I agree. Somewhere around five or six and that really isn’t good enough. Very good point on the coaching talent drain too. The money arms race deepens the divide every year on that too.
4 Likes
I 100% agree with everyone who says this would give us a more accurate assessment of how good the conference really is (vs. how good they were in Nov/Dec). But also… it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’ll make the conference look better. Maybe it will just confirm the Nov/Dec assessment. (I would like to do it just to put the argument to bed lol.)
4 Likes
That’s where I am. I think that logically it might be true sometimes, and I think last year might have been one of those times. But there’s no reason to think it’s true as a general principle, and I’m sure there have been cases where the opposite was true, too (early season non-con victories inflating our perception).
It’s not like transfer portal, OADs, NIL, etc. are things that are unique to the ACC. If anyone has any reason to think increased player movement is materially more of a thing in the ACC than other high major leagues, I’m all ears…
And finally, EVEN if it were true, then it’s just bad strategy. If a reliance on transfers has you (Coach Capel) on the bubble because you pooped your pants in the noncon, then maybe you picked a bad strategy? (No, no, it must be Luke Hancock’s fault… Pffft… I mean really, some smart telemarketers need to put some coaches on their lists because some of these guys will believe any line of BS…)
1 Like
On the transfer portal, it doesn’t affect the conference more, but some teams gel quicker than others. Some of that depends on complexity of schemes some may depend on personnel. It’s not an excuse. If you lose in November a lot it will affect whether you get in the tournament. That’s fair.
1 Like
I would rephrase #1 as “please stop stepping on rakes and expecting them to not hit you in the face.”
Torvik has a very handy Game Score metric that tells you some about the quality of a performance, adjusting for opponent strength, game location, margin of victory, that is good for cross-year comparisons. 2018-19 season ACC was right near the top in noncon performances, and there were only 5 noncon games where an ACC team had a Game Score below 20, which is roughly equivalent to how a bottom-50 team would be expected to perform. This season there were 21 such games and Louisville can only be blamed for 5 of them.
3 Likes
Can we have it both ways though? Look how good the ACC actually was last year because of madness performance?
Using the same criteria, UVA has had 1 great year - 2019, 1 really good year - 2016, and 1 good year - 2014 under CTB in 14 tries.
Good point, though there is a difference in being upset in the first weekend and actually having teams get to the elite eight. I get that the tournament is really dependent on matchups, and you might get a lucky draw in the R32 or 16. There are unexpected teams that get hot (St Peters, Loyola in 2018), but three in the elite eight might suggest that the conference was not quite as bad as it appeared. But “not quite as bad as it seems” is different from actually being good. The gap between the ACC and the best conferences is real. My initial point was just taking issue with numbers that put it below the MWC and AAC. I thought that was a little too much.
The problem with using the NCAAT as the end-all measuring stick is it’s just so random. Last year Miami was about an inch from losing in the first round on a last-second shot that almost went in. UNC needed OT to beat Baylor in the second round. Two more bounces against us and the ACC would have gotten only Duke in the Sweet 16, thereby “proving” the conference was bad. But it would have been only two bounces worse.
Or just look at Tony’s history in the NCAAT to see how much chance plays a part.
2 Likes
In the NCAAs yes. But the years TB teams won the ACC and ACC Tourneys when the league was “tough” add tremendously to that resume and what I think can be the randomness of the NCAA tourney
1 Like
No excuses the league is what it is the data is what it is.
But having Louivsille (NET 308), FSU (NET 216) and GT (NET 205) really brought the league down. Fairleigh Dickinson has a NET of 307. We sprinkled in 20 UL games into the conference this year not too mention those other two. Of course at this point in the season those 3 teams are not that bad and that is what kills the league because they can beat decent teams now and it hurts the league.
4 Likes
MF’ers at UNC are going off from 3 again. For all the doom and gloomers out there, this just shows how quickly things can change.
Edit - got shit from a UNC work colleague today. I tolerated it, but her annual evaluation is still to come.
6 Likes
Agree UNC was not a bad loss. They’ve just dramatically underachieved. Preseason number one that starts 4 former 5 stars.
Yes we’ve played like ass but we’ve got exactly one bad loss all year
3 Likes
Bacot got 0?
11 for 18 from 3. 2 for 6 from 2. And yes, Bacot is 0-2 from the field. Even with the 3s, Carolina has more FT attempts. Douches in baby blue.
UNC players talk a lot of trash for underachieving in a spectacular and embarrassing fashion.
5 Likes
The Noles are gonna win this, aren’t they?
Edit: nah, Heels going to hang on it seems.
1 Like
Bacot 0 points
1 Like
Heels 10-16 from FT, but the Noles are 13-21. Had it to within 4. Carolina was 17-22 from the line against us. 2nd half has not been kind to UNC, but they do hang on. Bacot has 1 point.
2 Likes
Dang, the Heels are 24-51 from three over these last two games. Just shy of 48%. Their opponents are 7-27, barely 25%. Heels also shot 46 free throws. How did they not win these games more comfortably?
1 Like
Not all threes are the same … all but 2 of UNC’s made threes were wide open and the other 2 were only semi contested.
FSU is allowing 39.5% three point shooting in ACC games - last in the league … same reason we shot 50% from 3 on them.
UVA is 10th in the ACC in 3 point % allowed.
Most college teams are pretty good on wide open warm up threes.