New ACC Tournament Format (14 Team Edition)

[BlueDevilBrowns]

If we stay at 14 teams, here is how the ACC Basketball Tourny will look:

LINK:http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcspor...ms-to-compete/

A 5 day tourny, Wed. thru Sun., with teams seeded 11-14 playing on Wednesday.

You better DVR Survivor Wednesday night in March (I'm talking to you BC, VTech, Wake, and Maryland fans!)

[WakeDevil]

Is there anything that Swofford and the idiots running the various athletic offices in this league can't screw up?

[Duvall]

Is there anything that Swofford and the idiots running the various athletic offices in this league can't screw up?

What's wrong with a 14-team field for a 14-team conference?

[WakeDevil]

You have 12 teams after the first day? What next? Do you give the first four teams another bye?

[pfrduke]

You have 12 teams after the first day? What next? Do you give the first four teams another bye?

Yes. The format is like our existing tournament, except that there are two "play-in" games for the 11th and 12th spots.

It will look like this.

Wed:

11 v. 14
12 v. 13

Thu:

5 v. 12/13
6 v. 11/14
7 v. 10
8 v. 9

Fri:

1 v. 8/9
2 v. 7/10
3 v. 6/11/14
4 v. 5/12/13

Sat: Semis; Sun: Finals

[subzero02]

looks good to me... i just hope we stay at 14 teams. The big east tournament is fun to watch but I wouldn't want our Devils to be part of an ACC version of that monster.

[msdukie]

What's wrong with a 14-team field for a 14-team conference?

The fact that it is not an 8-team field for an 8-team conference.

Here, I even came up with a seal to use:


http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools...c-seal2-lg.gif

(This was for Throaty)

[CDu]

Is there anything that Swofford and the idiots running the various athletic offices in this league can't screw up?

They got this one exactly right. Every team will have a chance to win it. The top four teams will just have the same advantage as before over teams 5-10 (1 day more rest) and a bigger advantage over teams 11-14 (2 days rest). Exactly how it should be with a 14-team conference.

[hurleyfor3]

This was my idea... sort of.

Nothing seems to have been finalized. However, if they're playing the games on Wednesday they'd have to be at the same site as the rest of the tournament. Attendance is going to be lousy, and knowing the ACC, they'll charge everyone an extra $70 or whatever for the extra two games in the book.

When the ACC went to 12 it became easier to find tournament tickets on the secondary market, as you have a greater percentage of fans who didn't care about the Saturday and Sunday games (or didn't care about the tournament at all). This will only continue the trend.

[75Crazie]

A five-day tournament is a travesty. A five-day tournament where some teams get two bye days is an abomination of a travesty. And the ACC directors need to get examined if they are seriously considering that approach.

Assuming it is desirable to invite all conference teams to the tournament (which I definitely buy), the only format that even approaches being reasonable is a four-day tournament where the top two teams get a first-day bye. This is by far the closest format that puts all teams on anything approaching an equal footing.

[Duvall]

A five-day tournament is a travesty. A five-day tournament where some teams get two bye days is an abomination of a travesty. And the ACC directors need to get examined if they are seriously considering that approach.

Assuming it is desirable to invite all conference teams to the tournament (which I definitely buy), the only format that even approaches being reasonable is a four-day tournament where the top two teams get a first-day bye. This is by far the closest format that puts all teams on anything approaching an equal footing.

Why should all fourteen teams be placed on an equal footing? If the teams playing on Wednesday didn't want to have a disadvantage, they shouldn't have finished in eleventh place or lower. Worse yet, a four-day tournament would require either two separate venues or a sixteen-hour first day. Neither approach is particularly practical.

[hurleyfor3]

the only format that even approaches being reasonable is a four-day tournament where the top two teams get a first-day bye. This is by far the closest format that puts all teams on anything approaching an equal footing.

What is your solution to having to play six games on one day, with all the winners having to play the next day? How do you price tickets if you use more than one site?

[WakeDevil]

Wednesday evening: 3 vs 14 and 4 vs 13
Thursday: Other four games.

The top two teams get a buy, and the winners of Wednesday, most likely the better teams, get a day off. A disadvantage is the Wednesday winners have to wait a day to play. That might not make their fans happy.

I wonder if they considered that.

[pfrduke]

Wednesday evening: 3 vs 14 and 4 vs 13
Thursday: Other four games.

The top two teams get a buy, and the winners of Wednesday, most likely the better teams, get a day off. A disadvantage is the Wednesday winners have to wait a day to play. That might not make their fans happy.

I wonder if they considered that.

This is a decent solution - keeps any team from facing a 5-game slog, puts a real premium on finishing top-2 in conference (the only teams that get to play 3 games), and still gives teams 3 and 4 a benefit over teams 5 and below (the day of rest before the quarterfinals). I like it.

[Dukehky]

The good thing about this particular type of system is that you don't have the chance of an underachieving regular season team sneaking up on the top seeds like happens fairly frequently in the big east. I think the play-in games are a bit of an homage to the 9 team tournament where the 8-9 seeds had to play on Thursday night. This way, there are no real major disadvantages to the top seeded teams. Boeheim said it was the curse of all curses to have the double bye. At least we still have a conference, so I'm not going to complain a tournament system that will hopefully never affect the team that I pull for.

[Jarhead]

Not knowing what the conference is going to do with the bracketing, it is virtually impossible to comment on the tournament structure. I thought everybody was expecting a 14 team tourney with the arrival of Syracuse and Pittsburgh. I'll add that I don't understand why there are 5 days of competition when a 16 team league would only require 4 days to complete its tournament. Somebody is looking at this through the bottom of a beer bottle. If you only want a 3 day tournament like the old days, then only 8 teams can qualify. Let's go back to the drawing board, folks. Nothing in this thread makes any sense.

[hurleyfor3]

I'll add that I don't understand why there are 5 days of competition when a 16 team league would only require 4 days to complete its tournament. Somebody is looking at this through the bottom of a beer bottle.

Again, I'd like to know your answer to scheduling more than four games on the same day, then having all the winners play at a single site the following day. Not to mention how you'd handle ticket sales vs. the current system of people buying the entire tournament at once.

My (partial) suggestion was here.

[Jarhead]

Again, I'd like to know your answer to scheduling more than four games on the same day, then having all the winners play at a single site the following day. Not to mention how you'd handle ticket sales vs. the current system of people buying the entire tournament at once.

My (partial) suggestion was here.

In a 16 team league, what's wrong with scheduling the opening round at the home sites of the 8 top seeded teams? Do it on Tuesday to allow the victors the time off to prepare for the grind of the traditional ACC 3 rounds in 3 days, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at one site with no byes. I'm not worried about ticket sales yet, but the first round sales should be handled by the home team. For the final three rounds, sell them just like we did when we were a 8 team league. Ta, da, problem solved.

For a 14 team league, what will be, will be. Why 2 byes, though? When I get elected the commish, I would have 4 rounds in which only the 2 top teams get a bye. Again, do the first round of 12 teams on the home court of the higher seeded teams on Tuesday, eliminating 6 of them. That leaves 8 teams for the traditional 3 rounds in 3 days ending just prior the NCAA selection show on CBS.
Maybe that's too simple, huh?

[Jderf]

Why even bother inviting the 13 and 14 seeds? They have virtually zero chance of winning it all. I suppose you're giving them an opportunity for an additional ACC win, but I'm not thinking these teams are getting into the NCAA's anyways.

And as I stated in a thread several months ago regarding the ACC tournament, we already have droves of empty seats for the thursday games. Things are only going to get much, much worse. The Wednesday crowds will resemble middle school contests.

This seems like an important question to me. People keep opining that we have to figure out a way to get all 14 teams to the tournament, but do we? What if we just had the top 8 teams play in a 3-day tourney? Bottom six? Tough luck. Think about how exciting and important the regular season would become. Can you imagine actually being pumped up for an 8th/9th place match-up at the end of the regular season?

In a 16 team league, what's wrong with scheduling the opening round at the home sites of the 8 top seeded teams? Do it on Tuesday to allow the victors the time off to prepare for the grind of the traditional ACC 3 rounds in 3 days, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at one site with no byes. I'm not worried about ticket sales yet, but the first round sales should be handled by the home team. For the final three rounds, sell them just like we did when we were a 8 team league. Ta, da, problem solved.

This seems like an interesting idea as well. Unless anyone brings up some glaringly obvious objection that I'm simply missing, this would be the solution I would promote. Fight all season for home-court in the opening round? Not a terrible idea.

[throatybeard]

At least we still have a conference...

Yes. People pining for 1974 often lose sight of this.