ABOUT THIS BLOG

News, analysis, feature stories, random thoughts... if it's about college basketball, either in season or during the summer doldrums, you'll find it in Beyond the Arc.

Mike Miller

Mike Miller has been NBCSports.com's college basketball editor since 2003. It's a position he relishes; no wonder considering he transferred to Kansas to watch Paul Pierce play. Most of his favorite sports memories involve college hoops, usually during March, when every waking moment is spent thinking about March Madness.



ACC just isn't what it used to be

Posted: Saturday, March 21, 2009 4:46 PM
Filed Under: ,

What happened, ACC?

You used to rule the 64-team NCAA tournament. Your six titles since the tourney expanded in 1985 is more than any other league. You placed at least one school in the Final Four 17 times between 1985 and 2005. You sent at least two teams to the Sweet 16 for 15 straight years.

And according to seeding, your teams performed better than anyone else between 1985 and 2005, accorinding to performance against seed expectation, or PASE.

The last four tournaments have been a different story. You’re still placing loads of teams in the tournament, but those teams aren’t winning like they should.

Only one Final Four berth since 2006. Only four teams – in three tournaments – to reach the Sweet 16. No champs. Ouch.

Year    Teams    Record    Expected wins
2006      4           6-4           7.3
2007      7           7-7           10.33
2008      4           6-4           7.83
2009      7           5-5*         10.68
(*through Saturday; expected wins courtesy Dan Hanner)


Marc Serota/Getty
Wake Forest's Chas McFarland, left, and L.D. Williams

Friday’s putrid 0-4 mark – capped by Wake Forest’s loss to No. 13 seed Cleveland State – was just the latest debacle.

“Black Sunday” still reigns as one of the bleakest days in ACC hoops history. The shockwaves of No. 1 seed UNC and No. 2 seed Duke both losing second-round NCAA tourney games reverberated throughout the 1979 tourney.

Yet Friday’s 0-3 day isn’t far behind because every loss was in the first-round. And those are games the ACC should win. No. 4 Wake lost. No. 5 Florida State lost. No. 7 Boston College lost.

The only team that’s exceeded expectations thus far is No. 10 Maryland. The Terps’ first-round win against Cal offset Clemson’s loss to No. 10 seed Michigan on Thursday. The Heels and Devils also won games – that they were supposed to win.

(Side note that doesn’t boost the ACC’s karma: Maryland guard Greivis Vasquez popped off before the Terps’ game against Memphis, saying the Tigers would “probably win all of their games outside of the league and have a losing record in the league. The ACC is too tough.” Memphis won Saturday’s game 89-70 as fans chanted “A-C-C-, A-C-C, A-C-C!”)

Yes, it’s the Big Dance, a time when upsets happen. Other conferences have struggled, but nearly every league hit expected win totals last year (the SEC and Pac-10 were just one win shy).

This year, the Big 12 and Pac-10 are both just one win shy of expected win totals, while the Big Ten just needs 3 more wins to hit their mark (the Big East needs 10 more).

Perhaps it’s time re-evaluate our ACC perceptions. Perhaps the league just isn’t as good as it used to be.

Put it this way: Even if Duke and North Carolina both make the Final Four, the ACC will still be at least one win short of PASE.

Just how long can a league coast on its reputation anyway?

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Your microanalysis is not surprising considering you are analyzing a blip of a period (and before this year's tournament is even over!) instead of factoring these years in with the overall period since 1985. Does it signal a true trend for the ACC?  Too early to tell, in my opinion.  Maybe there is more parity among the leagues the last few years, but just like a stock market graph in a bear market (OK, maybe a bad analogy considering the times), if you focus in on a few days or weeks, even an overall well performing stock exchange can deceivingly appear to be in trouble.
For this analysis, it may be wiser to stick with the wide angle lens instead of the magnifying glass, since the ACC may be suffering from a bad headcold, but it is far from calling a mortician.  
No doubt that the ACC has been 'coasting' in recent years.  One factor is the intraconference rivalries are physically, emotionally, and energy draining.  The teams are too often depleted come NCAA tourney time.  No excuse intended, just a partical explanation.  The ACC reputation can only be restored by NCAA tournament accomplishments.
Correction: In my previous post, I meant Bull market, not Bear market, obviously
Selective statistics.  UNC won in 2005.

They're not selective, they're the league's recent performance. But I can include 2005, when the Heels did indeed win:
Year  Teams  Record  Expected wins
2005    5      12-4        11.3
UNC saved the league by going 6-0. Usually when a league has the champ, it finishes well above PASE. The Big 12 was 12-5 last season; it was expected to have 8.64 wins. 

It's about the whole league, not just one team.

Watching the Memphis - Maryland game today we came to the consensus that Maryland would pair up well against Tulsa, UTEP or UAB in our league.
Imagine if Memphis had continued the pressure and scoring in the second half!
Well, your point is well taken.

I'm a lifelong Carolina fan, so I'm obviously thrilled with our program.  But I agree that top to bottom, the ACC has been off the past few years.

- Duke's program is still strong, but this year is their first trip to the Sweet 16 in three years.
- Wake Forest is young, and is in rebuilding mode following the death of Skip Prosser.
- BC and Florida State are programs on the rise, but both have been very inconsistent in tournament play.
- Clemson has a habit of beating up on cupcakes in December, and then fading in March.
- N.C. State's programs is just down, period.  I don't think Sidney Lowe is the guy who is going to reignite their program.


As a lifelong ACC fan I have to agree with the author. The recent addition of the "football" schools has watered down the conference's hoops performance in the last 3 or 4 years. Add to that Duke's relatively poor postseason showings recently and it's easy to see the ACC hasn't been up to par.

But a sense of normality has returned, as my beloved Devils and the hated 'Heels are carrying the league banner into the Sweet 16, and an ACC-Big East showdown in Motown a very real possibility.
Big deal. Yes, the ACC lost those three games, but what will happen if North Carolina wins the title? Will your cute little blog still hold up under scrutiny? Wait till ALL of the ACC teams are out before you continue, hmmm?
Ouch!  Maryland in on par with UTEP?  That's below the belt.  To reiterate Mike's comment, it's about the whole league, not just one team.  ACC vs Conf USA...are we even having this discussion?
Guess what Dukies and Tarheels! Your teams actually may have their chance to prove they are better than the Big BEast this weekend. As IF!

Duke has to get through Villanova before a possible elite eight matchup with Pitt. If the Panthers do not let themselves look past Xavier, they should prevail and wait anxiously for an ACC matchup in the eights.
One of Pitt's losses was at Villanova so a revenge game could be fun. My guess = All Big East Regional Final. If, Duke can handle Nova's speed to ruin my guess, they have no one to handle Blair's bulk or Young's all around game in the regional final.

If the Heels get past the Zags, they definitely have matchup problems with the Sooners or the 'Cuse. Being a complete BEast fan, I'm believing that the Sooners will wilt to the battle hardened Orange. Just think, if UNC does make it to the eights, they may be the last resort to prevent an all Big BEast Final Four.

Don't doubt BEast Power!!    
I've been saying for years the ACC isn't what it used to be. Carolina is for real, and Duke has a coach that knows how to get kids to over-perform in tournaments - and that's not a slam against Duke. I wish my school had a coach like that. But two teams don't make a conference.

Aside from those two, the ACC has had some teams rise and fall. Maryland has had good teams. Wake has had good teams. No one is arguing its a bad conference. But certainly not the strongest, or the second strongest, and arguably not even in the top three or four anymore.

You can make a case for the Pac-10, Big-12, and even the SEC (granted, not this season), as well as the more obvious Big East being stronger, all teams considered.
Can you tell me what these "arm skins' are that many of the players are wearing this season? At first I thought maybe they were covering up potentially offensive tatoos, but that can't be it. Are they like compression shorts, but fot the arms, for better performance?

After Duke's loss, the ACC will again fall short of expectations. Even if UNC wins the title -- which I think it will -- the league will finish 9-6 overall.
If not for the Heels' record the last few years, the ACC would be a pathetic BCS conference.
Looked to me like the Big East's fourth team easily tossed aside the ACC's second team. And Nova is the fourth team only if you look at Syracuse as being behind them.

I agree with Mike. Its not hard to imagine Carolina winning the tournament. That wouldn't change the fact the Big East has three already in the Elite Eight, and a decent shot at two more. And the Big 12 has a decent shot at moving three forward.

The Big 12's stock is rising. Oklahoma St. looked very tough against a 1-seed (granted a 1-seed that's not blowing anyone away), Oklahoma is playing like a legitimate 2-seed, Mizzou is downright scary, and Kansas is becoming everyone's favorite dark horse (not counting the good sentiment Syracuse won for itself in the Big East tournament).
SO whatis all the hoopla about?  The ACC is still the best and always will be.  When you talk about other conferences, you always talk about them as if they were one, not like the separate entities they are.  Why?  Because individually and consistently, they don't stack up against the ACC.  I am a UNC fan, but a conference fan also.  I have noticed the teams have not been as competitive against non-conference opponents the last few years, but the conference is still stronger most of the time.  Always in the top 3. One or two good years do not make a strong conference...the ACC earned its reputation through many years of sustained superior performance.  I understand how everyone hates a winner, but it is what it is.  Deal with it LOSERS!


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

More Beyond the Arc

Recent Posts:


Archives:


Categories:

Syndicate This Site

Add Beyond the Arc to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google