Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Asheville, NC

    Lightbulb Regular Season "Championship" Now Irrelevant?

    In reading this article about the pre-season voting, my local paper (Asheville Citizen-Times), which is decidedly pro-UNC-CH, decided to mention that UNC-CH has won the last three "regular-season title(s)".

    Of course I see winning the most games during the regular season as quite an accomplishment, but should it still be recognized as a "championship", now that all of the teams' schedules aren't equal? When each team played a true double round-robin schedule, apples were indeed compared to apples. Now, it seems like certain teams who get 'lucky' enough to only play the top teams once have a decidedly better shot at the best regular season record.

    Does anyone know if there's been any discussion about this on the conference level? To continue to recognize this championship, given the disparity in scheduling, seems flawed, at best.

    --grad_devil

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by grad_devil View Post
    In reading this article about the pre-season voting, my local paper (Asheville Citizen-Times), which is decidedly pro-UNC-CH, decided to mention that UNC-CH has won the last three "regular-season title(s)".

    Of course I see winning the most games during the regular season as quite an accomplishment, but should it still be recognized as a "championship", now that all of the teams' schedules aren't equal? When each team played a true double round-robin schedule, apples were indeed compared to apples. Now, it seems like certain teams who get 'lucky' enough to only play the top teams once have a decidedly better shot at the best regular season record.

    Does anyone know if there's been any discussion about this on the conference level? To continue to recognize this championship, given the disparity in scheduling, seems flawed, at best.

    --grad_devil
    It is not recognized as an achievement by the conference, only by UNC. This has been the case since July 1, 1961 and doesn't have to do with the new unbalanced schedule. Link

    In fact, Carolina even gave out "Championship" rings to their players for this fictional ACC title. Heck, they even have a banner for the Helms "Championship" of 1924 so it's not too surprising...

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by airowe View Post
    It is not recognized as an achievement by the conference, only by UNC. This has been the case since July 1, 1961 and doesn't have to do with the new unbalanced schedule. Link

    In fact, Carolina even gave out "Championship" rings to their players for this fictional ACC title. Heck, they even have a banner for the Helms "Championship" of 1924 so it's not too surprising...
    Well, since Ol' Roy can't give them suits he had to do something

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by grad_devil View Post
    In reading this article about the pre-season voting, my local paper (Asheville Citizen-Times), which is decidedly pro-UNC-CH, decided to mention that UNC-CH has won the last three "regular-season title(s)".

    Of course I see winning the most games during the regular season as quite an accomplishment, but should it still be recognized as a "championship", now that all of the teams' schedules aren't equal? When each team played a true double round-robin schedule, apples were indeed compared to apples. Now, it seems like certain teams who get 'lucky' enough to only play the top teams once have a decidedly better shot at the best regular season record.

    Does anyone know if there's been any discussion about this on the conference level? To continue to recognize this championship, given the disparity in scheduling, seems flawed, at best.

    --grad_devil
    Short answer - an unbalanced schedule (no double round robin) makes a "regular season" championship meaningless (official or unofficial). Back when everyone played the same in-conference schedule I thought it was a great accomplishment (even if it wasn't officially recognized). But with the lack of balance it has no meaning at all.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Smile I Dunno, Allen

    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    Short answer - an unbalanced schedule (no double round robin) makes a "regular season" championship meaningless (official or unofficial). Back when everyone played the same in-conference schedule I thought it was a great accomplishment (even if it wasn't officially recognized). But with the lack of balance it has no meaning at all.
    Seems to me like 16-0 packs a lot of meaning. -- sagegrouse

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Seems to me like 16-0 packs a lot of meaning. -- sagegrouse
    Actually, you are right - and I think (without doing the math) that only one team could go 16-0 no matter what. If someone does it is a meaningful accomplishment. I wonder how many teams could go 15-1, or 14-2, etc.? I'm too lazy to do the cipherin'

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Seems to me like 16-0 packs a lot of meaning. -- sagegrouse
    It certainly would, and would be a deeply impressive accomplishment. But it's not a championship.

  8. #8
    It's not officially recognized by the league, but the "winning" team is allowed to hang a banner as long as it indicates "regular season." The conference champion has always been determined by the tournament. To be fair to our friends at UNC, we also hang banners for regular season championships, so we can't be that hypocritical. But we don't give out rings at least.

    I also wouldn't say it's "irrelevant." Certainly, how a team performs over a 16 game stretch is relevant; it just doesn't indicate that they are necessarily conference champions. In some cases, though, I think it's clear what team is the best in the ACC and the unbalanced schedule doesn't change that fact - the very best teams usually rise to the top no matter what.

  9. #9
    Ugh. I HATE this argument.

    UNC won the ACC last year. I'm willing to give them this, even if it's not technically recognized by the ACC. Yes, the unbalanced schedule does make it easier at times for one team to win the Regular Season over another...but we LOST to UNC both times.
    I can't recall if any other team might have had a claim due to the unbalanced schedule, but i don't think there was.

    I mean listen, the Helms Championship was bullI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this., as UNC didn't play any of the other top teams that year and there was no playoff. But UNC DID play the other top teams in the ACC. It did win the regular season.

    So if they want to crown themselves, "Champions," I have no problem with that. Conference Tournaments are kind of cheap anyhow (What's more important...3 games or a full 16 game season?), and they DID earn this.

    I find there's good reason to make fun of UNC for the Helm's championship. But to mock UNC for claiming they're the 2009 ACC Champions just sounds like sour grapes, especially considering they ended up winning the whole NCAAs.
    Let them say what they want and just ignore it if you don't like it. But no use starting a thread and being standoffish about it.
    <devildeac> anyone playing drinking games by now?
    7:49:36<Wander> drink every qb run?
    7:49:38<loran16> umm, drink every time asack rushes?
    7:49:38<wolfybeard> @devildeac: drink when Asack runs a keeper
    7:49:39 PM<CB&B> any time zack runs, drink

    Carolina Delenda Est

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Personally, I have always thought there was too little emphasis on in-season accomplishment and way too much on single-elimination tournaments.
    Quel est si drole de la paix, de l'amour, et de la comprehension?

  11. #11
    Depends on the year really. If you're a full two games ahead in the standings and swept the 2nd place team, like UNC last year, then I don't see how anyone can possibly complain about their claim to winning the regular season based on scheduling. The word "championship" might be a bit much, but all we needed to do to stop that was win one out of two games, and we lost twice, so it's a bit lame for us to whine.

    On the other hand, if you only tie for first place and there's a bunch of teams tied for second one game behind, (UVA and UNC a few years ago), then yeah, I'd say it's dumb to call yourself the ACC champion.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by mapei View Post
    Personally, I have always thought there was too little emphasis on in-season accomplishment and way too much on single-elimination tournaments.
    I actually feel the opposite. The regular season is a marathon, not a dash, and being the regular season champion means more to me. If you win the ACC regular season championship and do not win the ACC Championship game, you more than likely will still get a #1 seed. On the other hand, simply winning the ACC Championship doesn't get you a #1 seed.
    But, people see it differently, depending on which one your team wins, but giving out rings for anything other than a NCAA CH does seem a bit too much!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Smile Uhhh, where's the argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by mapei
    Personally, I have always thought there was too little emphasis on in-season accomplishment and way too much on single-elimination tournaments.
    Quote Originally Posted by kong123 View Post
    I actually feel the opposite. The regular season is a marathon, not a dash, and being the regular season champion means more to me. If you win the ACC regular season championship and do not win the ACC Championship game, you more than likely will still get a #1 seed. On the other hand, simply winning the ACC Championship doesn't get you a #1 seed.
    But, people see it differently, depending on which one your team wins, but giving out rings for anything other than a NCAA CH does seem a bit too much!
    I believe that the monster Kong and the architect Pei are actually in violent agreement.

    sagegrouse
    'Or, maybe my reading comrehension needs a jolt'

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    ah, i hit the quote button instead of hitting the reply button, sorry...my bad!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Nothing is irrelevant. It's all important.

    I have always thought that both the regular season and tournament are important and both should be recognized. The tournament champion is the official ACC champ, but doing well in the regular season is also laudable.

    The unbalanced schedule causes problems naming an undisputed regular season winner and in seeding the ACC tournament. There isn't a good way to rebalance things so I guess we'll just have to live with it. It leaves a good bit of room for "discussion" sort of like the BCS.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Smile Masters of the Universe

    Random rhetorical question:

    Why can't the regular be extended in order to incorporate more conference games?

    Answer: Because CBS airs both the NCAAs and the Masters, and hoops has to end before Masters week at Augusta.

    sagegrouse
    'Hey! I'm named after a bird -- did you expect theoretical physics?'

  17. #17
    The regular season title certainly means more in the ACC for sure than in the big east, do they even play every team in their conference during the regular season given that their league has like 26 teams (ok, not quite that many, but you get the point)?

  18. #18

    acc championships

    I'm not sure what the argument is about either. Certainly winning the regular season is a great accomplishment and deserves to be recognized (balanced schedule or not), but the rules are clear -- the tournament winner is THE OFFICIAL ACC champion.

    Don't like that? Then change the rules!

    Arguing that UNC was the 2009 ACC champ is like arguing that Al Gore won the 2000 election -- he got more votes nationally, that has to be more important than that weird Electoral College thing (which is almost as big a farce as the BCS).

    I guess as a Yankee fan, I don't need to worrry about that pesky World Series. By UNC logic, we're already world champs since we had the best regular season record. And the New England Patriots won the 2007 NFL title with their 16-0 regular season ... no need to win the Super Bowl too.

    And, hey, as a Duke fan that works for us too. We were the No. 1 team in the final AP poll in 1986, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2006 (as well as 1992 and 2001) -- we can forget our NCAA Tournament losses those years, since the regular season is all that counts.

    The rules are in place and have been since 1961 -- to win the ACC championship, you have to win the tournament. The coaches know that and can plan their seasons to be ready in March or they can elect to blow the ACC event off. When South Carolina won the 1971 ACC title, Tom Owens said he STILL hated the ACC Tournament. When a reporter pointed out that without the tournament, South Carolina would have finished in second place, Owens said if the regular season had determined the champion, they'd have approached the season differently.

    Roy made a choice this year. He had an injured Ty Lawson injected with pain killers so he could play against Duke in Chapel Hill and clinch the "regular season title" ... Then he elected to let Lawson sit and rest his sore ankle in Atlanta.

    I have no problem with that. He's free to choose his priorities ... and I'd certainly rather win the NCAA title than the ACC title. But don't play it that way and then come back and suggest that the winner in Atlanta wasn't really the ACC champion ... let's see who has the trophy.

    But I do think it's neat that in both of Roy's national title seasons -- 2005 and 2009 -- Duke was the ACC champion!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by airowe View Post
    It is not recognized as an achievement by the conference, only by UNC. This has been the case since July 1, 1961 and doesn't have to do with the new unbalanced schedule..
    I hear ya, but check out the attached document taken from the ACC Men's Basketball media guide from last year, listing all "Regular Season Champions" from 1954 to the present. It seems they lend some credence to the award, albeit in a de facto fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by loran16 View Post
    Ugh.
    I find there's good reason to make fun of UNC for the Helm's championship. But to mock UNC for claiming they're the 2009 ACC Champions just sounds like sour grapes, especially considering they ended up winning the whole NCAAs.
    Let them say what they want and just ignore it if you don't like it. But no use starting a thread and being standoffish about it.
    In no way did my initial post mock UNC-CH for claiming a championship, although I would've had the article even broached the subject of the Helms award I'm just making the argument that I don't think the idea of a 'regular season' championship means what it once did. Winning the most league games is impressive, no doubt, but it would (and did) mean more when everyone had the same schedule.

    --grad_devil
    Attached Images Attached Images

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mizzou, post-Quin
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I have no problem with that. He's free to choose his priorities ... and I'd certainly rather win the NCAA title than the ACC title. But don't play it that way and then come back and suggest that the winner in Atlanta wasn't really the ACC champion ... let's see who has the trophy.
    Has Roy claimed this, or is it just ignorant fans?

    Now, I know Ol' Roy honored it with the rings (rings? really?), but I think he knows who the ACC Champions were last season, as it is objective fact.

    As for the argument itself, I think we can likely agree that there is sometimes a difference between Champion and Best Team and that it's arguable that the best team in the conference last year did not win the championship. Substitute "nation" for "conference" and "1999" for "last year" and you can see another example.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 06:19 PM
  2. Icing the Shooter: "Good" play or "Bad"
    By greybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 03:53 PM
  3. UNC Helms "championship"
    By tombrady in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 01-28-2008, 10:30 AM
  4. "Call me Noah" - Heroes season finale
    By IUGrad03 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 06:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •