Does the ACCT Matter?

[dukebballcamper90-91]

I was having a Duke/UNC debate with a friend who wants to win and thinks that if UNC wins the ACC tourny that will bump them up a bit in NCAA. All I can remember from tar hole fans is that the ACC tourny does not matter, now they need it, it will matter. I think I can recall Roy saying he does not care about it either. So why bring back Kyrie if none of this matters? Wait til NCAA round 2 like UNC did with Ty a few years ago......

Please forgive me if this was posted some place else and move or delete it if needed.

[sporthenry]

Well UNC fans are quick to dismiss the ACC Tourney b/c Duke leads them all time. So naturally, the ACCT means nothing. I do believe that the ACCT trails the Regular Season or NCAAT championships but isn't just something they can just dismiss.
Although, these conference tourneys will be very important for seeding purposes since the gap between the different seeds is closing. If UNC wins out, they will most certainly jump Duke in seeding and could get the #2. If Duke loses @CH but wins the ACCT, I think the game is dismissed as home court and Duke gets the 2 possibly a 1.
Kyrie coming back is different from Lawson in the sense that Lawson missed something like 5 games and probably could have played if they weren't playing Radford. Kyrie has missed 3 months and would need more time to get acclimated to game speed. With Lawson, the team was very experienced and it was more just trying to rest and give him as much time as possible. With KI, it seems more of a guy who needs as much time as possible.

[mkline09]

If Duke doesn't win the ACC Tourney last year, even with a co-ACC regular season (which doesn't mean what it use to) they wouldn't have gotten a No. 1 seed. The same issue as this year. If Duke wants a No. 1 seed they have to win the Tourney or at least win the Regular season Championship and get to the tourney finals, but I think they still have to win it in another down year for the ACC.

[Indoor66]

If Duke doesn't win the ACC Tourney last year, even with a co-ACC regular season (which doesn't mean what it use to) they wouldn't have gotten a No. 1 seed. The same issue as this year. If Duke wants a No. 1 seed they have to win the Tourney or at least win the Regular season Championship and get to the tourney finals, but I think they still have to win it in another down year for the ACC.

I do not understand you post. This thread is about the Tourny.

[rthomas]

Saying the ACC Tournament doesn't mean anything is like USC saying the Rose Bowl doesn't mean anything.

[dcdevil2009]

It definitely matters, the question is how much it matters? would you rather go 0-2 against UNC and win the ACC tournament (without playing UNC) or 2-0 and lose the ACCT and sweep UNC? What about Maryland? Or how about losing in the ACCT and making the sweet 16, elite 8, or final four?

[killerleft]

The Tourney champ is the official ACC Champion. The winner is extended the ACC's automatic bye into the NCAA tournament.

We have many banners celebrating these championships. They look very impressive in the rafters if you haven't seen them. As a set, all the Duke banners (including four extra special ones) help make Cameron Indoor Stadium one of the coolest places on Earth.

They matter very much. They cause chill bumps on the skin of Blue Devil Fans. Heck, I bet they have caused chill bumps on many non-Duke fans who visit.

You shouldn't have to ask.

[epoulsen]

Agreed, UNC fans "don't care" about the ACC Title because they don't win it, NC State fans will say the same thing. It's easy to not care about something that never really involves you or your program. 8 of the last 12 titles have gone to Duke, that is incredible, when they say they don't care they are trying to downplay Duke's dominant stature over the ACC for the last decade. State fans, if they won it, would never let you hear the end of it. UNC fans probably do view it the same way we do, ie something to be proud of and put a smile on your face for the next day or two, but also a great momentum builder going into the NCAAT. I don't care what other fans say though, we (and every other team) should always try and win the ACC championship if not for pride then because it's another game and we want to win every single game.

I'm not sure how Kyrie figures into this discussion, if he returns it will be when both he and the staff feel he is ready; the seeding that we want will not play any part in that decision.

[sagegrouse]

The ACC champion is the winner of the ACC tournament.

Saying the ACC tournament does not matter is like saying the ACC doesn't matter and that the 17-19 games against ACC opponents are merely an elaborate ritual to determine seeding in the NCAA tournament.

Saying the ACC tournament doesn't matter is like saying, "If I can win the NCAAs, I don't care if I lose to the guys in the neighborhood." R-i-i-i-ght!

"Saying" the ACC tournament doesn't matter is thinking: "Duke wins it almost every year [9 of the last 12]; therefore, I have to say it doesn't matter, or I have to admit that Duke rules the roost in the ACC."

sagegrouse

[Cameron]

I will take it one step further. Saying the ACC Tournament doesn't matter is the same as a jumbo jet passenger saying the landing doesn't matter. Thank you for almost taking me to my destination. I had a real blast; however, you can crash the plane into that mountain now.

The ACC Tournament crowns the ACC Champion. Per the conference by-laws. Because of this, and even moreso now that league play consists of an unbalanced schedule, the ACC Tournament means decidedly more than the regular-season "cloth award" winner. Compared to the trophy imprinted with "ACC Champion" that will be won next weekend at the Greensboro Coliseum, the Cliff Ellis first-place finisher banner that is handed out each regular season is on par with "who won the conference batting title in baseball" in its importance as a determiner of top ACC basketball team.

Give me the ACC championship each and every time over a cloth that, when not chaperoned by the tournament title, in reality reads Not good enough.

[superdave]

If we dont win the ACC tourney then people wont give us credit for being the best team in the ACC this year. We are the best. We want the hardware to prove it.

Also, we'd slide to a #2 seed. Since 1985, 18 #1's have won the NCAAs and 6 #2's have won. So it matters in that regard too.

[rthomas]

If I remember correctly there was a year when Duke won the ACC Tournament and decided not to cut down the nets citing "unfinished business". The team got beat early in the NCAA and never got to cut down any net. Since then, Coach K has had the philosophy to cut down the nets when they can.

Am I remembering this correctly?

[superdave]

If I remember correctly there was a year when Duke won the ACC Tournament and decided not to cut down the nets citing "unfinished business". The team got beat early in the NCAA and never got to cut down any net. Since then, Coach K has had the philosophy to cut down the nets when they can.

Am I remembering this correctly?

I thought I remembered that happening in 1989 where they did not cut down the Regionals nets then lost to Seton Hall the next game. Robert Brickey got tackled out of bounds....bad times were had by all.

[Olympic Fan]

If I remember correctly there was a year when Duke won the ACC Tournament and decided not to cut down the nets citing "unfinished business". The team got beat early in the NCAA and never got to cut down any net. Since then, Coach K has had the philosophy to cut down the nets when they can.

Am I remembering this correctly?

No ... the not cutting the nets occurred after winning the East Regional ... not sure when exactly, but it was 1989 or 1990 -- back when we were being called the Buffalo Bills of college basketball for the ACC for always going to the Final Four and not winning it. It was a mistake and K realized it, stating that we need to celebrate every championship along the way.

The team that refused to cuit down the nets after winning the ACC championship was UNC in 1994 -- then they went out and became the first UNC team not to reach the Sweet 16 in 14 years!

UNC fans claim the tournament doesn't matter because Roy feels that way. He once bragged that none of his Final Four teams had won their conference tournament (a streak that was broken in 2008, although the 2009 national champs lost in the ACC Tourney). Under Roy-boy's watch, UNC has fallen behind Duke in the number of ACC championships ... so now it doesn't matter to them. It's the same UNC logic that's used when they lose a recruit -- we didn't want him anyway.

Well, guess what boys and girls -- the tournament winner is THE ACC champion. The team that finishes first in the regular season is merely "the regular season champion". It's not as significant as an NCAA title or even a Final Four appearance, but it's a bigger deal than finishing first in the regular season.

Most sports determine their champions in postseason. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays had the best record in the American League last year. Can they put up a banner and call themselves the American League champions? No, they may have finished with the best record over 162 games, but they lost a short playoff series to the Texas Rangers. The Phillies had the best record in the NL. Guess what, they lost a short series to the Giants and now the Giants are the NL champs.

It's about championships. Enjoy each step along the way. Yeah, I want to win the ACC regulars season title. But I want to win the real title even more. Then I want to win the regional championship even more than that. Then I want to win the national championship to top it all.

The next time you here a UNC fan say it doesn't matter, just smile because that's more evidence of how much Duke's dominance of the event is hurting them.

[Matches]

It matters but its significance in terms of NCAA seeding has been muted in recent years. Remember even as late as 2004 you could see Maryland go from on the bubble to a 4-seed with an ACCT run. That seems almost quaint today.

Being the ACC Champion has value, of course. But the difference between winning the ACCT and losing in the ACCT finals probably is minimal in terms of NCAAT seeding.

[oldnavy]

In the big picture of life here on earth and eternaly none of it matters.

BUT in the practical here and now it matters a lot!!

* it would be a goal reached for the season
* it makes a difference in the NCAAT seeding
* I think the kids get a ring for it (not sure)
* If UNC wins, you can bet it will matter, in fact it will be more important than anything that happened all year
* it gives K one more title for his unbelievable legacy
* it deprives Roy of a title for his legacy

And last but not least I need a new T-shirt, so YES IT MATTERS!

[jimsumner]

If I remember correctly there was a year when Duke won the ACC Tournament and decided not to cut down the nets citing "unfinished business". The team got beat early in the NCAA and never got to cut down any net. Since then, Coach K has had the philosophy to cut down the nets when they can.

Am I remembering this correctly?

It was the 1989 Regional title in which Duke declined to cut down the nets.

No K-coached Duke team has ever won an ACC Tournament and then lost in the NCAAs prior to the Sweet Sixteen. The early outs--1984, 1985, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2007 and 2008--came following ACC tournaments in which Duke did not win. In fact, 1984 was the only one of those in which Duke won more than one ACCT game.

Nine of K's 11 Final Fours came after ACC Tournaments in which Duke played three games. The exceptions are 1990 and 1994, when Duke lost in the semis. Three of Duke's four NCAA titles were preceded by an ACC Tournament championship.

Not much support in that data set for the idea that playing three games in the ACCT is bad for a deep NCAAT run.

[uh_no]

In his pre game team talk with the crazies he emphasized the importance of winning championships.

"You don't win one of those (pointing to Nat'l champ banners) without one of those (pointing to ACC banners)"

yeah they're important

[Billy Dat]

As a Duke fan, I start every year hoping that the team can accomplish 4 goals:

-Win the ACC regular season
-Win the ACC tournament
-Make the Final Four
-Win the National Championship

I always think the teams that can do at least one of those 4 have made their mark. So, while I agree in the unbalanced sched era it is less meaningful, it is still an important milestone that marks Duke teams.

It goes without saying that the fact that, at the start of every nearly year, we can set our hopes on all four of those goals makes being a Duke fan sublime.

[VaDukie]

In addition to all of the good reasons already listed, as a fan I'd say it matters because Selection Sunday is a lot more fun to watch when Duke is on a roll. Its nice to have that moment to celebrate, take a deep breath, and then prepare mentally for the fact that every game could be our last.

For the team, it's clear looking at our last two Championship teams that the ACC Tournament played a big role in the team's development. 2001 proved that our new lineup was not a fluke. Our squeaker over Maryland and our beatdown of UNC showed that our team was getting better. In 2010 we won every game ugly, and although it looked unimpressive at the time now its clear that it prepared us for the grind it out games we had against Purdue, Baylor, and of course Butler. We learned to make the winning plays that we didn't in College Park and we were a better team because of it.

On the other side, the early exits in 07 and 08 were foreshadowed by poor showings in the ACC Tournament. And losing the late lead against Maryland in 04 is eerily similar to the UConn game :(

[camion]

As a Duke fan, I start every year hoping that the team can accomplish 4 goals:

-Win the ACC regular season
-Win the ACC tournament
-Make the Final Four
-Win the National Championship

I always think the teams that can do at least one of those 4 have made their mark. So, while I agree in the unbalanced sched era it is less meaningful, it is still an important milestone that marks Duke teams.

It goes without saying that the fact that, at the start of every nearly year, we can set our hopes on all four of those goals makes being a Duke fan sublime.

It all matters. It's all part of the quest. Any and all victories and championships should be celebrated. (Just don't hang a banner for every dadgum game.)

As a wise person once indicated, telling yourself that a game doesn't matter is giving yourself an excuse to lose. It can become a habit.

If I were given a choice between an ACC championship and an NCAA championship I would take the NCAA trophy. It's a false choice though. Coasting in the ACC gets you nothing in the next tournament.

[uh_no]

As a Duke fan, I start every year hoping that the team can accomplish 4 goals:

-Win the ACC regular season
-Win the ACC tournament
-Make the Final Four
-Win the National Championship

I always think the teams that can do at least one of those 4 have made their mark. So, while I agree in the unbalanced sched era it is less meaningful, it is still an important milestone that marks Duke teams.

It goes without saying that the fact that, at the start of every nearly year, we can set our hopes on all four of those goals makes being a Duke fan sublime.

I've been waiting for a Duke team to only succeed at the last goal!

[Matches]

I've been waiting for a Duke team to only succeed at the last goal!

It'll be kind of tough to win the NC without making the Final 4, but if anyone can pull it off, it's K! :)

[COYS]

I really think a big turning point for last year's crop of seniors was the 2009 ACC Title. As a group, they had come up short in the post season the previous two years, whether it be in the ACC tourney or the NCAA tourney. That they won in 2009 gave them championship experience and confidence leading into the 2010 season . . . even with Villanova. 2007 was a disappointment, 2008 had a lot of success that wouldn't make it to the record books, but 2009, despite the end of the season, left the team with an accomplishment it could look back on and be proud of. So, to sum up my answer, yes, the ACCT definitely matters!

[uh_no]

It'll be kind of tough to win the NC without making the Final 4, but if anyone can pull it off, it's K! :)

Yeah. I get the point, and I agree with your post. I always make fun of things like that. For instance, everyone was excited about duke being both regional and national champions, and while that's awesome, EVERY national champion must necessarily be the regional champion....so its kind of assumed/included.

[UrinalCake]

Agreed, UNC fans "don't care" about the ACC Title because they don't win it, NC State fans will say the same thing.

I hope NC State cares about the ACCT, because it's the only way they're getting into the NCAAT. Historically they've done pretty well in the ACCT, though I don't see it happening this year.

Got a question for the history buffs - since the ACC began having multiple berths in the NCAAT, has there ever been a case where a team won the ACC tournament that probably wouldn't have otherwise made the NCAAT? I know NC State made it to the final game a few years ago, but has the ACCT actually gotten anyone in that wouldn't otherwise have received a bid?

[shoutingncu]

Carolina fans don't get their "dismissal" of the ACC Tournament from Roy, but from Dean, who if I'm not mistaken, was pretty dominant in winning it before at large teams made the NCAA's. In other words, Dean, his successor and their fans place the most importance on whatever is necessary to make the NCAA's. Now, if seeding is at stake (this year, for instance), then it carries more weight. That said, of course it means something... it's another championship.

Now... the argument that it is the conference champion... well, that's true, of course. But does that mean that the ACC Champion is the best team in the ACC? And in the big picture, which would you rather be known for, having the trophy as ACC Champion or being the best team in a given year? See: 1991, 2009, arguably 2011 if someone other than Duke or Carolina win.

[MarkD83]

Now... the argument that it is the conference champion... well, that's true, of course. But does that mean that the ACC Champion is the best team in the ACC? And in the big picture, which would you rather be known for, having the trophy as ACC Champion or being the best team in a given year? See: 1991, 2009, arguably 2011 if someone other than Duke or Carolina win.

When you walk into the Duke Hall of Fame and see the 18 ACC Championship trophies you don't think about who was the best team in each of those years. Duke was the best team because they have the trophy in their trophy case.

Think of it this way. Ten years from now someone will ask who was the best team in the nation in 2010. The answer will be who has the trophy...Duke. Likewise, who was the best team in the ACC in 2010 will be answered by who has the trophy...Duke.

[shoutingncu]

Think of it this way. Ten years from now someone will ask who was the best team in the nation in 2010. The answer will be who has the trophy...Duke. Likewise, who was the best team in the ACC in 2010 will be answered by who has the trophy...Duke.

Absolutely couldn't disagree more. So in nine years, someone will ask who the best team in the ACC of 2009 was and the answer will be Duke? I hope whoever is asked the question uses a more informed answer. Hell, twenty years later, I'm pretty sure the best conference team of 1991 was not the ACC Champion.

Now for what it's worth, I think the answers to 2010 will remain the same.

[Kedsy]

I hope NC State cares about the ACCT, because it's the only way they're getting into the NCAAT. Historically they've done pretty well in the ACCT, though I don't see it happening this year.

Got a question for the history buffs - since the ACC began having multiple berths in the NCAAT, has there ever been a case where a team won the ACC tournament that probably wouldn't have otherwise made the NCAAT? I know NC State made it to the final game a few years ago, but has the ACCT actually gotten anyone in that wouldn't otherwise have received a bid?

1983 NC State -- eventual national champions.

1978 Duke Blue Devils (I think only 2 per conference were allowed then, but it was still multiple berths) -- eventual national finalist

[Olympic Fan]

Carolina fans don't get their "dismissal" of the ACC Tournament from Roy, but from Dean, who if I'm not mistaken, was pretty dominant in winning it before at large teams made the NCAA's. In other words, Dean, his successor and their fans place the most importance on whatever is necessary to make the NCAA's. Now, if seeding is at stake (this year, for instance), then it carries more weight. That said, of course it means something... it's another championship.

Now... the argument that it is the conference champion... well, that's true, of course. But does that mean that the ACC Champion is the best team in the ACC? And in the big picture, which would you rather be known for, having the trophy as ACC Champion or being the best team in a given year? See: 1991, 2009, arguably 2011 if someone other than Duke or Carolina win.

It's true that Dean never liked the tourney. He focused on it because when he started, you had to win the tiournament to get an NCAA bid.

He claims that after winning the national title in 1982, he started de-emphasizing the ACC Tournament. He'd use the time before the tourney to rest his players and to work on fundamentals, rather than get them sharp for the three-day ACC war.

Well, as a result, UNC went six years without an ACC title, despite being the best team in the ACC most of those years. He had unbeaten ACC teams in 1984 and 1987 that failed to win the title. Those teams all made the NCAA Sweet 16, but none of them returned to the Final Four.

He said that he changed his focus before the 1988 tournament, returning to his old strategy of preparing for the tourney like it was necessary to get into the NCAA. He said that he learnedn that UNC fans were disturbed by his lack os emphasis on the tournament ... and he realized that downplaying it was not helping his team prepare for the NCAA.

That led to an absolute war in the 1988 finals, that Duke won and another war in 1989 that UNC won. The Heels won again in 1991, 1994 and '97 under Dean.

Unlike Roy, Dean never went public with his contempt for the ACC Tournament (only revealing his de-emphasis after he re-emphasized it).

As for the best team argument, who is to say which is the best team? The team that wins the championship is the best team. And you win the championship by winning the tournament.

You get a lot of satisfaction in saying that Duke was the "best team" in the nation in 1999? In 2002? Hey, they finished No. 1 both those years. So what if they lost in the tourney. It was just a fluke. I'm sure Vegas knows they were the "best team" in 1991 and it was only a fluke they lost to Duke in the Final Four. Who needs a championship when you know you are "the best team"?

[alteran]

I hope NC State cares about the ACCT, because it's the only way they're getting into the NCAAT. Historically they've done pretty well in the ACCT, though I don't see it happening this year.

Got a question for the history buffs - since the ACC began having multiple berths in the NCAAT, has there ever been a case where a team won the ACC tournament that probably wouldn't have otherwise made the NCAAT? I know NC State made it to the final game a few years ago, but has the ACCT actually gotten anyone in that wouldn't otherwise have received a bid?

Duke '78?

[Chitowndevil]

It was the 1989 Regional title in which Duke declined to cut down the nets.

No K-coached Duke team has ever won an ACC Tournament and then lost in the NCAAs prior to the Sweet Sixteen. The early outs--1984, 1985, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2007 and 2008--came following ACC tournaments in which Duke did not win. In fact, 1984 was the only one of those in which Duke won more than one ACCT game.

Nine of K's 11 Final Fours came after ACC Tournaments in which Duke played three games. The exceptions are 1990 and 1994, when Duke lost in the semis. Three of Duke's four NCAA titles were preceded by an ACC Tournament championship.

Not much support in that data set for the idea that playing three games in the ACCT is bad for a deep NCAAT run.

Wow. This should have ended the discussion in my opinion!

Actually I think this discussion should have ended last season. Winning the ACC Tournament was instrumental in Duke's #1 seed and resulting tournament draw. Fun fact: Of the last 25 NCAA tournaments, 18 were won by #1 seeded teams.

[rthomas]

He had unbeaten ACC teams in 1984 and 1987 that failed to win the title.

Not making an excuse for El Deano, but UNC's 1984 team had to go up against arguably the best player ever in the ACC and at the time when he was hitting his absolute peak of greatness.

No. Wait. Md played Duke. in the final.

[jimsumner]

1983 NC State -- eventual national champions.

1978 Duke Blue Devils (I think only 2 per conference were allowed then, but it was still multiple berths) -- eventual national finalist

State would not have made the 1983 NCAAs had they lost in the first round of the ACCs. One win put them on the bubble, two put them in. Had they lost to UVA in the finals, they almost certainly would have made the NCAAs.

The two-teams-per-conference-years depend a lot on context. In those five years, the regular-season champ won only in 1977 and 1979, both Carolina and Carolina was co-champs with Duke in 1979. Assume the regular-season champ is in.

Maryland finished first in 1975 and lost to State in the semis. State lost to Carolina in the finals. Maryland and Carolina went. Had Maryland defeated State and then defeated Carolina in the title game, who knows? But, Carolina needed to win the title game against the opponent it faced.

1976-Virginia had no chance of going without a win.

1978-again, depends of context. UNC won the regular-season and lost to Wake in the semis. Second-place Duke beat Wake in the title game. A Wake win and Duke goes to the NIT. Had Duke and Carolina met in the title game, they both would have gone. Again, Duke had to win the title game against the opponent it faced.

Since, 1980, when the NCAAs eliminated any limits on teams per conference, the only team that absolutely had to win the ACCT to advance was NC State in 1987.

That doesn't mean that teams like 2010 Georgia Tech haven't played their way in or teams like 2010 Virginia Tech haven't played their way out. Lots of teams will be going to Greensboro next week needing a big week.

[Matches]

Got a question for the history buffs - since the ACC began having multiple berths in the NCAAT, has there ever been a case where a team won the ACC tournament that probably wouldn't have otherwise made the NCAAT? I know NC State made it to the final game a few years ago, but has the ACCT actually gotten anyone in that wouldn't otherwise have received a bid?

N.C. State in '87 was a clear one. Arguably Georgia Tech in '93.

[jimsumner]

Not making an excuse for El Deano, but UNC's 1984 team had to go up against arguably the best player ever in the ACC and at the time when he was hitting his absolute peak of greatness.

No. Wait. Md played Duke. in the final.

UNC lost to Duke in 1984.

[Olympic Fan]

I don't know who the player who was "arguably" the ACC's best player was in 1984, but the player was UNARGUABLY the ACC's best played his last season in 1975.

[MarkD83]

Absolutely couldn't disagree more. So in nine years, someone will ask who the best team in the ACC of 2009 was and the answer will be Duke? I hope whoever is asked the question uses a more informed answer. Hell, twenty years later, I'm pretty sure the best conference team of 1991 was not the ACC Champion.

Now for what it's worth, I think the answers to 2010 will remain the same.

NCAA championships trump ACC championships. However, if you don't have a trophy to point to how do you really decide. Lets pick a year where an ACC team did not win the NCAAs and go back about 20 or so years and make it un-biased (not UNC or Duke). In 1995 and 1996 Duke was not so good. I can't remember how good UNC was but Wake won the ACC Tournament both years and I can look that up. So without making subjective arguements Wake had to be the best team in the ACC in 1995 and 1996.

Memories fade but the trophies don't.

[Acymetric]

NCAA championships trump ACC championships. However, if you don't have a trophy to point to how do you really decide. Lets pick a year where an ACC team did not win the NCAAs and go back about 20 or so years and make it un-biased (not UNC or Duke). In 1995 and 1996 Duke was not so good. I can't remember how good UNC was but Wake won the ACC Tournament both years and I can look that up. So without making subjective arguements Wake had to be the best team in the ACC in 1995 and 1996.

Memories fade but the trophies don't.

Here's another way to look at it...who cares who's "best." That doesn't matter in sports, what matters is who wins.

[Exiled_Devil]

I was having a Duke/UNC debate with a friend who wants to win and thinks that if UNC wins the ACC tourny that will bump them up a bit in NCAA. All I can remember from tar hole fans is that the ACC tourny does not matter, now they need it, it will matter. I think I can recall Roy saying he does not care about it either. So why bring back Kyrie if none of this matters? Wait til NCAA round 2 like UNC did with Ty a few years ago......

Please forgive me if this was posted some place else and move or delete it if needed.

Yes, the ACC tourney matters. Also, other neutral court victories matter. UNC fans will try to tell you that games at MSG don't count, either. They have this funny math that is coated with pine sap.

[Indoor66]

Here's another way to look at it...who cares who's "best." That doesn't matter in sports, what matters is who wins.

You got it there. It ain't how, it's how many.

[shoutingncu]

You got it there. It ain't how, it's how many.

So Carolina's better than Duke, then. We can all agree on that by the overall numbers, yes?

[killerleft]

So Carolina's better than Duke, then. We can all agree on that by the overall numbers, yes?

At what? Looking back through the dim days of Whenevermore? Y'all still claiming that bakery title?

[DevilWearsPrada]

ACC tourney matters alot! I am watching the Girls ACC tourney now.

Coach K has always said Winning Championships is what Duke Basketball is about. Winning games, winning tournaments, cutting down the nets, hanging banners, receiving watches and rings, and hanging Retired Jerseys in the rafters of Cameron.

And one of the Sheenisms (Charlie Sheen)..... WINNING !

[Reilly]

....

And one of the Sheenisms (Charlie Sheen)..... WINNING !

Patrick Davidson had tiger blood and Adonis DNA.

[DevilWearsPrada]

Patrick Davidson had tiger blood and Adonis DNA.

That really made me giggle!

Lets Win some Championships, cut some nets, hang some banners, and celebrate! Like Sheen says WINNING WINNING WINNING

[shoutingncu]

You got it there. It ain't how, it's how many.


At what? Looking back through the dim days of Whenevermore? Y'all still claiming that bakery title?

It ain't when, it's how many.

And sure, let's count the bakery title. We have one to your zero. (Shamefully, we also have one banner hanging for it).

We also have one more actual championship than you.

And more overall wins.

And more head-to-head wins.

Sorry... there was basketball before Coach K.

[Bob Green]

Sorry... there was basketball before Coach K.

You are correct. When I first started watching Duke basketball there was this fellow named Vic Bubas on the sideline in Durham.

[uh_no]

Sorry... there was basketball before Coach K.

K-4
Dean-2

ouch

[ACCBBallFan]

In the big picture of life here on earth and eternaly none of it matters.

BUT in the practical here and now it matters a lot!!

* it would be a goal reached for the season
* it makes a difference in the NCAAT seeding
* I think the kids get a ring for it (not sure)
* If UNC wins, you can bet it will matter, in fact it will be more important than anything that happened all year
* it gives K one more title for his unbelievable legacy
* it deprives Roy of a title for his legacy

And last but not least I need a new T-shirt, so YES IT MATTERS!None of the Sophs except Curry who is an asterisk and none of the frosh have ever lost a college tournament, just Miles, Nolan and Singler.

I actually do not think it matters from a who wins the tourney standpoint, whether Duke or UNC is the #1 or the #2 seed. Obviously it matter for bragging rights.

Depending on whether you believe Pomeroy projections, Duke's bracket would be Miami/UVA, BC/Clemson and then the finals.

UNC bracket would be MD/NC St, then FSU/VA Tech and then the finals.

If instead all home teams were to win their remaining games, as tends to happen in ACC this year:

UNC would face UVA/St, then Clemson/BC and then the finals
Duke would face MD/Miami, FSU/VA T and then the finals.

After all the injuries once you get past Duke and UNC at top and GA Tech and Wake at bottom, the middle 8 are fairly even.

Of course last year all the underdogs won the early rounds anyway.

[Newton_14]

I don't know who the player who was "arguably" the ACC's best player was in 1984, but the player was UNARGUABLY the ACC's best played his last season in 1975.

I second, third, and fourth that sentiment. There is no argument. DT is the best ever in the history of the ACC, and it is not close. Behind him I would have to pencil in Laettner.

But DT was THE MAN. (Darn shame the dunk was not allowed back then)

[Duvall]

It ain't when, it's how many.

And sure, let's count the bakery title. We have one to your zero. (Shamefully, we also have one banner hanging for it).

We also have one more actual championship than you.

And more overall wins.

And more head-to-head wins.

Sorry... there was basketball before Coach K.

Congratulations on a very successful 1920s. You must be very proud.

[shoutingncu]

K-4
Dean-2

ouch

There's no ouch there. The objective numbers of K far surpass Dean... and counting.

In fact, that's a good point to bring up.

I am arguing that simple numbers do not tell the whole story. The ACC Champion (an objective "number," if you will) is undebatable. The best team in the ACC for a given year, however, is more open to interpretation in my opinion.

Carolina fans had ten years to come to terms with K having more championships than Dean, and the last few years to see the inevitable all time wins record fall. But before championship four, there was a semi-reasonable argument that Dean was a better coach. No need to re-hash it here as it is highly subjective in the first place. But that all changed last year. With win #4, K made it nearly impossible to argue that he is not better than Dean. (If anyone has one of the arguments, I'd love to hear it, btw).

Conversely, even without comparing to K... Dean is still considered one of the greatest coaches of all time, but he only won the two national championships. If championships are all that matter, he should not be as high in the discussion.

So my whole argument is that you have to look at the whole body of work, and see the context in which it is to be judged... whether that be ACC Champion versus Best Team, or Coach K's remarkable numbers cementing him ahead of Dean.

This year, if one of the middle of the road ACC teams wins the tournament next week, I would argue that the best team in the conference year 2011 did not win the tournament. Last year, had the Butler shot fallen, I would argue that the best team in the nation did not win the tournament. (Full disclosure, I would not be arguing that Duke was the best team in that scenario, merely that a great Cinderella story happened, and to make it so, the best team, whether it would have been Duke, Kentucky or Kansas, would have lost somewhere along the way).

Was George Mason one of the four best teams in 2006? Or Carolina in 2000? Yet both have regional championships to prove that they were.

[JohnGalt]

I am arguing that simple numbers do not tell the whole story. The ACC Champion (an objective "number," if you will) is undebatable. The best team in the ACC for a given year, however, is more open to interpretation in my opinion.
...
Was George Mason one of the four best teams in 2006? Or Carolina in 2000? Yet both have regional championships to prove that they were.

You're being silly. Why argue 'best' when you can't argue 'champion'?

Maybe we should drop the tournys? Because, evidently, they're pointless.

[cspan37421]

I think shoutingncu is making a reasonable point. It seems absurd, to me, to say that the regular season does not matter at all, except as a means to get to the NCAAT, and winning the NCAAT is all that matters. Who among Duke fans would have endorsed that argument before 1991? Did we not heartily celebrate the 1986 team though they fell in the NCAA Final? Seems to me I have a yearbook with a double-foldout of the opening sequence of that title game, boldly proclaiming "The Winningest Team In The History Of College Basketball". I always thought that while true, it was a bit awkward, because we weren't champions that year.

Like most die hard Duke fans, for 5 years I held in high esteem that indicator of greatness until the 1991 title gave us a more definitive indicator to showcase. Were we decieved? Were we not a great team ... maybe the greatest team in college basketball that year? If so, then you have to give shoutingncu some credit. If not, what do you say to Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, David Henderson, Jay Bilas, even Weldon Williams... you guys were not the best over the course of the year because you lost in the final?

Should we take down our "#1 Final National Ranking" banners for years such as 1986 and 1999?

I think it is correct to note that "the best team" is, in fact, inherently subjective, whereas the "ACC/NCAA tournament champion" is not. Both are valid, but different, measures of greatness, one is subjective [1], one is not. I'm OK with that. And I think that until we started winning NCAAT titles in 1991, most Duke fans were too. So let's be honest with ourselves here.

[1] Although, the determination is typically made by a subjective weighting of objective measures.

[shoutingncu]

Congratulations on being the best team in conference, 2011.

You'll forgive me if I hope both teams lose around the same time in the coming weeks.

[AZLA]

If the ACCT doesn't matter to UNC fans then why do they take up nearly all the seats in the championship game and stay around to root against Duke in all the earlier games.

Oh, it matters.

Congrats Duke. Hoist another well deserved banner!

[Indoor66]

Congratulations on being the best team in conference, 2011.

You'll forgive me if I hope both teams lose around the same time in the coming weeks.

Thanks, but we don't want to lose. :cool:

[devildeac]

19-17.

Darn right it matters.

#1 seed coming tonight?
:cool:

[shoutingncu]

Thanks, but we don't want to lose. :cool:

And I don't want Carolina to be the last team to have beaten you this year... ;)

[BleedsP287]

The ACCT matters. Most important games of the year except the NCAAT. We play to win Championships. And the two biggest are the ACC and NCAAT.