I'm not saying it's a weaker league than the others. What I'm saying is that you've got one school stuck in the past (Syracuse) who seems to be scheduling for RPI rankings even though the RPI isn't used anymore. You've got another school (FSU) who has a better record against ACC opponents than non-ACC opponents, which reflects poorly on the league. You've got another school (NC State) that is 0-5 against Q1 teams. Three of our top 50 NET teams (Wake, UVA and VT) are a combined 2-11 in Q1 games. Etc. I don't know if the ACC is stronger, weaker, or exactly the same as the others. I don't care, either, because to me the ultimate sign of success is getting a decent number of teams in the NCAA Tournament. People complained about the RPI, so they changed it. Now people are complaining about the NET. People will always complain. Do I think all the criticism of the ACC is warranted? No, not really, but at the same time it is partially the ACC's fault for all the reasons I stated above. The league isn't doing all it can do to change the narrative. Don't like what people are saying? Well, don't lose at home to Lipscomb, FSU. Don't lose to FAU by 34, Virginia Tech. Don't get shellacked by the league's second-worst team, UVA. Don't lose to an awful Georgia Tech team, UNC and Duke. Beat somebody with a pulse, NC State. Schedule smarter, Syracuse. Etc. ** Edited by Chris Coleman at 1/31/2024, 10:44:20 AM ** Edited by Chris Coleman at 1/31/2024, 10:45:22 AM ** Edited by Chris Coleman at 1/31/2024, 11:12:25 AM