MBB: ACC-BCS Challenge

[sagegrouse]

The ACC has a collective 4-7 record against teams in BCS conferences. It's not too pretty.

Wins over:

Az State (Duke)
Ohio St. (UNC)
So. Car. (Mia.)
Auburn (State)

Losses to:

Syracuse (UNC)
Texas A&M (Clem.)
U. of So. Fla. (UVa)
Stanford (UVa)
Wisc. (UMd)
Cinc. (UMd)
Fla. (FSU)

Looks like the Big Ten has a chance for a breakthrough next week against the ACC.

sagegrouse

[rthomas]

Not sure about against BCS but overall Big East is 62-6. ACC 42-10.

[DukieBoy]

If there would ever be a year Big Ten could beat the ACC in the challenge, it'd be this year. They are an incredibly deep conference this year with 5 to 6 quality teams and could have up to 7 or 8 in the tourney at the end of the year.

[uh_no]

If there would ever be a year Big Ten could beat the ACC in the challenge, it'd be this year. They are an incredibly deep conference this year with 5 to 6 quality teams and could have up to 7 or 8 in the tourney at the end of the year.

but they won't

they're the big 10...consistently overrated in the preason

[DukieBoy]

but they won't

they're the big 10...consistently overrated in the preason

Well Ohio State, which is the 4th best team in the Big Ten according to the AP polls, gave UNC, who is 2nd in the ACC, all it could handle.

6 Big Ten teams in the top 25
3 ACC teams

So you tell me, are they really overrated right now?

[loran16]

Well Ohio State, which is the 4th best team in the Big Ten according to the AP polls, gave UNC, who is 2nd in the ACC, all it could handle.

6 Big Ten teams in the top 25
3 ACC teams

So you tell me, are they really overrated right now?

Errr, DID YOU WATCH THE SAME GAME EVERYONE ELSE DID? UNC manhandled OSU for 39 minutes, before they got extremely sloppy as hell. If LD2 doesn't goof off with FTs, that game is never within 2 possessions.

OSU is very possibly overrated.

Now the point is clear that the Big 10 is really good this year and could take the challenge. But well, the OSU-UNC game is a terrible example.

[DukieBoy]

Errr, DID YOU WATCH THE SAME GAME EVERYONE ELSE DID? UNC manhandled OSU for 39 minutes, before they got extremely sloppy as hell. If LD2 doesn't goof off with FTs, that game is never within 2 possessions.

OSU is very possibly overrated.

Now the point is clear that the Big 10 is really good this year and could take the challenge. But well, the OSU-UNC game is a terrible example.

To be honest, I didn't watch the whole game. However, if they were in the game at all, then it shows they are good. We'll find out this week who is truly over and under rated

[YourLandlord]

Errr, DID YOU WATCH THE SAME GAME EVERYONE ELSE DID? UNC manhandled OSU for 39 minutes, before they got extremely sloppy as hell. If LD2 doesn't goof off with FTs, that game is never within 2 possessions.

OSU is very possibly overrated.

Now the point is clear that the Big 10 is really good this year and could take the challenge. But well, the OSU-UNC game is a terrible example.

I'm not sure being up by a steady 10 points for most of the 2nd half is "manhandling" someone.

[cwaugh]

Errr, DID YOU WATCH THE SAME GAME EVERYONE ELSE DID? UNC manhandled OSU for 39 minutes, before they got extremely sloppy as hell. If LD2 doesn't goof off with FTs, that game is never within 2 possessions.

OSU is very possibly overrated.

Now the point is clear that the Big 10 is really good this year and could take the challenge. But well, the OSU-UNC game is a terrible example.

I wouldn't say UNC "manhandled" OSU. I watched the entire game and would have to say that both teams played poorly. It was an ugly game to watch.

[theAlaskanBear]

I would wait until conference play starts to start casting judgements about the strength of conferences. There are alot of important games coming up now that the cupcakes are mostly out of the way.

The Big 10 is in a good position to win the Challenge this year.

Purdue, Michigan St, Minnesota, and Michigan should all win their games.
Duke, NC State, and VTech should all win their games.

Clemson looked like I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. last night. Maryland has been very unimpressive so far too.

We some good games, and a lit tle bit of luck to take out the Big 10 this year.

[Olympic Fan]

So BCS record actually means something this year? As opposed to last season when the ACC had the best BCS record -- but all the talking heads annointed the Big East as the best conference?

Look, the ACC has not looked great so far, but let's keep it in context. We're talking about 11 games. Let's revisit this topic at the end of next week, after the ACC-Big Ten challenge (that will in itself double the ACC's total of BCS games), plus games like Duke-UConn , Duke St. John's, UNC-Kentucky, NC State-Marquette, Southern Cal-Georgia Tech.

FWIW (and at this early date, not much) -- the RPI currently rates the ACC as the No. 3 conference (behind the No. 1 Big East and No. 2 Big 12 ... the SEC is fourth, the Pac 10 10th and the Big Ten is 11th). Sagarin rates the ACC No. 2, behind only thre Big East (3. Big 12, 4. Big 10, 5. SEC ... 9th Pac 10).

And Pomeroy rates the ACC No. 1 ahead of the No. 2 Big 12, No. 3 Big East, No. 4 Big 10, No. 5 SEC and No. 9 Pac 10.

The ACC has had a bad week -- no question. If things don't change, we're going to be a middle-of-the-pack BCS conference. But the ACC has been the top rated BCS conference, generally with the best OOC record and the best BCS record, for most of the last decade and it hasn't helped our bubble teams all that much at NCAA selection time.

As for the ACC-Big Ten Challenge, this is about the fifth straight year when going in, everybody has said, 'This is the year the Big Ten finally wins.' Well, one of these years everybody will be right.

Is this the year?

I don't know ... let's wait until Monday morning to make our official picks (we should have a thread for that). But in general, I like the matchups from an ACC point of view.

[uh_no]

So BCS record actually means something this year? As opposed to last season when the ACC had the best BCS record -- but all the talking heads annointed the Big East as the best conference?

Look, the ACC has not looked great so far, but let's keep it in context. We're talking about 11 games. Let's revisit this topic at the end of next week, after the ACC-Big Ten challenge (that will in itself double the ACC's total of BCS games), plus games like Duke-UConn , Duke St. John's, UNC-Kentucky, NC State-Marquette, Southern Cal-Georgia Tech.

FWIW (and at this early date, not much) -- the RPI currently rates the ACC as the No. 3 conference (behind the No. 1 Big East and No. 2 Big 12 ... the SEC is fourth, the Pac 10 10th and the Big Ten is 11th). Sagarin rates the ACC No. 2, behind only thre Big East (3. Big 12, 4. Big 10, 5. SEC ... 9th Pac 10).

And Pomeroy rates the ACC No. 1 ahead of the No. 2 Big 12, No. 3 Big East, No. 4 Big 10, No. 5 SEC and No. 9 Pac 10.

The ACC has had a bad week -- no question. If things don't change, we're going to be a middle-of-the-pack BCS conference. But the ACC has been the top rated BCS conference, generally with the best OOC record and the best BCS record, for most of the last decade and it hasn't helped our bubble teams all that much at NCAA selection time.

As for the ACC-Big Ten Challenge, this is about the fifth straight year when going in, everybody has said, 'This is the year the Big Ten finally wins.' Well, one of these years everybody will be right.

Is this the year?

I don't know ... let's wait until Monday morning to make our official picks (we should have a thread for that). But in general, I like the matchups from an ACC point of view.

after last year's tournament, there is absolutely no argument that could possibly put the ACC as the best converence 5 teams in the elite 8? 3 #1 seeds? vs 1 and 1 from the acc?

[houstondukie]

Errr, DID YOU WATCH THE SAME GAME EVERYONE ELSE DID? UNC manhandled OSU for 39 minutes, before they got extremely sloppy as hell. If LD2 doesn't goof off with FTs, that game is never within 2 possessions.

OSU is very possibly overrated.

Now the point is clear that the Big 10 is really good this year and could take the challenge. But well, the OSU-UNC game is a terrible example.

The game I saw was one of the ugliest college basketball games we'll see this year. "Manhandled"? Really?

[Olympic Fan]

after last year's tournament, there is absolutely no argument that could possibly put the ACC as the best converence 5 teams in the elite 8? 3 #1 seeds? vs 1 and 1 from the acc?

I'm just trying to figure out how you want to measure conferences. The origin of this thread was bemoaning the ACC's poor BCS record so far.

I merely pointed out that if BCS record is the measure of a conference, the ACC should have been judged the best last season -- when it had a 28-18 record against BCS opponents (including a 10-6 record head-to-head with the Big East, which was itself a mere 22-22 vs. other BCS leagues).

The same the year before, when the pollsters and talking heads thought the Pac 10 was the best conference, even though the ACC again had the best BCS record (30-19) compared to the Pac 10's 15-14 record. (An unlike the Big East in 2009, the Pac 10 did not exactly shine in the 2008 tournament).

And while I agree the Big East did make a strong argument for its superiority in the 2009 NCAA Tournament, I'm not sure there's not an argument to be made against them. After all, what is the measure of a conference?

Well, the ACC had the best team -- does that make the ACC No. 1?

The Big East was better 2-5 -- does that make them the best?

Or does the ACC's overall superiority of depth (reflected by last year's OOC, BCS and head-to-head superiority) make it No. 1?

In other words, what are you looking for -- the conference that's best at the very top (which last year was the ACC)? The conference with the most quality teams (last year, clearly, the Big East)? Or the conference that's the best top to bottom (which, last year, was the ACC)?

It's all pretty arbitrary, depending on what criteria you're looking for.

I just want to know what measure you are going to use, so that we can see how upset we should be over the ACC's poor showing in its first 11 BCS games.

[JasonEvans]

after last year's tournament, there is absolutely no argument that could possibly put the ACC as the best converence 5 teams in the elite 8? 3 #1 seeds? vs 1 and 1 from the acc?

Part of the problem with the "best conference" argument is that everyone has different criteria.

Yes, the Big East had a lot of very good teams last year, but the bottom of the conference was a joke compared to the bottom of the ACC. The reason so many of the unbiased rankings (like Pomeroy, Sagarin, and RPI) rated the ACC higher was because the middle and especially the bottom of the ACC were waaay better than the same level of the Big East.

So, which is a tougher conference:

Conference A- 10 teams- 2 teams in the top 5 in the nation, 1 team in the top 25, 1 team in the top 50, 6 teams ranked outside the top 100.

Conference B- 10 teams- 1 team in the top 10, 4 in the top 25, 4 in the top 50, 1 team in the top 100.

Conference C- 10 teams- 1 in the top 5, 1 in the top 10, 2 in the top 25, 2 in the top 50, 3 in the top 100, 1 outside the top 100.

A is really top heavy, but the top is impressive. The bottom sucks a lot though.
B has no one who will really challenge for the national title, but every game is a war. No off days there!
C is pretty evenly balanced between great teams, good teams, and a couple bad teams.

I dunno the answer as to which is best. I just put it out there to demonstrate that there are a lot of ways to look at the "who is the best" argument.

--Jason "note-- the above examples were not meant to simulate any actual conferences" Evans

[JasonEvans]

As usual, Oly Fan beat me to the punch with the exact same argument... and his is a more clear explanation than mine too.

--Jason "nothing new to see here... please move on" Evans

[ice-9]

I'm just trying to figure out how you want to measure conferences. The origin of this thread was bemoaning the ACC's poor BCS record so far.

I merely pointed out that if BCS record is the measure of a conference, the ACC should have been judged the best last season -- when it had a 28-18 record against BCS opponents (including a 10-6 record head-to-head with the Big East, which was itself a mere 22-22 vs. other BCS leagues).

The same the year before, when the pollsters and talking heads thought the Pac 10 was the best conference, even though the ACC again had the best BCS record (30-19) compared to the Pac 10's 15-14 record. (An unlike the Big East in 2009, the Pac 10 did not exactly shine in the 2008 tournament).

And while I agree the Big East did make a strong argument for its superiority in the 2009 NCAA Tournament, I'm not sure there's not an argument to be made against them. After all, what is the measure of a conference?

Well, the ACC had the best team -- does that make the ACC No. 1?

The Big East was better 2-5 -- does that make them the best?

Or does the ACC's overall superiority of depth (reflected by last year's OOC, BCS and head-to-head superiority) make it No. 1?

In other words, what are you looking for -- the conference that's best at the very top (which last year was the ACC)? The conference with the most quality teams (last year, clearly, the Big East)? Or the conference that's the best top to bottom (which, last year, was the ACC)?

It's all pretty arbitrary, depending on what criteria you're looking for.

I just want to know what measure you are going to use, so that we can see how upset we should be over the ACC's poor showing in its first 11 BCS games.

Fair points, but here's the thing:

Last year (pre-tournament), you could make a strong argument that the ACC is the better conference. By certain criteria, it was. But you could also make an argument that the Big East was the best conference, and with certain criteria, it was. Generally everyone agreed that these two were the best in the nation.

THIS year, however, no one is talking about the ACC as the best conference -- it's not even close. The ACC simply doesn't have the talent or experience. The nail in the coffin is that when you look at the win-loss record against others in the BCS, it's even more clear that the ACC is not the best. We'd be lucky at this point to even be considered third best.

Last year, it was debatable. This year, at this point in the season at least, it's not even debatable. The ACC is down.

[Heelkiller1]

Going to be a very different year for the challenge.

[Olympic Fan]

THIS year, however, no one is talking about the ACC as the best conference -- it's not even close. The ACC simply doesn't have the talent or experience. The nail in the coffin is that when you look at the win-loss record against others in the BCS, it's even more clear that the ACC is not the best. We'd be lucky at this point to even be considered third best.

Last year, it was debatable. This year, at this point in the season at least, it's not even debatable. The ACC is down.

Beg to disagree ... as of this moment (Friday afternoon), Pomeroy rates the ACC No. 1, Sagarin rates the ACC No. 2 and RPI rates the ACC No. 3.

That's hardly "no one is talking about the ACC as the best conference -- it's not even close."

And to be frank, I'd wait a lot longer than 11 games in November before I'd start talking about "the nail in the coffin."

PS I still want to know what criteria we're going to rank conferences? Are we going to use the rating systems? Are we going to use overall OOC records? Are we going to use OOC BCS records? Are we going to wait until late March and use NCAA results?

And to quote Jason Evans' point, are we going to base it on the league's top 1-2 teams? The top 5-6? Or the strength of the entire conference?

Just let me know now -- I'm tired of the shell game that keeps changing the criteria to fit the best anti-ACC argument.

[ice-9]

No one's a bigger ACC homer than I was last year.

I don't think you can say "it's only 11 games" and then cite these various rankings. The rankings require a critical mass of games to be accurate.

IMO there are two ways of looking at it...qualitatively and quantitatively.

Qualitatively, NO ONE is talking about the ACC as the best conference. At least last year the ACC was in the conversation. This year we're not.

Quantitatively, there are records and rankings. Because there aren't enough games yet for a good quality ranking, the head-to-head matchups take precedence. And as you can see from the first post of this thread, the ACC is losing.

Qualitatively and quantitively, the ACC is down. To me, it's definitive (hence my perhaps misuse of the phrase "nail in the coffin").