Re: So that fact that the ACC tourney 10-seed went out and won the ACC

deleted · 2024-03-23T16:02:48.134Z

and then went out and beat the hail out of a 6-seed from the Big 12 in the NCAA tourney, probably isn't helping the 'Brownell's recent success is rooted in the ACC's decline' narrative.

viztiz®

CU Medallion [18450]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 11973

Joined: 2007

Mar 23, 2024, 12:43 PM [ in reply to Re: So that fact that the ACC tourney 10-seed went out and won the ACC ]

Did the media driven narrative cause most ACC teams to crap the bed in the non-conference slate? Why are you incapable of being honest? Three teams in the ACC had good to great non-conference performance - Clemson, Duke, and UNC. Guess who was presumed in the NCAA tourney from the Xmas break on? Clemson, Duke, and UNC. A handful of ACC teams were penalized for simply playing an atrocious schedule but winning and the rest were punished for having both an atrocious schedule and losing (contrary to Brownell’s complaints, there is no reward for winning a dog crap schedule). The NET doesn’t care about the media. You can game the NET, but you still have to win and you have to beat somebody with a pulse. “Media bias” (which I’m not denying exists) doesn’t play any part in NET, RPI, or KenPom style metrics. To any degree a media bias influences the committee, it worked to Clemson’s benefit because we were seeded higher than was suggested by any of those metrics.

I don’t doubt that WF and Pitt are better than the last two teams from the SEC. But they didn’t prove it on the court. The committee is not watching 3000+ games to make informed opinions about the relative strength of teams. Pitt played the 140 RPI and 321 NET ranked non-conference schedule. WF played the 111th/202nd. Pitt managed to lose 2 of those and WF lost 3. That’s why they’re not in the tournament. No other reason.

If Pitt doesn’t lose to 8-24 Missouri they’re in the tourney. Wake lost to Georgia and LSU both of whom failed to make the tourney. They also lost to Utah who is in the NIT. Wake and Pitt, the 4 and 5 best teams in the ACC by standing, went a combined 1-3 against the 6, 11, and 14th SEC teams. That’s a big part of the reason the SEC is ranked ahead of the ACC. For God’s sake, Missouri went 0-18 in conference play. How is any rational rankings system gonna turn around and say Pitt’s good after that loss? It’s the exact same as when we lost to Louisville last year. You CAN NOT lose games like that. Despite what JK has told you, it is not the norm for quality teams to lose a game or two like that each year. The rest of the SEC proved it 18 consecutive times.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

They absolutely count. They just should not be used to compare against stats from coaches prior to the First Four without some acknowledgement. Just like tourney records since 1985 shouldn’t be blindly thrown up against the previous 46 years as if there is no difference - as certain posters are very want to do on this board.

There is a difference in saying “Brad Brownell has won 4 tourney games and I think he’s a great coach” and “Brad Brownell has won half of all Clemson’s tourney games” which was actually posted without clarification sometime recently. It’s done to insult Clemson. And it’s done to perpetuate the debate over Brownell even as we’re still alive in the tourney. There is a very obvious reason someone would choose to do that. But somehow there are a lot of user ids that can’t seem to figure it out.

So that fact that the ACC tourney 10-seed went out and won the ACC