Email me

November 30, 2006

8-3 = 8-0

Last night the ACC headed into its five ACC-Big Ten "Challenge" games with a 4-2 lead, needing to win just two more to take the title again. Not content with a small win, the Good Guys went 4-1, administering yet another whupping to our midwestern friends by a total of 8-3.

In the marquee matchup of the night, UNC and Ohio State played a fun, end-to-end game that eventually went the Heels' way. I was impressed with the way that the Buckeyes played. They were fast and fearless, but part of that was that they were supernaturally hot in the first half. Knowing that his opponent only really went eight deep, Roy Williams had his guys keep the tempo extremely high. That strategy worked in the second half as the Buckeyes finally cooled off and the Baby Heels started seeing more cracks in the OSU defense. As usual, Tyler Hansbrough was the best player on the floor, banging and hustling his way to 21 and 14. As ESPN reminded us though (once or twice), Greg Oden was NOT playing for OSU. If he had been, the Buckeyes not only would have won by at least 50, but Hansbrough and Brandan Wright would likely now be dead. Fortunately for us all, Oden had the good sense to wear a beard and hat because had we been subjected to his full visage over and over and over last night, we'd likely all be mad with fear, just as mortals who peer into the face of a god. Help us all when his wrist heels.

The only game that didn't go the ACC's way was Virginia's loss to Purdue. The Cavs were sloppy for much of the game and paid the price. They did surge late and seemed to have the game wrapped up when the Boilermakers hit back-to-back threes with less than two minutes left. The Cavs tied it up but lost on funny-looking runner from 12 feet with just a second to go. As usual, Sean Singletary was outstanding, but his running mate JR Reynolds had a bad game. The Cavaliers just aren't good enough at this point to withstand a bad game from one of their two stars.

Chris Clark of 850 The Buzz wrote a nice review of the night here.

Speaking of games not going the right way, if you look back at my predictions, I missed only one game (the Virginia one) out of eleven. Not bad, huh?

So now that the ACC has run its record in this competition to 8-0 what should the future hold? Before I go on, I should say that despite my jokes, I do really like and respect the Big Ten. I think this has been a lot of fun and I love seeing the ACC teams match up against these schools that we'd otherwise see little of. There is a lot of basketball history in the Big Ten.

But enough is enough. This thing has run its course. I absolutely want to continue having an inter-conference competition, but the ACC needs new blood. While a lot of folks are talking up the SEC, I really would like to see a revival of the ACC-Big East Challenge. The Big East is loaded with good teams, there are lots of folks writing about how it, not the ACC, is the preeminent conference in the land, and there's already a lot of recent bad blood. It would be great! To keep things fair, the BE can even leave out their four worst teams (The Big East really is big, with 16 teams). John Swofford, redeem yourself (or at least, take a step that direction). Make this happen!

Comments
 
(1) by scacchoops.com (unregistered) on 12/01/2006 10:02 am
Rumor is that the SEC and Big East will be starting a "challenge" next season.

I can't find confirmation on this anywhere, but that is what I'm hearing.

 
(2) by Dave on 12/01/2006 10:09 am
scacchoops.com wrote:
Rumor is that the SEC and Big East will be starting a "challenge" next season.

I can't find confirmation on this anywhere, but that is what I'm hearing.


Bah! The Big East is a bunch of pussies then.

 
(3) by SuperJew (unregistered) on 12/01/2006 10:24 am
Yeah, I heard that it was going to be the top 4 or so teams from both confrences, though.

I'd rather play the SEC than the Big East. No need to rub in the fact that the BE is a top heavy, bloated confrence. It's like Brazil, two equal parts: one very affluent, one incredibly poor. That and I'd love to travel to the Southern schools in late November rather than the freezing, bitter cold of the Northeast.

 
(4) by Dave on 12/01/2006 10:57 am
To me the main advantage of the Big East is that many people claim it's now the best conference in the country. I've even seen Jay Bilas saying this on ESPN. I'd love to give the ACC a chance to disprove this.

I don't think the SEC would put up a much better fight than the Big Ten.

 
(5) by Fats Durston (unregistered) on 12/04/2006 12:29 am
I was curious if Oden being on the interior might've mucked up OSU's offense in the UNC game, to a degree; seems like the wings' abilities to capitalize on the wide-open floor was what made their offense click.

During the Duke - G'Town, um, "game", the ESPN nearly had a Greg Oden live stat ticker going.

 
(6) by Dave on 12/04/2006 12:35 am
Fats Durston wrote:
During the Duke - G'Town, um, "game", the ESPN nearly had a Greg Oden live stat ticker going.


I heard he had 10 points, 14 boards and 6 blasphemers smote.

 
(7) by markg (unregistered) on 12/04/2006 10:54 am
During one of the challenge games, an ESPN commentator suggested the reason the Big East didn't continue the ACC/Big East challenge was "possibly due to dominance"?!
Someone needs to tell him to look up the stats ... over the course of the challenge ('89-90 season thru '91-92), it was pretty much even. If memory serves, Big East won it the first year, even the second and ACC won it the third.
I'll also add that Syracuse was undefeated for the Big East, with wins over Dook (Bobby Hurley team) AT Greensboro, NC State and Florida State. UVA was undefeated for the ACC.

Here's an article about the SEC/Big East "challenge" ... they're calling it a "shootout" ... totally different format ... just a couple games each year at neutral sites. The article also provides a brief explanation as to why the Big East discontinued the challenge with the ACC (I think it says they were pussies, doesn't it Dave? ... I don't have the same reading comprehension ...):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15950351/

And from the davesez archives:
http://www.davesez.com/archives/000943.php
Dave, Dave, Dave ... there's an "unofficial ACC/Big East Challenge" taking place this season as well ... why no articles on that?! Hmmm ... let's see ... The Big East is currently 4-1 vs. the ACC ... and only once was the Big East team ranked higher (#4 Pitt over unradnked FSU on 11/24).
Good thing the Dookies pulled out the W over G'town or this could almost be emarrassing!! ;-)

 
(8) by Dave on 12/04/2006 11:38 am
Mark! Good to see you.

Yes, the old ACC-Big East Challenge was very competitive. I think it ended dead even in games. The BE won once, the ACC won once and I think they tied the third year. It really was a good matchup.

But, like you said, it ended because too many of the BE coaches were pussies and didn't like playing tough games. As you may recall, Georgetown and Syracuse had quite a reputation of playing about ten games against the Sisters of the Poor (at home only, of course) until the conference season started.

Well, John Thompson (the original one) is gone now and Jimmy B long ago started playing better non-conference games. Jim Calhoun is usually good about tough matchups as well, so I don't think there'd be the same reluctance anymore. ESPN and the other networks began pushing for better non-conference games a while back and it's created much better schedules.

So, it could happen now. Hopefully it will.

I didn't realize that the ACC was already 1-4 against the BE. It did go 3-1 against the SEC just this weekend (I'm thinking about posting about that). That the ACC is currently struggling against the BE just makes me want the Challenge even more. I don't think the SEC can hang, but the Big East would be a hell of a fight!

 
(9) by Dave on 12/04/2006 11:40 am
Oh, and the ACC is 2-4 against the BE, not 1-4.

 
(10) by markg (unregistered) on 12/04/2006 12:22 pm
Who's W did I miss for the ACC?

Not sure if you heard about it yet, but there's a twist to the UVA/Syracuse lacrosse matchup this year:
http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=141104

Not sure if anything will come of it, but I've heard that ESPN may pick it up ... that would be huge ... possibly a Championship weekend preview?!

Also on the lax front, NIKE's getting involved. A guy I grew up with was working for Brine in their lacrosse division for over 10 years ... he and another guy (from Brine) were just recruited by NIKE and have relocated back to Syracuse to start up the office. Will be interesting to see what comes of that ... could be big toward bringing the sport more mainstream (which would be good and bad!).

Brine was just acquired by New Balance (08/06) ... New Balance also bought Warrior Lacrosse back in '04.

And by the way, I didn't miss your comment: "But, like you said, it ended because too many of the BE coaches were pussies" ... my reference to that was sarcasm! ;-) I think we'd all like to see that challenge come back ... although ... I'm CERTAIN it would resolve nothing!!

Something I found interesting when searching for ACC/BE challenge information was the # of articles that bounce back and forth between the "top-to-bottom" and "power teams" arguments for the two conferences. It goes back and forth based on what fits for that given season!! Sound familiar?! ;-)

 
(11) by markg (unregistered) on 12/04/2006 12:26 pm
"Who's W did I miss for the ACC?"

Providence over BC
Marquette over Dook
Pitt over FSU
ND over Maryland

Dook over G'town

 
(12) by Dave on 12/04/2006 12:50 pm
Maryland destroyed St. Johns a couple of weeks ago.

 
(13) by william (unregistered) on 12/04/2006 03:02 pm
People are already saying that Oden is ruining OSU's style, after Saturday's game versus Valpo.

 
(14) by markg (unregistered) on 12/04/2006 03:47 pm
Here's the poop on the ACC/Big East Challenge (provided by one of the sportwriters for the Syracuse newspapers):

The Big East and ACC played the 8-game challenge series for three years from 1989-90 to 1991-92. They split the 24 games evenly.

In 1989-90, the Big East won four and the ACC won four.

In 1990-91, the Big East won six of the eight games.

In 1991-92, the ACC turned the tables and won six of the eight.

Interesting how a few years turns a .500 record into the ACC's "dominance" of the Big East. Ha!

 
(15) by Dave on 12/04/2006 03:53 pm
markg wrote:
Interesting how a few years turns a .500 record into the ACC's "dominance" of the Big East. Ha!


Hey, I never said that. I told you that the challenge was an even split and I didn't have to look that up. I remember it clearly. You should never be surprised by what you hear out of the mouths of the ESPN guys. Some are good. Some are idiots.


I will say that the ACC-BE Challenge happened during a period of relative strength for the BE. It slumped for a decade or so after that until its recent resurgence. It would be a hell of a fight now and there's no way either conference would go on a 8-0 run like the ACC has on the Big Ten.

 
(16) by markg (unregistered) on 12/05/2006 02:37 pm
I didn't mean to suggest you stated that the ACC dominated the Big East ... it's just an all too common theme. While searching for some stats on those series, I found all kinds of entries from ACC'ers who stated that the reason the Big East backed out was because they were losing too many games. Not to mention the one's I have to listen to every day.

Probably not the place, but another lacrosse tid-bit ... also makes NIKE's entrance into the game that much more timely: the NCAA is changing the stick rules. They're not going to allow the heads to be "pinched" down around the ball as much as they have become. I seem to recall they are also going to limit the amount of offset allowed.
Goes hand-in-hand with something we briefly discussed on here last year: the velocity on shots these days. This rules change will make it more difficult to get that velocity. Excellent rules change IMO.

 
(17) by Dave on 12/05/2006 04:24 pm
markg wrote:
I didn't mean to suggest you stated that the ACC dominated the Big East ... it's just an all too common theme. While searching for some stats on those series, I found all kinds of entries from ACC'ers who stated that the reason the Big East backed out was because they were losing too many games. Not to mention the one's I have to listen to every day.


Yeah, I've heard it to. It's probably faulty memory based on the fact that it was the BE coaches who pulled the plug on the affair.

markg wrote:
Probably not the place, but another lacrosse tid-bit ... also makes NIKE's entrance into the game that much more timely: the NCAA is changing the stick rules. They're not going to allow the heads to be "pinched" down around the ball as much as they have become. I seem to recall they are also going to limit the amount of offset allowed.
Goes hand-in-hand with something we briefly discussed on here last year: the velocity on shots these days. This rules change will make it more difficult to get that velocity. Excellent rules change IMO.


It was only a matter of time. There is actually already a limit on pinched heads. That's been in place for a while. I'm guessing they're more concerned about the offset heads, because that's what really increases the velocity (from what I understand).

 
(18) by markg (unregistered) on 12/06/2006 01:55 pm
Actually, the concern is more about how easy it is to keep the ball in the stick with today's heads: “Our major concern is that the ball is not coming out of the stick as easily as it should,” says Willie Scroggs, senior associate athletics director at the University of North Carolina and chair of the committee.

The existing rules are relatively generic about the width of the head at the crosse ... the new rules actually get specific enough to dictate how much the head can actually be "pinched" at incremental measurements on the head.

Something they don't discuss that's inherent is that some of the newer stringing methods with become obsolete as well ...

Here's an article on the rules changes:
http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=141263

 
(19) by Dave on 12/06/2006 02:25 pm
Speaking of keeping the ball in the pocket, another thing I've noticed about the offset heads is that it seems to allow for much deeper pockets. That and the diagonal shot strings have made for very deep pockets that you can still throw with. That was the problem back in my day. If you went deep, it was hard to avoid having a nasty whip. If you throw with the new sticks, they are beautiful - deep pockets and smooth release. It's much easier than it was even 10 years ago.

 
(20) by Oden (unregistered) on 01/30/2007 01:49 am
Oden

 
(21) by gbx79 (unregistered) on 11/28/2008 01:10 am
BC over St Johns, not MD.

Comment:
Username or your name/handle: 

   
Posted by Dave at November 30, 2006 04:16 PM | TrackBack

BrightCar Car Maintenance Software  - Software To Manage Your Car Maintenance Schedule
Basketball Scores
Links
Columnists
Caulton Tudor
Ned Barnett
Lenox Rawlings
Tony Kornheiser
Michael Wilbon
Bill Simmons
Blogs
ACC BasketBlog
The Sports Frog
Duke Basketball Report
FanBlogs (college football)
Yoco: College Basketball
StateFans Nation
Carolina Hoops Experience
Carolina Basketball Update
Ken Pomeroy
The SportsProf
Chris's Sports Blog
ACC Info
Charlie Board's ACC Stats Page
Official ACC Site
Ratings
Mike Greenfield's Ratings
Pomeroy Ratings
Sagarin Ratings