As always, this is a hard issue to get straight.
Very simply the team with the best regular season record (or any teams that tie for the best regular season record) are recognized as ACC Regular Season Champions.
The team that wins the ACC Tournamnt is the ACC Champion --the official ACC champion.
In the first decade of the conference, the tournament winner was recognized as the official champion by tradition. In 1961, the ACC officially voted to designate the tournament champion as the official champion. The vote was a slap at UNC, which had introduced a motion to recognize the regular season champion as the champion. When that motion didn't get a second, UNC withdrew its motion and the the tourney winner was designated by unanimous vote.
The recognition of the regular season champion goes back to 1990 -- it was done to honor a Clemson team that had never won anything. Dean had lobbied for it and did hang banners at a time when the ACC did not recognize regular season champs. Roy is the first coach I know to actually cut down the nets after winning a regular season title (he did that in 2005 ... then tanked the tourney).
So if you here somebody talking about the 2011 ACC champion -- that's Duke. UNC can claim the ACC regular season championship that year, but the official champion was the team that won the tournament.
**If you can get ahold of the ACC media guide, turn to page 78, which summaries the conference history. It has eight columns, from left to right they are titled:
Year .. ACC Champion ... Regular Season Champion ... ACC Player of the Year ... ACC Coach of the Year ... ACC Rookie of the Year ... NCAA ... Non-ACC.
Thanks O.F. That's pretty clear.
The winner of the ACC tournament is the official conference champion.
That being said I have always been a proponent of winning as much as possible. Before we went to an unbalanced schedule I thought the regular season was a better indicator, but still if you can grab a regular season banner go for it hard. Same with the ACC and NCAA tournaments. It's all important and none of it is guaranteed.
Here is my question:
Why did Duke modify its banners over winter break 2006-7 to include regular-season champions. Did the ACC change its rules on hanging banners requiring this? And why in the middle of the season?
Fwiw Uva just hangs a separate banner that says "ACC First Place"
If not losing is a big deal to you, then winning the ACC Tournament should be also.
Call me out of touch, but I actually anticipate and look forward to the ACC Tournament each year more than I do the Big Dance. As a fan of basketball, it's three consecutive days of pure, heart-pounding bliss. There is nothing quite like winning on Sunday at the Greensboro Coliseum. Beating out your rival for a championship is a thing of beauty.
Duke's position is that they want to establish and maintain a culture of winning and the best way to do that is to win.
K has been to 11 Final Fours. Duke has played on Sunday in the ACCT nine of those 11 seasons, the exceptions being 1990 and 1994, when Duke lost on Saturday.
So, playing three games in the ACCT doesn't seem to be a discincentive to later successes.
I've never understood the argument that playing Friday-Sunday in any way causes a bunch of 18-22 year old guys, who are in phenomenal shape, to be tired come the first round of the NCAAT...4-5 days later. Add in the fact that winning the ACCT likely improves your seeding, which means (1) less travel and (2) a less potent first round foe. To me, the balance of less recovery time playing Sunday, versus the honor of wining your conference championship AND setting yourself up for an easier first weekend, makes winning the ACCT nothing but a desirable.
Furthermore, the guys on these teams are wired to compete and fight to win championships. Anyone want to tell Mason, Ryan, and Seth that we'd like them to tank their last ACC championship run because it might help them be a little fresher for the first weekend of the NCAAT?
It is the second biggest thing we can possibly win all year, and given the difficulty and unlikelihood of winning the NCAA title it is a fantastic accomplishment.
Back on the day, I would skip work to watch ACC Friday. One of my favorite days of the year.
If you don't get it, can't help you.
Winning the ACCT means I get yet another sweet T-shirt. Right now I'll be wearing, what, about 12 of them, along with my blue sequinned Converse and blue lacey unmentionables when they shove the flaming pyre out to sea....oy!
Don't know, but there's some history.
I'd just like to say that as Duke fans, we all should be big fans of the tournament.
Historically, Duke and N.C. State have been partners in promoting and protecting the tournament, while UNC and Maryland have been the leading anti-tournament forces.
It's amazing how consistent that has been, despite the changes in adminostrators and coaches.
It all goes back to the earliest days of the conference, when Duke AD Eddie Cameron and NC State AD Roy Clogston were the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the ACC basketball committee -- together they fought for the tournament. Wolfpack coach Everett Case LOVED the tournament ... and his protege Vic Bubas, while not quite as enthusiastic, supported it too. Norm Sloan was a big booster of the tournament, even in '73 and '74 when he was unbeaten in the regular season. Jim Valvano loved the tournament. Mike Krzyzewski has always focused maximum effort on the tournament. Even Herb Sendek and Sidney Lowe had their most success in ACC Tournament play.
On the other hand, Frank McGuire hated the tournament from day one -- but especially after his 1957 undefeated No. 1 team almost lost to Wake Forest in the ACC semifinals. It got worse -- in '59, he tanked the tournament finals because State was ineligible and his own fans never let him hear the end of it. As I noted before, UNC tried to kill the tournament in '61 and when that failed, McGuire urgd UNC to pull out of the ACC. In 1970 -- when he was at South Carolina -- he had an undefeated in the ACC team lose in the ACC finals when John Roche was hurt in the semifinals and his hatred of the tourney exploded. His distaste for the tournament was shared by his successor Dean Smith, although he was never that outspoken about it. But Roy Williams compared it to a big cocktail party and bragged that both his national championship teams had failed to win the ACC Tournament. He's downplayed it ever since returning to Chapel Hill. Maryland's hatred started with Bud Milliken, who called the tournament a $60,000 farce. Lefty Driesell, who had some bad experiences in the Southern Conference Tournament when he was at Davidson, suffered a succession of nightmarish tournament outcomes -- he might have hated it more than McGuire. Gary Williams was never a big fan, since the tourney was usually played in North Carolina and when it did come to Maryland, his Terps lost early.
Anyway, to rip the ACC Tournament is to align yourself with the Tar Heels and Terps ... to celebrate it is your legacy as a Duke fan (or as a State fan).