• 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!

Has Coach Forbes or AD Currie Released A Statement Yet?

Turd Ferguson said:
The Saturday we hosted UVA and we were all amped up. That was the moment we either stepped up and got back to relevance or not. And we did not. Mediocre team in a mediocre conference. The ACC tournament was pretty gross to watch.

It's really tough to convince me ACC basketball (or in general) is better now than it was when we had 9 teams and a Friday-Sunday tournament.
Click to expand...

It's not better.

Bring back 8 teams to make the ACCT Friday-Sunday.
 
inspectah said:
I need somebody smarter and I guess with a more philosophical bent than me to explain why the part in bold is desirable.
Click to expand...

One positive I see is that the subjective viewpoint almost surely puts Carolina in, due to reputation and last years run. Not to mention not wanting to embarrass them with the shame of starting number 1 and missing the tourney. But metrics showed they were clearly out.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
The Saturday we hosted UVA and we were all amped up. That was the moment we either stepped up and got back to relevance or not. And we did not. Mediocre team in a mediocre conference. The ACC tournament was pretty gross to watch.

It's really tough to convince me ACC basketball (or in general) is better now than it was when we had 9 teams and a Friday-Sunday tournament.
Click to expand...

And football is no better than the 9 team era either. One dominant team at best, several mediocre teams, and a few awful teams. The bigger league is just more mediocre teams and no benefit from ND in other sports.
 
DeacDaddy said:
One positive I see is that the subjective viewpoint almost surely puts Carolina in, due to reputation and last years run. Not to mention not wanting to embarrass them with the shame of starting number 1 and missing the tourney. But metrics showed they were clearly out.
Click to expand...
So metrics only matter when it's convenient?
 
KidA23 said:
I mean, we don't like the numbers/metrics/etc. because they're not favorable for us. I wasn't complaining when we were a #4 seed in 2004 despite going like 9-7 in the ACC and "only" having 19 total wins. We were a #4 seed because we were really good, the ACC was insanely competitive, and metrics like Kenpom reflected that.

To be clear, I'm not saying Kenpom would've been part of the selection criteria in 2004--I have no idea and highly doubt it, actually--but just making a general point that the numbers will like us when there's something on the court to like.
Click to expand...
It's not only that, it's also that:

  • Last year the metrics were favorable to us (NET of 42) yet we were passed over for teams like Rutgers (NET of 80), and
  • The metrics do not seem to very good at predicting the performance of the ACC. Maybe last year was an outlier, but there were only 4 at large teams from the ACC last year, yet all 4 won at least 2 tournament games and 3 of the 4 went to the elite 8.
 
Or maybe that the NCAAT is a complete crapshoot and a 30 game sample size is much better for determining how "good" a team is overall instead of a single elimination tournament.

Now obviously the goal is to be good in the NCAAT, so that's another thing altogether, but it's hard to fault the metrics for predicting the ACC wouldn't do well in the Big Dance based on their regular season body of work.
 
It's not even that it's an outlier, it's that the sample size of tournament play is substantially smaller than the larger sample size of the entire regular season. Is it possible that there is something unique about the ACC that the conference is inherently underrated during the regular season and then better when tournament play comes around or that the conference is suited better for NCAA play? I guess so, but I'd be hard pressed to identify exactly what it is. I mean two years ago the ACC sent two teams to the Sweet 16 (0 to the Elite Eight) and 4th seeded UVA got upset with every other ACC team losing in the first round. Recency bias is a hell of a drug.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It's not even that it's an outlier, it's that the sample size of tournament play is substantially smaller than the larger sample size of the entire regular season. Is it possible that there is something unique about the ACC that the conference is inherently underrated during the regular season and then better when tournament play comes around or that the conference is suited better for NCAA play? I guess so, but I'd be hard pressed to identify exactly what it is. I mean two years ago the ACC sent two teams to the Sweet 16 (0 to the Elite Eight) and 4th seeded UVA got upset with every other ACC team losing in the first round. Recency bias is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...
You might call it recency bias, but we have only had the current version of the NET for 2 years, so last year is half of all the NET predictions. No doubt it is a small sample size, but if the goal is to select and seed the best teams for the NCAA tournament, they are not doing a good job in regards to the ACC.

It's possible the ACC is unique in the number of high-level freshmen and transfers, so the current system, which does not account for when the games are played, has an inherent flaw against teams that improve as the year progresses.
 
I understand what you're saying, but it's foolish to think the ACC is alone in getting in talented freshmen and big name grad transfers, while the other conferences aren't, at least to a degree that teams are woefully misrepresented by the NET and are punished by poor NCAA seeding (or in our case, not making it at all).
 
Rafi said:
You might call it recency bias, but we have only had the current version of the NET for 2 years, so last year is half of all the NET predictions. No doubt it is a small sample size, but if the goal is to select and seed the best teams for the NCAA tournament, they are not doing a good job in regards to the ACC.

It's possible the ACC is unique in the number of high-level freshmen and transfers, so the current system, which does not account for when the games are played, has an inherent flaw against teams that improve as the year progresses.
Click to expand...
I mean the other half of that includes the ACC flaming out overall! It's definitely recency bias to just say "last year the ACC showed the NET didn't do its job well" when you can just as easily point to two years ago to prove the opposite point. Or better yet, just take both of them as part of the bigger picture that in small sample size cases (the NCAA Tournament) aberrations inevitably occur
 
Turd Ferguson said:
How many of us five minutes before tip of the UVA game would have guessed we missed the NIT.

Also it's crazy how bad the ACC is now in revenue sports.
Click to expand...
Definitely not me, but I would have called you crazy if you told me we had 9 more losses coming our way. Knowing that it makes sense they missed it.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I understand what you're saying, but it's foolish to think the ACC is alone in getting in talented freshmen and big name grad transfers, while the other conferences aren't, at least to a degree that teams are woefully misrepresented by the NET and are punished by poor NCAA seeding (or in our case, not making it at all).
Click to expand...
Yeah again, I'd say there's no reason to believe the ACC is doing anything drastically different than the other power conferences. If there's an argument to be made about why the ACC performed well in last year's tournament other than sample size it would be that talented teams with top tier recruits (Duke and UNC) played up to their ability at the end of the year. They weren't "seeded incorrectly" or anything due to the NET though: Duke was a 2 seed, UNC had 9 losses entering the NCAAT (you could argue that they should've been better than an 8/9 seed, but entering the Tourney they were 31st in the NET and 25th in KP so that's not an egregious seeding), and Miami was a 10 seed because they had 10 losses plus were 60th in KP entering the Tournament.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It's not even that it's an outlier, it's that the sample size of tournament play is substantially smaller than the larger sample size of the entire regular season. Is it possible that there is something unique about the ACC that the conference is inherently underrated during the regular season and then better when tournament play comes around or that the conference is suited better for NCAA play? I guess so, but I'd be hard pressed to identify exactly what it is. I mean two years ago the ACC sent two teams to the Sweet 16 (0 to the Elite Eight) and 4th seeded UVA got upset with every other ACC team losing in the first round. Recency bias is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...
One weakness, for instance, is the fact that multiple ACC teams this year were struggling early with injuries and other issues - leading to many of our OOC losses which drove down the rating of the league and the individual ACC teams. Most of those teams got better as the year went on but then they were just beating each other. Do the metrics have a way of addressing that concept?
I realize the overall resume has to be the focus but common sense and subjective analysis should be able to layer some sort of adjustment for that on top.
 
The committee certainly takes injuries into account. That was the major talking point re: Creighton and Virginia Tech still being in the field in January projections despite losing streaks (injuries).

I don't really agree that most of the ACC teams got better as the season went on relative to the rest of the country. Duke came together and has clearly improved/gelled. BC played much better with Post back in and they did move up 60 spots in the NET after January 1 (obviously still not close to the tournament). Clemson I believe also had injury issues and moved up 20 spots after January 1.
 
scooter84 said:
One weakness, for instance, is the fact that multiple ACC teams this year were struggling early with injuries and other issues - leading to many of our OOC losses which drove down the rating of the league and the individual ACC teams. Most of those teams got better as the year went on but then they were just beating each other. Do the metrics have a way of addressing that concept?
I realize the overall resume has to be the focus but common sense and subjective analysis should be able to layer some sort of adjustment for that on top.
Click to expand...
Do you think that happened so much more in the ACC than any other conference that it drastically altered where the ACC "should" have finished?

The ACC's bottom half was absolutely terrible this season. Sure you can point to Baba Miller missing 16 games, or BC having a few injury problems, but I don't think that is causing the entire conference to have issues once they got healthy/better as the year went along. Even with those injuries/suspensions, they would have needed to perform tremendously better than they did to get to even catch the worst team of nearly any other P5 conference. Some of those conferences have one or two bad teams, but none came close to being as bad at the bottom as we were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top