|
Post by vbnerd on Apr 1, 2024 9:50:23 GMT -5
what do you mean by the "ACC"? The entire conference or Pitt and Louisville in particular? Year over year it's hard to argue that Pitt and Louisville shouldn't be favored next year, regardless of where the match is being played. Pitt loses nobody of consequence and gets Bre Kelley back. Louisville isn't losing anyone that they aren't replacing with proven talent. Stanford is turning well over half of their points in any given match and replacing it with players who barely have played at this level. Right. Pitt and Louisville don't need to "catch up" to Stanford. They're already caught up. Not in terms of history but current program strength. Not to mention that Stanford will be the school moving to a new conference on the other side of the country with a 30% revenue share. I think it takes the ACC a couple years to catch up to Stanford but I could be wrong. That's why they play the games! Given Stanford will be in the ACC next year, your comment makes no sense. How can one catch up to oneself? I think it takes the ACC a couple years to catch up to Stanford but I could be wrong. That's why they play the games! what do you mean by the "ACC"? The entire conference or Pitt and Louisville in particular? Year over year it's hard to argue that Pitt and Louisville shouldn't be favored next year, regardless of where the match is being played. Pitt loses nobody of consequence and gets Bre Kelley back. Louisville isn't losing anyone that they aren't replacing with proven talent. Stanford is turning well over half of their points in any given match and replacing it with players who barely have played at this level. That statement was written to be as innocuous as possible, and somehow people still took offense. I already said that I thought Stanford could lose at Pitt and Louisville. I also said, is it possible that Ga Tech or somebody catches Stanford on an off night, sure... But IN MY OPINION, the ACC, as a group, does not function on a level comparable with what we have come to expect from Stanford. AND I ADMITTED I COULD BE WRONG! And people still got twisted about it. I know it's the offseason, but seriously... The ACC ON AVERAGE is a ways behind. ON AVERAGE the ACC doesn't have the coaching, the players (or recruiting base), or in many cases the facilities to match the recent Pac 12. Using the Pablo conference rankings the Pac 12 had an average ranking of 39 last year. The ACC had an average ranking of 81. Stanford hasn't lost to a non-ranked opponent in like 3 years, if I recall, which is over 2/3 of the new ACC. Pitt and Louisville have benefitted from a league where they only need to really prepare for a handful of matches. Stanford has to learn to travel, but when they can spend the throwaway weeks (Syracuse-Boston College, Virginia-Va Tech, Wake and State) weeks resting players or preparing for the better teams, I think they'll perform better on the big nights, as Pitt and Louisville have recently. I'm not a Stanford homer. I'm not even a fan. I would love to see them eat dirt at Virginia or Duke, but they've been a top X program longer than DBK has been alive, and the challenge before them just got much MUCH easier. I don't view any of this as controversial. I honestly think you are just bored.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 1, 2024 10:01:57 GMT -5
Right. Pitt and Louisville don't need to "catch up" to Stanford. They're already caught up. Not in terms of history but current program strength. Not to mention that Stanford will be the school moving to a new conference on the other side of the country with a 30% revenue share. Given Stanford will be in the ACC next year, your comment makes no sense. How can one catch up to oneself? what do you mean by the "ACC"? The entire conference or Pitt and Louisville in particular? Year over year it's hard to argue that Pitt and Louisville shouldn't be favored next year, regardless of where the match is being played. Pitt loses nobody of consequence and gets Bre Kelley back. Louisville isn't losing anyone that they aren't replacing with proven talent. Stanford is turning well over half of their points in any given match and replacing it with players who barely have played at this level. That statement was written to be as innocuous as possible, and somehow people still took offense. I already said that I thought Stanford could lose at Pitt and Louisville. I also said, is it possible that Ga Tech or somebody catches Stanford on an off night, sure... But IN MY OPINION, the ACC, as a group, does not function on a level comparable with what we have come to expect from Stanford. AND I ADMITTED I COULD BE WRONG! And people still got twisted about it. I know it's the offseason, but seriously... The ACC ON AVERAGE is a ways behind. ON AVERAGE the ACC doesn't have the coaching, the players (or recruiting base), or in many cases the facilities to match the recent Pac 12. Using the Pablo conference rankings the Pac 12 had an average ranking of 39 last year. The ACC had an average ranking of 81. Stanford hasn't lost to a non-ranked opponent in like 3 years, if I recall, which is over 2/3 of the new ACC. Pitt and Louisville have benefitted from a league where they only need to really prepare for a handful of matches. Stanford has to learn to travel, but when they can spend the throwaway weeks (Syracuse-Boston College, Virginia-Va Tech, Wake and State) weeks resting players or preparing for the better teams, I think they'll perform better on the big nights, as Pitt and Louisville have recently. I'm not a Stanford homer. I'm not even a fan. I would love to see them eat dirt at Virginia or Duke, but they've been a top X program longer than DBK has been alive, and the challenge before them just got much MUCH easier. I don't view any of this as controversial. I honestly think you are just bored. Lol, you literally said, "Other than At Louisville and At Pittsburgh, Stanford should win every match." It sure sounded like you think Stanford should walk right in and win the ACC in year one. And maybe they will. But they don't need to lose to any unranked teams for that not to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Apr 1, 2024 10:22:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 1, 2024 10:30:59 GMT -5
I didn't take offense. I just didn't understand what you were trying to say. Your effort to make your verbiage innocuous instead made it less comprehensible.
With Stanford in the ACC next season, it doesn't make sense to me to compare them against other members of the conference. It's all one team now, figuratively speaking. I prefer a mindset that compares the "new" ACC with other conferences rather than one which pushes internal divisions.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Apr 2, 2024 0:36:42 GMT -5
I'm still trying to understand how Washington is getting so many votes in this poll. What's even more baffling is how teams like UCLA and Utah have zero votes. Something would have to so seriously wrong (like tons of injuries) for Washington to be the worst of the former Pac-12 teams next year.
|
|