(03-25-2024 01:34 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Step 1: The ACC grabs UConn and Villanova, the Big12 grabs Gonzaga and Memphis.
Step 2: Demand half of the NCAAT monies or threaten to start our own tournament.
Step 3: Everyone bends over.
Step 4: ACC and Big12 profits.

*insert Schwarzenegger + Carl Weathers “you son of a b****!” gif*

(03-25-2024 12:28 PM)Todor Wrote:  The ACC has had some good teams. The conference top to bottom? Meh…

Agree... ACC can compete w/ anyone at the top end, but the B12 and Big East both just have noticibly more depth and a better bottom of league than the ACC.

The ACC is the only conference with two blue-bloods, so it has an inherent advantage.

ACC often looks "meh" in global seasonal metrics, but then the cream rises to the top in the tournament.

Not surprising, as it is the only "basketball first" conference among the traditional powers.

(03-27-2024 07:07 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:28 PM)Todor Wrote:  The ACC has had some good teams. The conference top to bottom? Meh…

Agree... ACC can compete w/ anyone at the top end, but the B12 and Big East both just have noticibly more depth and a better bottom of league than the ACC.

Can you back that up with any facts? The bottom third of the ACC this year was Louisville, Miami, GT, ND and BC. They competed with the rest of the conference well. Louisville hung with NCSU in the 1st round of the ACCT for instance. GT and ND both beat WF late in the season. BC was a 20 win team this year. Miami is rebuilding this year but look at what they did the two seasons prior to that. I call BS on your statement about depth. No school in the ACC goes into their 20 game schedule with a realistic chance of running the table and it is clear that on any given night anyone can win the matchup.

(03-27-2024 10:20 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:07 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:28 PM)Todor Wrote:  The ACC has had some good teams. The conference top to bottom? Meh…

Agree... ACC can compete w/ anyone at the top end, but the B12 and Big East both just have noticibly more depth and a better bottom of league than the ACC.

Can you back that up with any facts? The bottom third of the ACC this year was Louisville, Miami, GT, ND and BC. They competed with the rest of the conference well. Louisville hung with NCSU in the 1st round of the ACCT for instance. GT and ND both beat WF late in the season. BC was a 20 win team this year. Miami is rebuilding this year but look at what they did the two seasons prior to that. I call BS on your statement about depth. No school in the ACC goes into their 20 game schedule with a realistic chance of running the table and it is clear that on any given night anyone can win the matchup.

IMO the NET and conference RPI rankings are decent global indicators of top to bottom strength, which to me is a good measure of how good a conference's middle and bottom are, because if those are weak the overall rating is likely to be weak, even if a conference is strong at the top. So is KenPom.

Right now, RPI has the ACC fifth, the NET has the ACC fourth. The nB12 is #1 in both. This suggests to me that the nB12 has a stronger middle and bottom than the ACC. The Big East and ACC have essentially the same ratings, so that is not apparent in their case.

Nobody is preventing teams from doing well out of conference.

Want more teams in the tournament and higher seeds for the teams in your conference?

Don't lose at home to Missouri, Pitt.

Don't lose by 20 to Ole Miss, NC State.

Don't have Clemson, Wake, and Virginia lose to a Notre Dame team that lost at home to The Citadel, Georgetown, and Western Carolina.

Metrics aren't just thrown together. They come from a season's worth of data. Nobody is disrespecting the ACC. The ACC keeps putting themselves in these positions because they keep failing to perform in the out of conference portion of the season.

There's one quick fix... play better. The rest will solve itself.

(03-27-2024 10:49 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  Nobody is preventing teams from doing well out of conference.

Want more teams in the tournament and higher seeds for the teams in your conference?

Don't lose at home to Missouri, Pitt.

Don't lose by 20 to Ole Miss, NC State.

Don't have Clemson, Wake, and Virginia lose to a Notre Dame team that lost at home to The Citadel, Georgetown, and Western Carolina.

Metrics aren't just thrown together. They come from a season's worth of data. Nobody is disrespecting the ACC. The ACC keeps putting themselves in these positions because they keep failing to perform in the out of conference portion of the season.

There's one quick fix... play better. The rest will solve itself.

Part of strength perception though is how you perform in the tourney and how your top teams perform. In that aspect, the ACC and Big East are as good as anyone and have been for sometime.

Frankly, the Big 12 needs more yearly final four runs and needs to bringing home more titles. I think it will get there, but the conference hurt itself this year.

That said, I'm not overly worried about a conference who's top lineup includes: Kansas, Arizona, Baylor, Houston. ISU may join that group this year, they look good.

(03-27-2024 10:49 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  Nobody is preventing teams from doing well out of conference.

Want more teams in the tournament and higher seeds for the teams in your conference?

Don't lose at home to Missouri, Pitt.

Don't lose by 20 to Ole Miss, NC State.

Don't have Clemson, Wake, and Virginia lose to a Notre Dame team that lost at home to The Citadel, Georgetown, and Western Carolina.

Metrics aren't just thrown together. They come from a season's worth of data. Nobody is disrespecting the ACC. The ACC keeps putting themselves in these positions because they keep failing to perform in the out of conference portion of the season.

There's one quick fix... play better. The rest will solve itself.

I agree. And continue to dominate the Big XII head to head.

(03-27-2024 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:20 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:07 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:28 PM)Todor Wrote:  The ACC has had some good teams. The conference top to bottom? Meh…

Agree... ACC can compete w/ anyone at the top end, but the B12 and Big East both just have noticibly more depth and a better bottom of league than the ACC.

Can you back that up with any facts? The bottom third of the ACC this year was Louisville, Miami, GT, ND and BC. They competed with the rest of the conference well. Louisville hung with NCSU in the 1st round of the ACCT for instance. GT and ND both beat WF late in the season. BC was a 20 win team this year. Miami is rebuilding this year but look at what they did the two seasons prior to that. I call BS on your statement about depth. No school in the ACC goes into their 20 game schedule with a realistic chance of running the table and it is clear that on any given night anyone can win the matchup.

IMO the NET and conference RPI rankings are decent global indicators of top to bottom strength, which to me is a good measure of how good a conference's middle and bottom are, because if those are weak the overall rating is likely to be weak, even if a conference is strong at the top. So is KenPom.

Right now, RPI has the ACC fifth, the NET has the ACC fourth. The nB12 is #1 in both. This suggests to me that the nB12 has a stronger middle and bottom than the ACC. The Big East and ACC have essentially the same ratings, so that is not apparent in their case.

The perception of the B12’s “stronger middle and bottom” is just wrong. For example, the ACC is 11-3 versus the B12 this year…the record would have to be reversed for your theory to have some grounding. IMO, the current analytics don’t adequately incorporate the impact of 20 game regular conference schedules in the ACC and Big East. The middle and bottom of both the B12 and SEC are merely being propped-up by the weaker opposition and flexible scheduling…this is helping the B12 and SEC to get more bids (and maximize NCAA payouts). The analytics are generally geared toward differentiating the top, and the statistics are much less meaningful in the middle and bottom.

then why isn't the ACC using these metrics
it's money game now, you have to get in the tourn

Well let's see who the mighty ACC played to get those four teams in.

NC State played Oakland.

Dook played James Madison.

UNC played "automatic bid" Michigan State.

Clemson played Baylor.

3/4 had pretty dang easy paths to said sweet 16.

(03-27-2024 12:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:20 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:07 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:28 PM)Todor Wrote:  The ACC has had some good teams. The conference top to bottom? Meh…

Agree... ACC can compete w/ anyone at the top end, but the B12 and Big East both just have noticibly more depth and a better bottom of league than the ACC.

Can you back that up with any facts? The bottom third of the ACC this year was Louisville, Miami, GT, ND and BC. They competed with the rest of the conference well. Louisville hung with NCSU in the 1st round of the ACCT for instance. GT and ND both beat WF late in the season. BC was a 20 win team this year. Miami is rebuilding this year but look at what they did the two seasons prior to that. I call BS on your statement about depth. No school in the ACC goes into their 20 game schedule with a realistic chance of running the table and it is clear that on any given night anyone can win the matchup.

IMO the NET and conference RPI rankings are decent global indicators of top to bottom strength, which to me is a good measure of how good a conference's middle and bottom are, because if those are weak the overall rating is likely to be weak, even if a conference is strong at the top. So is KenPom.

Right now, RPI has the ACC fifth, the NET has the ACC fourth. The nB12 is #1 in both. This suggests to me that the nB12 has a stronger middle and bottom than the ACC. The Big East and ACC have essentially the same ratings, so that is not apparent in their case.

The perception of the B12’s “stronger middle and bottom” is just wrong. For example, the ACC is 11-3 versus the B12 this year…the record would have to be reversed for your theory to have some grounding. IMO, the current analytics don’t adequately incorporate the impact of 20 game regular conference schedules in the ACC and Big East. The middle and bottom of both the B12 and SEC are merely being propped-up by the weaker opposition and flexible scheduling…this is helping the B12 and SEC to get more bids (and maximize NCAA payouts). The analytics are generally geared toward differentiating the top, and the statistics are much less meaningful in the middle and bottom.

I admit I don't know much about the inner formulas of these analytics, but I would assume they take SOS in to account, and if you are playing more conference games, and your conference games are tougher than OOC games played by teams in other conferences, then that should be accounted for in the rankings.

What does seem to happen is that the ACC performs better in the tourney than their analytics often suggest. Maybe this is because the ACC has a lot of traditional hoops brand names, headlined by the two blue-bloods, that they get better talent, and talent takes longer to gel as a team, but when it does gel watch out. IMO, one way the analytics are weak is that IIRC they look at the "whole season" and don't capture which teams are playing best in March.

Just MO.

The only people outside of message board psychos like us that care about this are SEC fans for some reason. Honestly, I never heard any conference chest thumping until I signed up here.

It’s like, why would I root for Dook—even if I picked them in my bracket? Yet, here I have defended them and other rivals. It’s strange really.

I guess if you’re the Big XII noobs and have no real rivals, it doesn’t matter.

(03-27-2024 12:49 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only people outside of message board psychos like us that care about this are SEC fans for some reason. Honestly, I never heard any conference chest thumping until I signed up here.

It’s like, why would I root for Dook—even if I picked them in my bracket? Yet, here I have defended them and other rivals. It’s strange really.

I guess if you’re the Big XII noobs and have no real rivals, it doesn’t matter.

I think what has happened is since the founding of the BCS, the focus has been on conferences and conference identity. Wasn't that way when I was growing up, and this has permeated hoops as well. Conferences have just become much more important engines of money and status than they used to be.

Real rivals of course don't care about this - I recall when Auburn played FSU for the BCS title, every Alabama fan I knew was rooting for FSU, they cared far more that their rival lose than that the SEC win. So your attitude about Duke doesn't surprise me.

At the Alabama vs Michigan CFP playoff game, I saw several people wearing "Ohio State fan, Roll Tide!" shirts or something to that effect. Rivalries should transcend conference.

(03-27-2024 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 12:10 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:20 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:07 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  Agree... ACC can compete w/ anyone at the top end, but the B12 and Big East both just have noticibly more depth and a better bottom of league than the ACC.

Can you back that up with any facts? The bottom third of the ACC this year was Louisville, Miami, GT, ND and BC. They competed with the rest of the conference well. Louisville hung with NCSU in the 1st round of the ACCT for instance. GT and ND both beat WF late in the season. BC was a 20 win team this year. Miami is rebuilding this year but look at what they did the two seasons prior to that. I call BS on your statement about depth. No school in the ACC goes into their 20 game schedule with a realistic chance of running the table and it is clear that on any given night anyone can win the matchup.

IMO the NET and conference RPI rankings are decent global indicators of top to bottom strength, which to me is a good measure of how good a conference's middle and bottom are, because if those are weak the overall rating is likely to be weak, even if a conference is strong at the top. So is KenPom.

Right now, RPI has the ACC fifth, the NET has the ACC fourth. The nB12 is #1 in both. This suggests to me that the nB12 has a stronger middle and bottom than the ACC. The Big East and ACC have essentially the same ratings, so that is not apparent in their case.

The perception of the B12’s “stronger middle and bottom” is just wrong. For example, the ACC is 11-3 versus the B12 this year…the record would have to be reversed for your theory to have some grounding. IMO, the current analytics don’t adequately incorporate the impact of 20 game regular conference schedules in the ACC and Big East. The middle and bottom of both the B12 and SEC are merely being propped-up by the weaker opposition and flexible scheduling…this is helping the B12 and SEC to get more bids (and maximize NCAA payouts). The analytics are generally geared toward differentiating the top, and the statistics are much less meaningful in the middle and bottom.

I admit I don't know much about the inner formulas of these analytics, but I would assume they take SOS in to account, and if you are playing more conference games, and your conference games are tougher than OOC games played by teams in other conferences, then that should be accounted for in the rankings.

What does seem to happen is that the ACC performs better in the tourney than their analytics often suggest. Maybe this is because the ACC has a lot of traditional hoops brand names, headlined by the two blue-bloods, that they get better talent, and talent takes longer to gel as a team, but when it does gel watch out. IMO, one way the analytics are weak is that IIRC they look at the "whole season" and don't capture which teams are playing best in March.

Just MO.

LOL.

Whole season vs best-in-March is the only reason UVa was included. Hoos had an excellent run in January through mid-February. The wheels then started to fall off, UVa was horrible during the last month. It was painful to watch UVa in March.

On the other hand, Pitt had a different trajectory. Pitt was a really bad team at the start of the season. Losing OOC games and a bad start to the conference games. Pitt ruined the reputation of the ACC and then got its act together. During the final two months, Pitt was a different team. Unfortunately, they were on the wrong side of the bubble.

In theory, the future ACC at its maximum strength in men's hoops would be better than the future Big 12 at its maximum strength in men's hoops.

Top, historically, ACC programs (in no particular order)?:

Louisville
Syracuse
Virginia
Duke
North Carolina
N.C. State


Top, historically, Big 12 programs (in no particular order)?:

Cincinnati
Kansas
Houston
Arizona
Utah
Baylor

There is simply no comparison.

(03-27-2024 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:20 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:07 AM)gwelymernans Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:28 PM)Todor Wrote:  The ACC has had some good teams. The conference top to bottom? Meh…

Agree... ACC can compete w/ anyone at the top end, but the B12 and Big East both just have noticibly more depth and a better bottom of league than the ACC.

Can you back that up with any facts? The bottom third of the ACC this year was Louisville, Miami, GT, ND and BC. They competed with the rest of the conference well. Louisville hung with NCSU in the 1st round of the ACCT for instance. GT and ND both beat WF late in the season. BC was a 20 win team this year. Miami is rebuilding this year but look at what they did the two seasons prior to that. I call BS on your statement about depth. No school in the ACC goes into their 20 game schedule with a realistic chance of running the table and it is clear that on any given night anyone can win the matchup.

IMO the NET and conference RPI rankings are decent global indicators of top to bottom strength, which to me is a good measure of how good a conference's middle and bottom are, because if those are weak the overall rating is likely to be weak, even if a conference is strong at the top. So is KenPom.

Right now, RPI has the ACC fifth, the NET has the ACC fourth. The nB12 is #1 in both. This suggests to me that the nB12 has a stronger middle and bottom than the ACC. The Big East and ACC have essentially the same ratings, so that is not apparent in their case.

All of those statistical measuring sticks are extremely flawed. They have been discussed enough that I won't bother to do so here. Aren't head to head match ups and NCAAT results a more accurate, real indication? During the regular season the ACC v B12 games were 9-3 in favor of the ACC. The SEC/ACC Challenge was a 7-7 draw. In the NCAAT a lower tier ACC school beat an upper tier B12 team and a middle tier ACC team beat an upper tier B12 team. So the ACC are 2-0 vs the B12 so far in the NCAAT.

(03-27-2024 12:26 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Well let's see who the mighty ACC played to get those four teams in.

NC State played Oakland.

Dook played James Madison.

UNC played "automatic bid" Michigan State.

Clemson played Baylor.

3/4 had pretty dang easy paths to said sweet 16.

NC State, a team that was only 3 games over 500 in the regular season beat the 4th place team in the B12 and the team that beat Kentucky.

Duke beat Vermont and the 3 loss James Madison.

UNC beat a traditionally strong, extremely well coached B10 team.

Clemson a mid tier ACC team beat the 2nd best team in what is considered the best conference according to the mathematicians.