ACC Standings Question

[JMarley50]

I need assistance in resolving a debate between a co-worker and myself, so I decided to ask the fine folks of DBR. The co-worker is a big Pitt fan and has always argued that the Big East is the best basketball conference of all time. This morning he came in chirping about two former Big East teams being 1 and 2 in the current ACC Standings, thus proving the Big East was superior. My argument was that there have been no ACC conference games played, therefore everyone is technically in first.

Long story short, can anyone verify whether or not overall (non-conference) record has any bearing on ACC standings in the event of ties?

[rasputin]

I need assistance in resolving a debate between a co-worker and myself, so I decided to ask the fine folks of DBR. The co-worker is a big Pitt fan and has always argued that the Big East is the best basketball conference of all time. This morning he came in chirping about two former Big East teams being 1 and 2 in the current ACC Standings, thus proving the Big East was superior. My argument was that there have been no ACC conference games played, therefore everyone is technically in first.

Long story short, can anyone verify whether or not overall (non-conference) record has any bearing on ACC standings in the event of ties?

Don't know specifically about standings, but it certainly has nothing to do with seeding in the ACC tournament, for which there are elaborate tiebreaker rules.

[Duvall]

I need assistance in resolving a debate between a co-worker and myself, so I decided to ask the fine folks of DBR. The co-worker is a big Pitt fan and has always argued that the Big East is the best basketball conference of all time. This morning he came in chirping about two former Big East teams being 1 and 2 in the current ACC Standings, thus proving the Big East was superior. My argument was that there have been no ACC conference games played, therefore everyone is technically in first.

Long story short, can anyone verify whether or not overall (non-conference) record has any bearing on ACC standings in the event of ties?

None whatsoever.

[snowdenscold]

Depends on his intended meaning and usage of "ACC Standings". Technically there are none yet, but he probably was just referring to the subset of national rankings involving ACC teams.

[jimsumner]

Syracuse and Pittsburgh are the ACC's last two undefeated teams and thus will appear atop the standings in the absence of any conference games.

I suspect this distinction will not long survive the beginning of conference play in January.

As an aside, there were a few years when Duke and Virginia played an ACC game in early December, for no discernible reason. On December 6, 1975 Duke defeated Virginia 81-79. IIRC, this was the only conference game played prior to New Year's, which meant that Duke topped the ACC at 1-0 for almost a month.

Didn't mean Duke had the best team. But it was fun.

[sagegrouse]

I need assistance in resolving a debate between a co-worker and myself, so I decided to ask the fine folks of DBR. The co-worker is a big Pitt fan and has always argued that the Big East is the best basketball conference of all time. This morning he came in chirping about two former Big East teams being 1 and 2 in the current ACC Standings, thus proving the Big East was superior. My argument was that there have been no ACC conference games played, therefore everyone is technically in first.

Long story short, can anyone verify whether or not overall (non-conference) record has any bearing on ACC standings in the event of ties?

Nawww! He's blowing smoke. However, you have to give him credit for sounding the horn.

sage

[BigWayne]

The ACC website does not show a distinction yet as all teams are 0-0 in the conference and defaults to the overall record.
However, if you look at pages on ESPN.com, you will notice a status just under the team name that always shows
the record and what place in the conference they are in. You will see that even Boston College is tied for 1st place
right now in basketball. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...college-eagles

[jimsumner]

The ACC website does not show a distinction yet as all teams are 0-0 in the conference and defaults to the overall record.
However, if you look at pages on ESPN.com, you will notice a status just under the team name that always shows
the record and what place in the conference they are in. You will see that even Boston College is tied for 1st place
right now in basketball. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...college-eagles

But BC is a former Big East team. So, if they're tied for first, doesn't that prove the point? In fact, all of the former Big East teams are tied for first in the ACC. Even the Hokies.

So, I guess we have to concede.

[JMarley50]

Thanks for the input! I know its probably a silly argument in the first place, but its just the principle. The new guy in town is claiming to be #1 when they haven't even played a single ACC game.

In regards to the tournament seeding I did manage to find the rules.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/...012_13_ACC.pdf

Men's Basketball starts on page 46, and tournament seeding is on page 47.

[JMarley50]

The ACC website does not show a distinction yet as all teams are 0-0 in the conference and defaults to the overall record.
However, if you look at pages on ESPN.com, you will notice a status just under the team name that always shows
the record and what place in the conference they are in. You will see that even Boston College is tied for 1st place
right now in basketball. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...college-eagles

His argument is based on Pitt and Syracuse being listed at the top of the ACC Standings on that page because they are 8-0 overall.

[Lauderdevil]

They're listed first because they're still adhering to the First Principle of Big East scheduling -- only schedule cupcakes for November and December. Half the Big East was undefeated every year when conference play started, usually because they had defeated Lafayette, Colgate, UAB and the like. (Oops -- turns out it's possible to lose to UAB.) When the real season begins, we'll see if they stay at the top.

[rasputin]

They're listed first because they're still adhering to the First Principle of Big East scheduling -- only schedule cupcakes for November and December. Half the Big East was undefeated every year when conference play started, usually because they had defeated Lafayette, Colgate, UAB and the like. (Oops -- turns out it's possible to lose to UAB.) When the real season begins, we'll see if they stay at the top.

Don't forget St. Leo.

[Olympic Fan]

I need assistance in resolving a debate between a co-worker and myself, so I decided to ask the fine folks of DBR. The co-worker is a big Pitt fan and has always argued that the Big East is the best basketball conference of all time.

That is nonsense. David Gavitt’s creation has had its moments – putting three teams in the 1985 Final Four was a great achievement – but it has never had the sustained success of the ACC in its glory years. Just look at the NCAA results for the major conferences in the 1980-2014 period, which coincides with the creation of the Big East:
NCAA titles by conference:
ACC – 10
Big East –7
SEC - 6
Big Ten – 4
Pac 10 -- 2
Big 8/12 – 2

Final Fours by Conference
ACC- 29
Big Ten - 20
SEC - 18
Big East - 17
Big 8/12 - 13
Pac 10 – 10

NCAA Tournament winning percentage
ACC – 67.9
Big East – 62.8
Big Ten – 60.7
Big 8/12 – 59.0
SEC – 58.3
Pac 10 – 54.6

And it’s not just NCAA Tournament success (although that is the ultimate proving ground). A check of the final AP polls of the period finds that the ACC had more final No. 1 ranked teams (12) than any three other major conferences did put together. The ACC had more final top 10 teams in the period.
The numbers explode the claim that the Big East was the best conference of all times. Even after the ACC expansion eight years ago, the bloated Big East never approached the level of the ACC in the golden age.
Between 2006 and last year, the 16-team Big East won the same two national titles as the “watered-down” ACC won and had a 64.0 NCAA winning percentage over that span -- significantly lower than the than the 67.9 percent that the ACC averaged in its Golden Age (1980-2005).
The Big East likes to brag that it once got 11 teams in the field. Well, that's a lot, even for a 16-team league. But four times in the 1980s and early 1990s, the ACC put six of eight teams in the field -- a higher percentage than the Big East ever achieved.
Ken Pomeroy has been rating conferences since the beginning of the century. During the 2006-2013 period, he’s rated the Big East as the nation’s best conference exactly once – in 2006. By contrast, he had the ACC No. 1 in 2007 and 2010. Overall for that eight-year period, the Big East’s average conference ranking on the Pomeroy scale is 2.9 … the ACC’s is 2.8.
Quite clearly, the Big East has never been the nation’s best conference for any extended period … and certainly has not been the “greatest conference that ever was.”

[pfrduke]

Syracuse and Pittsburgh are the ACC's last two undefeated teams and thus will appear atop the standings in the absence of any conference games.

I suspect this distinction will not long survive the beginning of conference play in January.

As an aside, there were a few years when Duke and Virginia played an ACC game in early December, for no discernible reason. On December 6, 1975 Duke defeated Virginia 81-79. IIRC, this was the only conference game played prior to New Year's, which meant that Duke topped the ACC at 1-0 for almost a month.

Didn't mean Duke had the best team. But it was fun.

This will become moot by Sunday afternoon, when Miami and Virginia Tech play each other in the season's first conference game. Although still, I suppose, original Big East teams.