The very down ACC is 15-6 in the last 2 NCAA Tournaments...
Hopefully they can turn it around
72 Replies
2y
Even if they don't win, they earn a share by being there.
If the ACC were sitting at 1 or 2 more bids per year they'd be at the top of the list
(In response to this post by TabbHokie)
S
Squatro
2y
They don’t make up their rankings out of spite. Seems to me they have tried to be pretty objective about the system in recent years. Doesn’t mean they get it right.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
from the ACC got into the tourney. No reason for anyone here to get all twisted up about the other conferences. I also don't know why anyone would want to consider past results. Those are now more irrelevant than ever.
(In response to this post by Squatro)
2y
and I guess just demand more bids because, we’re the ACC!
(In response to this post by Squatro)
2
2hhoop3
2y
with ignoring resumes or demanding more bids for the ACC but, (1) questioning the actual validity of the methods and tools used for selection and (2) continuing to award multiple bids to leagues that perennially do not play to seed when given a tourney spot?
The ACC has consistently played to or above seed for the conference as a whole even when receiving 7,8 or 9 bids. Even in recent years as bids have declined they continue to perform at or above seed. The same cannot be said for the B1G for a number of years and the SEC has joined the club this year.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
Important to begin with the end in mind. So what’s the goal of changing the selection criteria and metrics?
You want more teams across all conferences to perform to their seeds?
So the goal is a selection and seeding process that produces chalk?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
deserving teams from whatever conference and performing to seed is likely one indicator of the accuracy of selection and seeding. Upsets can and do happen. That is one of the hallmarks of March Madness, however, if the same conferences and/or teams generate those misses year after year I do not think it unreasonable to question why they are overvalued with regularity and what adjustments might reduce/eliminate that over valuation.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
the ACC and Big East to over perform and the Big 10 and SEC to under perform?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the skill level of those teams and style of play make them better suited to the demands of tourney play. Both the B1G and the SEC have athletes but, not necessarily basketball players(combination of offensive and defensive skills) in a team concept. Coaching has also been better in both those leagues compared to the B1G and SEC, notwithstanding a few noted exceptions such as Izzo to name one. There are a few others too. This could change in the future with money, etc. but, both the BE and ACC have established their reps in a positive way over a very long term. The B1G has a developing long term history in a less positive way. One final thing, I believe this year marks the 45th straight year of one or more ACC teams to the Sweet Sixteen, not real sure anyone is close to that. The ACC has had some flameouts, Black Sunday in 1979, I think, being one of the more notable, however, by and large their historical tourney performance and consistency is unmatched.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
I assume the point about athletes versus skilled players means athletes can dominate lesser talented teams in the regular season but struggle when facing highly skilled and well coached teams in the post season?
Like why is Auburn able to have success in a good conference and then get beat by a less physically athletic team in the tournament?
I think coaching is a big key. The quick turnarounds on those Saturday/Sunday games means a coach and staff need to be nimble.
And how are such factors to be calculated within a selection process? Because you can’t just have a conference weight added. That would be entirely unfair.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
seem to arrive at the same place and my points. Athleticism is a great advantage and can win you a lot of games. However, in a tournament environment equally talented athletes maybe with more skill are likely one type opponent and slightly less athletic but, highly skilled and well coached are another possibility. In tightly contested tourney games athleticism MAY, not always, have less impact than skills and coaching.
Your last paragraph is the conundrum and the goal still in search of an answer. I am not sure what the best solution is but, my belief is the NET, a team sorting tool is not the answer. The efficiency ratings do not necessarily take into account how teams play early season OOC games. A team with a set line up may bust out of the gate, garner a high net and that results in a further self fulfilling prophecy for conference play. Another may be searching for rotations and combinations, have players out due to injury and just scrape by or even lose and garner a lower net that further exacerbates itself with a negative impact for conference play. The long and short of it is the money guys pulling the strings like that the data and metrics afford them flexibility in spinning their desired narrative. All is well until the narrative collapses under the actual results of on court play say otherwise and fans become increasingly jaded and cynical when the system tells them one thing and their eyes tell them something else.
The ACC is not exempt in this either. Take UVA this year. I doubt at year end many thought they were better than Pitt. They likely got the bid due to the "green jacket" effect of their natty. A deeper dive says other than the natty year they have been an early exit, including UMBC, and then you get into questions of style of play fitting the tourney. The system wins them a lot of regular season games and gets them to the tourney but, it may not be best suited for long term sustainable performance in the tourney. Just to be clear, I think Tony Bennett is a great coach and seems like an even better guy. His natty team had great players with DeAndre Hunter, Ty Jerome, Kyle Guy, et.al. That being said, UVA has largely punched above their weight due to system rather than talent, excluding that one special year.
I think there are things that can be considered and done. However, until the football landscape is settled it would be a waste of time. Worse is if the SEC and B1G ultimately ends up running things, at least that is my opinion.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
set lineup versus team finding its identity.
Do you see the responsibility of the committee to find the teams playing the best ball at the end of the year (to create the most competitive tournament) or to reward season-long excellence.
I understand the point you were making but part of me thinks a team should be rewarded for those early season successes. Results should matter.
It’s an interesting issue, to be sure.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
for sure. However, your question is especially thought provoking in light of the FSU football playoff snub. It also raises the age old definition of the champion, is it the team that got hot at the right time or is it the entire body of work? I think when you have a season ending tourney or playoff most fans want to see the best teams at that time. VT unfortunately got an up close and personal look at those questions with the WBB situation. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and reasonable points can be made, in my opinion, for both sides.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
SEC & BIg10 regardless of records and schedules. Those 2 have different criteria than anybody else. Watch when football comes around you will see a minimum of 3 teams from each conference in the playoffs but it will be more likely 4 to 5 teams from the SEC. They will keep the money within those 2 regardless of other teams records and stats.
The ACC only having 5 teams in each of the last 3 years when SEC & Big10 have eight is nothing more than a joke. Look at their success rate in each of the last few years and that will tell how much of a bias there is. Records, SOS, & others measurements matter for others but the Big 2 conferences will always get their money.
rich only keep getting richer
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...the conference loses money.
Not sure why the Mountain West keeps getting so many teams into the tournament, since they are usually out in the first game.
I understand why the P2 get so many teams into the tournament...they have the most cash to throw around.
(In response to this post by vtfanuvalaw)
2y
number made the tourney.
I agree on MWC, though they were mostly lower seeds.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
...given how badly Wake collapsed at the end. And in making the case that Pitt should've been included you can make an equally strong argument that UVa shouldn't have been.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...Pitt was playing well down the stretch, and should have been a tournament team. If the SEC and MWC are getting a bunch of teams that are knocked out in the first round, why not substitute several ACC teams that may lose in the first round? It's a crime if we don't get 7+ teams into the NCAAT every year.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
a few more of the little guys to replace them.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
Guarantee auto-bids to every conference regular season and conference tournament champion
The top 32 (according to KenPom) conference tournament Champs get a first round bye
If your conference's regular season and tournament champion are the same, then an at-large bid opens up
(In response to this post by reestuart)
J
JackDSML
2y
This post by JackDSML removed by Tech Sideline admin
2y
This post by GCHokie34 removed by Tech Sideline admin
V
VT One
2y
season? Then 256 plays on the home floor of #1. #255 plays at #2, etc. After round one the lower seeds travel to the higher seeds for round two. In less than a week there would be 64 teams. Seed those 64 and dispatch them to the host sites. It really would be “March Madness” to include over half the teams in the country with half of those getting a home game. I know, in essence, that most of what a team would play the regular season for would be seeding, but that’s basically what they play for now. And lastly, the complaints of #257 through #265,or so, will fall on deaf ears because they will all have losing records.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
And why auto bids to both regular season conference champs and conference tournament champs?
Just trying to understand the thinking.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
But alas
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
I know it’s the trend in every sport to expand the post season field. Mostly to generate more tv money.
Just curious why you feel 90+ is better than 68.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
More accessibility for small conference teams that had a great season but stumble in their conference tournament?
Is it you just want more basketball?
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
J
JackDSML
2y
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
USF went 25-8, won their conference over FAU, UAB, Memphis etc.
They didn't make the tournament...they would in my scenario
High Point went 26-8
Indiana State went 30-6
Appalachian State went 27-7
Princeton went 24-5
All of those schools would be in because they won their regular season
9 out of the 32 Conference Tournament Champions were also regular season Champions. So you would only be adding 5 more at-large teams to what the tournament currently is
So Seton Hall, St. Johns, Pitt, Wake Forest, and Providence would get the last 5 at-larges
It can be fun to giggle and make jokes when you don't understand the theory, but conference regular season Champs deserve to make the tournament, it is much more difficult to win than the conference tournament
(In response to this post by JackDSML)
2y
champion receives a bye, then it would mean #13 - #16 seeds would likely receive a bye. Assuming the first round is 64 teams, I am not sure if that would be more fair than giving the top 8 seeds in each region a first round bye.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
If what you mean is that a typical 16 seed would receive a bye...then yes
But they would be matched up against (likely) the best Regular Season Champion that didn't win a conference tournament
For instance, let's say Howard won the MEAC and they were the 32nd best conference tournament Champ
If Duke won the ACC Regular Season but didn't win the ACCT they would play the worst Reg Season Champion...lets say Alabama State...and the winner plays Howard
So yes, they got a bye, but they're still likely playing a juggernaut in Round 1
If you don't give the Conference Tournament Champ a bye then it doesn't leave much incentive for them to even play in their conference tournament, because they're in anyway and having someone else join them in the tournament increases their pay out.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
the winner of Duke vs. Alabama St would play Howard though. If Howard is a #16 seed, then it would be paired with a #1 seed for the second round because Howard and the #1 seed got a first round bye. Likewise, if Alabama St is a #16 seed in a different region, then the Hornets would be paired with another team that is a #16 seed with the winner player a #1 seed in the second round.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
...in this hypothetical
...that is only being pitched by me
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
possibility of expanding the NCAAT to 96 teams. A few of the articles discussed what that could look like and how it could impact the other postseason tournaments. All those articles seemed to make the assumption that the new First Round would be structured similar to how the First Four is currently structured. If the NCAAT opts to take your approach, then it could lead to a shake up on how the committee determines the seeding. I don't think the schools will vote on whether to expand the NCAAT or not until after they decide how the re-org will shake out. It could even end up being a moot issue depending on what the P2s decide to do in the future.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
Of all D1 teams. Sure it’ll take 10 years to play, but it’s the most fair process.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
You should try to lighten up and have some fun.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
But you tried to make a snarky comment, then realized how dumb it was and now you try and play it off as a "joke" that didn't follow the premise and had no punchline
Yeahhhh...
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 3/25/2024, 12:42:50 PM
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
to play pickup ball at 5:30AM with the 40 year olds and talks trash because he can hang on the rim.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
Do you even understand anything about this conversation?
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
V
vtpmt81
2y
I also like the idea of combining the NIT/NCAA/play-in games as well. That means all regular season champs that don't win their conference tournaments and don't get an at-large bid have to play their way in. This will still make the conference tournaments important for mid-majors so they can avoid the play-in games. They could play these games in New York and Dayton to keep the tradition of the NIT/play-in games.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
when one’s team is sitting at home, isn’t it?
(In response to this post by WildTurkE)
2y
ACC was downplayed a bit. Nothing much on any of the others. I think the Big East was screwed as much as anyone.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
treated VT well, but the energy is off the hook.
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
Georgetown, St. John’s, Providence. There’s some really great history with the programs in that conference.
Heck, even DePaul had good basketball back in the day (pre-Big East days).
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2y
I wonder if they even care. Or rather they endorse schools that look like redneck WWF games. From Women's basketball SC/LSU or fights of fans warring against another school in the SEC.
I think they just like the drama, more then the performance. What is the SEC saying.. IT JUST MEANS MORE TO THEM .... right.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
H
Hacker
2y
Results) were ACC which is phenomenal, not sure about Tech but couldn’t find in top 99, think do better in Spring sports.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
WBB or Wrestling points yet...we've done well there
And yes, we have the potential for very good things with both softball and baseball
(In response to this post by Hacker)
2y
Oh wait...
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
It’s UNc and Duke that drive the ACC’s success and reputation as a basketball power . Others pop up from time to time — Miami, Louisville, FSU, etc.
But it’s UNC and Duke that have all those final fours and championships.
This year wasn’t a great year for the conference. Hence the limited number of bids. Not a very deep conference this year. But the teams that got in are doing great!
Granted, NCSU’s run didn’t involve beating any great teams. Just like you dismiss Buzz’s sweet 16 because of the matchups, the same could be said for the Pack.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
UNC has accounted for exactly 2 of those 15 wins
If you exclude both Duke and UNC from the last 2 years then the ACCs record is still 11-5
Again, I'm sorry it hurts your little heart that the ACC is doing well, but your continued attempts to downplay the successes are just sad
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
Why did you pick the last two years?
Why not just this year? Or the last 10 years? Just curious.
It would also be nice if any of that tournament success involved VT. Other than Buzz’s wins — which you are quick dismiss — were a giant nothing burger in the tournament .
I’m sure you’re puffing out your chest about the ACc because our team isn’t good. So the next best thing is (checks notes) conference pride!
The ACC is historically the best basketball conference around. The teams that got in this year are doing great! Very exciting.
But let’s be honest, you’re taking about the conference because there’s nothing left to talk about with VT.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
I chose the last 2 years because I wanted to show it wasn't contained to this season.
If you add the season prior, the ACC is 30-11 in the NCAA Tournament (and VT was in it)
The point of talking about the conference is actually very much related to VT. The common argument around here is Buzz Williams vs Mike Young...
The data suggests that, at worst, theyre pretty similar in their record at VT. But Mike Young has the edge, particularly against ACC opponents.
So then the Buzz-goblins like yourself resort to the conference being "down" and you cite things like NCAA Tournament bids...but conveniently leave out the actual record of the conference.
So...not only is it relevant, it's the exact reason you and others try and paint the conference as being down.
It clearly isn't. And it kills you...
(In response to this post by Pride_and_Joy)
2y
UNC make me feel a little dirty but I am doing it.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
(In response to this post by JRHokie73)
2y
For someone a certain message board swore would be fired 2 years ago
(In response to this post by Zanderhokie)
2y
really bad times and almost let Baylor sneak away with a W. NC State is actually picking up steam, which is impressive to watch.
(In response to this post by Zanderhokie)
H
hokieZ71
2y
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)