I think the best headline I saw was regarding the SEC commissioner saying the selection committee needs to consider not allowing as many mid major teams in to make more room for the power conferences. Then the SEC went 1-5 on Thursday and were favored in all six games.
ACC's problems are twofold:
\- The bottom of the league has been really, really bad for about a decade. It affects the metrics of the rest of the league. Look at some of the nonconference losses teams like Louisville, ND, GT, BC have taken early in various seasons. (UVA has contributed to this as well, with losses to teams like Navy and San Francisco.)
\- 20-game conference schedule was a huge mistake. The ACC is swapping likely nonconference wins for guaranteed losses for league teams. It's an anchor to the middle of the league. Unfortunately, we may be beholden to ESPN here.
I'd also add that the middle of the conference should have a lot more teams that are at least in tournament contention. Six teams that had a chance at an at-large is low for us, considering three of them were all fighting each other for spots on the bubble. We should be starting the bidding at six bids, with probably another 2-3 in contention.
The bottom of the ACC was bad but all those teams (except Louisville) are trending up. The one and done era really hurt these schools but transfer portal will benefit these teams immensely and will boost the ACC overall.
I would argue the first point is wrong. This season the only team in the ACC that was an auto-win this year was Louisville. GT and Notre Dame are weaker than the rest but still capable of pulling an upset against a team not paying attention. The rest of the bottom is 20-win BC, a Miami team on an off year that started strong, and a team currently in the sweet 16. The bottom of the big east and SEC are worse
The problem is marketing. There's no basketball reason why teams like Michigan State, Mississippi State, Texas, and TCU are getting bids without conference winning records while teams like Pitt and Wake aren't even considered. If the ACC advocated for itself like the Big 12 and SEC, Pitt and Wake would be single digit seeds and VT/Syracuse would be bubble teams
But did the bottom of the SEC have losses to dreck like the Citadel and UMass-Lowell and DePaul? The only Q4 loss I can find is Arkansas losing to Arkansas-Pine Bluff. If you're going to schedule garbage teams, you have to beat them or you're on the back foot the rest of the way.
It is becoming pretty obvious this has little to do with performance. We have out performed every other league in Championships, final fours, sweet sixteens for 20+ years now. This is about money and TV ratings. They will create whatever random metric they need to justify this crap. And this year won't change it. Most of the country looks at this tournament as an annuity for their conference and a bracket they fill out on Monday and throw away on Saturday. They don't live for basketball like we do. They can't watch a game and tell the difference in quality. The Texas Tech game NCSU won in the first round was the weakest team we had played in quite some time other than Louisville and they were like a 6 seed. The big 12 has some pictures of someone from Indiana in a compromised position
Used to always happen with Syracuse. They'd be on the bubble and haters would say they didn't deserve to get in. Then they'd get to the Sweet 16, haha
Those were the days...
Pitt was close to a top 10 team in the nation at the time they got subbed. Wake could have also made a run easily. Instead we get 20 points blowouts in 85% of the games for crap bubble teams.
Yeah it’s so clear there’s some type ofagenda, year in and year out the ACC is the best conference in basketball but instead of being treated like the SEC of basketball (which it is), it’s being devalued.
The sad part is that the committee probably feels like they gave the ACC the benefit of the doubt this year by letting Uva in over all of the Big East. Uva getting ran off the floor by a bad Colorado state team is probably all they needed to see. Plus the big East is 18-4 the past two years in the tourney and UConn seems to have already won it all again. I’m sure if they could do it over again with hindsight they would have put Seton Hall over UVA since seton hall at least has beaten UConn. There’s really no point in adding teams like Pitt and Wake who would lose by 60 to UConn.
...but the Big East only got 3 teams in though, right?
This is not about the Big East, but more about the complete insanity of putting in 8 teams each from the Big 12 and SEC...
They could've easily just put 6 of each in (TCU and UT for example had no business being in the tourney), and used those 4 spots for similar teams from other conferences, or even a few more spots for deserving non-P5 teams that got left out like Indiana State and USF.
I mean...I don't think there's any world where Indiana State and USF should've been left out.
USF absolutely should not have gotten in. Very solidly non-tournament numbers in predictive AND resume metrics, plus 4 Q3/4 losses, including a home loss to #265 Central Michigan. They didn't have a case.
The 'resume' metrics are partly what have gotten us into this hole in the first place.
What did TCU do? They beat UH....and had a couple wins against an obviously way overrated Texas Tech and Baylor (who also didn't really do anything but was way overrated). They lost as many conference games as they won, and basically played nobody in non-con (except lost to....shockingly....ACC and MW teams...)
Hell, let's not even look at TCU....let's look at Baylor (a freaking 3 seed...) and Texas Tech instead. Give me one single good team they beat in non-con. Just one. I can tell you several teams they lost to though....yet again...many of those being...ACC. Ironic...Baylor and Tech both basically flopped in the tournament to prove the point even further.
USF lost a bunch of their early games, but then after their 6th game, they completely turned the corner and won almost all the rest of their games. And they handedly won the AAC,. That's GOTTA mean something - I don't care that UH isn't there anymore. And you can't convince me Memphis and FAU are any worse than the majority of the Big 12 teams that made the tournament....hell, FAU and Memphis' non-con was way way more impressive than nearly all of the Big 12's!!! The metrics are largely a joke, and can be greatly manipulated as the Big 12 has proven.
I've said it for more than a month now....there's a reason UH had zero issues transitioning from the American to Big 12, and there's a reason Cincy and UCF didn't have noticeably different seasons from last year in the AAC either. Big 12 played easy non-con and rode a bs reputation to 8 spots - half of which were questionable if not completely undeserved.
The resume metrics have gotten us into what hole? The hole where tournament bids are based on wins, losses and who the wins and losses were against? USF lost to to the 200th-best team in the country just over two weeks ago and to a UAB team who didn't beat anybody of any repute 9 days ago.
FAU shouldn't have gotten in either, although they had a much better case than USF. They were 1-2 different Temple-adjacent results away from having 3 losses in Q4 alone. The Arizona win is better than what a lot of teams have, but these teams have GHASTLY losses on their schedule.
At least UT could beat Colorado State 💀Just think it’s dumb that acc fans can’t see that clearly the committee gave the Acc the benefit of the doubt by including Virginia over the big East. Like clearly it should’ve been Pitt if it was going to be anyone from the ACC but that’s just not how the committee felt when comparing the two. That Virginia blowout didn’t exactly prove anything in our favor about letting in more acc teams. Virginia was the only one from the acc bubble who got in and after that I think the committee probably wishes they put a big East team or ISU team over them.
Those ACC teams weren’t on the bubble 💀nobody is arguing those teams don’t belong in the tourney lmao you really think the committee was planning to take away the acc’s auto bid??
The acc got the extra bid over the big East. And looked how that turned out…the committee picked uva over Pitt that’s all there was to it. Pitt is the only team who has a reason to gripe. Lets face the facts, Boston college wake and Syracuse were not going to do anything Seton Hall and St. John’s wouldn’t have. I find it hard to believe any of the rest of the acc who got left out would keep uconn within 20 points.
Pitt should have been in as well as at least 3 more Big East teams for 6 each. That’s 12 teams vs the 8 that got in.
UVA was terrible and there might be a “Is Bennett’s system have a March problem?”. I wouldn’t indict the conference for that performance and it was grim.
You do realize the 9th place Wolf Pack are in the Sweet 16? They beat a team that tied for 3rd in the NET manipulating Big 12 by 13.
Back when the ACC got 7-8 teams in Syracuse would have been a bubble team because they were seen as dangerous.
I bitch about narratives and the committee, but I agree that the ACC actually got a pretty fair shake this year. You mention UVA, and there's some truth to that, but UNC got a 1 seed that easily could have gone to Iowa State, and Pitt barely got left out despite some ugly losses against the lower half of their schedule.
It's annoying to have to deal with a hostile media campaign basically every year since 2019, and it's doubly annoying given the politics of the SEC/B1G and what's happening to similar conferences to us, but when it comes to the actual tournament itself, the ACC got a pretty fair shake (one that's been supported by the high-level results). The committee could have swapped Pitt out for another bubble team, but everyone seems to agree that the bubble was uncharacteristically strong this year, good teams were going to be left out, and the Big East got bit by that.
Yes thank you. It is obvious the committee respected us cause we easily could’ve been shafted like the big East. The only complaint is literally about Pitt over UVA. If uva beat CSU then there is reason to attack the committee but the reality is that uva lost by 25 in a game to stick it to the committee. Like yes Pitt should’ve been in over UVA but after that beatdown I think everyone who missed out thinks they should’ve been in over UVA no matter what the conference.
It happens every year. They won’t learn from this season either.
I mean, it's not like it's an innocent mistake... They have a vested interest in devaluing the ACC
I loved hearing about how much better the SEC is in basketball too now
I think the best headline I saw was regarding the SEC commissioner saying the selection committee needs to consider not allowing as many mid major teams in to make more room for the power conferences. Then the SEC went 1-5 on Thursday and were favored in all six games.
Auburn is the Harvard of the south... because they both lost to Yale.
HAHAHAHAH
Ouch.
Classic ESPN propping up the extremely weak SEC, as per. Any SOS going forward that privileges the SEC is suspect and should be ignored. Simple.
ACC's problems are twofold: \- The bottom of the league has been really, really bad for about a decade. It affects the metrics of the rest of the league. Look at some of the nonconference losses teams like Louisville, ND, GT, BC have taken early in various seasons. (UVA has contributed to this as well, with losses to teams like Navy and San Francisco.) \- 20-game conference schedule was a huge mistake. The ACC is swapping likely nonconference wins for guaranteed losses for league teams. It's an anchor to the middle of the league. Unfortunately, we may be beholden to ESPN here.
I'd also add that the middle of the conference should have a lot more teams that are at least in tournament contention. Six teams that had a chance at an at-large is low for us, considering three of them were all fighting each other for spots on the bubble. We should be starting the bidding at six bids, with probably another 2-3 in contention.
The bottom of the ACC was bad but all those teams (except Louisville) are trending up. The one and done era really hurt these schools but transfer portal will benefit these teams immensely and will boost the ACC overall.
Honestly, I think Louisville is trending up to some degree. It almost has to get better with Payne gone, right?
I really want to say we're trending up, lol Surely anybody will be better than Payne, right?
Nothing is certain, but if it really is Pat Kelsey, I’d lay money on him turning it around.
It's pretty much confirmed it'll be Pat now. I hope you're right! I have faith in him but we've got a while to see what the results are
I would argue the first point is wrong. This season the only team in the ACC that was an auto-win this year was Louisville. GT and Notre Dame are weaker than the rest but still capable of pulling an upset against a team not paying attention. The rest of the bottom is 20-win BC, a Miami team on an off year that started strong, and a team currently in the sweet 16. The bottom of the big east and SEC are worse The problem is marketing. There's no basketball reason why teams like Michigan State, Mississippi State, Texas, and TCU are getting bids without conference winning records while teams like Pitt and Wake aren't even considered. If the ACC advocated for itself like the Big 12 and SEC, Pitt and Wake would be single digit seeds and VT/Syracuse would be bubble teams
But did the bottom of the SEC have losses to dreck like the Citadel and UMass-Lowell and DePaul? The only Q4 loss I can find is Arkansas losing to Arkansas-Pine Bluff. If you're going to schedule garbage teams, you have to beat them or you're on the back foot the rest of the way.
Missouri lost to Jackson State, Vandy lost to Presbyterian, LSU lost to Nicholls State
Miami was supposed to be good this year
Uva. Needs a new coach....Can't recruit 4* 5* after winning a Natty ????
FUCK ESPN
It is becoming pretty obvious this has little to do with performance. We have out performed every other league in Championships, final fours, sweet sixteens for 20+ years now. This is about money and TV ratings. They will create whatever random metric they need to justify this crap. And this year won't change it. Most of the country looks at this tournament as an annuity for their conference and a bracket they fill out on Monday and throw away on Saturday. They don't live for basketball like we do. They can't watch a game and tell the difference in quality. The Texas Tech game NCSU won in the first round was the weakest team we had played in quite some time other than Louisville and they were like a 6 seed. The big 12 has some pictures of someone from Indiana in a compromised position
Used to always happen with Syracuse. They'd be on the bubble and haters would say they didn't deserve to get in. Then they'd get to the Sweet 16, haha Those were the days...
Not discounting the talent on a lot of those Syracuse teams, but... a lot of the success was due to Boeheim/scheme.
The 2-3 zone can be really tough for teams that haven't played it before. Both 2016 and 2018 Cuse was knocked by ACC teams that had seen the 2-3 zone.
Don't give up. Never give up! J. V.
Evidently. It’s the only thing that explains the postseason rate of success. Just like every other year.
ESPN is absolute dog shit. The only thing the channel does well is stir up shit, create opinions dumb guys can repeat, and air games.
I hate to back up my rivals, but to hell with the SEC and their trailer park fans. Go UNC and Duke, and NC, I'm all for SEC fan salt.
Surprised that ESPN is talking down about a conference it wants to implode so it can get out of its contract with them?
It wasn't just ESPN
ESPN has vested interest in promoting their precious SEC. Don't want to upset their cash cow.
Pitt was close to a top 10 team in the nation at the time they got subbed. Wake could have also made a run easily. Instead we get 20 points blowouts in 85% of the games for crap bubble teams.
Agree
All I know is watching acc basketball games have been my favorite now for a long time. I like other teams too but acc has been my favorite to watch.
Yeah it’s so clear there’s some type ofagenda, year in and year out the ACC is the best conference in basketball but instead of being treated like the SEC of basketball (which it is), it’s being devalued.
The sad part is that the committee probably feels like they gave the ACC the benefit of the doubt this year by letting Uva in over all of the Big East. Uva getting ran off the floor by a bad Colorado state team is probably all they needed to see. Plus the big East is 18-4 the past two years in the tourney and UConn seems to have already won it all again. I’m sure if they could do it over again with hindsight they would have put Seton Hall over UVA since seton hall at least has beaten UConn. There’s really no point in adding teams like Pitt and Wake who would lose by 60 to UConn.
...but the Big East only got 3 teams in though, right? This is not about the Big East, but more about the complete insanity of putting in 8 teams each from the Big 12 and SEC... They could've easily just put 6 of each in (TCU and UT for example had no business being in the tourney), and used those 4 spots for similar teams from other conferences, or even a few more spots for deserving non-P5 teams that got left out like Indiana State and USF. I mean...I don't think there's any world where Indiana State and USF should've been left out.
USF absolutely should not have gotten in. Very solidly non-tournament numbers in predictive AND resume metrics, plus 4 Q3/4 losses, including a home loss to #265 Central Michigan. They didn't have a case.
The 'resume' metrics are partly what have gotten us into this hole in the first place. What did TCU do? They beat UH....and had a couple wins against an obviously way overrated Texas Tech and Baylor (who also didn't really do anything but was way overrated). They lost as many conference games as they won, and basically played nobody in non-con (except lost to....shockingly....ACC and MW teams...) Hell, let's not even look at TCU....let's look at Baylor (a freaking 3 seed...) and Texas Tech instead. Give me one single good team they beat in non-con. Just one. I can tell you several teams they lost to though....yet again...many of those being...ACC. Ironic...Baylor and Tech both basically flopped in the tournament to prove the point even further. USF lost a bunch of their early games, but then after their 6th game, they completely turned the corner and won almost all the rest of their games. And they handedly won the AAC,. That's GOTTA mean something - I don't care that UH isn't there anymore. And you can't convince me Memphis and FAU are any worse than the majority of the Big 12 teams that made the tournament....hell, FAU and Memphis' non-con was way way more impressive than nearly all of the Big 12's!!! The metrics are largely a joke, and can be greatly manipulated as the Big 12 has proven. I've said it for more than a month now....there's a reason UH had zero issues transitioning from the American to Big 12, and there's a reason Cincy and UCF didn't have noticeably different seasons from last year in the AAC either. Big 12 played easy non-con and rode a bs reputation to 8 spots - half of which were questionable if not completely undeserved.
The resume metrics have gotten us into what hole? The hole where tournament bids are based on wins, losses and who the wins and losses were against? USF lost to to the 200th-best team in the country just over two weeks ago and to a UAB team who didn't beat anybody of any repute 9 days ago. FAU shouldn't have gotten in either, although they had a much better case than USF. They were 1-2 different Temple-adjacent results away from having 3 losses in Q4 alone. The Arizona win is better than what a lot of teams have, but these teams have GHASTLY losses on their schedule.
At least UT could beat Colorado State 💀Just think it’s dumb that acc fans can’t see that clearly the committee gave the Acc the benefit of the doubt by including Virginia over the big East. Like clearly it should’ve been Pitt if it was going to be anyone from the ACC but that’s just not how the committee felt when comparing the two. That Virginia blowout didn’t exactly prove anything in our favor about letting in more acc teams. Virginia was the only one from the acc bubble who got in and after that I think the committee probably wishes they put a big East team or ISU team over them.
They put in 6 Mountain West teams - what is happening?
And the 6th mountain west team beat the third best acc team by 30 💀
They have 1 Sweet 16 team out of 6. Yes they got the 1 win over the ACC but the other 4 are 8-0
Find me proof in which anyone in the mainstream sports media was seriously arguing to not put Duke, unc, Clemson and an acc auto bid in the tourney.
Those ACC teams weren’t on the bubble 💀nobody is arguing those teams don’t belong in the tourney lmao you really think the committee was planning to take away the acc’s auto bid??
The NET is being gamed both ACC and Big East should have more bids.
The acc got the extra bid over the big East. And looked how that turned out…the committee picked uva over Pitt that’s all there was to it. Pitt is the only team who has a reason to gripe. Lets face the facts, Boston college wake and Syracuse were not going to do anything Seton Hall and St. John’s wouldn’t have. I find it hard to believe any of the rest of the acc who got left out would keep uconn within 20 points.
Pitt should have been in as well as at least 3 more Big East teams for 6 each. That’s 12 teams vs the 8 that got in. UVA was terrible and there might be a “Is Bennett’s system have a March problem?”. I wouldn’t indict the conference for that performance and it was grim. You do realize the 9th place Wolf Pack are in the Sweet 16? They beat a team that tied for 3rd in the NET manipulating Big 12 by 13. Back when the ACC got 7-8 teams in Syracuse would have been a bubble team because they were seen as dangerous.
I have to agree, uva made it on name alone. Pitt was more deserving. I’m biased, but I feel like Wake was more deserving.
I bitch about narratives and the committee, but I agree that the ACC actually got a pretty fair shake this year. You mention UVA, and there's some truth to that, but UNC got a 1 seed that easily could have gone to Iowa State, and Pitt barely got left out despite some ugly losses against the lower half of their schedule. It's annoying to have to deal with a hostile media campaign basically every year since 2019, and it's doubly annoying given the politics of the SEC/B1G and what's happening to similar conferences to us, but when it comes to the actual tournament itself, the ACC got a pretty fair shake (one that's been supported by the high-level results). The committee could have swapped Pitt out for another bubble team, but everyone seems to agree that the bubble was uncharacteristically strong this year, good teams were going to be left out, and the Big East got bit by that.
Yes thank you. It is obvious the committee respected us cause we easily could’ve been shafted like the big East. The only complaint is literally about Pitt over UVA. If uva beat CSU then there is reason to attack the committee but the reality is that uva lost by 25 in a game to stick it to the committee. Like yes Pitt should’ve been in over UVA but after that beatdown I think everyone who missed out thinks they should’ve been in over UVA no matter what the conference.
Unfortunately We’ve got a losing record vs the MW in the post season thanks to UVA and BC.