• 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!

Why is the ACC so bad this year?

D

DeaconsWAW

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
The ACC has been the worst in over 30 years. What has happened to it? What teams are the worst? What teams are the best? Is it the coaches fault or the players?
 
It is bad. Won't be that way next year- we are importing some talent.
 
It's not bad relative to the rest of the country, it's bad compared to previous ACC seasons, mid-majors are a lot better, other conferences are a lot better, there are more pretty good low-majors, expansion brings in more bad teams, yada, yada, yada. This has been covered ad nauseum.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The ACC really isn't that bad this year.
Click to expand...

Relatively new coaches at many schools coupled with early entry doesn't help. Even so, even the dregs beat some tournament teams. Wake beat Xavier, VT beat Oklahoma State! and Iowa, Georgia Tech beat St. Marys, Clemson lost by 8 at Gonzaga. ACC isn't the best it's been, but it's not as bad as media leads you to believe. They will probably get five teams in if UVa takes care of their first round ACC game. And Duke and Miami are both real Final Four threats.
 
It's better this year than it has been past few years.
 
Agreed. The league had a decade or so of mediocre, at best, coaching hires to overcome. I think the league is better. Though avoiding some of the terrible, Greenburg like, early season OOC losses would strengthen the case.
 
It will be interesting to see how the arrival of LVille, Syracuse and Notre Dame change the perception of our league. Will they say the ACC is back, or will they say this just shows how solid the Big East was all along if those teams are up near the top?
 
One could argue that college basketball in general is worse. Even when you look at the Big Ten, I wouldn't bet on too many of those teams hanging with the top college teams from the mid 80's/mid 90's, even though they're flooding the current top 10.

The simple answer here would be to say that truly talented big men have always been rare in college, and now that the best ones are 1 and done, they're even rarer. No dominant big man, no dominant teams, no dominant ACC.
 
Last edited:
Demonwolverine said:
One could argue that college basketball in general is worse. Even when you look at the Big Ten, I wouldn't bet on too many of those teams hanging with the top college teams from the mid 80's/mid 90's, even though they're flooding the current top 10.

The simple answer here would be to say that truly talented big men have always been rare in college, and now that the best ones are 1 and done, they're even rarer. No dominate big man, no dominate teams, no dominate ACC.
Click to expand...

"Dominant," not "dominate."
 
It's the middle and bottom of the ACC that's so bad. Duke, Miami, Carowhina and State would be tough in any conference.

UVA, F$U and MD would be lucky to come in 7th/8th in the Big 10. Or even 9th-11th in the Big East.

The bottom is awful. Most of the bottom feeders have bad coaches.
 
The 2010 ACC coaching class was brutal. Bz is the crown jewel of suckitude, but include Brownell and Gregory and it's abysmal. Was Donohue that year? He's the best of the bunch if so.
 
CumberlandDeac said:
It will be interesting to see how the arrival of LVille, Syracuse and Notre Dame change the perception of our league. Will they say the ACC is back, or will they say this just shows how solid the Big East was all along if those teams are up near the top?
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see if each of those teams continue to be powerhouses once they enter the ACC. And I'm not saying that because the ACC is good, but more so because I watched as, perhaps coincidentally, major football programs like Miami, FSU and even Va Tech to an extent flat-line after the merger. If someone would have told me that the ACC wouldn't have a team even close to competing for a football national title in almost a decade after adding Miami, Va Tech and BC, I would have thought they were crazy.
 
To stonz, I'm not trolling. I don't care that UVA is #4 and NCST is #5 seed. they aren't any good.

UVA played a much easier schedule in the ACC than State did. This is not debatable. State played Duke/Carowhina/Miami one more game than UVA. Plus UVA played each of the bottom four twice. State didn't.

Sorry UVA had it easier.

My assessment of where they'd finish in the other conferences is because of the trouble they had with an incredibly easy schedule.
 
RJKarl said:
To stonz, I'm not trolling. I don't care that UVA is #4 and NCST is #5 seed. they aren't any good.

UVA played a much easier schedule in the ACC than State did. This is not debatable. State played Duke/Carowhina/Miami one more game than UVA. Plus UVA played each of the bottom four twice. State didn't.

Sorry UVA had it easier.

My assessment of where they'd finish in the other conferences is because of the trouble they had with an incredibly easy schedule.
Click to expand...

Damn, I was going to debate that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top