ShareThis Page
Pitt

Media poll picks Pitt to finish fifth in ACC Coastal

Jerry DiPaola
| Monday, July 23, 2018, 4:03 p.m.

More ammunition for Pitt coach Pat Narduzzi’s bulletin board arrived Monday.

The ACC released results of its preseason poll of 148 media members, who were asked to assess how conference teams will finish this season.

Pitt was picked to fifth in the seven-team ACC Coastal Division, joining Virginia as the only Coastal schools that did not receive a first-place vote. Miami is the preseason favorite in the Coastal, with 122 first-place votes and 998 voting points to 16 and 838 for runner-up Virginia Tech.

Georgia Tech (eight first-place votes), Duke (one), Pitt, North Carolina (one) and Virginia were chosen to finish third through seventh. Here is the Coastal voting:

1. Miami (122) – 998

2. Virginia Tech (16) – 838

3. Georgia Tech (8) – 654

4. Duke (1) – 607

5. Pitt – 420

6. North Carolina (1) – 370

7. Virginia – 257

In the Atlantic Division, three-time defending league champion Clemson was the choice to win the division on 145 ballots. Runner-up Florida State (one) and third-place pick N.C. State (two) received the other first-place votes.

Here is the Atlantic voting:

1. Clemson (145) – 1,031

2. Florida State (1) – 789

3. N.C. State (2) – 712

4. Boston College – 545

5. Louisville – 422

6. Wake Forest – 413

7. Syracuse – 232

Clemson (12-2 last year while earning a third consecutive College Football Playoff berth) received 139 votes to win the ACC championship, followed by Miami (five), N.C. State (two), Florida State and Virginia Tech (one each).

Clemson defeated Miami, 38-3, in last year’s title game.

Jerry DiPaola is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jerry at jdipaola@tribweb.com or via Twitter @JDiPaola_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me