Every team deserves to be there. It does not mean that the ACC sucks or was not the best conference. Sure it would be nice to have more teams in the Sweet 16. There is a smattering of teams from various conferences in there. That does mean that the other teams in the ACC sucked.

VT was a good team right? We believe that to be the case? Did the fact they lost in the first round mean that VT is not a good team...aka that the ACC was not deep?

People seem to be equating good TEAMS beating ACC teams as an indicator that the CONFERENCE is not as good as was hyped.

There are teams out there that are not as great as might be seemed. Kansas has been living on the edge all year of losing games. One of the reasons why they didn't lose more close games? Frank Mason Jr. Not because Kansas is a great team but because Mason took over some close games and score some final points. A good player made that team win more games when they could easily have lost 3-4 games earlier in the season.

Fine, the ACC doesnt have many teams in the Sweet Sixteen. Judget the ACC. But when teams lose to other good teams, that is not an indictment of a conference. I will give South Carolina credit for hurrying up Duke's offense and for playing great defense. Maybe Duke was overr-rated (I think so) but give South Carolina credit . Give WV credit. Give Wisconsin credit before tearing down VT....:)