PDA

View Full Version : Regular Season "Championship" Now Irrelevant?



grad_devil
10-26-2009, 12:42 PM
In reading this article (http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/SPORTS/910260314) about the pre-season voting, my local paper (Asheville Citizen-Times (http://www.citizen-times.com/)), which is decidedly pro-UNC-CH, decided to mention that UNC-CH has won the last three "regular-season title(s)".

Of course I see winning the most games during the regular season as quite an accomplishment, but should it still be recognized as a "championship", now that all of the teams' schedules aren't equal? When each team played a true double round-robin schedule, apples were indeed compared to apples. Now, it seems like certain teams who get 'lucky' enough to only play the top teams once have a decidedly better shot at the best regular season record.

Does anyone know if there's been any discussion about this on the conference level? To continue to recognize this championship, given the disparity in scheduling, seems flawed, at best.

--grad_devil

airowe
10-26-2009, 12:52 PM
In reading this article (http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/SPORTS/910260314) about the pre-season voting, my local paper (Asheville Citizen-Times (http://www.citizen-times.com/)), which is decidedly pro-UNC-CH, decided to mention that UNC-CH has won the last three "regular-season title(s)".

Of course I see winning the most games during the regular season as quite an accomplishment, but should it still be recognized as a "championship", now that all of the teams' schedules aren't equal? When each team played a true double round-robin schedule, apples were indeed compared to apples. Now, it seems like certain teams who get 'lucky' enough to only play the top teams once have a decidedly better shot at the best regular season record.

Does anyone know if there's been any discussion about this on the conference level? To continue to recognize this championship, given the disparity in scheduling, seems flawed, at best.

--grad_devil

It is not recognized as an achievement by the conference, only by UNC. This has been the case since July 1, 1961 and doesn't have to do with the new unbalanced schedule. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_Coast_Conference_men%27s_basketba ll_regular_season_champions)

In fact, Carolina even gave out "Championship" rings to their players for this fictional ACC title. Heck, they even have a banner for the Helms "Championship" of 1924 so it's not too surprising...

jesus_hurley
10-26-2009, 01:01 PM
It is not recognized as an achievement by the conference, only by UNC. This has been the case since July 1, 1961 and doesn't have to do with the new unbalanced schedule. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_Coast_Conference_men%27s_basketba ll_regular_season_champions)

In fact, Carolina even gave out "Championship" rings to their players for this fictional ACC title. Heck, they even have a banner for the Helms "Championship" of 1924 so it's not too surprising...

Well, since Ol' Roy can't give them suits he had to do something

allenmurray
10-26-2009, 01:29 PM
In reading this article (http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091026/SPORTS/910260314) about the pre-season voting, my local paper (Asheville Citizen-Times (http://www.citizen-times.com/)), which is decidedly pro-UNC-CH, decided to mention that UNC-CH has won the last three "regular-season title(s)".

Of course I see winning the most games during the regular season as quite an accomplishment, but should it still be recognized as a "championship", now that all of the teams' schedules aren't equal? When each team played a true double round-robin schedule, apples were indeed compared to apples. Now, it seems like certain teams who get 'lucky' enough to only play the top teams once have a decidedly better shot at the best regular season record.

Does anyone know if there's been any discussion about this on the conference level? To continue to recognize this championship, given the disparity in scheduling, seems flawed, at best.

--grad_devil

Short answer - an unbalanced schedule (no double round robin) makes a "regular season" championship meaningless (official or unofficial). Back when everyone played the same in-conference schedule I thought it was a great accomplishment (even if it wasn't officially recognized). But with the lack of balance it has no meaning at all.

sagegrouse
10-26-2009, 01:33 PM
Short answer - an unbalanced schedule (no double round robin) makes a "regular season" championship meaningless (official or unofficial). Back when everyone played the same in-conference schedule I thought it was a great accomplishment (even if it wasn't officially recognized). But with the lack of balance it has no meaning at all.

Seems to me like 16-0 packs a lot of meaning. -- sagegrouse

allenmurray
10-26-2009, 01:42 PM
Seems to me like 16-0 packs a lot of meaning. -- sagegrouse

Actually, you are right - and I think (without doing the math) that only one team could go 16-0 no matter what. If someone does it is a meaningful accomplishment. I wonder how many teams could go 15-1, or 14-2, etc.? I'm too lazy to do the cipherin'

Duvall
10-26-2009, 01:44 PM
Seems to me like 16-0 packs a lot of meaning. -- sagegrouse

It certainly would, and would be a deeply impressive accomplishment. But it's not a championship.

Bluedog
10-26-2009, 01:50 PM
It's not officially recognized by the league, but the "winning" team is allowed to hang a banner as long as it indicates "regular season." The conference champion has always been determined by the tournament. To be fair to our friends at UNC, we also hang banners for regular season championships, so we can't be that hypocritical. But we don't give out rings at least. ;)

I also wouldn't say it's "irrelevant." Certainly, how a team performs over a 16 game stretch is relevant; it just doesn't indicate that they are necessarily conference champions. In some cases, though, I think it's clear what team is the best in the ACC and the unbalanced schedule doesn't change that fact - the very best teams usually rise to the top no matter what.

loran16
10-26-2009, 01:51 PM
Ugh. I HATE this argument.

UNC won the ACC last year. I'm willing to give them this, even if it's not technically recognized by the ACC. Yes, the unbalanced schedule does make it easier at times for one team to win the Regular Season over another...but we LOST to UNC both times.
I can't recall if any other team might have had a claim due to the unbalanced schedule, but i don't think there was.

I mean listen, the Helms Championship was bullI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this., as UNC didn't play any of the other top teams that year and there was no playoff. But UNC DID play the other top teams in the ACC. It did win the regular season.

So if they want to crown themselves, "Champions," I have no problem with that. Conference Tournaments are kind of cheap anyhow (What's more important...3 games or a full 16 game season?), and they DID earn this.

I find there's good reason to make fun of UNC for the Helm's championship. But to mock UNC for claiming they're the 2009 ACC Champions just sounds like sour grapes, especially considering they ended up winning the whole NCAAs.
Let them say what they want and just ignore it if you don't like it. But no use starting a thread and being standoffish about it.

mapei
10-26-2009, 02:09 PM
Personally, I have always thought there was too little emphasis on in-season accomplishment and way too much on single-elimination tournaments.

Wander
10-26-2009, 02:26 PM
Depends on the year really. If you're a full two games ahead in the standings and swept the 2nd place team, like UNC last year, then I don't see how anyone can possibly complain about their claim to winning the regular season based on scheduling. The word "championship" might be a bit much, but all we needed to do to stop that was win one out of two games, and we lost twice, so it's a bit lame for us to whine.

On the other hand, if you only tie for first place and there's a bunch of teams tied for second one game behind, (UVA and UNC a few years ago), then yeah, I'd say it's dumb to call yourself the ACC champion.

kong123
10-26-2009, 02:27 PM
Personally, I have always thought there was too little emphasis on in-season accomplishment and way too much on single-elimination tournaments.

I actually feel the opposite. The regular season is a marathon, not a dash, and being the regular season champion means more to me. If you win the ACC regular season championship and do not win the ACC Championship game, you more than likely will still get a #1 seed. On the other hand, simply winning the ACC Championship doesn't get you a #1 seed.
But, people see it differently, depending on which one your team wins, but giving out rings for anything other than a NCAA CH does seem a bit too much!

sagegrouse
10-26-2009, 02:37 PM
Personally, I have always thought there was too little emphasis on in-season accomplishment and way too much on single-elimination tournaments.



I actually feel the opposite. The regular season is a marathon, not a dash, and being the regular season champion means more to me. If you win the ACC regular season championship and do not win the ACC Championship game, you more than likely will still get a #1 seed. On the other hand, simply winning the ACC Championship doesn't get you a #1 seed.
But, people see it differently, depending on which one your team wins, but giving out rings for anything other than a NCAA CH does seem a bit too much!

I believe that the monster Kong and the architect Pei are actually in violent agreement.

sagegrouse
'Or, maybe my reading comrehension needs a jolt'

kong123
10-26-2009, 02:41 PM
ah, i hit the quote button instead of hitting the reply button, sorry....my bad!

camion
10-26-2009, 02:41 PM
Nothing is irrelevant. It's all important.

I have always thought that both the regular season and tournament are important and both should be recognized. The tournament champion is the official ACC champ, but doing well in the regular season is also laudable.

The unbalanced schedule causes problems naming an undisputed regular season winner and in seeding the ACC tournament. There isn't a good way to rebalance things so I guess we'll just have to live with it. It leaves a good bit of room for "discussion" sort of like the BCS.

sagegrouse
10-26-2009, 02:50 PM
Random rhetorical question:

Why can't the regular be extended in order to incorporate more conference games?

Answer: Because CBS airs both the NCAAs and the Masters, and hoops has to end before Masters week at Augusta.

sagegrouse
'Hey! I'm named after a bird -- did you expect theoretical physics?'

dukeENG2003
10-26-2009, 02:54 PM
The regular season title certainly means more in the ACC for sure than in the big east, do they even play every team in their conference during the regular season given that their league has like 26 teams (ok, not quite that many, but you get the point)?

Olympic Fan
10-26-2009, 03:01 PM
I'm not sure what the argument is about either. Certainly winning the regular season is a great accomplishment and deserves to be recognized (balanced schedule or not), but the rules are clear -- the tournament winner is THE OFFICIAL ACC champion.

Don't like that? Then change the rules!

Arguing that UNC was the 2009 ACC champ is like arguing that Al Gore won the 2000 election -- he got more votes nationally, that has to be more important than that weird Electoral College thing (which is almost as big a farce as the BCS).

I guess as a Yankee fan, I don't need to worrry about that pesky World Series. By UNC logic, we're already world champs since we had the best regular season record. And the New England Patriots won the 2007 NFL title with their 16-0 regular season ... no need to win the Super Bowl too.

And, hey, as a Duke fan that works for us too. We were the No. 1 team in the final AP poll in 1986, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2006 (as well as 1992 and 2001) -- we can forget our NCAA Tournament losses those years, since the regular season is all that counts.

The rules are in place and have been since 1961 -- to win the ACC championship, you have to win the tournament. The coaches know that and can plan their seasons to be ready in March or they can elect to blow the ACC event off. When South Carolina won the 1971 ACC title, Tom Owens said he STILL hated the ACC Tournament. When a reporter pointed out that without the tournament, South Carolina would have finished in second place, Owens said if the regular season had determined the champion, they'd have approached the season differently.

Roy made a choice this year. He had an injured Ty Lawson injected with pain killers so he could play against Duke in Chapel Hill and clinch the "regular season title" ... Then he elected to let Lawson sit and rest his sore ankle in Atlanta.

I have no problem with that. He's free to choose his priorities ... and I'd certainly rather win the NCAA title than the ACC title. But don't play it that way and then come back and suggest that the winner in Atlanta wasn't really the ACC champion ... let's see who has the trophy.

But I do think it's neat that in both of Roy's national title seasons -- 2005 and 2009 -- Duke was the ACC champion!

grad_devil
10-26-2009, 03:05 PM
It is not recognized as an achievement by the conference, only by UNC. This has been the case since July 1, 1961 and doesn't have to do with the new unbalanced schedule..

I hear ya, but check out the attached document taken from the ACC Men's Basketball media guide from last year, listing all "Regular Season Champions" from 1954 to the present. It seems they lend some credence to the award, albeit in a de facto fashion.


Ugh.
I find there's good reason to make fun of UNC for the Helm's championship. But to mock UNC for claiming they're the 2009 ACC Champions just sounds like sour grapes, especially considering they ended up winning the whole NCAAs.
Let them say what they want and just ignore it if you don't like it. But no use starting a thread and being standoffish about it.

In no way did my initial post mock UNC-CH for claiming a championship, although I would've had the article even broached the subject of the Helms award :) I'm just making the argument that I don't think the idea of a 'regular season' championship means what it once did. Winning the most league games is impressive, no doubt, but it would (and did) mean more when everyone had the same schedule.

--grad_devil

shoutingncu
10-26-2009, 03:14 PM
I have no problem with that. He's free to choose his priorities ... and I'd certainly rather win the NCAA title than the ACC title. But don't play it that way and then come back and suggest that the winner in Atlanta wasn't really the ACC champion ... let's see who has the trophy.

Has Roy claimed this, or is it just ignorant fans?

Now, I know Ol' Roy honored it with the rings (rings? really?), but I think he knows who the ACC Champions were last season, as it is objective fact.

As for the argument itself, I think we can likely agree that there is sometimes a difference between Champion and Best Team and that it's arguable that the best team in the conference last year did not win the championship. Substitute "nation" for "conference" and "1999" for "last year" and you can see another example.

uh_no
10-26-2009, 03:18 PM
The regular season title certainly means more in the ACC for sure than in the big east, do they even play every team in their conference during the regular season given that their league has like 26 teams (ok, not quite that many, but you get the point)?


the Big east has 16 teams and has a full round robin with 3 home and aways.....the problem is that the home and aways often ruin the schedule enough so that the regular season title is meaningless....last season, for instance, louisville won the regular season after playing 3 teams who finished in the bottom of the league twice, whereas Uconn, who beat louisville by 27 (?) had to play pitt twice and two other top teams.....Louisville also had a cakewalk through the big east tournament after uconn went out in 6 OT fashion....i'm not sure anyone would argue that Uconn wasn't the best team in the big east last year (though you could make an argument for pitt) but no one would argue now that louisville was the top team even though they won both titles

sagegrouse
10-26-2009, 03:21 PM
Actually, you are right - and I think (without doing the math) that only one team could go 16-0 no matter what. If someone does it is a meaningful accomplishment. I wonder how many teams could go 15-1, or 14-2, etc.? I'm too lazy to do the cipherin'

I am just about to disgrace my Duke math degree, but the theoretical max for 15-1 teams is three. [Three teams beat everyone else in the conference but play each other only once each. Team A beats Team B beats Team C beats Team A.]

I am still working on 14-2, but I am at work and don't want to take my shoes off to use my toes in the computation.

sagegrouse

sweetchiba51
10-26-2009, 04:44 PM
Folks, there is only one championship that means anything...and the holes unfortunatly won that one last year...

kong123
10-26-2009, 05:05 PM
Folks, there is only one championship that means anything...and the holes unfortunatly won that one last year...

I agree. The only thing that really matters to the elite programs is how they fair in the big dance. Every other achievement is good for the scrap book, but other than that, who cares. Personally, I would rather win the ACC regular season and do better in the NCAA's than have a bad regular season and then win the ACC tournament. Also, head to head wins mean the most in our rival with the holes.

Indoor66
10-26-2009, 05:19 PM
I don't agree. Our team plays in a league. To win that championship, to be ACC Champions, is meaningful and significant. To be National Champions is also meaningful and significant. In any one year, there is only one of each. Each is important to the team, the conference and the University,

uh_no
10-26-2009, 05:40 PM
Folks, there is only one championship that means anything...and the holes unfortunatly won that one last year...


would you rather

beat the holes twice

or

win the nat'l championship while getting swept by the holes

airowe
10-26-2009, 05:45 PM
would you rather

beat the holes twice

or

win the nat'l championship while getting swept by the holes

B. Everyday, All Day

loran16
10-26-2009, 05:46 PM
would you rather

beat the holes twice

or

win the nat'l championship while getting swept by the holes

The 2nd one. Of course, i don't think anyone is arguing this point, and we didn't accomplish EITHER last year.

sagegrouse
10-26-2009, 06:02 PM
I am just about to disgrace my Duke math degree, but the theoretical max for 15-1 teams is three. [Three teams beat everyone else in the conference but play each other only once each. Team A beats Team B beats Team C beats Team A.]

I am still working on 14-2, but I am at work and don't want to take my shoes off to use my toes in the computation.

sagegrouse

I think the answer is that five teams can tie with a 14-2 record. These teams beat all the other teams every time and, while playing each other only one time each, split the four games.

It seems feasible from a schedule standpoint. In a 12 team league with a 16 game schedule, each team plays all 11 other teams once and five of those teams a second time.

Guess I can put my shoes back on.

sagegrouse

CEF1959
10-26-2009, 06:13 PM
It's an accomplishment worth noting, a bit diminished since the unbalanced schedule was implemented. But you can't ignore it. If Duke went undefeated in the regular season and lost in the first round of the tourney for whatever reason (prepping for The Dance, mentally unprepared, injuries, etc.), the fact that they clobbered the competition in conference play wouldn't be irrelevant. It would be worth crowing about. If you want to hand out rings, fine. They are what they are and nothing more or less.

Whether one is "official" or not seems to be mere wordplay, with the answer depending on one's rooting inclination. I remember strutting my stuff with a 1978 ACC champions t-shirt as a Duke freshman. We didn't win both titles that year. The one we won felt good, but it felt a little lessened by not having won both.

And neither the regular season championship nor the tourney championship is meaningless just because past performance has set the bar so high that only NCAA tourney performance seems to count. It's a tough league, and to win either the regular season crown or the tourney crown is a great achievement.

kong123
10-26-2009, 06:18 PM
would you rather..

beat the holes twice

or

win the ACC Tournament?

CEF1959
10-26-2009, 06:25 PM
would you rather..

beat the holes twice

or

win the ACC Tournament?

To clarify the choices:

If we beat the holes twice, would we have to watch THEM win the ACC Tournament?

And if we won the ACC Tournament, would we have lost to the holes twice, or just once?

It matters to me. If we beat the holes twice and lose to Wake in the ACC tourney, I'm good with that. If we win the ACC tourney and split with UNC-CH in conference play, I'm good with that. If we beat the holes twice and have to watch them cut down the nets at the tourney... close call. If we win the ACC tourney and lose to the holes every time we play them that season, I'm not liking it that much, but it's close.

kong123
10-26-2009, 06:29 PM
pick one

beat the holes twice, but do not win ACC Tourney

lose the the holes twice, but win the ACC Tourney

CEF1959
10-26-2009, 06:30 PM
Too many other variables.

rasputin
10-26-2009, 07:08 PM
Count me in the "ACC tourney is very significant" category.

Sir Stealth
10-26-2009, 07:59 PM
I don't see how you argue that the ACC Tournament is not the only real ACC Championship and still acknowledge that the winner of the NCAA tournament is the national champion. Yeah, single elimination tournaments are more like crapshoots than overall results over a long season, even when unbalanced, but that's how it works. It's the same in every sport - playoffs make things more exciting by raising the stakes at the end. With an unbalanced schedule, there's not much difference between awarding a championship to the best regular season record and awarding the national championship to the best national record or the final #1 in the polls.

As a Braves fan, I would love it if we got a championship for every time we were the best team over the long regular season, which is probably a greater test of how good a baseball team really is, but no wants to see playoffs taken away, even if they are more of a "crapshoot." Same goes for times that Duke finished the season ranked #1 but didn't win those next 6 games in a row. Conversely, we didn't have the best record in 1991 but still won the championship.

There's obviously no question that UNC had the much better season than us last year, but only because they won the tournament at the end. That doesn't take away from the fact that Duke won the conference championship, just as some other team having a better overall season going into the NCAA tourney wouldn't take away from the fact that UNC took home the National Championship.

To me, the unbalanced schedule only makes this debate easier. What makes it really annoying is that Roy seems to go out of his way to deemphasize the ACC Tourney, which played a huge role in making the ACC the premier conference over the years, and the heritage of the ACC as a conference is key to UNC having the basketball history and program that it does. Cutting down nets and handing out rings is especially silly for a team that has as many real accomplishments as UNC does, just like hanging up all the marginal banners is.

hurleyfor3
10-26-2009, 08:07 PM
I think the answer is that five teams can tie with a 14-2 record. These teams beat all the other teams every time and, while playing each other only one time each, split the four games.

It seems feasible from a schedule standpoint. In a 12 team league with a 16 game schedule, each team plays all 11 other teams once and five of those teams a second time.

Guess I can put my shoes back on.

sagegrouse

I agree, but that can only happen if all five 14-2 teams play the same set of teams twice. I don't think the ACC is sophisticated enough to schedule things that way. :)

rthomas
10-26-2009, 08:09 PM
The Tao of War: Everything means something when you win it; it's always meaningless when you lose it. Cut down the nets every chance you get.