ACC Predictions 2019-20

[lv20gt]

Among friends though, this was far from a "very good" season in my book. I picked 5-8 expecting that meant NCAAT contender, not hopeful for a couple more wins to make the NIT. The league was at an extraordinary low.

I can certainly see why people would think that.

To me I think it was a very good season. For one we had a better conference record than we have had in a decade and a half. Yes the ACC was down, but the ACC has been down before and we weren't close to this. In the last 14 years our average record was 6.29 - 11.86. We had only finished with a .500 record twice and finished one game under 4 times (twice with Hewitt, once each with Gregory/Pastner). The ACC may be down, but when you do something that you haven't done in 15 years that's a pretty big deal. Also, normally the early season losses that imo were the reason we would have missed the NCAAT more so than the ACC being down, would be a bigger deal to me. However, with the post season ban looming, if we would have made the NCAAT this year it would have likely meant we were missing the NCAAT next year. That combined with us dropping the appeal, and those games having to be played when we were without Jose makes them carry little weight for me personally. IMO when we were at full strength we played like an NCAAT team, we lose only one rotation player, we improved over the course of the year, showed we could win away from home somewhat consistently, and learned how to finish close games, the last two things are very important for pushing further up in conference going forward.

So yeah, for me it was very good because of how we played in conference, but also because it was almost a best case scenario in terms of setting us up for success going forward.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I’m happy Pastner motivated the Team to persevere thru the adversity and win those last 2 games. Gives some hope for next year, the program some energy in a seemingly constant sea of bad news, send the Seniors out on a somewhat positive note. However, the reality is the program is prevented from competing and the Team performance ultimately did not dictate the results, ie post season play as a reward or not.

From my perspective someone is responsible for this. It’s either Pastner and/or Stansbury for lack of institutional control OR the NCAA is guilty of promoting discriminatory conduct leading to wantonly disproportionate treatment where they’re judge, jury and executioner with inadequate oversight, technically the same lack of institutional control they accuse institutions of having.

Where my beef is there’s no accountability. Neither the AD or Pastner is responsible nor is the NCAA. How can this be? We now admitted to the charges in essence because we accepted the punishment terms under the auspices of “well the threat of losing would be more damaging than just taking our medicine now”. Bull. It’s what’s wrong with all these big government, bureaucratic messes that F up everything they touch when they’re allowed to get as big and powerful as they’ve allowed to be come. We lacked the nuts to fight back. It’s as simple as that. We should be better than that. We’ll never break the cycle of abuse unless we admit we have a problem (we’re weak kneed apologists) and decide to stop allowing ourselves to be beaten wrongfully for no reason. Look at what Kansas is doing. Look what UNCheat did. GT thanks the beater & asks for more.

 

[CuseJacket]

I can certainly see why people would think that.

To me I think it was a very good season. For one we had a better conference record than we have had in a decade and a half. Yes the ACC was down, but the ACC has been down before and we weren't close to this. In the last 14 years our average record was 6.29 - 11.86. We had only finished with a .500 record twice and finished one game under 4 times (twice with Hewitt, once each with Gregory/Pastner). The ACC may be down, but when you do something that you haven't done in 15 years that's a pretty big deal. Also, normally the early season losses that imo were the reason we would have missed the NCAAT more so than the ACC being down, would be a bigger deal to me. However, with the post season ban looming, if we would have made the NCAAT this year it would have likely meant we were missing the NCAAT next year. That combined with us dropping the appeal, and those games having to be played when we were without Jose makes them carry little weight for me personally. IMO when we were at full strength we played like an NCAAT team, we lose only one rotation player, we improved over the course of the year, showed we could win away from home somewhat consistently, and learned how to finish close games, the last two things are very important for pushing further up in conference going forward.

So yeah, for me it was very good because of how we played in conference, but also because it was almost a best case scenario in terms of setting us up for success going forward.

I'm sympathetic to this point of view also. Your post in the great season thread here echoes my feelings.

What I'm putting out there in this thread is a mild pump the brakes to go along with my overall cautious optimism. Whether we played like a NCAAT team or not is still TBD in my mind. In our relatively strong finish, we went 7-2 against a series of NIT and CBI teams, with our lone NCAAT caliber win of the entire season. I did not think we were all that convincing in several of the wins relative to strength of opponent to feel confident that projects forward to similar results if the ACC returns to form. I'm hopeful, and I think we are as well set up as we have been in a while. But we need to improve.

Along the same lines, coaching was inconsistent. No excuse for the Syracuse and Ball State games, regardless of injury. We were favored to win those games for a reason, and losing is one thing, but losing the way we did is another.

I am excited that we did something we haven't done in 15 years. But it matters that it was in large part due to circumstances out of our control i.e., the ACC being historically bad. The ACC has never had only 4 teams qualify for the NCAAT since full expansion.

Anyway, I'm more excited for next year than I was for this year, and I thought we'd finish this year on the lower end of 5-8 in the ACC and be NCAAT competitive.

 

[Jacketman99]

One thing we need to avoid next year is injuries. Both Devoe and Alvarado have been affected by injuries either preseason or during the season.

 

[BeeRBee]

I’m happy Pastner motivated the Team to persevere thru the adversity and win those last 2 games. Gives some hope for next year, the program some energy in a seemingly constant sea of bad news, send the Seniors out on a somewhat positive note. However, the reality is the program is prevented from competing and the Team performance ultimately did not dictate the results, ie post season play as a reward or not.

From my perspective someone is responsible for this. It’s either Pastner and/or Stansbury for lack of institutional control OR the NCAA is guilty of promoting discriminatory conduct leading to wantonly disproportionate treatment where they’re judge, jury and executioner with inadequate oversight, technically the same lack of institutional control they accuse institutions of having.

Where my beef is there’s no accountability. Neither the AD or Pastner is responsible nor is the NCAA. How can this be? We now admitted to the charges in essence because we accepted the punishment terms under the auspices of “well the threat of losing would be more damaging than just taking our medicine now”. Bull. It’s what’s wrong with all these big government, bureaucratic messes that F up everything they touch when they’re allowed to get as big and powerful as they’ve allowed to be come. We lacked the nuts to fight back. It’s as simple as that. We should be better than that. We’ll never break the cycle of abuse unless we admit we have a problem (we’re weak kneed apologists) and decide to stop allowing ourselves to be beaten wrongfully for no reason. Look at what Kansas is doing. Look what UNCheat did. GT thanks the beater & asks for more.

I disagree that there was no accountability. If you accept the validity of the NCAA findings, then the following would be true.

Responsible party number 1, Darryl Labarrie, paid with his job and a show cause order probably preventing him from working as a college coach again, or at least for a while.

Responsible party number 2, Jarrett Jack, paid by having his alma mater disassociate its athletic programs from him for a period of time.

Josh Pastner, despite not being found responsible, pays by having his job made more difficult for several years, also making it likely that his future earnings will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

What I find unfortunate is that it sounds like Atlanta strip clubs have probably been a part of Tech recruiting for a long, long time, but it provided a convenient hook for the NCAA committee to climb on their moral high horse and be shocked, shocked I say that anyone would take a recruit to one. I guess this was always a risk, but it seems that judging the likelihood that a recruit might rat you out is probably a key talent needed in recruiting. And if one does, don’t try a panicked coverup.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I disagree that there was no accountability. If you accept the validity of the NCAA findings, then the following would be true.

Responsible party number 1, Darryl Labarrie, paid with his job and a show cause order probably preventing him from working as a college coach again, or at least for a while.

Responsible party number 2, Jarrett Jack, paid by having his alma mater disassociate its athletic programs from him for a period of time.

Josh Pastner, despite not being found responsible, pays by having his job made more difficult for several years, also making it likely that his future earnings will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

What I find unfortunate is that it sounds like Atlanta strip clubs have probably been a part of Tech recruiting for a long, long time, but it provided a convenient hook for the NCAA committee to climb on their moral high horse and be shocked, shocked I say that anyone would take a recruit to one. I guess this was always a risk, but it seems that judging the likelihood that a recruit might rat you out is probably a key talent needed in recruiting. And if one does, don’t try a panicked coverup.

I didn’t state it but accountability these days are always only for some lower level person, never the guy in charge. The leadership skates away without a care in the world. Just another example. Used to be “The Buck Stops Here”. Now it’s “Buck should stop somewhere over there”, if at all.