PDA

View Full Version : ACC is Duke, Carolina, and those other guys.



CameronBornAndBred
10-26-2008, 07:43 PM
Interesting article about where all the teams not named Duke and Carolina stand. (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/college_basketball/blogpost/3822625/)
I think it's a pretty fair assessment. The most interesting part of it is reading other coaches views. Some sound a bit whiny, expect no pity from me. You have ample opportunity to play and perform outside the conference as well as in it, if your team doesn't get it done down the stretch, then tough patooties. If you do survive the gauntlet, then you are that much better prepared for the dance. (Hopefully Duke will prove that true this year)
But if your team comes out with less than 20 wins, the fault does not lie on 15-501.

kinghoops
10-26-2008, 08:05 PM
Interesting article about where all the teams not named Duke and Carolina stand. (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/college_basketball/blogpost/3822625/)
I think it's a pretty fair assessment. The most interesting part of it is reading other coaches views. Some sound a bit whiny, expect no pity from me. You have ample opportunity to play and perform outside the conference as well as in it, if your team doesn't get it done down the stretch, then tough patooties. If you do survive the gauntlet, then you are that much better prepared for the dance. (Hopefully Duke will prove that true this year)
But if your team comes out with less than 20 wins, the fault does not lie on 15-501.

reminds my alot of the complaint that gary williams had about the acc tournament always being in north carolina and it being an advatage to duke and unc, but usually, not always but most of the time, the best team in the regular season wins the tournament, no matter where it is played.

Kedsy
10-26-2008, 08:13 PM
reminds my alot of the complaint that gary williams had about the acc tournament always being in north carolina and it being an advatage to duke and unc, but usually, not always but most of the time, the best team in the regular season wins the tournament, no matter where it is played.

If by "usually, not always but most of the time," you mean "more than half," then it would be hard to argue with you. But I think there are lots of times where non-pretenders are upset in the ACC tourney. That's what makes it such a great tournament. And if you really think it doesn't matter where the tourney is played, check out the results in the early years of the ACC Tournament when it was played in Raleigh every year, and then what happened after they stopped doing that.

kinghoops
10-26-2008, 09:05 PM
If by "usually, not always but most of the time," you mean "more than half," then it would be hard to argue with you. But I think there are lots of times where non-pretenders are upset in the ACC tourney. That's what makes it such a great tournament. And if you really think it doesn't matter where the tourney is played, check out the results in the early years of the ACC Tournament when it was played in Raleigh every year, and then what happened after they stopped doing that.

ok, just looked into it, the first 13 acc tournaments were played in raleigh.

nc state won 5
duke won 4
wake forest won 2
unc and maryland one a piece

jimsumner
10-26-2008, 09:11 PM
"nc state won 5
duke won 4
wake forest won 2
unc and maryland one a piece"

Sure. But what you don't mention is that South Carolina, Virginia, and Clemson didn't take basketball seriously during the first decade or so of the ACC's existence. Which Virginia team in the 1950s or 1960s would have won the ACC Tournament had it been held in, say D.C. or Atlanta? None.

I'm sure there was a minor home-court advantage but the Big Four dominated the ACC in the 1950s and 1960s because the Big Four played higher quality basketball.

kinghoops
10-26-2008, 09:13 PM
ok, just looked into it, the first 13 acc tournaments were played in raleigh.

nc state won 5
duke won 4
wake forest won 2
unc and maryland one a piece

after further research, there have been 9 acc tournaments played outside the state of north carolina

uva has one 1
ga tech has one 1
unc has one 3
nc state has won 2
duke has won 2

that 7 out of 9 for the big four, so basically im saying, they could play the tournament anywhere, the odds are a big four school will win it

kinghoops
10-26-2008, 09:18 PM
"nc state won 5
duke won 4
wake forest won 2
unc and maryland one a piece"

Sure. But what you don't mention is that South Carolina, Virginia, and Clemson didn't take basketball seriously during the first decade or so of the ACC's existence. Which Virginia team in the 1950s or 1960s would have won the ACC Tournament had it been held in, say D.C. or Atlanta? None.

I'm sure there was a minor home-court advantage but the Big Four dominated the ACC in the 1950s and 1960s because the Big Four played higher quality basketball.

ok, i just checked the last 20 and the breakdown is.....

duke 8
unc 7
wf 2
gtech 2
maryland 1

thats 17 out of the last 20 going to the big four

kinghoops
10-26-2008, 09:29 PM
my original comment was on gary williams saying playing the acc tournament in north carolina was a distinct advantage for the north carolina schools, funny that the only one he has won was in greensboro. im saying that history shows that no matter where the tournament is being played, a big four school is going to win it, much more often than not. and i will go out on a limb, with this years tournament in atlanta, a big four school will win that one also!

kinghoops
10-26-2008, 10:52 PM
to go even further back, the big four has won 25 out of the last 30.

brevity
10-27-2008, 03:00 AM
to go even further back, the big four has won 25 out of the last 30.

Thank you for all the stats, kinghoops, but a better illustration of ACC tournament history would look at whether the top seed each year ending up winning as expected, or if a more local team took the title instead.

It's somewhat telling if, say, NC State won a tournament played in Greensboro. But it's more telling if we knew that they beat higher seeds from Virginia and Maryland to get there.

kinghoops
10-27-2008, 04:18 AM
Thank you for all the stats, kinghoops, but a better illustration of ACC tournament history would look at whether the top seed each year ending up winning as expected, or if a more local team took the title instead.

It's somewhat telling if, say, NC State won a tournament played in Greensboro. But it's more telling if we knew that they beat higher seeds from Virginia and Maryland to get there.

ok i will look deeper in a few mins, the last 20 years

number 1 seeds 7
number 2 seeds 6
number 3 seeds 5
number 6 seeds 2 1993, ga.tech in charlotte, 2004 maryland in greensboro

with these numbers, you can almost always conclude that the tournament is going to be one by one of the top three seeds, giving more validity that you need to finish in the top three regular season, doesnt matter where the tournament is played

kinghoops
10-27-2008, 04:34 AM
ok lets look at the 9 tornaments not played in the state of north carolina
1976- uva.6 seed beat number 1 unc in landover
1981- 2 seed unc beat 4 seed maryland in landover
1983 - 4 seed nc state beat 2 seed uva in atlanta
1985-1 seed ga tech beat 2 seed unc in atlanta
1987- number 6 seed nc state beat 1 seed unc in landover
1989- number 3 seed unc beat beat number 2 seed duke in atlanta
2001- number 2 seed duke beat number 1 seed unc in atlanta
2005-number 3 seed duke beat number 5 seed ga tech in dc
2007- number 1 seed unc beat number 10 seed ncstate in st pete

Kedsy
10-27-2008, 10:46 AM
ok, just looked into it, the first 13 acc tournaments were played in raleigh.

nc state won 5
duke won 4
wake forest won 2
unc and maryland one a piece

Well, you seem to think this reinforces your point, but I think it supports mine. State was 5 for 13 in Raleigh, and then 5 for 42 outside Raleigh. Georgia Tech is 1 for 4 in Atlanta and 2 for 25 everywhere else. Virginia is 1 for 4 north of NC, but 0 for 51 in NC or points south.

Yes, I know anyone can play games with numbers, especially with such small sample sizes, but non-Big Four teams have won 22% of the tournaments outside NC and only 13% inside. Non-Big Four teams have won 19% of regular season championships but only 14% tournament championships.

Nobody could argue that Duke and UNC (and to a lesser extent NCSU) have dominated the ACC, for the most part because they've had the better teams. But we shouldn't pretend that playing the ACC Tournament in North Carolina almost every year doesn't give an advantage to the Big Four teams. It does. With such a small sample, it's difficult to quantify how big (or small) an advantage we're talking about, but certainly there's at least a little edge.

davekay1971
10-27-2008, 11:28 AM
Well, you seem to think this reinforces your point, but I think it supports mine. State was 5 for 13 in Raleigh, and then 5 for 42 outside Raleigh.

Just a small point - when the tournament was in Raleigh, Everett Case was coaching NCSU to annual dominance of the conference. It would be hard to take the numbers you've given above and come to the conclusion that NCSU's wins were because of home court advantage - State was simply better than everyone else back then.

Of course - it probably is helpful to the Big 4, particularly to UNC, to play the tournament in the state of North Carolina. But being the best team for the tournament weekend is more important than where the games are played.

Back to the comments by the ACC coaches:
The whining of Gary Williams has gotten old. He simply hasn't done what he needs to do to get his team consistently in the upper echelon of the ACC. I think he does have a knack for finding underappreciated talent, and gets the most out of what he has. But wins and losses define the success of the coach, and Maryland has, for the last 5 years, been a middle-of-the-pack ACC team and an annual NCAA bubble team.

From my point of view, the ACC was formed around the Big 4. It's a conference with its roots firmly planted in North Carolina. The success of State, Duke, and UNC in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s is what brought this conference to national prominence. Mr. Haith needs to realize that Miami doesn't add one iota of recognition to the ACC (or Duke or UNC), but Miami gets plenty of recognition by being a part of the ACC. Same for Seth Greenberg and Va Tech.

If the non-Tobacco Road schools want more national recognition and respect, they need to earn it. They need to play their way into the NCAA tournament. When they get into the tournament, they need to do what UNC and Duke (and, a couple decades ago, NCSU) have done - get to the final four and cut down the banners. Maryland did it once, and the next year the media was hyping Duke-Maryland as the new ACC rivalry. If Maryland had been able to sustain that success, they would have maintained the attention of the national media. Frankly, if Duke wants to stay in the national spotlight, and not allow the ACC to become (in the media's eyes), "UNC and everyone else", we'd better start back into the 2nd and 3rd weekend of the tournament as well. We're a "what have you done for me lately" culture when it comes to sports - the moment Duke and Carolina fall off, and someone else from the ACC becomes a consistent winner, all that preseason hype will involve teams not named Duke or UNC.

gw67
10-27-2008, 12:55 PM
From my point of view, the ACC was formed around the Big 4. It's a conference with its roots firmly planted in North Carolina. The success of State, Duke, and UNC in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s is what brought this conference to national prominence.

I've been a Duke/ACC fan for 46 years and I think the above quote from DaveKay represents my view as far as basketball is concerned. Sure, the Big Four have an advantage playing the tournament near their schools but their biggest advantage is in their talent. They are generally better than the rest of the schools.


Another area where the North Carolina-centric league may have an advantage is noted in the link below:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/college/maryland_terps/blog/

Both Driesell and Williams have groaned about the tourney location as well as the fact that very few of the local sportswriters in Wash-Baltimore are members of the ACC Sportswriters Association. Barry Svrluga (Duke grad) seemed to confirm this when he covered the Terps a few years ago. He noted that he was not permitted to vote for All ACC. In recent years, I've not seen a bias against players from schools outside North Carolina but in close votes it doesn't hurt to have local support.
gw67

Kedsy
10-27-2008, 01:01 PM
Just a small point - when the tournament was in Raleigh, Everett Case was coaching NCSU to annual dominance of the conference. It would be hard to take the numbers you've given above and come to the conclusion that NCSU's wins were because of home court advantage - State was simply better than everyone else back then.

While I agree State was generally a strong team under Everett Case, the fact is State was only the #1 seed going into the ACC Tournament three times in the 13 years it was played in Raleigh. So I don't think they were as dominant as you remember them to be. Perhaps the reputation came about because of their success in the tourney? Incidentally, two of State's five tournament titles during that era came when Duke was the #1 seed. You think Duke might have been helped if the games had been played in Cameron? (Although I'm not sure it was called Cameron then.)

And I'm not arguing State's titles came about solely because of the home court advantage, but it would be crazy to say that the home court didn't help at all.

davekay1971
10-27-2008, 02:22 PM
Kedsy, I agree that a home court advantage does help some. But, IMHO, the home court advantage is probably not as significant of a factor at determining who wins as is the actual quality of the teams on the floor.

I would argue, however, that Duke, at least recently, is NOT helped in winning ACC titles by playing the games in NC. When's the last time Duke actually had a home court advantage playing the ACC tournament in North Carolina? ACC games played in Charlotte or Greensboro are basically home court games for the 'Holes. The crowd is decidedly anti-Duke.

RepoMan
10-27-2008, 02:27 PM
Nobody could argue that Duke and UNC (and to a lesser extent NCSU) have dominated the ACC, for the most part because they've had the better teams. But we shouldn't pretend that playing the ACC Tournament in North Carolina almost every year doesn't give an advantage to the Big Four teams. It does. With such a small sample, it's difficult to quantify how big (or small) an advantage we're talking about, but certainly there's at least a little edge.

I don't think it is much of an advantage for Duke, in particular, though, in the aggregate, I agree.

Kedsy
10-27-2008, 03:31 PM
I would argue, however, that Duke, at least recently, is NOT helped in winning ACC titles by playing the games in NC. When's the last time Duke actually had a home court advantage playing the ACC tournament in North Carolina? ACC games played in Charlotte or Greensboro are basically home court games for the 'Holes. The crowd is decidedly anti-Duke.

No question you're right about the anti-Duke mentality of the crowd. But that would be true in any arena where the vast majority of the fans aren't from Duke. It's true in the NCAAs as well.

Still, if the games are in North Carolina, I would argue Duke has less of a disadvantage than we would outside NC. Because of shorter travel time and playing on a court with which the team is more familiar (because many years we play a game or two in Greensboro and/or Charlotte). In Washington or Landover or Atlanta or St. Pete, those things would be against us as well.

Plus, fans of the closer schools have an easier time heading to the arena and getting into the games via scalped tickets. I agree this favors UNC a ton more than Duke, but it favors Duke more than, say, Maryland.

When the tourney's in North Carolina, the non-Big Four teams arguably have less familiarity with the court and without doubt much further travel times. So, even without considering the crowd, they're worse off.

And also remember that Gary and the others aren't just whining about Duke. You're right that the ACC tourney feels like a UNC home game; it's been that way for at least 30 years (I went to my first ACC tourney in 1979). That wouldn't be true in Washington or Atlanta.

davekay1971
10-27-2008, 03:50 PM
No question you're right about the anti-Duke mentality of the crowd. But that would be true in any arena where the vast majority of the fans aren't from Duke. It's true in the NCAAs as well.

Still, if the games are in North Carolina, I would argue Duke has less of a disadvantage than we would outside NC. Because of shorter travel time and playing on a court with which the team is more familiar (because many years we play a game or two in Greensboro and/or Charlotte). In Washington or Landover or Atlanta or St. Pete, those things would be against us as well.

Plus, fans of the closer schools have an easier time heading to the arena and getting into the games via scalped tickets. I agree this favors UNC a ton more than Duke, but it favors Duke more than, say, Maryland.

When the tourney's in North Carolina, the non-Big Four teams arguably have less familiarity with the court and without doubt much further travel times. So, even without considering the crowd, they're worse off.

And also remember that Gary and the others aren't just whining about Duke. You're right that the ACC tourney feels like a UNC home game; it's been that way for at least 30 years (I went to my first ACC tourney in 1979). That wouldn't be true in Washington or Atlanta.

All good points. I can't find anything to argue or nitpick about, durn it. To quote Paul Rudd in "40 Year Old Virgin": well played, sir.

RepoMan
10-27-2008, 05:27 PM
I think my Charlotte experience from last season is so fresh that it is hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that Duke was at any advantage compared to schools outside NC. To say that the crowd was hostile to Duke is an understatement. I swear that the crowd seemed even more anti-Duke than they were pro-UNC. Of course, Charlotte is a different animal from Greensboro.

brevity
10-27-2008, 05:36 PM
To say that the crowd was hostile to Duke is an understatement. I swear that the crowd seemed even more anti-Duke than they were pro-UNC.

Outside of Cameron, there's no such thing as a pro-Duke crowd anymore. At this point, we have transcended the concept of neutral sites. Those are road games now.

davekay1971
10-27-2008, 05:40 PM
Outside of Cameron, there's no such thing as a pro-Duke crowd anymore. At this point, we have transcended the concept of neutral sites. Those are road games now.

Unless we're playing a non-northeastern team in the Meadowlands. Honestly, the crowd is usually pretty good to Duke up there. Probably because we all come from there, as has been frequently pointed out to me.:D

Dave "born and raised in Maryland, not Jersey, and gettin' more Southern by the minute" Kay.

brevity
10-27-2008, 07:06 PM
Unless we're playing a non-northeastern team in the Meadowlands. Honestly, the crowd is usually pretty good to Duke up there. Probably because we all come from there, as has been frequently pointed out to me.:D

Ah. Yes, you are correct. My mistake. Is the Meadowlands the only other one, then? How are we regarded in NYC and Philadelphia?

Kedsy
10-27-2008, 07:25 PM
Ah. Yes, you are correct. My mistake. Is the Meadowlands the only other one, then? How are we regarded in NYC and Philadelphia?

I live in Philadelphia, and there are a fair number of Duke alums up here. I don't recall any neutral site games here, other than NCAA. For those games and for road games against a Philadelphia team at a non-campus arena (like the old Spectrum or the Wachovia Center), there's usually a decent Duke contingent but most of the crowd is for the other team. The crowds aren't vicious or anything, but let's face it: Duke's on TV a lot, they win a lot, and nobody likes the Yankees (outside their home base, that is).

Lately, the Meadowlands has been good to us because Duke has played "home" games there, so Duke controls the tickets. I've seen games there against local teams (e.g., Seton Hall) where most of the crowd was against us.

At Madison Square Garden, if we're playing St. Johns or another local team it's close to a true road game. If we're playing in something like Coaches vs. Cancer or Pre-Season NIT, it's better for us than an NCAA game because the Duke contingent is larger, but if Duke is a big favorite and the underdog is hanging close, then all the non-Duke people will be screaming for an upset. (And, to be honest, if I weren't a Duke fan I'd be screaming along with them.) If Duke's not a clear favorite, for instance if we play UCLA in New York next month, I think the crowd would tend toward neutral, perhaps a touch toward Duke.

These are just my impressions, of course. I'm sure others who also regularly go to games in these venues will correct me if they think I'm wrong.

hurleyfor3
10-28-2008, 01:17 PM
Outside of Cameron, there's no such thing as a pro-Duke crowd anymore. At this point, we have transcended the concept of neutral sites. Those are road games now.

The crowd for the 2006 ACC final (Duke/BC) was definitely pro-Duke. So were the 2005 (Duke/GT, in DC) and 2004 (Duke/Maryland, in Greensboro) finals, if it matters.