CHARLOTTE, N.C. – The ACC has much to brag about from the last three March Madness tournaments: four different teams reached the Final Four, seven teams made it to the Elite Eight, and the conference recorded a total of 33 tournament victories.

Despite these remarkable achievements, the ACC ranked only fourth in total tournament invitations during this timeframe.

This raises a significant issue for the ACC. Why is this conference often overlooked? Why isn’t it garnering the respect it deserves?

“It’s hard to understand,” remarked North Carolina State coach Kevin Keatts, whose team made an unexpected Final Four appearance last season.

With the arrival of a new season, the lack of recognition persists. The pre-season YSL News Sports men’s college basketball coaches poll lists only two ACC teams in the rankings: Duke at No. 5 and North Carolina at No. 10.

The ACC has expanded to 18 members with the addition of California, Stanford, and SMU, potentially elevating the entire league’s competitiveness as historically weaker teams improve.

Commissioner Jim Phillips is under pressure to enhance the ACC’s standing within the NCAA tournament selection process. It’s troubling for a conference deeply rooted in college basketball tradition that it only received 15 bids in the past three tournaments, while the Big Ten and SEC secured 23 and 22 entries, respectively.

“We must communicate our accomplishments more effectively,” Phillips emphasized.

Yet, the ACC faces more than just a storytelling issue; its limited bid count largely stems from statistical realities. The committee’s metrics assess team performance, heavily influenced by the outcomes of non-conference games and the strength of schedules—the ACC’s recent records haven’t fared well.

As the conference transitioned to a 20-game schedule five years ago, teams found fewer opportunities to secure early-season non-conference victories. Struggles with team cohesiveness due to heavy transfers and many teams navigating coaching changes have led to too many disappointing losses and not enough commanding wins before conference play commences.

This situation resulted in teams like Wake Forest finishing 13-7, 10-10, and 11-9 in the ACC over the past three years, consistently missing out on tournament selection. For coach Steve Forbes, having victories against NC State, Duke, and Clemson—teams that went on to the Elite Eight—was bittersweet when his team failed to make the at-large bid discussion.

“We didn’t claim the essential victories,” Forbes shared. “When you’re fighting for a spot, the stress rises. We had significant wins, yet a few lost road games held us back when we were trying to make the cut.”

To tackle this issue, Phillips announced that the ACC has initiated an extensive statistical study to help teams optimize their scheduling in a way that enhances their chances in the NCAA’s NET rankings, which are instrumental for team placement and seeding.

In simple terms, teams elevate their NET by defeating top-30 teams at home, top-50 teams on neutral courts, or top-75 teams away. Losses against teams ranked lower than 75 at home or outside the top 100 anywhere damage their NET.

Some critics argue that the NET system can be manipulated and does not always accurately represent a conference’s overall strength, especially as the ACC continues to grow. Nevertheless, understanding the metrics is crucial for maximizing success.

Ultimately, it is up to ACC teams to win those early non-conference games to improve their overall metrics.

“We must be strategic with our non-conference scheduling and ensure victories,” said Duke’s Jon Scheyer. “Still, I believe that competing in the ACC prepares teams excellently for the tournament with its diverse playing styles and opponents.”

The March statistics support this view. Several ACC teams have shown impressive runs in the tournament—not just Duke and North Carolina—indicating that the committee might undervalue the conference.

A significant aspect of improving the ACC’s prospects involves helping its historically strong programs reclaim their former success. The recent turmoil at Louisville under Kenny Payne, the decline at Florida State, and the struggles as Mike Brey concluded his tenure at Notre Dame all present serious challenges ahead.

Boeheim’s time at Syracuse has contributed to negative analytics and a poor public image.

The situation becomes even more complex considering Tony Bennett’s unexpected choice to retire from Virginia last week. When you look at the recent departures of coaching legends like Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Boeheim, and Brey, it’s clear that no conference has faced the challenge of replacing so many iconic figures all at once.

“Every conference will experience this eventually,” Forbes mentioned. “That’s why my agent encouraged me to take this job—because these coaches will start retiring. There’s a lot of change happening, but I believe we’re in a stable position.”

As the new season approaches, ACC supporters will keep a close eye on the lower part of the standings. First-time coach Pat Kelsey seems poised to quickly improve Louisville. Damon Stoudamire is raising the talent level at Georgia Tech. Boston College shows promising signs, and Micah Shrewsberry’s experience at Penn State should bode well for his rebuilding efforts at Notre Dame.

If these teams can steer clear of early setbacks, the ACC might finally gain some favorable attention from the selection committee.

“We’ve seen a drag at the bottom of the conference due to rebuilding, new coaching situations, and the impact of the transfer portal, which has affected our rankings and metrics,” Phillips commented. “Like it or not, the narrative begins to shape in November and December during the non-conference games. We have to perform at a higher level.”