The days of the ACC being an elite BB conference are over.

[HuskyHawk]

Wake sucks and UMass sucks even more than them.

What is your point in constantly defending the ACC and constantly taking little shots at the Big East? The ACC sucks right now and the Big East is way better than them, that isn't at all a controversial take.

Because the title of this thread is absurd. It's wishful thinking for butt-hurt UConn fans. Yes, I'm one of them, but I'm not buying that delusion.

Wake was 19-14 last year and 25-10 the year before. If that "sucks" then PC sucks, Villanova sucks, Seton Hall sucks and St. Johns sucks. It seems only 4 Big East teams don't suck by that math. The truth is that the portal makes quick changes possible now. Both up and down. There are probably only a handful of programs in the country that are going to be consistently excellent.

 

[superjohn]

Because the title of this thread is absurd. It's wishful thinking for butt-hurt UConn fans. Yes, I'm one of them, but I'm not buying that delusion.

Wake was 19-14 last year and 25-10 the year before. If that "sucks" then PC sucks, Villanova sucks, Seton Hall sucks and St. Johns sucks. It seems only 4 Big East teams don't suck by that math. The truth is that the portal makes quick changes possible now. Both up and down. There are probably only a handful of programs in the country that are going to be consistently excellent.

Wake hasn't been in the field of 64 in 14 years. Nova has won two national championships in that timeframe and Providence and Seton Hall would have 13 appearances between them in that timeframe.

The title of the thread is the title of a CBS Sports article.

 

[Dogdeacon]

UConn had the most dominant run in the history of the 64 team tournament, Miami was the only ACC team to make it past the first weekend on their way to getting waxed by UConn. Yes, Jay Wright is gone and yes they'll be ranked heading into the season. You want to do a comparison of current Big East coaches vs. current ACC coaches?

Yes, ACC will suck even harder than they currently do once they add Cal, SMU, and Stanford.

If the BE is better in 22-23 b/c of UConn's run (it was) then the ACC was better in 21-22. Heading into 23-24 then BE is ahead but TBD & if Dook lives up to hype the ACC will be touted as great per usual espn hype machine.

The futures argument is obviously the one you are making and interesting. I think Stanford will continue to be a good not great team and BC has proven that the allure of 'competing against the ACC' is no attraction if you are outside their core markets. So SMU certainly won't be helped and Cal likely not either. I agree basketball in the ACC gets worse whenever those teams are added. But we know that as a fact of football driven conference realignment anyway, so rooting for it is kind of rooting for the demise of college hoops. I'd prefer the ACC perceived as being on par with BE and then beating them in the NCAA tournament.

 

[Fan1978]

They also had Cal and Camby. UMass 528 W-L% all time. They have been lousy since Cal really. Maybe Frank Martin can turn it around, but we're talking an A-10 team and that whole league is getting crushed by the focus on hoops at P4 football schools.

Wake has a .553 W-L% since 1906. They won 25 games two years ago. They were consistently good under Dave Odom and Skip Prosser. Manning wasn't good. Let's see what Steve Forbes can do. Wake is a quality program.

The ACC's problem is that Louisville, a historic power, is truly awful. Notre Dame, another school with plenty of success in its history, is also awful. GT is pretty bad right now. Syracuse slipped to mediocre. Looking at the Big East, if not for two new coaches in Pitino and Cooley, you'd say St. Johns and Georgetown were bad as well. But Georgetown has a .602 winning percentage all time. Louisville is much better than that, at .657. Notre Dame is .641. Betting on them to continue to stink is probably a losing bet.

Notre dame will be good again. New coach already has 3 deep excellent recruiting class for next year. Brey got tired and lost interest

 

[Jbirdp5]

Yet. The AD is literally telling us we’ve got a problem. We can’t be charging students much more to fund athletics. UConn costs twice as much for in state students as many other state U’s around the country. We’ve gone to that well way too many times.

Actually when the realignment rumors started our athletic director said he had to weigh whether the money was worth losing our big east ties. Money may become an issue for the department as a whole but it’s not because we may lose our men’s basketball coach due to escalating salaries. You’re off the mark here.

 

[CTFIRERETIRED]

Duke, North Carolina, and UVA should come to the Big East. Football can e added. Write our own narrative.

Wow, that is something that I never considered. Yeah, I know that I am not up to date with things, but the idea of Duke, UNC, and UVA leaving ACC, and coming to Big East could make a powerhouse basketball conference, reminiscent of the old early Big East days of the 70's 80's and 90's. Hey, maybe even try to woo Kansas from the Big-12 morass.
LOL, yeah, go ahead call me demented, but the thought does sound intriguing, doesn't it?

 

[Hoophound]

Actually when the realignment rumors started our athletic director said he had to weigh whether the money was worth losing our big east ties. Money may become an issue for the department as a whole but it’s not because we may lose our men’s basketball coach due to escalating salaries. You’re off the mark here.

First of all, AD DB said that about leaving the Big East in an effort to be diplomatic. There was no decision to be made. We'd have gone to the B12 without a thought. I know people think that we will do whatever it takes to retain maintain our basketball program and retain Hurley, but I’m not sure that’s true. More importantly, when he does leave, will we be paying the next guy big bucks? We will need to pay a huge premium to get a coach worthy of this program. The only place to get the money is to charge the students or hope a benefactor steps forward. We've been raising student fees for years to cover athletics, but the cost of UConn is becoming very non-competitive. The end is near as far as burdening the students further. There will be political and university related forces pushing back against more student fees to cover athletics.

 

[August_West]

What is your point in constantly defending the ACC and constantly taking little shots at the Big East?

Two words: Roy Williams.

 

[tzznandrew]

If so, then your post discounting a bunch of programs like Wake, NC State and GT that have better history than much of the Big East didn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways. In all time wins, 7 of the top 30 are in the ACC. Now that lacks recency bias too much. So maybe NCAA tournament wins since 2000? Couldn't find a newer one than 2020. ACC looks at least as strong as any league by that measure (not counting Maryland's).

My comment remains, if Syracuse and Louisville stay down, then that changes things. But Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, UVA, WVU, Pitt, Notre Dame is very strong and Miami, NC State and FSU have been successful at times too. Back in 2020 when they did that list, Bama and BC both had 6 wins. Things can change.

Wake or Georgia Tech don't have a meaningful history.

NC State does, and I'd say it's about on par with Marquette or Georgetown. They have been utterly irrelevant for far far longer than either of those two schools, though, not even making an Elite 8 since 1986.

Duke, UNC, Louisville, Syracuse should be a great top 4, and Virginia and NC State both have history and titles, and the former is very good right now with a very good coach. Notre Dame has a lot of wins all time and claim some Helms titles. The league has been down for a few years with some coaching changes and historically good programs having down years. It also feels as though the conference has lost a meaningful identity, geographically and athletically.

The addition of Stanford, Cal, and SMU does nothing but exasperate any of these problems.

 

[tzznandrew]

Wake sucks and UMass sucks even more than them.

He says Wake has a consistently good program...they've been to the S16 once since 2000, with Chris Paul in 2004. They made three trips with Duncan in the mid 90s. And that's it since 1984. For almost 40 years, with two all-time great players, they made 4 S16s, 1 E8, and no , and we're supposed to pretend this is a program that matters.

 

[Jbirdp5]

First of all, AD DB said that about leaving the Big East in an effort to be diplomatic. There was no decision to be made. We'd have gone to the B12 without a thought. I know people think that we will do whatever it takes to retain maintain our basketball program and retain Hurley, but I’m not sure that’s true. More importantly, when he does leave, will we be paying the next guy big bucks? We will need to pay a huge premium to get a coach worthy of this program. The only place to get the money is to charge the students or hope a benefactor steps forward. We've been raising student fees for years to cover athletics, but the cost of UConn is becoming very non-competitive. The end is near as far as burdening the students further. There will be political and university related forces pushing back against more student fees to cover athletics.

Countless people have mentioned it but the facts remain that the school and the state are investing in keeping our world class basketball program world class. If it’s Hurley or the next coach UConn will not be going bargain hunting for its men’s basketball coach

 

[zls44]

Countless people have mentioned it but the facts remain that the school and the state are investing in keeping our world class basketball program world class. If it’s Hurley or the next coach UConn will not be going bargain hunting for its men’s basketball coach

Folks love catastrophizing in the face of evidence from what is actually happening in real life. Genuinely bizzare.

 

[Inyatkin]

He says Wake has a consistently good program...they've been to the S16 once since 2000, with Chris Paul in 2004. They made three trips with Duncan in the mid 90s. And that's it since 1984. For almost 40 years, with two all-time great players, they made 4 S16s, 1 E8, and no , and we're supposed to pretend this is a program that matters.

You're changing definitions all over the place. Georgia Tech had a great run in the 90s, some real stars, and of course made the title game in 04. That was 20 years ago, I get it, but to say they and Wake have no history is crazy. You could have made the same argument about Virginia a few years ago. Bring a Tony Bennett to one of those places and see what happens. History didn't start in 2015.

 

[David 76]

Maybe we should let the basketball games decide this?

 

[superjohn]

You're changing definitions all over the place. Georgia Tech had a great run in the 90s, some real stars, and of course made the title game in 04. That was 20 years ago, I get it, but to say they and Wake have no history is crazy. You could have made the same argument about Virginia a few years ago. Bring a Tony Bennett to one of those places and see what happens. History didn't start in 2015.

Georgia Tech and Wake are fine. Similar to Butler but I would probably give Butler the slight edge.

 

[Scrutineer]

ACC schools, top 50 KenPom finishes in the last 5 seasons:
Duke - 5
Virginia - 4
UNC - 4
Fla St - 3
Miami - 2
Clemson - 2
Syracuse - 2
Va Tech - 2
Louisville - 2
NC State - 1
Wake - 1
Ga Tech - 1
Notre Dame - 1
Pitt - 0
BC - 0
--
Stanford - 1
Cal - 0
SMU - 0

Crazy stat I stumbled into. BC hasn't finished in the top 60 of KenPom in 16 years.

You've unwittingly (maybe wittingly?) stumbled upon the likely reason the ACC hasn't invited UConn.
Six of the bottom nine in the league are former Big East teams........why risk adding a seventh when you can bring in three weaker teams from the West Coast/Southwest?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

UConn is not in the ACC because BCU and Syracuse don't want us in the ACC, and want our athletic program to die. All the other "reasons" are completely irrelevant.

 

[August_West]

Georgia Tech and Wake are fine. Similar to Butler but I would probably give Butler the slight edge.

i would MUCH rather sit at a game at Hinkle watching Butler suck than McCamish Pavilion or Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum

 

[superjohn]

i would MUCH rather sit at a game at Hinkle watching Butler suck than McCamish Pavilion or Lawrence Joel Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Oh yeah, I need to go to Hinkle this season. They've been really bad the last 3 seasons but Butler has been pretty damn good the previous 25 seasons. Better than Wake, Georgia Tech and several other ACC schools.

 

[CL82]

Folks love catastrophizing in the face of evidence from what is actually happening in real life.

Alternatively, the thought that "the way things are is the way they will always be" is the comfortable refuge of small minds.

 

[tzznandrew]

You're changing definitions all over the place. Georgia Tech had a great run in the 90s, some real stars, and of course made the title game in 04. That was 20 years ago, I get it, but to say they and Wake have no history is crazy. You could have made the same argument about Virginia a few years ago. Bring a Tony Bennett to one of those places and see what happens. History didn't start in 2015.

I'm absolutely not changing definitions. A successful program makes the tournament regularly and makes deep runs. Regular trips to the second weekend, and some Final Fours. You aren't successful if you had a short run of success and then don't do anything for 20 or 30 years.

Virginia is a bad example here. They were a solid program in the 1980s (2 and an E8), but basically irrelevant before and mostly after. They weren't a strong program by any means. They just hired a great coach. Until Bennet, they were very much akin to mid-1980s UConn—a stronger history because of those 30 year old runs, but essentially a mediocre program. By this I mean that it was the coach that elevated the program rather than vice versa.

Georgia Tech had a solid run of tournament appearances from 1985-1996. Before then, they were only in 1 NCAA tournament ever. In that run, they made 1 Final Four, and 3 more S16s. If they kept that up, that's a good program! But, ummm... they haven't. That got blown out in the 2004 championship game and haven't made the second weekend since. I don't think 9 years of relevance (without a title!) and a blip is much history, frankly.

Certainly history didn't start in 2015, but it didn't end in 2004, either. Or are we supposed to pretend San Francisco and CCNY are great programs?

 

[MilliniumPrince]

UConn is not in the ACC because BCU and Syracuse don't want us in the ACC, and want our athletic program to die. All the other "reasons" are completely irrelevant.

You can't really believe they have that kind of clout in the ACC

 

[Fan1978]

You can't really believe they have that kind of clout in the ACC

Not at this point for sure

 

[Dean Wormer]

You can't really believe they have that kind of clout in the ACC

They are both afterthought in the ACC, especially BCU. When Booger was there for Cuse he might've wanted us in, but it didn't matter since they had no clout with the good ole boys.

 

[UConniki]

You can't really believe they have that kind of clout in the ACC

Unfortunately they did back then when it mattered the most.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Unfortunately they did back then when it mattered the most.

No, they didn't.

 

[Scottobot]

They were a top basketball conference, but with each addition to chase football money they have diluted their product. I am not sure how the scheduling will work, but assume with so many teams in the Conf, the top teams will no longer play each other 2x a year. Instead there will be 40 pt blowouts of cal and smu.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I'm absolutely not changing definitions. A successful program makes the tournament regularly and makes deep runs. Regular trips to the second weekend, and some Final Fours. You aren't successful if you had a short run of success and then don't do anything for 20 or 30 years.

Virginia is a bad example here. They were a solid program in the 1980s (2 and an E8), but basically irrelevant before and mostly after. They weren't a strong program by any means. They just hired a great coach. Until Bennet, they were very much akin to mid-1980s UConn—a stronger history because of those 30 year old runs, but essentially a mediocre program. By this I mean that it was the coach that elevated the program rather than vice versa.

Georgia Tech had a solid run of tournament appearances from 1985-1996. Before then, they were only in 1 NCAA tournament ever. In that run, they made 1 Final Four, and 3 more S16s. If they kept that up, that's a good program! But, ummm... they haven't. That got blown out in the 2004 championship game and haven't made the second weekend since. I don't think 9 years of relevance (without a title!) and a blip is much history, frankly.

Certainly history didn't start in 2015, but it didn't end in 2004, either. Or are we supposed to pretend San Francisco and CCNY are great programs?

This is a semantics argument. San Francisco's rich history with Bill Russell is certainly interesting and something for the school and students to be proud of. It doesn't effect outcomes of future games or likely performance in coming years, but not much more than anyone's last three years does. UNLV is another one with a relevant history (UNLV jerseys still sell), yet you can rightly say that is having no impact on current CBB. The contention is their histories don't translate to contending teams.

So your argument is many schools despite prior successful histories (especially if 20+ years or beyond), do not & will not reap any future benefit from their prior performances. A school or team with TRULY no history, Florida Atlantic for example is equally likely as a Wake or UNLV to emerge as a real contender.

This was no history lesson.