Duke and the AP No. 1

[SCMatt33]

I was looking through the official NCAA record book (updated through the end of last year) and noticed some startling facts about just how much time Duke has spent as the #1 team in the country compared to some other programs. The records for weeks at number 1 is on page 56 of the record book (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/2011/D1.pdf).

Let's start with a comparison to Louisville and Michigan State, who combined have gone to 16 Final Fours and won 4 National Championships, almost identical to Duke's 15 Final Fours and 4 titles. After the most recent poll was released on Monday, Duke has been at the top of the AP poll ten times this year. Combined, Michigan State (4 weeks)and Louisville (1 week) can only claim half of that (5 weeks) for all time. If we add in Maryland (none), Villanova (none), California (none), and Marquette (3 weeks), Duke has still spent more time on top of the poll this year (10 weeks) than those 6 programs, all with National titles (7 total) and multiple Final Four's (25 total, though one vacated), have spent there for all time (8 weeks).

Here is where I will get really crazy. All time, Duke has been at the top of the AP poll 121 times. That is as many as Ohio State, UConn, NC State, Arkansas, Georgetown, Florida, Syracuse, Michigan State, Marquette, Louisville, Villanova, Maryland, and California combined. Again, each of those 13 programs has been to multiple Final Four's and won at least one title. In all, they have combined for 63 Final Fours (though 2 were vacated) and 17 National Titles.

Now Let's compare Duke to the other blue bloods of the sport. Behind the strength of the Wooden era, UCLA is the all time leader, topping the poll 134 times. Currently, there are 19 polls released in a season, meaning that if Duke were to remain atop the poll indefinitely, they would catch UCLA about a month into next season. Just behind Duke is UNC, who at 108, almost caught up to Duke in 2009, but was 3 weeks short at the end of the year. Right now, it would take 13 weeks, just over two thirds of a season, for them to catch Duke. Next on the list is Kentucky at 81 weeks. UK probably lost a few weeks at #1 during the 40's, as the first poll was not released until the 1949 season, after they won their first title. As it is, it would take 30 weeks, just over a year and a half, for them to catch Duke. Behind them is Kansas at 56 weeks. They would have to more than double their time at #1 to catch Duke. In all, it would take Kansas 65 weeks, just under 3 and a half years to catch up. Behind Kansas is Cincinnati and Indiana, at 45 and 44 weeks respectively. It would take the either one of them 4 full years to catch Duke. Someone starting from scratch, like Maryland, would take the full 121 weeks, over 6 and a third years, to catch up. Unfortunately for them, John Wooden is not available, so it would likely take considerably longer.

[ajgoodfella7]

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

[JasonEvans]

Awesome analysis, Matt. Great stuff!

The thing folks do not realize is how difficult it is to reach #1 at any given time. Think about Ohio State, which is having as much success as a program the past few years as they have had in decades. They won the Big Ten in 2006 and 2007, making the NCAA Championship game in 2007. They had National Player of the Year Evan Turner last year, again winning the Big Ten. They appear to be even better this year and are currently undefeated with POY front-runner JSully.

And yet during the past 6 years when they have had this fabulous run of success, they have been atop the AP poll a grand total of 3 weeks (all in 2007).

It takes pre-season reputation and then following up that recognition with an unblemished record to really spend a while at #1. That ain't easy to do.

Duke won the national title last year... we were never ranked #1 in the AP Poll at any time during the season.

So, while it may seem like we are close to passing UCLA for the all-time lead -- the notion that we could do it early next season is tempting when you look at our current roster and think about restocking with one of the top classes in the land led by consensus #1 player Austin Rivers. And yet it is not at all unlikely that we could drop the game to FSU and go years before we are ranked #1 again. I am not talking about the program dropping off a cliff -- we could be a Top 5 team and a strong national title contender for years, as Ohio State has been since 2006, and just not compile more than a small handful of #1 rankings.

It makes what Coach K has done so amazing.

Anyone wanna do the research to see what coach has been ranked #1 the most? I suspect it is Wooden, but would not be shocked if K was very, very close.

-Jason "again, Matt, a great post and discussion!" Evans

[uh_no]

Fun Fact:

Under coach K, Duke has spent more time ranked #1 than it has spent being unranked

[JasonEvans]

Fun Fact:

Under coach K, Duke has spent more time ranked #1 than it has spent being unranked

Ehhh, for the elite programs that is probably not that big a deal. I bet the same was true for Dean Smith. It was almost certainly true for Roy Williams at Kansas, though probably not at UNC after the past 2 seasons (I'd have to spend some time getting all the figures). I recall Arizona was ranked for a ridiculously long stretch under Lute Olsen and they were #1 under him for 29 weeks so I bet they were #1 more than unranked under him too -- despite his poor final few seasons.

Still, it is fun to think about ;)

-Jason "I wish there were compilations of being in the Top 5 or top 10 as it would be fun to examine those too" Evans

[Lord Ash]

Let the bestowing of pitchforks begin!:D

Great post... really amazing stuff. I was recently saying somewhere how a discussion of the greatest coaches in the game really seems to put too much emphasis on titles won, and doesn't seem to give enough to the achievements of the regular season. Sure, some morons will say "Oh well look how much Duke has underachieved then regarding titles!" because they do not understand REALLY how difficult winning a title is, but man... most folks should look at that and realize THIS is why Duke is, through history, such a juggernaut.

[hurleyfor3]

I'm amazed Louisville has only been ranked #1 once, and only in 2009. Would have thought any number of Denny Crum teams would have had some multi-week stretches in the early 1980s.

Without looking, I would guess at various times Houston, unc, Indiana, Georgetown and Depaul would have been between Louisville and the #1 spot in the 1980-84 stretch.

[JasonEvans]

I'm amazed Louisville has only been ranked #1 once, and only in 2009. Would have thought any number of Denny Crum teams would have had some multi-week stretches in the early 1980s.

Without looking, I would guess at various times Houston, unc, Indiana, Georgetown and Depaul would have been between Louisville and the #1 spot in the 1980-84 stretch.

If you had given me an over-under of 10 on Lousiville's all-time weeks at #1, I am sure I would have picked the over.

Looking at the bottom of the list of teams to be ranked #1 is stunning.

Syracuse has a grand total of 10 weeks on top.
Michigan State has 4.
Texas has 2.
Marquette, Ga Tech, Okie State, and the previously mentioned Louisville all only have 1. Come on!!

--Jason "All your #1 base are belong to K!" Evans

[MIKESJ73]

They list every #1 loss. In 1965 they have
Dec.10 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 82-66 @ Duke
Dec.11 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 94-75 @ Charlotte

Did we play them back to back or is that a mistake?

[yancem]

They list every #1 loss. In 1965 they have
Dec.10 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 82-66 @ Duke
Dec.11 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 94-75 @ Charlotte

Did we play them back to back or is that a mistake?

According to this: http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/schedule.php?season=1965-66 they played back to back and won both games!

[Indoor66]

They list every #1 loss. In 1965 they have
Dec.10 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 82-66 @ Duke
Dec.11 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 94-75 @ Charlotte

Did we play them back to back or is that a mistake?

We played them back to back. The Indoor Stadium ROCKED for the game in Durham. The Charlotte Coliseum on Independence Ave ROCKED for the game in Charlotte!

[Bluedog]

According to this: http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/schedule.php?season=1965-66 they played back to back and won both games!


We played them back to back. The Indoor Stadium ROCKED for the game in Durham. The Charlotte Coliseum on Independence Ave ROCKED for the game in Charlotte!

Wow, that's nuts. Anybody else notice the ACC semifinals? Defeated UNC 21-20. Damn Dean Smith and his four corners...The next lowest scoring output from Duke all season was 71 points. Also played the #5 team in the nation "first round" of the NCAA? Rough...

[SCMatt33]

If you had given me an over-under of 10 on Lousiville's all-time weeks at #1, I am sure I would have picked the over.

Looking at the bottom of the list of teams to be ranked #1 is stunning.

Syracuse has a grand total of 10 weeks on top.
Michigan State has 4.
Texas has 2.
Marquette, Ga Tech, Okie State, and the previously mentioned Louisville all only have 1. Come on!!

--Jason "All your #1 base are belong to K!" Evans

I mentioned Kentucky as possibly losing a few weeks at the top in the 40's just before the poll started, but OK State also lost a few weeks. They were pretty darn good in the mid-40's with some of Henry Iba's early teams, winning back-to-back titles in 45 and 46. I could have easily included them in the stats as a team that won titles and has been to many Final Four's, but thought I would leave them out because their titles came before the poll.

[devildeac]

Does this excellent analysis and discussion include how many weeks unc was voted #1 in the Helms' poll?;):rolleyes:

[throatybeard]

Does this excellent analysis and discussion include how many weeks unc was voted #1 in the Helms' poll?;):rolleyes:

Makes me wonder, who has the most of these?

http://duke.edu/~bct1/images/3rdplaceNIT.jpg

[Jarhead]

Makes me wonder, who has the most of these?

http://duke.edu/~bct1/images/3rdplaceNIT.jpg

Throaty, that post made my day.

[TruBlu]

They list every #1 loss. In 1965 they have
Dec.10 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 82-66 @ Duke
Dec.11 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 94-75 @ Charlotte

Did we play them back to back or is that a mistake?

As a young lad, I was able to get tickets to the game at Charlotte, and treated my father (a life long Duke fan) to his first ever live Duke game. I never saw him more excited.

[snowdenscold]

Fun fact: 'Duke' appears 358 times in that record book. Of course, a couple of them are Walt Dukes for Seton Hall - but probably 300+ of them are for us.

Here was one of the cool ones:

Deficit overcome to Win Game
32—Duke (74) vs. Tulane (72), Dec. 30, 1950 (trailed 22-54
with 2:00 left in the first half )

[sagegrouse]

They list every #1 loss. In 1965 they have
Dec.10 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 82-66 @ Duke
Dec.11 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 94-75 @ Charlotte

Did we play them back to back or is that a mistake?

It was an impressive pair of wins, only limited by the fact that the UCLA varsity, sans Goodrich and Hazard, couldn't beat the UCLA freshman team with Lew Alcindor.

sagegrouse

[devildeac]

Makes me wonder, who has the most of these?

http://duke.edu/~bct1/images/3rdplaceNIT.jpg

I gotta admit, I don't believe I have ever wondered about that.

;)

[devildeac]

Make that 122 times now:D. Assuming my math is correct;).

[Olympic Fan]

They list every #1 loss. In 1965 they have
Dec.10 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 82-66 @ Duke
Dec.11 #6 Duke defeating #1 UCLA 94-75 @ Charlotte

Did we play them back to back or is that a mistake?

The back to back wins were a great moment for the program --b that was the Verga, Marin, Vacendak, Reidy, Lewis team.

The really interesting thing about the poll was that Duke started No. 3 in the AP poll. But after routing Virginia Tech and Clemson in the firstv two games, Duke loost 73-71 at South Carolina -- caught looking ahead IMHO -- and dropped to No. 6 the next week.

The two victories over No. 1 UCLA -- the two-time defending national champs -- were so impressive that Duke jumped from No. 6 to No. 1, not only jumping No. 1 UCLA, but No. 2 Michigan, No. 3 St. Joseph's, No. 4 Vanderbilt and No. 5 Minneosta (none of which lost during the week).

Duke ended up beating Michigan 100-93 in Cobo Hall a few weeks later. It was one of the great games in school history -- a great comeback and at OT win. Duke knocked off St. Joe's later in the East Regionals.

Duke stayed No. 1 for eight weeks. Kentucky, which had started the season unranked, kept closing the gap as they kept winning. When Duke lost 94-90 at West Virginia on Feb. 7, Kentucky moved into first place and held it for the rest of the season.

Duke only fell to No. 2, but dropped to No. 3 after losing 99-98 to Wake Forest in the last week of the regular season. Unbeaten Texas Western -- another team that was unranked in preseason -- briefly took over the No. 2 spot, but after they lost (I think to Seattle), Duke climbed back to No. 2 and finished there.

BTW, the back-to-back games with UCLA were a function of the high cost (and rarity) of coast to coast travel in that era. To make it feasible for the Bruins to travel 3,000 miles, they played two games. Duke returned the favor the next year, losing twice to the first of the Alcindor championship teams 88-54 and 107-87 on Dec. 9, Dec. 10 1966.

[Newton_14]

The back to back wins were a great moment for the program --b that was the Verga, Marin, Vacendak, Reidy, Lewis team.

The really interesting thing about the poll was that Duke started No. 3 in the AP poll. But after routing Virginia Tech and Clemson in the firstv two games, Duke loost 73-71 at South Carolina -- caught looking ahead IMHO -- and dropped to No. 6 the next week.

The two victories over No. 1 UCLA -- the two-time defending national champs -- were so impressive that Duke jumped from No. 6 to No. 1, not only jumping No. 1 UCLA, but No. 2 Michigan, No. 3 St. Joseph's, No. 4 Vanderbilt and No. 5 Minneosta (none of which lost during the week).

Duke ended up beating Michigan 100-93 in Cobo Hall a few weeks later. It was one of the great games in school history -- a great comeback and at OT win. Duke knocked off St. Joe's later in the East Regionals.

Duke stayed No. 1 for eight weeks. Kentucky, which had started the season unranked, kept closing the gap as they kept winning. When Duke lost 94-90 at West Virginia on Feb. 7, Kentucky moved into first place and held it for the rest of the season.

Duke only fell to No. 2, but dropped to No. 3 after losing 99-98 to Wake Forest in the last week of the regular season. Unbeaten Texas Western -- another team that was unranked in preseason -- briefly took over the No. 2 spot, but after they lost (I think to Seattle), Duke climbed back to No. 2 and finished there.

BTW, the back-to-back games with UCLA were a function of the high cost (and rarity) of coast to coast travel in that era. To make it feasible for the Bruins to travel 3,000 miles, they played two games. Duke returned the favor the next year, losing twice to the first of the Alcindor championship teams 88-54 and 107-87 on Dec. 9, Dec. 10 1966.

Having been born in 66, this was all before my time. Question for the experts, many times before I have been told that injuries/sickness played a huge role in Duke NOT winning the title in 66 when Texas Western had the incredible win against Kentucky.

So is that valid? Had they been fully healthy, were they LIKELY to have taken that championship, throwing a monkey wrench into the history that gave us Texas Western, National Champions?

[Olympic Fan]

Having been born in 66, this was all before my time. Question for the experts, many times before I have been told that injuries/sickness played a huge role in Duke NOT winning the title in 66 when Texas Western had the incredible win against Kentucky.

So is that valid? Had they been fully healthy, were they LIKELY to have taken that championship, throwing a monkey wrench into the history that gave us Texas Western, National Champions?

we talk about this every year or so.

Bob Verga, one of Duke's two second-team All-Americans that season (Marin was the other) came down with strep throat the week of the Final Four. He tried to play against Kentucky, but was ineffective. Duke still nearly pulled it out, losing by four (83-79).

Now, the Kentucky story is that point guard Larry Conley was ill and spent a night in the infirmary early in the Final Four week. However, he played his normal gme and matched his season scoring average against Duke. Several yeas later, when Duke played in the Kentucky Invitational, one of Rupp's aides bragged during a pretourney party that Conley's illness was fake -- that Rupp heard about Verga and didn't want Duke to get a psychological advantage so he put Conley in the informary and faked his illness.

Either way -- Verga played far below his normal game and Conley, as I said, played his normal game.

Yeah, if Verga is healthy, Duke beats Kentucky.

Would they have beaten Texas Western in the finals? Good question -- they were better than Kentucky. I know a member of that Duke team who insists that Duke was a better ballhandling team (one reason they schreded the UCLA press so easily) and the Duke guards wouldn't have p***d on themselves in the fave of Bobby Joe Hill's pressure as Conley and Damphier did. Duke also had the big body down low in Lewis to battle Lattin -- the body that Rupp's Runts lacked.

And with Flournoy hurt, Texas Western had nobody to match up with Marin.

We'll never know, but it's one of the great what-ifs of history.

[4decadedukie]

Makes me wonder, who has the most of these?

http://duke.edu/~bct1/images/3rdplaceNIT.jpg


Nice complements last year's NIT Second Place banner (IMHO).
:)

[bluepenguin]

It makes what Coach K has done so amazing.




Under coach K, Duke has spent more time ranked #1 than it has spent being unranked


And this is what makes Al Featherston's article "ACC Coach of the Year Useless" so depressing. Well, at least K gets the love from us.

[throatybeard]

Nicely complements last year's NIT Second Place banner (IMHO).
:)


I just hope there's one with the score on it.

[PADukeMom]

Other than being the #1 seed for the tournament, I only care if we are #1 in the last poll of the season.

[Olympic Fan]

Other than being the #1 seed for the tournament, I only care if we are #1 in the last poll of the season.

Well, there are two major polls.

The last ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll is taken the night after the national championship game and ALWAYS picks the national champion No. 1 (although the order after that does not necessarily reflect the NCAA Tournament).

The last AP Writers Poll is taken the night of the NCAA Tournament Selection, so tournament performance doesn't impact it. Duke has finished No. 1 in the last AP poll in five years that didn't produce titles -- 1986, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2006.

Twice, Duke has finished No. 1 in both polls -- 1992 and 2001. In 1991, Duke won the title and finished No. 1 in the Coaches Poll, but was No. 6 in the last AP poll. In 2010, Duke finished No. 1 in the Coaches Poll, but No. 3 in the last AP poll.

Obviously, finishing No. 1 in the last AP poll is great ... but finishing No. 1 in the last Coaches Poll is the one that counts.

[SCMatt33]

Well, there are two major polls.

The last ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll is taken the night after the national championship game and ALWAYS picks the national champion No. 1 (although the order after that does not necessarily reflect the NCAA Tournament).

The last AP Writers Poll is taken the night of the NCAA Tournament Selection, so tournament performance doesn't impact it. Duke has finished No. 1 in the last AP poll in five years that didn't produce titles -- 1986, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2006.

Twice, Duke has finished No. 1 in both polls -- 1992 and 2001. In 1991, Duke won the title and finished No. 1 in the Coaches Poll, but was No. 6 in the last AP poll. In 2010, Duke finished No. 1 in the Coaches Poll, but No. 3 in the last AP poll.

Obviously, finishing No. 1 in the last AP poll is great ... but finishing No. 1 in the last Coaches Poll is the one that counts.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Being the final AP number 1 is like winning the presidents trophy in the NHL, it's pretty meaningless and often a bad sign of things to come. Despite only winning the tournament twice when ranked number 1, Duke is actually doing a pretty good job. Only three times since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985 has the final AP #1 actually won the title. That's a mere 3 for 26. Of course, Duke has two of the three, so it's not all bad. For the record, the other was UCLA in 1995. I knew the record of the final AP#1 wasn't good, but I had no idea it was actually this bad.

[KyDevilinIL]

I knew the record of the final AP#1 wasn't good, but I had no idea it was actually this bad.

Didn't realize it was so bad, either. Guess it's a product of everyone ceasing to care about the top 25 once the bracket is released – there's usually a "favorite" to win the tourney that everyone talks about, but it doesn't always match up with whoever was No. 1 in the AP poll.

The bracket release is like a reset button. Renders almost everything that came before moot. Even the highlights of the conference championship games that were played on Selection Sunday seem a little dusty when shown after the bracket announcement. Those, like the final AP poll, are old news.

[Olympic Fan]

It's not an all or nothing proposition -- where the only thing that matters is winning the national title and that everything short of that is failure.

There are accomplishments along the way -- and one of those is finishing first in the final AP poll. No, it's not comparable to winning the NCAA title or even reaching thing the Sweet 16, but it IS an accomplishment. It has value and should be celebrated.

Heck, even being voted No. 1 for a single week is a great accomplishment -- the original point of this thread was how rare an achievement that is.

It's like dismissing the ACC championship, except as it relates to seeding. It's a secondary goal, but it is a goal.

How would I rank the various achievements?

Obviously, winning a national championship tops everything -- by a mile. I'd be willing to lose the ACC, go 0-3 vs. UNC and finish unranked for a national title. That's the ultimate.

But beyond that, my personal, private rank of team accomplishments:

(2) Reach the Final Four
(3) Win the ACC championship (which is decided in the tourney and not the regular season)
(4) Sweep UNC
(5) Reach the Sweet 16
(6) Finish as high as possible in the final AP poll
(7) Win the ACC regular season championship
(8) Qualify for the NCAA Tournament (just to clarify, accomplishing any of the higher ranked goals would mean that this is accomplished ... ranking it 8th means a year such as 2007 or 1996 when just earning an NCAA bid is just about the only significant accomplishment for those teams)

[Reilly]

....
But beyond that, my personal, private rank of team accomplishments:

(2) Reach the Final Four
(3) Win the ACC championship (which is decided in the tourney and not the regular season)
(4) Sweep UNC
(5) Reach the Sweet 16
(6) Finish as high as possible in the final AP poll
(7) Win the ACC regular season championship
(8) Qualify for the NCAA Tournament (just to clarify, accomplishing any of the higher ranked goals would mean that this is accomplished ... ranking it 8th means a year such as 2007 or 1996 when just earning an NCAA bid is just about the only significant accomplishment for those teams)

Championships matter most of all to me. So:

1. NC
2. Regional Championship (Final 4)
3. ACC Championship (tourney)
4. ACC regular season crown

I pay no attention to polls and think it's silly to celebrate them; there's merit accorded on the court and that should be enough. Shocked you put finishing high in the AP poll above the ACC regular season crown -- astounded, really.

Interesting question for me comes with combos. I think I'd rather win the ACC reg season and ACC tourney on on hand, rather than go 0 for 2 on those but get to the Final 4.

Thank God for years like 1992, 2001 and 2010, where beggars need not be choosers ...

[Newton_14]

How would I rank the various achievements?

But beyond that, my personal, private rank of team accomplishments:

(2) Reach the Final Four
(3) Win the ACC championship (which is decided in the tourney and not the regular season)
(4) Sweep UNC
(5) Reach the Sweet 16
(6) Finish as high as possible in the final AP poll
(7) Win the ACC regular season championship
(8) Qualify for the NCAA Tournament (just to clarify, accomplishing any of the higher ranked goals would mean that this is accomplished ... ranking it 8th means a year such as 2007 or 1996 when just earning an NCAA bid is just about the only significant accomplishment for those teams)

I love your list OF, and thanks for the info on the 66 Tourney. I would add a couple of achievements to your list.
Here is mine:
(1) Win National Title
(2) Reach the Final Four
(3) Win the ACC championship (which is decided in the tourney and not the regular season)
(4) Sweep UNC
(5) Reach the Elite 8
(6) Reach the Sweet 16
(7) Finish as high as possible in the final AP poll
(8) Win the ACC regular season championship
(9) Qualify for the NCAA Tournament (just to clarify, accomplishing any of the higher ranked goals would mean that this is accomplished ... ranking it 8th means a year such as 2007 or 1996 when just earning an NCAA bid is just about the only significant accomplishment for those teams
(10) Win any Regular Season Tourney (Such as Pre-Season NIT, MAUI, Alaska Shootout)

[Jderf]

I pay no attention to polls and think it's silly to celebrate them; there's merit accorded on the court and that should be enough. Shocked you put finishing high in the AP poll above the ACC regular season crown -- astounded, really.

I was also a bit surprised to see the AP poll above the ACC regular season championship, but I don't agree that it's worthless. The #1 ranking comes with a certain amount of prestige, and I really hope Duke eventually hunts down UCLA for most weeks spent at the top. So while I don't think it has any meaning mid-season, in the long run, I want Duke to gobble up as many #1 rankings as possible.

Also, now that I think about it, Olympic Fan may have just figured that, in any year we were ranked #1 in the final AP poll, we also almost definitely would have already won the ACC regular season.

[Duvall]

Championships matter most of all to me. So:

1. NC
2. Regional Championship (Final 4)
3. ACC Championship (tourney)
4. ACC regular season crown

I pay no attention to polls and think it's silly to celebrate them; there's merit accorded on the court and that should be enough. Shocked you put finishing high in the AP poll above the ACC regular season crown -- astounded, really.


Makes sense to me. Both are signs of a successful regular season; neither is a true championship. But the AP poll is a sign of having the best team in the country, surely better than having the best team in just one conference.

And with the unbalanced schedule, the ACC regular season "title" is nearly as meaningless as any poll vote.

[camion]

I would add "win 30 games" somewhere in the middle of the list. Having a 30 win season is noteworthy and indicative of season long excellence. Of course winning the ACC regular season, being #1 in the polls, winning the ACC tournament and going far in the NCAA tournament will generally add up to a 30 win season.

[Olympic Fan]

I pay no attention to polls and think it's silly to celebrate them; there's merit accorded on the court and that should be enough. Shocked you put finishing high in the AP poll above the ACC regular season crown -- astounded, really.

Interesting question for me comes with combos. I think I'd rather win the ACC reg season and ACC tourney on on hand, rather than go 0 for 2 on those but get to the Final 4.

Well, I said it was personal preference and in my world, the ACC "regular season" championship is fairly meaningless. In fact, there wasn't even such a thing until 1990, when the conference finally acknowledged that the first-place finisher could call itself the "regular season champion" -- always noting that the official ACC Champion was the tournament champion.

in my mind it's kind of like:
ACC (Tournament) Champion = NCAA champion
ACC "Regular Season" Champion = Final AP No. 1

And since national honors top conference honors, AP No. 1 > ACC Regular Season Champion.

You're entitled to your perception that ACC regular season and tournament titles are worth more than a Final Four without either -- I disagree. To my mind, 1989 and 1990 were greater achievements than 2000 or 2006 ... although thinking about it, it is odd how often ACC titles and Final Fours are linked. 1989 and 1990 are the only time we've ever reached the Final Four without winning either ACC regular season or tournament title; 2000 and 2006 is the only time we won both ACC titles and didn't reach the Final Four.

As for the clean sweep -- well, 1992 is still the only year we won the regular season outright, the ACC title and the national title. In 1991 we lost the ACC title in the finals, while in 2001 and 2010 we shared the ACC regular season titles.