Roy Williams on Dan Patrick

[fisheyes]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaato...ory?id=3990697

Looks like he should have sat out that last Duke game!

[Spret42]

And how many conferences duplicated the conference tournament method of getting the automatic bid?

Since the teams are fighting for a chance to go to a tournament that awards the championship based on who wins on any given night, and not necessarily who has had the best season, I like awarding the automatic bid to the conference tournament winner. It sure makes the tournament more exciting. (Isn't that how NC State ended up in the NCAA tournament and winning a National Championship?)

I am not sure how many conferences duplicated the method as much as they duplicated the ability to make a lot of money with nationally televised tournament.

You may see awarding a three day tournament winner as more exciting. I see 10 weeks of home and home games between teams battling it out for a championship as more exciting. The fact that the "best" team in the league still has to do its job and beat the worst team both home and away, and not rely on someone else to beat that team is what makes the competition pure.

Remember the NCAA pulled the rule and allowed more teams in EXACTLY because of the 1974 Final. They saw the result as a bad one. One team was harmed because of a result of a single game in a one weekend tournament. Yes, it was exciting for the fans, it was hardly an reasonable or equitable for the teams involved.

And to answer the World Series two leagues scrapping the world series to play a balanced schedule thing. The National and American Leagues were separate entities for years. The World Series was a way for each entity to send a rep and play for a title and to claim superiority. To mash the leagues 16 teams into league would have been to dilute the 8 team 154 games, 22 (11 home 11 away) games each team had to play against every other team to truly determine which team was best in each league. Baseball requires many games to determine which team is the best one, hence best of seven game series.

[Spret42]

The tournament ensured the best team at the end of the season represented the conference in the NCAAT. A team could have the best regular season record but be riding a couple of game losing streak due to an injured player or chemistry issue, etc...The conference tournament rewards the team playing the best ball at the time of the NCAAT.

Obviously, in the age of multiple bids, this is no longer germane. The ACC is sending seven teams to the tournament not one.

I knew this would be an unpopular position. And I took it for fun actually.

A team having a couple game losing streak is part of the drama that happens when you play balanced schedules. Did you do enough work early to be able to survive the bad stretch and still win enough games? Can you pull it together, go into the other guys gym on the last day and get that needed win to secrue the best record?

A team could have the best team over a three game tournament but watch their best player wrench an ankle in the final 10 minutes of the final game and lose. The tournament doesn't necessarily reward the team playing the best ball, it could be argued it puts a team in a position to lose through a freak accident what it spent 10 weeks earning by beating every team in the darned league!!

[Jeffrey]

A team could have the best team over a three game tournament but watch their best player wrench an ankle in the final 10 minutes of the final game and lose. The tournament doesn't necessarily reward the team playing the best ball, it could be argued it puts a team in a position to lose through a freak accident what it spent 10 weeks earning by beating every team in the darned league!!

Does this mean you also do not think highly of the NCAA Tournament? After all, it's also single elimination.

[Stray Gator]

... Just because the ACC decided the winner of the tournament was the champion doesn't make it so. ...

Actually, it does. "The ACC" is the member schools, not some independent entity. The member schools have agreed, since the inception of the conference, that the winner of the tournament at the end of the regular season would be recognized as the champion. It was only much later that the "regular season champion" even received any kind of official recognition as such. I've seen UNC fans and, to a lesser degree, Duke fans vacillate over this issue from year to year for decades now, depending on how each season ended. But regardless of your opinion or anyone else's opinion about whether the policy ought to be different, the policy is indisputable: The ACC Champion is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Period.

[DukieInKansas]

We can solve this issue - no one can claim to be Champions unless they go undefeated during the regular season and win the ACC Tournament.




Let's hear it for the '98-'99 Blue Devils!

[DukieInKansas]

I am not sure how many conferences duplicated the method as much as they duplicated the ability to make a lot of money with nationally televised tournament.

You may see awarding a three day tournament winner as more exciting. I see 10 weeks of home and home games between teams battling it out for a championship as more exciting. The fact that the "best" team in the league still has to do its job and beat the worst team both home and away, and not rely on someone else to beat that team is what makes the competition pure.

Remember the NCAA pulled the rule and allowed more teams in EXACTLY because of the 1974 Final. They saw the result as a bad one. One team was harmed because of a result of a single game in a one weekend tournament. Yes, it was exciting for the fans, it was hardly an reasonable or equitable for the teams involved.

And to answer the World Series two leagues scrapping the world series to play a balanced schedule thing. The National and American Leagues were separate entities for years. The World Series was a way for each entity to send a rep and play for a title and to claim superiority. To mash the leagues 16 teams into league would have been to dilute the 8 team 154 games, 22 (11 home 11 away) games each team had to play against every other team to truly determine which team was best in each league. Baseball requires many games to determine which team is the best one, hence best of seven game series.

Did the NCAA pull the rule due to the '74 Final or to expand the field and make more money?

I was out of the country, so I don't even know who was in the '74 Final.

[4decadedukie]

Actually, it does. "The ACC" is the member schools, not some independent entity. The member schools have agreed, since the inception of the conference, that the winner of the tournament at the end of the regular season would be recognized as the champion. It was only much later that the "regular season champion" even received any kind of official recognition as such. I've seen UNC fans and, to a lesser degree, Duke fans vacillate over this issue from year to year for decades now, depending on how each season ended. But regardless of your opinion or anyone else's opinion about whether the policy ought to be different, the policy is indisputable: The ACC Champion is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Period.

Stray is absolutely correct.

Furthermore, since the expansion of the ACC and the demise of the "home and away round-robin" – where each team played all the others twice, once at home and once away – this agreed to ACC policy is even more vital. That results from the disparity in the difficulty of annual schedules among the twelve ACC schools. To illustrate, this year (during the regular season) Duke was compelled to play the three top ACC teams (based on their in-season results) twice. Having two games against UNC, Wake and FSU was a particularly hard schedule, significantly more challenging than only one game with any of these schools. Therefore, the only “even ACC playing field" is the tournament. Incidentally, this is one – of several – substantial deficiencies resulting from the ACC's expansion.

[bjornolf]

That's what I said, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[dukegirlinsc]

This is exactly why UNC and UConn should not have been given a #1 seeds and why Duke and Memphis should have been given #1 seeds. The tournament should mean more and the committee...

I pretty much agree. UNC, being the "best team in the nation" couldn't win two games in two. Granted, Ty Lawson wasn't playing, but in my opinion of they're as good as everyone's made them out to be, they should be overcoming such adversity and still winning ball games, regardless. I know some of it has to do with being partial, but my god. I didn't think it could be any more obvious.

[CBDUKE]

UNC is also considered, by all the talkingheads, to be the deepest team in the country. They should be able to overcome a little adversity, don'tcha think?

[dukeman28428]

What does he think Duke won Sunday at ACC?

Maybe he should come over to Cameron and take a look at the trophy for the ACC CHAMPIONSHIP.

LET'S GO DEVILS

[Jeffrey]

UNC is also considered, by all the talkingheads, to be the deepest team in the country. They should be able to overcome a little adversity, don'tcha think?

No, it's not their nature.

[Spret42]

Actually, it does. "The ACC" is the member schools, not some independent entity. The member schools have agreed, since the inception of the conference, that the winner of the tournament at the end of the regular season would be recognized as the champion. It was only much later that the "regular season champion" even received any kind of official recognition as such. I've seen UNC fans and, to a lesser degree, Duke fans vacillate over this issue from year to year for decades now, depending on how each season ended. But regardless of your opinion or anyone else's opinion about whether the policy ought to be different, the policy is indisputable: The ACC Champion is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Period.

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically. Teams, coaches and fans vacillated because they knew that if one team was 15-1 and had a bad shooting day in one game, resulting in all that previous work being washed away, it was unfair.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today.

[Indoor66]

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today.

Why not give it a rest. The conference sets the rules; the conference is the schools; that is the end of the story.

[DukieInKansas]

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically. Teams, coaches and fans vacillated because they knew that if one team was 15-1 and had a bad shooting day in one game, resulting in all that previous work being washed away, it was unfair.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today.

I'll give you an 8.0 on your mental gymnastics. I'm not sure what the Russian judge gives you.

[shoutingncu]

"03-11-2008, 11:40 AM
BlueBlood112883

Roy doesn't care about the ACC Tournament....

and wishes UNC didn't have to play in it.


"In my mind the ACC Tourney is one of those "necessary evils". I really don't care if we win it, but at the same time I don't want to lose to any other teams. I honestly wish we could somehow opt to not participate, I wouldn't care what other team fans would say."

Roy without the ACC Tournament the ACC wouldn't be what it is now. If you don't want to be there go ahead and lose your first game. So you can go home, and let the teams that want to be the official champ of the ACC try and win it. Get out of here with that weaksauce."

---

Roy's very public and well criticized opinion is not new this year. The above quote is prior to winning last year's ACC tournament, but after winning the year before.

Re: Cutting down the nets... as someone pointed out, he started that in 2005 (not sure if he did it at Kansas) to let the seniors "celebrate." You may recall that senior class... they went 8 - 20 their freshman year. Allegedly, in 2007, Roy had the team cut down just one side of the nets for their co-"regular season" championship, and was quoted as saying that Virginia could come back and cut down the other. I doubt he'd extend that offer to Duke next season, but maybe if you bring the ladder.

And no reasonable fan can claim that Duke is not the 2009 ACC Champion. It is objective fact. But as someone said in the thread that I lifted the above post from, I don't think that anyone cares that Carolina failed to win it in 2005, nor that Duke failed to in 1991. I would further add, how satisfying is Duke's 2006 trophy? Should Carolina not win the NCAA Tourney this year, I know for me, it will be of little comfort that we were "Regular Season Champions," and had we won the ACC, I would consider it a consolation prize at best.

[MarkD83]

I can't disagree with Roy's decision. If Ty plays they have a better chance at beating Duke. Beating Duke means a reg. season title, which will pretty much ensure them a #1 seed in the big dance, regardless of how they perform in the ACC Tourney. Play Ty, win the game and seed, then he's got a long time to rest before the NCAA's. I'd even sit him in the first round if he doesn't practice well. I think it's a pretty smart move, unless of course Ty gets hurt worse during the Duke game.

UNC already had clinched a tie for the regular season title. The win at home was to insure the top seed in the tournament which they would have gotten anyway since Wake won. If this was the reason to play Lawson in the last game then Roy does care about the ACC tournament because he wanted to make sure he had the top seed.

Winning on senior day for Hansbrough may have been a motivation or perhaps the fact that it was Ty Lawson's last game at home. However, winning the title could not have been the motivation since they had already won that.

[MarkD83]

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically. Teams, coaches and fans vacillated because they knew that if one team was 15-1 and had a bad shooting day in one game, resulting in all that previous work being washed away, it was unfair.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today.

The ACC does not play a balanced regular season schedule. If I look at the top 5 teams in the conference, UNC only played 5 games against Duke, Wake, Clemson and FSU. Duke played 7 games against UNC, Wake, Clemson and FSU. Wake played 6 games against UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU. So UNC needs to play 2 more games against the top 5 teams in the conference. But wait they did play against one of those teams...FSU and LOST. Duke also played FSU again and guess what ... DUKE WON and they are

2009 ACC Champions

[BlueHeaven]

I heard pieces of this interview again on the DP show today. Roy said that if Lawson made half the practice today and all practice tomorrow, he'd play Thursday. They (DP and Paulie) said he had turf toe. Does anyone know if Lawson practiced today (for filling out my bracket purposes)