PDA

View Full Version : Van Pelt on the ACC



Lotus000
03-13-2008, 12:01 AM
Scott Van Pelt on tonight's SportsCenter....

First he says he's an ACC fan, then he said...

"If the ACC only gets three teams in the Tournament, I'm gonna fight somebody, and it's probably gonna be Joe Lunardi, because I'm pretty sure I can beat him."

Between references to Aqua Teen and Tenacious D, I just increased my man-love for SVP.

riverside6
03-13-2008, 07:50 AM
SVP is a bigtime Terps fan (and alumnus I believe), so as long as you don't hold that against him, he's not bad.

soccerstud2210
03-13-2008, 10:15 AM
it's unbelievable that the acc will only get 3 or 4 teams in the big dance... and a conference liek the pac 10 and big east will get 7 or 8... acc is top in the RPI...

barjwr
03-13-2008, 10:47 AM
Somebody please find a way to forward Featherston's article about the ACC and the Pac-10 to the talking heads at ESPN--especially SVP, since he may actually use it to the ACCs advantage.

If I hear one more idiot talking about how great the BIG EAST and Pac-10 are (and how underrated the SEC is), I may end up on the roof with an automatic weapon. Isn't the ACC STILL the only conference with winning records against all the other BCS conferences?

cspan37421
03-13-2008, 10:57 AM
I'm an ACC homer, too, but rather than look at which conference RPI is higher, don't you really have to look team-by-team? The median [or mean] isn't the message.

Spret42
03-13-2008, 11:24 AM
Do we really think 5 or 6 ACC teams deserve bids? I can't see how the ACC deserves more than 4 teams.

UNC, Duke Clemson and Miami.

I know this violates the logic that VT finished ahead of Miami in the ACC. Miami has some at least slightly notable non-conference wins over the likes of VCU, Providence, Miss. St. and they beat VT head-to-head. VT lost games to ODU, Richmond and Penn St.

MD couldn't beat either team in 3 tries and they lost to freaking Ohio, American and ACC last place BC and Virginia.

This isn't a commentary on the strength of other conferences either. The fifth and sixth place PAC 10, Big 10 and 12 schools can sit down too.

AZ St. lost five games in a row at one point. If you lose five their ain't no way you are gonna win 6. G'bye!!!

Oregon lost to St. Mary's and Oakland and had a four game in conference losing streak. Nice seeing ya, enjoy the buffet!!

Oklahoma lost to Stephen F. Austin, Nebraska and Colorado. Win those two games and you are 11-5 in conference and tied for 3rd. Have a nice day!!

Texas A&M was 2-5 down the stretch of thier conference with losses to Nebraska and OK ST. Win those and you are 10-6 in conference and tied for fourth. Be careful with the door, it closes quickly!!

The problem is they have to fill this 64 team field so some of these truly mediocre teams get in. I personally would have no problem with a field of 56 teams where all the #1 and #2 teams get first round bye's.

I am having a bad day today and am taking it out on college basketball teams!!!! Forgive me.

CDu
03-13-2008, 11:27 AM
I'm an ACC homer, too, but rather than look at which conference RPI is higher, don't you really have to look team-by-team? The median [or mean] isn't the message.

Agreed. The ACC is probably the best conference (certainly the best based on RPI). But that is because there are no patsies in the conference. The problem is, the tournament isn't supposed to pick the most teams from the best conference. It's supposed to pick the 31 champions and 34 best at-large teams. And while the ACC lacks patsies, we also lack teams in the top 50.

From the beginning of the season, I figured we'd get 5-6 teams in, simply because in a zero-sum game someone HAS to come out okay. I figured Maryland, Miami, and/or NC State would do enough to get in. Unfortunately, NC State never showed up, and Maryland squandered several opportunities.

Even two weeks ago it looked all but certain we'd get five teams in. But at this point, getting more than four would be REALLY stretching (and I don't think it's going to happen). Maryland and Va Tech just don't have the resumes worthy of making the tournament. Maryland fell apart at the end and had bad losses early, and Va Tech just doesn't have ANY meaningful wins. Tech's bid was entirely based on Maryland getting in.

Four teams makes the most sense. Unless somebody surprises and comes from Thursday to win the title (or Va Tech wins it), only four are getting in.

As for Scott Van Pelt, he's a huge Maryland homer (and alum). He hates Duke with a passion, so I don't care for him at all.

Lotus000
03-13-2008, 01:53 PM
I forgot he's a Maryland grad, but while he might homer for the Terps sometimes, I've never really heard him dog us completely, so he's still good in my book.

(on an aside, why couldn't Erin Andrews cover OUR tournament instead of the Big10? Sigh.....I'd totally marry her. Like, NOW. Erin, want to go to Vegas?)

Channing
03-13-2008, 01:59 PM
IIRC correctly he was very very critical of UMD after the gone in 54 seconds/ bottle throw/ riot.

IMO he is one of the best sportscenter guys, and he is great at the golf stuff.

gotham devil
03-13-2008, 02:16 PM
IIRC correctly he was very very critical of UMD after the gone in 54 seconds/ bottle throw/ riot.

IMO he is one of the best sportscenter guys, and he is great at the golf stuff.
He was brought over from the Golf Channel.

Which is more of a, well, compliment, "one of the best sportscenter guys" or "one of the smarter Maryland graduates?"

Given his, well, hair issue, I'm surprised ESPN has stuck with him. They can get a thousand other communications grads who can read a prompter and still have to use a comb or pick.

Duvall
03-13-2008, 02:52 PM
As for Scott Van Pelt, he's a huge Maryland homer (and alum). He hates Duke with a passion, so I don't care for him at all.

Really? I don't recall seeing much of that.

OldPhiKap
03-13-2008, 02:58 PM
Agreed. The ACC is probably the best conference (certainly the best based on RPI). But that is because there are no patsies in the conference. The problem is, the tournament isn't supposed to pick the most teams from the best conference. It's supposed to pick the 31 champions and 34 best at-large teams. And while the ACC lacks patsies, we also lack teams in the top 50.

From the beginning of the season, I figured we'd get 5-6 teams in, simply because in a zero-sum game someone HAS to come out okay. I figured Maryland, Miami, and/or NC State would do enough to get in. Unfortunately, NC State never showed up, and Maryland squandered several opportunities.

Even two weeks ago it looked all but certain we'd get five teams in. But at this point, getting more than four would be REALLY stretching (and I don't think it's going to happen). Maryland and Va Tech just don't have the resumes worthy of making the tournament. Maryland fell apart at the end and had bad losses early, and Va Tech just doesn't have ANY meaningful wins. Tech's bid was entirely based on Maryland getting in.

Four teams makes the most sense. Unless somebody surprises and comes from Thursday to win the title (or Va Tech wins it), only four are getting in.


Agreed. I am a big ACC homer but I can't get jazzed about VT or the Twerps getting in. Frankly, I am at peace with the Twerps playing in the NIT again and Deron Washington does not deserve to make the tourney. So if my two least-favorite non-Tar Heel teams don't get invited, that's okay with me.

CDu
03-13-2008, 11:19 PM
Really? I don't recall seeing much of that.

It was more pronounced back when Maryland was actually good. He's been more low key since their decline. He's not as annoying as Stuart Scott, obviously. But that should really go without saying.