ACC Tournament Seeding Scenarios

Elaborating on my post from yesterday, I thought it might be interesting to take a more in depth look at each team’s best and worst ACC tournament seed scenarios.

Miami (14-4; vs. FSU, vs. Pitt remaining)

Best possible seed: 1

Worst possible seed: 4

Miami controls its own destiny.  If they beat Pitt, they are #1, unless they lose at home to FSU AND Virginia wins out.  Even if they lose to Pitt, they can still be #1 with a little help.  I can find one scenario where they fall to #4, although the tiebreakers are complicated as heck.  But if Miami, Clemson, Pitt, and Duke all finish tied for second at 14-6 behind Virginia, I believe the Hurricanes would get the 4.

Pitt (13-4; vs. Syracuse, at ND, at Miami remaining)

Best possible seed: 1

Worst possible seed: 6

Pitt also controls its destiny.  Win out, and the Panthers are the 1 seed.  The already have a win over Miami and a win over Virginia, so tiebreaker scenarios are kind to them.  But winning out means winning at Miami – a long shot.  Pitt’s low end scenario is a 5th place tie at 13-7 with NC State or Duke.  The Panthers would lose a tie with Duke, so they would wind up as the 6 seed if they lose out, NC State wins out, and Duke beats UNC and Virginia Tech.

Virginia (13-4; at UNC, vs. Clemson, vs. Louisville remaining)

Best possible seed: 1

Worst possible seed: 5

Virginia lost to Miami and Pitt, so in general, they don’t do well in top end tiebreaker scenarios.  The only way they get the 1 seed is to be in first place outright.  Which probably means winning out and having Pitt beat Miami but lose one of their other two games.  The worst the Cavaliers could do is a 5th-place tie with either Duke or NC State at 13-7.  Either way, UVa would win that tie and be the 5 seed.

Clemson (12-5; at NC State, at Virginia, vs. ND remaining)

Best possible seed: 1

Worst possible seed: 8

Clemson has a wide range of possible seeds.  Their 1 seed scenarios involve them winning out and Miami losing out, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.  But the Tigers already have a win over Pitt, and they play Virginia on Tuesday.  If they win that one, then they have some tiebreaker advantages and a 2 seed is very much in play if they can win out.  On the other hand, if the Tigers lose out, it’s possible they could finish in a 3-way tie for 6th at 12-8 with UNC and Wake, both of whom beat them earlier in the season, in which case Clemson would get the 8.

NC State (12-6; vs. Clemson, at Duke remaining)

Best possible seed: 2

Worst possible seed: 8

The Wolfpack don’t fare well in top end tiebreaker scenarios due to their losses to Pitt and Virginia.  They split with Miami and are hoping for a split with Clemson.  The only scenario I can find where they get the 2 seed is if they finish in a second place tie at 14-6 with Clemson, behind Miami.  This would require that both Virginia and Pitt lose out, which isn’t going to happen.  The worst scenario for the Wolfpack is a 3-way tie for 6th at 12-8 with UNC and Syracuse.  If that happens, the Wolfpack will be the 8.

Duke (11-6; vs. Virginia Tech, vs. NC State, at UNC remaining)

Best possible seed: 2

Worst possible seed: 9

Duke can get the 2 seed if they win out and Miami loses out and Virginia loses out.  And maybe some other stuff.  But it can happen.  Duke drops all the way down to 9 if they lose out and finish tied for 8th with Wake at 11-9 (which implies that UNC and Syracuse both win out), and Clemson finishes ahead of Miami and Pitt.  Just trust me.

UNC (9-8; vs. Virginia, at FSU, vs. Duke remaining)

Best possible seed: 5

Worst possible seed: 11

The Tar Heels get the 5 if they win out, Clemson loses out, and Duke finishes no better than 12-8.  Substitute NC State for Clemson in the previous sentence, and it holds, except that tiebreaker scenario is more complicated and would also require that Clemson finish ahead of Miami.  Again, trust me.  The worst scenario for the Tar Heels would be if they lose out and finish in a tie with either Virginia Tech or FSU for 10th place at 9-11.  The Tar Heels would lose the tiebreaker and get the 11 seed.

Wake (9-8; vs. Notre Dame, vs. BC, at Syracuse remaining)

Best possible seed: 5

Worst possible seed: 10

Really unfortunate news about Damari Monsanto.  Wake does have a favorable schedule remaining though, and if they can win out, they would get the 5 seed if Clemson loses out and Duke is no better than 12-8.  Wake’s worst possible finish is a 10th place tie with either FSU or Virginia Tech at 9-11; the Deacons have the tiebreaker over both, so they can’t be lower than 10th.

Syracuse (9-8; at Pitt, vs. GT, vs. Wake remaining)

Best possible seed: 6

Worst possible seed: 11

If Syracuse can win out, they could get the 6 if either NC State or Duke loses out.  They might need UNC to lose a game too, depending on various tiebreaker scenarios.  They could finish as low as 11 if they lose out and finish tied for 10th at 9-11 with Virginia Tech.  The Orange split their 2 games with the Hokies this year, so that tiebreaker would depend on other things. 

Boston College (8-10; at Wake, vs. GT remaining)

Best possible seed: 8

Worst possible seed: 11

The Eagles’ scenarios are comparatively clear.  They are the 8 seed if they win out, UNC loses out, and either Wake or Syracuse loses out.  They lose all tiebreaker scenarios with UNC, Wake, and Syracuse.  If BC finishes 8-12, they could finish in a tie for 11th with either FSU or Virginia Tech, both of whom they own the tiebreaker advantage over.

Virginia Tech (6-11; at Duke, at Louisville, vs. FSU remaining)

Best possible seed: 8

Worst possible seed: 13

The Hokies hope to get themselves into a 3-way tie for 8th with UNC and Syracuse at 9-11.  In that case, they would get the 8 seed.  They could go as low as 13 if they lose out and Georgia Tech wins out.

Florida State (6-11; at Miami, vs. UNC, at Va Tech remaining)

Best possible seed: 8

Worst possible seed: 12

Like Virginia Tech, FSU’s best scenario is to win out and have UNC and Syracuse lose out.  In that case, FSU would “probably” get the tiebreaker because of their win over Pitt.  The Seminoles can’t fall any farther than where they are right now – 12th.

Georgia Tech (3-14; vs. Louisville, at Syracuse, at BC remaining)

Best possible seed: 12

Worst possible seed: 15

The Jackets will be the 12 if they win out and Virginia Tech loses out.  They’ll be the 15 if they finish below Notre Dame and Louisville.

Notre Dame (2-15; at Wake, vs. Pitt, at Clemson remaining)

Best possible seed: 13

Worst possible seed: 15

The Irish sure look like they’re headed for a 2-18 ACC finish.  If they can jump over Georgia Tech, they’re the 13; if they drop below Louisville, they’re the 15.  They have the tiebreaker over Louisville.  They split with Georgia Tech, so that’s a little dicier.

Louisville (2-15; at GT, vs. Va Tech, at Virginia remaining)

Best possible seed: 13

Worst possible seed: 15

The Cardinals have shown some growth down the stretch here.  Let’s see if they can get out of the cellar.

ACC Tournament Outlook – 2/23

I spent some time today looking at the ACC standings and thinking about how the tournament might play out. With 2-3 regular season games left for each team, a lot could still happen, but we can start to play out some scenarios. There are natural groupings in the current standings: the Top 6; 7-9; 10; 11-12; and 13-15.

Recall the format of the tournament. Seeds 10-15 have to play the dreaded Tuesday games. At this point, it is certain that Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and Louisville will be playing, and all but certain that Virginia Tech and Florida State will be joining them. It’s likely that BC will be the 10 seed, but you cannot rule out them moving up to the 9 if they can win their last two games.

Seeds 5-9 make their first appearances on Wednesday. The current group of 9-8 teams, UNC, Syracuse, and Wake, will be in this group, unless BC bumps one of them. The 5 and 6 teams are NC State and Duke right now, but that could change. The most likely team to fall from the top 4 into this range is Clemson. The Tigers have tough road games left at NC State and at Virginia. If they lose both, they will likely find themselves as a 5 or 6 seed.

The top four seeds get the treasured double bye and don’t have to play until Thursday. It is certain that these teams will come from the current Top 6. The number one seed is very likely to be Miami. Their schedule is favorable to finish 16-4, and they have the tiebreaker over Virginia. Pitt has a chance if they can win out, which would include winning at Miami, which would give them a season sweep of the Hurricanes. There are also scenarios where Clemson winds up as the 1 seed if they win out and get some help. Virginia in general does not win tiebreaker scenarios, so the only way they wind up as the 1 is if they win out and finish first outright.

I don’t think it’s possible for State or Duke to be the 1 seed. Each of them could finish in a first place tie if they win out and Miami loses two games and a bunch of other things happen that aren’t going to happen. But even if they all do happen, State and Duke don’t win the tiebreakers that I can see.

Thinking about what would be the best seed for State, two things come to mind. One, you’d like to avoid Miami and Duke for as long as possible. The most difficult road would be Duke in the 4/5 game in the quarterfinals, then #1 Miami in the semis. And that’s entirely possible. You’d almost rather be the 6 seed, where it’s more likely that you would play Pitt and/or UVa in the quarters and semis. Of course you want to win every game, but Wolfpack fans shouldn’t be too disappointed if NC State beats Clemson, loses to Duke, and winds up as the 6. Although a downside to that is, you might wind up playing Virginia Tech, the scariest of the 10-15 teams, on Wednesday.

The second thing to think about is, State is the odd team out on the last weekend of the regular season. Their last regular season game is actually Tuesday against Duke. So by the time the tournament comes around, they won’t have played for over a week. That’s where I think the double bye could work against them. I’d rather be the 5 or 6 seed and get a Wednesday “warm-up” game than to get the 4 seed, in which case their first game in nine days would be a quarterfinal against a really good team, probably Duke.

What about Carolina? As everyone knows, they need Quad I wins. Who do they need to play to get them? On a neutral court, that’s Miami, Virginia, NC State, and Duke. That’s who they need to beat to improve their tournament resume. They’ll have to win a Wednesday game in order to get the chance, and even then, they could end up matched with Pitt or Clemson in the quarters. Between their remaining regular season games against Virginia and Duke and the tournament, I think they need two Quad I wins to get in.

Miami certainly seems like the favorite, with Duke and NC State being the trendy picks for “teams nobody wants to play right now”. But I don’t know that I can recall a more wide open tournament. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see any of the current top 9 teams win it.

Bracketology 2/19

Another week of college basketball is in the books. This week the NCAA came out with their top 16 seeds, which is kind of a sanity check for us bracketologists. I was more or less on target with one exception; I had UConn as a 3 seed over Marquette. I can certainly see why the committee would pick Marquette; they are 13-3 in the Big East, while UConn is only 9-7. However, UConn has in incredibly impressive non-conference resume; they beat Alabama, Iowa State, and Oregon on neutral courts, and they won at Florida, and the closest of those four games was 15 points.

But I do think the committee has a recency bias, and you might say that’s appropriate, although in my opinion games in November ought to count the same as games in February.

Here’s an update on ACC teams.

Virginia – headed for a 3 at this point, and more likely to move down than up.

Pitt – I have them as an 11 after the loss to Virginia Tech. That is lower than most prognosticators. Despite their ACC record, their overall resume isn’t that good. They have 6 sub-Quad I losses – the most of any serious tournament contender. They better not stumble down the stretch.

Miami – A solid 5 and more likely to go up than down. Historically, 5s get upset much more than 4s in the tournament. Favorable schedule remaining.

Clemson – I see them as not even close right now. Lunardi’s had them close to the cut line, but I don’t see how. Their NET is 80, they have no Quad I-A wins, and three Quad 4 losses. I’m not aware of any team receiving an at-large bid with three Quad 4 losses. They must win at NC State or at Virginia to even be relevant, and in my opinion they have to win out to get in.

NC State – I have the Wolfpack as a 10 seed, maybe one spot lower than the consensus. They’re not quite a lock, but they would have to fall apart to miss the tournament.

Duke – I have them as an 8. Very close to the 8/9 cut line in my model. They finish with NC State at home and at UNC, so still could move up.

North Carolina – I have the Tar Heels as the first team out, and in a way I think that makes them sound closer than they really are. As the commentators never tire of pointing out, they are 0-9 against Quad I opponents, and they WILL NOT get in without a Quad I win. They have two more chances with home games against Virginia and Duke. If they lose those, forget about it. If they can win one of those, and their two road games against Notre Dame and FSU, then it might come down to the ACC Tournament. My sense is, they won’t get in without two Quad I wins.

Everybody else – not close. Virginia Tech and Wake Forest would have to jump 10-15 teams to get in. Each needs to win out, and then probably do some damage in the ACC Tournament.

And now for the bracket:

  1. Kansas, Alabama, Purdue, Houston
  2. Texas, Arizona, Baylor, UCLA
  3. Tennessee, UConn, Gonzaga, Virginia
  4. Marquette, Indiana, Iowa State, Xavier
  5. St. Mary’s, Kansas State, Miami, San Diego State
  6. Creighton, Arkansas, Maryland, Northwestern
  7. TCU, Texas A&M, Auburn, Iowa
  8. Providence, Kentucky, Michigan State, Duke
  9. Illinois, Boise State, Florida Atlantic, Memphis
  10. Nevada, Rutgers, NC State, Oklahoma State
  11. Missouri, West Virginia, Mississippi State, Pitt, USC, Utah State
  12. College of Charleston, Drake, VCU, Oral Roberts
  13. Kent State, Liberty, Utah Valley, Southern Miss
  14. Yale, Iona, UC Irvine, Eastern Washington
  15. Youngstown St., Colgate, Vermont, UNC Asheville
  16. Samford, Texas A&M Corpus Christi, Morehead State, Howard, Alcorn State, Merrimack

Last Four Byes: NC State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, West Virginia

Last Four In: Mississippi State, Pitt, USC, Utah State

First Four Out: UNC, Wisconsin, North Texas, Oregon

Next Four Out: Coll. of Charleston (if they don’t get an automatic bid), New Mexico, Penn State, Texas Tech

Officiating in College Basketball

I’m going to engage in a time-honored tradition among college basketball fans: I’m going to complain about the refs.

I take as my illustration the example which is freshest in my mind, last night’s NC State-Syracuse game. But you can start from wherever you are. It really doesn’t matter; the problems are everywhere. I may sound like a whining State fan, and I probably am, but I promise you I could have used just about any other game to illustrate these points.

What I see as the essential problem is this: the officials call too many fouls. Many of the fouls they call are unnecessary. As a result, the officials are too intrusive and have too much influence over the outcome of the game.

How many times do you watch a close college basketball game, and what you remember about it most vividly, and what is talked about after the game, is not the on-court action but the officiating? Doesn’t that indicate that something is wrong? It isn’t supposed to be this way, is it? How often does this happen in baseball, or soccer, or tennis, or golf? That what you remember is a call (or non-call), not a play? Admittedly this does happen quite a bit in football, but I would still say that officiating is more influential in basketball than in any other sport.

Certainly some of the problem is not the fault of the officials or the rules; it’s built into the game of basketball. If you think about it, basketball confines ten people in a very small space. Five of them really want to get somewhere, and the other five really want to keep them from getting there. As a result, there is going to be contact. And that’s a problem, because basketball is supposed to be a “flow” game like soccer or hockey. The ball moves, the players move, the whole game is characterized by free-flowing movement. Excessive contact prevents that, so in order to preserve the integrity of the game, there have to be a lot of restrictions on contact. Certain forms of contact are acceptable, but many are not, and result in a foul. It’s a situation that is naturally set up to result in officials having to make a lot of calls.

The irony of the situation is that the intent of the foul rules is not to interrupt the flow of the game; it is in fact the opposite of that. The foul rules are intended to disincentivize unwanted contact so as to allow the game to flow. In other words, to let basketball be basketball.

These things are destined to always be in tension. On one hand, excessive contact turns the game of basketball into something other than what it was intended to be, and it messes up the balance between offense and defense. On the other hand, the enforcement of the rules around physical contact requires an intrusive officiating presence, with three officials further crowding the already confined space where the players are, watching their every move, and frequently interrupting the game to whistle a violation. The thing that is supposed to preserve the flow of the game has to interrupt the flow of the game to do it.

So my point is, I get it. It’s hard to find the perfect balance between these things, and it always will be. My argument is that college basketball currently leans too heavily towards calling fouls in situations where the contact is insignificant and has little outcome on the play; or where the contact is not an outcome of the natural flow of the game, but is instead a charade.

As Exhibit A, I’d like to reference back-to-back plays in last night’s NC State-Syracuse game. Take a look at the two plays that start around the 9:58 mark in the condensed game video:

In the first play, NC State’s Ebenezer Duwuona is guarding Syracuse’s Jesse Edwards. Edwards works his way into the painted area, very close to the basket. Duwuona moves with him, keeping his body between Edwards and the basket. Duwuona is clearly trying to stay close to Edwards but remain perfectly vertical so as to avoid fouling. When Edwards elevates for the shot, there is a slight amount of body contact, that if anything was created by Edwards jumping into Duwuona. At no time does Duwuona do anything to initiate contact, other than stay close to Edwards. The contact is minimal and appears not to affect Edwards in any way. But it’s a foul on Duwuona.

Folks, there’s nothing to see here. It’s a no-call. I’m not a basketball rules expert, so I’m not trying to say it’s not the correct application of the rule. But if the rules say that’s a foul, then the rules are bad. That contact is incidental and the offensive player needs to be able to finish through it – which Edwards does.

Then you go down to the other end, and the same situation plays out. This time, Edwards is the defender against DJ Burns. Edwards does move his right arm downward a bit as Burns takes the shot, but is there any contact there? I don’t see it. I suppose it’s possible that Edwards made contact with Burns’ left arm, but I’m not able to see it. In any case, you get the idea. This kind of thing happens all the time in college basketball. A defender is making no attempt to defend the play, other than keeping himself between the shooter and the basket. Contact is either non-existent or, at most, gentle. And yet, fouls are called. Action is disrupted. Players foul out. And games are decided.

The other situation I’d like to highlight occurs just two plays later at the 10:34 mark. Burns catches the ball in good post position. He takes a couple of dribbles and goes up for a shot. The defender – who is 6’11” and weighs 230 pounds – hurls himself backwards and goes supine onto the floor. And he is rewarded for this behavior by getting an offensive foul called on Burns.

I find this entire situation intolerable. Burns has done everything right. He has outworked Edwards for good post position. He has turned and gone up strong for a shot. Edwards has done nothing in particular defensively. He has allowed Burns to get good post position and he hasn’t attempted to make a play on the ball. And he knows it. He knows that Burns is about to score on him. And instead of responding by attempting to block Burns’ shot, or simply letting him have the shot that he has earned and trying to get in rebounding position, he has one more trick up his sleeve. He attempts, in what can only be described as a performative act rather than a basketball play, to make it appear as though Burns has barreled right through an innocent defender. And it works.

It’s not Edwards’ fault. People respond to incentives. So as long as this behavior is rewarded, of course defenders are going to do it, and they should. The problem is the rules, or the interpretation of them, that incentivize these plays. The entire concept is flawed. Think about the very language we use to refer to this play – we call it “drawing” a charge. Why do we use that term “draw”? It’s because we know that this is not an attempt to actually play defense; it’s an attempt to lure the offensive player and the officials into playing their appointed roles in a scripted performance.

We’ve all seen it a million times. The offense has put itself in an advantageous position and is moving toward the basket. The defender resorts to inserting himself into the path of the offensive player who is in the process of leaping or shooting, in hopes that the offensive player will knock him over. Oftentimes the player crosses his arms over his chest in a kind of “brace for impact” position. The whole thing is contrived. It’s not defense, it’s theater; and we fall for it.

There are offensive fouls that occur naturally in the course of play. A dribbler will hook a defender with his arm in an attempt to get by. A screener will move into a defender. A defender who is actually guarding someone by moving his feet in a defensive stance will get knocked over by an overly aggressive driver. I have no problem at all with those calls. What I have a problem with is the non-defensive play where the defender sets himself up like a bowling pin in the lane and then launches himself backward in an attempt to create the appearance of something.

Get in a defensive stance. Make a play on the ball. Get a steal. Block a shot. Contest a shot. Hack him and make him earn it from the line. Or get out of the way and let him score. But this performative nonsense must be stopped. The solution is to just stop calling it. We don’t call it within the restricted area; how about if we increase that area by a few feet? How about if officials exercise some discernment about guys who are seven feet tall being knocked off their feet rather than actually contesting a shot?

To me, the key differentiator should be, what is the defender’s intent? Does the defender get knocked over in the process of actually guarding the offensive player, or is the defender attempting to get knocked over and “draw” a charge? You may say it’s asking too much for the officials to determine intent, but is it? As a fan, can’t you tell the difference between a defender who is trying to guard someone and a defender who is trying to draw a charge? If you can tell, don’t you think the best referees in college basketball should be able to tell too? It would send a clear message to the players: stop messing around and play basketball. Isn’t that what we want?

After the game, Kevin Keatts was uncharacteristically direct about his displeasure with the officiating. He said exactly what I was thinking: “let the players decide the game”. Yes. Of course, the officials would probably say, the players do decide the game – by fouling or not fouling in critical situations. That’s true, in a sense, but the spirit of Keatts’ comment is certainly correct. We should err on the side of letting players play and keeping officials out of the way.

There is much else that could be said about officiating as well. The ego-driven histrionics of the some of the officials; the incessant reviews that bog down the ends of games; and the blatant missed calls such as the one that gave Virginia a win over Duke that they shouldn’t have had. But this is the thing that bothers me most.

Bracketology 2/12

It’s been a busy weekend in college basketball. Here are the Bracketology headlines:

  • Texas moves up to the top line. Their 10-5 Quadrant 1 record, including 6 wins against Quadrant 1A, is too good to ignore. Their blowout of West Virginia drops the Mountaineers to a 9.
  • Tennessee drops down to a 3 after another buzzer-beater loss, this time at the hands of Missouri. The Tigers jump up to a 7.
  • Creighton is on fire and they jump to a 5.
  • Oklahoma State gets a huge win at Iowa State and jumps to a 7.
  • Providence is now firmly in bubble territory after their fourth loss in their last five games.
  • Mississippi State gets a huge win at Arkansas and jumps into the field.
  • Kentucky remains in the bracket after losing at Georgia, but just barely.
  • New Mexico drops out of the field with a bad loss at Air Force.

In the ACC,

  • NC State moved up a line after blowing out Boston College
  • UNC solidified their position a bit by blowing out Clemson
  • Miami and Pitt avoided bad losses with wins over Louisville and FSU
  • Virginia Tech and Wake Forest kept their faint hopes alive with wins over Notre Dame and Georgia Tech

A lot of bracketologists still have Clemson in. I don’t see it. They have two Quad 4 losses. At-large teams with two Quad 4 losses are extremely rare. Since 2016, there have been four: Providence 2017, Providence 2018, Baylor 2019, and Arizona State 2019. The first three of those teams had much stronger Quad 1 wins than the Tigers do. Arizona State 2019, well that was one of the oddest and most controversial selections in recent memory. Clemson is down to 77th in the NET. No team ranked lower than that has been selected as an at-large team since at least 2016, although Rutgers 2022 was exactly 77th. But they had six Quad 1 wins.

We can’t talk about yesterday without talking about Duke-Virginia. It’s odd to be in the position of defending Duke for being on the wrong end of a call, but that was a miscarriage of justice. Considering the circumstances – the importance of the situation, the fact that the replays clearly showed what happened and the officials had all the time they needed to review, and the fact that the correct call was made on the floor but was reversed – I think that’s the worst officiating decision I’ve ever seen.

From the explanations, I gather that the officials reasoned that the foul occurred not on the arm but with the body, and the body contact happened after the buzzer, therefore no foul. There are two things wrong with that. 1) That’s not the rule. 2) Yes, the foul absolutely did take place on the arm.

Let’s not overthink this. It doesn’t require knowledge of arcane rules. A guy went up for a shot and was hacked in the act before the clock ran out. Anyone with eyes could see it. Get the call right, and Duke very likely has a massive road win. With that win, Duke is probably a 7 seed, maybe a 6. As it is, I have them as a 9. That’s lower than Lunardi and most others, but if you forget about the name on the jersey and look at the blind resume, that’s where they belong.

Here’s the current bracket, with automatic bids in bold:

  1. Alabama, Purdue, Kansas, Texas
  2. Houston, Baylor, Arizona, UCLA
  3. Virginia, Tennessee, UConn, Xavier
  4. Gonzaga, Kansas State, Marquette, Indiana
  5. Iowa State, St. Mary’s, San Diego State, Creighton
  6. Miami, Illinois, TCU, Arkansas
  7. Florida Atlantic, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Auburn
  8. Maryland, Rutgers, Nevada, Michigan State
  9. West Virginia, NC State, Iowa, Duke
  10. Memphis, Northwestern, Boise State, Providence
  11. Mississippi State, UNC, Pitt, Texas A&M, Kentucky, Oregon
  12. College of Charleston, Oral Roberts, Drake, Liberty
  13. Southern Miss, VCU, Sam Houston, Kent St.
  14. Yale, Iona, Furman, UC Santa Barbara
  15. Youngstown St., Eastern Washington, Colgate, Vermont
  16. UNC Asheville, Northwestern St., Alcorn St., Howard, Morehead St., Fairleigh Dickinson

Last Four Byes: Boise State, Providence, Mississippi State, UNC

Last Four In (Play-in games): Pitt, Texas A&M, Kentucky, Oregon

First Four Out: USC, New Mexico, Utah State, Wisconsin

Next Four Out: College of Charleston (if they don’t get an automatic bid), North Texas, Virginia Tech, Seton Hall

And Even the Next Four Out After That: Arizona State, Florida, Wake Forest, Clemson

Bracketology 2023 – 2/9 Bracket

The last Bracketology post I made was on the morning of March 12, 2020. That was the day the college basketball world stopped and everything got cancelled.

Thankfully, things have returned to something like normal, and I’m going to give this Bracketology thing another try here in 2023. I’ll do regular bracket updates, the occasional bubble watch, and some targeted commentary for ACC teams.

Here’s my bracket as it stands right now. Automatic bids in bold:

  1. Purdue, Alabama, Kansas, Houston
  2. Arizona, Texas, Baylor, Tennessee
  3. UCLA, Virginia, Xavier, UConn
  4. Kansas St., Gonzaga, Iowa St., Marquette
  5. Miami, Indiana, San Diego St., St. Mary’s
  6. Arkansas, TCU, Creighton, Auburn
  7. West Virginia, Rutgers, Illinois, Duke
  8. Florida Atlantic, Michigan St., Nevada, Iowa
  9. Maryland, Providence, Northwestern, Boise St.
  10. Memphis, NC State, Missouri, New Mexico
  11. Oklahoma St., Pitt, Kentucky, USC, UNC, Oregon
  12. College of Charleston, Oral Roberts, Liberty, Southern Miss
  13. VCU, Drake, Sam Houston, Kent St.
  14. Yale, Iona, Furman, UC Santa Barbara
  15. Colgate, E. Washington, Youngstown St., Vermont
  16. UNC Asheville, Northwestern St., Morgan St., Fairleigh Dickinson, Maryland Eastern Shore, Southern

Last Four Byes: Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma St., Pitt

Last Four In (Play-in games): Kentucky, USC, UNC, Oregon

First Four Out: Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Utah St., Mississippi St.

Next Four Out: College of Charleston (if they don’t get an automatic bid), Florida, Clemson, Wake Forest

How UNC Can Make the College Football Playoff

The Tar Heels currently sit at number 15 in the CFP rankings. According to fivethirtyeight.com, they have a 6% chance to make the college football playoff. So what has to happen for the Tar Heels to leapfrog 11 teams and get into the top four?

First things first. They have to win out, and that includes the ACC championship over Clemson. Clemson is one of the teams in front of them. So that’s one team passed.

Also, I think just by winning out, the Tar Heels will leapfrog Penn State. I don’t see the committee putting two-loss Penn State in the CFP over one-loss, ACC champion Carolina. That’s two teams passed.

Then there are head-to-head matchups of two teams ahead of UNC where somebody has to lose, and the loser is likely to fall behind the Tar Heels. USC-UCLA, Oregon-Utah, and Alabama-Ole Miss fall into that category. That’s five teams passed. We’ve gotten the Tar Heels up to number 10.

LSU needs to lose a game. If it doesn’t happen against Arkansas or Texas A&M, Georgia will see to it in the SEC championship. That’s six teams passed.

So let’s review where we are. We’ve gotten the Tar Heels up to number 9. The eight teams in front of them are Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, Tennessee, TCU, the Oregon-Utah winner, the USC-UCLA winner, and the Alabama-Ole Miss winner. Who else can the Tar Heels leapfrog?

Let’s start with TCU. The Horned Frogs still have to play at Texas, at Baylor, Iowa State at home, and probably the Big 12 Championship. Fivethirtyeight gives TCU only a 10% chance to win out. Now the question is, is one TCU loss enough for UNC to pass them? It’s hard to say, and I’m not sure what the committee would do in that situation. It might depend on which game they lose. If TCU loses one regular season game but still wins the Big 12 Championship, I think they would still be ahead of the Tar Heels. The only safe bet for UNC is for TCU to lose two games. The good news is, with TCU’s remaining schedule, there’s a pretty good chance of that happening. So count TCU as a team the Tar Heels would have a decent chance of passing.

Then there’s the Pac-12. We’ve already noted that two of the four teams ahead of the Tar Heels are guaranteed to lose due to head-to-head matchups. But there are lots more opportunities for Pac-12 teams to lose. USC still has to play Notre Dame. Oregon, in addition to their game with Utah, still has to play Washington and at Oregon State. And then there’s the Pac-12 championship game. According to fivethirtyeight, Oregon has an 80% chance of losing at least one more game, USC 85%, UCLA 84%, and Utah 73%.

Other than all four Pac-12 teams losing, the best case scenario for the Tar Heels would probably be for Utah to win out and then to beat the USC-UCLA winner in the Pac-12 championship. This would mean at least one more loss for Oregon, USC, and UCLA. It’s not certain that two-loss Utah would remain ahead of one-loss UNC in the CFP standings.

The Pac-12 picture is complex, but suffice it to say that there is a good chance that the Tar Heels could pass all four.

Then there is the Alabama-Ole Miss winner. If it’s Ole Miss, they still have two more tough games remaining, at Arkansas and Mississippi State. The Rebels have only a 10% chance to win out according to fivethirtyeight. The other issue is that it’s unlikely that the Alabama-Ole Miss winner will play in the SEC Championship game. Will the committee put an SEC team that didn’t win its division in the playoff over one-loss ACC Champion Carolina? I don’t think so, although a one-loss Ole Miss team vs. one-loss UNC would be a tough call.

So now we’ve come up with plausible scenarios where the Tar Heels leapfrog everyone but Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, and Tennessee. Which of those four teams is leap-able?

Georgia… I don’t see that happening. They would have to lose two games, and they aren’t going to.

Tennessee still has a game at South Carolina. I don’t think they’ll lose, but it’s possible.

That brings us to Ohio State and Michigan. Obviously, they still have to play each other. So the first question is, could Carolina jump over the loser of that game? If it’s Ohio State, I say no. If it’s Michigan… I still don’t think so, unless the Buckeyes blow them out. That would be an interesting committee decision, to decide between a one-loss Big 10 team that didn’t win its division and one-loss ACC champion UNC. My guess is the Big 10 team would get the nod.

So I think the Tar Heels are going to need an upset. They need either Tennessee to lose another game, or for Ohio State or Michigan to lose another game besides their head-to-head matchup. Ohio State has a game at Maryland, Michigan has a game against Illinois, and of course there’s the Big 10 Championship.

How likely is all of this? Well, the good news for Tar Heel fans is that while UNC has but a 6% chance of making the CFP overall, that probability goes up to 51% if they win out. The teams they have to leapfrog have a lot of tough games left and most of them are going to lose one along the way. Based on the scenarios above, I can easily see the Tar Heels getting to number 5 if they win out. But passing one of the current top four is going to require an upset and is a bit of a stretch.

Armando Bacot

Since I recently finished my series on the ACC’s 100 greatest players, I’ve been thinking about Armando Bacot and where he might fit into that group eventually. Bacot has a chance to do some amazing things. Let’s start with this. Last season, Bacot became the first ACC player in 66 years to grab 500 rebounds.

ACC 500 Rebound Seasons:

  • Dickie Hemric, 1955, 515
  • Ronnie Shavlik, 1955, 581
  • Ronnie Shavlik, 1956, 545
  • Armando Bacot, 2022, 511

Bacot needs 498 rebounds this season to become the fifth player in ACC history to have 1500 career rebounds.

ACC Career Rebound Leaders:

  • Hemric, 1802 (partially in Southern Conference)
  • Tim Duncan, 1570
  • Shavlik, 1567 (in 3 years)
  • Ralph Sampson, 1511

Bacot also has a chance to become the ACC’s 43rd 2000 point scorer. He needs 699 points. For reference, he had 635 last year. So it could happen. He needs one more bucket per game than he had last year.

Let’s play out the best-case scenario. Let’s say Bacot is National Player of the Year, ACC Player of the Year, and gets to 2000 career points and 1500 career rebounds – none of which is farfetched. Where would he rank in the Top 100? I think he’d be in the 20s, somewhere around Mark Price and Shavlik, in that range. If the Tar Heels could win the national championship, also not farfetched, maybe he could sneak into the teens, into Mike Gminski territory.

If Bacot is ACC Player of the Year and first team All-America, even if he doesn’t do all those other things, he’s probably a Top 50 player, similar to a Shelden Williams.

It hurts Bacot a bit that he didn’t win ACC Player of the Year last year. With all due respect to Alondes Williams, I think that vote was questionable.

When is the last time that an ACC player as good as Bacot came back for another year? I think you have to go back to Tyler Hansbrough in 2009. Hansbrough’s play slipped a little bit in his senior year, but he still had a great year, and the Tar Heels won the national championship. We’ll see how things play out for Bacot.

ACC Bowl Outlook 11/6

I’ve never done an ACC football post before, but today seems like a good day to do it. With three weeks to go, the ACC’s bowl prospects are starting to become at least a little bit clearer.

It’s not that easy to find concrete information on how bowl teams are selected. Most fans know that you have to win six games against FCS opponents in order to qualify. Except when you don’t; 5-7 teams can qualify if there aren’t enough six-win teams to fill the docket.

Some conferences have a clear pecking order among the bowls, but the ACC does not. There are Tier One bowls and Tier Two bowls, but within those groupings, it seems that specific selections are made in a smoke-filled room.

But one thing is very clear: the ACC champion goes to the Orange Bowl, unless that team makes the CFP, in which case the next highest-ranked team goes to the Orange Bowl. That has come into play in past years with Clemson making the CFP, but it almost certainly will not this year. It is difficult to imagine Clemson or UNC making the CFP this year. So I’m going to simplify things by saying that the ACC champion will be in the Orange Bowl.

Clemson has clinched the Atlantic division and a spot in the ACC championship game. UNC is very close; one more win would clinch the division, and even if UNC were to lose out, they could still make it with some help.

At this point, the ACC has eight bowl-eligible teams (Clemson, NC State, Syracuse, Louisville, FSU, Wake Forest, UNC, and Duke), with Pitt very likely to be a ninth. And there’s a good chance that will be it; I assess Miami’s chances of becoming bowl-eligible at 29%, Georgia Tech’s at 11%, and Virginia’s at 10%.

So most likely, the ACC will have nine bowl eligible teams. Then there’s Notre Dame. As a quasi-independent, Notre Dame’s relationship with the bowls is complicated, but because the Irish have three losses, it’s a little easier this year. Basically, they will take one of the ACC’s Tier One bowl slots. I guess you can’t completely rule out a 9-3 Notre Dame team getting into a New Year’s Six bowl, but that would require them winning at USC, and even then I’m not sure they’d make it.

So let’s summarize. The ACC will probably have nine bowl-eligible teams, plus Notre Dame. There are eight Tier One bowls, plus the Orange Bowl, and three Tier Two bowls. To complicate matters, the ReliaQuest Bowl (formerly the Outback Bowl) is traditionally a Big Ten – SEC matchup, but if the Orange Bowl selects a Big Ten team instead of an SEC team to play against the ACC team, then the ACC gets that slot in the ReliaQuest Bowl, which becomes a ninth Tier One Bowl. Here is the rundown in list form:

ACC Champion goes to the Orange Bowl (if not selected for CFP)

Tier One Bowls:

  • Cheez-It Bowl – Orlando
  • Duke’s Mayo Bowl – Charlotte
  • Fenway Bowl – Fenway Park
  • Military Bowl – Annapolis, MD
  • New Era Pinstripe Bowl – Yankee Stadium
  • ReliaQuest (formerly Outback) Bowl (only if Big Ten is selected for Orange Bowl) – Tampa
  • Holiday Bowl – San Diego
  • Gator Bowl – Jacksonville
  • Sun Bowl – El Paso, TX

Tier Two Bowls:

  • Gasparilla Bowl – Tampa
  • Birmingham Bowl – Birmingham
  • First Responder Bowl – Dallas

Right now, it seems unlikely that the ACC will get a team into the ReliaQuest Bowl. That probably comes down to Penn State or Illinois being selected for the Orange Bowl over Alabama or Ole Miss. The only chance I see of that happening is if Alabama and Ole Miss both lose another game. Even then I’m not sure. ACC fans should be pulling for this scenario. Best chance would probably be Ole Miss beating Alabama then losing to Mississippi State.

Assuming for the moment that the ACC doesn’t get a spot in the CFP or the ReliaQuest, here’s how I see it playing out, team by team, for the teams that are still relevant.

Clemson

Games Remaining: vs. Louisville, vs. Miami, vs. South Carolina

Possible Records: 11-1 (41% chance), 10-2 (44%), 9-3 (14%), 8-4 (1%)

Bowl Possibilities: As mentioned earlier, it’s hard for me to see Clemson making the CFP, even if they win out. They would need a lot of help. And I give them only about a 25% chance of winning out, including the championship. If the Tigers do win the ACC title, they’ll head to the Orange Bowl. If they lose the title game, it could get interesting. The Cheez-It Bowl would be the obvious choice, but they played there last year. My guess is they would wind up going to the Gator Bowl.

Duke

Games Remaining: vs. Virginia Tech, at Pitt, vs. Wake Forest

Possible Records: 9-3 (8%), 8-4 (34%), 7-5 (43%), 6-6 (15%)

Bowl Possibilities: Duke seems like a good fit for the Pinstripe Bowl (although the Pinstripe may go for Syracuse). The Military and Fenway Bowls are also possibilities. The Blue Devils can still win the Coastal Division if they win out and UNC loses out; I’d give that about a 1% chance of happening.

Florida State

Games Remaining: at Syracuse, Louisiana, Florida

Possible Records: 9-3 (20%), 8-4 (44%), 7-5 (30%), 6-6 (6%)

Bowl Possibilities: Florida State is an attractive team. If they could win out, it’s possible the Gator Bowl would pick them over Notre Dame. Otherwise, they’re probably headed to the Sun Bowl, Holiday Bowl, or Military Bowl. They could be a candidate for Duke’s Mayo Bowl in Charlotte if NC State doesn’t go there for whatever reason.

Georgia Tech

Games Remaining: vs. Miami, at UNC, at Georgia

Possible Records: 7-5 (<1%), 6-6 (11%), 5-7 (47%), 4-8 (43%)

Bowl Possibilities: probably not gonna happen. Tier Two bowl if they sneak in.

Louisville

Games Remaining: at Clemson, vs. NC State, at Kentucky

Possible Records: 9-3 (10%), 8-4 (36%), 7-5 (41%), 6-6 (14%)

Bowl Possibilities: The Cardinals have a similar profile to Florida State and will likely be competing with the Seminoles for the same bowls (Sun, Holiday, Military). They have a tough schedule remaining, however, and will be hard-pressed to do better than 7-5. I’d give them a little higher probability than the Seminoles of dropping to the Military Bowl.

Miami

Games Remaining: at Georgia Tech, at Clemson, vs. Pitt

Possible Records: 7-5 (3%), 6-6 (26%), 5-7 (48%), 4-8 (23%)

Bowl Possibilities: I don’t think it’s going to happen because the ‘Canes are terrible. If they do manage to make it to 6-6, they’ll be relegated to one of the Tier 2 bowls, maybe the Gasparilla.

NC State

Games Remaining: vs. Boston College, at Louisville, at UNC

Possible Records: 10-2 (15%), 9-3 (45%), 8-4 (35%), 7-5 (5%)

Bowl Possibilities: If the Wolfpack could win out, they would probably force their way into either the Gator or Cheez-It Bowl, although they’ve been to the Gator Bowl quite a lot recently. Otherwise, they probably wind up in the Duke’s Mayo Bowl in Charlotte. I don’t see them going back to the Holiday Bowl after last year’s fiasco. The Sun Bowl is a possibility.

North Carolina

Games Remaining: at Wake Forest, vs. Georgia Tech, vs. NC State

Possible Records: 11-1 (18%), 10-2 (44%), 9-3 (32%), 8-4 (6%)

Bowl Possibilities: If UNC wins the ACC, they’ll go to the Orange Bowl. If they lose, they’ll probably go to the Cheez-It Bowl. Things would get interesting if UNC finishes 9-4; in that scenario, they could fall farther to a Sun or Holiday.

Notre Dame

Games Remaining: at Navy, vs. Boston College, at USC

Possible Records: 9-3 (43%), 8-4 (47%), 7-5 (9%), 6-6 (<1%)

Bowl Possibilities: 9-3 Notre Dame would be very attractive, and you wonder if they could even squeeze into a New Year’s six bowl, considering that would involve winning at USC in their last game. It stinks for the ACC, but even 8-4 Notre Dame would likely get a Cheez-It or Gator Bowl slot over an ACC team.

Pitt

Games Remaining: at Virginia, vs. Duke, at Miami

Possible Records: 8-4 (27%), 7-5 (44%), 6-6 (25%), 5-7 (4%)

Bowl Possibilities: Pitt has the easiest remaining schedule of any team listed here. But I’m not sure how much it matters for their bowl prospects. They seem likely to go to one of the northern bowls: Military, Fenway, or Pinstripe. Pitt could also fall to the second tier, especially if they don’t win out.

Syracuse

Games Remaining: vs. Florida State, at Wake Forest, at Boston College

Possible Records: 9-3 (14%), 8-4 (41%), 7-5 (36%), 6-6 (8%)

Bowl Possibilities: The Orange are reeling after losing three straight, and it doesn’t get any easier with FSU and Wake the next two weeks. They seem like a good bet for the Fenway or Pinstripe Bowls. They are one of the teams that could fall to the second tier.

Virginia

Games Remaining: vs. Pitt, vs. Coastal Carolina, at Virginia Tech

Possible Records: 6-6 (10%), 5-7 (35%), 4-8 (40%), 3-9 (15%)

Bowl Possibilities: The Cavaliers have a faint pulse. If they can win out, they’ll wind up in a Tier Two bowl.

Wake Forest

Games Remaining: vs. UNC, vs. Syracuse, at Duke

Possible Records: 9-3 (19%), 8-4 (42%), 7-5 (31%), 6-6 (8%)

Bowl Possibilities: Wake could go in a lot of directions. A good case can be made for winning or losing each of their last three games. A 9-3 or 8-4 Wake team probably winds up in the Holiday or Sun Bowl. A 7-5 or 6-6 Wake team, which would mean a losing record in the ACC, is more likely to fall to Military, Fenway, or even a Tier Two.

Honorable Mention

As a way of wrapping up this series, I thought it would be good to make a list of other players who received serious consideration for the Top 100.  If you took my last 25 players and replaced them with some of these guys, you wouldn’t be losing much.  I list them in chronological order.

Joe Belmont, Duke, 1954-1956; Ronnie Mayer, Duke, 1954-1956; Lefty Davis, Wake Forest, 1954-1956

Belmont, Mayer, Davis, and #99 Vic Molodet of NC State formed a quartet of players who all played from 1954-1956 and are very difficult to distinguish.  In terms of career All-ACC balloting, Mayer received 452 points, Molodet 434, Belmont 401, Davis 385. 

Tommy Kearns, UNC, 1956-1958

Kearns and #74 Pete Brennan were the key players supporting #17 Lennie Rosenbluth on the 1957 championship team.  In 1958, without Rosenbluth, Kearns made first team All-ACC, but Brennan was ACC Player of the Year.

Doug Moe, UNC, 1959-1961

I had Moe on my list for a while but eventually took him off.  He was academically ineligible in the fall of 1959 and missed over half the Tar Heels’ games.  That probably kept him from being a three-time first-team All-ACC player and cost him a spot on the list.

Coach Bill Strannigan of Wyoming says he has seen only one basketball player better than North Carolina’s Doug Moe, 6-foot-6 senior.  “He was Wilt Chamberlain when he played for Kansas,” says Strannigan.  – The York Dispatch, York, PA, February 28, 1961

Bob Leonard, Wake Forest, 1964-1966

A prolific scorer who arrived just after the glory years of Chappell and Packer. Two-time first team All-ACC and two-time first team All-Tournament. He is the only player with the particular collection of honors who is not in the Top 100.

Eddie Biedenbach, NC State, 1965-1968

Two-time first team All-ACC player who was recruited by Everett Case, played two years for Press Maravich after Case resigned, missed a year with an injury, then played his last year for Norm Sloan.

Tom Owens, South Carolina, 1969-1971; Randy Denton, Duke, 1969-1971

Owens and Denton are similar players who played at the same time.  They finished first and second in rebounds per game all three seasons.  Owens finished his career with 444 All-ACC points; Denton had 442.  Owens was also an outstanding ACC Tournament performer, making first team All-Tournament twice.

Tate Armstrong, Duke, 1974-1977

A sharpshooting Texan, Armstrong was a tremendous scorer who didn’t have any help for most of his career. Then, once help arrived in the form of Spanarkel and Gminski, he went and broke his wrist and missed the second half of his senior year. He probably would have led the league in scoring and made first team All-ACC for the second time. That 1977 Duke team was sneaky good and a keen observer might have perceived that some magic was in the air in 1978.

Walter Davis, UNC, 1974-1977

“Sweet D” was a tremendous player who played at the same time as Kenny Carr, Skip Brown, and Tree Rollins. Overall he seems just behind them in terms of his accomplishments. He is perhaps another player who was held back a bit by playing for Dean Smith; when he got to the NBA, he was immediately one of the best players in the league.

Buck Williams, Maryland, 1979-1981

Williams was named to the 2003 list of the ACC’s 50 greatest players.  I don’t see how you name someone who never made first team All-ACC to the Top 50, but he was very good.

Othell Wilson, Virginia, 1981-1984

Wilson was the other guy on the #2 Ralph Sampson powerhouse Virginia teams.  His injury in 1982 may have cost the Cavaliers a chance to go to the Final Four that year.  But Wilson was a starter on two other Final Four teams (1981 and 1984).  He was first team All-ACC as a sophomore and barely missed as a junior.

Elden Campbell, Clemson, 1987-1990; Dale Davis, Clemson, 1988-1991

I stared at these two for hours and ultimately gave up.  I couldn’t even decide whether Campbell or Davis was better, much less whether they should be in the Top 100.  Clemson was really, really good in 1990, and it’s too bad they got nipped by the UConn buzzer beater.  But it spared them the pain of getting beaten by Duke in the regional final.

Chris Corchiani, NC State, 1988-1991

Maybe voting with my heart more than my head here, since Corchiani never made first team All-ACC.  But he was a great floor general and was the NCAA all-time assist leader until #35 Bobby Hurley surpassed his total (in ~700 more career minutes).  Second in ACC career assists and third in steals.  Remember that thing he used to do if a defender was pressuring him as he brought it up the court?  He would accelerate to get past the defender, then when the defender started running to catch up, Corchiani would suddenly put on the brakes.  The defender wouldn’t be able to stop quickly enough and would wind up on Corchiani’s back and get called for a foul.  Never seen that move from anyone else.

Travis Best, Georgia Tech, 1992-1995

Travis Best, along with Tree Rollins and Buck Williams, is one of the best players never to make first team All-ACC.  He finished sixth in 1994, three points behind #28 Joe Smith; and he finished sixth again in 1995, this time seven points behind Rasheed Wallace.  He is one of only four players in ACC history with 2000 points and 600 assists (the others are #6 Phil Ford, #61 Greivis Vasquez, and #18 Jason Williams).

Chris Carrawell, Duke, 1997-2000

Carrawell really had just the one year, and even that year I think he was a bit overrated.  It was one of those “best player on the best team” situations.  Except he wasn’t really the best player, #14 Shane Battier was.  But, he did run away with ACC Player of the Year and was first or second-team All-American.  Starter on the awesome 1999 team that lost to UConn in the championship game.  Duke’s five starters all finished in the top 12 in All-ACC balloting.

Ed Cota, UNC, 1997-2000; Lonny Baxter, Maryland, 1999-2002

Ed Cota and Lonny Baxter are similar players, not in their playing styles of course, but in terms of the trajectory of their careers.  Both were very good as freshmen and played key roles for their entire four-year careers; both made All-ACC three times; both players plateaued as very good but not great players; and both players had some NCAA Tournament success.  Cota played on three Final Four teams; Baxter was of course a key contributor to the 2002 national championship team.  Cota was essentially the same player – the same very good player – for his entire career.

Justin Gray, Wake Forest, 2003-2006

One of the outstanding three-point shooters in league history, Gray ranks eighth in career three-point field goals made. He is in the top 60 in career points scored and made first team All-ACC as a sophomore, but as a junior he was overshadowed by teammate Chris Paul and fell to second team. Then as a senior, the Deacons simply fell apart once ACC play started, finishing 3-13 in the league, and despite excellent individual stats, Gray was relegated to second team again.

Jared Dudley, Boston College, 2004-2007

Had his first two years not been in the Big East, Dudley would probably be in the Top 100.  ACC Player of the Year and second team All-American in 2007.  He was first team All-Big East in 2005.

Al Thornton, Florida State, 2004-2007

Thornton was a bit player his first two years, but he emerged as a junior and had a terrific senior year, finishing a close runner-up to Jared Dudley for ACC Player of the Year and making third team All-American.

Sean Singletary, Virginia, 2005-2008; Tyrese Rice, Boston College, 2006-2009; Malcolm Delaney, Virginia Tech, 2008-2011

Singletary, Rice, and Delaney are similar cases.  They played during more or less the same era; each scored over 2,000 career points; each made All-ACC a lot; each played on mediocre teams; none received serious consideration for ACC Player of the Year or national honors.  Singletary probably has the best case; he did play on a pretty good Virginia team in 2007, and he received 12 votes for ACC Player of the Year that year.  He is the only player to make first team All-ACC three times who isn’t on my list.  If I had it to do over again, I would probably find a spot for him.

Jack McClinton, Miami, 2007-2009

A two-time first team All-ACC performer who is one of the great shooters in league history. Second to JJ Redick in career free-throw percentage; second to Bo Outlaw in career three-point percentage, but at a much higher volume.

Trevor Booker, Clemson, 2007-2010

A personal favorite of mine.  Five ACC players have 1700 points, 1000 rebounds, and 200 blocks: #2 Ralph Sampson, #15 Sam Perkins, #4 Tim Duncan, #40 Shelden Williams – and Booker.  He played on the best stretch of basketball teams in Clemson history, the four-year run from 2008-2011 when the Tigers had winning records in the ACC and made the NCAA Tournament each year.  All three of the Booker teams (2008, 2009, 2010) lost in the first round.

Jerian Grant, Notre Dame, 2012-2015

Similar case to Jared Dudley.  Grant played his first two years in the Big East and was second team All-Big East as a sophomore.  As a senior, lost out on ACC Player of the Year to Jahlil Okafor, but was MOP of the ACC Tournament as the Irish took the title.  Came within a hair’s breadth of beating 37-0 Kentucky in the regional final and making Notre Dame’s first Final Four since 1978.  Missed most of the 2014 season with an injury which may have kept him off the list, as he was playing at a very high level.

Brice Johnson, UNC, 2013-2016

Similar to Carrawell in that Johnson really just had the one year, but it was some year.  He finished runner-up to #52 Malcolm Brogdon for ACC Player of the Year and was a first team All-American.  He was the MOP of the South Region for a UNC team that came tantalizingly close to winning it all.

Kyle Guy, Virginia, 2017-2019

Kyle Guy was #100 when I first published the top 100 list. Since then, I’ve changed my mind and moved him into honorable mention. His main argument is that he was MOP of the ACC Tournament (2018) and the NCAA Tournament (2019).  The only other players to win both those honors are Art Heyman, James Worthy, Christian Laettner, Shane Battier, and Kyle Singler. But honestly, Guy did not have a great NCAA Tournament in 2019. This was not a Sean May 2005, David Thompson 1974, Juan Dixon 2002, Christian Laettner 1991-type performance. He was money in the final which is why he won the award. Guy did make first team All-ACC twice, but both times he was the 5th-leading vote getter and finished behind a number of other guys who aren’t anywhere close to this list.  It’s not enough.