Just for fun I'll attempt to rank them. Stanford UNC UCLA FSU USC UVA Duke Honestly I'd have that top 4 be #1 seeds based on current strength.
better team won. No way on earth should the second goal be allowed. disgraceful refereeing Didn't get a chance to watch Friday's semifinal? Have no fear, we have all of the second-half goals that helped send the Noles to the ACC title match!#ShowUpEarnIt pic.twitter.com/cbva7UsPyH— FSU Soccer (@FSUSoccer) November 3, 2018
Yes the PAC 12 top teams are good but no conference can compare to the ACC top to bottom. Yes the ACC has a few weak teams at the very bottom. HOWEVER, FSU is currently winning the ACC tournament championship game (still time left). But if they win that means the 7 seed wins the ACC championship. What makes that different than any other conference 7 seed winning? NO ONE WILL BE SURPRISED IF FSU WINS THE TOURNAMENT. Any other conference its stunning if the 7 seed wins the tournament.
Well, one could argue that FSU underachieved pretty significantly this season and should never have been a 7th seed in the first place. I would make that argument! Let's not pretend that, with respect to overall talent, the noles are a midpack ACC team. They've probably got more talent than anybody outside of UNC.
But it shows how tough the ACC is. Yes the seminoles have a ton of talent and maybe shouldn't be a midpack ACC team but there were enough teams that beat Florida State that they were a midpack team this year.
FSU is just now gelling. They have had very few games this year with the full intact team due to various national and age group team duties. Then they lose a game to UM where we outshot them like 30 to 1. Those games happen from time to time. We did lose a couple of games we had no business losing.
Why do so many seem to ovverrate UNC talent? FSU has way more. FSu haso would make it from UNC? Not many.
ACC goes a very respectable 7-3 in the opening round. Best result is VA Tech winning on the road to beat a seeded Texas team. Clemson will be disappointed to lose at home. So will Boston College, 4-1 loss to Hofstra. Thought BC showed signs of life this year at times. But this is just their second Tournament appearance in 5 years and they are 0-2 in those appearances since 2013.
I am admittedly an SEC fan. But to put your ACC spin into perspective. Take away the big 4 (UNC, UVA, FSU and Duke) and the conference went 3-3. ACC went 0-2 against the SEC. No one is arguing that the top of the conference isn't strong. But to say the ACC conference is strong is incredibly misleading.
I saw most of the Mississippi--Clemson game and, unlike most of Clemson's games, it was open from start to finish. That helped Ole Miss, which is pretty athletic and can be dangerous on counterattacks. Ole Miss had a 1-0 lead at the half (off of a counter), Clemson tied the game 30 seconds into the second half on a nice cross and finish, and then the Rebels quickly regained the lead with a header off of a corner kick. The Rebels kept the Tigers at bay for the remaining 35+ minutes. Good game.
LOLOL. "Take away half your conference and you guys are nothing!" We'll just ignore history and facts. That's ok. To put what you just said into perspective... you guys had a nearly identical opening round record... 7-2. Take away Bunny Shaw and the SEC would have been 6-3.
Texas am was headed for pks against north texas(less than 2 mins left n 2OT). North tx stood tall against tx am and the result could've just as easily been n their favor. Was very impressed with their play.
I will assume that based on your screen name, mathematics and reasoning competencies, that you got one of those "athletics degrees" from UNC. African American Studies I believe it was. 1. 4/14 is 28%. Not 50% 2. To put something into perspective would mean to take a larger context into account. Not dial it in even smaller. If my 4 out of 14 (or 50% as you allege, but 28% as my calculator alleges) isn't an accurate sample size, then 1 player out of 400 certainly isn't. I am not discussing the overall strength of the SEC. Despite the fact the SEC is 2-0 against the self-proclaimed queens of soccer, my contention is that the OVERALL ACC is average. Thus taking out the top 4 teams from the ACC is relevant in the discussion that I started. The ACC arrogantly proclaims itself as the irrefutable top soccer conference. I believe when researched, it reveals a very bad bottom and an average middle.
Well that got rude for no reason. I would add that it makes much more sense to consider a single player an outlier to exclude from analysis than 28% of the players from a conference. And if you want to evaluate the “overall conference” then no, it doesn’t make sense to remove 28% of the sample, all from the same end of the distribution nonetheless.
And you guys are doubling down on this? The discussion was ACTUALLY ON THE OPPOSITE OF OUTLIERS. Sorry, I will try and use small words. I was contending that the ACC and people in the ACC speak as if the ACC conference is the strongest. My contention (sorry I couldn't think of a monosyllabic word for this) is that the conference is very top heavy and the middle is average and the bottom is awful. Thus the conference is not elite. A few teams are. You are agreeing with me from what I can tell. Fine. If you are contending that if there was no Bunny Shaw, then the SEC would stink, that is an argument you are welcome to make. It is dumb. But you are welcome to make it. I will say this as simply as I can. The ACC is top heavy. 4 teams are very good. The rest of the conference isn't anywhere near elite. It would be a very difficult argument to say, that because 25% of something is great, the the whole is. Go buy something that is 25% gold and see what that looks like. Or 25% meat. Or 25% anything really.
Isn't every conference the same in terms of top, middle and bottom teams? Pac 12 seems to have the best top group with Stanford, UCLA and USC. ACC would have the best and largest middle group, considering their 7th (2 RPI and a #1 seed) 8th (beat 13 RPI Texas), 9th (31 RPI) and 11th place (20 RPI) teams all won 2018 NCAAT games. How did 7th-14th SEC teams do? Or Pac 12? Or Big 10? Or Big 12? The bottom teams are, well, bottom for a reason. To me, if ACC has that deep of a middle group and you add UNC, Duke and UVa from whatever level you put them, then the answer looks easy.
According to Massey, whose ratings are excellent and possibly the best, here is the order of the top conferences for the 2018 regular season including conference tournaments: 1. Pac 12 1.58 2. Big 12 1.50 3. ACC 1.48 4. SEC 1.46 5. Big 10 1.43 6. Big East 1.21 7. West Coast 1.18 8. American Athletic 1.14 The top 5 look very close to me, with 2-4 looking particularly close. Arguing about which of 1 through 4 really is better basically is a bunch of puffing (that's an advertising term for bragging about how good your product is). According to the NCAA's RPI: 1. Big 12 .5896 2. SEC .5879 3. ACC .5858 4. Pac 12 .5810 5. Big 10 .5554 6. Big East .5437 7. American .5366 8. West Coast .5239 Here, the top 4 look very close. The only significant difference is that the Big 10 appears significantly weaker in relation to the top 4 than under Massey. Same comment for arguing about which of 1 through 4 is better. According to my 5 Iteration RPI, which is almost a good as Massey: 1. ACC .6794 2. SEC .6778 3. Big 12 .6769 4. Pac 12 .6757 5. Big 10 .6592 6. Big East .6217 7. American .6138 8. West Coast .6134 Again 1 through 4 are very close. Same comment for arguing about which of 1 through 4 is better. Turth be told, this year the top 4 were pretty much equal.
It hasn't been a secret that if you want to play/watch good soccer you go the Pac-12 or the ACC. The fact that the ACC has been the best or one of the best soccer conferences in the country for decades (mens and women's) is just that, a fact. Don't know who you are or where you came from, but I'd also take an ACC education over a degree from an SEC school while we're at it. Syracuse and Pitt are the only programs in the ACC that haven't been to the NCAAs in a while (if ever?). And Pitt just got the old Notre Dame coach so we'll see what happens there. Bye troll. Have fun watching Mississippi State.
Well as long as you say it, it must be a fact. I am not talking about the last few "decades." I am talking this year. I will have fun watching Mississippi St. Either them or Boston College. Uhhhhhhhhh. But let's don't let facts get in the way of our opinions.
An All ACC team would be very good. I think an ALL ACC vs ALL PAC-12 would be pretty even. The Edge going to Pac-12 because they would have the top 2 players in the game.
The "take away Shaw" (or any outstanding player on any team) comment is weak. Take away Dorsey and Duke would not have been nearly as good last year.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say removing four entire rosters, totaling over 50 players, in order to make the ACC appear equivalent to other conferences is a bit more “weak”. Which was the point the poster was responding to.
The comment was (mostly) sarcasm made in response to his ridiculous comment of removing teams from the conference and then evaluating said strength of conference.