ACC leader question...

[bjornolf]

When I was watching the last Duke game, the telecast listed UNC as #1 and Duke as #2 in the ACC, and they weren't just listing it by overall record, because down at #8 or so, they had NC State and another team with the same record in the ACC, but the team with the worse overall record was listed first, I assume due to head-to-head victory.

Several radio shows discussing college basketball here in DC over the last few days have said that UNC is currently the leading team in the ACC. Nobody said "tied for #1", they said "#1". Now, my understanding is that if two teams have the same record in the ACC, their head-to-head results are the first tie-breaker. By that measure, isn't Duke #1 in the ACC and UNC #2? I'm confused.

[DangerDevil]

We have the tiebreaker but Carolina has played one more conference game and has one more conference win.

[hc5duke]

We have the tiebreaker but Carolina has played one more conference game and has one more conference win.

This is correct. We're at 10-2, UNC is at 11-2. Before UNC beat Wake, their records were both 10-2, with Duke on top because of the tie-breaker.

[bjornolf]

all I know is that during the game, they listed the records of both teams as "10-2", but they listed UNC as #1 and Duke as #2. Maybe they had the records wrong, and that's why. So, the radio shows were right, but what about the SJU telecast?

[Indoor66]

all I know is that during the game, they listed the records of both teams as "10-2", but they listed UNC as #1 and Duke as #2. Maybe they had the records wrong, and that's why. So, the radio shows were right, but what about the SJU telecast?

I believe the difference was in their overall records. UNC has a total of 2 losses, Duke 3.

[bjornolf]

I thought of that too. But as I said, lower down, around #8 or #10 I think, they had GT and another team (NCSU or BC maybe?) listed with identical ACC records, and GT was listed first despite the fact that they were the only team in the ACC at the time with a losing record. Anyway, my wife commented on it too. She saw before I did that the two teams lower down were listed reverse to their overall records.

[CDu]

I thought of that too. But as I said, lower down, around #8 or #10 I think, they had GT and another team (NCSU or BC maybe?) listed with identical ACC records, and GT was listed first despite the fact that they were the only team in the ACC at the time with a losing record. Anyway, my wife commented on it too. She saw before I did that the two teams lower down were listed reverse to their overall records.

Graphical error on sports programming is very common. For example, last year, even ESPN had us with a loss to Clemson at home. They did that in multiple telecasts. It happens. This is a less glaring error than that. It would not surprise me in the least if someone just lazily threw that data together. Something like slotting teams with identical ACC records is probably not high on the scale of things to double-check before doing a graphic.

[bjornolf]

Graphical error on sports programming is very common. For example, last year, even ESPN had us with a loss to Clemson at home. They did that in multiple telecasts. It happens. This is a less glaring error than that. It would not surprise me in the least if someone just lazily threw that data together. Something like slotting teams with identical ACC records is probably not high on the scale of things to double-check before doing a graphic.

agreed. I was more concerned by all the radio shows saying UNC was first, but since people have pointed out that UNC has played, and won, one more ACC game than we have, that makes sense.

[JStuart]

Also listed were the strenghth of schedules, and Duke was less than UNC's. We beat Wisconsin and Marquette earlier in the year, UNC beat Kentucky; I can't remember why UNC has a stronger schedule than we; can someone clarify this?
Thanks

[dukegirlinsc]

i think it's kinda like being a "half-game" behind.
just because in ACC play, they've actually played one more game than us.
maybe?

[CDu]

Also listed were the strenghth of schedules, and Duke was less than UNC's. We beat Wisconsin and Marquette earlier in the year, UNC beat Kentucky; I can't remember why UNC has a stronger schedule than we; can someone clarify this?
Thanks

Carolina has played six games against the RPI top 50 (BYU #27, Clemson #23 twice, Kent St #29, Miami #25, and Duke #4). We've played seven against the top 50 (Marquette #17, Wisconsin #13, Clemson #23, Miami #25 twice, Pittsburgh #26, UNC #3). So we have the slight edge in top-50 schedule. But UNC has three more games against the RPI 51-100.

So while they may not have any "name" victories out of conference, UNC has us edged in SOS by the fact that they've played two more games against the top-100 than we have.

[JStuart]

Thanks, CDu

[DevilBen02]

Carolina has played six games against the RPI top 50 (BYU #27, Clemson #23 twice, Kent St #29, Miami #25, and Duke #4). We've played seven against the top 50 (Marquette #17, Wisconsin #13, Clemson #23, Miami #25 twice, Pittsburgh #26, UNC #3). So we have the slight edge in top-50 schedule. But UNC has three more games against the RPI 51-100.

So while they may not have any "name" victories out of conference, UNC has us edged in SOS by the fact that they've played two more games against the top-100 than we have.

This is a very good point, but I think another component to our SOS being lower is the couple of bottom-of-the-barrel teams that we have played. Sure, UNC has played some stinkers too, but Duke having NC Central (RPI 295) and Princeton (331) on our schedule could really be dragging the average down comparatively. Of course, these are both nice games to have for in-town relations and academic respect reasons, respectively.

Combined with what CDu notes above, this all works out that their SOS on average is slightly higher.