2024-25 MBB Rankings

Duke slides from 4 to 5 in the latest AP poll, trading places with Kentucky (which, fair enough) by the slimmest of margins. Kentucky has 1325 points in this week's poll, Duke has 1324.

I'm not sure what the voters saw last week that changed anyone's mind (the Cats beat Louisville by 8). The individual voter data isn't up, so I'm not sure yet who we should be mad about for this injustice.
rabble rabble rabble!


We were only 11 up on kentucky last week, so it would only take a couple voters moving teams around, even if none of them swapped duke/uk explicitly, for us to swap places in aggregate.
 
With Kentucky losing to Ohio State, Duke MBB is back to #4 in this week's AP Poll.

1. Tennessee
2. Auburn
3. Iowa State
4. Duke
5. Alabama
6. Florida
7. Kansas
8. Marquette
9. Oregon
10. Kentucky

Duke is the only ranked ACC team this week. Pittsburgh (essentially 33rd), UNC (37th), and Clemson (38th) also received votes.

Here's a conference breakdown of the top 25.

SEC: 10
Big 12: 5
Big Ten: 5
Big East: 2
ACC: 1
Mountain West: 1
West Coast: 1
 
The lack of excitement in this thread over the past week is shared by the voters. Week 9 of the AP Poll is mostly more of the same:

1. Tennessee
2. Auburn
3. Iowa State
4. Duke
5. Alabama
6. Florida
7. Kansas
8. Marquette
9. Oregon
10. Kentucky

No changes in the top 10 -- top 13, actually -- and Memphis replaced San Diego State in the top 25. Duke is still the lone ranked ACC team, while Pittsburgh, UNC, and Clemson are still receiving votes.
 
The lack of excitement in this thread over the past week is shared by the voters. Week 9 of the AP Poll is mostly more of the same:

1. Tennessee
2. Auburn
3. Iowa State
4. Duke
5. Alabama
6. Florida
7. Kansas
8. Marquette
9. Oregon
10. Kentucky

No changes in the top 10 -- top 13, actually -- and Memphis replaced San Diego State in the top 25. Duke is still the lone ranked ACC team, while Pittsburgh, UNC, and Clemson are still receiving votes.
I don’t know, many other ACC teams are rank to me…
 
I had decent expectations in football and have been very disappointed.

It does look like the SEC is controlling both major revenue sports at this point. I don't see many Big 10 teams either, except for recently added Oregon with NIKE money.
 
Hopefully they invest it in new coaches
So, is that the consensus, that the ACC needs new coaches? I sorta think the bigger problem is lack of NIL funds to bring in the right players. Other than Duke and maybe UNC, the rest of the conference did very little in the portal this off-season and not much in terms of high school recruiting either. That is likely a sign of not having the funds to get new players and retain old ones (looking at you, Norchad Omier).

Here are the number of top 25 portal players (according to On3) signed by ACC teams last summer -- 0
The SEC signed 6, Big Ten 6, Big 12 8, Big East 3 (and then St Louis and Memphis each got 1)​

So, is it coaching or is it a lack of talent?
 
So, is that the consensus, that the ACC needs new coaches? I sorta think the bigger problem is lack of NIL funds to bring in the right players. Other than Duke and maybe UNC, the rest of the conference did very little in the portal this off-season and not much in terms of high school recruiting either. That is likely a sign of not having the funds to get new players and retain old ones (looking at you, Norchad Omier).

Here are the number of top 25 portal players (according to On3) signed by ACC teams last summer -- 0
The SEC signed 6, Big Ten 6, Big 12 8, Big East 3 (and then St Louis and Memphis each got 1)​

So, is it coaching or is it a lack of talent?
There has never been one strategy that succeeds for all programs. Pitt and Clemson are doing just fine (relative to expectations) without investing too much in the portal. I would call their approach, along with Duke, strategic. Some of the best teams in the nation this year were relatively quiet in the portal, too. Who was the big off-season addition for Auburn? Or Iowa State? Tennessee had one major addition in Chaz Lanier. Meanwhile, a major player in the portal, Kansas, has underwhelmed relative to expectations. Other programs have completely rebounded through the portal, like UCLA, Kentucky, and Louisville.

At the end of the day, I think it starts with the coach and then the institutional commitment to follow through on whatever approach makes sense for that program.
 
Who was the big off-season addition for Auburn? Or Iowa State? Tennessee had one major addition in Chaz Lanier. Meanwhile, a major player in the portal, Kansas, has underwhelmed relative to expectations. Other programs have completely rebounded through the portal, like UCLA, Kentucky, and Louisville.

At the end of the day, I think it starts with the coach and then the institutional commitment to follow through on whatever approach makes sense for that program.
Well, Miles Kelly starts for Auburn and has been their leading 3-point shooter on the season; two of Iowa State's starters, their two best big men (Joshua Jefferson and Dishon Jackson), are both transfers... but I get your point and it is a good one. In the case of many of these teams that were good a year ago, it was a matter of keeping your top players around that is as important -- if not more so -- as bringing in quality transfers. The ACC teams that are doing well other than Duke -- UNC (RJ, Trible, Cadeau), Pitt (Lowe, Leggett), and Clemson (Hunter, Schieffelin) -- each kept players who could have easily found lucrative options in the portal had they not been happy with their situation at their current school.

I think it is also notable that Louisville appears to be a team that was willing to spend in the portal this year (both Chucky Hepburn and Terrence Edwards were highly regarded portal players who no doubt got significant paydays) and Louisville is a team that brought in a new coach in the off-season. If you hire a new coach nowadays, it almost always includes a commitment toward a certain degree of NIL spending. We shall see who Virginia and Miami end up bringing on board in the off-season but if either of them are able to lure a significant hire (the way Louisville did when it brought Pat Kelsey over from Charleston after several very successful years there) then I bet it comes with an enhanced NIL program.
 
So, is that the consensus, that the ACC needs new coaches? I sorta think the bigger problem is lack of NIL funds to bring in the right players. Other than Duke and maybe UNC, the rest of the conference did very little in the portal this off-season and not much in terms of high school recruiting either. That is likely a sign of not having the funds to get new players and retain old ones (looking at you, Norchad Omier).

Here are the number of top 25 portal players (according to On3) signed by ACC teams last summer -- 0
The SEC signed 6, Big Ten 6, Big 12 8, Big East 3 (and then St Louis and Memphis each got 1)​

So, is it coaching or is it a lack of talent?
I'm thinking you're right -- it's the ACC schools not offering enough NIL. Some of the ACC coaches were pretty good until NIL got going.
 
Back
Top