Aside from Duke, ACC is in Decline

[eepstein0]

I don't know why VT would fire Greenberg after this year, unless they just absolutely bomb, i.e. well below .500. I get the frustration of feeling like you've peaked, but that program was less than nothing before Greenberg arrived. I'm not saying he's great, but he's good, and my money says if they fire him they won't get somebody better, and the program will go back to the depths. VT basketball will need to get extremely lucky to make the sort of long-term strides that Beamer and the football team have made. Tidewater basketball talent (and Virginia high school basketball talent in general) is mediocre, and laughable in comparison to the football talent on which Beamer largely makes his living.

To put it another way, I would love it if VT fired Seth Greenberg.

Sounds like another coach in this conference who was terminated after the program got stale.

Greenberg has a twitter account...thus he must be a better coach than Al

[weinerdog]

For me, though, the most potentially lasting storyline is that of the sagging Atlantic Coast Conference. Admittedly, the league had seven teams in the above Bracketology link, but aside from the No. 1 Duke Blue Devils, name a team that scares you.

For every Boston College or Virginia success story...

I'll leave it to smarter folks to pinpoint the causes of an ACC decline, as the league had mostly avoided the cyclical nature of strengths and weakness affecting other power conferences. My gut tells me, as has been speculated in the past, that football expansion is the culprit. The absence of a true round-robin schedule, the dilution of certain rivalries and more fragmented fan bases have hurt the basketball product below the Duke-Carolina axis.

While I agree the ACC is not as strong as it has been in the past I think Lunardi uses a lot of flawed logic (not just here but always). First of all he admits to having 7 ACC teams in the tournament right now. Sorry but you can't say a conference is weak and then put 7 of 12 teams in the tourney. He says none of them "scare" you. Do the 9 teams he has in from the Big East all really scare you? And 9 of 16 for the BE is a lower percentage by the way.

I also can't beleive no one pointed out that he basically blames BC (along with our former BE breathren who made the move) for the quality of basketball going down in the conference. Of course that is just a few sentences after he refers to BC as a success story. That makes tons of sense. And how exactly does fragmented fan bases and the lack of a round robin schedule lower the quality of the play on the court?

Sorry I'm not buying any of what he is saying. College basketball is cyclical especially with so many underclassmen going to the NBA. The ACC has largely avoided that in the past for whatever reason but now this is impacting some teams (See UNC last year especially). You also have some coaches in the conference right now who suck who suck. I am not denying it is a down year, but it might be a bit extreme to say the conference is in decline. Also, its freaking not even christmas so I think its premature to rate conferences when conference play is not even truly underway. Some teams have yet to play any real competition yet. I think Bracketology this early is ridiculous.

Regarding "blaming BC," I didn't read it that way. I think the point is was making was about what expansion in general did to the league, irrespective of which teams were added. As you point out, he did note that BC has done well just a few lines below. I think the thrust of his remarks was directly tied to the other stuff you mention--fan fragmentation, scheduling deformities, etc. I don't agree with that, but that may be because I don't really understand what he means by fragmented fan bases. If he's talking about parity, about fans no longer accepting a pecking order or holding firm to local loyalties, then I agree. As a brand, ACC basketball used to be in a category by itself. Players wanted to play there because it was perceived as--and in a self-fulfilling way thereby became--the best conference, far and away. Now, all the college basketball on TV around the country has leveled the playing field, and players understand that they'll get maximal exposure and play top teams no matter which of the major conferences they play in. Even further, TV coverage and March Madness results have confirmed that they can become a national name or win a title not just at Georgetown or Georgia Tech, but at George Washington or George Mason too.

I think the bigger issue was hit by you and the posts that followed: the coaching's not as good. This parallels the above paragraph and also follows the money. When the ACC was the pinnacle of the field, the best coaches wanted to be there. The schools could choose from impressive A-lists. Now, schools all over the country are ponying up the big bucks to draw coaching talent. Small, private ACC schools can't always get their guy when a big school in the SEC or Big 12 has bottomless well of dough to offer him to stay or to go there instead. This is especially with athletic budgets already stretched from having the same conundrum applied to their football programs.

Bottom line: you get what you pay for. Of the Top 10 salaries in the coaching ranks (Source: About.com, May 2010), only 1 is in the ACC--Roy Williams. He's 7th. He makes half of what Calipari makes at Kentucky. He makes less than his replacement at Kansas, Bill Self. Conferences represented in the Top 10 include the SEC (#1, #2), the Big 12 (#3, #8), the Big East (#5, #6), the Big 10/11 (#4, #9), and the Pac-10 (#10). Coach K doesn't even show up until 12th, and like him or not, no one can seriously argue that his program's accomplishments in his tenure merit only the 12th highest salary. If it weren't for the special circumstances and the vestigial prestige of the ACC keeping coaches like Williams and Kryzewski in the league, it would be worse. Beyond that, good coaches can still make a pretty penny coaching in pressureless situations. Look at schools like Gonzaga, or Creighton or Wichita State. If you're a bright coach already making a million in the WCC or MVC, is it really worth the pressure cooker of the ACC to make the same or a little more by making the switch? With the glamour and prestige of the ACC stripped away or at least lessened, I'd argue No. Especially if staying put keeps you on the market for some school in the SEC--a league whose identity doesn't even revolve around its basketball operations like the ACC does--to pay you twice what ACC schools offer.

[apbc12]

I don't know why VT would fire Greenberg after this year, unless they just absolutely bomb, i.e. well below .500. I get the frustration of feeling like you've peaked, but that program was less than nothing before Greenberg arrived. I'm not saying he's great, but he's good, and my money says if they fire him they won't get somebody better, and the program will go back to the depths. VT basketball will need to get extremely lucky to make the sort of long-term strides that Beamer and the football team have made. Tidewater basketball talent (and Virginia high school basketball talent in general) is mediocre, and laughable in comparison to the football talent on which Beamer largely makes his living.

To put it another way, I would love it if VT fired Seth Greenberg.

Sounds like another coach in this conference who was terminated after the program got stale.

I see your point, but Greenberg is at this point in his tenure at VT more or less where Al was in 2006-7. They may have started to plateau, but VT has been a better program pretty much each year since Greenberg got there, and they won 25 games last season. If they start to decline over the next couple of years, as Al did, then the comparison would be more on point.

[pick6pedro]

For me, though, the most potentially lasting storyline is that of the sagging Atlantic Coast Conference. Admittedly, the league had seven teams in the above Bracketology link, but aside from the No. 1 Duke Blue Devils, name a team that scares you.

For every Boston College or Virginia success story...

I'll leave it to smarter folks to pinpoint the causes of an ACC decline, as the league had mostly avoided the cyclical nature of strengths and weakness affecting other power conferences. My gut tells me, as has been speculated in the past, that football expansion is the culprit. The absence of a true round-robin schedule, the dilution of certain rivalries and more fragmented fan bases have hurt the basketball product below the Duke-Carolina axis.

While I agree the ACC is not as strong as it has been in the past I think Lunardi uses a lot of flawed logic (not just here but always). First of all he admits to having 7 ACC teams in the tournament right now. Sorry but you can't say a conference is weak and then put 7 of 12 teams in the tourney. He says none of them "scare" you. Do the 9 teams he has in from the Big East all really scare you? And 9 of 16 for the BE is a lower percentage by the way.

I also can't beleive no one pointed out that he basically blames BC (along with our former BE breathren who made the move) for the quality of basketball going down in the conference. Of course that is just a few sentences after he refers to BC as a success story. That makes tons of sense. And how exactly does fragmented fan bases and the lack of a round robin schedule lower the quality of the play on the court?

Sorry I'm not buying any of what he is saying. College basketball is cyclical especially with so many underclassmen going to the NBA. The ACC has largely avoided that in the past for whatever reason but now this is impacting some teams (See UNC last year especially). You also have some coaches in the conference right now who suck who suck. I am not denying it is a down year, but it might be a bit extreme to say the conference is in decline. Also, its freaking not even christmas so I think its premature to rate conferences when conference play is not even truly underway. Some teams have yet to play any real competition yet. I think Bracketology this early is ridiculous.

Regarding "blaming BC," I didn't read it that way. I think the point is was making was about what expansion in general did to the league, irrespective of which teams were added. As you point out, he did note that BC has done well just a few lines below. I think the thrust of his remarks was directly tied to the other stuff you mention--fan fragmentation, scheduling deformities, etc. I don't agree with that, but that may be because I don't really understand what he means by fragmented fan bases. If he's talking about parity, about fans no longer accepting a pecking order or holding firm to local loyalties, then I agree. As a brand, ACC basketball used to be in a category by itself. Players wanted to play there because it was perceived as--and in a self-fulfilling way thereby became--the best conference, far and away. Now, all the college basketball on TV around the country has leveled the playing field, and players understand that they'll get maximal exposure and play top teams no matter which of the major conferences they play in. Even further, TV coverage and March Madness results have confirmed that they can become a national name or win a title not just at Georgetown or Georgia Tech, but at George Washington or George Mason too.

I think the bigger issue was hit by you and the posts that followed: the coaching's not as good. This parallels the above paragraph and also follows the money. When the ACC was the pinnacle of the field, the best coaches wanted to be there. The schools could choose from impressive A-lists. Now, schools all over the country are ponying up the big bucks to draw coaching talent. Small, private ACC schools can't always get their guy when a big school in the SEC or Big 12 has bottomless well of dough to offer him to stay or to go there instead. This is especially with athletic budgets already stretched from having the same conundrum applied to their football programs.

Bottom line: you get what you pay for. Of the Top 10 salaries in the coaching ranks (Source: About.com, May 2010), only 1 is in the ACC--Roy Williams. He's 7th. He makes half of what Calipari makes at Kentucky. He makes less than his replacement at Kansas, Bill Self. Conferences represented in the Top 10 include the SEC (#1, #2), the Big 12 (#3, #8), the Big East (#5, #6), the Big 10/11 (#4, #9), and the Pac-10 (#10). Coach K doesn't even show up until 12th, and like him or not, no one can seriously argue that his program's accomplishments in his tenure merit only the 12th highest salary. If it weren't for the special circumstances and the vestigial prestige of the ACC keeping coaches like Williams and Kryzewski in the league, it would be worse. Beyond that, good coaches can still make a pretty penny coaching in pressureless situations. Look at schools like Gonzaga, or Creighton or Wichita State. If you're a bright coach already making a million in the WCC or MVC, is it really worth the pressure cooker of the ACC to make the same or a little more by making the switch? With the glamour and prestige of the ACC stripped away or at least lessened, I'd argue No. Especially if staying put keeps you on the market for some school in the SEC--a league whose identity doesn't even revolve around its basketball operations like the ACC does--to pay you twice what ACC schools offer.

Fantastic post - I am not weiner worthy!

Not to take away from the rest of it, but for some reason I really loved - "that they can become a national name or win a title not just at Georgetown or Georgia Tech, but at George Washington or George Mason too." Maybe I was a yuge George Foreman fan in a previous life.