Future ACCT format?

[throatybeard]

Somebody 'splain me how the heck the ACCT is gonna work When Pittsburgh and Syracuse join. The SECT too, for that matter.

Fourteen is not a power of two, and worse, it's not even a multiple of four. If you have a multiple of four, you can create semi-sensible looking multiple preliminary rounds, like TH in the ACCT or TU and W in the Big East.

I looked for a league with fourteen teams and the only one I could find is the misnomered Atlantic 10. Their solution to the problem is to disqualify the last two teams in the standings and just play a twelve-team tournament.

The MEAC has an even sillier number, thirteen. Here's their busted up bracket:

http://www.meachoops.com/media/2011-12/pdf/2012bracket_m.pdf

So the solution is to give only the top three seeds byes; four has to play a play-in game against thirteen, and five against twelve. You have five games in the preliminary round, which is fairly ridiculous. Five is a whole lot of games to play in one day at the same site. That erases the dinnertime intermission the day the preliminary games are played.

The MEAC format leads me to believe that the only way to run a fourteen team tournament is to give just the top two seeds byes. Three faces fourteen in the preliminary round and four faces thireteen. Five faces twelve as they presently do, et cetera.

It's a huge disadvantage to have to play four straight days instead of three, so this would be bad news for the three and four seeds. You'd probably get [even] more tournaments won by the one and two seeds. Since the addition of Florida State to the league, nobody has ever won the ACCT playing four days in a row, if I'm not mistaken. If memory serves, State made it to the final in 1997 and in 2007, but lost their fourth game on Sunday, both times to Carolina. I dont really pay attention to other conference tournaments besides the ACC and SEC, and I guess Arch Madness a bit, so I don't know how common it is in the 12-team leagues for teams seeded fifth or lower to win four days in a row. They're generally weaker squads than the top four, anyway. UConn somehow won the Big East Tournament last year plying five days in a row. Crazy. But I bet it doesn't happen a lot.

The fourteen-team format seems suboptimal to me for a three reasons. 1) Those last two teams are lousy, so who wants to see them play anyway? 2) Third or fourth place in a twelve- or fourteen-team league is a finish good enough to warrant a bye. And 3), The rest of the league already hates how Duke and Carolina dominate the league--Duke and Carolina finish first or second a lot already, so in practice, having just two byes instead of four is going to further advatage Duke and Carolina a lot of the time.

I don't have a vote, but if I did, mine would be to keep the same format, and tell Boston College and Wake Forest, or whoever, to go fly a kite.

[CDu]

I have no problem with a tournament format that provides an additional advantage to the #1 and #2 seeds. Those teams earned that by doing the best in the regular season. Unbalanced schedules may occasionally result in the #3 team getting hosed in favor of the #2 team. But I'm guessing that's not a common outcome; the top 2 teams are usually the two best in the conference. So I'm all for a system that increases the likelihood that the two best teams over the course of the season play for the conference championship.

I'm also okay with the idea of booting the bottom two teams. If you finish 13th or 14th in the conference, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of claiming the championship. In fact, it might even help some of those teams sneak into a second/third-tier postseason tournament by avoiding bad losses.

In other words, I'd be fine with either the "top 2 get byes" or "bottom 2 get booted" scenario. Neither seems like much to complain about in my opinion. One might stink for the #3 or #4 seeds, but such is life in the world of the big (but not quite superbig) conferences.

[asbcheeks]

Having the 3-14 and 4-13 games on Wednesday gives the 3/4 seeds a day off prior to the QFinals and resolves the issue of trying to squeeze more than 4 games into a single day:

Wed
Game 1: 3 vs. 14 7pm
Game 2: 4 vs. 13 9pm

Thu
Game 3: 8 vs. 9 12pm
Game 4: 5 vs. 12 2pm
Game 5: 7 vs. 10 7pm
Game 6: 6 vs. 11 9pm

Fri
Game 7: 1 vs. G3Winner 12pm
Game 8: G2Winner vs. G4Winner 2pm
Game 9: 2 vs. G5Winner 7pm
Game 10: G1Winner vs. G6Winner 9pm

Sat
Semifinals

Sun
Final

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

How about the last 4 play a play-in game on Tuesday at the higher seed's home site. Then give a day of rest before starting the tournament as it is now. The winners play the #5 and #6 seeds.

This would be similar to the NCAA tournament's treament of the "First Four" teams, right?

[Duvall]

Somebody 'splain me how the heck the ACCT is gonna work When Pittsburgh and Syracuse join. The SECT too, for that matter.

Fourteen is not a power of two, and worse, it's not even a multiple of four. If you have a multiple of four, you can create semi-sensible looking multiple preliminary rounds, like TH in the ACCT or TU and W in the Big East.

I looked for a league with fourteen teams and the only one I could find is the misnomered Atlantic 10. Their solution to the problem is to disqualify the last two teams in the standings and just play a twelve-team tournament.

The MEAC has an even sillier number, thirteen. Here's their busted up bracket:

http://www.meachoops.com/media/2011-12/pdf/2012bracket_m.pdf

So the solution is to give only the top three seeds byes; four has to play a play-in game against thirteen, and five against twelve. You have five games in the preliminary round, which is fairly ridiculous. Five is a whole lot of games to play in one day at the same site. That erases the dinnertime intermission the day the preliminary games are played.

The MEAC format leads me to believe that the only way to run a fourteen team tournament is to give just the top two seeds byes. Three faces fourteen in the preliminary round and four faces thireteen. Five faces twelve as they presently do, et cetera.

With six games on Thursday, from dawn to midnight? I guess it's possible, but it seems like having play-in games for the bottom four seeds on Tuesday would be easier to administer. Let 11 host 14 and 12 host 13, and then play a regular 12-team skein starting Thursday.

[JasonEvans]

Having the 3-14 and 4-13 games on Wednesday gives the 3/4 seeds a day off prior to the QFinals and resolves the issue of trying to squeeze more than 4 games into a single day:

Wed
Game 1: 3 vs. 14 7pm
Game 2: 4 vs. 13 9pm

Thu
Game 3: 8 vs. 9 12pm
Game 4: 5 vs. 12 2pm
Game 5: 7 vs. 10 7pm
Game 6: 6 vs. 11 9pm

Fri
Game 7: 1 vs. G3Winner 12pm
Game 8: G2Winner vs. G4Winner 2pm
Game 9: 2 vs. G5Winner 7pm
Game 10: G1Winner vs. G6Winner 9pm

Sat
Semifinals

Sun
Final

The above scenario makes the most sense and seems to be the likely scenario for the ACC to pursue.

-Jason "good work, asbcheeks - pitchfork points for you" Evans

[burnspbesq]

... that all 14 teams have to participate? Make it like the ACC tournament in baseball: only the top eight make the tournament. Everybody else stays home.

[uh_no]

Having the 3-14 and 4-13 games on Wednesday gives the 3/4 seeds a day off prior to the QFinals and resolves the issue of trying to squeeze more than 4 games into a single day:

Wed
Game 1: 3 vs. 14 7pm
Game 2: 4 vs. 13 9pm

Thu
Game 3: 8 vs. 9 12pm
Game 4: 5 vs. 12 2pm
Game 5: 7 vs. 10 7pm
Game 6: 6 vs. 11 9pm

Fri
Game 7: 1 vs. G3Winner 12pm
Game 8: G2Winner vs. G4Winner 2pm
Game 9: 2 vs. G5Winner 7pm
Game 10: G1Winner vs. G6Winner 9pm

Sat
Semifinals

Sun
Final

So we have:

2 single byes, if i'm counting correctly.

This is opposed to a format closer to the big east where we'd have

4 double byes
6 single byes
4 teams play the first day

Now aside from which format we'd all prefer, has anyone any info as to which direction the conference would go in?

I personally prefer the second format for two reasons:

1) It places more emphasis on the regular season. The better you do in the regular season, the better your chances of winning the title. That is true in the first model, but its more tiered in the second model. In the first way, unless you're in the top two spots in the conference, it doesn't matter...no bye....yeah there's better seeding....but the bye is huge. With the second way, we haven't made it harder for the top 2 teams to win the title, but we reward the top 4 teams, and somewhat reward the middle 6. The counter argument is that the top two teams are the only ones that should be rewarded. I counter that the top two teams are most likely fighting for the regular season title anyway, so it makes more sense from a overall "the games matter" standpoint for there to be a battler at the 3-4-5 teams for the byes, and also at the 9-10-11 for the bye. This gives the league more meaningful games down the stretch....for example the last game of the season between what was it state and vt? the other day would have not just been for seeding, but vt would have been playing for a bye as well....suddenly much more important.

2) it gives you more meaningful games in the tournament. Look at the first two games in the first layout....3-14 and 4-13.....wow....who really wants to watch those? The teams fans will, but they probably will be perennial blowouts, and won't garner too much national attention. COntrast that with the second way when you have 11-14 and 12-13, these probably will be bad teams, but the chances of them being really good games is a lot better. For a better idea, here is a stat i just made up: normalized seeding differential, or the average difference/game of the seeds of the two teams. Worst case is a perfect s curve bracket like the NCAA. Best case would be where you had 13-14, then winner of that plays 12, winner of that plays 11....and 1 only needs to win 1 game (the title game)

anyway, for the first method, the normalized seeding differential (nsd) is 4.4, whereas the nsd for the second is 3.2. You may have noticed that the only 2 games difference are the two in the first round....and the rest of the tournament the same, but either way, those two games are much more competitive...and giving those lower seeds a chance to win a game is a good way to get their fans to buy tickets.

3)it keeps all the same round on the same day....thats just preference...but i like things neat and orderly, and having all the games on the same day suits that

proponents for the other way?

[msdukie]

... that all 14 teams have to participate? Make it like the ACC tournament in baseball: only the top eight make the tournament. Everybody else stays home.

The ACC already announced that everyone would make the tournament went we went to 14. Besides, we all know we are ultimately going to 16, so the format will be easy then.

[hurleyfor3]

Now don't y'all go hating on the number 14. It's my favorite. Always has been. Just its very... fourteenness. We can do this.


How about the last 4 play a play-in game on Tuesday at the higher seed's home site. Then give a day of rest before starting the tournament as it is now. The winners play the #5 and #6 seeds.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26138-16-Team-Mechanics&p=519620#post519620

You'll be hearing from my lawyer soon.

[Jarhead]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the solution seems simple to me. The first round would would be a play-in game for all but the two top seeds. It would be played on the home courts of the the teams seeded third through eighth. The 6 winners would move into the second round of 8 teams at the tournament site. This may require some secondary reseeding, but that's no big deal. Another thing -- I'd play the first round Monday, and the rest on alternate days, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. If and when the conference goes to 16 schools, it becomes a four round tourney. ESPN will find a way to cover it, and everybody gets a day of rest between rounds. As I said, I may be missing something, but I like it. The only problem I see is the time away from classes.

[uh_no]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the solution seems simple to me. The first round would would be a play-in game for all but the two top seeds. It would be played on the home courts of the the teams seeded third through eighth. The 6 winners would move into the second round of 8 teams at the tournament site. This may require some secondary reseeding, but that's no big deal. Another thing -- I'd play the first round Monday, and the rest on alternate days, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. If and when the conference goes to 16 schools, it becomes a four round tourney. ESPN will find a way to cover it, and everybody gets a day of rest between rounds. As I said, I may be missing something, but I like it. The only problem I see is the time away from classes.

You can't have teams finding out on saturday where they will be playing on monday. At least for the play in games next tuesday, bubble teams can have contingency plans to get to dayton. Second, having alternate days is not good from a fan/ticket sales perspective. The more compact you can make the tournament, the more people will be able to attend.

[orrnot]

A nice byproduct of telling the 13/15 teams to stay home is that it might render some late or final regular season games meaningful for the teams at the bottom of the conference. Plus, Boston College could start hanging "ACC Tournament Participant" banners

[throatybeard]

Remember the standings in 1995? Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia and Maryland were all tied for first at 12-4. I forget how the tiebreakers went. If you have only two byes, two of those teams in the new scenario would have to play for days in a row.

[-bdbd]

Having the 3-14 and 4-13 games on Wednesday gives the 3/4 seeds a day off prior to the QFinals and resolves the issue of trying to squeeze more than 4 games into a single day:

Wed
Game 1: 3 vs. 14 7pm
Game 2: 4 vs. 13 9pm

Thu
Game 3: 8 vs. 9 12pm
Game 4: 5 vs. 12 2pm
Game 5: 7 vs. 10 7pm
Game 6: 6 vs. 11 9pm

Fri
Game 7: 1 vs. G3Winner 12pm
Game 8: G2Winner vs. G4Winner 2pm
Game 9: 2 vs. G5Winner 7pm
Game 10: G1Winner vs. G6Winner 9pm

Sat
Semifinals

Sun
Final

I agree with this thought process and was thinking along the same path. In effect, the 1 and 2 seeds get byes, and then the only question is do you play the other six "first round" games all on Thursday, or spread them out like this on Wed/Thurs. I think I like this a little more in terms of keeping Thursday to a managable 4 games day, and giving some small advantage to the 3rd and 4th place regualr season finishers.

Part of the complication to excluding some schools from the tournament is that many schools have been using ACCT tickets as incentives during the season to boosters. Would you just wait until Mar. 1 to distribute tix to the ACCT-qualifying schools for them to try to sell over a 4-5 day span preceding the event (and exclude tix from the last two schools and their fans)?? Given the "big event/happening" that the ACCT has become, I just don't see that as practicable.

[UrinalCake]

Ever since we went to 12 teams, the first day of the ACCT has produced some awful, borderline unwatchable games. The crowds on the first night tend to be embarrasing as well, as on TV you can see whole sections of empty seats. So I think giving the top two teams a bye is only going to make this worse. I'd much prefer dropping the bottom two teams, as others have said they have no realistic chance of winning so all they get out of the experience is another loss.

[hurleyfor3]

Ever since we went to 12 teams, the first day of the ACCT has produced some awful, borderline unwatchable games.

Although it's fun to spend $5 outside the arena and sit in the fifth row and watch a couple games you have nothing invested in. As was watching unc lose on Thursday in 2010.

[Rich]

Having the 3-14 and 4-13 games on Wednesday gives the 3/4 seeds a day off prior to the QFinals and resolves the issue of trying to squeeze more than 4 games into a single day:

Wed
Game 1: 3 vs. 14 7pm
Game 2: 4 vs. 13 9pm

Thu
Game 3: 8 vs. 9 12pm
Game 4: 5 vs. 12 2pm
Game 5: 7 vs. 10 7pm
Game 6: 6 vs. 11 9pm

Fri
Game 7: 1 vs. G3Winner 12pm
Game 8: G2Winner vs. G4Winner 2pm
Game 9: 2 vs. G5Winner 7pm
Game 10: G1Winner vs. G6Winner 9pm

Sat
Semifinals

Sun
Final


The above scenario makes the most sense and seems to be the likely scenario for the ACC to pursue.

Unless there is an upset on Wed, in which 13/14 has an advantage of a day's rest over all the teams, which are higher-seeded, playing on Thursday.

[Jarhead]

You can't have teams finding out on saturday where they will be playing on monday. At least for the play in games next tuesday, bubble teams can have contingency plans to get to dayton. Second, having alternate days is not good from a fan/ticket sales perspective. The more compact you can make the tournament, the more people will be able to attend.

OK. I'm flexible. Do it all in four days, but don't expect good basketball to come out of this. On the other hand, has anyone asked the players about this? Why not have the last regular season games on Thursday and Friday Friday, anyhow?

[SCMatt33]

I prefer the 3/4 seeds playing a Wednesday first round game. I don't like the idea of scrambling to travel to added campus games or squeezing 6 games into a single day.

What I really don't like is the idea of keeping the bottom two out of the tourney. Basketball lends itself to tournaments, and March always starts with that feeling that almost anyone can be the National Champion, however unlikely that is. I think that right now, something like 320+ teams out the 340+ teams have a shot after the regular season ends to win it all. The ones who can't are either in the Ivy League, the bottom of a conference like the A10, who doesn't invite everyone, an independent, or in the Great West, who doesn't get a bid. I'd hate for the ACC to add to that list. I don't think that the accomplishments of 3rd and 4th place teams are so sacred that they must be protected at the expense of giving a shot at all to the teams at the end of the line. This is especially true in the era of unbalanced schedules, where you're conference record is not always indicative of you're true place in the conference. A team can play through an extra round when they may have deserved a bye. A team can't do anything if they're denied entry.

[Newton_14]

With six games on Thursday, from dawn to midnight? I guess it's possible, but it seems like having play-in games for the bottom four seeds on Tuesday would be easier to administer. Let 11 host 14 and 12 host 13, and then play a regular 12-team skein starting Thursday.

This would be my solution as well. Seems the fairest method to me.

[Jarhead]

With six games on Thursday, from dawn to midnight? I guess it's possible, but it seems like having play-in games for the bottom four seeds on Tuesday would be easier to administer. Let 11 host 14 and 12 host 13, and then play a regular 12-team skein starting Thursday.

Why bother? In this scenario two teams are sent home on the first day, but the two who advance still have to play 4 more games in four days. This idea amounts to punishment for all four of the bottom teams while giving the four top teams a double by. Not good.

I'll suggest a scenario that I already offered here today -- Two top teams get a by in the first round of six games for everybody else. These would be played on the home court of seeds 3 through 8. This takes us to 3 more rounds at the tourney site to select the tourney Champs. Spread the rounds over the week any way you choose.

This is 4 rounds as compared with the 5 rounds of the 4 team play-in. Also my suggestion gives only the top 2 teams a by in the first round while the quoted idea gives 1 by to seeds 3 through 10, and 2 bys to seeds 1 and 2. It gets complicated in any scenario. If and when we get to 16 teams it is a 16 team bracket with no bys for anybody.

[uh_no]

Why bother? In this scenario two teams are sent home on the first day, but the two who advance still have to play 4 more games in four days. This idea amounts to punishment for all four of the bottom teams while giving the four top teams a double by. Not good.


Honestly, the bottom 4 teams in the ACC might as well not show up for the tournament anyway. Might as well give them a shot to win a game instead of matching them up against what will likely be top notch 3 and 4 seeds.

Does anyone know the highest seed in each round of the acc tournament?

[UrinalCake]

Here's why we don't need more early-round games. God help us if we ever start playing on wednesday.

2454

EDIT: it occurs to me that those seats on the right are probably reserved for the band of another school. Still, if we can't fill half of the bottom section, why would we add more games?