ESPN.com - NCB - I like the ACC ... I really do

This thing out there about me and the ACC is, in a word or two or three, just plain silly. I didn't even know I hated the ACC until so many readers pointed it out. I always thought I liked the ACC -- its traditions, the rivalries, wonderful on-campus arenas -- probably because, as children, ACC and Notre Dame games were about the only college basketball we could watch.


	Is Virginia getting a bad rap? Fans of Donald Hand the Cavs sure think so.

Pretty much every season, fans of certain teams or conferences think I'm picking on them. They bring great passion to their arguments; I try to counter with facts, data and precedents long established by the NCAA tournament committee. It doesn't usually work, mind you, but the exchange is healthy and it keeps me on my toes.

Then came this year, when I had to audacity to make the following two assertions:

1. That Maryland, in December, was a fraud.
2. And that Virginia, two weeks ago, was not yet a lock for the NCAA Tournament.

These two assertions were among several that became part of the story line of this regular season. Others included UConn as overrated, Dayton not being the best team in the Atlantic 10, Creighton looking like the top mid-major, etc. You offer enough opinions -- which, after all, is what columnists are supposed to do -- and you're going to be wrong once in a while.

The thing about the ACC is this: At no point since "Bracketology" began in late January have we forecast fewer than five (and usually six) ACC teams into the NCAAs. If that's conference bashing, I'm sorry we weren't able to appease those who think we should also have included Clemson and Florida State.

Finally, with regard to the Maryland and Virginia comments, I wasn't wrong.

In late December (and not to mention for another six or so weeks after that), Maryland WAS a fraud. The Terps had just come off a sizzling march past Penn, Norfolk State, UMBC, Chicago State, Maryland-Eastern Shore and Stony Brook. I can't prove it, but I'll bet Maryland fans would agree that the recent surge of excellence could have begun a whole lot sooner if the Terps had scheduled something other than a practice between Maui and the January collapse against Duke.

Simply put, Maryland was not a top 10 team in late December. Today, the Terps probably are. Congratulations. These statements are not inconsistent with one another, even if they come off the same keyboard.

As for the even more thin-skinned Virginia fans, I realize much of your angst is rooted in last year's NCAA Tournament snub. If memory serves, UVa was among the dreaded "Last Four Out" on Selection Sunday 2000. It was a bad day for "V" schools all around, as Vanderbilt and Villanova (along with Notre Dame) were in the same boat.

Virginia WAS a tournament-level team last year. Problem was, there were three or four more teams in that category than there were at-large positions. Happens every year, right? Get over it.

This year, the Wahoos are CLEARLY a tournament-level team and will certainly see their name on the big screen on Selection Sunday. I have my own concerns about how far Virginia can go in the NCAAs given some of their performances away from home, but that's another story.

My point two weeks ago in omitting Virginia from the list of NCAA "locks" was based upon conference record, non-conference schedule strength and the Cavs' erratic road play. Regular readers know that polls meant (and still mean) nothing to me.

Since I have the data on how teams with Virginia's overall profile fare (then and now) with respect to NCAA selection and seeding, it should be clear that I wasn't talking out of my hat. What stunned me wasn't the opposition to my statements, but the indignant tone of a vast majority of UVa, Maryland and ACC fans in attacking these fact-based positions.

The subsequent debate among conference loyalists has created the best email dialogue I can ever remember.

Point
From Jeffrey Brent:

I only recently started reading your column, but I have been reading it long enough to know how you feel about the ACC. A little clueless. What do you say about Maryland now? Are opponents looking to the six-game stretch you quote (Stony Brook, MD-Eastern Shore) or are they looking at the last four quality wins (the last two against Top 10 teams)? Perhaps now you see the same Maryland team that all your other readers have been watching.

From Ken Van Auken:

Get a clue, Joe. Look at your mail. Do you really think it's just "hate mail" from a bunch of psychos who don't know anything about college basketball? Or could it be that you are so wrong that you deliberately write stuff to elicit those kind of responses? That would make you kind of like the Jerry Springer of college basketball. Your parents must be very proud of you.

I suppose even after last weekend's games that you still think the ACC is not the best conference in the country. I'm sure you will find some excuse to brush off Maryland beating Oklahoma. And the Cavs 20-point win over UNC? Of course, you will find many a rationalization to call UVa a bubble team.

It's one thing to have an opinion and just be wrong. It's quite another to be so far off base that you are just plain irresponsible and unprofessional. Now, let's see if you have what it takes to admit you are/were wrong. A true professional would. However, if your column is just a sham, then this is exactly the type of mail you love getting.

Enjoy.

From Shane Hasty:

OK, first things first. In your response to a reader last week about your obvious bias against the ACC, you wrote: "What you call bias, Adam, I call facts."

Well, what you call facts, I call selective interpretation. For instance, your almost exclusive dependence upon certain aspects of the RPI, which is practically meaningless anyhow. "Out-of-conference RPI," for example, does nothing to help a good conference, while it can actually help a weak one. If you are correct about Maryland, in that their schedule included seven or eight cupcakes, well, Cal-Irvine type teams play those same cupcakes and everyone questions why they are not in the top 20 (while Maryland is ridiculed).

I have a better index for you to examine, and it can be summed up by looking at the RPI -- since you are such a big fan of records versus teams ranked in the (RPI) top 25. If you compare the records of the teams from the ACC, especially the six that will be in the tourney, I think you will see that the weak games don't really matter, while those higher-ranked games are the ones that truly count. The only drawback with that formula is that THERE ARE SO MANY EXCELLENT TEAMS IN THE ACC THAT THEY TEND TO WHITTLE DOWN EACH OTHERS' RECORDS.

When will you and other anti-ACC types get over that fuzzy "Big Ten is best" mentality, when, except for Michigan State's phenomenal five years in a row, they haven't had anyone respectable for more than two consecutive years in forever. The bottom line is that an ACC team or two will be in the Final Four for the umpteenth year in a row, and the other conferences will fight it out for the other two or three spots.

Jealousy is just so petty.

Counterpoint
From Mike Hagesfeld:

First off, I love your bracketology, your columns, and your comments. It is this last which brings me to my question. I was wondering which conference you feel is the strongest? I am now up-to-date on my conference RPIs, but was wondering:

a) What the numbers say?
b) What you think (quite likely one and the same)?

Also, is there five-, 10- or 20-year data for conference strength in the tournament available anywhere?

I am thinking specifically of the writer who proposed that the ACC was obviously the strongest conference, and would prove it "again" in the tourney while the Big Ten sat home and watched. Just wanted to throw a little reminder that 50 percent of the Final Four teams in the past two years have been Big Ten schools (one of which was my beloved Ohio State).

If you could even throw that into your comments somewhere this week, it would be much appreciated by your midwest fans (who simply want the numbers reported).

From Greg Bush:

I am so painfully tired of hearing ACC fans who think they know about basketball spout off about how great the ACC is. I grew up in Big 8 (now Big 12) country, and have been a lifelong Cyclone fan. I only mention that because I have seen Duke and UNC over the years as much as Kansas and Iowa State due to the over-inflated importance of the ACC.

For 20-some odd years, the majority of the nationally televised college basketball games have involved the ACC. I have been so sick of that for so long I can't even express it in words. Anyway, I have witnessed over the years (and lately) the ACC's watered-down version of basketball, and quite frankly I'd rather watch the women's game.

I think the Big Ten is the best conference this year, followed probably by the Big 12, then maybe the ACC. There will be those who will bring up the ACC's legacy of tournament success and spew a laundry list of statistics "proving" how superior the ACC is. But let's talk about cause and effect for a moment.

Iowa State is the best team in the Big 12, and will likely (with a win over Nebraska) take home its second consecutive outright conference title. Their record is better than UNC's (currently atop the ACC), and yet UNC has been talked about as a No. 1 seed virtually all season. ISU, meanwhile, will likely get a No. 2 seed (assuming they run the table in the Big 12 tourney). Last year, Iowa State was arguably the second-best team in the Elite Eight, but since they were a No. 2 seed opposite Michigan State (instead of a No. 1 seed in another bracket), they had to play the national championship game in the regional finals.

Yeah, the ACC has a legacy in the tourney, but how much of a head start does the ACC get in the dance by consistently getting the higher seeds when they don't deserve them? Where would they be without being consistently being handed high tournament seeds? I mean, come on, Texas a No. 5 seed? Please! Sadly, it is the ACC's brand of basketball that will be played come NCAA tournament time, which gives the Dukes, the UVa's and the UNC's another big advantage. I think that the only reason people even have the ammunition to argue that the ACC is the best conference is due to the many years of having the tables slanted in their favor by the media and selection officials.

I say to ACC fans and especially UVa fans, "SHUT UP!" And hope your team doesn't meet Missouri, Oklahoma or Texas, other Big 12 teams that will likely get a low NCAA seed (not to mention ISU or an angry Kansas). Because, if they do, they will be crying in their corn flakes and making excuses about how bad the officiating was. Oh yeah, and still arguing about how great the ACC is.

From Justin Clough:

Man, you take a lot of flack from the extremely biased population of fans pertaining to the ACC. One day they'll open their eyes and look at past performances by the SEC in the NCAA Tournament and realize who the true toughest conference is. Besides Duke and North Carolina, you have mediocrity year-in and year-out. I think you do as well a job as anyone evaluating March Madness and should be commended.

The Facts
NCAA tournament records since the 64-team (seeded) field was adopted in 1985:

ACC, 162-79 (.672)

Big East, 135-79 (.631)

SEC, 123-73 (.628)

Big Ten, 136-89 (.604)

Big 8/12, 93-74 (.557)

Pac-10, 67-60 (.528)

The last five years (1996-2000):

SEC, 48-24 (.667)

Big East, 42-23 (.646)

ACC, 37-23 (.617)

Pac-10, 32-20 (.615)

Big Ten, 44-28 (.611)

Big 8/12, 26-24 (.520)

Final Four berths (1985-2000):

15: ACC

11: Big Ten

11: SEC

8: Big East

6: Big 8/12

5: Pac-10

The last five years (1996-2000):

5: Big Ten

5: SEC

4: ACC

2: Big East

2: Pac-10

0: Big 8/12

No. 1 seeds (1985-2000):

14: Big Ten

11: ACC

10: Big 8/12

8: Big East

8: SEC

7: Pac-10

The last five years (1996-2000):

5: ACC

4: Big Ten

3: Pac-10

3: SEC

2: Big 8/12

2: Big East

Hard to believe, but ...
Back in the day (like six weeks ago), this column focused primarily on new/different statistics as well as team and individual performance anomalies. That focus will return in all kinds of ways next season.

In the meantime, let me tell you about a game I witnessed on March 3. The game saw La Salle, the No. 8 seed for this week's Atlantic 10 tourney, beat league champion St. Joseph's, 91-90, in the regular-season finale for both teams.

La Salle led the game, 80-70, with 59.8 seconds remaining. A total of 31 points were scored in the final minute, 20 of them by St. Joseph's as the Hawks kept scoring and fouling (with no timeouts remaining). The Explorers converted 11 straight free throws in the final minute, needing every last one.

A-10 scoring leader Marvin O'Connor had 19 points in the game's first 39 minutes. He finished with 37, the highest output for a St. Joseph's player in almost two decades. With 18 points in the final minute, O'Connor was on a 720-point pace (thank you, Jayson Stark).

If La Salle defeats Fordham on Wednesday afternoon in an A-10 preliminary round game, the Explorers and Hawks will tangle again Thursday (ESPN, noon ET) in the conference quarterfinals. Keep a calculator handy.

Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com and the editor of www.bracketology.net. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.

Send this story to a friend | Most sent stories

ALSO SEE

Bracketology Banter

Box Score Banter archive