Again, why aren't the talking heads scorching the ACC?

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
25,143
Reaction score
5,958
Points
113
Am I just missing it? Considering how much love the pretty boys received during the regular season & how much it was trumpeted by Saint Coach K as every bit as good as the Big East, why isn't the ACC getting scorched by the media? Coach Kooky should be getting flat-out roasted for what now is making him look quite silly, his insistence that the ACC was every bit as good as the Big East, if not better. Can you imagine if Tom Izzo did that and his league flopped like the ACC has?

The ACC numbers?
(1) 5-6 in the NCAA.

(2) Only 1 team left, and of course it's Carolina (again).

(3) Duke an embarrassing flop once again.

(4) 0-2 vs. the Big 10 (Big 10 #10 & #12 seeds won the games).

(5) 3-4 head-to-head vs. BCS schools.

(6) Perhaps most importantly, of the 6 teams that have been eliminated, 5 (Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Wake Forest) failed to play to their seed. Only Maryland played above its seed.

Even if Carolina goes on to win it all (a real shocker, Tar Heels carrying the flag for the ACC;)), the best the ACC can do is 9-6. Pretty crappy performance considering the seeds they received.

On the other hand, the Big 10 -- which received its annual scorn & ridicule throughout the regular season -- despite much lower seeds (and deserved, I might add) has held its own and sent one more team to the Sweet 16 than it was supposed to.

(1) 6-6 in the NCAA.

(2) Has as many teams remaining (1) as the ACC.

(3) 2-0 vs. the ACC.

(4) 4-3 head-to-head vs. BCS schools.

(5) Of the 6 teams that have been eliminated, only 2 (Illinois, Ohio State) failed to play to their seed. 3 teams (Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin) played above their seed.

Some other numbers through Thursday's games. The Big 10 on average is playing the lowest scoring games among the BCS conferences. Here's how the PPG totals are shaping up thus far:

1. Big 12 (147.76, 13 games)
2. SEC (145.25, 4 games)
3. ACC (142.72, 11 games)
4. Pac 10 (140.18, 11 games)
5. Big East (138.56, 16 games)
6. Big 10 (133.25, 12 games)
 

Here's my take:

They don't rip on the ACC or Big East ever because they have vested interests in those leagues being successful. This is especially true of the ESPN "experts" because they have a television contract with the ACC and the Big East. Therefore, these two leagues always have to be considered superior to every other league, facts or results be damned.

This is why I almost never take anything ESPN has to say seriously. They are heavily biased in their assessments of most sports. I understand why, but it certainly doesn't make them any more accurate or credible than any other news agency.

Maybe someone will write something about the ACC tanking it a bit this year following the tournament over the next few days or weeks. Just don't expect it to come from ESPN or any of the other national media types....
 

ACC

It just has to be because Duke is just a "great team" that had a "bad night." I guess the question has to be, "How long must the trend be of having 'bad games' relatively early on in the tournament to make it a pattern, and show the program is just not as good as the talking heads believe?"

I am convinced that Duke does not recruit enough tough inside players to be consistent championship contenders. They have superstars on the wings, but when they go cold, they are finished. Villanova just dominated them on the inside last night. The ironic thing for me is that I perceived 'Nova to be a perimeter team. If I were a big time post player or banger, I would scratch Puke off my list because I would never get any shots. They gun from three and hope it works. Clearly, it is failing in the tournament, but they sure are "a great group of kids."
 

The thing is. ...

I'm not only talking about ESPN. I'm talking everywhere. ... radio, ESPN, CBS, respected & non-respected columnists alike. What's fair is fair. There have been times when the Big 10 received and then later proved it deserved the criticism. This year is not one of those years, even if Sparty loses tonight. The Big 10 has more than held its own despite quite a few low seeds. I just want to know why the ACC pretty much gets off scott free when it fails miserably.

And to respectfully refute one of your points. ... ESPN does have a contract with the Big 10. Yes, we now have the Big Ten Network, but ESPN has plenty of Big 10 games on its family of networks during the regular season. I don't buy that one. If they're vested in the ACC & Big East, they're certainly vested in the Big 10 as well. Thank God ESPN has Jay Bilas and Steve Lavin. Voices of reason who don't fall into the trap of bashing just for the sake of bashing.
 

East coast versus midwest. Big 12 is constantly undersold as well, and they are doing nicely in the tournament.
 


Another thing to keep in mind is that the ACC has supposedly been at the top of the food chain for awhile. As such, some writers will always assume that when an ACC power fails to live up to its hype (much like Duke the past few years or Clemson and Wake Forest this year), its some kind of aberration.

The question then becomes when does an aberration become the indication of simply not being that good?? Most national media types seem to think every time an ACC team fails, its because they had a "bad night" or the other team was "on fire" when the fact of the matter is that the league simply hasn't been as good as they want to believe.

But like Selection Sunday pointed out, some media members simply won't call it what it is...

And to answer your point regarding the Big Ten and the TV contract, there is certainly some validity to your point. However, they have voluntarily signed more lucrative deals with the Big East and ACC as well and televise their games more frequently. That almost automatically means they will spend more time talking up these leagues than the Big Ten. It also has helped open the door for a network like the Big Ten Network to be successful, which is why the higher-ups at the Big Ten Network probably felt they could be successful seeing as how ESPN (the supposed "leader in sports") has downgraded the number of Big Ten games they show drastically over the years.
 

I think ESPN is simply playing to their audience. They're based on the East Coast, and many people in their target audience live on the Coast, so of course they're going to say that the Big East and the ACC are hands down the best conferences. It's all business, IMHO.
 

Again, I'm not just talking about ESPN. This is not just an ESPN issue. I'm also talking about wonks like Seth Davis & Greg Anthony, as well as many, many others in the print & internet media. Actually, the venom I'm spewing right now about the ACC love affair is aimed more at CBS than ESPN, though both are certainly culpable.
 

big ten hasn't been good

Yes, the ACC seems to be getting a media pass, but many on this board were taking a 'the Big Ten will show you' attitude prior the tourney. Color me unimpressed. Purdue fought hard last night, but it is hard to get excited about only 1 team left after the first day of the sweet 16.
 




SelectionSunday said:
Again, I'm not just talking about ESPN. This is not just an ESPN issue. I'm also talking about wonks like Seth Davis & Greg Anthony, as well as many, many others in the print & internet media. Actually, the venom I'm spewing right now about the ACC love affair is aimed more at CBS than ESPN, though both are certainly culpable.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Personally, I've kind of stopped listening to anything Seth Davis says. To me, he's worse than just about any of the talking heads. Greg Anthony I'm not sure about yet. Haven't heard enough from him to make a fair judgment.

In the case of Davis, I would guess a lot of it has to do with the "mystique" surrounding ACC basketball. Although, I must admit, I usually tune him out whenever I see his face
 

MRJ said:
Fair point. Personally, I've kind of stopped listening to anything Seth Davis says. To me, he's worse than just about any of the talking heads. Greg Anthony I'm not sure about yet. Haven't heard enough from him to make a fair judgment.

In the case of Davis, I would guess a lot of it has to do with the "mystique" surrounding ACC basketball. Although, I must admit, I usually tune him out whenever I see his face
Click to expand...

Seth Davis is a Duke grad. That's all you have to know.
 

I see your point. But the argument here isn't whether the Big 10's having a great tournament (it's not). But the fact is it's doing better than expected, and more importantly it's performing better than the ACC. Is there even one writer or talking head out there that will point that out? I really do hope there's at least 1 wonk that will eventually point that out, but I'm not holding my breath.

What's more likely to happen is Carolina will go on a run, and the rest of the ACC will be given a free pass on UNC's coat tails. That's not the way it should work. Once again, the ACC is top heavy (UNC) and after that its teams are no better than the Big 10's. Do they really think a soft-as-Charmin team like Duke would rule the Big 10? Or a team like Wake Forest that hasn't played any defense in 5-6 years? Give me a break.
 



Tidbit for you: Three different Big Ten schools have reached the Final Four more recently than Duke (Michigan State, Illinois and Ohio State).

Duke, in my opinion, is no longer an elite team.

Since winning the 2001 title at the Metrodome here is Duke's tournament results:

2002. No. 1 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 5 Indiana
2003. No. 3 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 2 Kansas
2004. No. 1 seed. Reached Final Four. Lost in national semifinals to No. 2 UConn.
2005. No. 1 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 5 Michigan State
2006. No. 1 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 4 LSU
2007. No. 6 seed. Lost in first round to No. 11 VCU
2008. No. 2 seed. Lost in second round to No. 7 West Virginia
2009. No. 2 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 3 Villanova

Since Duke went to the Final Four in 2004, there have been 12 different teams that have gone to the Final Four. That list could grow depending on what happens this weekend.

Duke is still very good, but recent history suggests that they have slipped out of the top group.
 

Good stuff anonymous

Quite a few nuggets in there you'll never hear the talking heads mention. So since 2002, Duke has been eliminated by a lower seed seven out of the eight years. Why haven't we heard anything about that?

My venom isn't about trying to protect the Big Ten, it's about telling it like it is. Big Ten has done OK (but not great) and in some cases, played above its seeds. ACC has not. ... it has flopped big time.

I was amazed that Duke was within three points last night at halftime. Nova was running over them, around them and stuffing them at every turn and somehow Puke was still in the game. I felt at that point it was a charade and if Dookies somehow pulled it out it would be a monumental upset.

Of course, according to Coach K, it was just a "bad night" for his two shooters. When nothing could be further from the truth. Duke players must have felt like Custer at Little Bighorn.

This is the type of stuff the NBA-types laugh about as it concerns the college game. You get the crap beat out of you and all you talk about is how you had an off night. The tourney has a way of revealing the warts in a manner the regular season just never does. So, Duke (and other teams, too) pile up the wins and they paint their faces and get all Dooky, but you've eventually got to have game.

I really got a kick out of the announcers trying to prop up Zoubek like he was some kind of player or something. Gee, wonder if that came right from Saint K's mouth? The guy's a complete stiff.
 

I would tend to disagree. This year, perhaps the conferences were close to equal in terms of number of good teams (ACC more top heavy, but Big Ten more numerous, maybe). But, generally, the ACC is the better conference. Say what you will about the NCAA performances of Duke, which have been pretty bad lately, but if you put them in the Big Ten they would consistently be in the top 2 or 3, as would UNC. I am not convinced that any BT team outside of Michigan State could do that in the ACC, even this year with the stronger BT and weaker than usual ACC.

I root for the Big Ten because of my midwest home and my love for the Gophers, but over the years the ACC has proven to be consistently the better conference, and it would take a few years of the reverse for the BT to get the same love, especially with the business interests playing a factor. I think we will see those years in the future with all of the young players in the BT.
 

anonymous said:
Tidbit for you: Three different Big Ten schools have reached the Final Four more recently than Duke (Michigan State, Illinois and Ohio State).

Duke, in my opinion, is no longer an elite team.

Since winning the 2001 title at the Metrodome here is Duke's tournament results:

2002. No. 1 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 5 Indiana
2003. No. 3 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 2 Kansas
2004. No. 1 seed. Reached Final Four. Lost in national semifinals to No. 2 UConn.
2005. No. 1 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 5 Michigan State
2006. No. 1 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 4 LSU
2007. No. 6 seed. Lost in first round to No. 11 VCU
2008. No. 2 seed. Lost in second round to No. 7 West Virginia
2009. No. 2 seed. Lost in Sweet 16 to No. 3 Villanova

Since Duke went to the Final Four in 2004, there have been 12 different teams that have gone to the Final Four. That list could grow depending on what happens this weekend.

Duke is still very good, but recent history suggests that they have slipped out of the top group.
Click to expand...

Man, they've lost to a lower seed for 7 straight seasons. I think they're being overseeded there lol.
 


SS, I don´t think I qualify as the "wonks" you speak of, but I plan on doing a Round 2 recap on Sunday night, and Duke/ACC is going to get pillored in that column :). (thanks to anonymous for doing much of the research for me too!)
 

Coolhand, you know you're one of the "wonks" I respect. When you post something I know a lot more thought & knowledge goes into it than most of these these guys getting paid handsomely simply to spout the company line. ... Big East good, ACC good, Big 10 boring & bad, Duke is great, yadda yadda yadda. I sometimes wonder if these guys (save for Bilas and Lavin) ever have a unique thought.
 

Coolhand, you know you're one of the "wonks" I respect. When you post something I know a lot more thought & knowledge went into it than most of these these guys getting paid handsomely simply to spout the company line. ... Big East good, ACC good, Big 10 boring & bad, Duke is great, yadda yadda yadda. I sometimes wonder if these guys (save for Bilas and Lavin) ever have an original thought.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Someone was kind enough to email this to me. We've found at least one writer in ACC country willing to point out the ACC's flop in this tournament, and in recent years. Kudos to Mr. Tysiac.

Let me know if any of you find others willing to expose out loud the ACC's dirty little secret.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/acc-flops-as-big-east-soars
Click to expand...

Perhaps not so much ACC bashing, but Dan Wetzel for Yahoo! Sports presents a very unflattering view of what Duke basketball has become:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=dw-dukebounced032709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Wetzel's columns are usually pretty good, especially when covering NCAA basketball.
 

Coolhand,

Glad to help.

Their performance of late has not backed up the hype. At all.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom