Canes vs. GT

[Cane since 1060]

Pack and Wong had an off night and Omeir got to play less than half the game.

That’s how we lose. Just need to respond next week. Even when we won the ACC we dropped a game to bottom at GT.

I said 8-2 over the next 10 would put us in position to win the league. Now it’s 7-1 over the next 8.

Wong is past the point where he knows that if he is not consistent we lose. It’s never been about his talent.

 

[Gables Canes]

I still am trying to figure out why we took 32 threes....the refs were calling everything. Get the ball inside and get to the line. Unfortunately our free throw shooting sucked too. If it was a loss to say a Duke, Va Tech, Virginia then I wouldn't be as ****ed but to Ga Tech? Come on man....

Wong in particular was super passive and settled for a lot of bad 3 point attempts. So did Joseph. I didn't mind most of Pack's attempts, even though he also went ice cold late.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

Wong in particular was super passive and settled for a lot of bad 3 point attempts. So did Joseph. I didn't mind most of Pack's attempts, even though he also went ice cold late.

Yea like I said earlier after 4 Wong misses he should have stopped the outside shots unless he was wide open. Miller needs to stop shooting 3's too. We picked apart ND in the 2nd half getting it to Miller and Omier. With how the refs were calling the game take the ball to the hoop and get to the line.

 

[anandris]

Spoiler: Wong makes the cut

 

[gogeta4]

Shocker I tell you! The acc in hoops should be given the same respect as the sec in football… but for some reason the national media doesn’t and I’ve never understood it

The national media starts with espn whom is paying alot and in the bed with the sec.

Now if they can sell Duke vs UNC they pump it ...but they dont go hard for the acc whom routinely sh*ts on the other conferences talent wise.

 

[mtsucalico85]

The ACC doesn't get more respect because they lose too many games as a conference against awful teams that they should have no business losing against in non-conference play. That brings everyone else down in the league when you do get to conference play.

Just looking at non-conference games, the ACC lost 13 games against teams rated outside the top 150, and that includes 2 losses by the team currently in first place in Clemson (losing to bad South Carolina and Loyola Chicago teams). Louisville has 4 such losses, BC has 3, FSU has 2, and then Syracuse and Notre Dame each have 1.

Compare that to the Big 12, which has only 1 (TCU), or the Big Ten which has 2 (Michigan/Iowa). The Big East has 3 (Georgetown with 2, Seton Hall with 1) and the SEC has 6 (2 for Texas A&M/South Carolina, 1 for Vandy and Ole Miss). Combine all four conferences, and they still have one less awful loss on their resume than the ACC does on its own.

The ACC has nobody to blame but itself. You want more respect? Win your **** games early in the season.

 

[Allabouttheu95]

The ACC doesn't get more respect because they lose too many games as a conference against awful teams that they should have no business losing against in non-conference play. That brings everyone else down in the league when you do get to conference play.

Just looking at non-conference games, the ACC lost 13 games against teams rated outside the top 150, and that includes 2 losses by the team currently in first place in Clemson (losing to bad South Carolina and Loyola Chicago teams). Louisville has 4 such losses, BC has 3, FSU has 2, and then Syracuse and Notre Dame each have 1.

Compare that to the Big 12, which has only 1 (TCU), or the Big Ten which has 2 (Michigan/Iowa). The Big East has 3 (Georgetown with 2, Seton Hall with 1) and the SEC has 6 (2 for Texas A&M/South Carolina, 1 for Vandy and Ole Miss). Combine all four conferences, and they still have one less awful loss on their resume than the ACC does on its own.

The ACC has nobody to blame but itself. You want more respect? Win your **** games early in the season.

So let’s not take into account that the acc has dominated the tournament for decades now. Let’s only focus on the teams losing games early in the year?

 

[mtsucalico85]

So let’s not take into account that the acc has dominated the tournament for decades now. Let’s only focus on the teams losing games early in the year?

I was speaking more for a view on this season's ACC. I don't think what happened 4-5 years ago really matters at all to how you evaluate teams in a current season. But if you want to look more at the macro view of the ACC instead of the micro view of this season's ACC we can do that.

I'll keep it to the past 15-20 years or so, and I chose 2005 as the year to go off of since that was Miami's first year in the ACC. Results going much further beyond that don't hold much weight to me because programs and the game both have evolved so much. Jim Valvano and NC State beating Houston matters zero to how college basketball is run today.

UNC and Duke have dominated the tournament (under all-time great coaches) to rack up numbers for the ACC, but the rest of the ACC has not done much. Virginia has the title in 2019, but they've otherwise been regarded as chokers in the tournament under Bennett. Most of Louisville's or Syracuse's success came in the Big East or prior conferences (for Louisville) - those programs have fallen in stature since joining the ACC. At least Syracuse does have that one run to the Final Four as a 10 seed in 2016. But 2019 Virginia and 2016 Syracuse are the only non-UNC/Duke teams to make the Final Four from the ACC since Miami joined the conference.

Since 2005, the ACC has 11 Final Four appearances, but 9 of those are UNC/Duke. The ACC is right in line with the Big 10 (12), Big East (11), and SEC (10). The ACC does lead the way with 6 titles in that time frame, but once again, that is because UNC and Duke have 5 of them. The Big East has 4, the SEC/Big 12 have 3, and the Big Ten has the title drought.

But if you want to look at the depth of the league, the ACC has only placed four programs in the Final Four (UNC/Duke/Virginia/Syracuse) in that span. This is behind the Big East which had 6 and the Big Ten/SEC which both had 5, while matching the Big 12 with 4.

To me, that doesn't suggest the ACC is dominating. It tells me that UNC/Duke were dominating and stacked up numbers on behalf of the ACC.

 

[Allabouttheu95]

I was speaking more for a view on this season's ACC. I don't think what happened 4-5 years ago really matters at all to how you evaluate teams in a current season. But if you want to look more at the macro view of the ACC instead of the micro view of this season's ACC we can do that.

I'll keep it to the past 15-20 years or so, and I chose 2005 as the year to go off of since that was Miami's first year in the ACC. Results going much further beyond that don't hold much weight to me because programs and the game both have evolved so much. Jim Valvano and NC State beating Houston matters zero to how college basketball is run today.

UNC and Duke have dominated the tournament (under all-time great coaches) to rack up numbers for the ACC, but the rest of the ACC has not done much. Virginia has the title in 2019, but they've otherwise been regarded as chokers in the tournament under Bennett. Most of Louisville's or Syracuse's success came in the Big East or prior conferences (for Louisville) - those programs have fallen in stature since joining the ACC. At least Syracuse does have that one run to the Final Four as a 10 seed in 2016. But 2019 Virginia and 2016 Syracuse are the only non-UNC/Duke teams to make the Final Four from the ACC since Miami joined the conference.

Since 2005, the ACC has 11 Final Four appearances, but 9 of those are UNC/Duke. The ACC is right in line with the Big 10 (12), Big East (11), and SEC (10). The ACC does lead the way with 6 titles in that time frame, but once again, that is because UNC and Duke have 5 of them. The Big East has 4, the SEC/Big 12 have 3, and the Big Ten has the title drought.

But if you want to look at the depth of the league, the ACC has only placed four programs in the Final Four (UNC/Duke/Virginia/Syracuse) in that span. This is behind the Big East which had 6 and the Big Ten/SEC which both had 5, while matching the Big 12 with 4.

To me, that doesn't suggest the ACC is dominating. It tells me that UNC/Duke were dominating and stacked up numbers on behalf of the ACC.

7 titles by 4 different programs in 17 years. We must define conference dominance differently

Acc: 7 titles by 4 different programs
Sec: 3 titles by 2 different programs
Big 12: 3 titles by 2 different programs
Big east: 4 titles by 2 different programs

 

[Memnon]

 

[mtsucalico85]

7 titles by 4 different programs in 17 years. We must define conference dominance differently

Acc: 7 titles by 4 different programs
Sec: 3 titles by 2 different programs
Big 12: 3 titles by 2 different programs
Big east: 3 titles by 2 different programs

Louisville was not an ACC program when they won their title in 2013, they were a Big East school playing a Big East schedule. Big East gets credit for that title, as they do with Syracuse in 2003 with Carmelo if we went back that far. Being in the ACC now has no connection to the titles those teams won in those seasons. The ACC would get the Maryland title in 2002.

Since actually joining the ACC, Louisville made an Elite 8 run in their first season and haven't made it out of the first weekend since.

It would be like the ACC trying to claim the 2001 Miami football title as being connected to the conference. Just because Miami is in the ACC now doesn't mean the ACC had anything to do with that football team.

It's certainly been one of the best leagues, if not the best league, but I wouldn't say it is absolute dominance outside of brief stretches. It is capable of having stretches of dominance (2015-2019 stands out), but you could have said that about the Big East as well between 2009-2013, or what the Big 12 has been doing the past couple of seasons. And the ACC isn't immune to having down seasons or stretches - before that 2015-2019 stretch, the ACC didn't have a single team reach the Final Four between 2011-2014. It was a down era for the conference.

It's part of why I think Larranaga's best team to date was the 2016 team, despite the 2013 team being the more accomplished team.

 

[MiamiVice7]

That’s wild.