Big Ten/ACC Challenge, Part II
Big Ten Overall: 4-3
Won Upsets: Michigan, Wisconsin
Were Upset: Illinois, Ohio State (Barely)
Met Expectations: Michigan State, Purdue, Minnesota
ACC Overall: 3-4
Won Upsets: Maryland
Were Upset: Clemson, Florida State, Wake Forest, Boston College
Met expectations: North Carolina, Duke
Big Ten record against ACC: 2-0
WHERZ THA CHALUNGE?!?!
March 21st, 2009 at 12:51 AM ^
As I mentioned in another thread, I've got a bet going as to which conference is going to end up with more wins. I expect Maryland to lose to Memphis tomorrow, so that should help.
Go Big Ten.
(I can't believe fucking OSU lost in fucking Dayton. Jesus.)
March 21st, 2009 at 12:57 AM ^
...Big Ten football destroying SEC football.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:58 AM ^
The OSU upset is much less than (barely) when you consider it was in Dayton. That's like double negative for them in my book.
I meant barely strictly based on seed. An 8 losing to a 9, even if it's OSU in Dayton, is nowhere near as surprising or awesome as Cleveland State laying the beatdown on Wake Forest. What an awesome tournament this has been so far
dis tourney has been da shit
We're not really suggesting the Big Ten is even remotely close to the ACC in basketball, are we? 'Cuz that's laughable.
Is it really laughable this year? The Big Ten was 6-5 in the B10/ACC challenge and the ACC's worst team 10-18 Virginia didn't participate. The ACC's best team is clearly better than the B10's best but that's about it. The two conferences are much closer than espn and the national media would like to admit.
No. Just no.
Sure, I'll admit there are multiple angles to take in the ACC/Big Ten argument, but honestly, I don't think any objective college basketball fan can look at the Big Ten and think that it even remotely compares to the Big XII or the Big East, let alone the ACC. I love Big Ten basketball, but there's just little to no athletic finesse in the conference, which is why the rest of the country doesn't take the conference seriously.
Naturally, some homer is going to respond with "WOW. YOU. ARE. AN. IDIOT." and that's fine, but again, that's because homers will be homers.
I'll admit that I'm a homer, but there's no defending this statement:
"little to no athletic finesse in the conference"
That's so dumb that it defies explanation.
It's so dumb that you're incapable of explaining how.
I'm sure even you're capable of understanding that with the exception of Michigan this year, Big Ten basketball is traditionally "grind it out" defensive basketball. Surely you don't think that the Big Ten plays a more finesse-oriented style than the ACC, do you? That would be pretty stupid.
Look, I get sick of the old "ACC is better than the Big Ten" meme, but there's a reason it exists.
No, I don't think "that the Big Ten plays a more finesse-oriented style than the ACC," but that's not what you said.
What's wrong with defense? Low scores do not automatically mean bad basketball. And is grind it out basketball worse than the ACC's all offense, no defense variety of ball? The B10 and the ACC have the same number of Final Four appearances in the last 10 years.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with defense. I never said there was. That would be pretty dumb. But to pretend the ACC doesn't play defense is also pretty dumb. There is simply more athletic finesse in the ACC. Period.
Also, the ACC leads the Big Ten in Final Four appearances over the past ten years, so that's just false information (by only one, but still). Sorry.
That's only on a technicality, much like how Michigan fans talk about the first tourney win since 98. It happened, but officially it didn't.
Also, I guess I'm gonna need you to go ahead and define athletic finesse, since that appears to be the crux of your argument.
So how does ONE more final four appearance make it a "laughable" statement that the Big Ten is on par with the ACC?? Keep in mind, and include ini your reply, that the Big Ten has placed more different programs into the final four during that time.
I would agree with you if "athletic finesse" won basketball games, but it doesn't. It's not like one ACC team didn't show up. Clemson, Wake Forest, and Boston College got thumped while Florida State lost to the worst Big Ten team according to seeding. They look great on the highlight reel, but there is literally no evidence that ACC teams are better than Big Ten teams besides that 6-5 Challenge record. "Athletic finesse" is equivalent to "scrappiness" in my book
March 21st, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
"Literally no evidence"?
Let's start with the seedings themselves - the average ACC seed is 5.1, and the average Big Ten seed is 7.4. You wouldn't take Cleveland State's win over Wake as evidence the Horizon is better than the ACC - neither can you take the results of the very small sample size that is the tournament and project it to the whole body of work.
Both conferences got seven teams in, and rank by rank, the ACC team got the higher seed, from first all the way to seventh - see below. The results of the whole season suggest that, top to bottom, the ACC is better.
2-5-5-8-10-10-12
1-2-4-5-7-7-10
Going by the computers, both Sagarin and KenPom have the ACC higher too.
Look, I have teams in both conferences and thus I'm uniquely positioned to have to listen to fans of both disparage the other baselessly. But, yes, the ACC is better at basketball. It's not laughable to compare, otherwise there wouldn't be a Challenge, but once you put them up side-by-side and compare the evidence, year in and year out, it should be screamingly obvious which conference is superior.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
I won't fight with you all day on this because it seems like we both have pretty set stances, but what does any of what you just provided prove?
First, nobody said that Cleveland State's win proved the Horizon League is better than the ACC. That is generalizing my argument about the Big Ten since I'm not just looking at one or two games. There is much more evidence
As far as seeding goes, if a team like Wake or FSU is a four or a five seed and loses in the first round, it seems that by your logic you would argue that they are still the better team. I can see you saying that, since one game does not make or break a team, but Clemson and Wake had gone on horrible slides throughout the whole second half of the season, and there was not a lot of proof that BC was any good other than their big wins.
There is plenty of evidence that the offensive output of this conference inflated their overall statistical rankings, because once you got them out of conference both during the regular season (only 6-5 in the BT/ACC, Duke losing to Michigan, BC losing to St. Louis, Purdue, and Harvard, etc.) and during the postseason (listed in original post), they greatly underperformed against expectations.
Most recently, two Big Ten teams beat ACC teams that had much higher seeds in the tournament, one of which that was ranked #1 at one point this season. If UNC and Duke go down in the next two rounds like I think they will, that will only further my point
March 21st, 2009 at 10:21 AM ^
Sommy, your posts generally don't bother me, but this one is poor. People have looked at a number of comparisons between the two conferences, all of which come up basically even. You've responded with "athletic finesse" a few times. I feel like that is a category used in scoring figure skating. To me, this is a great example of how people on this site often confuse being negative with being smart or knowledgeable. Come up with a logical argument.
Look, I get sick of the old "ACC is better than the Big Ten" meme, but there's a reason it exists.
Yes, and that reason is ESPN. There's no need for you to perpetuate it.
Was the ACC a better conference than the Big Ten this year? Arguably. Especially if you're looking at the top teams in each conference. But top-to-bottom, the teams are pretty comparable in terms of quality, if not style. And the fact that the ACC has pretty much flamed out in the tournament but for Maryland (as 1 and 2 seeds, UNC and Duke were obviously winning their first round games) indicates that the conference as a whole may have been a bit overrated.
Your argument that we can't even compare the ACC and the Big Ten is, well, laughable.
Well, sure, ESPN helps spread the idea, but they're right. Even this year. Yeah, the Big Ten is pretty solid this year, but the ACC still won the ACC/Big Ten Challenge this year and the ACC has better RPI. Sure, the Big Ten has more tourney picks this year, but there certainly aren't any truly elite teams.
Florida State, the ACC tourney runner-up, "finessed" their way out of the tournament by losing to a "grind it out" no talent Wisconsin team. Hmmm... How is that possible??
Good point -- because we have an exception to the rule, we should just throw out the entire body of evidence that suggests the ACC is far and away the superior conference.
You probably also think that Terrelle Pryor is "not a good passer" because he only completed 35% of his passes in the OSU/Michigan game, even though this completion percentage on the season was 65%.
Just following a hyperbole-filled argument (yours) with a simplistic observation. Seems fair...
TP DID NOT COMPLETE 65% OF HIS PASSES!!!
Anyway, back to basketball...
SORRY, 61%. THE POINT STANDS.
But thank you.
Also, before I forget -- you have it backwards. The Big Ten was 5-6 against the ACC in the Big Ten/ACC challenge this year, not 6-5.
you are correct about that, it was a typo. I also had Virginia mixed up with NC State. They were slightly better at 16-14, but still crap.
Over the last ten years the Big 10 has been represented in the final four as many times (and by more teams) as the ACC, more than the Big East and more than the Big XII.
So, yeah, it isn't laughable.
That will happen when your the sheer number of teams that the NCAA selection committee takes from your conference every year is so big compared to others.
Speaking of the Big XII, the Big XII is 6-1 in tourney play right now while the Big Ten is 4-3, so I'm not really sure why so many people think that's such a ridiculous idea.
Are you suggesting that, over the ten year period, the Big Ten has gotten significantly MORE teams in than the ACC and Big East?
What the hell does that mean? Kinda hard to argue with such a vague assertion with nothing backing it up to counter point
That it is a silly metric. By that standard, the Pistons never won a championship (or they sucked while doing it) because they were bruisers.
I actually agree that the Pistons never won a championship (or sucked while doing it) because they were bruisers.
Of course, I'm a Bulls fan. :)
5-6 in the challenge, more teams in the tourney, better performance in the tourney, and a better conf RPI, IIRC.
i'd say it's even, with a slight edge to the B10. this year, anyway.
The ACC actually had the highest conference RPI (the Big Ten was second) and they had the same number of teams in the tournament as the Big Ten. I still think the Big Ten proved that it's the better conference, just wanted to make sure the facts were straight
March 21st, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^
Aren't you just destroying a helpless straw man that you created?
Why frame an argument about which conference is better into a straw man debate about "which conference is more athletic and has more finesse?"
Of course, you know why you felt the need to frame the argument that way* - you overstated your point, and then tried to justify your hyperbole with an easy straw man to knock down - "I don't think any objective college basketball fan can look at the Big Ten and think that it even remotely compares to the Big XII or the Big East, let alone the ACC."
Simply calling people that DO think the Big Ten "remotely compares" to the Big XII (was that a joke? No. Again, overstatement), Big East, or ACC "homers" and "not objective" doesn't serve as support for such a ridiculous premise.
In short: Most athletic, finesse conference - ACC. Of course. Who cares, I'm not sure how that point advances the ball here.
1000 different ways to evaluate conferences, but in general, I'd lean towards ranking them (considering depth, tournament success, NBA talent production (which I admit, some could argue should be irrelevant, and I assume it's what Sommy meant by "athletic, finesse" but his point ignores the stylistic differences), etc.): ACC, Big East, Big 10... bler, bler bler. So yeah. I think the ACC is best. I think the Big 10 "remotely compares" for a ton of reasons that have little to do with that fact that Trevor Booker dunks a nasty basketball, and Ellington looks silky smooth coming off the curl, and Toney Douglas' cross over can break ankles.
*Note, based on the time of your posts, there's a great chance you were just hammered and typing nonsense. In which case, kudos, good sir, on writing a fairly coherent (if not hyperbolic, and in part wrong) post re: ACC/Big 10 relative strength.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^
What he said.
Whatever helps you guys sleep at night.
I realize that non-normative opinions aren't very welcome around here, and while my argument may not be quantifiable, you can't discard it altogether. For one thing, the Big Ten style of play is markedly different than in most of the other conferences for several reasons. One of them is the officiating, and officiating tends play a larger hand in the outcome of games come tournament time. Finesse wins games in the tournament.
Finesse wins games in properly reffed games in the tournament.
I fixed it for you. I also agree, ACC basketball is much more enjoyable to watch. People here are also forgetting that UNC smoked MSU by 25, Maryland beat MSU and UM, and Duke thrashed Purdue. Laughing at FSU losing to the 4th team in the B10, but ignoring Illinois losing to a 12 seed from podunk conference. Clemson just has that bitch mentality.
I'm just saying that in 36 hours the Big10 could have 0 teams left in the tourney. Just something to keep in mind.
"I'm just saying that in 36 hours the Big 10 could have 0 teams left in the tourney. Just something to keep in mind."
I think that you make good points, and I agree that Maryland, Duke, and UNC are quality teams with quality wins. I guess my problem is ACC fans who claim that they have a better conference when as a whole it really isn't that great.
For the part of your post quoted above, I would just like to say that only one of the remaining four Big Ten teams left would be failing to meet seed expectations with a loss this weekend (Michigan State), while two of the three ACC teams would fail to meet seed expectations if the same were to happen to that conference (Duke and UNC). So, we should all expect for fewer Big Ten teams to remain on Monday simply because Big Ten teams are not expected to win. In my opinion, that doesn't make the ACC a better conference, it simply means that the top of that conference is better than the top of the Big Ten (which few would disagree with).
Let's hold hands and make fun of Clemson for its bitch mentality.
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2008/09/30/an-important-message…
the ACC could have 0 teams left in the tourney. What is your point?
We should wait a little longer before bagging on either side?
Also, just to clarify -- I never said that I think ACC basketball is more enjoyable to watch. I enjoy a defensive struggle. I just happen to think that in a head-to-head matchup, finesse wins over tough defense, even if it's due to officiating.
"Whatever helps you sleep at night" is basically one step beneath the invocation of Adolf Hitler in the hierarchy of losing internet arguments. I don't think anyone's sweating it out in the middle of the night over the subject of the Big Ten and the ACC.