Sec has upsets in the league ...we have a terrible league...it happens in ACC today...the conference is great...our fans are terrible at that
Double standard SEC and ACC...
- Thread starter ulismyman
- Start date
As opposed to the B-12, which is over-hyped every year, I think the ACC is clearly the best conference this year, and probably was last year too. They have a ton of teams, but a lot of them are pretty good to very good.
I think he's saying that anytime a Duke or UNC loses a conference game, the talk is about how strong the conference is.
When UK loses at Georgia, or Florida loses at Auburn, the talk is about how weak the conference is.
well VT is a 1 loss team so Duke losing to them indeed looks ok for the ACC.... but no one is saying the ACC is tough for UNCheat losing to a horrible GT team.
Yeah the media does tend to crap on the SEC no matter what but its up to the SEC to start proving them wrong.
Yeah the media does tend to crap on the SEC no matter what but its up to the SEC to start proving them wrong.
I think top to bottom, there really is no question of this. ACC's ethics are rather dubious as we've learned. I wonder how big the performance difference would be with a level enforcement, starting with NC, obviously.
The bottom ACC teams are better than the bottom SEC teams.
That and Virginia Tech isn't a bottom ACC team lol
That and Virginia Tech isn't a bottom ACC team lol
The difference is, the Georgia's, Auburn's, LSU's in the SEC turn around and lose at home to bad teams, whereas those lower tiered ACC teams stay consistent.
The ACC is more legit because their teams not only pull upsets in the league, but they get it done outside of the league. Also, the ACC has more than 1 legit powerhouse school, unlike the SEC where it's UK and everyone else. I agree with the double standard, but lately (and this year), it's justified. The SEC in basketball is an afterthought.
The ACC has 12 teams with 3 or less losses, and one of those teams is UNC. The SEC? 8 teams have 4 or more losses and hardly anything to speak of in the non-conference.
The ACC has 12 teams with 3 or less losses, and one of those teams is UNC. The SEC? 8 teams have 4 or more losses and hardly anything to speak of in the non-conference.
The ACC has 12 teams in the Top 55 teams in the country in the RPI. It's the deepest conference in the country.
The RPI is just a tool that goes beyond Win/Loss records to measure Strength of Schedule based on your Opponents Records and your Opponents Opponents records. It isn't the end all be all but it tells a lot.
Miami is the #55 team in the RPI so that is why I used that number. But there are 11 ACC teams ahead of where Miami is at in the RPI. The ACC has that many high RPI teams because of how they performed in the NON-CONFERENCE. Let's use 55 as the number and see how many teams the other Power 5 conferences have from 1 to 55.
ACC 12
SEC 7
Big 12 5
Big 10 7
Pac 12 4
So as you can see, the ACC has 12 teams within 1-55 in the RPI and the next highest Conferences have 7 teams. The SEC is actually pretty good this year relative to everyone else other than the ACC.
Because the ACC has 12 teams that high then almost every conference game is a marquee win and there are hardly any of what would be considered bad losses. All that adds up to having possibly the winner of the ACC Regular Season title going 12-6 or 13-5 in conference and still getting a Number 1 seed.
But let me say that UNC's loss to Georgia Tech is a bad loss and there is no way to spin otherwise. Georgia Tech is #158 in the RPI. But Duke's loss on the road to Virginia Tech is not a bad loss.
There are 4 teams in the top 10 Kenpom from the ACC.
From the SEC there's UK.
UF is sitting at 14 but then u have to go all the way to 37 to see the next SEC Team lol
From the SEC there's UK.
UF is sitting at 14 but then u have to go all the way to 37 to see the next SEC Team lol
I disagree. Conference Schedules are just starting so the current RPI ratings reflect the body of work of the entire Non-Conference schedule.
Just some advice, you embarrass yourself by referring to the RPI.
There's plenty of other measures one could use which actually are designed to assess team strength, which could prove the point you're making. The RPI was never designed for this.
Any attempt to use the RPI as a reflection of team strength is a misuse of the tool (even if done by NCAA officials) and indicative that they don't know what they're doing.