2024-25 MBB Rankings

[DavidBenAkiva]

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.

Almost every team added someone, so I was pointing out the relatively quiet offseasons for Auburn and Iowa State. I suppose I should have mentioned Marquette and Purdue as teams that do even less in the portal. Still, it's not like you will find Miles Kelly or the Iowa State big men as big names in the off-season articles. Some of the winners and losers listed in June are laughably off base at the end of December. See this article as an example.

If there is one "correct" approach, it is alignment between the vision of the coaching staff and the institutional commitment to achieve it. With the turnover in ACC coaches lately, the alignment seems to be off or at least recorrecting at a lot of programs.

 

[ChillinDuke]

I think both things can be true. It's a mixture of bad coaches and bad NIL packages.

But good coaches can succeed without overwhelming NIL. And overwhelming NIL can paper over bad coaches.

Also good coaches that were good in the previous era are not necessarily the right fits as a coach in the NIL Era. There's little doubt Jim Larranaga is a good basketball coach. But NIL Basketball isn't simply about basketball anymore.

The fortunate thing for the ACC in an era of monstrous and standardized team turnover is that this can be fixed extremely quickly. No longer does a coach need four years to run through a full cycle of his own players.

- Chillin

 

[brevity]

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.

I wrote about this when the Louisville team went to the Bahamas over the summer. New coaches can mean new sources of money, and the Planet Fitness guys jumpstarted 502 Circle, the Cards' NIL collective.

I will write about this again, tomorrow, for the SMU game preview. Their coaching change, from Rob Lanier to Andy Enfield, triggered a number of interesting events in college basketball, nationwide. One of them is BYU's successful recruitment of AJ Dybantsa. (The Cougars' deep pockets are reportedly opening wide for new coach Kevin Young, which is a lot different from how they responded when Mark Pope was in charge. Pope, in turn, has excited the local Kentucky alumni in a way that John Calipari never did. It was certainly a factor in bringing in 2025 recruits Jasper Johnson and Malachi Moreno.)

Virginia and Miami (and I'll pre-emptively throw in Florida State) can put themselves in the position to make a splashy hire who can quickly put together a successful team in the ACC's current power vacuum. Since this whole sport is going corporate anyway, it may be time for the moneyed alumni to drive the hiring process more than the athletic department or the university leadership.

 

[UrinalCake]

Which is worse, ACC football or ACC basketball? Discuss. I can't make up my mind.

What's wild to me is that SMU was considered an afterthought who was invited to the conference solely to pad our numbers in case a couple other teams left. They're not even taking any conference revenue for the first couple years, they were so desperate to join. Yet they were arguably the best football team and could realistically end up as the 2nd or 3rd best basketball team.

 

[Maged]

SMU is embarrassing the older members of the ACC with its financial commitment to its programs. Are ACC athletic programs that poor that they cannot compete, or were they caught unprepared, or both?

 

[budwom]

What's wild to me is that SMU was considered an afterthought who was invited to the conference solely to pad our numbers in case a couple other teams left. They're not even taking any conference revenue for the first couple years, they were so desperate to join. Yet they were arguably the best football team and could realistically end up as the 2nd or 3rd best basketball team.

In this example SMU knew exactly what they were doing, and it worked, they gave the ACC an offer they couldn't refuse ( they are not taking TV $$ for the first nine years)....they're happy, we're happy (all the other schools get more money) what's not to like?

 

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think both things can be true. It's a mixture of bad coaches and bad NIL packages.

But good coaches can succeed without overwhelming NIL. And overwhelming NIL can paper over bad coaches.

Also good coaches that were good in the previous era are not necessarily the right fits as a coach in the NIL Era. There's little doubt Jim Larranaga is a good basketball coach. But NIL Basketball isn't simply about basketball anymore.

The fortunate thing for the ACC in an era of monstrous and standardized team turnover is that this can be fixed extremely quickly. No longer does a coach need four years to run through a full cycle of his own players.

- Chillin

It might be that the SEC made their big expansion and money grab at the precise right time - positioning themselves to go deep with NIL and coaching contracts over the last few years where both moves have seen unprecedented results.

I'm sad for the ACC that we seem to have taken a serious fall off a cliff in the revenue sports. I'm much sadder for the recognition that the ACC success that I miss so badly is the success of a conference that exists today in name only.

I guess you have to revert to "don't be sad it's over, be happy that it happened."

 

[uh_no]

SMU is embarrassing the older members of the ACC with its financial commitment to its programs. Are ACC athletic programs that poor that they cannot compete, or were they caught unprepared, or both?

yes.

As recently as this past summer, Phillips declared the ACC a "top 3" conference. While maybe there is still some argument thereof in football, it's clearly not been the case in basketball...and even if it were, the league is so decidedly behind, whether it's 3 or 5 or 15 is immaterial.

Claiming we are top-3 is major copium that allows the league and its leadership to live in la-la land about where the conference stands rather than compelling investment from the schools.

The ACC might not have many good options at the moment, but pretending everything is hunky-dorey is definitely not the answer.

 

[Nugget]

Some of the winners and losers listed in June are laughably off base at the end of December. See this article as an example.

I'd push back a bit on the assertion that "some of the [reported] winners and losers" from the portal are "laughably off base." It's undoubtedly true that a relative few of them are, but mostly it looks like the assessments of winners and losers were right.

From the CBS piece you cited:
Winners
SEC: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Mizzou
ACC: Cal
Big East: Marquette (for not losing anyone), DePaul, Xavier
Big 10: Michigan, Indiana, UCLA, USC
Big 12: Kansas, Texas Tech
Other: Memphis

Of these, only USC (which has been pretty bad) was way off, and maybe Indiana’s class was overrated a bit b/c they still can’t shoot. Xavier hasn’t been great but it’s primarily b/c of injuries to Freemantle and Traore; the other portal newcomers have been good. And, Storr and Griffen have obviously underperformed some for Kansas, but it’s still a Top 10 team.

Losers
SEC: None
ACC: Virginia Tech, Miami
Big East: Villanova, Seton Hall
Big 10: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Big 12: Colorado
Others: Dayton, Indiana St., The Ivy League

They were spot on re: the ACC and Big East. Clearly, way off on Dayton, as Anthony Grant has done a great job overcoming the losses of the Kobes (Brea and Elvis) to the portal and DaRon Holmes to the NBA. Also, a bit off on Wisconsin (no one saw John Tonje’s early eruption coming), Colorado and the Ivies, who have outperformed so far.

And, 247’s winners/losers from the portal deadline look reasonable as well (https://247sports.com/longformartic...fer-portal-deadline-winners-losers-231218138/)

Winners
SEC: Texas A&M (for not losing anyone)
ACC: North Carolina (for keeping RJ, Trimble, Cadeau and Jalen Washington (!))
Big East: UConn (for not losing anyone), Creighton (for keeping Kalkbrenner)
Big 10: Maryland, Michigan St. (for not losing anyone), Oregon (for not losing anyone), Iowa
Big 12: Baylor
Others: UNLV

Of these, Carolina is off as they were over-valuing Washington and under-valuing UNC failing to land one of its big interior targets. Creighton has also been iffy, but it’s certainly true they’d have been in much bigger trouble if they hadn’t retained Kalkbrenner.

Losers
SEC: Vandy
Big East: Seton Hall
Big 10: Minnesota

Obviously, Vandy has outperformed so far, but it still wouldn’t be a surprise for them to go 3-15 in the stacked SEC.

 

[sagegrouse]

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.

Well, for some schools, everyone left. UK and L'ville, for example.

On the ACC, I am not sure of the situation
Duke lost all but two, although some were facing a rough path for minutes, given recruits and transfers. Syracuse, a traditional power, has ended up very weak, for example.

 

[ChillinDuke]

It might be that the SEC made their big expansion and money grab at the precise right time - positioning themselves to go deep with NIL and coaching contracts over the last few years where both moves have seen unprecedented results.

I'm sad for the ACC that we seem to have taken a serious fall off a cliff in the revenue sports. I'm much sadder for the recognition that the ACC success that I miss so badly is the success of a conference that exists today in name only.

I guess you have to revert to "don't be sad it's over, be happy that it happened."

It might be, today. But it also might not necessarily have to be this way tomorrow.

I'm a contrarian at heart. And I will again point out, no one is going to sit idly by as one conference swoops into "record profits" while others wither and perish. While yes, you are right to imply the ACC as we knew it is gone, it also does not mean the ACC will never again prosper. The corporatization of college sports (who coined that? great term) necessarily implies that there will be competition for those "record profits".

The ACC may well die someday. But it isn't a foregone conclusion. I strongly suspect the conference will wake up and compete, likely immediately, as this basketball season has very clearly laid bare our disparity. UVA and Miami will have new coaches, and, as Jason rightly points out, likely completely new NIL programs to go along with them. Those are two strong programs that will be reinvigorated. UNC is a couple losses away from having Hubert on the hot seat, I suspect - imagine what they could turn into with a fresh coach / NIL program. FSU is an interesting case both in football and basketball - but I fully expect them to get this all figured out.

The ACC will not sit idly. Whether it fails in its endeavor or succeeds too late to meaningfully carve out its place among the corporatized landscape, we shall see. But I'm cautiously optimistic that this basketball season is so unequivocally bad that there is no longer an excuse for ACC programs to hide behind. Our programs are (very clearly) laggards by one or even two tiers. The ADs, sponsors, boosters, fans, alums, etc of these programs are simply unlikely to allow that to persist, at least at a good majority of our conference schools.

- Chillin

ETA: Duke is an excellent posterchild of what it takes to compete in both basketball and football in the NIL Era. Over the past few years, I've been quite skeptical if Duke would show up to compete with the big boys in a college sports world governed by $. I am very pleasantly surprised at what I see playing out at Duke, and I suspect the ACC (and its programs) will look at Duke as a brilliant example of the sort of coordinated commitment, even through expected coaching and roster turnover in both basketball and football, that is required to keep sports teams competitive nationally. And I'll even go so far as to say, I think Duke has (potentially already) shown enough to the powers that be and major conferences to be a compelling brand in the next phase of realignment, if and when it comes calling. We are showing ourselves to be good stewards within our conference, forward thinking, $ capable, competitive on the court and field, with a nationally recognizable brand. Our work is not done, but we are performing admirably.

 

[dlmzzz]

Since this whole sport is going corporate anyway, it may be time for the moneyed alumni to drive the hiring process more than the athletic department or the university leadership.

It almost sounds like you're trying to encourage other schools to emulate UNC's board of trustees. I do hope this is a blind squirrel with a stopped clock sort of thing.

 

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It might be, today. But it also might not necessarily have to be this way tomorrow.

I'm a contrarian at heart. And I will again point out, no one is going to sit idly by as one conference swoops into "record profits" while others wither and perish.

I'm admittedly cutting most lf you points that I agree with, but keeping the part I wanted to reply to.

The problem is that I see it much more likely that while our "conference" is growing, our schools have less loyalty than ever. How many of our core schools would pass up an opportunity to join the glitz, glamor, and success of the SEC? How can a conference of loosely tied together schools who all feel underappreciated band together to make a more successful conference when half of them are begging for invites somewhere else?

The ACC has a LOT of things to figure out, if conference survival is the main goal. But first, they have to agree that the schools would prefer to have an ACC competitive in revenue sports, or if the schools want to jump ship.

My Edit to Reply to Your Edit: I agree that Duke has been very successful in this new era, and I'm pleasantly surprised on all fronts.

 

[brevity]

Since this whole sport is going corporate anyway, it may be time for the moneyed alumni to drive the hiring process more than the athletic department or the university leadership.

It almost sounds like you're trying to encourage other schools to emulate UNC's board of trustees. I do hope this is a blind squirrel with a stopped clock sort of thing.

They did cross my mind when I wrote that. Of course, all the UNC Board of Trustees did was read my early suggestion of Bill Belichick on DBR, and then follow through on it. I see his tenure turning out as either an incredibly expensive disaster, or a moderate success (1-2 more wins per year) that will be perceived as not worth the money.

Either way, this is much more interesting than whoever Bubba Cunningham would have hired. That was certainly the way I expected this hiring process to go, and I have sympathy for those would rather see UNC Football fade into nameless oblivion.

By "moneyed alumni" I was actually thinking of a more rogue outfit, people who are ordinarily less involved with a university than its Board of Trustees. I suspect there is a lot of dormant money that could be accessed if its keepers realized they could have a bigger stake in the decision making of their beloved alma maters.

A common complaint in the NBA is that the same head coaches get hired over and over. A lot of retreads and safe choices from entrenched decision makers looking to keep their own jobs. There are the occasional exceptions, but otherwise the carousel is often boring. I don't want college basketball to become similarly boring. Boredom is the enemy.

 

[dlmzzz]

They did cross my mind when I wrote that. Of course, all the UNC Board of Trustees did was read my early suggestion of Bill Belichick on DBR, and then follow through on it. I see his tenure turning out as either an incredibly expensive disaster, or a moderate success (1-2 more wins per year) that will be perceived as not worth the money.

Either way, this is much more interesting than whoever Bubba Cunningham would have hired. That was certainly the way I expected this hiring process to go, and I have sympathy for those would rather see UNC Football fade into nameless oblivion.

By "moneyed alumni" I was actually thinking of a more rogue outfit, people who are ordinarily less involved with a university than its Board of Trustees. I suspect there is a lot of dormant money that could be accessed if its keepers realized they could have a bigger stake in the decision making of their beloved alma maters.

A common complaint in the NBA is that the same head coaches get hired over and over. A lot of retreads and safe choices from entrenched decision makers looking to keep their own jobs. There are the occasional exceptions, but otherwise the carousel is often boring. I don't want college basketball to become similarly boring. Boredom is the enemy.

I translate that as encouraging ACC schools to be more like Texas A&M than UNC. More popcorn for us!

 

[AustinDevil]

The problem is that I see it much more likely that while our "conference" is growing, our schools have less loyalty than ever. How many of our core schools would pass up an opportunity to join the glitz, glamor, and success of the SEC? How can a conference of loosely tied together schools who all feel underappreciated band together to make a more successful conference when half of them are begging for invites somewhere else?

I honestly think the low point for ACC conference loyalty was when Clemson filed suit. Since then, if you spend any time on their boards, the three newest schools are thrilled to have a power-conference spot; for the incumbent schools, the academic prestige the Bay Area schools bring does not hurt, either. Clemson is feeling better after their ACC FB championship, and Dabo lobbying for SMU to get in the CFP was notable; it was also reported that the loudest cheer at the Clemson selection watch party was when SMU was announced.

Meanwhile, FSU has had the arrogance absolutely smacked out of them. They will forever be the trivia answer to “what was the first football team to ever finish 17th in the ACC?”. They argued in court in 2023 that SMU was so inferior a sports brand that it was harming FSU to be associated with them; then the Noles had to stomach a 42-16 beat down in Dallas. Their MBB is 0-2 in the conference and languishing in the mid-80s in the NET ratings, with the “you didn’t pay us” lawsuit casting a huge shadow. And they even had to deny that they said they wanted to leave the conference. They are realizing they have nowhere to go, and that the 12-team playoff makes last year’s snub irrelevant going forward.

Things are far from perfect. But this is *not* the low point for conference loyalty. And at least the most recent conference growth is *not* the problem.

 

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I honestly think the low point for ACC conference loyalty was when Clemson filed suit. Since then, if you spend any time on their boards, the three newest schools are thrilled to have a power-conference spot; for the incumbent schools, the academic prestige the Bay Area schools bring does not hurt, either. Clemson is feeling better after their ACC FB championship, and Dabo lobbying for SMU to get in the CFP was notable; it was also reported that the loudest cheer at the Clemson selection watch party was when SMU was announced.

Meanwhile, FSU has had the arrogance absolutely smacked out of them. They will forever be the trivia answer to “what was the first football team to ever finish 17th in the ACC?”. They argued in court in 2023 that SMU was so inferior a sports brand that it was harming FSU to be associated with them; then the Noles had to stomach a 42-16 beat down in Dallas. Their MBB is 0-2 in the conference and languishing in the mid-80s in the NET ratings, with the “you didn’t pay us” lawsuit casting a huge shadow. And they even had to deny that they said they wanted to leave the conference. They are realizing they have nowhere to go, and that the 12-team playoff makes last year’s snub irrelevant going forward.

Things are far from perfect. But this is *not* the low point for conference loyalty. And at least the most recent conference growth is *not* the problem.

I agree with a lot of your post, and I agree that SMU has been a boost that none of us could have anticipated, or that the ACC would have dared to hope for. But I don't necessarily agree that we've bottomed out for conference loyalty.

Let's see how loyal ACC schools are when we get a similar number of teams into the field of 68 as we did in the field of 12.

I do absolutely enjoy the schadenfreude of FSU and their amazing full bellyflop of an athletics season. But it does make me sad for Leonard Hamilton. I've always respected the heck out of him as a coach and a human being. I can imagine him looking at Roy, K, Jim B, etc and wondering what the hell he is doing still working.

 

[AustinDevil]

I agree with a lot of your post, and I agree that SMU has been a boost that none of us could have anticipated, or that the ACC would have dared to hope for. But I don't necessarily agree that we've bottomed out for conference loyalty.

Let's see how loyal ACC schools are when we get a similar number of teams into the field of 68 as we did in the field of 12.

I do absolutely enjoy the schadenfreude of FSU and their amazing full bellyflop of an athletics season. But it does make me sad for Leonard Hamilton. I've always respected the heck out of him as a coach and a human being. I can imagine him looking at Roy, K, Jim B, etc and wondering what the hell he is doing still working.

Yeah, 2024 >> 2023 for ACC loyalty, such as it is, but the future holds no promises. I’m not as sad for Hamilton, though—the texts that are alleged in the litigation are damning from an ethics perspective, never mind a program-management perspective. Maybe they’re being misrepresented in the reporting; we’ll see.

 

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yeah, 2024 >> 2023 for ACC loyalty, such as it is, but the future holds no promises. I’m not as sad for Hamilton, though—the texts that are alleged in the litigation are damning from an ethics perspective, never mind a program-management perspective. Maybe they’re being misrepresented in the reporting; we’ll see.

I haven't seen any of the details yet, but I would find that very disturbing.

 

[brevity]

It's Week 10 and Duke MBB stays at #4 in both polls.

AP Poll

1.Tennessee
2. Auburn
3. Iowa State
4. Duke
5. Alabama
6. Kentucky
7. Marquette
8. Florida
9. Connecticut
10. Texas A&M

Coaches Poll

1. Tennessee
2. Auburn
3. Iowa State
4. Duke
5. Alabama
6. Marquette
7. Kentucky
8. Florida
9. Texas A&M
10. Connecticut

Duke is still the only ranked ACC team, but Pittsburgh is #26 by AP voters and #28 by coaches. (On any other week, we might root for them.) Clemson is also receiving votes in both polls.

Future opponent Illinois (who headed west and destroyed then-top 10 Oregon) rose 9 places to AP #13 and 5 spots to Coaches #15.