Now that I've got your attention... I've thinking a bit about the effects of adding all of these great basketball schools to the ACC. I'll try to keep this short, sweet and readable, someone tell me if my point is lost...

1. Duke, Carolina, Louisville, ND, Pitt and SU are all perennial NCAA tourney teams. They've seen the tournament the majority of the years in the past decade or two+. I believe all six of these teams will continue to see success in the future.

2. The remaining ACC teams fall into a few different categories. See the tourney every 2-3 years, only see the tourney once or twice a decade, or were once perennial tourney teams but are down for the foreseeable future.
Since 2000 the ACC has averaged 4.9 teams into the tourney. We'll call it Duke, Carolina and three friends.

Some of my thoughts:

I think that the ACC at least gets the 6 bids from the power teams I listed. Note: I don't always think one of THOSE 6 will make it. Sure they will have down years, everyone does. In that case, just throw in whatever team is doing well, or has had recent or stustained success. More than likely this had some effect into the power team not not doing so hot (example could be ND losing to all of the other power teams plus wake, and wake beating up all of the middle-of-the-road teams, and maybe a couple of other power teams. Plug Wake in for ND).

I also think they probably sneak in another team. But will the other two teams ever see the NCAA? I might have to say no on that side.

See 2011-2012 basket ball season. The ACC sent in Duke, Carolina, FSU, UVA, Miami. Throw in UL, SU, Pitt and ND in to the same conference, hand these teams a few more losses (or on the contrary maybe they throw Pitt and ND a few losses... either way someone comes out looking bad) and do you still send the six powers plus the extra three? I would think maybe only FSU gets in.


I'm not bashing or criticizing the ACC or level of play, obviously this will be the best basketball conference in existence (don't get me wrong I'm not rooting for y'all, WE NEED THE AAC TO SUCCEED , ). Just wondering if anyone else thinks that by adding four powerful basketball teams into the conference (and no weak teams) the 2-3 ACC teams who followed Duke and Carolina into the tourney may not see it as often?

I'd like to hear some unbiased thoughts... I know it's going to be natural to argue on this one. Especially since i'm sure all of y'all want as many of the teams to do well as possible. Think about, possible the scenarios when the final teams are in, think about what it takes to get an at-large bid, what types of records the middle ACC teams may end up with, and chances of them pulling upsets. Play all of this out and then let me know what you think. Not saying you will agree with me after putting thought in to it, I just want to hear the best possible arguments either way.

Good luck to those middle teams. Everyone like a good underdog.

I also had one more point to mention but forgot it...maybe someone will spark my memory.

The ACC will most likely have 6 core teams that make it every year: UNC, Dook, Louisville, Syracuse, ND, Pitt. Then the league will have anywhere between 2-4 teams that make it, but the teams will switch every year: FSU, NC State, GT, UVA, Miami, BC fall into this category. Clemson, VT, Wake(until they get a new coach) have virtually no shot.

Q: what's the highest percentage of teams that any conference has ever gotten into the NCAA Tournament in one year?

(11-15-2013 07:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Q: what's the highest percentage of teams that any conference has ever gotten into the NCAA Tournament in one year?

Wasn't it the year the BE got 11 Bids.

No it was during the period that the pre-realignment ACC got 6 of 8 in the tourney, I believe that was the highest percentage. The BE getting 11 of 16 was the most tourney bids.

(11-15-2013 07:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Q: what's the highest percentage of teams that any conference has ever gotten into the NCAA Tournament in one year?

the big east:
11/16 68%
10/15 66%

they also got 3 #1 seeds in a sngle year

(11-15-2013 09:01 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  No it was during the period that the pre-realignment ACC got 6 of 8 in the tourney, I believe that was the highest percentage. The BE getting 11 of 16 was the most tourney bids.

So this would have been pre 1992? After FSU joined there were 9 teams.

Most teams from one conference: 11 (Big East - 2011).
... as percentage of membership: 6/9 (ACC 4 times, last - 2004).

^^^^^
from a stat site

ok im confused.......

6/9 = 66%
10/15 = 66%
11/16 = 68%

what am i missing (why does it say ACC has the most % wise)

(11-15-2013 10:28 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Most teams from one conference: 11 (Big East - 2011).
... as percentage of membership: 6/9 (ACC 4 times, last - 2004).

^^^^^
from a stat site

ok im confused.......

6/9 = 66%
10/15 = 66%
11/16 = 68%

what am i missing (why does it say ACC has the most % wise)

Cureroc is stating it was 6/8 = 75%.

I found it. It looks like it was the 1990-91 season (year before FSU started). ACC had 6 bids out of 8 teams. Dook, UNC, GT, NC State, UVA, Wake made the field. UNC & Dook made the Final 4. Dook won it all.

I know the season is still young but the ACC appears to be filled with middling to mediocre basketball squads currently. I thought Boston College would have a solid team this year, but they lose to UMass and Toledo. I'll give them the close Providence loss on the road, the Friars have some NBA level talent. Then Virginia blows a game against VCU that they had locked up at home.

Wake has looked good, beating teams they should beat, they play Kansas on Thanksgiving in the Bahamas. Let's see if Wake can give them a game. Georgia Tech is another team that's beaten the teams they should. The Yellow Jackets play Georgia tonight.

(11-15-2013 10:56 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I know the season is still young but the ACC appears to be filled with middling to mediocre basketball squads currently. I thought Boston College would have a solid team this year, but they lose to UMass and Toledo. I'll give them the close Providence loss on the road, the Friars have some NBA level talent. Then Virginia blows a game against VCU that they had locked up at home.

Wake has looked good, beating teams they should beat, they play Kansas on Thanksgiving in the Bahamas. Let's see if Wake can give them a game. Georgia Tech is another team that's beaten the teams they should. The Yellow Jackets play Georgia tonight.

BC is definitely disappointing as I thought this was their breakthrough year. I think UVA will be fine. They'll learn from their VCU choke job as they had that game in hand. I think the top 8 will be pretty good but the bottom 4 or 5 will be pretty bad.

yeah on the plus side playing a weaker conference schedule will help boeheims win total and make us more prepared/rested come march

now if coach K coached in the big east and for the same number of years would he have as more wins than jimmy B?????

i think not

(11-15-2013 11:28 AM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah on the plus side playing a weaker conference schedule will help boeheims win total and make us more prepared/rested come march

now if coach K coached in the big east and for the same number of years would he have as more wins than jimmy B?????

i think not

He would still be ahead of JB. Remember, those Duke teams that he had in the 90', and early 2000's were for real. He also has been coaching at least a year longer than Boeheim.

The ACC will be more top heavy than we have seen before from any conference. But that can be disasterous to league depth. For example in 2009 the Big East had three number 1 seeds and two number 3 seeds. Those teams beat up on the rest of the conference so much that only 7 of the 16 teams made the NCAA tournament. Seven sounds like a lot, but not for a 16 team conference, and not a conference where 14 of the 16 teams had made NCAA tournaments in the prior six years. Two years later with only two top 2 seeds (a #1 and a #2 seed) the Big East had eleven teams make the tournament with seven teams seeded between 3-6.

Projecting this back the ACC. If UNC, Duke, Syracuse, and Louisville are regular top tier teams, 1-3 seeds, in addition to one - two additional teams, which has been standard for both leagues (Pittsburgh has been a regular top 4 seed), then it will spell trouble for the bottom half of the league, and we could see years with only 6-7 teams in the dance. But I don't know how this will play out. I can tell you though that currently the former Big East schools are better prepared for this, as they are used to the depth the old Big East provided that the ACC did not. Not saying they will be better than say Duke or Carolina, but they are more prepared for it.

(11-15-2013 11:28 AM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah on the plus side playing a weaker conference schedule will help boeheims win total and make us more prepared/rested come march

now if coach K coached in the big east and for the same number of years would he have as more wins than jimmy B?????

i think not

Absolutely he would be. The Big East didn't become a juggernaut until the last 5-10 years.

If the ACC wants to be considered THE premiere hoops conference, w/ 15 members, 8 in the Dance should be the bare minimum. That is on a down year. We need to be getting around 10 in every year. BE had 16 teams, 8 was the minimum to be considered a merely decent season. Less than that was practically a disaster.

Hopefully we'll get hyped big time like the BE was, even if it was not a particularly good year, something always happened in the tourney. It pissed people off, and they would just be waiting to pounce on the BE's performance, but that is the sign of envy/respect we need to engender.

Like the SEC in football...

Difference is the SEC earned their hype by winning championships. I would prefer to have championships year after year than 10 NCAA tourney teams.

(11-15-2013 11:56 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 11:28 AM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah on the plus side playing a weaker conference schedule will help boeheims win total and make us more prepared/rested come march

now if coach K coached in the big east and for the same number of years would he have as more wins than jimmy B?????

i think not

Absolutely he would be. The Big East didn't become a juggernaut until the last 5-10 years.

The 1980s say hello.

i think they will be fine in due time if they make financial commitment to bb... kinda like SEC in fb gets the top coaches, recruits; ACC can emulate the same approach as long as $$$ commitment is there