The 'weak' ACC has three teams in the Elite Eight!

[Jazzchaz]

I'd be rich if I had a dollar for how many times I've heard the media say the ACC was 'weak' this year. The swollen head Big Ten fans buy into the hype for their conference. I suppose the truth is that they have so many fans that the NCAA and the media will do anything to keep them watching. I think it's always been like that hasn't it? In football as well. Tech goes 12-0 in 1952 and the AP votes 9-0 soon to be Big Ten Michigan State #1...and the AP has never voted Tech #1.
But back to this year's NCAA's. How many times have I heard some of you say 'the NCAA probably wouldn't pick Tech if they have a losing conference record'. Well, 9-11 Indiana made it into the tournament and 13-7 Wake Forest is left out. I guess that was because the ACC is 'weak'.
So let's see, the SEC('better than the ACC') gets six teams in. They've got one team left. The ACC would have only had four teams in except VPI's tournament win gave us five teams...and we have THREE teams left. As for the mighty Big Ten, they 'deserved' NINE teams in the NCAA's and how many are left? ZERO!
Yes, I know that some years they do pretty well. Let's look briefly at 2021. It looks like the SEC got six teams in, the ACC got seven teams in, and the Big Ten got nine teams selected, including two with losing conference records.
Well, each conference had one team in the Elite Eight.
Knowing our conference was obviously stronger than billed is not much comfort for Tech fans. But as disappointing our season was, with a go to scorer in the final minute of games, how many more victories would we have had? Syracuse for sure. Notre Dame? Wisconsin? At Clemson that horrible flop charge killed us.
I've attended every home game(I've been allowed to attend) for a number of years now. I sit low in the corner between the band/cheerleaders and the students. There's no place else I'd rather be. But I miss the players not walking around and giving high fives to the band and student section after a win.
Well that's my vent for the season. Let's get a few transfers and bring on 2022-2023!

 

[Randy Carson]

Well said. Thank you.

 

[MtnWasp]

Gotta love when we have an opportunity for the hype to go toe-to-toe with reality and watch reality kick hype's butt.

I only wish that artificial narratives and manipulated public opinion could always be challenged by reality in such an unequivocal way as the NCAAT. The world would be a better place.

 

[RamblinRed]

While I would have enjoyed more ACC teams getting in, especially Wake - if you look at the Wake's resume they did not deserve a bid over the bubble teams that got in, it simply did not measure up. They had one of the worst OOC SOS in the entire country (343 out of 351) and only beat 2 likely Tourney teams, both at home, the entire season.

The ACC's big problem this year was that it lost the vast majority of its non conference games against power conference teams (heck it was like 2-7 against the A10). When you do that your teams are not getting wins they need on their resume to get picked in March. Teams are not picked based on their conference (conference records aren't even included as a metric the committee gets), they are picked based on their individual resume's. Unfortunately, the ACC's teams poor performances in Nov and Dec hurt their ability to get bids in March.

As usual the B10 underperformed in March. The ACC as happens more often than not overperformed. It's good for the ACC and its good for GT (more money for league members).

If the ACC wants more teams in next year its teams have to do better against the power conference opponents it plays before conference play starts. During the regular season the ACC had the worst record of all the power conferences against other power conferences and that is ultimately why it got fewer teams in. Unfortunately the ACC teams performances in the Tourney don't erase the fact that during the season ACC teams performed really poorly when they played teams from other conferences and the committee bases its decisions on teams by how they performed during the season, not how a conference performs in the post-season.

 

[dtm1997]

While I would have enjoyed more ACC teams getting in, especially Wake - if you look at the Wake's resume they did not deserve a bid over the bubble teams that got in, it simply did not measure up. They had one of the worst OOC SOS in the entire country (343 out of 351) and only beat 2 likely Tourney teams, both at home, the entire season.

The ACC's big problem this year was that it lost the vast majority of its non conference games against power conference teams (heck it was like 2-7 against the A10). When you do that your teams are not getting wins they need on their resume to get picked in March. Teams are not picked based on their conference (conference records aren't even included as a metric the committee gets), they are picked based on their individual resume's. Unfortunately, the ACC's teams poor performances in Nov and Dec hurt their ability to get bids in March.

As usual the B10 underperformed in March. The ACC as happens more often than not overperformed. It's good for the ACC and its good for GT (more money for league members).

If the ACC wants more teams in next year its teams have to do better against the power conference opponents it plays before conference play starts. During the regular season the ACC had the worst record of all the power conferences against other power conferences and that is ultimately why it got fewer teams in. Unfortunately the ACC teams performances in the Tourney don't erase the fact that during the season ACC teams performed really poorly when they played teams from other conferences and the committee bases its decisions on teams by how they performed during the season, not how a conference performs in the post-season.

Pastner suggested we go to a 28 game round robin conference schedule.

 

[Root4GT]

While I would have enjoyed more ACC teams getting in, especially Wake - if you look at the Wake's resume they did not deserve a bid over the bubble teams that got in, it simply did not measure up. They had one of the worst OOC SOS in the entire country (343 out of 351) and only beat 2 likely Tourney teams, both at home, the entire season.

The ACC's big problem this year was that it lost the vast majority of its non conference games against power conference teams (heck it was like 2-7 against the A10). When you do that your teams are not getting wins they need on their resume to get picked in March. Teams are not picked based on their conference (conference records aren't even included as a metric the committee gets), they are picked based on their individual resume's. Unfortunately, the ACC's teams poor performances in Nov and Dec hurt their ability to get bids in March.

As usual the B10 underperformed in March. The ACC as happens more often than not overperformed. It's good for the ACC and its good for GT (more money for league members).

If the ACC wants more teams in next year its teams have to do better against the power conference opponents it plays before conference play starts. During the regular season the ACC had the worst record of all the power conferences against other power conferences and that is ultimately why it got fewer teams in. Unfortunately the ACC teams performances in the Tourney don't erase the fact that during the season ACC teams performed really poorly when they played teams from other conferences and the committee bases its decisions on teams by how they performed during the season, not how a conference performs in the post-season.

Regardless of how many times the truth of why the ACC got so few teams in the NCAAT and why it was perceived as a weak conference this year is laid out a large chunk of posters will simply think it is anti ACC bias. It's not anti ACC bias. Simply win more OOC games against all opponents in November and December. CJP should have a big sign on his wall with that saying as he is the worst at winning games in November and December. ALL games count, not just Conference games!

 

[GT33]

Regardless of how many times the truth of why the ACC got so few teams in the NCAAT and why it was perceived as a weak conference this year is laid out a large chunk of posters will simply think it is anti ACC bias. It's not anti ACC bias. Simply win more OOC games against all opponents in November and December. CJP should have a big sign on his wall with that saying as he is the worst at winning games in November and December. ALL games count, not just Conference games!

Well, the numbers don't lie. Just look at NCAAT results over the years. Some conferences almost always suck ***, others similarly outperform. The selection committee buys the hype every year and leaves the outperformers underrepresented year in, year out. It's the only reason this comes up almost every year.

 

[Ramblingon]

I'd love to see an ACC team win the whole thing to further the point, but it's tough to not pull for St. Pete.

 

[slugboy]

Should games in November and December carry less weight?
Maybe so. A lot of teams are just getting their footing and getting real game time together. The games in February are the games where the teams have had the most practice and real game experience.
The inter-conference games are the ones we use to judge the relative strength of conferences, but those games are so early in the year and so few in number that they may not tell us which teams really are the best 68.

 

[MtnWasp]

Regardless of how many times the truth of why the ACC got so few teams in the NCAAT and why it was perceived as a weak conference this year is laid out a large chunk of posters will simply think it is anti ACC bias. It's not anti ACC bias. Simply win more OOC games against all opponents in November and December. CJP should have a big sign on his wall with that saying as he is the worst at winning games in November and December. ALL games count, not just Conference games!

The ACC got the appropriate number of teams into the NCAAT. The selection is based on transparent objective criteria. There is no bias. And you have correctly identified how many of the ACC teams ruined there chances to get a bid.

But the ACC was not weak this year. While we didn't get as many teams in as the BIG, the BIG contingent still folded in the Tournament while the ACC teams have performed quite well.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

Should games in November and December carry less weight?
Maybe so. A lot of teams are just getting their footing and getting real game time together. The games in February are the games where the teams have had the most practice and real game experience.
The inter-conference games are the ones we use to judge the relative strength of conferences, but those games are so early in the year and so few in number that they may not tell us which teams really are the best 68.

Yes, teams are so much different in March than in November and December. It should be factored in with selections and seedings.

 

[Root4GT]

The ACC got the appropriate number of teams into the NCAAT. The selection is based on transparent objective criteria. There is no bias. And you have correctly identified how many of the ACC teams ruined there chances to get a bid.

But the ACC was not weak this year. While we didn't get as many teams in as the BIG, the BIG contingent still folded in the Tournament while the ACC teams have performed quite well.

The B1G did fold. UNC was always a very talented team that played poorly early season and cost them in their season long rankings and NCAAT seeding. They seemed to come together as a team mid February and have played very well for most of the last month plus. Likely due to a new coaching staff. They are not as deep as the typical UNC team but the pieces fit well together and they play well as a team. Davis gets a lot of credit as a first year coach.

Duke seemed to feel the pressure of it being K's last ride in several big games. They seem to be playing much more freely now. They also are stacked with talent as usual and no one can say K isn't a great coach. They have been highly rated all season.

Miami is clearly the surprise of the 3. They do have 2 key guards who are in their 6th year in college basketball and 2 more in their 4th year. Quality experienced guards matter in the NCAAT more than any other position. Larranaga is a proven coach.

Great for the ACC that these 3 are doing so well.

St. Peter's is a really fun team to watch play. All their players know their roles and they don't get rattled at all.

 

[RamblinRed]

Yes, teams are so much different in March than in November and December. It should be factored in with selections and seedings.

I agree and it used to be a metric the committee used, but they did away with it over a decade ago.
Of course in terms of the ACC it would not have helped this season.
Wake did not have a strong finishing stretch. They were 6-4 over their last 10 and 6-5 over their last 11 and of those 6 wins 4 came against NC ST (twice), L'ville and Pitt. A 5th came against a barely over .500 FSU squad.

 

[lv20gt]

Based on the way the committee views things the ACC likely wasn't screwed. However, I think you could argue that the way the committee views things isn't the best. And it's less about the ACC and more about the big 10.

Now, maybe this is just my perception, but it seems to me the big 10 is developing a reputation for being the best in the "regular season" and a bust come tournament time. I don't know how to explain it, but it certainly feels like mediocre big 10 teams benefit from a feedback loop once conference play starts. Sure

Sure OSU beating duke should be a point in OSU's favor. But it feels like it was also a half point in Michigan's favor as well even if it isn't directly known that the two are in the same conference.

 

[RamblinRed]

I wouldn't say the B10 folded, they slightly underperformed as a conference, largely because their most highly regarded teams were unable to make deep runs. They went 9-9 overall. But remember of their 9 seeds that included 2 of the First Four and an 11 seed, plus two 7 seeds who both lost 2nd round games to 2 seeds. Their highest seed in the Tournament was a 3 seed, so by seeding the expectation would be that no B10 teams would make the Elite Eight and none did. They had two 3 seeds, one 4 and one 5. So you would have expected 3 B10 teams to make the Sweet Sixteen, they had 2 - note their 4 seed lost to a 5 seed which is a minor upset.
Based on the avg number of wins per seed you would have expected the B10 to win 9.89 games overall, they won 9, so an underperformance but not a huge one based on their seeding.

The B10 this year was more a case of having alot of teams that were good enough to make the Tournament and win a game or two, but not many that were seen as good enough to make deep runs. Seven of their teams did win at least 1 game,

This is more about the ACC greatly overperforming than other conferences greatly underperforming. ACC expected wins would be 4.98, it is currently at 11-2 with 3 teams still playing. That is fantastic and unexpected. Now, in hindsight, Miami is a team you could have made a guess might make some noise in the Tourney. They went 7-3 over their last 10 and their 3 losses were a 3-pt loss at UVA, a 1-pt loss to VT where Miami led by 8 with less than 2 min to play and lost on a made three by VT with less than 12 seconds remaining. The 3rd loss was the 4-pt loss to Duke in the ACC Tourney.

 

[RamblinRed]

The conference that has really performed the worst is the SEC. It had two 2 seeds, a 3 seed, a 4 seed and two 6 seeds. That translates to an expected wins number of 10.22 and the conference is 5-5 with just Ark left.

 

[GTpdm]

The conference that has really performed the worst is the SEC. It had two 2 seeds, a 3 seed, a 4 seed and two 6 seeds. That translates to an expected wins number of 10.22 and the conference is 5-5 with just Ark left.

True, but those losses just mean more.

 

[MtnWasp]

I don't think a team or conference can "over perform." That is like saying when weather forecasts are wrong, that the weather made a mistake.

Unexpected outcomes are simply due to inaccurate forecasting models. The error is at the locus of the prediction, not the event's outcome.

 

[lv20gt]

The B10 this year was more a case of having alot of teams that were good enough to make the Tournament and win a game or two, but not many that were seen as good enough to make deep runs. Seven of their teams did win at least 1 game,

I'd argue a conference that doesn't have a team expected to make the elite 8 shouldn't be getting 9 teams in. And I don't think being good enough to win one game in the tournament means all that much. I think most high major teams are good enough to win one on any given day.

You can say they went by criteria and not conference, but when the Big 10 got 9 teams, and the ACC would have likely had 4 if VT doesn't win the ACCT that screams something is wrong with the process.

To me teams like Indiana and Michigan got in over a team like Wake, not because Indiana and Michigan did anything of note OOC but because other big ten teams did.

 

[awbuzz]

I think we'd all love to see 3 ACC teams in the Final Four!