Tag: ACC

29. 2018 Virginia

Record: 31-3, 17-1 (1st place)
ACC Tournament: Won
NCAA Tournament: Lost in round of 64
Final AP Ranking: 1
All-ACC Players: Kyle Guy (1st), Devon Hall (2nd), Ty Jerome (3rd)
All-Americans: None

We may as well begin by acknowledging the elephant in the room. There is no consideration of 2018 Virginia that does not begin with their historic loss to UMBC. That is what most people will remember about this team: one game that overshadows everything else they accomplished. There has never been a game like that game, and perhaps there never will be. For a team like UMBC to score 53 points in the second half against the best defensive team in the country, in a game when they had everything to play for… I don’t typically look for psychological explanations for sporting events, but I don’t think this is explainable otherwise.

Even the psychological explanation is problematic. Typically when I think of sports psychology in basketball, I think of shooting under pressure. Perhaps we can all understand a poor shooting performance in a high pressure situation. But how do you explain a complete defensive breakdown in a high pressure situation? And don’t tell me it’s because De’Andre Hunter was out. I know he was an excellent player, and it hurt them, but he played only 20 minutes per game that year. They were still playing great defense when he wasn’t on the floor.

I can’t explain that game. But I do know that before that game, Virginia went 31-2. I know they played 21 games against ACC competition and won 20 of them. That record is simply too good to leave off this list.

There’s been a lot said over the years regarding Virginia’s style of play and whether it hurts them in March. It’s not just Virginia; a team’s style of play and how that affects their postseason prospects is a frequent topic of debate for sports pundits. You’ll notice that no two authorities ever seem to agree in their assessment of what particular style of play leads to postseason success. Defense wins championships, offense wins championships, the Yankees are too reliant on the home run, etc. These debates tend to be long on unsubstantiated assertions and conjecture, and short on facts.

In general, I think this kind of argument is a lot of hooey. The game is the game, and it doesn’t suddenly become a different game after the regular season. There is no particular style of play that works in the postseason.

However, there is some evidence that balanced teams tend to overperform in the postseason, and by extension, unbalanced teams tend to underperform. Balanced in this context means balanced between offense and defense. 2018 Virginia was relatively unbalanced. Kenpom had them ranked #1 in defensive efficiency and #30 in offensive efficiency.

So I don’t buy that Virginia’s style “doesn’t work in the postseason”. They won the national championship the next year with the exact same style. The difference is, the 2019 team was just better offensively and therefore was better balanced. Balanced teams are harder to game plan for, better able to compensate when something isn’t working, and therefore harder to upset.

30. 1977 North Carolina

Record: 28-5, 9-3 (1st place)
ACC Tournament: Won
NCAA Tournament: Lost in national final
Final AP Ranking: 5
All-ACC Players: Phil Ford (1st), Walter Davis (1st), Tom LaGarde (2nd)
All-Americans: Phil Ford (1st)

This team is often remembered for what might have been, but what they did accomplish was impressive enough. In case you’re unfamiliar with the details, All-ACC center Tom LaGarde injured a knee in mid-February and missed the rest of the season. Sweet-shooting Walter Davis broke his finger in the ACC Tournament against NC State. He was able to come back and play, but the injury may have hampered his effectiveness. And All-American guard Phil Ford hyperextended his elbow in the round of 16 win over Notre Dame and did not seem to be himself after that. In spite of all that adversity, the Tar Heels advanced to the national championship game before losing to Marquette.

It’s an interesting narrative, but the funny part is, Carolina won all those games, except the last one. From the time that LaGarde got hurt, they won twelve in a row. So if you’re lamenting what might’ve been, the only thing there is to lament is the national championship game. Would the Tar Heels have won it with a healthy group? I have no idea. I do think they were a better team at full strength than Marquette, but the better team doesn’t always win.

If you look at the game as it was actually played, Walter Davis played well. It’s not obvious from his stat line that he was hampered in any way. Ford, though, did not play well after the injury, and it seems likely that he was affected. The other thing this game is remembered for is Dean’s decision to go to the Four Corners midway through the second half with only a slim lead. They had used the same tactic to good effect in prior games, but this time it didn’t work. Marquette regained the lead and salted it away from the line in the last few minutes, going 23-for-25 for the game.

The attention on what might’ve been shouldn’t detract from the tremendous run this team made. In succession, they beat a really good Purdue team, #10 Notre Dame, #3 Kentucky, and #4 UNLV. The Tar Heels trailed at half in three of those four games. Davis, freshman Mike O’Koren, and senior guard John Kuester played extremely well. Ford gutted it out in spite of his elbow, and Rich Yonakor filled in admirably for LaGarde.

From the Weird Scheduling Department: Carolina’s last regular season game was a non-conference game on Sunday against #10 Louisville. Not only is it odd to have a non-conference opponent for your last regular season game and Senior Day, but they played at Duke just the day before. Why in the world would you schedule games on back-to-back days like that to finish the season? There must be a story behind that. In any case, it didn’t bother the Tar Heels, who ran away from Louisville in a game that wasn’t as close as the 96-89 score indicated.

31. 1966 Duke

Record: 26-4, 12-2 (1st place)
ACC Tournament: Won
NCAA Tournament: Lost in national semifinal
Final AP Ranking: 2
All-ACC Players: Bob Verga (1st), Jack Marin (1st), Steve Vacendak (2nd, ACC POY)
All-Americans: Bob Verga (2nd), Jack Marin (2nd)

After a hiatus of a couple of months, I’m ready to restart my countdown of the 50 greatest ACC teams ever. We continue the series with the 1966 Duke team.

Duke’s teams from 1962-1966 represent arguably the best five-year run in league history. I wrote about this previously in my Jack Marin post. If pressed, I would probably give the edge to Duke 1998-2002, but it’s close.

After reaching the Final Four in 1963 and 1964, Duke’s 1965 team had dipped just a bit. They still won the ACC regular season and were ranked in the Top 10 all year, but they were beaten by NC State in the ACC Tournament final and did not get the opportunity to make another Final Four run. But Verga, Marin, and Vacendak were all underclassmen. With the addition of big man Mike Lewis, it set the Blue Devils up for success in 1966.

After an early loss at #10 South Carolina, the Blue Devils faced defending national champion and top-ranked UCLA twice on back-to-back nights. Duke whipped the Bruins in both games and promptly jumped to #1 in the polls where they stayed for most of the season.

They dropped only two more games the rest of the way, finishing with a full three-game lead over second-place NC State. In the ACC Tournament, the Blue Devils put up 103 points in an opening round blowout of Wake Forest. In the semis, they edged North Carolina in the infamous 21-20 slowdown game. In the final, Duke topped NC State for their third ACC title in four years and avenged their loss to the Wolfpack from the year before.

In the regionals, the Blue Devils defeated fifth-ranked St. Joe’s and a Syracuse team featuring Dave Bing and Jim Boeheim to advance to the Final Four, where #1 Kentucky awaited. In a tight, tense game that wasn’t decided until the end, the Wildcats prevailed 83-79. Unfortunately for Duke, Bob Verga was suffering from the flu (or strep throat, depending on whom you ask) and scored only four points. Kentucky went on to fall to Texas Western in that classic 1966 final that is remembered for its racial and civil rights implications as much as for the action on the court. Had Verga not come down with something, it might have been Duke (who was just as white as Kentucky) playing in that game.

An interesting fact is that Steve Vacendak was the ACC Player of the Year in 1966 despite making only second-team All-ACC. At the time, the All-ACC vote was taken before the ACC Tournament, the ACC POY vote after. Vacendak’s tournament performance made such an impression on the voters that they voted him Player of the Year.

Bubas’ teams consistently had tremendous size and dominated the glass. The 1963 and 1964 teams started two 6’10” guys, which was pretty much unheard of in that era. The 1966 team was not quite so big, but Marin was an excellent rebounder at 6’6″ and Lewis is one of the best rebounders in league history. The net of it was a rebounding margin of +12.8.

Lowest ACC Tournament Scoring Averages for Winners of Everett Case Award (Tournament MOP):

  • Steve Vacendak, Duke, 1966 – 10.0
  • Dudley Bradley, North Carolina, 1979 – 12.5
  • James Worthy, North Carolina, 1982 – 13.3
  • John Kuester, North Carolina, 1977 – 13.5
  • Lou Pucillo, NC State, 1959 – 13.7

College Basketball Wrap-Up 2024

A collection of thoughts and reflections on this season and the future.

UConn

UConn 2024 is probably the best college basketball team since Duke 2001. When you consider the totality of their accomplishments – overall record, win quality, margin of victory (especially in the tournament), offensive and defensive efficiency, balance and completeness in all phases – I think that statement is justified. I am not going to say they are better than Duke 2001.

Dan Hurley asserted that UConn’s back-to-back was more impressive than 2006-2007 Florida and 1991-1992 Duke, because those teams had essentially the same team coming back whereas UConn had to replace a lot of minutes. He’s right, and I think he has a point.

NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player

With all due respect to Tristen Newton, who is a terrific player and was great in the tournament, the best player in the tournament was clearly Zach Edey. I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually watched the tournament would disagree with that. Why, then, are we beholden to an unwritten rule that the MOP must be from the team that wins the tournament? Is it possibly because that would mess up the made-for-TV moment where the MOP is awarded and interviewed while the championship team is being celebrated?

Well, that’s a dumb reason. Give the MOP to the MOP. If that makes for awkward TV, so be it.

The State of the ACC

It has been well-publicized that the ACC has performed well in the past several NCAA Tournaments, despite being down in the NET and receiving relatively few bids. Other leagues are accused of “manipulating the NET” to boost their conference’s profile.

The truth here is very hard to untangle. I take as much pride as anyone in the ACC’s NCAA Tournament success, but it is a relatively small sample size, and it is dangerous to generalize that the conference is as good as ever based strictly on that. Regarding charges of NET manipulation, I haven’t seen compelling evidence either way. It is true that margin of victory matters in the NET, and I don’t doubt that certain teams, and possibly leagues, are trying to exploit that to their advantage. How much that is actually impacting the NET, I don’t know, because the formula is a secret. And how much weight the selection committee is giving to the NET is also hard to say.

With my bracketology hat on, I don’t see any evidence that the selection committee is considering conference affiliation. They aren’t giving special dispensation to the ACC or to any other league so far as I can tell. They are considering each team individually as best they can, which is really the only fair way to do it.

My general opinion is that there is scarcely a dime’s worth of difference between the ACC and the other Power 5/6 conferences. (Something weird is going on with the Mountain West, but I don’t want to get sidetracked on that right now.) If the ACC has an intangible advantage, I think it’s coaching. A few years ago, you had Roy, Coach K, Boeheim, Bennett, Larranaga, Hamilton… Brownell is an outstanding coach, Mike Young is a very good coach, Capel has shown himself to be a quality coach, Steve Forbes appears to be a good coach, and I guess you can now add Keatts to that list. I don’t think any other conference can match that depth of coaching ability.

Obviously the retirement of K, Roy, and Boeheim changes things somewhat. It remains to be seen whether those programs will be able to maintain their level. Early returns for Scheyer and Hubert Davis are mostly positive, but the shoes they have to fill are so big, it’s much easier for those programs to get worse than it is to get better. Boeheim’s program had already slipped and it’s anybody’s guess what Adrian Autry will be able to do.

Hamilton and Larranaga are both in their mid-70s and have to be nearing the end of the line. Neither of those programs has great tradition to fall back on. You could see them falling back if they don’t make the right hire. Virginia and Tony Bennett also seem to be at a crossroads… he does not seem to have figured out how to build a roster that can execute his style at a high level in the new transfer portal era. Clearly he is a great coach and I would bet on him to figure it out.

Louisville will bounce back. Obviously there is nowhere to go but up from this year, but they have so much tradition, it seems highly probable that they will rebound to at least competitiveness if not excellence. I like what I saw of Damon Stoudamire at Georgia Tech this year although that seems like a tough place to win. I’m also betting on Micah Shrewsberry to succeed at Notre Dame.

Then there’s the addition of Stanford, SMU, and Cal. None of those programs brings great tradition to the league. It’s tempting to think the ACC will “lift” them, but that hasn’t happened with other programs historically. The Andy Enfield hire at SMU is promising, and he said explicitly that he wouldn’t have come had SMU not been going to the ACC. But in general, it seems more likely that these additions will bring the league down than lift it up.

Then there’s the specter of conference realignment, with FSU and Clemson suing the league and rumors abounding about other potential changes.

So for all those reasons, it seems like an unusually unstable and uncertain time for the league. After Duke and Carolina, the second-tier coaching is strong, and between Bennett, Brownell, Capel, Young, Keatts, Forbes, and maybe now Enfield, you’re going to have some teams emerge from that pack and have great success from time to time, as Miami did in 2023 and NC State did this year. But a return to the ACC’s status as the premier basketball conference probably depends on whether Duke and Carolina can continue to be among the top five or so programs in the country, and to a lesser degree, whether Louisville can rebound.

NC State’s Place in History

You knew I would have to talk about the Wolfpack. A lot of superlatives have been sent their way, deservedly so. Jay Bilas described their run as “the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen in college basketball”, which is very strong language, but I don’t think he used that phrase loosely, I think he meant it.

Let’s start with the ACC Tournament. Was NC State the most unlikely champion ever? I think, all things considered, they probably were. The contenders would be:

  • Virginia 1976 (13-11/4-8 going into the tournament, 6th of 7)
  • NC State 1983 (17-10/8-6, tied for 3rd of 8)
  • NC State 1987 (17-13/6-8, 6th of 8)
  • Georgia Tech 1993 (16-10/8-8, 6th of 9)
  • Maryland 2004 (16-11/7-9, 6th of 9)
  • NC State 2024 (17-14/9-11, 10th of 15)

Narrowing it down further, 1983 NC State, 1987 NC State, 1993 Georgia Tech, and 2004 Maryland were all teams that were nationally ranked during the season and had excellent non-conference wins; they were just beaten down by the ACC meat grinder and, in some cases, injuries. This year’s NC State team never sniffed the Top 25, had no good nonconference wins, was never thought of as even being on the NCAA Tournament bubble, and had no injuries to blame it on. So I think the competition really comes down to 1976 Virginia vs. 2024 NC State.

You could make an argument for either of these teams. That Virginia team’s run was no less unexpected than NC State’s run this year, partially because of Virginia’s dismal history in the ACC Tournament. But that was a sneaky good team. They had lost five games to top 10 teams during the season by an average of 3.6 points. It was the type of team that, if kenpom had existed, would have been a Top 40 team with a very bad Luck rating.

Like NC State, 1976 Virginia had to beat the #3, #2, and #1 seeds to win the championship. Of course, NC State had to win two additional games to even get to that point. I think the fatigue aspect of “five games in five days” is probably overblown. The more significant aspect is that those two additional games are two more opportunities to lose. Just to get to the same starting point as Virginia 1976, NC State had to beat a talented if underachieving Louisville team that played its best game of the year followed by a pretty good Syracuse team that had already beaten them twice in the regular season.

In any event, both teams have a case. In terms of win probability, I think NC State 2024 probably had the lowest going-in win probability of any eventual tournament champion in the history of the event. But if you want to argue that Virginia 1976 is the most unlikely champion, I won’t quibble with you. Either way, NC State 2024 is at worst the second-least likely tournament champ in the 70-year history of the tournament.

Then there is the Final Four run. Where does the Wolfpack rank in terms of most unlikely Final Four teams? Well, they were the sixth #11 seed to make it, the others being 1986 LSU, 2006 George Mason, 2011 VCU, 2018 Loyola, and 2021 UCLA. 1986 LSU was a very talented team that was ranked in the Top 25 for a lot of the season. 2006 George Mason, 2011 VCU, and 2021 UCLA received at-large bids, which NC State most definitely would not have. 2018 Loyola received an automatic bid; it’s unclear whether they would have received an at-large bid as they were considered to be on the bubble. So one way to look at it is, the Wolfpack are the only team ever to make the Final Four who was not at-large worthy.

Looking at kenpom rankings going into the tournament, 2011 VCU was #84, 2018 Loyola was #41, and 2021 UCLA was #45. 2024 NC State was #56, and that was after winning the ACC Tournament. Kenpom doesn’t go back to 1986, but there is no doubt whatsoever that LSU would have been much higher than #56, and the same is true for 2006 George Mason.

On the basis of this evidence, I would probably say that 2011 VCU is the most unlikely Final Four team ever. They lost four of their last five regular season games, they didn’t win the CAA Tournament, they were #84 in kenpom, and they were in the First Four, meaning they had to win five games just to make the Final Four. On paper, there was nothing in their record to suggest what was about to happen. What’s more, they didn’t have an easy road, having to beat the #3 and #1 seeds to make the Final Four. (I don’t think it was the most unlikely NCAA Tournament run ever; I would award that to the 15-seed St. Peter’s team from 2022 that made the Elite Eight.)

2021 UCLA was similar. In the First Four, had to win five games to make it, had to beat #2 and #1 on the way.

2018 Loyola got a couple of breaks. They were in the same region as the Virginia team that lost to UMBC. #2 seed Cincinnati also lost in the second round, so the best team the Ramblers had to beat was #3 Tennessee.

To summarize, I don’t think NC State is the most unlikely Final Four team ever, but I would throw them in with 2018 Loyola and 2021 UCLA and say they were one of the four most unlikely.

It’s really the combination of the two highly unlikely events that makes the Wolfpack’s run completely unique in the history of college basketball. You heard lots of comparisons to 2011 UConn, but that UConn team was a much better team. They were ranked in the Top 25 all year. They were #26 in kenpom. They had four wins over Top 10 teams in the regular season. They had a first-team All-American in Kemba Walker. They finished ninth in a 16-team Big East, which is why they had to play five games in five days.

I’ve been working on a series of the 50 greatest teams in ACC history. Yesterday I thought, wait – do I need to stop in midstream and put NC State 2024 on the list? In a sense that seems ridiculous for a team that lost 14 games, but consider this. There are 25 other ACC teams that won the ACC Championship and made the Final Four. Of those 25, all are on my list but one (1997 North Carolina, and they would probably be #51).

It underscores the uniqueness of this team. There isn’t another team like this in the history of college basketball, and there may never be again.

NC State – Other Learnings and Observations

Defense – The most surprising aspect of this run was the improvement on defense. In State’s last nine games, their average adjusted defensive efficiency was 89.5. Extended to a full season, that would have been the third best defense in the country after Iowa State and Houston. The players themselves frequently cited their “connectedness” on defense when asked what sparked this run.

How do you explain this seemingly sudden improvement? I think it was a combination of several things: 1) A tighter, more stable rotation with the same seven players getting all the minutes. They really started to anticipate and trust each other. 2) Exceptional effort. This was visible especially with the perimeter defenders such as Morsell and O’Connell. They were defending max effort on every possession in the postseason. 3) Diarra and Middlebrooks. It’s extremely valuable to have big guys who can protect the rim but are athletic enough to switch onto a guard without creating an obvious mismatch. In the postseason, State really figured out how to turn that into an advantage. 4) Great coaching. Great offense can happen in spite of bad coaching if you have great individual offensive players, but great team defense never happens by accident. 5) Luck with opponents not shooting well. There were a lot of open threes during this run that did not go in.

Intangibles and the Eye Test – I’m a pretty analytical guy. My general approach to trying to analyze basketball tends to start with looking at offensive and defensive efficiency, the Four Factors, kenpom, all that.

If ever there was a testament to the limitations of that approach, this team was it. It was almost laughable as State marched through the NCAA Tournament to see the so-called experts, game after game, pick them to lose. Or reseed the remaining teams and put them at the bottom. And when you peeled back their logic, it was usually based on kenpom.

But when you actually watched the games, it was obvious they were better than the teams they were playing. They completely controlled the games against Texas Tech and Marquette. They were down at half against Duke, but they still looked better, and once they started making shots in the second half, Duke was powerless to do anything about it.

At that point, State’s kenpom ranking had become irrelevant. They bore no resemblance to the team from December and January that compiled a lot of the numbers that went into their kenpom. Especially in the transfer portal era with so much roster turnover, it takes time for a team to come together, and the March team may look very different from the December team. Once State started playing so well in March, suddenly everyone could see what Kevin Keatts had probably seen in his mind’s eye when he put this roster together.

I’m not going to throw away analytics; I’d have to change the name of my blog if I did. There is still a lot of great information embedded in the data. For example, State’s improvement on offense in the second half of the season was evident in the analytics, even if it wasn’t reflected in their win-loss record. But the reductionist analytics approach (which I have been guilty of) that reduces a team to its kenpom Efficiency Margin is a lazy way to analyze basketball, and it cannot accurately assess a team like NC State.

The Mojo– one of my favorite things in sports is watching a team get on a postseason run where they are playing with absolute, 100% confidence, belief, and trust. I call it The Mojo. It’s something intangible, but you know it when you see it. Psychologically, I think it equates to something like ultimate confidence. It’s what happens when a team’s confidence becomes so deeply rooted and unshakable as a result of repeated success that no matter what happens, they maintain complete belief and commitment. The 2023 Braves had The Mojo. 2022 North Carolina got The Mojo. And that’s where I think 2024 NC State got to in the postseason.

One of the characteristics of a team with The Mojo is that it raises individual players to play above themselves. How did DJ Burns and Michael O’Connell suddenly get better in the postseason, 120+ college basketball games into their careers? It’s The Mojo.

The Mojo doesn’t happen overnight. It’s always the result of sustained success. For this team, I think the second half of the Syracuse game is where you started to see it. State dominated that half in an unexpected manner, and that performance set them up with a lot of confidence going into the Duke game. That confidence continued to build with each win. The Virginia game, with the way it ended, gave them a sense that perhaps they were destiny’s team. By the time they got to the Carolina game, they had crossed the threshold from mere confidence to The Mojo. In that sense, I think the five games helped them. Had they just showed up to play Duke without the first two games against Louisville and Syracuse, I doubt they would have won.

Luck – Did State get lucky to win the Virginia game? Well, yes and no.

I think sometimes we confuse improbable with lucky. When Stephen Curry hits a 60-footer, it’s improbable, but it’s not lucky. In fact, it’s actually the opposite of luck. If Curry makes that shot it’s because he’s a great basketball player. Luck would mean that the outcome is essentially random, that a bad player and a good player would have an equal chance. That’s obviously not the case here. Yes, it’s improbable, he probably wouldn’t make it more than one out of twenty, but it’s not lucky.

That’s how I think of the Michael O’Connell shot. It wasn’t lucky. It was a great if improbable shot by a good basketball player. What was lucky was McKneely missing the free throw.

The Margin – I am constantly amazed at how slim the margins are between success and failure at the highest levels of athletics. If the O’Connell shot doesn’t go in, none of this happens. Kevin Keatts wouldn’t be any worse a coach if that shot hadn’t gone in, but think how different the perception would be. How many potential 2024 NC States have there been over the years whose Michael O’Connell shot just didn’t go in?

The Future – What does this run mean for the program going forward? Here are a few thoughts and observations.

Expect State to be overrated going into next year. There is a long history of that with teams that make unexpected postseason runs. Look at Carolina after their 2022 run, or Georgia Tech after their 2004 run, or Duke after their 1978 run, or any number of other examples. It always happens.

I have no idea who will come back. Burns, Horne, and Morsell have no more eligibility. Diarra, Middlebrooks, Taylor, O’Connell, and Dennis Parker have eligibility left, but in this day and age, you really never know. Brandon Huntley-Hatfield from Louisville looks like a good addition. If Diarra and Middlebrooks return, their frontcourt seems set, but they need shooting and scoring in the backcourt.

What State did this year is obviously not repeatable. You can’t count on runs from 9-11 in the ACC to the Final Four to sustain your program. If they continue to hang around .500 in the ACC, they will remain what they had been under Kevin Keatts before this run: a middle-of-the-pack ACC team that is hanging around the NCAA Tournament bubble most years.

The real question is whether Keatts either a) has figured some things out and become a better coach and/or b) can leverage the positive energy created by this run to take the program to another level.

I think we have to acknowledge the possibility that Keatts has just become a better coach, not that he was bad to begin with. He has shown he can construct rosters that can win in the transfer portal era. He has shown he can take a bunch of new guys and make a team out of them. He has shown he can put together a really good defensive team, which he had never done before this year. It has always bothered me that his teams don’t have an obviously recognizable style, but this team shows the positive side of having a versatile team that can win in a lot of different ways. He showed the ability to adapt his style to the personnel he had, most obviously in how they used DJ Burns.

Clearly this run has generated a tremendous amount of positive national attention for the program. Keatts is a likable guy, a players coach. Their team played hard, had fun, and mostly behaved themselves. It certainly looked like a program a lot of players would want to be a part of. They have a level of national prominence at this moment they haven’t seen since the Jimmy V era. The fan base is highly energized. There will be more butts in seats next year. There will be an infusion of NIL money. It seems like a golden opportunity to get and keep higher level players, whether freshman recruits or transfers.

But the window will not stay open for long. Our memories are short. If they revert back to the pre-2024 NC State for the next season or two, all that positive energy will dissipate, and this season will become an anomaly, not the new and improved NC State.

What, specifically, do they need to do? It’s hard to say with exactness, but in general, it needs to feel like the program is elevated above the pre-2024 Keatts-era level. That probably translates into some combination of making the NCAA Tournament (preferably without being on the bubble) and winning a game or two, being in the Top 25 some of the time, and making some noise in the ACC Tournament (which I define as semifinals and beyond).

And with that, I will wrap it up for this college basketball season. I will soon be resuming my march through the 50 greatest teams in ACC history.

NC State Tournament Outlook

It won’t surprise anyone that I’ve been thinking a lot about NC State. How exactly did they do what they did last week? Is their improvement real? What should we expect on Thursday?

What happened last week is a good reminder that teams are not static. During the course of the year, there are injuries, there are changes to the rotation, coaches keep coaching and making adjustments, players improve and figure things out, players go through slumps and lose confidence. All of those dynamics affect the team’s performance.

The numbers for NC State tell a story. In the first half of the year, they were a good defensive team and a mediocre offensive team. In the second half of the year, they improved considerably on offense, but regressed on defense. In the ACC Tournament, they put both together. That’s what enabled them to do what they did.

Let’s draw a line after the Syracuse game on January 27. Up to this point in the season, the Wolfpack was 13-7, 5-4 in the ACC. They were ranked #78 in kenpom, #100 in offensive efficiency and #54 in defensive efficiency. They had had several games where they were rotten on offense: Ole Miss, Notre Dame, Carolina, at Virginia, at Syracuse. But they had had a couple of terrific games on defense (Carolina, Virginia) and several others where they were very good (Notre Dame, at BC, Vanderbilt, Wake).

Going into the ACC Tournament, NC State’s overall kenpom ranking hadn’t changed much at 76. But the composition changed a lot. Their offensive ranking had improved from 100 to 69, while their defensive ranking had regressed from 54 to 104. Starting with the Wake Forest game on February 10, the Wolfpack’s average adjusted offensive efficiency rating over their last eight regular season games was 121 points per 100 possessions, with no single game less than 119. For reference, 121 is a Top 10 offense. It’s the level of Gonzaga, Arizona, and Duke.

So NC State clearly had found some things on offense, but it was hard to tell by wins and losses in the second half because a) their defense was inconsistent and b) their schedule was harder.

In the ACC Tournament, somehow it all came together. Offensively, they essentially continued to play at the same level they had been, which again is Top 10. Keeping in mind that 120 is a Top 10-level adjusted offensive rating, their ratings for each game were:

  • Louisville – 125.7
  • Syracuse – 117.2
  • Duke – 116.1
  • Virginia – 121.9
  • Carolina – 128.0 (this was State’s second-highest offensive rating of the year, after their home win over Virginia)

But the really surprising thing is how much their defense improved after the first game against Louisville. Their adjusted defensive ratings were:

  • Louisville – 123.5
  • Syracuse – 90.5
  • Duke – 85.9
  • Virginia – 103.3
  • Carolina – 92.9

Duke was their second-best defensive game of the year, Syracuse was fourth-best, and Carolina was sixth-best.

I don’t have any quantitative analysis that would shed light on why their defense was better. But I did watch the games, and my thought is that it’s a combination of greater effort and focus, improvement by Diarra, and luck.

This is an interesting thing to think about. Would you rather be a good offensive team and an OK defensive team, or an OK offensive team and a good defensive team? The data suggest that offensive-oriented teams typically perform slightly better in the postseason than defensive-oriented. Why is that? My theory is essentially that defensive performance is more dependent on effort, whereas offensive performance is more dependent on skill. And for that reason, defense can be “turned on”, up to a point. But you can’t really “turn on” your offense. If you don’t have good shooters and good passers, no amount of effort is going to make up for that.

Of course there is such as thing as defensive skill as well, and a poor defensive team can’t turn themselves into Virginia just by playing harder. But I do think defensive performance is more variable with effort. Watching NC State this year, I think Morsell and Taylor were capable of being good defenders, but there were games they couldn’t seem to stay in front of anybody. But in the tournament, you could see the exceptional effort. Morsell in particular was really digging in. The increased effort was also evident in transition defense which was visibly improved in the tournament.

Then Mo Diarra started being a rim protector. In State’s last 12 games, Diarra is averaging 1.9 blocks per game, which would be second in the league if he had done it for the whole year. The uncontested layups which seemed so frequent in February were much less frequent in the tournament.

There was some luck, too. From three-point range, Syracuse was 6-19, Duke was 5-20, Virginia was 9-28, Carolina was 8-30. That’s a collective 29%. Some of that was good perimeter defense, yes, but some of it was just guys missing shots that they might make another day. I’m not convinced that State suddenly has a suffocating three-point defense.

Going back to offense… what changed from the first half of the season to the second? As you might expect, it wasn’t just one thing. Jayden Taylor played much better. He had an outstanding run the last six games of the regular season. Diarra also improved on the offensive end, becoming a legitimate threat from three and contributing a few buckets off the offensive glass and even off the dribble as well.

But what really stood out in the tournament was the play of O’Connell and Burns. As for O’Connell, in the regular season he had a total of three double figure scoring games. There were a lot of games where it seemed like he was just out there taking up space. He had some decent assist games, but he also had a lot of games with 3 points and 1 assist in 25 minutes or something like that. Not really making an impact. He had attempted only 25 free throws all year heading into the tournament.

And then he scored double figures in all five games in the tournament, going 9-16 from three, 15-18 from the line, and looking like a completely different player on the offensive end. I don’t really have an explanation for it. O’Connell is not a young player, having played 125 games in his career, and it would be unusual for a player like that to suddenly take a quantum leap forward. He has never been a scorer. He is a career 31% three-point shooter, which is not very good. I don’t know whether the coaches have been on him to shoot more, or if he decided on his own, but he clearly came into the tournament with a more aggressive mindset offensively, and once a few shots started going down, it fed his confidence.

O’Connell’s improved play is directly related to Burns’ performance. Burns has always been a skilled and unique offensive player, but the tournament was the best stretch of his career. I saw two things. One, Taylor’s, O’Connell’s, and even Diarra’s improved offense makes it much tougher to defend Burns. For a good portion of the season, the only real perimeter threat they had was Horne. Taylor was shooting poorly and O’Connell and Diarra weren’t shooting at all. It allowed their defenders to help on Burns with relative impunity. But with Taylor, O’Connell, and Diarra being threats to score, the situation changes completely. Choosing to double-team Burns means leaving a good offensive player open. Most teams therefore chose not to double team Burns, but when they did, he burned them.

That brings me to the other change I saw in Burns. He put a little Tyler Hansbrough in his game, which is to say, he did a better job of using his size and strength to get closer to the basket and get an easier shot. As big and skilled as Burns is, he winds up taking a lot of difficult shots. He shot 52% from the field this year, which is not bad, but it’s not that good either for a guy who is 6’9″ and 300 lbs. I’ve often thought that because he does have such nice touch, he falls in love with that a little bit and takes an 8-footer when he could use his size to get a 3-footer.

Then, too, I think the knowledge that teams weren’t double-teaming him gave him more time to work and get closer to the basket. In the past, he’s had to be mindful of going quickly and getting a shot off before the double team comes. In the tournament, he knew that teams weren’t going to double, and he could take 10 seconds to back a guy down and get a point-blank shot.

So I think all of that worked together to create offensive synergies for the Wolfpack. Will it carry over into the tournament? Anything can happen in a single game, but I think most of the improvements they’ve shown are real and sustainable. They now have 13 straight games with an offensive efficiency of 116 or better, which is outstanding. I’m not convinced that O’Connell will continue to be a threat offensively, but they have enough different ways to score now that I expect them to be a good, Top 20-type offensive team from here on out.

I have no doubt that teams, especially with time to prepare, will try to throw new wrinkles at them. But I will say this. Great offensive basketball is not primarily about being opportunistic and taking what the defense gives you; it’s about running stuff that the other guys know is coming and can’t stop. I think you saw in the tournament that NC State has some of that now. With the emergence of other scorers, the maturation of Burns, and the variety and efficiency of DJ Horne, defenses have to make some very difficult choices. Nothing could be more telegraphed in terms of what is coming than when Burns gets the ball, but the defenses in the tourney were at a loss for what to do about it. Most of them chose to defend Burns one-on-one, and he scored. If they doubled him, he passed to a teammate who was in favorable scoring position. I don’t think that fundamental dilemma is going to change in the NCAA Tournament.

What I am more skeptical of is whether NC State can maintain the defensive efficiency they showed in the tournament. I expect their effort to be excellent, but their fundamentals are shaky. They make mistakes in defending ball screens. They get beaten in transition. They give up back doors. Guys lose assignments for a second and give up open threes. All it’s going to take is a team having a good shooting night. But the way they’re playing offensively, it’s possible they could score enough points to survive a shaky defensive performance.

Watch the officiating as well. I loved the way the ACC Tournament was officiated. The officials let the players play and stayed in the background, which is the way it should be. Keatts’ teams at State, including this year’s team, have been high foul teams. That has hurt them at times, both from guys getting in foul trouble, but also from sending the other team to the line. But other than Horne in the Carolina game, State had no significant foul trouble issues, and they shot 128 free throws in the tournament to their opponents’ 65. If the upcoming games are called more closely, it could hurt State. I expect teams to try very hard to get Burns in foul trouble and get him out of the game. Watch for an early flop on a Burns back down to see if they can get the officials to bite.

I think the biggest stat to watch will be Texas Tech’s three-point shooting. If they shoot 6-for-27, State will win; 11-for-21 and we’ll be headed back to Raleigh. Also watch the foul situation closely. State cannot afford a major imbalance at the free throw line and they can ill afford foul trouble for Horne or Burns.

ACC Standings Outlook 3/7

Had to make a couple of corrections in this version. This time I really do have the tiebreakers figured out. I think.

For the ACC Tournament, keep in mind that 10 seeds and below play on Tuesday; 5 seeds and below play on Wednesday; 1-4 seeds do not play until Thursday.

North Carolina

  • Current Record: 16-3
  • Remaining Games: at Duke
  • 1 Seed (64% chance) With: A win OR (Pitt win AND Clemson loss)
  • 2 Seed (36% chance) With: A loss AND EITHER Pitt loss OR Clemson win

Duke

  • Current Record: 15-4
  • Remaining Games: vs. UNC
  • 1 Seed (36% chance) With: A win AND EITHER Pitt loss OR Clemson win
  • 2 Seed (64% chance) With: 1) A loss OR 2) a Pitt win AND a Clemson loss

Virginia

  • Current Record: 12-7
  • Remaining Games: vs. Georgia Tech
  • 3 Seed (85.5% chance) With: A win OR a Pitt loss.
  • 4 Seed (14.5% chance) With: A loss AND a Pitt win

Clemson

  • Current Record: 11-8
  • Remaining Games: at Wake
  • 3 Seed (5.5% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia loss AND a Pitt win
  • 4 Seed (51.7% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Virginia win AND a Pitt win or 2) a Pitt loss
  • 5 Seed (42.8% chance) With: A loss AND a Pitt win

Pitt

  • Current Record: 11-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. NC State
  • 3 Seed (9% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia loss AND a Clemson loss
  • 4 Seed (34% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia win AND a Clemson loss
  • 5 Seed (26% chance) With: A win AND a Clemson win
  • 6 Seed (12% chance) With: A loss AND a Clemson win
  • 7 Seed (19% chance) With: A loss AND a Clemson loss

Syracuse

  • Current Record: 11-9
  • Remaining Games: none
  • 5 Seed (12% chance) With: a Pitt loss AND a Clemson win.
  • 6 Seed (45% chance) With: 1) a Pitt win AND a Clemson win OR 2) a Pitt loss AND a Clemson loss.
  • 7 Seed (43% chance) With: a Pitt win AND a Clemson loss.

Wake Forest

  • Current Record: 10-9
  • Remaining Games: vs. Clemson
  • 5 Seed (19% chance) With: A win AND a Pitt loss
  • 6 Seed (43% chance) With: A win AND a Pitt win
  • 7 Seed (2.7% chance) With: A loss AND a Virginia Tech loss AND a Florida State loss
  • 8 Seed (15.6% chance) With: A loss AND a Virginia Tech loss OR a Florida State loss BUT NOT BOTH
  • 9 Seed (19.8% chance) With: A loss AND a Virginia Tech win AND a Florida State win AND

Florida State

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Miami
  • 7 Seed (25% chance) With: A win AND a Wake loss
  • 8 Seed (8% chance) With: A win AND a Wake win AND a Virginia Tech loss
  • 9 Seed (56% chance) With: 1) A loss AND an NC State loss OR 2) a win AND a Wake win AND Virginia Tech win.
  • 10 Seed (11% chance) With: A loss AND an NC State win.

NC State

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: at Pitt
  • 8 Seed (2% chance) With: A win AND a Virginia Tech loss AND a Florida State loss
  • 9 Seed (13% chance) With: A win AND EITHER a Virginia Tech loss OR a Florida State loss BUT NOT BOTH
  • 10 Seed (85% chance) With: 1) A loss OR 2) a Virginia Tech win AND a Florida State win

Virginia Tech

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Notre Dame
  • 7 Seed (10.6% chance) With: A win AND a Wake loss AND an FSU loss.
  • 8 Seed (60.5% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Wake win OR 2) A win AND a Wake loss AND an FSU win AND NC State win OR 3) a loss AND an NC State loss AND an FSU loss.
  • 9 Seed (24.8% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Wake loss AND an FSU win AND NC State loss OR 2) A loss AND EITHER an NC State loss OR an FSU loss BUT NOT BOTH
  • 10 Seed (4% chance) With: A loss AND an NC State win AND an FSU win

Boston College

  • Current Record: 7-12
  • Remaining Games: at Louisville
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 13
  • 11 Seed (88% chance) With: 1) A win OR 2) a Notre Dame loss AND a Georgia Tech loss
  • 12 Seed (10% chance) With: A loss AND a loss by either Notre Dame OR Georgia Tech BUT NOT BOTH
  • 13 Seed (1% chance) With: A loss AND a Notre Dame win AND a Georgia Tech win

Notre Dame

  • Current Record: 7-12
  • Remaining Games: at Virginia Tech
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • 11 Seed (6% chance) With: A win AND a Boston College loss
  • 12 Seed (55% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Boston College win OR 2) A loss AND a Georgia Tech loss AND a Miami loss
  • 13 Seed (33% chance) With: A loss AND a loss by either Georgia Tech or Miami BUT NOT BOTH
  • 14 Seed (6% chance) With: A loss AND a Georgia Tech win AND a Miami win

Georgia Tech

  • Current Record: 7-12
  • Remaining Games: at Virginia
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • 11 Seed (5% chance) With: A win AND a Boston College loss AND a Notre Dame loss
  • 12 Seed (13% chance) With: 1) A win AND a loss by either Boston College or Notre Dame BUT NOT BOTH
  • 13 Seed (60% chance) With: 1) A win AND a Notre Dame win AND a Boston College win OR 2) A loss AND EITHER a Notre Dame win OR a Miami loss
  • 14 Seed (22% chance) With: A loss AND a Notre Dame loss AND a Miami win

Miami

  • Current Record: 6-13
  • Remaining Games: at FSU
  • Highest Possible Seed: 12
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • 12 Seed (22% chance) With: A win AND a Notre Dame loss AND a Georgia Tech loss
  • 13 Seed (6% chance) With: A win AND a Notre Dame loss AND a Georgia Tech win
  • 14 Seed (72% chance) With: A loss OR a Notre Dame win

Louisville

  • Current Record: 3-16
  • Remaining Games: vs. BC
  • The Cardinals are locked into the 15 seed.

ACC Standings Outlook 3/5

North Carolina

  • Current Record: 15-3
  • Remaining Games: vs. Notre Dame, at Duke
  • Highest Possible ACC Tourney Seed: 1
  • Lowest Possible ACC Tourney Seed: 2
  • Bye chances: Clinched the double bye.

If the Tar Heels lose to Notre Dame, then the Duke-Carolina game decides the regular season title. If the Tar Heels beat Notre Dame and lose to Duke, that would create a tie. The tiebreaker would come down to walking down the standings and ultimately would depend on who finishes at the top of the Syracuse/Wake/Pitt/Clemson group.

Duke

  • Current Record: 15-4
  • Remaining Games: vs. UNC
  • Highest Possible Seed: 1
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 2
  • Bye chances: Clinched the double bye.

Virginia

  • Current Record: 12-7
  • Remaining Games: vs. Georgia Tech
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 5
  • Bye chances: Have not clinched a double bye. If they finish in a 3-way tie with Syracuse and Pitt, the Cavaliers will be the 5 seed.

Syracuse

  • Current Record: 11-8
  • Remaining Games: at Clemson
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. If Syracuse, Virginia, and Pitt all finish 12-8, the Orange get the 3 seed.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 8 (I think – the tiebreakers are complicated)
  • Bye chances: The Orange have clinched a bye and have a shot at the double bye if they can beat Clemson.

Wake Forest

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. Georgia Tech, vs. Clemson
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. I think Wake wins a 2-way tie with Virginia. There may be other tie scenarios where they finish third.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 9
  • Bye chances: I believe Wake clinched a bye when NC State lost to Duke. Now the worst the Deacs could do is a 3-way tie for 8th place with NC State and Virginia Tech, and I think they would get the 9.

Clemson

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. Syracuse, at Wake
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. Clemson gets the 3 seed if they, Virginia, and Pitt all finish 12-8.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 9. A 2-way tie with Virginia Tech at 10-10. Possibly other tiebreaker scenarios.
  • Bye chances: I believe Clemson has clinched a bye. At least I am not able to find a tiebreaker scenario where they get the 10 seed.

Pitt

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: vs. FSU, vs. NC State
  • Highest Possible Seed: 3. Pitt wins a 2-way tie with Virginia at 12-8.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 10
  • Bye chances: I think they could still get the 10 and be playing on Tuesday. For example, if Pitt, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and NC State all finish tied for 7th at 10-10, then I think Pitt is at the bottom of that group on the tiebreakers.

Florida State

  • Current Record: 9-9
  • Remaining Games: at Pitt, vs. Miami
  • Highest Possible Seed: 5. It is possible for them to finish tied for 4th, but I don’t think they can win the tiebreaker. They could get the 5 in a 2-way tie with Clemson, or maybe a 2-way tie with Wake.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 10
  • Bye chances: Cannot get a double bye if I am reading the tiebreakers correctly. And could be playing on Tuesday if they lose their last two games.

NC State

  • Current Record: 9-10
  • Remaining Games: at Pitt
  • Highest Possible Seed: 7. A two-way tie with Clemson at 10-10 is one way this can happen. There may be others.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 11. Tiebreaker scenarios that involve Virginia Tech and Florida State generally turn out badly for the Wolfpack.
  • Bye chances: They need a) a win and a Virginia Tech loss or b) two VT losses to avoid playing on Tuesday.

Virginia Tech

  • Current Record: 8-10
  • Remaining Games: at Louisville, vs. Notre Dame
  • Highest Possible Seed: 7. They can finish tied for 6th but don’t have the tiebreakers.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 12, I think. Tiebreakers are complicated.
  • Bye chances: If they win two, they have a good chance to escape playing on Tuesday. If they win one, they need a lot of help.

Notre Dame

  • Current Record: 7-11
  • Remaining Games: at UNC, at Virginia Tech
  • Highest Possible Seed: 9
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: To avoid playing on Tuesday, they need to win their last 2 games, they need Virginia Tech to beat Louisville, and they need FSU or NC State to finish 9-11. They need Virginia Tech in their tiebreaker because they swept the Hokies (or will have, in this scenario).

Boston College

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: at Miami, at Louisville
  • Highest Possible Seed: 10. BC wins a 3-way tie at 8-12 with Notre Dame and Virginia Tech.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: Playing on Tuesday.

Miami

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: vs. BC, at FSU
  • Highest Possible Seed: 10. Miami wins a 3-way tie at 8-12 with Notre Dame and Virginia Tech.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Georgia Tech

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: at Wake, at Virginia
  • Highest Possible Seed: 11. Tiebreakers are generally unfavorable for the Jackets.
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 14
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Louisville

  • Current Record: 3-15
  • Remaining Games: vs. Virginia Tech, vs. BC
  • Highest Possible Seed: 15
  • Lowest Possible Seed: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

32. 1972 North Carolina

Record: 26-5, 9-3 (1st place)
ACC Tournament: Won
NCAA Tournament: Lost in national semifinal
Final AP Ranking: 2
All-ACC Players: Bob McAdoo (1st), Dennis Wuycik (1st), Bill Chamberlain (2nd), George Karl (2nd)
All-Americans: Bob McAdoo (1st)

Carolina had experienced a slight dip since their incredible three-year run from 1967 to 1969. The 1970 team, led by All-American Charlie Scott, ended up being somewhat disappointing. The 1971 team didn’t have any big stars, but Dean coached ’em up and they wound up having a much better season than expected, winning the regular season and the NIT championship – back when that meant something.

Despite the loss of South Carolina, the league on balance was getting stronger at this time. Maryland was on the rise under Lefty Driesell, Virginia had their best teams ever behind standout Barry Parkhill, NC State was starting to put together that mid-1970s juggernaut, Duke was hanging onto a little bit of post-Vic Bubas strength, and Tates Locke had something going at Clemson.

North Carolina had to replace two key players from the previous year, and the only impact player coming up from the freshman team was Bobby Jones. They needed another piece, and that piece was Bob McAdoo. The Greensboro native had played two years at Vincennes Junior College in Indiana. He was famously the only junior college player Dean Smith ever signed. He fit in perfectly, giving the Tar Heels the interior scoring and rebounding presence they needed.

But it wasn’t all McAdoo. Dennis Wuycik was a tremendous player who earned first team All-ACC honors. Bill Chamberlain and George Karl made it onto the second team. Steve Previs was a pass-first point guard who made things go, and Jones provided great defense, rebounding, and 67% shooting.

After an early season loss at Princeton, they turned it on. There were but three more regular season losses, all on the road, by a total of five points. The Tar Heels faced second seed Maryland in the ACC Tournament final. The Terps were a program on the rise, led by sophomore big men Tom McMillen and Len Elmore. But the Tar Heels’ balance was too much.

As luck would have it, Carolina’s first NCAA Tournament game would be in the round of 16 against… South Carolina. These two teams had gone toe-to-toe the previous two seasons in the ACC, and the Tar Heels still had a bitter taste in their mouths about the Gamecocks’ 52-51 ACC Tournament title win the previous season. South Carolina was still formidable, but with John Roche and Tom Owens gone, they were no match for the Tar Heels.

Next up was the Chuck Daly-coached and third-ranked Penn Quakers. With McAdoo, Wuycik, and Karl leading the way, Carolina pulled away in the second half for a 73-59 victory.

The end came in the Final Four against Florida State. It was the Seminoles’ first and still only appearance in the Final Four. McAdoo was terrific, but the rest of the group was a little off, and FSU held on for a 79-75 win. (Fun fact: Florida State was coached by Hugh Durham. Durham made the Final Four one other time in his career with the 1983 Georgia Bulldogs, who defeated the Tar Heels in the regional final before losing to NC State in the Final Four. So both of Durham’s Final Four teams upset a Dean Smith-coached Carolina team, then lost the next game.)

This was a great offensive team. They are one of only 14 teams in ACC history to average 89+ points per game. They set the ACC record for FG% in a season at 52.8% (later broken by 1975 Maryland). And they are one of only two teams since 1970 (1990 Duke is the other) to average more than 30 free throw attempts per game.

At this point in Dean Smith’s career, he had been to four NCAA Tournaments. In each of those tournaments, the Tar Heels as ACC champions received a bye into the round of 16, which meant they had to win two games to win the region and advance to the Final Four. In those first four tournaments, they won all eight of those games and made the Final Four all four times. In the process, here are the teams they beat:

  • 1967: #5 Princeton and #9 Boston College
  • 1968: #3 St. Bonaventure and #8 Davidson
  • 1969: #9 Duquesne and #5 Davidson
  • 1972: #6 South Carolina and #3 Penn

That’s pretty good, huh? Eight NCAA regional games against Top 10 opponents, 8-0 record, four Final Fours?

ACC Tournament Outlook

North Carolina

  • Current Record: 14-3
  • Remaining Games: vs. NC State, vs. Notre Dame, at Duke
  • Highest Possible Finish: 1
  • Lowest Possible Finish: It is possible for the Tar Heels to finish in a 3-way tie for first with Duke and Virginia, or a two-way tie for second with Virginia. It appears to me that UNC has the tiebreakers, so I don’t think they can be seeded lower than #2.
  • Bye chances: Clinched the double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 1 (alone) – 59%
  • 1 (tie) – 35%
  • 2 (alone) – 6%
  • 2 (tie) – < 1%

Duke

  • Current Record: 12-4
  • Remaining Games: vs. Louisville, vs. Virginia, at NC State, vs. UNC
  • Highest Possible Finish: 1
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 4 (tie)
  • Bye chances: Need one more win to clinch the double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 1 (alone) – 6%
  • 1 (tie) – 35%
  • 2 (alone) – 54%
  • 2 (tie) – 4%
  • 3 (alone) – < 1%
  • 3 (tie) – < 1%
  • 4 (alone) – < 1%
  • 4 (tie) – < 1%

Virginia

  • Current Record: 11-6
  • Remaining Games: at BC, at Duke, vs. Georgia Tech
  • Highest Possible Finish: 1 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 7 (tie)
  • Bye chances: Clinched a single bye. Work to do to secure a double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 1 (tie) – < 1%
  • 2 (alone) – 1%
  • 2 (tie) – 3%
  • 3 (alone) – < 20%
  • 3 (tie) – < 42%
  • 4 (alone) – < 6%
  • 4 (tie) – < 21%
  • 5 (alone) – <1%
  • 5 (tie) – 5%
  • 6 (alone) – < 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 2%
  • 7 (alone) – < 1%
  • 7 (tie) – < 1%

Wake Forest

  • Current Record: 10-7
  • Remaining Games: at Virginia Tech, vs. Georgia Tech, vs. Clemson
  • Highest Possible Finish: 2 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 9 (tie)
  • Bye chances: I’m not 100% sure, but I think Wake has clinched a single bye. While they can finish tied for 9th, I think they have the tiebreakers. Lots of work to do to secure a double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 2 (tie) – < 1%
  • 3 (alone) – 17%
  • 3 (tie) – 32%
  • 4 (alone) – 5%
  • 4 (tie) – 21%
  • 5 (alone) – 3%
  • 5 (tie) – 12%
  • 6 (alone) – 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 6%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Clemson

  • Current Record: 10-7
  • Remaining Games: at Notre Dame, vs. Syracuse, at Wake
  • Highest Possible Finish: 2 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 9 (tie)
  • Bye chances: Need a win or Virginia Tech loss to clinch single bye. Lots of work to do to secure the double bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 2 (tie) – < 1%
  • 3 (alone) – 13%
  • 3 (tie) – 26%
  • 4 (alone) – 4%
  • 4 (tie) – 22%
  • 5 (alone) – 5%
  • 5 (tie) – 14%
  • 6 (alone) – 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 9%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 4%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Syracuse

  • Current Record: 10-8
  • Remaining Games: at Louisville, at Clemson
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 9 (tie)
  • Bye chances: I’m not 100% sure, but I think the Orange has clinched a single bye. It appears to me that they have the tiebreakers over the teams they could finish tied for 9th with.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone) – < 1%
  • 3 (tie) – 6%
  • 4 (alone) – < 1%
  • 4 (tie) – 8%
  • 5 (alone) – 1%
  • 5 (tie) – 19%
  • 6 (alone) – 3%
  • 6 (tie) – 29%
  • 7 (alone) – 8%
  • 7 (tie) – 17%
  • 8 (alone) – 3%
  • 8 (tie) – 5%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Pitt

  • Current Record: 9-8
  • Remaining Games: at BC, vs. FSU, vs. NC State
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 11
  • Bye chances: Anything is possible. Double bye, single bye, no bye at all.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone or tie) – 7%
  • 4 (alone or tie) – 14%
  • 5 (alone or tie) – 22%
  • 6 (alone or tie) – 26%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 12%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 13%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 5%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – < 1%

NC State

  • Current Record: 9-8
  • Remaining Games: at UNC, vs. Duke, at Pitt
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 11
  • Bye chances: Anything is possible. Three wins gives them a slim chance for a double bye; zero wins and they could very well be playing on Tuesday. One win and a Virginia Tech loss should be enough to avoid Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 4 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 5 (alone or tie) – 4%
  • 6 (alone or tie) – 8%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 13%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 25%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 35%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 12%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 1%

Florida State

  • Current Record: 9-8
  • Remaining Games: at GT, at Pitt, vs. Miami
  • Highest Possible Finish: 3
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 11
  • Bye chances: Anything is possible. Double bye, single bye, no bye at all.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 3 (alone or tie) – 3%
  • 4 (alone or tie) – 7%
  • 5 (alone or tie) – 15%
  • 6 (alone or tie) – 22%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 18%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 25%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 7%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Virginia Tech

  • Current Record: 7-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Wake Forest, at Louisville, vs. Notre Dame
  • Highest Possible Finish: 5 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 13
  • Bye chances: Double bye is out of reach. Work to do to secure single bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 5 (tie) – < 1%
  • 6 (tie) – 1%
  • 7 (alone or tie) – 6%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 16%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 30%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 37%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 10%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – < 1%

Boston College

  • Current Record: 6-10
  • Remaining Games: vs. Virginia, vs. Pitt, at Miami, at Louisville
  • Highest Possible Finish: 5 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Double bye is out of reach. Work to do to secure single bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 5 (tie) – < 1%
  • 6 (tie) – < 1%
  • 7 (tie) – 2%
  • 8 (alone or tie) – 5%
  • 9 (alone or tie) – 12%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 22%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 46%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 9%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 15 (alone) – < 1%

Notre Dame

  • Current Record: 6-11
  • Remaining Games: vs. Clemson, at UNC, at Virginia Tech
  • Highest Possible Finish: 8 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Clinging to a slim chance to get a single bye.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 8 (tie) – < 1%
  • 9 (tie) – < 1%
  • 10 (alone or tie) – 3%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 11%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 40%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 40%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – < 5%
  • 15 (alone) – < 1%

Miami

  • Current Record: 6-12
  • Remaining Games: vs. BC, at FSU
  • Highest Possible Finish: 10
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 10 (alone or tie) – 4%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 29%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 50%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 14%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – 2%
  • 15 (alone) – < 1%

Georgia Tech

  • Current Record: 5-12
  • Remaining Games: vs. FSU, at Wake, at Virginia
  • Highest Possible Finish: 10
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 10 (alone or tie) – < 1%
  • 11 (alone or tie) – 3%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 16%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 26%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – 55%
  • 15 (alone) – 1%

Louisville

  • Current Record: 3-13
  • Remaining Games: at Duke, vs. Syracuse, vs. Virginia Tech, vs. BC
  • Highest Possible Finish: 10 (tie)
  • Lowest Possible Finish: 15
  • Bye chances: Will play on Tuesday.

Finish Probabilities:

  • 10 (tie) – < 1%
  • 11 (tie) – < 1%
  • 12 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 13 (alone or tie) – 1%
  • 14 (alone or tie) – 8%
  • 15 (alone) – 90%

33. 1969 North Carolina

Record: 27-5, 12-2 (1st place)
ACC Tournament: Won
NCAA Tournament: Lost in national semifinal
Final AP Ranking: 4
All-ACC Players: Charlie Scott (1st), Bill Bunting (1st), Dick Grubar (2nd)
All-Americans: Charlie Scott (2nd)

This was the third of three straight ACC Championship and Final Four teams at North Carolina. Larry Miller was gone, but the Tar Heels still had Charlie Scott, and they had three outstanding seniors in Rusty Clark, Dick Grubar, and Bill Bunting.

This trio isn’t as well known as they ought to be. They never lost an ACC Tournament game; they won the ACC regular season three times; at no time was any of their teams ranked outside the Top 10; and they reached the Final Four three times. Each of the three made All-ACC once. They were overshadowed to some degree by two all-time greats in Miller and Scott, but they were special players in their own right.

This team rolled along like a machine. They started the year ranked second in the polls and never dropped below fourth. A narrow loss to St. John’s at Madison Square Garden, a two-point game against South Carolina, and a loss to Duke in Vic Bubas’ last home game at Cameron were the only blemishes on a 22-3 regular season.

The ACC Tournament is remembered for Charlie Scott‘s 40-point game in the final against Duke. It was right up there with Randolph Childress 1995 as one of the all-time great performances in a tournament final. The other significant event in the tournament was an injury to Grubar that would keep him out of the NCAA Tournament. This meant more time for Eddie Fogler, Jim Delany (the same Jim Delany who was later commissioner of the Big Ten), and Gerald Tuttle.

On to the East Region in the NCAA Tournament. UNC as the ACC champion received a bye into the regional semifinals and a matchup with #9 Duquesne, where the Tar Heels survived a second-half Dukes comeback to eke out a one-point win. Next up was fifth-ranked Davidson in a rematch of the regional final from the prior year, won narrowly by the Tar Heels. This year’s Wildcats had beaten four ACC teams during the regular season in what turned out to be Lefty Driesell’s last season before taking the Maryland job. It was a thrilling, high scoring, back-and-forth game. In the end, there was a little too much Charlie Scott. The New York junior scored a game-high 32 and sank the decisive jumper with two seconds left. It was an especially bitter pill for Driesell, who had recruited Scott hard and was thought to have the inside track before a late push by Dean Smith convinced Scott to come to Chapel Hill.

In the Final Four, Carolina faced sixth-ranked Purdue, led by first team All-American Rick Mount. This is where Grubar’s absence finally caught up with the Tar Heels. Purdue’s backcourt of Mount and Bill Keller dominated Fogler and Tuttle, outscoring them 56-6 and forcing them into 12 turnovers. The Boilermakers pulled away in the second half to a 92-65 victory.

This team played fast. Their average of 89 points per game still ranks in the top 20 all-time in the ACC. They set league records for total field goals made (later broken by 1973 UNC) and field goals per game (later broken by 1973 NC State).

With Grubar injured, there was a built-in excuse to fail to make it to another Final Four. But they found a way, capping off an unmatched three-year run. No other ACC program has ever had a three-year stretch of winning the regular season, winning the tournament, and making the Final Four.