Still complaining...

VA49er · May 11, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Woe is them. No,they don't need to fight back a little bit. The league needs to have more than two teams that are worth a shit.

Low NCAA bids irk
ACC hoops coaches

The conference rooms at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island in Florida are notorious for being artificially chilly during the ACC's spring meetings.

Cranked-up air conditioning prevents coaches and athletics directors from getting sweaty in the seaside air. But when the ACC men's basketball coaches meet this week, the Freon will be battling more than the humidity.

The energy of the frustrated coaches will generate heat.

For the second time in three years since the ACC expanded to 12 schools, just four of its teams were selected for the NCAA tournament. Despite having the highest conference RPI for 2007-08, the ACC received fewer NCAA bids than the Big East, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC.

The RPI, or Ratings Percentage Index, ranks teams and conferences based on winning percentages and schedule strength. The ACC has led the RPI four times in the past five years.

"When it appears that we're always one of the top one or two conferences in the country, it's hard for me to figure out why other conferences or other teams are receiving more bids than us," said Florida State coach Leonard Hamilton.

The disappointment has prodded some action.

ACC Commissioner John Swofford has sent a letter to the Division I men's basketball committee requesting that conference strength be added to the list of criteria considered when the NCAA tournament field is selected.

Coaches say they plan to remind the media more often next season about the conference's strength.

Virginia Tech's Seth Greenberg and Wake Forest's Dino Gaudio are open to considering an 18-game conference schedule. A year ago, the ACC committed to a 16-game schedule through 2010-11 because coaches resisted the idea of 18 ACC games.

"You've always got to in a way, not reinvent yourself, but improve yourself," Greenberg said. "We can't sit back because we're the ACC."

ACC's numbers slide

Some ominous numbers suggest they're not the ACC of old.

Since expanding to 12, the ACC's winning percentage in NCAA tournament games is .559 (19-15), its lowest for any three-year period since 1978-80.

The SEC, Big 12, Pac-10 and Big East all have higher NCAA tournament winning percentages over the same period. The ACC still has the tournament's highest overall winning percentage at .667 (329-164 over 55 years).

The ACC's representation in the Associated Press' Top 25 also has slumped over the past three years, when eight of a possible 36 ACC teams have been ranked in the final poll. That's 22.2 percent, the lowest percentage during any three-year period since the poll expanded from 20 to 25 teams in 1989-90.

ACC officials say those numbers are cyclical. They cite the ACC's high RPI ratings and the ACC-record seven NCAA bids in 2007 as evidence the conference is healthy.

"The great thing about this league over the years is that what's a down cycle for our league from a men's basketball standpoint in a lot of ways might be an up cycle in some other leagues," Swofford said.

But the seven NCAA bids are hardly extraordinary because the conference has 12 schools. When the ACC had nine members, it received six bids five times in 13 years. That's a higher percentage than seven of 12.

The ACC's RPI is high because its bottom teams are stronger than those in other BCS conferences. But that conference depth hasn't added up to top 25 rankings, or NCAA tournament bids or wins.

Some coaches say the absence of easy conference wins on their schedules might be keeping the ACC teams from getting more teams in the NCAA tournament.

"What makes the ACC so tough is the collective excellence of the league," Greenberg said. "You have to play 16 times at a very high level to win. Over the course of a season, that's exhausting."

'Not seeing the results'

N.C. State athletics director Lee Fowler chaired the Division I men's basketball committee in 2002.

He is confident about the committee's integrity, but said the requirements for an at-large bid change along with the committee's membership.

"On paper, at least, it looks like we're doing the right things (in the ACC)," Fowler said. "... We're not seeing the results when it comes to the committee putting teams in."

That's why Swofford sent a letter to the committee requesting that conference strength be considered in the selection process. Tom O'Connor, the 2008 chair, said in March that the committee doesn't look at conference affiliation in terms of selection.

In the past, Swofford said, teams generally have been evaluated on their own merits without regard to conference affiliation.

"I don't know how you can isolate a team from the conference it plays in when 60 percent of its games are against their conference brethren," Swofford said.

Swofford also knows ACC teams must continue to schedule appropriately and win enough games to impress the committee. But the committee is powerless to reverse the ACC's recent downturn in NCAA tournament winning percentage and AP-ranked teams.

The ACC will have to do that on its own. Though Swofford said the ACC is in great shape in basketball, there's work to be done before the ACC proves that's true in the post-expansion era.

"The ACC is on a pedestal where everybody is shooting at us," said Greenberg, who's upgrading Virginia Tech's schedule, "and we've got to fight back a little bit."
Click to expand...

sockittome16 · May 11, 2008 at 9:33 PM

Some of those reasons aren't the expansion. Wake, Virginia, Maryland, and State have all been down and Georgia Tech is so up and down. One year they are a Sweet 16 calibur team, the next year they suck and don't make the tournament. For the past decade it's been UNC or Duke with Maryland doing well for about 2-3 years. Those five schools are traditionally very good and during the 70's, 80's and 90's (except for State in the 90's) did very well. Virginia Tech has done pretty good under Greenburg and BC has done well except for last year. I just hate not playing all the teams twice.

THE GUTTER · May 11, 2008 at 9:54 PM

They can argue about getting left out all they want. Maryland and VT lost some disgustinly easy games that would most likely have pushed them over the edge. RPI doesn't seem to be any kind of marker.

VA49er · May 12, 2008 at 2:14 AM

THE GUTTER said: ↑

They can argue about getting left out all they want. Maryland and VT lost some disgustinly easy games that would most likely have pushed them over the edge. RPI doesn't seem to be any kind of marker.
Click to expand...

Yep, it just seems makes them seem like pansies to be complaining. I mean, they seem to be under some illusion that since they are in the ACC they should all get in the NCAA's. Greenburg especially, he's a shitty coach and without the ACC to draw in recruits, he would be nothing. USF proved that.

gridfaniker · May 13, 2008 at 9:33 AM

four teams was right on, if not a little generous. The selection committee was correct in recognizing the ACC's track record of failure in the tournament and choosing accordingly. for too long, the conference relied on a sense of entitlement that automatically tossed seven or eight teams into the mix. someone, finally, said, "Hey, half these teams really suck. they don't rate."

the ACC coaches should concentrate on improving their teams instead of whining so much.

Log in or Sign up

Still complaining...

VA49er Full Access Member

sockittome16 Full Access Member

THE GUTTER Y!

VA49er Full Access Member

gridfaniker Loathsome

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Still complaining...

VA49er Full Access Member

sockittome16 Full Access Member

THE GUTTER Y!

VA49er Full Access Member

gridfaniker Loathsome

Share This Page

Useful Searches