Thoughts/Analysis on the ACC heading into 2025-26

[Rooster C.]

Not surprisingly that Duke/WV game is getting heavy highlight rotation on sportscenter. A lot of bad publicity for Duke. I wonder if Bella Flemings has signed yet........

 

[TRest]

Not surprisingly that Duke/WV game is getting heavy highlight rotation on sportscenter. A lot of bad publicity for Duke. I wonder if Bella Flemings has signed yet........

I like Lawson as a tv personality but this isn’t working.

 

[FanInNC]

Lawson did just win the ACC tournament last year and made an elite 8.

I’m not going to argue about her coaching talents or not, but it’s 4 games into the season. I’m shocked Duke lost to a WV team playing 5 players half the game - that’s an egg on the face about as bad as it gets unless you lose to NCCU or the like. But I’ll let the season play out a little more before I come to any definitive conclusions.

I will say Lawsons teams are putting together a lot of evidence of really struggling to score it. Duke produces some real stinkers offensively every season that are hard to watch. Of course they’ll drop 80 next time they play State since I pointed that out, but that is a real bugaboo for them.

 

[cancontent]

Stanford is starting to raise some concerns beating a winless WSU team by only 8 points. It was on the road but still. They only had one player with double digit scoring (Swain with 10). Somfai shot 4/12 and 0/5 from 3. Clardy was 3/10 and 0/4. Agara 3/9 and 0/2. Overall Stanford shot 22/54 (41%) and 2/18(11%) from 3. Ouch! I think they'll be okay and hoping this is an aberration but they may not be as good as some have believed.

Ironically, Megan McKeown has Stanford as a sleeper team in the ACC this season. Caught me by surprise during the half time show last night.

 

[FanInNC]

Irish embarrassing the conference … ugly score!

 

[Rooster C.]

A few random stats regarding Stanford - who after 6 games has yet to play anyone challenging. In their first 3 games (all at home) They averaged 85.3ppg, shot an average of 61.7 times at 48.8%fg and shot an average of 19.7 3-pointers at 42.4%.
Their last 3 games (2 on the road, 1 home) they averaged 63.0ppg (a drop of over 22ppg), averaged 56 shots ( a drop of 5.7/gm) at 42.3% (a drop of 6.5%fg),and have averaged 15.7 3-pointers ( a drop of 4.0/gm) at 19.1% (a drop of 23.3%). Assuming there is SOME drop off on the road and that their last 3 opponents were somewhat better than the first 3 - so again, some drop off is expected - STILL this is going in the wrong direction. They haven't scored over 70 points in their last 3 games and that 3-point shooting is pretty atrocious. Stanford's next 3 opponents aren't challenging either. Then they host Tennessee.
While they will undoubtedly get up for the SEC/ACC challenge game at home, it is followed by home games against Cal (their first conference game) and Washington before heading down the road to SF to play Oregon.
This is followed by one more patsy at home before heading out to begin the New Year with back-to-back games on the road at NC State and NC.
I can't help but feel that playing 10 out of your first 14 games at home (plus 1 in SF) is not going to set this team up for success heading in to their conference season. Luckily, what looked like some of their toughest opponents are home games and those tough opponents (Duke,ND) aren't looking quite so tough any longer. They have a very good chance of going 12 - 6 in conference games which should put them in the tournament IF - IF - IF - they don't continue to backslide.

 

[Rooster C.]

On the eve of the SEC/ACC challenge games this seems like a good time to take another look at things in the conference. The ACC has been getting a fair amount of bad press lately between the downturn of Duke, ND, NC State and the overall performance against ranked teams. Some or most of this criticism is justified but also some of it isn't so I think some perspective is called for.

Overall the ACC is a combined (2 - 18) vs ranked opponents, the SEC is (5 - 5), the Big Ten is (8 - 8), the Big 12 is (3 - 6), and the Big East is (4 - 3) overall. So although the ACC record is not very good thus far, at least it can be said that they're not afraid to play ranked opponents in non-conference games - at least double the amount of games compared to the vaunted SEC conference. Another point to be made is that 10 different ACC teams have played at least one ranked opponent, while only 5 SEC schools have played ranked opponents. Although the Big 12 has played a total of 9 ranked opponents at least 7 different schools have done so compared to the SEC's 5. The Big Ten has done decently having played 16 opponents overall divided among 9 different schools. The Big East has played the fewest but has the best overall W - L record and their 7 total games isn't that far behind the 9 of the Big 12 or the 10 of the SEC.

Of the SEC overall 10 games vs ranked opponents 3 are by Texas (and 3 of the 5 wins), 2 by SC (1 - 1), 2 by KY (1 - 1), and 2 by TN (0 - 2). So out of the 10 total games played against ranked opponents, 4 teams accounted for 9 of those games - four teams out of 16!! Of the Big Ten games (16 total), 4 were played by UCLA (3 - 1), 3 by USC (1 - 2), 2 by Michigan (1 - 1), 2 by Ohio St (1 - 1), and 2 by Utah (0 - 2). MD and IA are (1 - 0), and IN, WI, PUR are all (0 - 1). By contrast, of the 16 games vs ranked opponents 10 different teams accounted for those 16 games.

As for the ACC's 20 games vs ranked opponents, NC ST (1 - 2) DUKE (0 - 3), and CLEM (0 -3) accounted for 9 of those, Notre Dame (1 - 1), Louisville (0 - 2), Miami (0 - 2), and Florida State (0 - 2) accounted for another 8, with 3 other schools adding 1 game each.

When you look at each conference it's the teams who have been willing to play ranked opponents in these non-conference games are the teams most likely to make the NCAA and do some damage once they get there. SEC teams: Texas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. I'm not saying LSU, Ole Miss, Vandy, and Alabama and/or Georgia won't make the tourney but look at the difference already. Big Ten: UCLA, USC, Michigan, Ohio St, followed by Maryland, Iowa, and Indiana. Again, I would expect Washington, Nebraska, Oregon, Michigan State, and possibly Minnesota to be there but there's a noticeable difference. The Big 12 is an aberration - Baylor has played 2 (1 -1), with TCU (1 - 0) and WV (1 - 0) one each, and Iowa St and Okla St not having played anyone yet. There may be a couple of other teams that make the tourney but not any school I can point to at the moment (Utah is 0-2, KSU, Colorado, and BYU are all 0-1 and don't look great).

When it comes to the ACC we're looking at NC ST, DUKE, ND, Louisville, Miami,Clemson, and NC, followed by Syracuse, and possibly FSU. I honestly don't think Syracuse and FSU will make it and likely be replaced by Stanford, Virginia, or Virginia Tech. Cal is a remote possibility.


So there you have it. The ACC gets a bad rap but if you compare them to the other conferences they stack up pretty well. They have more teams (10) already battle-tested before conference play begins compared to the Big Ten (9), the Big 12 (7), and the SEC (5). My next post will cover the SEC/ACC challenge games and who I think will win.

 

[LETTERL]

I'm confident that NC State will be a solid tourney team by season's end. It is taking some time for new players to get acclimated to the higher level of play, returning players to accept their new roles and for everyone to play together. There are no seniors on this team.

I'm looking forward to seeing NC State tonight against Oklahoma. I expect to see lots of Mallory Collier, Maddie Cox and Lorena Awou helping deflect some of the pressure off Tilda Trygger and accumulating fouls I know will come with trying to defend Reagan Beers.

 

[Bone Dog]

On the eve of the SEC/ACC challenge games this seems like a good time to take another look at things in the conference. The ACC has been getting a fair amount of bad press lately between the downturn of Duke, ND, NC State and the overall performance against ranked teams. Some or most of this criticism is justified but also some of it isn't so I think some perspective is called for.

Overall the ACC is a combined (2 - 18) vs ranked opponents, the SEC is (5 - 5), the Big Ten is (8 - 8), the Big 12 is (3 - 6), and the Big East is (4 - 3) overall. So although the ACC record is not very good thus far, at least it can be said that they're not afraid to play ranked opponents in non-conference games - at least double the amount of games compared to the vaunted SEC conference. Another point to be made is that 10 different ACC teams have played at least one ranked opponent, while only 5 SEC schools have played ranked opponents. Although the Big 12 has played a total of 9 ranked opponents at least 7 different schools have done so compared to the SEC's 5. The Big Ten has done decently having played 16 opponents overall divided among 9 different schools. The Big East has played the fewest but has the best overall W - L record and their 7 total games isn't that far behind the 9 of the Big 12 or the 10 of the SEC.

Of the SEC overall 10 games vs ranked opponents 3 are by Texas (and 3 of the 5 wins), 2 by SC (1 - 1), 2 by KY (1 - 1), and 2 by TN (0 - 2). So out of the 10 total games played against ranked opponents, 4 teams accounted for 9 of those games - four teams out of 16!! Of the Big Ten games (16 total), 4 were played by UCLA (3 - 1), 3 by USC (1 - 2), 2 by Michigan (1 - 1), 2 by Ohio St (1 - 1), and 2 by Utah (0 - 2). MD and IA are (1 - 0), and IN, WI, PUR are all (0 - 1). By contrast, of the 16 games vs ranked opponents 10 different teams accounted for those 16 games.

As for the ACC's 20 games vs ranked opponents, NC ST (1 - 2) DUKE (0 - 3), and CLEM (0 -3) accounted for 9 of those, Notre Dame (1 - 1), Louisville (0 - 2), Miami (0 - 2), and Florida State (0 - 2) accounted for another 8, with 3 other schools adding 1 game each.

When you look at each conference it's the teams who have been willing to play ranked opponents in these non-conference games are the teams most likely to make the NCAA and do some damage once they get there. SEC teams: Texas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. I'm not saying LSU, Ole Miss, Vandy, and Alabama and/or Georgia won't make the tourney but look at the difference already. Big Ten: UCLA, USC, Michigan, Ohio St, followed by Maryland, Iowa, and Indiana. Again, I would expect Washington, Nebraska, Oregon, Michigan State, and possibly Minnesota to be there but there's a noticeable difference. The Big 12 is an aberration - Baylor has played 2 (1 -1), with TCU (1 - 0) and WV (1 - 0) one each, and Iowa St and Okla St not having played anyone yet. There may be a couple of other teams that make the tourney but not any school I can point to at the moment (Utah is 0-2, KSU, Colorado, and BYU are all 0-1 and don't look great).

When it comes to the ACC we're looking at NC ST, DUKE, ND, Louisville, Miami,Clemson, and NC, followed by Syracuse, and possibly FSU. I honestly don't think Syracuse and FSU will make it and likely be replaced by Stanford, Virginia, or Virginia Tech. Cal is a remote possibility.


So there you have it. The ACC gets a bad rap but if you compare them to the other conferences they stack up pretty well. They have more teams (10) already battle-tested before conference play begins compared to the Big Ten (9), the Big 12 (7), and the SEC (5). My next post will cover the SEC/ACC challenge games and who I think will win.

Very interesting analysis. The first thing that occurs to me on reading it is that while some of the usual powerhouses seem to be dominating (eg UConn SC Texas) and others seem less dominant though still capable (eg UCLA LSU Iowa USC), and several appear to be in a significant slump (eg Duke ND Arizona Va Tech Creighton SDSU), a few new names have crept into the picture and seem to be rising powers, like Michigan MSU Oklahoma Kentucky TCU. Some of this may just be early season noise and artifacts of unusual OOC scheduling. And there’s plenty of room to disagree about exactly who’s up and who’s down.

The second thing that catches the eye is that D1 WCBB seems to be undergoing some sort of reshuffle. Could this be a moment in which the usual power relationships are undergoing a more farreaching transformation? I mean, the P4 conferences are stocked with large schools with deep pockets, and that suggests long term stability. But not all ADs allocate funds uniformly across their programs and some turbulence is possible among them. Also, coaching changes may have an incremental impact. Kenny Brooks going to Kentucky springs to mind, or Mark Campbell at TCU. Is the landscape of WCBB changing before our eyes?