Roy Williams on Dan Patrick [Archive]

dukegirlinsc

03-17-2009, 02:14 AM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/

My favorite quotes of the interview:
"By the way, Seth Davis is a Duke graduate, he is not intelligent enough to fill out his boxes...you know the whole brackets in 2 minutes, come on now." :rolleyes:

"The bottom line is, two years in a row we won the ACC tournament, we won it in '07 and we won it in '08. We lost in '07 and '08, we did not win the national championship. And I have yet to have an alum say 'oh gosh coach I was so happy that you won the ACC tournament if nothing else made a difference.' Now that has not happened"

Dan Patrick goes on to ask what Roy thinks of the conference tournament, and Roy replies:
"I'm very much on the fence and probably over the fence and make all our fans mad. I made 'em all mad a couple of years ago when I said the ACC tournament is the largest cocktail party in the south. Twenty, thirty years ago they were the greatest thing possible, they just don't have the same meaning now."

He goes on to talk more about the tournament, Ty Lawson's health, and Louisville.

zingit

03-17-2009, 02:33 AM

I got a little annoyed when I saw the summary of the interview on Dan Patrick's site and it said that Roy Williams didn't think much of the conference tournament, because that is disrespectful to the fans and the opposing teams. But to be fair, in the actual interview, he did say that as long as they're in the tournament, they want to win it. I would have been annoyed if he said he didn't care about it, but what he said wasn't so bad, IMO.

I thought it was funny when he said he has the kids bet on the Superbowl and the winners get to watch the losers scrimmage.

gotham devil

03-17-2009, 02:44 AM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/

My favorite quotes of the interview:
"By the way, Seth Davis is a Duke graduate, he is not intelligent enough to fill out his boxes...you know the whole brackets in 2 minutes, come on now." :rolleyes:

Dadgummit ;),

If Roy was as familiar with CBS programming as he is with Coke products, he'd know that CBS gets the brackets an hour before the broadcast. The on-air talent has to feign surprise.

moonpie23

03-17-2009, 09:09 AM

of course roy will say they are "in it to win it".....he doesn't have the option to not show up..

this whole attitude makes me burn......

killerleft

03-17-2009, 09:17 AM

of course roy will say they are "in it to win it".....he doesn't have the option to not show up..

this whole attitude makes me burn......

Shhh! Roy is just setting his guys up to lose, so let him be. He really doesn't think so well at times.

4decadedukie

03-17-2009, 09:31 AM

DukeDevilDeb

03-17-2009, 09:41 AM

I suspect that had UNC won the ACC Championship, as they were generally expected to, the Conference Tournament would be very significant. With Duke's victory, however, it's "incidental" to the season. I’m shocked, shocked . . .

I have never heard a coach spin BS the way Roy Williams does. His attitudes are frankly ridiculous for someone coaching at a school like UNC. I have all the respect in the world for Dean Smith... great coach, great guy. But I wish Roy would follow his mentor more and realize that everyone knows what he's doing.

BTW, if Roy play Ty Lawson with a cortisone shot to beat Duke on the 8th and didn't have him available for the ACC tournament (or maybe even part of the NCAAs), he is truly a fool. I would MUCH rather have the tournament title than win that one game over UNC. And if anyone thinks that we wouldn't have stood a chance against UNC in the tournament, I disagree. The way we played last weekend was magical and inspired. I think we could have beaten anyone (except maybe the US Olympic team!).

GO DEVILS!!!

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 09:48 AM

I have never heard a coach spin BS the way Roy Williams does. His attitudes are frankly ridiculous for someone coaching at a school like UNC. I have all the respect in the world for Dean Smith... great coach, great guy. But I wish Roy would follow his mentor more and realize that everyone knows what he's doing.

BTW, if Roy play Ty Lawson with a cortisone shot to beat Duke on the 8th and didn't have him available for the ACC tournament (or maybe even part of the NCAAs), he is truly a fool. I would MUCH rather have the tournament title than win that one game over UNC. And if anyone thinks that we wouldn't have stood a chance against UNC in the tournament, I disagree. The way we played last weekend was magical and inspired. I think we could have beaten anyone (except maybe the US Olympic team!).

GO DEVILS!!!

But if they had lost to Duke in the final home game, they would have shared the regulart season title - so could they have cut down their own nets in that situation?

elvis14

03-17-2009, 10:14 AM

This is exactly why UNC and UConn should not have been given a #1 seeds and why Duke and Memphis should have been given #1 seeds. The tournament should mean more and the committee that handed out the seeds did the game a disservice by giving UNC and UConn #1 seeds. Pitt lost but they also beat UConn twice.

Note, this doesn't mean that I think Duke is currently better than UNC, they have beaten us twice. I means that I think Duke earned that #1 seed by winning the tournament. If FSU had won the ACC, then UNC would a good choice over Duke, however.

devildeac

03-17-2009, 10:22 AM

But if they had lost to Duke in the final home game, they would have shared the regulart season title - so could they have cut down their own nets in that situation?

Maybe they could have cut the nets down on their end of the court and we could have snipped the ones on our end or gone back to CIS and then cut down our own nets.:rolleyes:;)

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 10:34 AM

Maybe they could have cut the nets down on their end of the court and we could have snipped the ones on our end or gone back to CIS and then cut down our own nets.:rolleyes:;)

Wouldn't that have just frosted them - for us to cut down the nets on our side of the court. :D In two years, when once again the final game should be on their court, I hope we have won the regular season title and someone brings scissors and a ladder. :D

CLT Devil

03-17-2009, 10:37 AM

arnie

03-17-2009, 10:44 AM

If Roy continues to denigrate the ACC tournament. maybe it's because his program has risen to heights above that of the conference. He should consider taking UNC out of the conference where it can become the Notre Dame of basketball. Then they will truly be America's team and can enjoy the fruits of independence. Hopefully, he can take Swofford with him - who has been very quiet on this subject.

Devilsfan

03-17-2009, 11:11 AM

Maybe he can start a new league with Memphis.

johnb

03-17-2009, 11:27 AM

Or a league composed only of UNC schools (Western Carolina, Appalachian State, Winston Salem State, greensboro, Fayetteville State, Charlotte, ECU, etc). Then the conference winner could play the play-in game.

hedgehog

03-17-2009, 12:25 PM

Ty Lawson said, "The way the media portrayed us was that we were a giant and we wouldn't lose a game. That's tough to stand up to. We did our best, and we still won the ACC championship."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney09/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=3985959

Ignoring the fact that the Holes were embracing the chance to go undefeated, someone needs to tap Lawson on the shoulder and inform him that Duke is the ACC Champion of 2009!

Seriously, though, who can fault Lawson, now that even theACC.com is printing two official T-shirts, the Conference Champion T-shirt for the Holes and the Tournament Champion T-shirt for Duke. I miss the good ole days when a conference champion had to win a tournament.

billy

03-17-2009, 12:25 PM

I can't disagree with Roy's decision. If Ty plays they have a better chance at beating Duke. Beating Duke means a reg. season title, which will pretty much ensure them a #1 seed in the big dance, regardless of how they perform in the ACC Tourney. Play Ty, win the game and seed, then he's got a long time to rest before the NCAA's. I'd even sit him in the first round if he doesn't practice well. I think it's a pretty smart move, unless of course Ty gets hurt worse during the Duke game.

What if Roy know's Ty can't play in the ACC and likely won't in the NCAA? Would he hide that by saying Ty's questionable to get the #1 seed? Absolutely speculative, just wondering.

Regarding the "cortisone" injection: it's semantics and nothing more, but, while Ty may have been given cortisone (I doubt it) along with a local anesthetic (like lidocaine, novacaine), it was the local anesthetic that allowed him to play against Duke. You could have numbed his toe and hit it with a hammer with local and he very likely would have been able to play.

moonpie23

03-17-2009, 12:28 PM

DukeDevilDeb

03-17-2009, 12:31 PM

Maybe they could have cut the nets down on their end of the court and we could have snipped the ones on our end or gone back to CIS and then cut down our own nets.:rolleyes:;)

At least it would have guaranteed that they would have had nets to cut down this season!!! :p

Chitowndevil

03-17-2009, 01:36 PM

I don't like Roy's attitude but I can't say I'd have played things differently this season. A win against Duke in their final regular season game means they're a lock for a #1 seed. That means almost two full weeks to rest Lawson before the NCAAs begin, and probably almost three weeks until they will need him in a tight game. Also keep in mind Carolina's already short bench (partly due to Ginyard's absence) and that, at that point, there were four other teams making very strong cases for #1 seeds.

I think in that situation, if you think it's an either-or, you can justify playing Lawson against Duke and sitting him in the ACC Tournament--even if you place a LOT of value on the conference title.

alteran

03-17-2009, 01:45 PM

BTW, if Roy play Ty Lawson with a cortisone shot to beat Duke on the 8th and didn't have him available for the ACC tournament (or maybe even part of the NCAAs), he is truly a fool. I would MUCH rather have the tournament title than win that one game over UNC.

Just to be clear, it is not the "tourney title," it is the CONFERENCE title.

The ACC champion this year is Duke.

I know we all realize it, but I just like to underscore that UNC is the team that will be printing t-shirts with a qualified ACC championship on it-- ours will just say Champs.

-bdbd

03-17-2009, 01:57 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/

My favorite quotes of the interview:
"By the way, Seth Davis is a Duke graduate, he is not intelligent enough to fill out his boxes...you know the whole brackets in 2 minutes, come on now." :rolleyes:

"The bottom line is, two years in a row we won the ACC tournament, we won it in '07 and we won it in '08. We lost in '07 and '08, we did not win the national championship. And I have yet to have an alum say 'oh gosh coach I was so happy that you won the ACC tournament if nothing else made a difference.' Now that has not happened"

====================================
Funny guy that ole Roy... what a card! (snicker, snicker) Don't get mad -- just laugh. In this political age, once you LOSE you are EXPECTED to try to spin it to your best advantage. Beyond being incredibly transparent, do even any of the Carolina fans take this seriously??

Interesting comments about Seth Davis. I can't recall anybody ever really claiming any "poor journalism" (i.e pro-Duke bias or other unprofessional behavior) trends coming out of Seth, or Jay or John Feinstein -- probably our three most visible sports-media Duke grads. Any tarheels want to make the same "professionalism" assertions about their most famous sports journalist, Stewart "fry them then try them Laxers" Scott. Or has he found that holy grail of the "Duke gets all the calls" school of journalism. Yep, a real PRO.

(snicker, snicker)

-BDBD :cool:

namvet1965

03-17-2009, 03:25 PM

94duke

03-17-2009, 03:27 PM

UNC did win the ACC championship and you know it! Duke won the ACC Tournment! Would have lost if not for a toe. Reninds me of the old saying about For want of a nail a shoe was lost, then a man, then a battle, etc, etc.

Actually, Duke won the ACC championship. They are the ACC Champions. See the ACC website...
http://www.theacc.com/championships/index.html

UNC is the ACC Regular Season Champion.

hedgehog

03-17-2009, 03:34 PM

UNC did win the ACC championship and you know it! Duke won the ACC Tournment! Would have lost if not for a toe. Reninds me of the old saying about For want of a nail a shoe was lost, then a man, then a battle, etc, etc.

I'll refute that with futher proof:

"In the early years of the Tournament, unofficially, and by custom, everyone regarded the Tournament champion as the ACC champion. But it wasn't until July, 1, 1961, that the words "and the winner shall be the conference champion" were added to the ACC bylaws. "

http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/022499aac.html

We win, You lose. ;) Duke is the ACC Conference Champions. If you want to say that you are the regular season conference champions, go ahead.

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 03:56 PM

UNC did win the ACC championship and you know it! Duke won the ACC Tournment! Would have lost if not for a toe. Reninds me of the old saying about For want of a nail a shoe was lost, then a man, then a battle, etc, etc.

There is no way of knowing who would have won if Duke and unc had played. Play any of those games again and, even with Lawson, there could have been very different outcomes on either side.

hedgehog

03-17-2009, 04:07 PM

UNC did win the ACC championship and you know it! Duke won the ACC Tournment! Would have lost if not for a toe. Reninds me of the old saying about For want of a nail a shoe was lost, then a man, then a battle, etc, etc.

Right, and if Duke had only had Boozer in 2001, we would have beaten UNC in the ACC tournament... wait nevermind, we did, 79-53, with Casey Sanders and Reggie Love.

Great teams have to rise above adversity.

Man, am I feeding the trolls today...

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 04:11 PM

Right, and if Duke had only had Boozer in 2001, we would have beaten UNC in the ACC tournament... wait nevermind, we did, 79-53, with Casey Sanders and Reggie Love.

Great teams have to rise above adversity.

Man, am I feeding the trolls today...

Trolls need to eat, too. ;)

namvet1965 isn't much of a troll in my book.

hedgehog

03-17-2009, 04:20 PM

Trolls need to eat, too. ;)

namvet1965 isn't much of a troll in my book.

I agree, sorry, that wasn't too clear no offense meant to namvet1965. I meant I was leaving lots of scraps on the ground for any hungry trolls that wander by.

I do think Lawson is that valuable to the Heels, though. I am glad that DraftExpress has him currently as the #14 pick, near lottery. I am tired of us playing against him!

Spret42

03-17-2009, 04:26 PM

For years the ACC Tournament was a meaningless money grab. The teams played a balanced schedule, who ever won the most regular season games was by all accounts the champion.
Much the same way that the American and National League pennants were won for years in baseball before the early sixties and west coast expansion created a need for League Championship Series.

The ACC Tournament, prior to expansion and the elimination of balanced schedules, was nothing more than a reason for the conference to get everyone together and collect a payday. It was a weekends worth of games designed for fan enjoyment that had very little to do with the actual determination of conference supremacy.

The tournament is now the only way to declare a true champion and Duke won the ACC this year. An unbalanced schedule means that their is no "regular season champion." UNC and their fans can't ignore that or make it go away. It might be annoying when you feel you are the best team in the conference and have won the most regular season games to waste time and energy in a tournament that will only risk injury and exhaustion before the NCAA tournament, but that doesn't mean the winner hasn't won the title. Duke clearly values that tournament more than UNC does, so UNC needs to deal with the fact that Duke is ACC champions.

Bob Green

03-17-2009, 04:36 PM

For years the ACC Tournament was a meaningless money grab....The ACC Tournament, prior to expansion and the elimination of balanced schedules, was nothing more than a reason for the conference to get everyone together and collect a payday. It was a weekends worth of games designed for fan enjoyment that had very little to do with the actual determination of conference supremacy.

I have to disagree as facts do not support your post. Actually, for years, the ACC Tournament determined which team would represent the ACC in the NCAA Tournament. The ACCT was a winner take all event. So rather than being "a meaningless money grab" it was the opposite in that the winner went home with all the marbles.

hedgehog

03-17-2009, 04:37 PM

For years the ACC Tournament was a meaningless money grab. The teams played a balanced schedule, who ever won the most regular season games was by all accounts the champion.

Wait, you are saying that the tournament was meaningless when it was the only way to get into the NCAA tournament?

I just don't agree with your statement. By all accounts, the tournament champion has always been the ACC champion.

I would even go further and say that this regular season nonsense was perpetuated by UNC hanging banners that say regular season champ in the DD, for either best regular season record or winning the tournament (whichever favored UNC).

Spret42

03-17-2009, 04:49 PM

It was the only way to get into the NCAA tournament because the ACC made an arbitrary and ridiculous decision to declare the winner of the tournament the champion. The NCAA said only conference champions were allowed in.

Just because the ACC decided the winner of the tournament was the champion doesn't make it so. When a conference plays a fully balanced schedule, with every team playing each other team an equal amount of times both home and away, the team who wins the most amount of games is the champion. The tournament was at its core a money grab and the way they validated creating it was to declare that it would decide the champion. It was a meaningless tournament.

Like I said, in baseball for 50+ years both the American and National Leagues played balanced 154 game schedules, the winner won the pennant. They didn't have everyone get together at a neutral site and play a tournament, it would have invalidated the previous six months effort on behalf of the team that won the most games. See the EPL for the modern day example, there is no tournament, because every club plays every other club, once home and once away. Division winners in every major sport are declared because within divisions you play a balanced schedule. The playoffs are a way to gather the division winners and determine an overall champion.

Scorp4me

03-17-2009, 04:51 PM

Back when the ACC tournament was the only way to get into the NCAA tournament it would be hard to argue that the regular season was more important.

I wasn't born then so I really can't judge. But since the tournament expanded I've always been torn between the tournament winner and the regular season winner. On the one hand winning over the course of the year is probalby more impressive, but winning in an one and done takes some work too. In the end I bowed to the ACC. There was just something special about being the Official respresentative of the ACC as based on winning the tournament. But I had no problem with recognizing both.

But post-expansion with the unbalanced schedule I don't even think the regular season records should be used for anything other than seeding in the ACC tournament. There's just no fair way to crown a winner except for the tournament. It stinks and I wish it weren't so...in fact I wish we still had our old schedule, but we don't. The fact is the winner of the tournament now should not only be considered the official but also the only Conference Champion. I say that this year and I'll stick by it if Duke doesn't win it in the future. Having the best record is still impressive and deserves the #1 seed for the tournament, but that's all.

Spret42

03-17-2009, 05:03 PM

Back when the ACC tournament was the only way to get into the NCAA tournament it would be hard to argue that the regular season was more important.

Again, the only reason it mattered was the ACC wanted to validate the money grab. For years no other conferences had tournaments. I suspect, although I am not sure, it was because they played balanced schedules and didn't want to invalidate a 16-20 game regular season and the effort that goes forth towards winning it.

-jk

03-17-2009, 05:06 PM

I think it was less about a money grab and more history. The old Southern Conference had a tourney to decide the champ, and we kept it from year one.

There wasn't much money in those days.

-jk

hedgehog

03-17-2009, 05:06 PM

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 05:12 PM

Again, the only reason it mattered was the ACC wanted to validate the money grab. For years no other conferences had tournaments. I suspect, although I am not sure, it was because they played balanced schedules and didn't want to invalidate a 16-20 game regular season and the effort that goes forth towards winning it.

And how many conferences duplicated the conference tournament method of getting the automatic bid?

Since the teams are fighting for a chance to go to a tournament that awards the championship based on who wins on any given night, and not necessarily who has had the best season, I like awarding the automatic bid to the conference tournament winner. It sure makes the tournament more exciting. (Isn't that how NC State ended up in the NCAA tournament and winning a National Championship?)

Jeffrey

03-17-2009, 05:15 PM

I have always considered the ACC the best conference in college hoops and the ACC tournament the best conference tournament. Since I started working full-time, I've never worked on Friday of the ACC tournament and have yet to miss one minute of the final three day's games. In many ways, the ACC tournament is my favorite weekend of the sport's year. As usual, this year did not disappoint.

IMO, any true ACC fan who minimizes the ACC tournament is either deceiving themself or attempting to deceive everyone else.

Bob Green

03-17-2009, 05:18 PM

It was a meaningless tournament.

The tournament ensured the best team at the end of the season represented the conference in the NCAAT. A team could have the best regular season record but be riding a couple of game losing streak due to an injured player or chemistry issue, etc...The conference tournament rewards the team playing the best ball at the time of the NCAAT.

Obviously, in the age of multiple bids, this is no longer germane. The ACC is sending seven teams to the tournament not one.

fisheyes

03-17-2009, 05:26 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney09/news/story?id=3990697

Looks like he should have sat out that last Duke game!

Spret42

03-17-2009, 05:27 PM

And how many conferences duplicated the conference tournament method of getting the automatic bid?

Since the teams are fighting for a chance to go to a tournament that awards the championship based on who wins on any given night, and not necessarily who has had the best season, I like awarding the automatic bid to the conference tournament winner. It sure makes the tournament more exciting. (Isn't that how NC State ended up in the NCAA tournament and winning a National Championship?)

I am not sure how many conferences duplicated the method as much as they duplicated the ability to make a lot of money with nationally televised tournament.

You may see awarding a three day tournament winner as more exciting. I see 10 weeks of home and home games between teams battling it out for a championship as more exciting. The fact that the "best" team in the league still has to do its job and beat the worst team both home and away, and not rely on someone else to beat that team is what makes the competition pure.

Remember the NCAA pulled the rule and allowed more teams in EXACTLY because of the 1974 Final. They saw the result as a bad one. One team was harmed because of a result of a single game in a one weekend tournament. Yes, it was exciting for the fans, it was hardly an reasonable or equitable for the teams involved.

And to answer the World Series two leagues scrapping the world series to play a balanced schedule thing. The National and American Leagues were separate entities for years. The World Series was a way for each entity to send a rep and play for a title and to claim superiority. To mash the leagues 16 teams into league would have been to dilute the 8 team 154 games, 22 (11 home 11 away) games each team had to play against every other team to truly determine which team was best in each league. Baseball requires many games to determine which team is the best one, hence best of seven game series.

Spret42

03-17-2009, 05:31 PM

The tournament ensured the best team at the end of the season represented the conference in the NCAAT. A team could have the best regular season record but be riding a couple of game losing streak due to an injured player or chemistry issue, etc...The conference tournament rewards the team playing the best ball at the time of the NCAAT.

Obviously, in the age of multiple bids, this is no longer germane. The ACC is sending seven teams to the tournament not one.

I knew this would be an unpopular position. And I took it for fun actually.

A team having a couple game losing streak is part of the drama that happens when you play balanced schedules. Did you do enough work early to be able to survive the bad stretch and still win enough games? Can you pull it together, go into the other guys gym on the last day and get that needed win to secrue the best record?

A team could have the best team over a three game tournament but watch their best player wrench an ankle in the final 10 minutes of the final game and lose. The tournament doesn't necessarily reward the team playing the best ball, it could be argued it puts a team in a position to lose through a freak accident what it spent 10 weeks earning by beating every team in the darned league!!

Jeffrey

03-17-2009, 05:37 PM

A team could have the best team over a three game tournament but watch their best player wrench an ankle in the final 10 minutes of the final game and lose. The tournament doesn't necessarily reward the team playing the best ball, it could be argued it puts a team in a position to lose through a freak accident what it spent 10 weeks earning by beating every team in the darned league!!

Does this mean you also do not think highly of the NCAA Tournament? After all, it's also single elimination.

Stray Gator

03-17-2009, 05:40 PM

... Just because the ACC decided the winner of the tournament was the champion doesn't make it so. ...

Actually, it does. "The ACC" is the member schools, not some independent entity. The member schools have agreed, since the inception of the conference, that the winner of the tournament at the end of the regular season would be recognized as the champion. It was only much later that the "regular season champion" even received any kind of official recognition as such. I've seen UNC fans and, to a lesser degree, Duke fans vacillate over this issue from year to year for decades now, depending on how each season ended. But regardless of your opinion or anyone else's opinion about whether the policy ought to be different, the policy is indisputable: The ACC Champion is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Period.

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 05:41 PM

We can solve this issue - no one can claim to be Champions unless they go undefeated during the regular season and win the ACC Tournament. :D

Let's hear it for the '98-'99 Blue Devils!

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 05:43 PM

I am not sure how many conferences duplicated the method as much as they duplicated the ability to make a lot of money with nationally televised tournament.

You may see awarding a three day tournament winner as more exciting. I see 10 weeks of home and home games between teams battling it out for a championship as more exciting. The fact that the "best" team in the league still has to do its job and beat the worst team both home and away, and not rely on someone else to beat that team is what makes the competition pure.

Remember the NCAA pulled the rule and allowed more teams in EXACTLY because of the 1974 Final. They saw the result as a bad one. One team was harmed because of a result of a single game in a one weekend tournament. Yes, it was exciting for the fans, it was hardly an reasonable or equitable for the teams involved.

And to answer the World Series two leagues scrapping the world series to play a balanced schedule thing. The National and American Leagues were separate entities for years. The World Series was a way for each entity to send a rep and play for a title and to claim superiority. To mash the leagues 16 teams into league would have been to dilute the 8 team 154 games, 22 (11 home 11 away) games each team had to play against every other team to truly determine which team was best in each league. Baseball requires many games to determine which team is the best one, hence best of seven game series.

Did the NCAA pull the rule due to the '74 Final or to expand the field and make more money? ;)

I was out of the country, so I don't even know who was in the '74 Final.

4decadedukie

03-17-2009, 05:58 PM

Actually, it does. "The ACC" is the member schools, not some independent entity. The member schools have agreed, since the inception of the conference, that the winner of the tournament at the end of the regular season would be recognized as the champion. It was only much later that the "regular season champion" even received any kind of official recognition as such. I've seen UNC fans and, to a lesser degree, Duke fans vacillate over this issue from year to year for decades now, depending on how each season ended. But regardless of your opinion or anyone else's opinion about whether the policy ought to be different, the policy is indisputable: The ACC Champion is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Period.

Stray is absolutely correct.

Furthermore, since the expansion of the ACC and the demise of the "home and away round-robin" – where each team played all the others twice, once at home and once away – this agreed to ACC policy is even more vital. That results from the disparity in the difficulty of annual schedules among the twelve ACC schools. To illustrate, this year (during the regular season) Duke was compelled to play the three top ACC teams (based on their in-season results) twice. Having two games against UNC, Wake and FSU was a particularly hard schedule, significantly more challenging than only one game with any of these schools. Therefore, the only “even ACC playing field" is the tournament. Incidentally, this is one – of several – substantial deficiencies resulting from the ACC's expansion.

bjornolf

03-17-2009, 06:02 PM

That's what I said, but I'll believe it when I see it.

dukegirlinsc

03-17-2009, 06:17 PM

This is exactly why UNC and UConn should not have been given a #1 seeds and why Duke and Memphis should have been given #1 seeds. The tournament should mean more and the committee....

I pretty much agree. UNC, being the "best team in the nation" couldn't win two games in two. Granted, Ty Lawson wasn't playing, but in my opinion of they're as good as everyone's made them out to be, they should be overcoming such adversity and still winning ball games, regardless. I know some of it has to do with being partial, but my god. I didn't think it could be any more obvious.

CBDUKE

03-17-2009, 06:21 PM

UNC is also considered, by all the talkingheads, to be the deepest team in the country. They should be able to overcome a little adversity, don'tcha think?

dukeman28428

03-17-2009, 06:27 PM

What does he think Duke won Sunday at ACC?

Maybe he should come over to Cameron and take a look at the trophy for the ACC CHAMPIONSHIP.

LET'S GO DEVILS :D

Jeffrey

03-17-2009, 06:28 PM

UNC is also considered, by all the talkingheads, to be the deepest team in the country. They should be able to overcome a little adversity, don'tcha think?

No, it's not their nature.

Spret42

03-17-2009, 06:30 PM

Actually, it does. "The ACC" is the member schools, not some independent entity. The member schools have agreed, since the inception of the conference, that the winner of the tournament at the end of the regular season would be recognized as the champion. It was only much later that the "regular season champion" even received any kind of official recognition as such. I've seen UNC fans and, to a lesser degree, Duke fans vacillate over this issue from year to year for decades now, depending on how each season ended. But regardless of your opinion or anyone else's opinion about whether the policy ought to be different, the policy is indisputable: The ACC Champion is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Period.

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically. Teams, coaches and fans vacillated because they knew that if one team was 15-1 and had a bad shooting day in one game, resulting in all that previous work being washed away, it was unfair.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today. :)

Indoor66

03-17-2009, 06:33 PM

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today. :)

Why not give it a rest. The conference sets the rules; the conference is the schools; that is the end of the story.

DukieInKansas

03-17-2009, 06:40 PM

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically. Teams, coaches and fans vacillated because they knew that if one team was 15-1 and had a bad shooting day in one game, resulting in all that previous work being washed away, it was unfair.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today. :)

I'll give you an 8.0 on your mental gymnastics. I'm not sure what the Russian judge gives you. :D

shoutingncu

03-17-2009, 07:35 PM

"03-11-2008, 11:40 AM
BlueBlood112883

Roy doesn't care about the ACC Tournament.....

and wishes UNC didn't have to play in it.

"In my mind the ACC Tourney is one of those "necessary evils". I really don't care if we win it, but at the same time I don't want to lose to any other teams. I honestly wish we could somehow opt to not participate, I wouldn't care what other team fans would say."

Roy without the ACC Tournament the ACC wouldn't be what it is now. If you don't want to be there go ahead and lose your first game. So you can go home, and let the teams that want to be the official champ of the ACC try and win it. Get out of here with that weaksauce."

---

Roy's very public and well criticized opinion is not new this year. The above quote is prior to winning last year's ACC tournament, but after winning the year before.

Re: Cutting down the nets... as someone pointed out, he started that in 2005 (not sure if he did it at Kansas) to let the seniors "celebrate." You may recall that senior class... they went 8 - 20 their freshman year. Allegedly, in 2007, Roy had the team cut down just one side of the nets for their co-"regular season" championship, and was quoted as saying that Virginia could come back and cut down the other. I doubt he'd extend that offer to Duke next season, but maybe if you bring the ladder.

And no reasonable fan can claim that Duke is not the 2009 ACC Champion. It is objective fact. But as someone said in the thread that I lifted the above post from, I don't think that anyone cares that Carolina failed to win it in 2005, nor that Duke failed to in 1991. I would further add, how satisfying is Duke's 2006 trophy? Should Carolina not win the NCAA Tourney this year, I know for me, it will be of little comfort that we were "Regular Season Champions," and had we won the ACC, I would consider it a consolation prize at best.

MarkD83

03-17-2009, 07:49 PM

I can't disagree with Roy's decision. If Ty plays they have a better chance at beating Duke. Beating Duke means a reg. season title, which will pretty much ensure them a #1 seed in the big dance, regardless of how they perform in the ACC Tourney. Play Ty, win the game and seed, then he's got a long time to rest before the NCAA's. I'd even sit him in the first round if he doesn't practice well. I think it's a pretty smart move, unless of course Ty gets hurt worse during the Duke game.

UNC already had clinched a tie for the regular season title. The win at home was to insure the top seed in the tournament which they would have gotten anyway since Wake won. If this was the reason to play Lawson in the last game then Roy does care about the ACC tournament because he wanted to make sure he had the top seed.

Winning on senior day for Hansbrough may have been a motivation or perhaps the fact that it was Ty Lawson's last game at home. However, winning the title could not have been the motivation since they had already won that.

MarkD83

03-17-2009, 08:06 PM

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically. Teams, coaches and fans vacillated because they knew that if one team was 15-1 and had a bad shooting day in one game, resulting in all that previous work being washed away, it was unfair.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today. :)

The ACC does not play a balanced regular season schedule. If I look at the top 5 teams in the conference, UNC only played 5 games against Duke, Wake, Clemson and FSU. Duke played 7 games against UNC, Wake, Clemson and FSU. Wake played 6 games against UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU. So UNC needs to play 2 more games against the top 5 teams in the conference. But wait they did play against one of those teams...FSU and LOST. Duke also played FSU again and guess what .... DUKE WON and they are

2009 ACC Champions

BlueHeaven

03-17-2009, 09:08 PM

I heard pieces of this interview again on the DP show today. Roy said that if Lawson made half the practice today and all practice tomorrow, he'd play Thursday. They (DP and Paulie) said he had turf toe. Does anyone know if Lawson practiced today (for filling out my bracket purposes:))

Lord Ash

03-17-2009, 09:47 PM

Just because the ACC decided the winner of the tournament was the champion doesn't make it so.

Actually, I believe it DOES make it so.

EDIT: Whoops sorry, I missed page 3 when I was reading this the first time, and a few folks already made this point. Sorry!

cspan37421

03-17-2009, 11:21 PM

dadgummit!

Sorry, I just had to say it to humor myself.

I think we're all savvy enough to understand the various points being made. I have a little sympathy for the view that the regular season should count more. Baseball playoff expansion wasn't my favorite thing - generally, I do not care for the watering down of regular season accomplishments. The endless NBA playoff setup is the poster child for meaningless regular season. I recall the NHL was particularly bad too, before the expansion into warm climates (did >50% of teams make it?)

Balance is needed. I would not want to live in a sports world that didn't have NCSU in 1983 or the Boston Red Sox of 2004.

My gut tells me that if you can't make the regular season mean everything, to allow for these "Cinderella" stories, it still has to have some substantial significance.

Jarhead

03-17-2009, 11:30 PM

MarkD83

03-17-2009, 11:30 PM

There are 4 championships that mean something every year. The regular season, the tournament (which is recognized by the conference as the champion), an NCAA regional and the NCAA championship. Duke hangs banners for all of these. However, they have different significance, NCAA champion > NCAA regional champion > ACC Tournament > ACC Regular season.

In addition, the regular season has infinite importance for those who do not make the NCAAs. Take VT for instance...if they had won a few more games in December or finished 9-7 in conference they would be in the NCAAs. So, the regular season does mean something.

killerleft

03-18-2009, 12:12 AM

I never meant that they didn't have the AUTHORITY to declare the winner to be the winner of the ACC tournament. They can declare the team who scores the most total points over the course of the season to be the champion, it won't wash logically. Teams, coaches and fans vacillated because they knew that if one team was 15-1 and had a bad shooting day in one game, resulting in all that previous work being washed away, it was unfair.

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion. Beating 3 of the 8 teams competing while competing over 3 days fails the logic test.

And no the NCAA tournament isn't invalid because it is single elimination. It would be impossible to have 64 teams play a balanced schedule, so the next best way declare a champion is a tournament. A tournament is a way to declare a champion, but it is less accurate than a balanced schedule.

The most fair, balanced and accurate way to declare a champion when multiple teams are competing is to have each team play each other team, the team who wins the most is the natural champion. The ACC declared a more inaccurate way in order to grab more money for the member schools.

I am done. I know I will never convince people of this and that is ok. I just needed to do some mental gymnastics today. :)

I think most everybody would agree that money is the driver behind the ACC tournament. Logic and fairness are fine. But no amount of logic or fairness can change the unalterable fact that Duke University's Blue Devils are the real and genuine ACC Men's Basketball Champions of 2008-2009.

If Ty Lawson or anybody else wants to try and dream themselves up a championship (and who would deny that the Heels are the historical and true champions of self -awarded championships?), then let 'em.

tele

03-18-2009, 01:07 AM

"...come on now." I can see why ol' Roy would be concerned about Seth Davis filling out his boxes if Seth was a graduate of ESPNU, especially those final four boxes:

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/bracket

dball

03-18-2009, 01:46 AM

Remember the NCAA pulled the rule and allowed more teams in EXACTLY because of the 1974 Final. They saw the result as a bad one. One team was harmed because of a result of a single game in a one weekend tournament. Yes, it was exciting for the fans, it was hardly an reasonable or equitable for the teams involved.

State lost one early season game to UCLA but that was the only blemish on their record. As the undefeated 'regular season champs', they received the first round bye in the tournament. If Maryland had won, then this statement might make more sense.

Rather than the tournament being the issue, the game highlighted the inequity of having a sole league representative--no matter how the conference champion was determined. State and MD were mostly ranked in the Top 5 all year. State was ranked number one at the end of the regular season.

4decadedukie

03-19-2009, 09:33 AM

I meant it in the sense that when 8 teams agree to play a balanced schedule the team that has won the most games over the course of that season is the only team that can be logically declared the champion.

I have no problem with the "old ACC;" however, with twelve teams there is a major issue.

The obvious concern is regular season ACC schedules are NOT "balanced." They were, some years ago, when all teams played every other school twice (the home-and-away round-robin). Now, however, with "rivalry schools" playing twice and schedules that change annually, the seasonal ACC schedule is clearly more difficult for some team than for others.

Let me prove this by citing the just-concluded 2009 ACC schedule. The top four conference team (those that received bys in Atlanta last week) were UNC, Wake, Duke and FSU. Duke was required to play the other three top teams twice (a total of six games), whereas Wake, UNC and FSU played the other top clubs only five times (not six). In a season where an additional win or loss to a ranked team is especially critical, it is easy to see how this disparity makes the regular ACC schedule an "uneven playing field."

For this reason, the ACC Tournament is the only "level playing field" to determine the annual championship.

Spret42

03-19-2009, 10:08 AM

I have no problem with the "old ACC;" however, with twelve teams there is a major issue.

The obvious concern is regular season ACC schedules are NOT "balanced." They were, some years ago, when all teams played every other school twice (the home-and-away round-robin). Now, however, with "rivalry schools" playing twice and schedules that change annually, the seasonal ACC schedule is clearly more difficult for some team than for others.

Let me prove this by citing the just-concluded 2009 ACC schedule. The top four conference team (those that received bys in Atlanta last week) were UNC, Wake, Duke and FSU. Duke was required to play the other three top teams twice (a total of six games), whereas Wake, UNC and FSU played the other top clubs only five times (not six). In a season where an additional win or loss to a ranked team is especially critical, it is easy to see how this disparity makes the regular ACC schedule an "uneven playing field."

For this reason, the ACC Tournament is the only "level playing field" to determine the annual championship.

I agree. In my first post on this thread I said that Duke was the ACC champion this year. There is no regular season champion in a league with an unbalanced schedule. If UNC wants to be ACC champs, take the damned tournament seriously and win it.

What got everyone in an uproar was when I said the ACC tournament as it was originally constituted was a meaningless money grab. I think it was. I should have qualified my use of the word meaningless or better instead said unnecessary.

4decadedukie

03-20-2009, 04:10 AM

What got everyone in an uproar was when I said the ACC tournament as it was originally constituted was a meaningless money grab.

You may be right; the ACC Tournament was -- and, perhaps, may still be -- principally a financial boom for the Conference, the universities and their booster clubs, the host city, and so forth. However, having gone three time recently, it is FUN, most attendees really know ACC hoops, and they fervently support their school.