This Week in the ACC - 2/6-2/12

[CDu]

Now, if we want to talk about teams that are actually horrific, I submit to you FSU (now 8-17 and outside the top 170), Notre Dame (10-15 and outside the top 175), and Georgia Tech (10-15, outside the top 200).

[CDu]

They may not be horrific but that loss to 179 Kenpom ranked team BC at home likely may have just ended their NCAAT at large chances. Cattoor may not be fully healed - 2-10 from the floor and 2-9 from 3 for 8 points tonight. BC has won 5 in a row over VT now. Hokies are 14-10, 4-9. Pretty rough season for them.

They would need to win out the rest of the regular season, plus at least the semis of the ACC to get in. Not impossible, but that was definitely a crushing loss for their tourney chances.

[Bluedog]

Now, if we want to talk about teams that are actually horrific, I submit to you FSU (now 8-17 and outside the top 170), Notre Dame (10-15 and outside the top 175), and Georgia Tech (10-15, outside the top 200).

Notre Dame is really perplexing given they were pretty good last season (top 40) and returned everyone basically. Not sure what changed...

[JasonEvans]

They would need to win out the rest of the regular season, plus at least the semis of the ACC to get in. Not impossible, but that was definitely a crushing loss for their tourney chances.

Well...

I think they have slightly more margin than you do. They can somewhat explain the December and January swoon as being injury-related, which deflates the negative of those losses at least a little bit. I think they can afford one more loss and still make a good case for an at-large bid. VT has a 3 game stretch in 2 weeks that is Pitt and Miami at home and then Duke on the road. If they go through that stretch 2-1 (and win their remaining games against ACC bottom feeders) then their at large case is fairly decent. Obviously, they would need to at least reach the ACC quarters and probably need to have at least an impressive, close loss in the quarters, or maybe make the semis.

[CDu]

Well...

I think they have slightly more margin than you do. They can somewhat explain the December and January swoon as being injury-related, which deflates the negative of those losses at least a little bit. I think they can afford one more loss and still make a good case for an at-large bid. VT has a 3 game stretch in 2 weeks that is Pitt and Miami at home and then Duke on the road. If they go through that stretch 2-1 (and win their remaining games against ACC bottom feeders) then their at large case is fairly decent. Obviously, they would need to at least reach the ACC quarters and probably need to have at least an impressive, close loss in the quarters, or maybe make the semis.

I completely agree that 4 of their losses are heavily affected by the absence of Cattoor, and they likely would have 3 more wins with him healthy. But while you and I can reasonably assume this, I doubt the committee will make such a concession to overlook those losses. They have tended to be very conservative when it comes to discounting losses. Especially when the team later loses a Q4 game with said injured player.

Also, the Pitt game will be just a Q2 game, so not a meaningful win in the committee’s eyes. Tech obviously needs to win that game, but it doesn’t move the needle positively for them.

So in your scenario, they would be a .500 ACC team with just a .500 record in Q2 games plus a Q3 loss and a Q4 loss and just one significant OOC win. I would argue even moreso that that team would need to make at least the semis, if not the finals of the ACCT to get an at large bid.

[jv001]

They would need to win out the rest of the regular season, plus at least the semis of the ACC to get in. Not impossible, but that was definitely a crushing loss for their tourney chances.

Is Seth Greenburg coaching the Hokies this season?

GoDuke!

[Papa John]

Is there an elephant on his room?

Perhaps that explains why their ceiling is the roof?

[CameronDuke]

The ACC is now below the Mountain West and seventh overall in conference rankings at KenPom.

League has only finished as low as sixth once (2013) and was No. 5 the past two years.

2022-23 might can wind up as the worst top-to-bottom season for the ACC in modern history.

FDF381FD-AB05-4192-961A-572523A13A94.jpg

@MattNorlander official Twitter account

[kshepinthehouse]

The ACC is now below the Mountain West and seventh overall in conference rankings at KenPom.

League has only finished as low as sixth once (2013) and was No. 5 the past two years.

2022-23 might can wind up as the worst top-to-bottom season for the ACC in modern history.

FDF381FD-AB05-4192-961A-572523A13A94.jpg

@MattNorlander official Twitter account

Embarrassing

[jaywilliams22]

Embarrassing

These rankings can be misleading. The ACC was made fun of last year, and wound up with 3 teams in the Elite 8.

[PackMan97]

Embarrassing

Is what happens when you protect a few teams at the expense of the rest.

[tommy]

Is what happens when you protect a few teams at the expense of the rest.

What do you mean?

[sagegrouse]

The ACC is now below the Mountain West and seventh overall in conference rankings at KenPom.

League has only finished as low as sixth once (2013) and was No. 5 the past two years.

2022-23 might can wind up as the worst top-to-bottom season for the ACC in modern history.

FDF381FD-AB05-4192-961A-572523A13A94.jpg

@MattNorlander official Twitter account

It's just crap. There is no basis for comparing conferences.

[CDu]

It's just crap. There is no basis for comparing conferences.

Sure there is. It's just based almost exclusively on games prior to Christmas. Which of course isn't great. But it's not nothing.

Conversely, basing the quality of the conference on a single-elimination tournament in March - in which the matchups aren't even - isn't any better assessment of the quality of the conference. It's just a tiny sample at the end of the season vs a larger but still small sample at the beginning of the season.

[Wahoo2000]

It's just crap. There is no basis for comparing conferences.

well, certainly you can compare based on nonconference play and the results there. The issue is it doesn't account for the teams of one conference perhaps improving more than others during the conference season, OR if teams from one conference were more impacted by injuries/suspension/etc during noncon play.

I wish that there was a way to blend the nonconference games with the conference schedule such that noncon games were scattered evenly across the calendar throughout the year. Especially given that we're now down to about 10(ish) noncon games total, that sample size is laughably small to draw conclusions from vis-a-vis comparing quality between conferences.

Additionally, at some point you have to minimize the value of the depth of a conference. who is more likely to produce a champion? A conference with 3 elite top 5ish teams but also 4-5 sub-200 teams? Or a conference with 6-7 top 15-25ish teams, but none outside the top 100? I'd definitely say the former, but the latter will always be deemed the "tougher" conference.

[Phredd3]

I wish that there was a way to blend the nonconference games with the conference schedule such that noncon games were scattered evenly across the calendar throughout the year. Especially given that we're now down to about 10(ish) noncon games total, that sample size is laughably small to draw conclusions from vis-a-vis comparing quality between conferences.

I agree with all of this except the bolded. I would still prefer a weighted scheduled, since the action within the conference determines conference tournament seeding. It is nice to have that action "heat up" as the season moves ahead. That said, I don't like that there aren't ANY non-conference games (with extremely rare exceptions) after the first of the year. There should be a couple of weekends reserved for inter-conference games closer to the end of the season. Maybe a weekend in mid-January, and another in early February.

[sagegrouse]

Sure there is. It's just based almost exclusively on games prior to Christmas. Which of course isn't great. But it's not nothing.

Conversely, basing the quality of the conference on a single-elimination tournament in March - in which the matchups aren't even - isn't any better assessment of the quality of the conference. It's just a tiny sample at the end of the season vs a larger but still small sample at the beginning of the season.

Don't worry. Emoting for me is therapeutic.

[ElliottHoo]

They may not be horrific but that loss to 179 Kenpom ranked team BC at home likely may have just ended their NCAAT at large chances. Cattoor may not be fully healed - 2-10 from the floor and 2-9 from 3 for 8 points tonight. BC has won 5 in a row over VT now. Hokies are 14-10, 4-9. Pretty rough season for them.

Weird stat: VT under Coach Young is 0-5 vs BC. I don’t know how that’s even possible, but here we are.

Edit - Also, in the seasons VT has played BC since Young took over, not only has VT gone 0-5, but also the BC losses have been either VT’s worst or second worst loss of the season. It’s uncanny.

[brevity]

That said, I don't like that there aren't ANY non-conference games (with extremely rare exceptions) after the first of the year.

Speaking of extremely rare exceptions, it's notable that the last two national champions played a nonconference game in late January, because that's when the SEC-Big 12 Challenge took place. Last season Kansas lost to Kentucky on January 29, breaking up an 18-game conference slate between the 7th and 8th game. Two seasons ago Baylor beat Auburn on January 30, also between the 7th and 8th game of a COVID-shortened 13-game conference schedule.

Of course, you could point to every other team in the Challenge and tell me how they DIDN'T win the national championship, and you'd be right. I just wonder if that small break from conference monotony helps a championship team on their journey.

So let me be the first to suggest an ACC-Mountain West Challenge in January or February, starting next season. Settle this once and for all:

Virginia vs. Utah State (coached by Ryan Odom, formerly of UMBC)
NC State at New Mexico (return to The Pit, where the Pack won it all in 1983)
Georgia Tech vs. Fresno State (Tech is used to playing Bulldogs)
Syracuse at Boise State (Boise will make Jim Boeheim miss Greensboro)
Notre Dame vs. Nevada (coach Steve Alford returns to the state of Indiana)
UNC at San Diego State (two college towns always told to "stay classy")
Clemson vs. Wyoming (Larry Shyatt coached at both schools)
Wake Forest at Air Force (Jeff Bzdelik coached at both schools)
Miami vs. Colorado State (I don't know, but I always try to plug this video*)
Boston College at San Jose State (Do you know the way? RIP Burt Bacharach)
Duke vs. UNLV (of course)

So many built-in connections to keep this going! Having an Odom at Utah State and a Pitino at New Mexico ensures future matchups with Wake Forest and Louisville. Georgia Tech and UNLV were in the 1990 Final Four. UNC and Colorado State have ovines as mascots. Uh, Courtney Alexander transferred from UVA to Fresno State? Okay, maybe just a 2-year challenge.

* Seriously, watch that video. Ali Farokhmanesh is an assistant coach at CSU, and he re-enacts his Northern Iowa win over Kansas with the help of his wife and children.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Sure there is. It's just based almost exclusively on games prior to Christmas. Which of course isn't great. But it's not nothing.

Conversely, basing the quality of the conference on a single-elimination tournament in March - in which the matchups aren't even - isn't any better assessment of the quality of the conference. It's just a tiny sample at the end of the season vs a larger but still small sample at the beginning of the season.

Excellent point.

Last season, the ACC pooped the bed in early competition. We suffered all season in rankings and bracketology because of it.

Then, a few ACC teams did really well in the tournament.

Did we underperform in the early season? Did we overperform in the postseason?

Only Joe Lunardi knows...