ACC - B1G Challenge

HLSCane

Recruit
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
117
Is anyone else watching these games? I usually tune in to see how the rest of the ACC looks against actual competition. For as hyped as the ACC has been this year, I have been a bit underwhelmed by some of the play, especially from the middle of the pack teams. VT looks to have very little depth, and Clemson looks far less dominant after losing DeVoe and Grantham. Same with NC State after Yurtseven's departure. Even Notre Dame looked underwhelming against Illinois.

On the other hand, with Chris Mack on the sidelines, Louisville is going to be tough to beat. And Pitt looks to be improved under Capel.

Obviously, Duke is REALLY good. It should be fun to see the Duke-UVA games this year.

If we had Hernandez, I think we could position ourselves to be a Top 5-6 team in the league. In his absence, I see teams continuing to exploit us in the post, which could make for a tough season.

Finally, I continue to be surprised that ESPN doesn't make more of the ACC-B1G Challenge. Yes, they show all the games, but I would think they would do more to promote the conference v. conference comparison, the current standings, etc. Instead, we see a brief flash of the games won by each conference after each completed game, but that's it. I'm curious if perhaps the conferences encourage ESPN to de-emphasize the comparisons between conferences -- since neither conference wants to look like the lesser conference and risk losing casual fans this early in the season.
 
Advertisement
Honestly, I don’t think this “challenge” is a way to gauge anything seriously. Way too many variables IMO.

1. Some of it had to do with a team having an up or down night.

2. You also have “random” teams playing “random” teams in another conference. There is also ONLY one game per team. That is it.

3. One team is home and one is away. No neutral games. That is an advantage.

If everyone played 3 random opponents in the other conference it might be a stronger sample to gauge something. I think ESPN should make this somehow a 3 game thing too.
 
Lots of tight games was pretty much my only take away. Lots of those games last night could have gone either way.

I also agree that ESPN should make more out of ACC-Big10 Challenge. I was thinking this morning how great it would be if all these games were played on a Saturday so hoop heads could watch good basketball from noon to midnight. Not gonna lie, I always pull for the ACC team over the Big10 team. Even Duke. Maybe each conference could start their conference schedule just a little earlier so that we could have ACC-Big10 on the second Saturday in December, after college football is over, and really feature the matchups and the Challenge. Not a perfect answer, but better than burying it on a Tuesday night.

But yeah, while it's fun for a talking point and trash talking, it's not exactly a scientific way to determine which conference is better.
 
Honestly, I don’t think this “challenge” is a way to gauge anything seriously. Way too many variables IMO.

1. Some of it had to do with a team having an up or down night.

2. You also have “random” teams playing “random” teams in another conference. There is also ONLY one game per team. That is it.

3. One team is home and one is away. No neutral games. That is an advantage.

If everyone played 3 random opponents in the other conference it might be a stronger sample to gauge something. I think ESPN should make this somehow a 3 game thing too.

I don't disagree, Consigliere, about the value of the challenge when comparing conferences. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that ESPN tried to sell its audience on the importance of something that lacks any real value.

I do think the games give some insight into how certain teams are looking at this point in the season -- and certainly much more than the typical 20+ wins against lesser competition. You would need to live under a rock to not be aware that Duke is pretty talented. However, watching a team like VT last night made me realize that they less even less depth that we do, in part based on the suspension of Chris Clarke. Who knows how they will look come January, but for now they seem overrated for their #13 ranking.
 
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that ESPN tried to sell its audience on the importance of something that lacks any real value.

That is for sure.

I do think the games give some insight into how certain teams are looking at this point in the season -- and certainly much more than the typical 20+ wins against lesser competition.

Sure. It can provide some insight at this point of the season.

You would need to live under a rock to not be aware that Duke is pretty talented.

As is the case pretty much every year.

However, watching a team like VT last night made me realize that they less even less depth that we do, in part based on the suspension of Chris Clarke. Who knows how they will look come January, but for now they seem overrated for their #13 ranking.

I wouldn't be shocked if Clarke comes back. It wasn't like they threw him out of the school.

In general, I don't think pre-season rankings are helpful for much. If I was in charge (hahaha), I wouldn't release rankings until right before conference play.
 
Advertisement
That is for sure.



Sure. It can provide some insight at this point of the season.



As is the case pretty much every year.



I wouldn't be shocked if Clarke comes back. It wasn't like they threw him out of the school.

In general, I don't think pre-season rankings are helpful for much. If I was in charge (hahaha), I wouldn't release rankings until right before conference play.

FWIW VT fans don't expect Clarke back
 
Good game tonight (aside from ours). Think #24 Maryland has a good chance to upset #4 Virginia. Game is in College Park.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top