Why Is Winning The ACC Tournament Such A Big Deal ?

[Struggling golfer]

Duke has won the ACC in 2005,2006,2009,2010 and 2011, but in those years they only went to the Final 4 one time and that was in 2010 when they won the NCAA tournament. Is it just possible that a team expends so much energy in winning the ACC tournament that they lose focus in the up-coming NCAA tournament.

This doesn't necessarily apply to Duke and while this is probably just a generalization and I have not researched it, but from just observations when an underdog wins their conference tournament they do not seem to do well in the NCAA tournament.

[Wander]

Notice that every single one of those years had a better postseason outcome than 2007, 2008, and 2012...

[Duvall]

Because it determines the ACC champion.

[Frobisher]

Because it determines the ACC champion.

This.

[Struggling golfer]

Because it determines the ACC champion.

Obviously but so what? Last year's winner Florida State lost in the second round.

Sure it is nice but come March I thought that winning the NCAA tournament or getting to the Final 4 was more of a goal. Maybe I am mistaken or in the minority but I would rather not win the ACC tournament and get to the Final 4. Of course, I would rather lose in the first round of the ACC tournament and then go on to win the NCAA tournament.

[Exiled_Devil]

Obviously but so what? Last year's winner Florida State lost in the second round.

Sure it is nice but come March I thought that winning the NCAA tournament or getting to the Final 4 was more of a goal. Maybe I am mistaken or in the minority but I would rather not win the ACC tournament and get to the Final 4. Of course, I would rather lose in the first round of the ACC tournament and then go on to win the NCAA tournament.

Well that's great that you think that. But Coach K establishes a culture of competing, and a habit of winning. Duke plays every tournament to win - pre-season, post-season, and national championship. IT's how Duke is.

Besides the culture of Duke, the ACC is the longest running conference championship. IT's tradition. This idea that the team with the best record in the regular season is a champion is new, and frankly, watered down.

[Henderson]

Obviously but so what? Last year's winner Florida State lost in the second round.

Sure it is nice but come March I thought that winning the NCAA tournament or getting to the Final 4 was more of a goal. Maybe I am mistaken or in the minority but I would rather not win the ACC tournament and get to the Final 4. Of course, I would rather lose in the first round of the ACC tournament and then go on to win the NCAA tournament.

Winning the ACCT has no deleterious effect on the NCAAT run. Zero. On the contrary, it can nail down a high seed in the NCAAT

But that aside, being conference champs is always a goal in and of itself. It doesn't require justification by reference to the NCAAT.

[El_Diablo]

And what makes you think losing early in the ACC Tournament means we would get to the Final Four? Seems we could just as easily lose early there too and then have nothing to show for the season banner-wise.

[sporthenry]

Well one point would be that they count those. K can pad his stats. Secondly, I'm sure the outcomes between ACCT and NCAAT aren't directly correlated and lets say Duke loses in the S16, would you rather win an ACCT or nothing?

And lets look at last year's F4 participants, Louisville was the only one to win its conference tournament, however both OSU and UK lost in their respective finals so it isn't like they had any more rest than if they had lost.

In 2011, Bulter, Connecticut and UK won their conference titles and VCU went to the finals in their tournament.

In 2010, Duke, West Virginia, and Butler won their conference tournaments.

In 2009, Villanova lost its conference tournament final.

In 2008, all #1 seeds advanced to the F4 and won their conference tournaments.

In 2007, Georgetown, OSU, and Florida all won their conference tournaments.

So in the past 6 years, 18/24 teams played in their conference finals. I included loses of championship games since the only rest they might get is not climbing up the ladder to cut the nets down. And if you remove the 3 mid majors because their conference tournaments might have finished a bit earlier, you still have 15/21 which is a fairly significant trend.

I think concerns about fatigue are a bit overrated. I used to always be in favor of losing early and often, but if they lose their first game, that might end up playing 1 game in 10 days which isn't good either. These kids actually get a decent amount of rest before the start of the NCAAT and ACCT and success in the conference tournaments seem to show that the team is firing on all cylinders.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Duke has won the ACC in 2005,2006,2009,2010 and 2011, but in those years they only went to the Final 4 one time and that was in 2010 when they won the NCAA tournament. Is it just possible that a team expends so much energy in winning the ACC tournament that they lose focus in the up-coming NCAA tournament.

This doesn't necessarily apply to Duke and while this is probably just a generalization and I have not researched it, but from just observations when an underdog wins their conference tournament they do not seem to do well in the NCAA tournament.

Are you sure you're not Roy Williams posing as a Duke fan?

[Henderson]

And what makes you think losing early in the ACC Tournament means we would get to the Final Four? Seems we could just as easily lose early there too and then have nothing to show for the season banner-wise.

Why is Winning the NCAA Tournament Such a Big Deal?

I always like to see us lose in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. That way we're better rested for the following season. Look what losing to Lehigh last year did for us: Boom, 15 straight wins. If we're lucky, we'll lose in the first round this year too. That'll set us up quite nicely for next year.

[Son of Jarhead]

Obviously but so what? Last year's winner Florida State lost in the second round.

Sure it is nice but come March I thought that winning the NCAA tournament or getting to the Final 4 was more of a goal. Maybe I am mistaken or in the minority but I would rather not win the ACC tournament and get to the Final 4. Of course, I would rather lose in the first round of the ACC tournament and then go on to win the NCAA tournament.

I think most people, if given an either/or choice of winning either the ACC tourney or the NCAA tourney, they would choose the NCAA. But I also think that everyone would just as soon win BOTH.

Heck... let's win 'em all!

[El_Diablo]

Obviously but so what? Last year's winner Florida State lost in the second round.

And when did Duke lose in the NCAA Tournament--was it before or after FSU? I am trying to remember how far we got with all that extra rest.

Oh yeah--we lost to a 15-seed in our first game. I for one would have traded that away in exchange for an ACC championship and an extra NCAA win. But maybe it's just me!

[Zeb]

Maybe I am mistaken or in the minority but I would rather not win the ACC tournament and get to the Final 4. Of course, I would rather lose in the first round of the ACC tournament and then go on to win the NCAA tournament.

Regardless of how one feels about the value of an ACC championship vs a final four appearance, I just don't see any trade-off between the two.

3 of the 4 years Duke won the NCAAs, Duke won the ACC tourney. Only exception was losing in the ACC finals in 1991, so we still played most possible games that year.

Of K's 13 ACC championship teams, Duke went on to the NCAA final four 6 times. Only 5 K teams have gone to the final four without winning the ACC tourney. So by that simple fact, it implies Duke is more likely to go to the final four after winning the ACC tourney than after losing.

If Duke history shows any relationship between ACC and NCAA tourney performance, it's that the best teams are more likely to win both.

[Troublemaker]

The college bball season offers several opportunities to win championships. You want your team to chase them all. That's what true competitors do. For Duke, one of the championships we can chase is the ACC championship -- won by winning a tournament in Greensboro (or sometimes an alternative location). The ACC tournament is the most prestigious, oldest conference tournament of them all.

Yeah, I want to win that. For the Selection Sunday show, I like it when Duke is listed as an automatic qualifier, as ACC champions.

[snowdenscold]

Winning the ACCT has no deleterious effect on the NCAAT run. Zero. On the contrary, it can nail down a high seed in the NCAAT

But that aside, being conference champs is always a goal in and of itself. It doesn't require justification by reference to the NCAAT.


I think most people, if given an either/or choice of winning either the ACC tourney or the NCAA tourney, they would choose the NCAA. But I also think that everyone would just as soon win BOTH.

Heck... let's win 'em all!

Right, this thread presents a false dilemma.

[dukelifer]

Duke has won the ACC in 2005,2006,2009,2010 and 2011, but in those years they only went to the Final 4 one time and that was in 2010 when they won the NCAA tournament. Is it just possible that a team expends so much energy in winning the ACC tournament that they lose focus in the up-coming NCAA tournament.

This doesn't necessarily apply to Duke and while this is probably just a generalization and I have not researched it, but from just observations when an underdog wins their conference tournament they do not seem to do well in the NCAA tournament.

Every time Duke has won a National Championship they have played in or won the ACC tourney. I do not thing fatigue is an issue. This year I worry a little about Curry and Kelly who have injuries and may need to play a lot in three days. Under normal situations- competing for the Championship has always paid dividends - either a good seed or momentum. In the big dance- a bad matchup or a hot team has usually derailed Duke.

[wilko]

Because it determines the ACC champion.
We got more Tourney wins than anyone else in the conference, and thus it should ever be..
Bragging rights, glory, pride. its a shiny object to covet.

Also from a historical point of view, once upon a time, ONLY the Tourney winner went to play in the NCAA tourney.
I think some of the emotion behind that is carried on by the fans.

[Dev11]

Are you sure you're not Roy Williams posing as a Duke fan?

The screen name would back up your claim, doc.

I like it when we win the games. Period.

[MulletMan]

Are you sure you're not Roy Williams posing as a Duke fan?

That was exactly my thought. I think the identity has now been revealed. You think Roy would be smarter than this. He must be out of Coke.

[jv001]

The screen name would back up your claim, doc.

I like it when we win the games. Period.

Yeh, we know he comes on this site because this is where ole roy got the idea of his new starting lineup. Maybe the moderators should ban him, lol. GoDuke!

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

3 out of 4 times we won a national championship, we won the ACC tourney too (92, 01, 10).

[TexHawk]

Well that's great that you think that. But Coach K establishes a culture of competing, and a habit of winning. Duke plays every tournament to win - pre-season, post-season, and national championship. IT's how Duke is.

Besides the culture of Duke, the ACC is the longest running conference championship. IT's tradition. This idea that the team with the best record in the regular season is a champion is new, and frankly, watered down.

What do you mean by "watered down"?

I don't think any coaches deliberately try to lose them. Some may not get upset or sigh in relief if they lose and get some extra rest, but that's different than not trying to win.

In today's game, with mega conferences, I certainly see the value in an conference tournament championship being the final answer on who the champion is. But what of the conferences that play a full round robin? Why is the regular season champ not given any credit?

[rsvman]

...... this is probably just a generalization and I have not researched it, but from just observations when an underdog wins their conference tournament they do not seem to do well in the NCAA tournament.

Tell that to the 2011 UConn team.

[Henderson]

In today's game, with mega conferences, I certainly see the value in an conference tournament championship being the final answer on who the champion is. But what of the conferences that play a full round robin? Why is the regular season champ not given any credit?

Bob Knight opposed a conference tourney for years on the theory that what really counts is your consistency in head-to-head match ups over the entire season, not your ability to get hot for a weekend. There is some logic there. But the ACCT is so rich with tradition... Plus, with an unbalanced schedule, the RMK argument doesn't really work.

[mkirsh]

Another benefit of winning the ACC tournament is higher seeding, which in theory makes our path the NCAAs easier. This year if we win the ACCT we have a very good chance of getting the 1 seed in the east, vs if we lose early we risk falling down a line and getting shipped off someplace else.

[COYS]

Another benefit of winning the ACC tournament is higher seeding, which in theory makes our path the NCAAs easier. This year if we win the ACCT we have a very good chance of getting the 1 seed in the east, vs if we lose early we risk falling down a line and getting shipped off someplace else.

To me, apart from the pride of winning an ACC Championship, the reason for wanting to win the ACCT is simple. Good teams win more games than other teams. It should be no surprise that most teams who make the final 4 are teams that either won or at least played in their conference tournament championship games. You have to win games to get to the conference title game. If your team doesn't win enough games to make it there, there is a much better chance that the team just isn't as good. This isn't always true, of course, as upsets happen every year. However, at the end of day, we want our team to be good enough to beat everyone they play as often as possible. This year, with Ryan coming back from injury and getting reintegrated with the team, I think playing lots of games in the ACCT is even more important. We want these guys to find their groove and reestablish the chemistry they had earlier in the season. We'll still have 5 days to rest after we cut down the nets on Sunday a week and a half from now =).

[rasputin]

I wonder if age is partly a proxy for the attitudes shown here. My guess is that to old-timers like myself, winning the ACC tourney is a bigger deal. We have been playing this tournament for a much longer period of history than other conferences. Back in the day it determined THE conference champ (no banner for regular season), and the ONLY participant in the NCAA's. And in an 8-team league, even on day 1 there was a lot of excitement. Now day 1 is spent largely to eliminate the bottom-feeders.

Oh, and get off my lawn.

[Olympic Fan]

My feeling is that:

(1) There is no evidence that playing deep into the ACC Tournament impacts NCAA performance -- as others have pointed out, three of Duke's four national titlists won the ACC Tourney and the fourth played in the finals. But it goes beyond that -- 10 of our 15 Final Four teams won the ACC title and three more lost in the ACC finals. Only in 1990 and 1994 did we get to the Final Four without reaching the ACC finals.

(2) Losing early in the ACC Tournament is not a good thing. Look at the years when we lost in the quarterfinals (or in the case of 2007 in the first round): In 1987, we were upset by State, but made it to the Sweet 16. In 1995 we ddn't get an NCAA bid. In 1996 we lost our NCAA opener. In 1997 we were upset and we lost in the second round of the NCAA (with a top 10 team). In 2007 we lost in the first round to VCU. That's a 3-5 NCAA record after losing in the ACC quarters ... at least we were well rested.

(2) It IS the official ACC championship. People can argue that the regular season is a better test and they might be right -- but people can argue that the popular vote is a better way to choose a president, but if the loser in the popular vote wins more electoral votes, that sucker is president. Right now, the ACC determines its champion in the tourney, like it or not.

(3) My biggest goal every year is to win the NCAA title. That trumps everything. But it's not everything. I don't consider every season without a national title a failure. There are degrees of success. To me, the things that make a season great are (in order):

(1) a national title
(2) a final four
(3) an ACC title
(4) the Sweet 16
(5) a high national rank in the final poll
(6) an ACC regular season title

If winning the ACC title hurt the pursuit of a national title, then I'd agree with Roy -- bag it. But I think the evidence is that it's at worst irrelevant to NCAA performance and probably is an advantage in terms of building postseason momentum.

Let's go to Greensboro next weekend and win!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Tell that to the 2011 UConn team.

Oh sure, anyone can find a counter-example if they go back into ancient history... :)

I for one have always loved that Duke takes pride in their ACC Tournament competition. Play to win the game, right?

It builds momentum at the right point in the season, makes your guys more battle-tested, gives K time to learn more about his team in pressure-situations, let's the coaching staff try some new looks, etc. etc. Not to mention, the conference tourneys offer teams their final argument for #1 seeding.

The ACC Tourney seems even more valuable than usual for our team this year, with the team still adjusting to Kelly's return and trying to get people (Curry, Rasheed) more settled in their adjusted roles. Our team is undefeated with Kelly on the floor this year. Let's extend that through this month too.

Go Duke!

[azzefkram]

What do you mean by "watered down"?

Well, an unbalanced schedule during the regular season IMO waters down the regular season champion and to a much lesser extent the tourney champion. I am firmly in the camp that fatigue can be an issue but not because of the ACCT.

[TexHawk]

I for one have always loved that Duke takes pride in their ACC Tournament competition. Play to win the game, right?

Do you really think other teams don't *try* to win their conference tournaments? Yea, I know Roy what has said. But when the ball goes up, these are 20 year-old kids, usually playing fierce rivals. Some coaches may play stars a few minutes less per game, but I would submit that that has more to do with playing 3 games in 3 days.

Most players and coaches made it to high-level CBB by loving and cherishing competition. You don't get good enough to play or coach in a Big 6 conference by picking and choosing which games are more important. Roy and Bob Knight are just loud exceptions, imo, and likely just making excuses for their losses in those tournaments.

Conference tournaments are awesome. Winning one is even better.
3 month conference seasons are awesome too, a round-robin is even better.
Conferences give out trophies for both, most of those trophies are the same size.

Gun to the head, I would take #2 over #1 any day. Winning on the road is more fun.

[gam7]

Do you really think other teams don't *try* to win their conference tournaments? Yea, I know Roy what has said. But when the ball goes up, these are 20 year-old kids, usually playing fierce rivals. Some coaches may play stars a few minutes less per game, but I would submit that that has more to do with playing 3 games in 3 days.

Most players and coaches made it to high-level CBB by loving and cherishing competition. You don't get good enough to play or coach in a Big 6 conference by picking and choosing which games are more important. Roy and Bob Knight are just loud exceptions, imo, and likely just making excuses for their losses in those tournaments.

Conference tournaments are awesome. Winning one is even better.
3 month conference seasons are awesome too, a round-robin is even better.
Conferences give out trophies for both, most of those trophies are the same size.

Gun to the head, I would take #2 over #1 any day. Winning on the road is more fun.

Of course they don't try to lose, but the psychological aspect of coaching is mostly about creating and fostering a mindset. When the mindset is "let's win but it's not that big a deal if we lose," I would argue you are at a distinct disadvantage vs. a team with a mindset of "let's win because these are the most important games of our season (so far)."

[ricks68]

My feeling is that:

(1) There is no evidence that playing deep into the ACC Tournament impacts NCAA performance -- as others have pointed out, three of Duke's four national titlists won the ACC Tourney and the fourth played in the finals. But it goes beyond that -- 10 of our 15 Final Four teams won the ACC title and three more lost in the ACC finals. Only in 1990 and 1994 did we get to the Final Four without reaching the ACC finals.

(2) Losing early in the ACC Tournament is not a good thing. Look at the years when we lost in the quarterfinals (or in the case of 2007 in the first round): In 1987, we were upset by State, but made it to the Sweet 16. In 1995 we ddn't get an NCAA bid. In 1996 we lost our NCAA opener. In 1997 we were upset and we lost in the second round of the NCAA (with a top 10 team). In 2007 we lost in the first round to VCU. That's a 3-5 NCAA record after losing in the ACC quarters ... at least we were well rested.

(2) It IS the official ACC championship. People can argue that the regular season is a better test and they might be right -- but people can argue that the popular vote is a better way to choose a president, but if the loser in the popular vote wins more electoral votes, that sucker is president. Right now, the ACC determines its champion in the tourney, like it or not.

(3) My biggest goal every year is to win the NCAA title. That trumps everything. But it's not everything. I don't consider every season without a national title a failure. There are degrees of success. To me, the things that make a season great are (in order):

(1) a national title
(2) a final four
(3) an ACC title
(4) the Sweet 16
(5) a high national rank in the final poll
(6) an ACC regular season title
If winning the ACC title hurt the pursuit of a national title, then I'd agree with Roy -- bag it. But I think the evidence is that it's at worst irrelevant to NCAA performance and probably is an advantage in terms of building postseason momentum.

Let's go to Greensboro next weekend and win!

While I regularly agree with OF pretty much down the line, I have to take issue with this one measure of success. I was unaware that the ACC had a regular season "title". The ACC Tournament winner is recognized as the ACC basketball champion for the year. I think rewording (6) to something like "the team with the best ACC regular season record", would be more appropriate.

I guess this rankles me more than most on this board because I was at Duke when we had a really, really good team that was upset in the 1965 ACC Tournament final. In those days, only the ACC Tournament Champion went on to the NCAA Tournament. After the loss, Vic Bubas was quoted as saying: "that anyone who really lives is going to feel the sting of defeat at some time in his life." I guess that I still feel the sting after that one.:mad:

ricks

[hurleyfor3]

While I regularly agree with OF pretty much down the line, I have to take issue with this one measure of success. I was unaware that the ACC had a regular season "title". The ACC Tournament winner is recognized as the ACC basketball champion for the year. I think rewording (6) to something like "the team with the best ACC regular season record", would be more appropriate.

This comes up every year; maybe we should sticky it.

The ACC has acknowledged a "regular season champion" since 1990. In case of ties, all tied teams can call themselves "regular season champion", regardless of head-to-head or seeding tiebreakers.

This was most likely done at the behest of unc (ie, Dean) who had been hanging "championship" banners for years when they hadn't won the tournament. It's not clear there was ever an explicit ruling that schools can claim pre-1990 RS championships retroactively, but everyone who can do so seems to.

Now, I agree 120% that only the tournament champion should be able to call themselves the champion. But the way it is is the way it is. And Duke now hangs banners in Cameron for regular season championships.

[cato]

While I regularly agree with OF pretty much down the line, I have to take issue with this one measure of success. I was unaware that the ACC had a regular season "title". The ACC Tournament winner is recognized as the ACC basketball champion for the year. I think rewording (6) to something like "the team with the best ACC regular season record", would be more appropriate.

I guess this rankles me more than most on this board because I was at Duke when we had a really, really good team that was upset in the 1965 ACC Tournament final. In those days, only the ACC Tournament Champion went on to the NCAA Tournament. After the loss, Vic Bubas was quoted as saying: "that anyone who really lives is going to feel the sting of defeat at some time in his life." I guess that I still feel the sting after that one.:mad:

ricks

I understand where you are coming from, but the ACC now recognizes the regular season Champion. That Champion just doesn't get an automatic bid.

[ricks68]

This comes up every year; maybe we should sticky it.

The ACC has acknowledged a "regular season champion" since 1990. In case of ties, all tied teams can call themselves "regular season champion", regardless of head-to-head or seeding tiebreakers.

This was most likely done at the behest of unc (ie, Dean) who had been hanging "championship" banners for years when they hadn't won the tournament. It's not clear there was ever an explicit ruling that schools can claim pre-1990 RS championships retroactively, but everyone who can do so seems to.

Now, I agree 120% that only the tournament champion should be able to call themselves the champion. But the way it is is the way it is. And Duke now hangs banners in Cameron for regular season championships.

I then stand corrected, and my agreement with OF has returned to normalcy again. (I still hated losing that game to state back in '65, however.)

ricks

[Duvall]

I understand where you are coming from, but the ACC now recognizes the regular season Champion. That Champion just doesn't get an automatic bid.

Well, the regular season winner receives an award for finishing first in the regular season, but only the winner of the Tournament is the ACC Champion.

[tendev]

Because our winning it means that Carolina did not win it. While I would not trade a Final Four appearance for an ACC championship, I don't see the negative correlation.

[throatybeard]

C'mon people. We all know that the reason we lose early in the NCAAT is because Krzyzewski tires the starters out in the regular season by mismanaging fine gradations of minutes. It's 1A! Get with the program!

[ricks68]

Well, the regular season winner receives an award for finishing first in the regular season, but only the winner of the Tournament is the ACC Champion.

O.K., now I am really confused.:confused:

ricks

[nocilla]

O.K., now I am really confused.:confused:

ricks

The ACC allows the schools to hang a banner for the winning the regular season. But they only give out 1 trophy and it goes to the tournament Champion.

[Olympic Fan]

As always, this is a hard issue to get straight.

Very simply the team with the best regular season record (or any teams that tie for the best regular season record) are recognized as ACC Regular Season Champions.

The team that wins the ACC Tournamnt is the ACC Champion --the official ACC champion.

In the first decade of the conference, the tournament winner was recognized as the official champion by tradition. In 1961, the ACC officially voted to designate the tournament champion as the official champion. The vote was a slap at UNC, which had introduced a motion to recognize the regular season champion as the champion. When that motion didn't get a second, UNC withdrew its motion and the the tourney winner was designated by unanimous vote.

The recognition of the regular season champion goes back to 1990 -- it was done to honor a Clemson team that had never won anything. Dean had lobbied for it and did hang banners at a time when the ACC did not recognize regular season champs. Roy is the first coach I know to actually cut down the nets after winning a regular season title (he did that in 2005 ... then tanked the tourney).

So if you here somebody talking about the 2011 ACC champion -- that's Duke. UNC can claim the ACC regular season championship that year, but the official champion was the team that won the tournament.

**If you can get ahold of the ACC media guide, turn to page 78, which summaries the conference history. It has eight columns, from left to right they are titled:

Year .. ACC Champion ... Regular Season Champion ... ACC Player of the Year ... ACC Coach of the Year ... ACC Rookie of the Year ... NCAA ... Non-ACC.

[camion]

Thanks O.F. That's pretty clear.

The winner of the ACC tournament is the official conference champion.

That being said I have always been a proponent of winning as much as possible. Before we went to an unbalanced schedule I thought the regular season was a better indicator, but still if you can grab a regular season banner go for it hard. Same with the ACC and NCAA tournaments. It's all important and none of it is guaranteed.

[msdukie]

The ACC allows the schools to hang a banner for the winning the regular season. But they only give out 1 trophy and it goes to the tournament Champion.

There has been a regular season champion trophy since the early '90s. It used to be a cup. Since the mid-2000s it has been a smaller version of the ACC Championship trophy.

[msdukie]

Here is my question:

Why did Duke modify its banners over winter break 2006-7 to include regular-season champions. Did the ACC change its rules on hanging banners requiring this? And why in the middle of the season?

Fwiw Uva just hangs a separate banner that says "ACC First Place"

[Cameron]

If not losing is a big deal to you, then winning the ACC Tournament should be also.

Call me out of touch, but I actually anticipate and look forward to the ACC Tournament each year more than I do the Big Dance. As a fan of basketball, it's three consecutive days of pure, heart-pounding bliss. There is nothing quite like winning on Sunday at the Greensboro Coliseum. Beating out your rival for a championship is a thing of beauty.

[jimsumner]

Duke's position is that they want to establish and maintain a culture of winning and the best way to do that is to win.

K has been to 11 Final Fours. Duke has played on Sunday in the ACCT nine of those 11 seasons, the exceptions being 1990 and 1994, when Duke lost on Saturday.

So, playing three games in the ACCT doesn't seem to be a discincentive to later successes.

[davekay1971]

I've never understood the argument that playing Friday-Sunday in any way causes a bunch of 18-22 year old guys, who are in phenomenal shape, to be tired come the first round of the NCAAT...4-5 days later. Add in the fact that winning the ACCT likely improves your seeding, which means (1) less travel and (2) a less potent first round foe. To me, the balance of less recovery time playing Sunday, versus the honor of wining your conference championship AND setting yourself up for an easier first weekend, makes winning the ACCT nothing but a desirable.

Furthermore, the guys on these teams are wired to compete and fight to win championships. Anyone want to tell Mason, Ryan, and Seth that we'd like them to tank their last ACC championship run because it might help them be a little fresher for the first weekend of the NCAAT?

[Newton_14]

Are you sure you're not Roy Williams posing as a Duke fan?

Well the "struggling golfer" part fits, as does the lack of desire to win the ACC Championship. Does he have a bb gun?

[Bob Green]

Why Is Winning The ACC Tournament Such A Big Deal?

You're not from around here, are you?

[Lord Ash]

It is the second biggest thing we can possibly win all year, and given the difficulty and unlikelihood of winning the NCAA title it is a fantastic accomplishment.

[msdukie]

Call me out of touch, but I actually anticipate and look forward to the ACC Tournament each year more than I do the Big Dance. As a fan of basketball, it's three consecutive days of pure, heart-pounding bliss. There is nothing quite like winning on Sunday at the Greensboro Coliseum. Beating out your rival for a championship is a thing of beauty.

This

[OldPhiKap]

Back on the day, I would skip work to watch ACC Friday. One of my favorite days of the year.

If you don't get it, can't help you.

[weezie]

Winning the ACCT means I get yet another sweet T-shirt. Right now I'll be wearing, what, about 12 of them, along with my blue sequinned Converse and blue lacey unmentionables when they shove the flaming pyre out to sea.....oy!

[brevity]

Are you sure you're not Roy Williams posing as a Duke fan?


Well the "struggling golfer" part fits, as does the lack of desire to win the ACC Championship. Does he have a bb gun?

Don't know, but there's some history (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30069-Semi-Ojeleye&p=614034#post614034).

[ricks68]

Winning the ACCT means I get yet another sweet T-shirt. Right now I'll be wearing, what, about 12 of them, along with my blue sequinned Converse and blue lacey unmentionables when they shove the flaming pyre out to sea.....oy!

Very profound. Very profound.

I gotta admit, I got a chuckle out of that one. :)

ricks

[ricks68]

As always, this is a hard issue to get straight.

Very simply the team with the best regular season record (or any teams that tie for the best regular season record) are recognized as ACC Regular Season Champions.

The team that wins the ACC Tournamnt is the ACC Champion --the official ACC champion.

In the first decade of the conference, the tournament winner was recognized as the official champion by tradition. In 1961, the ACC officially voted to designate the tournament champion as the official champion. The vote was a slap at UNC, which had introduced a motion to recognize the regular season champion as the champion. When that motion didn't get a second, UNC withdrew its motion and the the tourney winner was designated by unanimous vote.

The recognition of the regular season champion goes back to 1990 -- it was done to honor a Clemson team that had never won anything. Dean had lobbied for it and did hang banners at a time when the ACC did not recognize regular season champs. Roy is the first coach I know to actually cut down the nets after winning a regular season title (he did that in 2005 ... then tanked the tourney).

So if you here somebody talking about the 2011 ACC champion -- that's Duke. UNC can claim the ACC regular season championship that year, but the official champion was the team that won the tournament.

**If you can get ahold of the ACC media guide, turn to page 78, which summaries the conference history. It has eight columns, from left to right they are titled:

Year .. ACC Champion ... Regular Season Champion ... ACC Player of the Year ... ACC Coach of the Year ... ACC Rookie of the Year ... NCAA ... Non-ACC.

Thanks for the explanation.

ricks

[Olympic Fan]

I'd just like to say that as Duke fans, we all should be big fans of the tournament.

Historically, Duke and N.C. State have been partners in promoting and protecting the tournament, while UNC and Maryland have been the leading anti-tournament forces.

It's amazing how consistent that has been, despite the changes in adminostrators and coaches.

It all goes back to the earliest days of the conference, when Duke AD Eddie Cameron and NC State AD Roy Clogston were the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the ACC basketball committee -- together they fought for the tournament. Wolfpack coach Everett Case LOVED the tournament ... and his protege Vic Bubas, while not quite as enthusiastic, supported it too. Norm Sloan was a big booster of the tournament, even in '73 and '74 when he was unbeaten in the regular season. Jim Valvano loved the tournament. Mike Krzyzewski has always focused maximum effort on the tournament. Even Herb Sendek and Sidney Lowe had their most success in ACC Tournament play.

On the other hand, Frank McGuire hated the tournament from day one -- but especially after his 1957 undefeated No. 1 team almost lost to Wake Forest in the ACC semifinals. It got worse -- in '59, he tanked the tournament finals because State was ineligible and his own fans never let him hear the end of it. As I noted before, UNC tried to kill the tournament in '61 and when that failed, McGuire urgd UNC to pull out of the ACC. In 1970 -- when he was at South Carolina -- he had an undefeated in the ACC team lose in the ACC finals when John Roche was hurt in the semifinals and his hatred of the tourney exploded. His distaste for the tournament was shared by his successor Dean Smith, although he was never that outspoken about it. But Roy Williams compared it to a big cocktail party and bragged that both his national championship teams had failed to win the ACC Tournament. He's downplayed it ever since returning to Chapel Hill. Maryland's hatred started with Bud Milliken, who called the tournament a $60,000 farce. Lefty Driesell, who had some bad experiences in the Southern Conference Tournament when he was at Davidson, suffered a succession of nightmarish tournament outcomes -- he might have hated it more than McGuire. Gary Williams was never a big fan, since the tourney was usually played in North Carolina and when it did come to Maryland, his Terps lost early.

Anyway, to rip the ACC Tournament is to align yourself with the Tar Heels and Terps ... to celebrate it is your legacy as a Duke fan (or as a State fan).

[davekay1971]

I'd just like to say that as Duke fans, we all should be big fans of the tournament.

Historically, Duke and N.C. State have been partners in promoting and protecting the tournament, while UNC and Maryland have been the leading anti-tournament forces.


Anyway, to rip the ACC Tournament is to align yourself with the Tar Heels and Terps ... to celebrate it is your legacy as a Duke fan (or as a State fan).

Awesome post, OF...and a nice example of Good versus Evil. Duke and NC State versus UNC and Maryland... Long live the ACC Tournament, and here's to Duke, and Coach K, winning another ACC Champsionship this season.

[snowdenscold]

I'd just like to say that as Duke fans, we all should be big fans of the tournament.

Historically, Duke and N.C. State have been partners in promoting and protecting the tournament, while UNC and Maryland have been the leading anti-tournament forces.

It's amazing how consistent that has been, despite the changes in adminostrators and coaches.

It all goes back to the earliest days of the conference, when Duke AD Eddie Cameron and NC State AD Roy Clogston were the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the ACC basketball committee -- together they fought for the tournament. Wolfpack coach Everett Case LOVED the tournament ... and his protege Vic Bubas, while not quite as enthusiastic, supported it too. Norm Sloan was a big booster of the tournament, even in '73 and '74 when he was unbeaten in the regular season. Jim Valvano loved the tournament. Mike Krzyzewski has always focused maximum effort on the tournament. Even Herb Sendek and Sidney Lowe had their most success in ACC Tournament play.

On the other hand, Frank McGuire hated the tournament from day one -- but especially after his 1957 undefeated No. 1 team almost lost to Wake Forest in the ACC semifinals. It got worse -- in '59, he tanked the tournament finals because State was ineligible and his own fans never let him hear the end of it. As I noted before, UNC tried to kill the tournament in '61 and when that failed, McGuire urgd UNC to pull out of the ACC. In 1970 -- when he was at South Carolina -- he had an undefeated in the ACC team lose in the ACC finals when John Roche was hurt in the semifinals and his hatred of the tourney exploded. His distaste for the tournament was shared by his successor Dean Smith, although he was never that outspoken about it. But Roy Williams compared it to a big cocktail party and bragged that both his national championship teams had failed to win the ACC Tournament. He's downplayed it ever since returning to Chapel Hill. Maryland's hatred started with Bud Milliken, who called the tournament a $60,000 farce. Lefty Driesell, who had some bad experiences in the Southern Conference Tournament when he was at Davidson, suffered a succession of nightmarish tournament outcomes -- he might have hated it more than McGuire. Gary Williams was never a big fan, since the tourney was usually played in North Carolina and when it did come to Maryland, his Terps lost early.

Anyway, to rip the ACC Tournament is to align yourself with the Tar Heels and Terps ... to celebrate it is your legacy as a Duke fan (or as a State fan).

Although I enjoy the tournament, I definitely can understand the enmity toward it back when only the tournament champ would go to the NCAA's, since it could potentially undercut or discount huge portions (if not all) of the regular season.

There's still an element of that today, although greatly diminished, but it's outweighed by the exciting and fun atmosphere of putting all the league teams together in one place for a weekend.

[Matches]

Back on the day, I would skip work to watch ACC Friday. One of my favorite days of the year.



I wish the tournament still had that kind of cache. It was fantastic when there were 8 teams and they all played on Friday.

The bigger league has made the whole thing much more unwieldy IMO. I want to win it because I want Duke to win every game it plays. And it's still fun to win it - but I don't get euphoric over it the way I used to.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Why play a tournament if you don't want to win it? Duke plays the whole season for the next two tournies coming up. For us as fans it is a big deal, and I have never seen any quote from Coach K to suggest that he doesn't see it as a major accomplishment. (Ol' Roy on the otherhand...his attitude only changes if he makes it to championship Sunday)

[toooskies]

Why is it worth climbing any other mountain than Everest?
Why is it worth swimming any body of water that isn't the entire Pacific Ocean?
Why is it worth getting out of bed in the morning unless you're going to accomplish the greatest thing humanity has ever done?


If all you care about is the national championship, then you may as well start watching college basketball in April.

[Lar77]

I'd just like to say that as Duke fans, we all should be big fans of the tournament.

Historically, Duke and N.C. State have been partners in promoting and protecting the tournament, while UNC and Maryland have been the leading anti-tournament forces.

It's amazing how consistent that has been, despite the changes in adminostrators and coaches.

It all goes back to the earliest days of the conference, when Duke AD Eddie Cameron and NC State AD Roy Clogston were the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the ACC basketball committee -- together they fought for the tournament. Wolfpack coach Everett Case LOVED the tournament ... and his protege Vic Bubas, while not quite as enthusiastic, supported it too. Norm Sloan was a big booster of the tournament, even in '73 and '74 when he was unbeaten in the regular season. Jim Valvano loved the tournament. Mike Krzyzewski has always focused maximum effort on the tournament. Even Herb Sendek and Sidney Lowe had their most success in ACC Tournament play.

On the other hand, Frank McGuire hated the tournament from day one -- but especially after his 1957 undefeated No. 1 team almost lost to Wake Forest in the ACC semifinals. It got worse -- in '59, he tanked the tournament finals because State was ineligible and his own fans never let him hear the end of it. As I noted before, UNC tried to kill the tournament in '61 and when that failed, McGuire urgd UNC to pull out of the ACC. In 1970 -- when he was at South Carolina -- he had an undefeated in the ACC team lose in the ACC finals when John Roche was hurt in the semifinals and his hatred of the tourney exploded. His distaste for the tournament was shared by his successor Dean Smith, although he was never that outspoken about it. But Roy Williams compared it to a big cocktail party and bragged that both his national championship teams had failed to win the ACC Tournament. He's downplayed it ever since returning to Chapel Hill. Maryland's hatred started with Bud Milliken, who called the tournament a $60,000 farce. Lefty Driesell, who had some bad experiences in the Southern Conference Tournament when he was at Davidson, suffered a succession of nightmarish tournament outcomes -- he might have hated it more than McGuire. Gary Williams was never a big fan, since the tourney was usually played in North Carolina and when it did come to Maryland, his Terps lost early.

Anyway, to rip the ACC Tournament is to align yourself with the Tar Heels and Terps ... to celebrate it is your legacy as a Duke fan (or as a State fan).

Thank you Olympic for this history. It was something I never knew.

Coach K has always said that he gears his teams to win championships. He'd like to win every game, but that doesn't happen. Our non conference schedule always seems to have a purpose - get experience for the end of season championships.

Before the other conferences started copying the ACC, it was the only tournament in which the slate was wiped clean and any team could win the Championship.

The games are usually always highly contested and the memories are big.

If you win, you are a champion. I want our team this year to have as many championships as they can get. They earned them.

[jimsumner]

Thank you Olympic for this history. It was something I never knew.

Coach K has always said that he gears his teams to win championships. He'd like to win every game, but that doesn't happen. Our non conference schedule always seems to have a purpose - get experience for the end of season championships.

Before the other conferences started copying the ACC, it was the only tournament in which the slate was wiped clean and any team could win the Championship.

The games are usually always highly contested and the memories are big.

If you win, you are a champion. I want our team this year to have as many championships as they can get. They earned them.

Actually, the Southern Conference Tournament preceded the ACCT and had the same risks. Back in the middle 1960s a couple of the best teams in Davidson history went home in the SoCon Tourny, one on a horrible, game-ending goal-tending call.

[Kedsy]

Actually, the Southern Conference Tournament preceded the ACCT and had the same risks. Back in the middle 1960s a couple of the best teams in Davidson history went home in the SoCon Tourny, one on a horrible, game-ending goal-tending call.

And wasn't Lefty the coach there at that time? Combine that with his misfortunes in the ACCT, and it's no wonder the Lefthander hated the tournament.

[jimsumner]

And wasn't Lefty the coach there at that time? Combine that with his misfortunes in the ACCT, and it's no wonder the Lefthander hated the tournament.

He was indeed.

He was a senior at Duke in 1954, the ACC's first season. Duke finished first in the regular season but lost in the tourny and stayed home. So, add that.

[hurleyfor3]

He was indeed.

He was a senior at Duke in 1954, the ACC's first season. Duke finished first in the regular season but lost in the tourny and stayed home. So, add that.

And his best team ever was probably '74. Poor dude really was snakebit.

[jimsumner]

And his best team ever was probably '74. Poor dude really was snakebit.

Then again, his '73 team got to go because State was on probation. They made it to the East Regional finals but lost to a Providence team that had Ernie D and Marvin Barnes.

So, that was a break that they didn't maximize.

[Olympic Fan]

Just a few more notes:

-- Yes, the Southern Confernce Tournament preceded the ACC Tournament -- but that was when the ACC WAS the Southern Conference. UNC won the first real Southern Conference Tourney in 1922. At the time, the Southern Conference included both the modern ACC and the modern SEC and was so big that the tourney was the only way to distinguish a championship. The league split (on purely geographical terms) in 1932 and the tournament moved to Raleigh -- it's been North Carolina-centric ever since. Again, the new Southern Conference was so big (it grew to 17 teams by 1953) that the tournament was the only way to determine a champion.

-- The NCAA gave conferences automatic bids in 1951, but let each cnference decide how to award that bid. The Southern Conference (with Cameron running the league's basketball and Case dominating on the court) was the only major conference to use a tournament to pick its champion. Interesting enough, the SEC still had a postseason tournament in that era, but picked its champion in the regular season. When the ACC split from the Southern Conference in 1953, the two leagues became the only two to pick champions in a tournament.

-- Lefty Driesell did have back luck in tournaments -- twice at Davidson he had top 10 teams that were beaten in the Southern Conference Tournament. I'm not sure I'd count the '54 Duke team. Yeah, Duke won the regular season that year but it was the first season of ACC play and theu weren't able to set up balanced schedules. Duke was 9-1 ... Wake was 8-4 ... Virginia played just five conference games. The tournament was the only fair way to pick a champion in '54.

-- After that, the ACC almost always played a balanced schedule (with just a few quirky exceptions, such as 1967, when Duke and South Carolina didn't meet because of anger over the Mike Grosso case). The coaches-- except Case -- all agreed that the regular season winner was a truer test of the champion. Still, in the 21 seasons when the tourney champ was the only team to get an NCAA bid, I don't think we lost many NCAA contenders -- Duke in 1965 and South Carolina in 1970 were probably the only real Final Four contenders to lose in the tourney.

I get tired of people blaming Maryland's exclusion in 1974 on the ACC Tournament. Blame the NCAA for allowing just one team per conference. But don't blame the ACC Tournament -- if the ACC had scrapped the tournament that year and gone with the regular season, NC State -- which finished three games ahead of Maryland in the standings -- would have been the representative anyway. The ACC Tournament gave Maryland a second chance they wouldn't have gotten in any other league.

-- Ev Case used to say that baseball is a turnament sport and that the tournament is the proper way to determinea champion. Heck, we use the NCAA Tournament to determine an NCAA champion ... not the regular season. The NFL, the NBA, the NHL, Major League baseball all use postseason tournaments t determine their champion.

Why shouldn't the ACC?

[jimsumner]

Lefty also got an NCAAT break in 1969, when his Davidson team met a UNC team that didn't have injured guard Dick Grubar, who was pretty darn good. Scott won that one for the Heels at the buzzer.

Lefty was 0-4 in regional finals, losing twice at Davidson and twice at Maryland. He had some really good teams after the field expanded, including those early '80s teams with Albert King and Buck Williams and never went all that deep in the tourny.

So, I agree that we can go overboard with the sympathy. The mid-60s Davidson teams for sure. But he had lots of chances to make good on his boast to make Maryland the UCLA of the East and came up short.

Want to give out sympathy points? Try 1970 South Carolina, which went 14-0 in the ACC and lost in the tourny when their best player suffered a severe ankle sprain. Or 1965 Duke, which was knocked out when an NC State non-entity averaging 5 ppg scored 30 in the title game.

Or 1960 UNC and Wake, both 12-2 in the ACC, both of whom lost to 7-7 Duke and Bubas.

[sagegrouse]

Or 1960 UNC and Wake, both 12-2 in the ACC, both of whom lost to 7-7 Duke and Bubas.

Although Duke was an upset winner, that was the year Duke won its first two NCAA tournament games. The weekend of the regionals was Angier Duke Weekend, and I was on campus as a HS senior for the victory over St. Joe's. I remember Jack Mullen dribbling out the clock at the end of the game. I was a basketball fan although not really a Duke fan at the time, but the tournament win was impressive. It must have been the conspiracy of fates that steered me to Duke.

Even if I had forgotten the basketball, I would have remembered the trip because there was a foot of snow on the Duke campus -- first snow I had ever seen.

sagegrouse
'Duke lost to NYU in the regional finals on Saturday night. When I got back to SC, I learned that I would be able to afford college after all'

'Seen a lot of snow since: we've had 285 inches this year in Steamboat'

[Olympic Fan]

Although Duke was an upset winner, that was the year Duke won its first two NCAA tournament games. The weekend of the regionals was Angier Duke Weekend, and I was on campus as a HS senior for the victory over St. Joe's. I remember Jack Mullen dribbling out the clock at the end of the game. I was a basketball fan although not really a Duke fan at the time, but the tournament win was impressive. It must have been the conspiracy of fates that steered me to Duke.

Even if I had forgotten the basketball, I would have remembered the trip because there was a foot of snow on the Duke campus -- first snow I had ever seen.



Hate to point out that your memory is a bit warped -- the Sweet 16 victory over St. Joe's in the Chareltte Coliseum did not end with Jack Mullen dribbling out the clock. It had a bizarre ending.

It was a late LATE game. The first game of the regional semifinals that night was an overtime game between NYU and West Virginia. The Violets, led by forward Thomas "Satch" Sanders edged Jerry West and the Mountaineers. The Duke game didn't start until after 10 p.m.

Duke led most of the way against St. Joe's, but it was always close. With 17 seconds left and Duke up 58-56, guard Johnny Frye went to the FT line to clinch it. But he missed and St. Joe's got the ball with a chance to tie. As they pushed the ball up the court, Duke's Howard Hurt slapped the ball away from behind -- out of bounds.

There were about 11-12 seconds left, but here's where it got crazy. Under today's rules, the clock would stop until the ball was inbounded. But in that era, the clock didn't stop on out of bounds balls unless the ref signalled it -- and the normal procedure was only to stop the clock when the ball bounced into the crowd or was hard to get. In this case, ref Max Macon -- a former pitcher for the Dodgers and Milwaukee Braves -- retrieved the ball quickly and got it to St. Joe's captain, Paul Westhead. Westhead (a future NBA and college coach) was holding the ball over his head, looking to make a perfect throw in when the buzzer sounded.

St. Joe's coach Jack Ramsey went nuts, but Macon defended his decision not to stop the clock.

That win left Duke one win away from the Final Four, but the next night, NYU dominated the game -- Sanders had 22 points and 16 rebounds.

[pfrduke]

I think my favorite threads on this board are the ones that turn into Olympic Fan and Jim Sumner reminiscing. Always get wonderful slices of history that I hadn't known before.

[jv001]

I think my favorite threads on this board are the ones that turn into Olympic Fan and Jim Sumner reminiscing. Always get wonderful slices of history that I hadn't known before.

Mine too because I saw most of the games they talk about. However my memory is not near as good as theirs. GoDuke!

[sagegrouse]

Hate to point out that your memory is a bit warped -- the Sweet 16 victory over St. Joe's in the Chareltte Coliseum did not end with Jack Mullen dribbling out the clock. It had a bizarre ending.

It was a late LATE game. The first game of the regional semifinals that night was an overtime game between NYU and West Virginia. The Violets, led by forward Thomas "Satch" Sanders edged Jerry West and the Mountaineers. The Duke game didn't start until after 10 p.m.

Duke led most of the way against St. Joe's, but it was always close. With 17 seconds left and Duke up 58-56, guard Johnny Frye went to the FT line to clinch it. But he missed and St. Joe's got the ball with a chance to tie. As they pushed the ball up the court, Duke's Howard Hurt slapped the ball away from behind -- out of bounds.

There were about 11-12 seconds left, but here's where it got crazy. Under today's rules, the clock would stop until the ball was inbounded. But in that era, the clock didn't stop on out of bounds balls unless the ref signalled it -- and the normal procedure was only to stop the clock when the ball bounced into the crowd or was hard to get. In this case, ref Max Macon -- a former pitcher for the Dodgers and Milwaukee Braves -- retrieved the ball quickly and got it to St. Joe's captain, Paul Westhead. Westhead (a future NBA and college coach) was holding the ball over his head, looking to make a perfect throw in when the buzzer sounded.

St. Joe's coach Jack Ramsey went nuts, but Macon defended his decision not to stop the clock.

That win left Duke one win away from the Final Four, but the next night, NYU dominated the game -- Sanders had 22 points and 16 rebounds.

Let me correct my remark. I remember Jack Mullen TRYING to dribble out the clock in the last couple of minutes. -- sage