• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACC 2012 vs 2011

ChrisL68

ChrisL68

Riley Skinner
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
31,091
Reaction score
3,502
In 2011: 11 teams ranked in the top 100 KenPom out of 12 with Wake being in the 250s.

In 2012: 7 teams ranked in the top 100 with Clemson being 104, Maryland and GT in the 150 range, Wake hovering above 200 and BC at 260.
 
Continued ACC play will continue to cause most of those RPIs to rise
 
Those are kenpom ratings. Some have actually fallen since ACC play started.
 
FreeStateDeac said:
You deleted Pitt. FAIL.

I am no Pitt fan, but they are KenPom #80 as of today, and their post-season record over the past decade would have easily put them in the top tier among ACC teams.
Click to expand...
That 8 game losing streak was terrible, but maybe with the Georgetown win they are turning things around.
 
FreeStateDeac said:
You deleted Pitt. FAIL.

I am no Pitt fan, but they are KenPom #80 as of today, and their post-season record over the past decade would have easily put them in the top tier among ACC teams.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I was just ribbing at the fact that Pitt has had an epic collapse of a year. Preseason top 10, starts conference play going 0-7. Had a nice win yesterday against a solid GTown squad, though.
 
As I commented on the game thread, if you took the 10best players combined on the floor yesterday that team could not make the ncaas

Clemson sucks. They playhard but have no skills. Booker is the only talent. Jennings is a headcase. Seriously our program is pathetic and the Acc in no way resembles the league of my late 70s youth.
 
diverdeac said:
As I commented on the game thread, if you took the 10best players combined on the floor yesterday that team could not make the ncaas

Clemson sucks. They playhard but have no skills. Booker is the only talent. Jennings is a headcase. Seriously our program is pathetic and the Acc in no way resembles the league of my late 70s youth.
Click to expand...

I agree that we both suck, but come on....we could sneak in with a combined roster. What's the starting 5?

ETA:

C - Walker
F - Booker
F - Mckie
G - Harris
G - Young

And it still leaves some decent talent on the bench.....we could do it!
 
Last edited:
DiegoTiger said:
I agree that we both suck, but come on....we could sneak in with a combined roster. What's the starting 5?
Click to expand...

I think a lineup of Andre Young, CJ/Tanner Smith, Travis, Devin Booker and Ty could get a 5th bid from the ACC.
 
FreeStateDeac said:
You deleted Pitt. FAIL.

I am no Pitt fan, but they are KenPom #80 as of today, and their post-season record over the past decade would have easily put them in the top tier among ACC teams.
Click to expand...

I didnt take the time to look it up but isnt Pitt notorious for getting really high seeds in the tourney and then losing to a much lower seed?

They are like Wake of old.
 
Yeah not only is this by far the worst ACC since 2003, it's considerably worse than last year's and that's saying something.
 
assuming we all agree that the 2012 acc is worse than the 2011 acc, what number of acc wins gives this Wake team a better rep than the 8-24 team? I say getting 5 wins is sufficient.
 
Dented said:
assuming we all agree that the 2012 acc is worse than the 2011 acc, what number of acc wins gives this Wake team a better rep than the 8-24 team? I say getting 5 wins is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Based on the 8 win season, kenpom projected 12 so that's about right.
 
PhDeac said:
Based on the 8 win season, kenpom projected 12 so that's about right.
Click to expand...

No, that's not really true. KenPom projected us to increase our win total more so because of gained experience and regression to the mean, not the weakening of our schedule (although that may have played a slight role).
 
stonzm9 said:
No, that's not really true. KenPom projected us to increase our win total more so because of gained experience and regression to the mean, not the weakening of our schedule (although that may have played a slight role).
Click to expand...

All of those factors are included in the projections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top