This person is the kind of fan I just love. Yes, your team played a hell of a game. They had some rough seasons. Cool to see them doing much better. Hey folks- We are missing the good stuff if we keep debating the goal line and miss out on this Pitt fan being awesome.
It's the Duke game all over again. Jones has a hell of a game and nobody talks about it. We're just ignoring the amazing keeper play in this one as well. It's not a controversial goal but *some* people insist it is. I would hesitate to compliment the Pitt defense, because I don't think they helped their keeper out much ... even made things worse in some cases. The keeper was definitely the star of the show.
To babranski's point above - I can't recall ACC goalkeeping being this deep in ages. I've seen Skinner, Hancuff, Proulx, Jones, Robinson, Echezarretta, Dickey, and Ivory this season, most of them multiple times, and they've all looked strong. I'm sure I'm forgetting some too. Roque I'm sure is good too, but nobody has really tested her yet.
The ACC is brutal. You literally have to build a potential national championship caliber team just to have a chance in the ACC
Given all the talk about teams moving conferences, if the ACC were to expand any more it would almost have to move to an 8 team tournament. You've gotta give teams chances to build an NCAA resume, especially if you're not going to have everybody play everybody in the regular season.
I always wonder how the coaches feel about this, because for four teams, it's just another loss, and I believe in some seasons, that one additional loss has knocked some ACC teams with good RPIs out of tournament contention (cpthomas may know for sure).
I don't know what the heck was going on with this road trip, but the Tar Heels somehow managed to come away with six points in two. Something Something championship teams find a way. Not an inspiring pair of performances from UNC on the road. Yes, it was turf. Yes, the fields were small. Yes they are missing a maestro in midfield. The drop in quality and skill was simply too much. They were very poor again today, and they came up against a BC team that had there Wheaties for breakfast and hit all the right notes. Best I've ever seen the Eagles play, and the first time this season a team *out plays* UNC. It wasn't the goal keeper this game. It wasn't great defense. It was just UNC tripping and stumbling over their own too feet for most of the game and getting bailed out at the end with desperation and tired legs from BC. Have to say the Eagles deserved to win this game, but the Tar Heels found a way. Same official, by the way, as the Stanford and Duke games. He was horrific again, but somehow the game managed not to spiral out of control. He made some truly curious phantom calls in this game, but none of them ended up costing either team, as the teams respective defenses bailed him out on each occasion.
I was impressed with BC. Against Virgina they did not look like a bottom table team. They changed the point of attack very quickly and had good team speed.
Looking forward to tomorrow's game at NC State. They have been playing well recently and could compete well, with two wins last week. The big question this season seems to not only be the health of UNC players but focus too. One question is Will Sam Mesa be back? Is Avery Patterson healthy? The other question is will the team play well or be performing well below their capabilities?
Getting kind of tired of coming up against goal keepers deciding to have NT worthy performances. UNC was healthy, they got Meza and Hansen back. They looked good. The played good. Good as they have all season long and definitely the best they've looked against any ACC opponent. They created a ton of chances with excellent midfield play. High quality scoring chances. Had a pair of big misses but also had 4 or 5 finishes with power and accuracy. Some times you just throw your hands up in the air and scream. The perfect game from NC State.
Somehow managed to go the entire night until just now realizing that Avery Patterson did not play vs NCSU. I hope it's nothing serious for her. She has a way of dragging UNC kicking and screaming to the finish lines of games and getting results, so from that subjective perspective yea you can say the Tar Heels missed her, but ... They played really well tonight. Got good looks, made good strikes on the balls ... it's really hard to say they could have played any better than they did had they had Patterson in the line-up.
I feel your pain. As an Arsenal fan, the end of the Wenger era was punctuated by many such an occurrence.
Would have preferred a different result but as entertaining a game as you’ll see. Cool night, large crowd, players flying up and down the field, many good plays. Carolina showed lots of skill; it just didn’t go in the net.
Anyone else watch this game, and see the NC State keeper catch the first UNC corner in traffic, and then catch the second one, and then catch the third one...and catch more in the second half....and wonder how much actual scouting and coaching goes on at UNC these days? I'm no expert but...if you're clearly playing to an opponent's strength (which is something you should've known before the game), maybe change something? UNC's speed in transition last night was absolutely incredible, but they resorted to lots of hopeful crosses that were mostly cleared, or dealt with by the keeper if not, and they made one bad defensive error and NC State had the quality up front in the German kid who stole the ball and Jameese Joseph who finished it. Story of the game. Weirdly tho, despite the result, I feel like UNC is in a better place to challenge for the ACC title now with more players back healthy. That speed of transition will win you the game most nights. I think even FSU will struggle with it.
IMO this is what we'd get every game in the two-semester model, since this was a one-game week for both teams. The players rested and ready and just flying around the pitch. Compare that to the typical 1pm Sunday game, played after both teams played at 7pm Thursday, where every game has spells played at walking pace. No comparison.
With the sub rules as they are, I am not in favor of the two semester model. I think it would make the game less tactical, place even more emphasis on pressing and reduce the advantages of passing, moving team around and slower build up. I would be in favor of two semester with different substitution rules though
nice win for state… I guess it’s living in NC for 40+ years, but I don’t mind losing to a State school in NC …I guess NC State is the only ACC team that fits that description. I’d rather be concerned about figuring out how to finish lots of chances with a now mostly healthy team than to have injuries and not have chances. I am more concerned about the defense . they still have a good chance to be a #1 seed , though the FSU win is looking more of a must-win (at least towards that goal) at this point. At least it is in Chapel Hill.
It’s a weird thing about the ACC that the conference tournament seems to be more of a burden than something they teams strive for. At this point, any team in the top 3-4 of the ACC has NCAA title aspirations, so the ACC tournament is just a chance for someone to get injured. I guess the feeling might be similar in the PAC 10. I guess they will keep playing it.
For sure. Mark K made his feelings known about the ACC tournament a few years ago when he played his reserves against Wake Forest in the semifinal. If you're a top seed in the ACC tournament, you're definitely already in the national tournament, almost certainly hosting. You've just played 10 ACC games, now you have to play two more (maybe three if you aren't a seed) against good teams before the nat'l tournament. That's just a hell of a gauntlet to run, and I'd guess more coaches than just Mark would prefer to rest their players at that stage of the season. Also, for the teams on the bubble of getting in, maybe they're not national title aspirants, but they're good enough to win multiple games in the national tournament. I'm pretty sure one year Wake was .500 with a high RPI, lost their first ACC Tournament game, and so missed out on the national tournament. For a conference that puts 10-11 teams in the national tournament every year, the conference tournament doesn't really serve the purpose it serves for most conferences. Maybe there should just be a regular-season champion, but I don't think that will ever happen.
This is for another thread I guess and been debated here. What happened to the team that beat Wake that year? Maybe they were a bubble team and that win got them in? or the next win? Maybe Wake was not in good form and didn't deserve the bid that year. That's also a purpose of the tournament. A team that gets into good form late in the season can earn their way into the NCAA tournament. Teams in poor form late maybe don't deserve the extra games in November. The ACC went to a 4-team format at one point and that was stupid. All 4 teams are def getting bids so there was no chance for a 5-8 team to earn a bid or maybe not. I think if you care about a conf championship and want your best teams in the NCAA tournament, you work to schedule that tournament properly. The interest and excitement of a 1 and done conference tournament, that should be a showcase really, often at a "showcase" venue, has a lot of merit and isn't going away. 2 cents
I'm all for getting rid of 2/3 needless games alongside potentially extending the season from a fall sport into a fall/spring sport like they have proposed for the men. Would love to get to the point that everybody plays everybody again in the ACC.
The 2 season model is not coming to the women's game and not sure there is much stomach for it at the mid/lower levels of men's D1. The pandemic spring season turned a lot of people against even considering the idea (maybe if the P5's went out on their own, but not in the current model). They are very seriously talking about extending the season on the women's side. It won't be quite the same, but it is being done with the idea of limiting midweek games.
As Wake was at .500 I doubt they played a bubble team, since that's not how seeds work. I'm guessing they played a top team. But I'll try to look it up.
The tournament normally is a help for the champion and runner up, in terms of NCAA Tournament seeding. It may help the semi-finalists a little but probably is more of a neutral effect. If there are more rounds, it can hurt the early round losers not just in terms of the 0.500 winning percentage requirement but also in terms of RPI rating and rank. The coaches are well aware of this; and the conference has considered not having the tournament. From what I have heard, a big impetus in favor of conference tournaments is that the players really like them -- which, in my opinion, should be given a lot of weight. Just for clarification, and not on your main point, here are the poorer rank levels of teams the ACC has had in the NCAA Tournament since 2007 (excluding 2020-21, which I consider not useful for this kind of analysis): #11, NC State, in 2018 #9-10 (tied), Wake Forest, in 2018 #9, Clemson in 2017, Wake Forest in 2013, Miami in 2011 #8-9 (tied), Virginia Tech in 2019 and Virginia Tech in 2012 So a better perspective would be that the ACC puts 8-9 teams in the NCAA Tournament every year and occasionally can put in more even up to 11.