drain]

This is fun. We could also look at the median team in each conference. For the ACC it is Syracuse right now, Kenpom #27. The Big 12 has ten teams so the middle two are Texas Tech and Kansas St, Kenpom #30 and #33 respectively. So ACC wins on that one technically though these rankings can fluctuate a good bit and will by the end of the season.

[CDu]

I think it's like ranking recruiting classes - how do you account for the bench players when you have a some top 10 recruits?

Some take the average of the first x players. Others the entire class. No wrong answer.

-jk

Yup. It's all in how you want to value "best", whatever that word is worth. Ultimately, we don't have a great tool to do this. And no, the NCAA tournament is not a good tool to do this. So it's kind of an arbitrary discussion. But then again, that's what a lot of sports debate is. Entertaining (at times), but highly subjective.

[construe]

Most importantly...should we use the mean for ordinal variables like rank?

I actually ask this somewhat seriously. When I teach my students about scales of measurements, I use the example of trying to find the best of 2 running teams made up of two runners each. In a race, one team's runners finish 1st and 5th, while the other team's runners finish 3rd and 4th. If you average the ranks, then the first team is the "winner"...but if you average the actual finish times, the 2nd team could win if the 5th place finisher was waaaay behind. Is Kenpom's rank based on the score of some formula? This would imply that you could average the actual scores (assuming they are ratio scaled variables...e.g., can a team get a score of 0, etc?), rather than the ranks.

(Sorry if this is too off topic!...)

[Olympic Fan]

Well, you can "absolutely disagree" all you want, but the math is straightforward. The average ACC team is 45.8 in KenPom. The average Big 12 team is 33.2. There are 15 teams in the ACC vs 10 in the Big 12, so counting down from the top is an entirely different discussion. That's not how averages work. If you go about it the way you are going about it, you are giving an inherent advantage to the bigger conference.


And if you go about it the way you are going about it, you give an inherent advantage to the smaller conference.

The only reason the Big 12 "average" is higher than the ACC is the presence of Boston College (No. 208 in Kenpom) and Georgia Tech (No. 116). But 13 ACC teams match up very well with the 10 Big 12 teams. Try it this way (with Pomeroy rankings):

No. 1 Duke>No 4 Kansas
No. 5 Virginia>No. 14 West Virginia
No. 6 UNC>No. 16 Baylor
No. 7 Louisville>No. 29 Iowa State
No. 24 Notre Dame>No. 30 Texas Tech
No. 25 FSU>No. 33 Kansas State
No. 26 Miami>No. 41 Oklahoma
No. 27 Syracuse>No. 48 Oklahoma State
No. 28 Clemson>No. 55 TCU
No. 37 Virginia Tech>No. 72 Texas

also: No. 52 Wake> No. 55 TCU and No. 72 Texas
No. 59 Pitt>No. 72 Texas
No. 66 NC State>No. 72 Texas

At EVERY position from 1 to 10, the ACC team is ranked higher in Ken Pom. Indeed, 13 ACC teams rank higher than the worst Big 12 ream.

The Big 12 is better because of two lousy ACC teams at the bottom?

[CDu]

And if you go about it the way you are going about it, you give an inherent advantage to the smaller conference.

The only reason the Big 12 "average" is higher than the ACC is the presence of Boston College (No. 208 in Kenpom) and Georgia Tech (No. 116). But 13 ACC teams match up very well with the 10 Big 12 teams. Try it this way (with Pomeroy rankings):

No. 1 Duke>No 4 Kansas
No. 5 Virginia>No. 14 West Virginia
No. 6 UNC>No. 16 Baylor
No. 7 Louisville>No. 29 Iowa State
No. 24 Notre Dame>No. 30 Texas Tech
No. 25 FSU>No. 33 Kansas State
No. 26 Miami>No. 41 Oklahoma
No. 27 Syracuse>No. 48 Oklahoma State
No. 28 Clemson>No. 55 TCU
No. 37 Virginia Tech>No. 72 Texas

also: No. 52 Wake> No. 55 TCU and No. 72 Texas
No. 59 Pitt>No. 72 Texas
No. 66 NC State>No. 72 Texas

At EVERY position from 1 to 10, the ACC team is ranked higher in Ken Pom. Indeed, 13 ACC teams rank higher than the worst Big 12 ream.

The Big 12 is better because of two lousy ACC teams at the bottom?

Actually, taking the average doesn't inherently favor a bigger or smaller conference. It just puts more weight on each team's performance in the smaller conference. If the Big 12 had a team as bad as BC it would hurt their average more than BC hurts the ACC average because that team contributes 10% of the average as compared to 6.7%. So the Big 12 doesn't have a better average ranking because they are smaller. They have a better average because none of their teams are bad. They have a comparable % of their teams in the top-30, a comparable % in the top 40, etc. But they have a better % in the top-75 and have no bad teams.

And again, it all comes down to one's preference for determining what best means. I personally don't have a dog in this discussion. I don't particularly care which conference is better. I just care where Duke finishes in the ACC and in the NCAA.

[OldPhiKap]

Meh. Head to head, the Big XII has won a clear majority of the games over the ACC. Kansas beat Duke at the top, KenPom notwithstanding.

I don't have a problem saying, in December, that the Big XII is playing better than the ACC by most metrics. More power to them.

With respect to all of those much more knowledgeable about basketball outside my little sphere or ability to watch, some of this argument sounds like Terps arguing how they really won the game despite having scored less points. "Scoreboard"


Let 'em have November. Heck, let 'em have December.

As long as we win March and April, which I think the ACC will.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Meh. Head to head, the Big XII has won a clear majority of the games over the ACC. Kansas beat Duke at the top, KenPom notwithstanding.

I don't have a problem saying, in December, that the Big XII is playing better than the ACC by most metrics. More power to them.

With respect to all of those much more knowledgeable about basketball outside my little sphere or ability to watch, some of this argument sounds like Terps arguing how they really won the game despite having scored less points. "Scoreboard"


Let 'em have November. Heck, let 'em have December.

As long as we win March and April, which I think the ACC will.

:)

I think OPK wins.

[Neals384]

Most importantly...should we use the mean for ordinal variables like rank?

I actually ask this somewhat seriously. When I teach my students about scales of measurements, I use the example of trying to find the best of 2 running teams made up of two runners each. In a race, one team's runners finish 1st and 5th, while the other team's runners finish 3rd and 4th. If you average the ranks, then the first team is the "winner"...but if you average the actual finish times, the 2nd team could win if the 5th place finisher was waaaay behind. Is Kenpom's rank based on the score of some formula? This would imply that you could average the actual scores (assuming they are ratio scaled variables...e.g., can a team get a score of 0, etc?), rather than the ranks.

(Sorry if this is too off topic!...)

Not OT at all, construe. As you suggest, it is more mathematically accurate to average the raw data, not the ordinals.



Conference
AdjEM


B12
17.32


ACC
16.54


BE
14.54


B10
13.26


P12
10.69


SEC
10.63


Amer
5.70


A10
4.56


MVC
2.93


WCC
2.56


MWC
2.30


MAC
0.51


Gra
0.00


CAA
-0.06


SB
-1.61


CUSA
-2.04


MAAC
-2.05


Ivy
-2.24


Sum
-2.82


Horz
-3.39


SC
-3.40


OVC
-5.14


ASun
-5.22


WAC
-5.41


Pat
-5.61


BW
-5.64


AE
-6.57


BSky
-7.50


Slnd
-7.92


BSth
-8.82


NEC
-10.99


SWAC
-15.34


MEAC
-15.62

[Troublemaker]

Not gonna watch the rest of the game, but I caught Yurtseven's first 8 minutes of college ball, which included his first two buckets. He's a very graceful, coordinated big man with soft touch. He's going to be a pain in the butt in the pick-n-roll with Smith Jr.

NCSU doesn't have an NCAAT resume as of today but they should do enough damage in the ACC to get a berth and be an underseeded team nobody wants to play.

[sagegrouse]

Well, you can "absolutely disagree" all you want, but the math is straightforward. The average ACC team is 45.8 in KenPom. The average Big 12 team is 33.2. There are 15 teams in the ACC vs 10 in the Big 12, so counting down from the top is an entirely different discussion. That's not how averages work. If you go about it the way you are going about it, you are giving an inherent advantage to the bigger conference.

If you want to make the argument that the median ACC team is better than the median Big 12 team, that's a debatable point. Numerically, it's 27 (the #8 ACC team) for the ACC and 30 or 33 (the #5 or #6 team) for the Big 12. Which, given the noise in KenPom's early-season rankings, is basically no difference.

If you want to argue that the ACC has more really good teams? I'd absolutely agree with you. We have 4 of the top 6, whereas the Big 12 has just 3 of the top 11. Want to argue that the ACC has more tourney-caliber teams? Again, I agree. We have anywhere from 10 (including only top-40 teams) to 13 (top-75), whereas the Big 12 has anywhere from 6 to 10.

But if we are talking about average (which is the comment you highlighted of mine), then the Big 12 takes it.

CDu -- Sample means are an inapt statistic. One team in the low tail of the distribution has a vastly disproportionate effect, like BC at 212. Medians are far more robust. Maybe even 25th/75th percentile, as schools do in reporting SAT scores.

[CDu]

CDu -- Sample means are an inapt statistic. One team in the low tail of the distribution has a vastly disproportionate effect, like BC at 212. Medians are far more robust. Maybe even 25th/75th percentile, as schools do in reporting SAT scores.

I didn't say that the average was the statistic I would prefer to use if I was going to try to determine the best conference. I just listed a bunch of possible ways (among them the average) and I noted that the answer one comes to depends entirely on what one values with regards to best. I was just defending my math. As I said, I really don't care which conference is the best. I just care if Duke is the best.

[Olympic Fan]

Not gonna watch the rest of the game, but I caught Yurtseven's first 8 minutes of college ball, which included his first two buckets. He's a very graceful, coordinated big man with soft touch. He's going to be a pain in the butt in the pick-n-roll with Smith Jr.

NCSU doesn't have an NCAAT resume as of today but they should do enough damage in the ACC to get a berth and be an underseeded team nobody wants to play.

I watched almost the entire game -- just to see Yurtseven. I had read a lot of descriptions of his game, but only seen a few highlight clips.

My take -- based on one game -- is that he is a VERY skilled big man ... but not especially athletic.

He showed off his shooting range -- hitting a 3 and another shot just inside the 3-point range. He handled and passed the ball well.

But he was surprisingly ineffective on the boards. He never got off the floor and his hands didn't see strong when he was going for rebounds ... and he didn't pursue the ball -- if it didn't come right to him, he wasn't going to get it. Defensively, he played big (he keeps his hands up well) -- but immobile. Both Abu and Anya were better defenders and better on the boards. Yurtseven was better -- maybe much better -- offensively than either. I'm pretty sure he will be a high-post big man with Abu/Anya/Kapita down low. They must have run the pick and roll a dozen times with Yurtseven.

I keep saying that all this is based on one game -- and his first US college game for that matter. He should be in shape -- he's been able to practice all along -- but he'll need time to work into what is suddenly a fairy deep team.

As for State, a blowout win was welcome after a stretch where they lost to a bad Illinois team by 14 and barely beat the likes of Loyola (by 2), Boston University (by 3) and Tennessee State (in OT).

Just one game, but it could be a sign that now that Yurtseven and Rowan (who started slow, but finished strong) are back, the Pack is ready to roll. We'll see, they've got three more gimmies before they open the ACC at Miami.

Do they have an NCAA resume? That's an odd way to put it at this time of year. A year ago, Wake Forest had a much better resume after 10 games and didn't come close to making the NCAA because they went 2-16 in the ACC. Three years ago, Virginia had a much worse pre-Christmas resume and ended up with a No. 2 seed when they won the ACC.

State's not going to win the ACC and is not going to finish 2-16. I think what they have done is put themselves in position to get a big with a 9-9 or 10-8 ACC record. Remember, two ACC teams went 10-8 a year ago and didn't get bids, while 9-9 Syracuse (with a worse non-conference resume than NC State will have) not only got a bid but reached the Final Four.

One thing to consider is that the committee will basically judge them on what they do going forward. If they prove a strong team with Yurtseven and Rowan in the lineup, their early struggles without those two will be forgiven.

[Troublemaker]

I watched almost the entire game -- just to see Yurtseven. I had read a lot of descriptions of his game, but only seen a few highlight clips.

My take -- based on one game -- is that he is a VERY skilled big man ... but not especially athletic.

He showed off his shooting range -- hitting a 3 and another shot just inside the 3-point range. He handled and passed the ball well.

But he was surprisingly ineffective on the boards. He never got off the floor and his hands didn't see strong when he was going for rebounds ... and he didn't pursue the ball -- if it didn't come right to him, he wasn't going to get it. Defensively, he played big (he keeps his hands up well) -- but immobile. Both Abu and Anya were better defenders and better on the boards. Yurtseven was better -- maybe much better -- offensively than either. I'm pretty sure he will be a high-post big man with Abu/Anya/Kapita down low. They must have run the pick and roll a dozen times with Yurtseven.

I keep saying that all this is based on one game -- and his first US college game for that matter. He should be in shape -- he's been able to practice all along -- but he'll need time to work into what is suddenly a fairy deep team.

Ha, that's great. It's not too often that someone's appetite for basketball is more voracious than mine. Thanks for the scouting report, Oly.

I do think I would personally describe Yurtseven as athletic. A lot depends on whether one includes hand-eye coordination and graceful movement as part of the athleticism equation, which I do.



Just one game, but it could be a sign that now that Yurtseven and Rowan (who started slow, but finished strong) are back, the Pack is ready to roll. We'll see, they've got three more gimmies before they open the ACC at Miami.


Yeah, I noticed that State will end up playing 4 games during this period between finals and the first conference game, which will be good for them to integrate Yurtseven and Rowan. Most teams are only playing 3 games or even 2 games (like Duke) during this period.



Do they have an NCAA resume? That's an odd way to put it at this time of year. A year ago, Wake Forest had a much better resume after 10 games and didn't come close to making the NCAA because they went 2-16 in the ACC. Three years ago, Virginia had a much worse pre-Christmas resume and ended up with a No. 2 seed when they won the ACC.

State's not going to win the ACC and is not going to finish 2-16. I think what they have done is put themselves in position to get a big with a 9-9 or 10-8 ACC record. Remember, two ACC teams went 10-8 a year ago and didn't get bids, while 9-9 Syracuse (with a worse non-conference resume than NC State will have) not only got a bid but reached the Final Four.

One thing to consider is that the committee will basically judge them on what they do going forward. If they prove a strong team with Yurtseven and Rowan in the lineup, their early struggles without those two will be forgiven.

Yeah, I'm guilty of following Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com) in December. Obviously, bracketology this early is useless for predicting the actual bracket in March. It's mainly for people like me who like taking little snapshots in time and seeing how teams' NCAA resumes rise and fall throughout the season. From a "snapshot in time" perspective, if NCAA selection were to occur today, State would probably be out. If they had beaten Illinois, maybe it'd be different. And if they had beaten Creighton, it'd definitely be different.

But I look forward to seeing them rise in Bracket Matrix as they proceed through the ACC season.

[CDu]

I'm hopeful for State (have a few good friends from there). Their ACC schedule is interesting. They get two against Ga Tech and one on the road against BC. Two against Wake.

On the flip side, they get Duke, Louisville, FSU, and Clemson just once: all on the road. That's certainly less than optimal. They have two against UNC. They do get Notre Dame and UVa at home, but those probably won't be easy.

Then there are the games in the middle: two versus Miami, home vs Pitt, Va Tech, and Syracuse.

Those 8 tough games put a lot of pressure on the Pack to do exceedingly well against the bottom feeders and those more toss-up-ish games. Hopefully they can steal a few against the better teams to take some pressure off.

[Olympic Fan]

I just took a peek at the current RPI standings (it's a bit early for an RPI thread). It's way too early to take seriously (KenPom says his rankings aren'y fullu avtive until late January ... I'd say it's about the same with the RPI.

Still, I was interested because of Troublemaker's claim that NC State does not currently have an NCAA resume. We all know how flawed RPI is (I MUCH prefer Kenpom rankings), but we also know that the selection committee gives RPI more weight that any other measure.

With that in mind, the current RPI rankings for the ACC:

6. UNC
8. Louisville
12. Wake Forest
13. Virginia
19. Duke
23. FSU
34. Notre Dame
43. N.C. State
47. Pitt
54. Virginia Tech
97. Miami
100. Clemson
112. Georgia Tech
166. Syracuse
287. Boston College

Eight teams are in the range that usually results in at-large bids (the cutoff is usually in the low 40s). N.C. State is right on the borderline. Pitt and Virginia Tech are not in bad shape -- their ACC schedule will give them a good chance to climb the few spots they need to get in. That's 10 teams in good shape. Five have a lot of work to do -- we expected BC and GT to be out, but Miami and Clemson really need to make up ground, while Syracuse has dug itself a big pre-ACC hole. I don't think 9-9 will get it done again for the Orange this year.

Of course, it's too early to take this too seriously. But an interesting early snapshot.

[Indoor66]

I just took a peek at the current RPI standings (it's a bit early for an RPI thread). It's way too early to take seriously (KenPom says his rankings aren'y fullu avtive until late January ... I'd say it's about the same with the RPI.

Still, I was interested because of Troublemaker's claim that NC State does not currently have an NCAA resume. We all know how flawed RPI is (I MUCH prefer Kenpom rankings), but we also know that the selection committee gives RPI more weight that any other measure.

With that in mind, the current RPI rankings for the ACC:

6. UNC
8. Louisville
12. Wake Forest
13. Virginia
19. Duke
23. FSU
34. Notre Dame
43. N.C. State
47. Pitt
54. Virginia Tech
97. Miami
100. Clemson
112. Georgia Tech
166. Syracuse
287. Boston College

Eight teams are in the range that usually results in at-large bids (the cutoff is usually in the low 40s). N.C. State is right on the borderline. Pitt and Virginia Tech are not in bad shape -- their ACC schedule will give them a good chance to climb the few spots they need to get in. That's 10 teams in good shape. Five have a lot of work to do -- we expected BC and GT to be out, but Miami and Clemson really need to make up ground, while Syracuse has dug itself a big pre-ACC hole. I don't think 9-9 will get it done again for the Orange this year.

Of course, it's too early to take this too seriously. But an interesting early snapshot.

Not picking on you, but that is so far off the wall that it is not even interesting,

[DukieInBrasil]

I just took a peek at the current RPI standings (it's a bit early for an RPI thread). It's way too early to take seriously (KenPom says his rankings aren'y fullu avtive until late January ... I'd say it's about the same with the RPI.

Still, I was interested because of Troublemaker's claim that NC State does not currently have an NCAA resume. We all know how flawed RPI is (I MUCH prefer Kenpom rankings), but we also know that the selection committee gives RPI more weight that any other measure.

With that in mind, the current RPI rankings for the ACC:

6. UNC
8. Louisville
12. Wake Forest
13. Virginia
19. Duke
23. FSU
34. Notre Dame
43. N.C. State
47. Pitt
54. Virginia Tech
97. Miami
100. Clemson
112. Georgia Tech
166. Syracuse
287. Boston College

Eight teams are in the range that usually results in at-large bids (the cutoff is usually in the low 40s). N.C. State is right on the borderline. Pitt and Virginia Tech are not in bad shape -- their ACC schedule will give them a good chance to climb the few spots they need to get in. That's 10 teams in good shape. Five have a lot of work to do -- we expected BC and GT to be out, but Miami and Clemson really need to make up ground, while Syracuse has dug itself a big pre-ACC hole. I don't think 9-9 will get it done again for the Orange this year.

Of course, it's too early to take this too seriously. But an interesting early snapshot.

i don't get how UNC is 6 and Duke is 19. Duke owns a better win than anything UNC has, and Duke's only loss was to a better team than anyone UNC has played. UNC is 2-1 vs 25-50 in the RPI and 2-0 vs 50-100. Duke is 1-1 vs 1-25, 0-0 vs 25-50, and 3-0 vs 50-100. Both are 4-1 vs the top 100. I guess Duke's weaker opponents are weaker than UNC's, but Duke has played 2 teams that are better than anyone on UNC's schedule (so far). As others have noted, it don't mean much at the moment.

On another note, several ACC teams are starting to get their full complement of players, most notably Duke and NCSU. Duke already got 2 of its 3 big time recruits back and playing, the other will probably play in the next game. State got a whole bunch of dudes back recently, and promptly whooped App St. I like it when Tobacco Road is highly competitive, and hopefully UNC will go 0-5 vs Duke and NCSU this year!!!

[CDu]

i don't get how UNC is 6 and Duke is 19. Duke owns a better win than anything UNC has, and Duke's only loss was to a better team than anyone UNC has played. UNC is 2-1 vs 25-50 in the RPI and 2-0 vs 50-100. Duke is 1-1 vs 1-25, 0-0 vs 25-50, and 3-0 vs 5-100. Both are 4-1 vs the top 100. I guess Duke's weaker opponents are weaker than UNC's, but Duke has played 2 teams that are better than anyone on UNC's schedule (so far). As others have noted, it don't mean much at the moment.

On another note, several ACC teams are starting to get their full complement of players, most notably Duke and NCSU. Duke already got 2 of its 3 big time recruits back and playing, the other will probably play in the next game. State got a whole bunch of dudes back recently, and promptly whooped App St. I like it when Tobacco Road is highly competitive, and hopefully UNC will go 0-5 vs Duke and NCSU this year!!!

Three main reasons:
1. Duke has played almost half its games against teams outside the top-200. That is a real anchor on our RPI at the moment. UNC has just two such games
2. UNC has played 3 true road games, including their only loss. Duke has none. RPI weights home, road, and neutral games differently
3. Small sample size!

But really the first one is the biggest driver as to why we are #20 vs UNC as #6 at this point. Having played half of our games against really awful teams just drags us down

[Olympic Fan]

Three main reasons:
1. Duke has played almost half its games against teams outside the top-200. That is a real anchor on our RPI at the moment. UNC has just two such games
2. UNC has played 3 true road games, including their only loss. Duke has none. RPI weights home, road, and neutral games differently
3. Small sample size!

But really the first one is the biggest driver as to why we are #20 vs UNC as #6 at this point. Having played half of our games against really awful teams just drags us down

Good explanation .. one of the things wrong with the RPI is that it punishes you more for the bad teams you beat (no matter how badly you beat them) than reward you for the good teams you play (win or lose).

Over the years, K has had an amazing knack of lining up bad teams with RPIs better than 200. That hasn't worked out this year -- Marist (282), William & Mary (236), App State (239), Maine (291) and UNLV (252) are all clunkers. The two upcoming games will help -- Tennessee State is 72 and Elon is 161. After that, we're in the ACC and BC is the only plus-200 team left.

[SCMatt33]

Good explanation .. one of the things wrong with the RPI is that it punishes you more for the bad teams you beat (no matter how badly you beat them) than reward you for the good teams you play (win or lose).

Over the years, K has had an amazing knack of lining up bad teams with RPIs better than 200. That hasn't worked out this year -- Marist (282), William & Mary (236), App State (239), Maine (291) and UNLV (252) are all clunkers. The two upcoming games will help -- Tennessee State is 72 and Elon is 161. After that, we're in the ACC and BC is the only plus-200 team left.

I think it does reward you for playing good teams, and it doesn't care so much if you win or lose those games. The parts of rpi that come from your record and your opponents record are independent of one another (meaning that beating a bad team and losing to a good one is exactly the same in the rpi's eyes as losing to a bad team and beating a good one). What the rpi does a poor job of is distinguishing that, in reality, there really isn't that much of a difference for tournament quality teams in beating a team ranked 150 and a team ranked 350, while there is a huge difference between beating 15 and 50. In the RPI's eyes, depending on the exact record of the teams, it would favor a team that beat 50 and 150 over 15 and 350, where most humans would say the wins over 150 and 350 are functionally equivalent and shouldn't matter.

And you're right, Duke has done a good job taking advantage of this over the years, but UNLV losing almost their whole roster after a botched coaching change, as well as HB2 changing our Albany game to Marist really took a toll. The other thing that hurt is our preseason tourney was really bad. Prior to the year, there might have been hope of Penn State being top 100 and Rhode Island being top 50 or even Top 25, but they will need to rebound in conference play to make that happen.

[CDu]

I think it does reward you for playing good teams, and it doesn't care so much if you win or lose those games. The parts of rpi that come from your record and your opponents record are independent of one another (meaning that beating a bad team and losing to a good one is exactly the same in the rpi's eyes as losing to a bad team and beating a good one). What the rpi does a poor job of is distinguishing that, in reality, there really isn't that much of a difference for tournament quality teams in beating a team ranked 150 and a team ranked 350, while there is a huge difference between beating 15 and 50. In the RPI's eyes, depending on the exact record of the teams, it would favor a team that beat 50 and 150 over 15 and 350, where most humans would say the wins over 150 and 350 are functionally equivalent and shouldn't matter.

And you're right, Duke has done a good job taking advantage of this over the years, but UNLV losing almost their whole roster after a botched coaching change, as well as HB2 changing our Albany game to Marist really took a toll. The other thing that hurt is our preseason tourney was really bad. Prior to the year, there might have been hope of Penn State being top 100 and Rhode Island being top 50 or even Top 25, but they will need to rebound in conference play to make that happen.

The other thing the RPI does that is a bit quirky (conceptually reasonable but poorly implemented) is weight home, neutral, and road losses differently. So UNC's near-double-digit loss at Indiana is actually more valuable than Duke's neutral court loss near the buzzer to Kansas. Now you might say "but Indiana beat Kansas, so that makes sense." Well, RPI ignores head-to-head of course. And since Indiana's SOS is a good bit worse than ours, the RPI thinks Kansas (#7) is much better than Indiana (#56). So despite the RPI thinking Kansas is much better, and despite our game with Kansas being much closer than the IU/UNC game, it still puts more value in UNC's loss because it was a true road game.

But yeah, this is one of those rare years in which we missed slightly on the RPI game. Hopefully it won't matter though if we do what we are capable of in conference.

[DukieInBrasil]

ESPN has an article about how exciting the UK vs UNCheat game will be, predicting UNCheat by 4 in OT. Apparently ESPN is very impressed by UNC's wins over patsies (they did win against a good Wisconsin team). Toney Bradley has become one of the best big men in the country, "and he's only a Fr.", apparently. UK's youth is gonna be too much to overcome since UNC's players have been thru the battles, which is actually a pretty reasonable observation. I guess i'm not as enamored with UNC's wins, including a couple against overmatched opponents that they just eeked out (UT).
I guess i'm gonna go ahead and say i hope UK wins.
http://www.espn.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/116807/weekend-picks-north-carolina-kos-kentucky-in-a-weekend-of-thrillers

[SCMatt33]

The other thing the RPI does that is a bit quirky (conceptually reasonable but poorly implemented) is weight home, neutral, and road losses differently. So UNC's near-double-digit loss at Indiana is actually more valuable than Duke's neutral court loss near the buzzer to Kansas. Now you might say "but Indiana beat Kansas, so that makes sense." Well, RPI ignores head-to-head of course. And since Indiana's SOS is a good bit worse than ours, the RPI thinks Kansas (#7) is much better than Indiana (#56). So despite the RPI thinking Kansas is much better, and despite our game with Kansas being much closer than the IU/UNC game, it still puts more value in UNC's loss because it was a true road game.

But yeah, this is one of those rare years in which we missed slightly on the RPI game. Hopefully it won't matter though if we do what we are capable of in conference.

Sort of, But the rpi treats all three components independently. 25% is your win/loss percentage. 50% is the win/loss percentage of your opponents, and 25% is the win/loss percentage of your opponents' opponents. Your own win/loss record is adjusted for location. Neutral site wins/losses are all 1. A home win is only .6 wins but a home loss counts as 1.4 losses. Those are reversed for road games. So while UNC only has to have .6 losses for its Indiana game, Indianas record is not any more heavily weighted in the SOS part of the calculation than any other game.

On another level, this is something that the rpi isn't necessarily in disagreement on this issue with advanced stats guys. KenPom tracks games as "teir A", "teir B", or neither. A tier A game is a home game against the top 20, neutral against the top 50 and road against the top 70. He picked those because in his analysis, winning against each of those teams in those situations is about equally hard. Things will settle out over time with individual teams rankings, but it actually makes some sense to give teams more credit for beating a lower ranked team (or less blame for a loss) against a team on the road vs. at home or on a neutral court. The issue, however, becomes in the committee room, there's less emphasis on your actual ranking and more on your record vs top 50, top 100, etc, but the cutoff remains the same despite location being an important factor in those games. That's what KenPom tries to simulate in his tier A and B.

[Olympic Fan]

ESPN has an article about how exciting the UK vs UNCheat game will be, predicting UNCheat by 4 in OT. Apparently ESPN is very impressed by UNC's wins over patsies (they did win against a good Wisconsin team). Toney Bradley has become one of the best big men in the country, "and he's only a Fr.", apparently. UK's youth is gonna be too much to overcome since UNC's players have been thru the battles, which is actually a pretty reasonable observation. I guess i'm not as enamored with UNC's wins, including a couple against overmatched opponents that they just eeked out (UT).I guess i'm gonna go ahead and say i hope UK wins.
http://www.espn.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/116807/weekend-picks-north-carolina-kos-kentucky-in-a-weekend-of-thrillers

I would say those games (including the Davidson and the UT games) were games that Berry missed. With Berry at full speed, UNC has been pretty good. I can't think of any patsies they didn't blow out and in addition to No. 8 (in KenPom) Wisconsin, they beat No. 46 Oklahoma State by 32 points and No. 73 Chattanooga by 40 points.

... without Berry, the Cheats have been very mediocre. -- barely beating No. 64 Davidson and No. 83 Tennessee at home.

Which pretty much leads to the obvious observation -- if Berry plays at or close to full speed against Kentucky, then UNC has a good chance. Without him, it's going to be a blowout.

[CDu]

I would say those games (including the Davidson and the UT games) were games that Berry missed. With Berry at full speed, UNC has been pretty good. I can't think of any patsies they didn't blow out and in addition to No. 8 (in KenPom) Wisconsin, they beat No. 46 Oklahoma State by 32 points and No. 73 Chattanooga by 40 points.

... without Berry, the Cheats have been very mediocre. -- barely beating No. 64 Davidson and No. 83 Tennessee at home.

Which pretty much leads to the obvious observation -- if Berry plays at or close to full speed against Kentucky, then UNC has a good chance. Without him, it's going to be a blowout.

Yep. With Berry they are a top-10 team. Without Berry they are very mediocre.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Yep. With Berry they are a top-10 team. Without Berry they are very mediocre.

Keep in mind Roy has been playing 9-10 guys double digit minutes every game, multiple untested lineups and lots of prime time for his three freshmen and a 5th year reserve the past few games.. He's coaching for March now.

I expect them to be focused and ready for KY after their recent poor play. I hope Cal pushes the pace, Jackson will have a big day if he does.

[OldPhiKap]

Keep in mind Roy has been playing 9-10 guys double digit minutes every game, multiple untested lineups and lots of prime time for his three freshmen and a 5th year reserve the past few games.. He's coaching for March now.

I expect them to be focused and ready for KY after their recent poor play. I hope Cal pushes the pace, Jackson will have a big day if he does.

Should be a good game. I think UNC is the better team come March. Berry is a big part of that cog though.

Both should compete for a one seed.

[Olympic Fan]

Great day to watch ACC hoops ...

Syracuse-Georgetown starting right now on ESPN; Eastern Kentucky and Louisville starting on RSN (318 on TW Cable in the Triangle)

FSU-Manhattan ay 1:30 p.m. on Fox 2

Purdue-Notre Dame at 2 p,m, on ESPN2 (I definitely watch this one)

Robert Morris at Virginia at 4:30 pm on ESPNU (I just check in on this one)

Kentucky-Cheats at 5:45 p.m. on CBS

Wake at Xavier at 8 p.m. on Fox Sports.

I'll be camped on my couch most of the day.

[brevity]

Kentucky-Cheats at 5:45 p.m. on CBS

That's very specific. I think Kentucky cheats anytime and anywhere.

[DukieTiger]

Keep in mind Roy has been playing 9-10 guys double digit minutes every game, multiple untested lineups and lots of prime time for his three freshmen and a 5th year reserve the past few games.. He's coaching for March now.

I expect them to be focused and ready for KY after their recent poor play. I hope Cal pushes the pace, Jackson will have a big day if he does.

I think UNC has been using untested lineups for a decade or three now. Hasn't held them back in the past.

I do hope that someday other coaches catch on to this novel idea of coaching for March. :)

[CDu]

Syracuse playing their way out of tourney interest against a bad Georgetown team.

[Olympic Fan]

Syracuse playing their way out of tourney interest against a bad Georgetown team.

Syracuse now 6-4 (against a fairly weak non-conference slate) after losing 78-71 AT HOME to a so-so Georgetown team.

If there was good news, it was that soph Tyler Lydon, a major disappointment for the 'Cuse, had a breakout game (I think he finished with 27 points). If they have any chance to be a decent team, Lydon must be a star.

Still, Syracuse has dug itself a deep hole and is going to need to be very strong in ACC play to even sniff an NCAA bid. They've got three more homecourt gimmies before opening ACC play (although one of those gimmies is St. John's. I know the Johnnies are terrible, but they were terrible last year and beat "Cuse in the Garden).

Also, Louisville has no trouble with Eastern Kentucky. It was tied 16-all with about seven minutes left in the first half, then the Colonels go over nine straight minutes without a score as the Cards roll off 26 straight points. Next for Louisville is a Wednesday night matchup with Kentucky in the Yum Yum Center

[CDu]

Tough loss for the Irish. They shot well (and Purdue didn't) in getting out to a big 14 point halftime lead. Then they fell apart and got outscored 48-29 to lose by 5.

[Olympic Fan]

Tough loss for the Irish. They shot well (and Purdue didn't) in getting out to a big 14 point halftime lead. Then they fell apart and got outscored 48-29 to lose by 5.

How many ACC teams have blown big leads in key games this year?

Well, VPI (which earlier blew a big lead in a loss to Texas A&M) was down 44-40 to the Citadel at the half.

Then the Hokies scored 73 -- yes, 73! -- in the second half to win 113-71.

FSU broke it open in the second half to blow out Manhattan.

[60sDukie]

Find myself rooting for UNC. Hate both Kentucky and the cheaters. Figure we can take care of UNC later. Would like to take care of KY now.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Find myself rooting for UNC. Hate both Kentucky and the cheaters. Figure we can take care of UNC later. Would like to take care of KY now.
Most urgent care centers are open until 8pm on Saturdays.

[60sDukie]

I think I am being very logical.

[Troublemaker]

Find myself rooting for UNC. Hate both Kentucky and the cheaters. Figure we can take care of UNC later. Would like to take care of KY now.

An NCAA tournament bid is not on the line here...

[Bob Green]

Nate Britt with zero points, zero rebounds, zero assists, two turnovers and a personal foul. Can "someone" (that's a euphemism for Wheat) explain to me why he is in the game? Coach Williams plays too many players and Nate Britt's butt should be glued to the bench. His skill set is extremely limited.

Joel Berry is very good. Meeks, Hicks, and Jackson form a solid nucleus. Carolina has talent but the talent level falls sharply after the four named players.

A fast paced game with limited defense being played on both ends which results in the game being a bit sloppy.

[CDu]

Nate Britt with zero points, zero rebounds, zero assists, two turnovers and a personal foul. Can "someone" (that's a euphemism for Wheat) explain to me why he is in the game? Coach Williams plays too many players and Nate Britt's butt should be glued to the bench. His skill set is extremely limited.

Joel Berry is very good. Meeks, Hicks, and Jackson form a solid nucleus. Carolina has talent but the talent level falls sharply after the four named players.

A fast paced game with limited defense being played on both ends which results in the game being a bit sloppy.

To be fair, Britt is the team's second best ballhandler and a good defender. For a team that is all about pushing tempo, that has value. But yeah, there is a reason UNC looked very mediocre without Berry.

[brevity]

Most people just lose their shirt in Vegas.

WATCH: Roy Williams teed up after flinging jacket in anger, hitting own player (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/watch-roy-williams-teed-up-after-flinging-jacket-in-anger-hitting-own-player/)


Against Kentucky in the first half on Saturday, Roy lost his cool. And he let everyone know in typical Roy Williams style: flinging off his jacket in rage.

[Ultrarunner]

I'm finding it hard to dislike the Kentucky players.

This would bother me more if I wanted them to lose, but the feeling is still a bit unsettling.

[YmoBeThere]

but the feeling is still a bit unsettling.

As was noted earlier, urgent cares are generally open late on Saturday.

[Ultrarunner]

As was noted earlier, urgent cares are generally open late on Saturday.

I'm self-medicating with a good Cab. No need to bother the pros who are undoubtedly busy with younger men, doing dumber things, fueled by a combination of booze and testosterone. Middle daugher's father-in-law is an emergency room doc. Fun stories.

[YmoBeThere]

I'm self-medicating with a good Cab.

Just don't overdose. ;)

[CDu]

Despite some doubting them preseason, UNC with Berry is a top-10 team. UNC without Berry is mediocre. UNC best take great precautions to keep him healthy.

Though neither team plays any defense.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Malik Monk = awesome game.

[MChambers]

Despite some doubting them preseason, UNC with Berry is a top-10 team. UNC without Berry is mediocre. UNC best take great precautions to keep him healthy.

Though neither team plays ant defense.

"Ant defense" is an awesome typo. Call the Orkin man!

But I agree, both teams have defensive issues.

[Olympic Fan]

Can someone explain to me what Isaiah Hicks is thinking in the final seconds?

UNC is up 100-98 with under 20 seconds left. Monk -- who already has 44 points -- has the ball just outside the 3-point line on the left wing. He's guarded by Hicks.

Monk gives a little jab step AND HICKS BACKS UP, giving Monk the open 3 to put Kentucky in the lead.

Hicks is a senior who should have known in his bones that the one thing you can't do in that situation is allow a 3-point shot. If he can force Monk to drive, the worst that he can do is tie the game, which gives UNC the ball and the chance for the last shot.

Terrible decision by a senior.

Delighted to see the Cheats lose, even though it means Kentucky has to get a big win. Even though it means the ACC suffers a tough loss (to go along with the Syracuse and the Notre Dame losses today).

Watching the Cheat Nation have their guts ripped out makes it a wonderful day.

[ChillinDuke]

Malik Monk had a simply legendary game.

- Chillin

[DukieTiger]

Nate Britt with zero points, zero rebounds, zero assists, two turnovers and a personal foul. Can "someone" (that's a euphemism for Wheat) explain to me why he is in the game? Coach Williams plays too many players and Nate Britt's butt should be glued to the bench. His skill set is extremely limited.

Joel Berry is very good. Meeks, Hicks, and Jackson form a solid nucleus. Carolina has talent but the talent level falls sharply after the four named players.

A fast paced game with limited defense being played on both ends which results in the game being a bit sloppy.

Britt was in because Roy was coaching for March, when NB will still be a below average player who plays too many minutes.

[devildeac]

Malik Monk had a simply legendary game.

- Chillin

Well, the cheats didn't get Bootsied but could you say they got Monk'ed?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Nate Britt with zero points, zero rebounds, zero assists, two turnovers and a personal foul. Can "someone" (that's a euphemism for Wheat) explain to me why he is in the game? Coach Williams plays too many players and Nate Britt's butt should be glued to the bench. His skill set is extremely limited.

Joel Berry is very good. Meeks, Hicks, and Jackson form a solid nucleus. Carolina has talent but the talent level falls sharply after the four named players.

A fast paced game with limited defense being played on both ends which results in the game being a bit sloppy.


Britt is struggling through a shooting/scoring slump his past few games. It looks to me to have gotten to his head. He's missing stuff even he should make. He's never been an offensive focus, but he has usually been solid enough relative to number of shots he takes to keep teams honest. Not lately. He is all shook up trying to score the ball.
He's proven that he's a tough kid and hopefully will snap out of his funk soon. Paige had a stretch like this last season too...

To answer the question, Britt's defense is what gets him on the floor, along with few TO's.
He's graded out defensive player of the game most this season, I believe.

Nobody could guard Monk tonight. Roy brought in Robinson to try some length on him too at 2g, didn't work.

UNC simply didn't make enough "basketball plays". Ky did.

And Monk was great. Unreal. The man...Sick...whatever, he got it done.

Overall I am about as good as you can be in a loss. That was a high level game, and props to KY. I actually thought the defense was pretty good from two talented offensive teams that tried not to foul.

I also thought Roy coached a great game. He worked his bench through foul trouble very well. That zone he brought out for a few possessions got them back in it in the 2nd half, along with some gutsy set plays after time outs for Maye.
Missed dunks, foul shots are hard to cover for, players gotta make plays.

Biggest issue moving forward? The Heels have to get something on offense from the 2g spot. Britt, Williams and Robinson shot 1-4 for 2 pts. That lack of production is hard to overcome elsewhere. Pinson needs to bring it when he returns.

[JasonEvans]

Well, the cheats didn't get Bootsied but could you say they got Monk'ed?

Getting beaten by an All-American who is going to be a high lottery pick is not being Bootsied. The greatness of the Bootsy is that a totally unexpected guy does it to you.

-Jason "I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Harold 'The Show' Arceneaux either as 'The Show' wasn't as highly regarded as Monk is" Evans

[Bob Green]

To answer the question, Britt's defense is what gets him on the floor, along with few TO's.
He's graded out defensive player of the game most this season, I believe.



Thanks for the response. I disagree with you but I certainly am not dismissing your explanation. We will find out on the court between now and April (hopefully March for the Heels :cool: ), which is one of the great things about college basketball.

[budwom]

the least Ol Roy could have done was to try and deny Monk the ball. Nice play he called at the end though...:rolleyes:

[ChillinDuke]

I actually thought Roy coached a decent game. The Luke Maye plays paid dividends and I thought his substitutions made sense.

The game was played at a very high level. By both teams. Defense wasn't great on either side but it was up tempo hoops for sure.

Both teams shot well. And Monk was simply magnificent. Jawdroppingly great.

This is one of those games that makes me wonder if this was good or bad for UK. Good because they obviously won. Bad because it so clearly, on a national level, showed how good Malik Monk can be that teams will expend so much more energy trying to gameplan him out of games. And if anyone can do it reasonably well, UK may pick up some Ls. Maybe, maybe not.

In a way, it's sort of the opposite of what Duke "is doing" with Tatum and Giles. Not saying it's intentional, but it has a potential benefit.

- Chillin

[Olympic Fan]

Saturday was not a very good day for the ACC ... just 5-4 overall and 0-4 in the four games that mattered.

All were competitive games. It wouldn't have taken that much to flip 0-4 to 4-0. We saw how close UNC-Kentucky was, Georgetown-Syracuse came down to the wire and Notre Dame led Purdue by 14 at the half.

Then there was Wake at No. 17 Xavier. It could have been a huge win for a team picked to finish 13th in the ACC. Wake was in the game all the way, trailing most of the second half, but rarely more than five points.

I thought two things killed them -- John Collins had another double-double, but I never saw anybody miss so many close-in shots. He had 12 points, but should have 20-plus EASY. He was 6-of-19 from the floor and they were all close. If he converted at a normal rate, Wake would have won.

The other thing was freshman Brandon Childress. Wake was down one with just under five minutes left, when he had back-to-back turnovers tat turned into breakaways for the Musketeers -- suddenly, the Deacs are down five. The first turnover was a ridiculous behind-the-back pas in traffic. The second was when he tried to force his way in between two defenders at the foul line. Wake They fought back (a rally that wasn't helped when Childress missed the front end of a one-and-one) and got back down one with just under two minutes left, But Collins missed a chippie that would have given Wake Forest lead, then after Xavier scored to make in a 30-point margin, Childress threw a lazy cross-court pass that turned into another breakaway layup.

So Wake lost a chance to score a signature victory.

Four games today, but only Clemson at Alabama has any interest (it's on ESPNI at 4 p.m.)

[sagegrouse]

Both teams shot well. And Monk was simply magnificent. Jawdroppingly great.

This is one of those games that makes me wonder if this was good or bad for UK. Good because they obviously won. Bad because it so clearly, on a national level, showed how good Malik Monk can be that teams will expend so much more energy trying to gameplan him out of games. And if anyone can do it reasonably well, UK may pick up some Ls. Maybe, maybe not.

In a way, it's sort of the opposite of what Duke "is doing" with Tatum and Giles. Not saying it's intentional, but it has a potential benefit.

- Chillin
Here's the gist of the problem: Kentucky won by three points in a game where approximately one-half of its points were scored by a single player. Can the Cats do as well against top teams, when Monk is merely human in his level of play?

[DukieInBrasil]

Saturday was not a very good day for the ACC ... just 5-4 overall and 0-4 in the four games that mattered.

All were competitive games. It wouldn't have taken that much to flip 0-4 to 4-0. We saw how close UNC-Kentucky was, Georgetown-Syracuse came down to the wire and Notre Dame led Purdue by 14 at the half.

Then there was Wake at No. 17 Xavier. It could have been a huge win for a team picked to finish 13th in the ACC. Wake was in the game all the way, trailing most of the second half, but rarely more than five points.

I thought two things killed them -- John Collins had another double-double, but I never saw anybody miss so many close-in shots. He had 12 points, but should have 20-plus EASY. He was 6-of-19 from the floor and they were all close. If he converted at a normal rate, Wake would have won.

The other thing was freshman Brandon Childress. Wake was down one with just under five minutes left, when he had back-to-back turnovers tat turned into breakaways for the Musketeers -- suddenly, the Deacs are down five. The first turnover was a ridiculous behind-the-back pas in traffic. The second was when he tried to force his way in between two defenders at the foul line. Wake They fought back (a rally that wasn't helped when Childress missed the front end of a one-and-one) and got back down one with just under two minutes left, But Collins missed a chippie that would have given Wake Forest lead, then after Xavier scored to make in a 30-point margin, Childress threw a lazy cross-court pass that turned into another breakaway layup.

So Wake lost a chance to score a signature victory.

Four games today, but only Clemson at Alabama has any interest (it's on ESPNI at 4 p.m.)

Of all the games the ACC lost yesterday, the ACC team was the underdog in all of them, the exception perhaps being Syracuse. UNC vs UK was just about as even as it gets, 6 vs. 7, while ND was lower ranked than Purdue but not by much. Wake's near upset would have been a big lift, but apparently their PG doesn't understand the concept that the PG is supposed to set up easy scores for HIS team, not the opponents.

[JasonEvans]

The other thing was freshman Brandon Childress. Wake was down one with just under five minutes left, when he had back-to-back turnovers tat turned into breakaways for the Musketeers -- suddenly, the Deacs are down five. The first turnover was a ridiculous behind-the-back pas in traffic. The second was when he tried to force his way in between two defenders at the foul line.

Where did he learn that stuff? Daddy was generally very careful with the ball, IIRC.

[Olympic Fan]

ACC 4-0 on Sunday ... three wins were gimmies, but Clemson scored a significant 13-point win at Alabama (technically not a road win -- the game was playing in Birmingham, not Tuscaloosa).

The Tigers are 5-0 since getting PG Shelton Mitchell back from injury. This was also the debut game for Elijah Thomas, a 6-9, 250-pound transfer from Texas A&M (and once a top 50 ESPN prospect). Clemson will get a test Wednesday night when the Tigers take on 8-1 South Carolina (which has wins over Michigan and Syracuse) in Columbia.

NC State rolled again Sunday -- its second straight blowout win after a string of close calls against lightweight competition.

BC over Sacred Heart does get the Eagles over .500 (they are 6-5). It won't last, although they have a chance to get to 7-5 with a game coming up with Fairfield. Then it gets tough for the Eagles.

Georgia Tech got to 6-3 with a win over Alcorn State.

[DukieInBrasil]

ACC 4-0 on Sunday ... three wins were gimmies, but Clemson scored a significant 13-point win at Alabama (technically not a road win -- the game was playing in Birmingham, not Tuscaloosa).

The Tigers are 5-0 since getting PG Shelton Mitchell back from injury. This was also the debut game for Elijah Thomas, a 6-9, 250-pound transfer from Texas A&M (and once a top 50 ESPN prospect). Clemson will get a test Wednesday night when the Tigers take on 8-1 South Carolina (which has wins over Michigan and Syracuse) in Columbia.

NC State rolled again Sunday -- its second straight blowout win after a string of close calls against lightweight competition.

BC over Sacred Heart does get the Eagles over .500 (they are 6-5). It won't last, although they have a chance to get to 7-5 with a game coming up with Fairfield. Then it gets tough for the Eagles.

Georgia Tech got to 6-3 with a win over Alcorn State.

Clemson's win over Bama gets the ACC back over .500 vs the SEC. ACC is still pretty terrible vs. Big 12 (or is it 10?) and still well under .500 vs Big East. ACC continues to crush it vs. B1G #numbersdon'tmatter.