A slight quibble with UVA's schedule.

[wgl1228]

I'm not denying UVA is a great team, but I just noticed they only play Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, and Syracuse, once on their schedule. It seems like they benefitted last year from a weak schedule as well if I recall correctly. I guess I'm more concerned with equal balance in scheduling than just picking on them. They were definitely the best team, but playing the top 3 only once this year is troubling.

[-bdbd]

Yes, I recall the discussion on this topic a year ago and, most certainly they benefitted from a (relatively) easier schedule than Duke and Syracuse. There were some who had a lot of well-documented objective stats detailing their relative ease of schedule. So that's two years in a row. I don't get the impression that the ACC is doing a great job balancing out the strength-of-schedule aspects of things for in-conference games.

That said, it isn't like our FB team has exactly had to play "murderer's row" in-conference the last couple of (bowl appearance) years. Not playing, either year, the likes of FSU, or Clemson or Louisville in the regular season. So, yeah, UVA has a lighter schedule than the other main BB contenders. But I'm not going to waste a lot of time whining about it. (And, no, the fact that their slatre is easier doesn't mean there's any sort of conspiracy underway either....

:p

[Duvall]

I'm not denying UVA is a great team, but I just noticed they only play Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, and Syracuse, once on their schedule. It seems like they benefitted last year from a weak schedule as well if I recall correctly. I guess I'm more concerned with equal balance in scheduling than just picking on them. They were definitely the best team, but playing the top 3 only once is troubling.

Playing Syracuse once is a detriment, not a benefit.

Anyway, it would be more of a concern if UVa weren't head and shoulders above the rest of the conference.

[Dukehky]

They schedule for ratings, not for balance. After last year's two Duke/Cuse games, there was no way they weren't playing twice this year. In fact there was talk about keeping Cuse the permanent 2 time opponent, rather than Wake. I guarantee that next year Duke and UVA or UL will be home and homes, and it may even be both of them. We aren't ever going to get a home and home with BC and VT along with Wake and UNC. That would be stupid on the ACC's part. Regular season championships don't mean as much now as they used to due to just this. It would be great to win, but it isn't a true test, because you don't play a home and home with everyone. As always, the ACC Championship is won in the tournament. Our tougher schedule will help us down the road... hopefully.

I wish we could add one more team then just split the conference into two 8 team leagues and play regular season home and home with people only in our league. Give us the old school ACC minus FSU and the new kids can go play with themselves.

Football, do whatever you want.

[uh_no]

I'm not denying UVA is a great team, but I just noticed they only play Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, and Syracuse, once on their schedule. It seems like they benefitted last year from a weak schedule as well if I recall correctly. I guess I'm more concerned with equal balance in scheduling than just picking on them. They were definitely the best team, but playing the top 3 only once this year is troubling.

they play #10 UL twice.

we're always going to get it tough, playing UNC home and home every year. It's the price we pay for the rivalry. Aside from that we have 1 good team (ND) and one mediocre team (Cuse...and jeez look at their ACC results....stock falling hard.)

uva has state, who is a borderline tournament team.

it just is a fact of life, we're going to get hosed more often than not by playing carolina. it's the same story for carolina who has to play us, UL, and state....which is arguably worse than we have it...

But what goes around comes around, and yet again this fall, our corss conference football partner is wake forest....when GT gets to play clemson and miami gets to play FSU.

[jipops]

Playing Syracuse once is a detriment, not a benefit.

Anyway, it would be more of a concern if UVa weren't head and shoulders above the rest of the conference.

Agreed, despite the lack of balance in schedule there is no doubt who the ACC's best team is.

[freshmanjs]

People on this board love to say that Duke has a tough schedule and say that other teams have weak schedules (UVa, UNC, KY). Of course, the truth is, all 3 of those teams have had tougher schedules than Duke this season.

[davekay1971]

I wish we could add one more team then just split the conference into two 8 team leagues and play regular season home and home with people only in our league. Give us the old school ACC minus FSU and the new kids can go play with themselves.

Football, do whatever you want.

The old school ACC IS minus FSU.

Get off my lawn! :D

[wilko]

The old school ACC IS minus FSU.

Get off my lawn! :D

I remember when GT was the new kid in town....

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

People on this board love to say that Duke has a tough schedule and say that other teams have weak schedules (UVa, UNC, KY). Of course, the truth is, all 3 of those teams have had tougher schedules than Duke this season.

I think people mean by the end of the season who will have the toughest schedule. I may be wrong but with the games at Wisc. Louisville, VA, UNCH, Syracuse and ND by the end of the year we may end up with the better schedule. Of course it still doesn't matter, still gotta win the games you are given. If we win these games we won't need to talk about the schedule because we will be sitting pretty holding a number one seed hopefully.

In fact using RPIForecast.com, Duke would have the second best SOS at the end of the season out of the four teams mentioned. UNC would still have the best and is predicted to have the second best SOS in the nation behind Kansas. Duke is expected to finish with the 10th best SOS, while KY and UVA are predicted to finish 16th and 17th respectively. Out of the current top 10 teams in the nation no one is even close to those 4 teams mentioned and Kansas. The next closest team would be Wisconsin with a SOS of 20. These are just predictions of course and could change.

[CDu]

I think people mean by the end of the season who will have the toughest schedule. I may be wrong but with the games at Wisc. Louisville, VA, UNCH, Syracuse and ND by the end of the year we may end up with the better schedule. Of course it still doesn't matter, still gotta win the games you are given. If we win these games we won't need to talk about the schedule because we will be sitting pretty holding a number one seed hopefully.

In fact using RPIForecast.com, Duke would have the second best SOS at the end of the season out of the four teams mentioned. UNC would still have the best and is predicted to have the second best SOS in the nation behind Kansas. Duke is expected to finish with the 10th best SOS, while KY and UVA are predicted to finish 16th and 17th respectively. Out of the current top 10 teams in the nation no one is even close to those 4 teams mentioned and Kansas. The next closest team would be Wisconsin with a SOS of 20. These are just predictions of course and could change.

All of this is true, but the topic of this thread was the ACC schedule. So the previous poster's point that UVa has played a tougher schedule so far (presumably he/she means overall, because our ACC schedule has been at least as tough as theirs so far) is moot anyway.

[MCFinARL]

Playing Syracuse once is a detriment, not a benefit.

Anyway, it would be more of a concern if UVa weren't head and shoulders above the rest of the conference.

You make a good point here--how hard a schedule looks going into the season and what it turns out to be aren't always the same. Notre Dame suffered a bad season last year and may not have been expected to rebound as well as they have. Syracuse was expected to drop a bit, I think, but not as much as they have. Certainly no one making up the schedules was predicting that Miami would be as competitive as they have been. Granted league schedules are influenced by expected ratings, the schedulers may have thought they were balanced in ways that they have not turned out to be.

And you are also right, of course, that at least based on play so far, UVa is the best team in the conference, regardless of schedule. While I might like to see them play Duke with an equivalent amount of rest, or at Cameron, either way Duke would have to/will have to play exceptionally well to beat them.

[DBFAN]

Here is how I see it.... No matter what our schedule is like, I truly belive ours would be harder than just about anyone in the nation, for the simple fact that everyone hates us. We could play nothing but AAU teams and ours would be tougher because everybody and their brother brings their best effort when Duke comes to town. While UVA may be ranked higher I promise that fans dont circle any other game besides us. No this isn't meant to be pretentious it's just that UVA hasn't been good long enough to be hated. Right now they are the Darlings of ACC. get a national title or 2 and things would change. Yeah I hate the unbalanced schedules, but if we win these next 2 games the reward is great

[toooskies]

No one has mentioned that UVA was scheduled for three games total against those powerhouses Miami and NC State. They survived a 2OT game against Miami and handled State, but they have to go to the RBC center in a few weeks.

It's the ACC. Any opponent can have your number on any given night.

[sagegrouse]

Has anyone mentioned in this thread that the size of the ACC and the unbalanced schedule makes the Tournament necessary not redundant?

[W&LHoo]

Pre-season scheduling is an impossible task, and I think they try to do a decent job. I don't think anyone had any idea that NC State or Miami or ND would be as strong as they are, and Virginia had to go play at Miami and at ND, and we're going to NC State after we play you guys, at Carolina, and Louisville. That's not an easy schedule, and that's before we get into us having to finish our season away at Louisville in what's sure to be an absolutely raucous environment.

That said, am I glad we get you kids in the JPJ and don't have to go to Cameron? You bet your blue and white asses I am.

[DBFAN]

Am I the only one who thinks the idea of the reg season champ should be done away with. With the unbalanced schedule and no way to ever know which teams are gonna surprise people, it's impossible to have a true champion

[W&LHoo]

Am I the only one who thinks the idea of the reg season champ should be done away with. With the unbalanced schedule and no way to ever know which teams are gonna surprise people, it's impossible to have a true champion

It has been, officially. In the ACC the conference champion is the tourney champion. Won't stop people from talking about it. And by "people" I mean us.

[sagegrouse]

Am I the only one who thinks the idea of the reg season champ should be done away with. With the unbalanced schedule and no way to ever know which teams are gonna surprise people, it's impossible to have a true champion

Cliff Ellis is still alive; therefore, the Conference is not likely to do away with the regular season championship trophy. It was instigated at Cliff's behest in 1990, when Clemson won the regular season championship for the first and only time, thanks to Elden Campbell and Dale Davis. The Tigers have never won the tournament.

[CDu]

It has been, officially. In the ACC the conference champion is the tourney champion. Won't stop people from talking about it. And by "people" I mean us.

Slight correction here. There are still two championships in the ACC: regular season and tournament. The winner of each of those honors has the right to hang a banner as that respective champion, and both deserve that honor. It is just that ACC representative for the NCAA tournament is the ACC Tournament Champion.

[jhmoss1812]

You make a good point here--how hard a schedule looks going into the season and what it turns out to be aren't always the same. Notre Dame suffered a bad season last year and may not have been expected to rebound as well as they have. Syracuse was expected to drop a bit, I think, but not as much as they have. Certainly no one making up the schedules was predicting that Miami would be as competitive as they have been. Granted league schedules are influenced by expected ratings, the schedulers may have thought they were balanced in ways that they have not turned out to be.

And you are also right, of course, that at least based on play so far, UVa is the best team in the conference, regardless of schedule. While I might like to see them play Duke with an equivalent amount of rest, or at Cameron, either way Duke would have to/will have to play exceptionally well to beat them.

We had the same complaint last year with only getting to play Duke once at Cameron. You guys won that game but we proved we were the best team in the conference by crushing the regular season (winning the conference by 2 games) and winning the ACCT against you guys. You guys will have the same opportunity this year. While we might have an easier conference schedule, it is not the reason we are a very good team. We've lost 3 games since Jan 1 2014 (@Duke, @MD, MSU in NCAAs). There will be quibbles about the conference schedule every year and there may be some years when you have an easier conference schedule than we do. It is not our fault that one of your primary rivals is UNC and ours is VT. We can't control that. At least we get Louisville twice a year. Finally, although we only play most of the top teams once, the majority of them (UNC, ND, Cuse, Miami) are on the road and the only one that we get at home is Duke. We already beat Miami and ND on the road and we beat Maryland and VCU (both ranked teams) on the road as well. But, if you want to complain about our schedule, that's your prerogative.

[jhmoss1812]

Here is how I see it.... No matter what our schedule is like, I truly belive ours would be harder than just about anyone in the nation, for the simple fact that everyone hates us. We could play nothing but AAU teams and ours would be tougher because everybody and their brother brings their best effort when Duke comes to town. While UVA may be ranked higher I promise that fans dont circle any other game besides us. No this isn't meant to be pretentious it's just that UVA hasn't been good long enough to be hated. Right now they are the Darlings of ACC. get a national title or 2 and things would change. Yeah I hate the unbalanced schedules, but if we win these next 2 games the reward is great

Would you rather trade in all your national championships and ACC championships so that teams don't circle you on the calendar? People circle you guys because of all the success you've had. Take it as a compliment and stop using it as an excuse for why you might lose games.

[FerryFor50]

Would you rather trade in all your national championships and ACC championships so that teams don't circle you on the calendar? People circle you guys because of all the success you've had. Take it as a compliment and stop using it as an excuse for why you might lose games.

I don't think anyone uses it as an excuse. It's just irritating that teams don't bring the same effort against all opponents. Particularly against UNC, who has had similar success.

[jhmoss1812]

I don't think anyone uses it as an excuse. It's just irritating that teams don't bring the same effort against all opponents. Particularly against UNC, who has had similar success.

I'll gladly switch places with you guys. There's really no reason not to bring max effort all the time so you just need to match that. UVA is starting to see some of that and I relish it. I think our players relish it too. I'm sure we'll get max effort out of Duke on Saturday night and it should make for an entertaining game and exciting atmosphere.

[duketaylor]

"it would be more of a concern if UVa weren't head and shoulders above the rest of the conference."

Head and shoulders? I think not.

[TexHawk]

You guys should try the round-robin, it's the bees knees.

#onetruechampionjustnotinfootball

[FerryFor50]

I'll gladly switch places with you guys. There's really no reason not to bring max effort all the time so you just need to match that. UVA is starting to see some of that and I relish it. I think our players relish it too. I'm sure we'll get max effort out of Duke on Saturday night and it should make for an entertaining game and exciting atmosphere.

Oh no doubt they need to match it.

But it is really annoying to see someone like Angel Rodriguez of Miami shoot lights out (8-15, 4-6 from 3 for 24 pts) at Cameron and then see him go a combined 5-29, 5-21 from 3 the next three games.

[jhmoss1812]

"it would be more of a concern if UVa weren't head and shoulders above the rest of the conference."

Head and shoulders? I think not.

Yeah I don't agree with that either. I honestly think UVA, UNC, Duke, Louisville and ND are all relatively equal to one another on a neutral court. Some a little better, some a little worse. But these top teams in the ACC are pretty evenly matched.

[FerryFor50]

Yeah I don't agree with that either. I honestly think UVA, UNC, Duke, Louisville and ND are all relatively equal to one another on a neutral court. Some a little better, some a little worse. But these top teams in the ACC are pretty evenly matched.

Eh... I think UVA is the only team of that bunch without a glaring major flaw. They defend well, they score well, can shoot and penetrate, etc. The rest of the teams have shown major question marks on either defense or offense. Duke has defensive struggles and can go into offensive slumps. L'ville can't shoot and has no real go-to scorer (Montrezl Harrell doesn't really dominate on offense). ND is worse than Duke defensively. UNC is the closest to being as well-rounded as UVA, but they also don't shoot real well.

UVA still has some tests coming up, but they are a solid team and can be considered the best team in the ACC until they actually lose some games. They will run into trouble only if Justin Anderson cools off. But he hasn't shown any signs of that yet.

[jhmoss1812]

Eh... I think UVA is the only team of that bunch without a glaring major flaw. They defend well, they score well, can shoot and penetrate, etc. The rest of the teams have shown major question marks on either defense or offense. Duke has defensive struggles and can go into offensive slumps. L'ville can't shoot and has no real go-to scorer (Montrezl Harrell doesn't really dominate on offense). ND is worse than Duke defensively. UNC is the closest to being as well-rounded as UVA, but they also don't shoot real well.

UVA still has some tests coming up, but they are a solid team and can be considered the best team in the ACC until they actually lose some games. They will run into trouble only if Justin Anderson cools off. But he hasn't shown any signs of that yet.

We have our offensive struggles as well. We went scoreless against VT for nearly 10 minutes. We may have less glaring limitations than some of the other teams but our margin of error is still pretty thin. This is why I have no problem being ranked #2 despite having the same record as Kentucky. Our next four games are Duke, @UNC, Louisville, @NCSU. 4-0 is unreasonable to expect. 3-1 would be very good imo. I think we'll probably go 2-2 to be honest. This is still a team comprised of 3 and 4 star players. Sure, they play well as a team but sometimes you just lose to superior basketball talent.

[CDu]

Eh... I think UVA is the only team of that bunch without a glaring major flaw. They defend well, they score well, can shoot and penetrate, etc. The rest of the teams have shown major question marks on either defense or offense. Duke has defensive struggles and can go into offensive slumps. L'ville can't shoot and has no real go-to scorer (Montrezl Harrell doesn't really dominate on offense). ND is worse than Duke defensively. UNC is the closest to being as well-rounded as UVA, but they also don't shoot real well.

UVA still has some tests coming up, but they are a solid team and can be considered the best team in the ACC until they actually lose some games. They will run into trouble only if Justin Anderson cools off. But he hasn't shown any signs of that yet.

Yeah, UVa's defense can cover a lot of ills that the other teams (especially Notre Dame) can't. Their offense has certainly been inflated by Anderson's ridiculous start to the season (note that they barely beat Virginia Tech when he was a mere mortal this weekend). They are the most balanced team of the bunch by far though.

[FerryFor50]

We have our offensive struggles as well. We went scoreless against VT for nearly 10 minutes. We may have less glaring limitations than some of the other teams but our margin of error is still pretty thin. This is why I have no problem being ranked #2 despite having the same record as Kentucky. Our next four games are Duke, @UNC, Louisville, @NCSU. 4-0 is unreasonable to expect. 3-1 would be very good imo. I think we'll probably go 2-2 to be honest. This is still a team comprised of 3 and 4 star players. Sure, they play well as a team but sometimes you just lose to superior basketball talent.

Well, I have no problems ranking UVA #2 because Kentucky is just wayyyyy better on both sides of the ball than UVA.

In fact, I think UVA might be a little overrated at #2. I think there are plenty of teams that would give UVA trouble. But in the ACC I think UVA is t he best team so far.

[DarkstarWahoo]

ESPN's latest Bracketology lists eight ACC teams in the field right now. Obviously a lot can change between now and then, but that's as good an indication of who's good and who's not as anything. Those teams are UVA and Duke (both 1 seeds!), along with (in order of projected seeding) Chapel Hill, Notre Dame, Louisville, NC State, Miami and Cuse.

That list breaks down starkly into projected high seeds and low seeds, with the dividing line between Louisville (4) and NC State (10). In the interest of not wasting too much of my employer's time, I'm only going to list the schedules of the high seeds. Please correct me if I messed anything up.

UVA: 9 games against projected tournament teams
Home (3): Duke, Louisville, State
Away (6): UNC, ND, Louisville, State, Miami, Cuse

Duke: 10 games
Home (4): UNC, ND, Miami, Cuse
Away (6): UVA, UNC, ND, Louisville, State, Cuse

Chapel Hill: 10 games
Home (6): UVA, Duke, ND, Louisville, State, Cuse
Away (4): Duke, Louisville, State, Miami

Notre Dame: 8 games
Home (4): UVA, Duke, Miami, Cuse
Away (4): Duke, UNC, Louisville, State

Louisville: 10 games
Home (6): UVA, Duke, UNC, ND, State, Miami
Away (4): UVA, UNC, Miami, Cuse

While I could have missed something, I don't see an easy schedule for UVA. I see marginally more difficult schedules for Duke, UNC and Louisville, with Duke's being tougher because of the home/road balance. I see Notre Dame getting the (relatively) easiest road with just one home-and-home against a projected tournament team and no trip to UVA (although trips to UNC and Louisville are not to be scoffed at) (Edit - and the Duke trip, of course!). And I see a great home schedule for Louisville to get their fans excited about joining the nation's best conference.

I also see a disappointed James Boeheim on Selection Sunday.

[FerryFor50]

I also see a disappointed James Boeheim on Selection Sunday.

Something tells me Boeheim already knows his NCAA fate.

[jhmoss1812]

Well, I have no problems ranking UVA #2 because Kentucky is just wayyyyy better on both sides of the ball than UVA.

In fact, I think UVA might be a little overrated at #2. I think there are plenty of teams that would give UVA trouble. But in the ACC I think UVA is t he best team so far.

I agree with you that there are plenty of teams that would give UVA trouble. Our margin of error is thin. I think people think that we can't be as good as we are because we're not riddled with elite talent. So we must be smoke and mirrors. I understand that. However, I am not sure why you think Kentucky is WAY better than UVA on both sides of the ball. Their defense is excellent but so is ours. We just approach defense in very different ways. Also, what is that impressive about Kentucky's offense? We are more efficient than them on offense according to Kenpom (6th vs. 17th). I think Kentucky is better than UVA but not wayyyy better as you proclaim.

[CDu]

ESPN's latest Bracketology lists eight ACC teams in the field right now. Obviously a lot can change between now and then, but that's as good an indication of who's good and who's not as anything. Those teams are UVA and Duke (both 1 seeds!), along with (in order of projected seeding) Chapel Hill, Notre Dame, Louisville, NC State, Miami and Cuse.

That list breaks down starkly into projected high seeds and low seeds, with the dividing line between Louisville (4) and NC State (10). In the interest of not wasting too much of my employer's time, I'm only going to list the schedules of the high seeds. Please correct me if I messed anything up.

UVA: 9 games against projected tournament teams
Home (3): Duke, Louisville, State
Away (6): UNC, ND, Louisville, State, Miami, Cuse

Duke: 10 games
Home (4): UNC, ND, Miami, Cuse
Away (6): UVA, UNC, ND, Louisville, State, Cuse

Chapel Hill: 10 games
Home (6): UVA, Duke, ND, Louisville, State, Cuse
Away (4): Duke, Louisville, State, Miami

Notre Dame: 8 games
Home (4): UVA, Duke, Miami, Cuse
Away (4): Duke, UNC, Louisville, State

Louisville: 10 games
Home (6): UVA, Duke, UNC, ND, State, Miami
Away (4): UVA, UNC, Miami, Cuse

While I could have missed something, I don't see an easy schedule for UVA. I see marginally more difficult schedules for Duke, UNC and Louisville, with Duke's being tougher because of the home/road balance. I see Notre Dame getting the (relatively) easiest road with just one home-and-home against a projected tournament team and no trip to UVA (although trips to UNC and Louisville are not to be scoffed at). And I see a great home schedule for Louisville to get their fans excited about joining the nation's best conference.

I also see a disappointed James Boeheim on Selection Sunday.

I think as the season progresses, the 'Cuse will work their way steadily out of the tournament discussion. Their resume is pretty empty so far, and I think they are in mostly on name right now (Lunardi is not a basketball analyst, so he's not good at projecting; he's just reasonably okay at figuring out in March who will be in the tournament).

I haven't looked at the bottom of the at-large contenders list, so I don't know how likely it is that State and Miami get in. But I would certainly order the conference as the top-5 (UVa, Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Louisville, with the last three in no particular order), then a big drop to Miami and State in no particular order, then a drop to Syracuse, then a chasm to the 9th team. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Syracuse works its way closer to the 9th team than to State/Miami as the season plays on.

[FerryFor50]

I agree with you that there are plenty of teams that would give UVA trouble. Our margin of error is thin. I think people think that we can't be as good as we are because we're not riddled with elite talent. So we must be smoke and mirrors. I understand that. However, I am not sure why you think Kentucky is WAY better than UVA on both sides of the ball. Their defense is excellent but so is ours. We just approach defense in very different ways. Also, what is that impressive about Kentucky's offense? We are more efficient than them on offense according to Kenpom (6th vs. 17th). I think Kentucky is better than UVA but not wayyyy better as you proclaim.

The reason I find Kentucky's defense better is two-fold:

1) Sheer size/length - UVA doesn't have the stable of rim protectors. And honestly, I feel like UVA's defense is more scheme than talent.

2) The platoon system - This allows Kentucky to wear teams down on defense and keep their guys fresh.

As for offense, one reason UVA is more efficient is their pace. They play slow because that's probably the only way they can win without the blue chip talent.

Kentucky's offense will likely be the only reason they may lose a game, but they have many more weapons on offense than UVA. Ullis, Harrison twins, etc have all shown that they can be threats from the perimeter. And the aforementioned size allows the front court to clean up misses and get putbacks.

Kentucky is in no way perfect, but I think they'd run UVA out of the gym.

[pfrduke]

While I generally think that discussions about schedule difficulty are overblown, Duke did draw the toughest conference road among the top teams. If one divides the conference into the 8 teams that have a shot at the NCAAs and the 7 teams that don't, Duke has to play 10 games (out of a possible max of 11*), including 6 on the road, against the 7 other top-8 teams. The only one of those opponents whose home court we avoid is Miami. Two other teams have 10 top-8 games, but they both got 6/4 home/road splits. Interestingly enough, Virginia has an equal number of top 8 road games - the only team whose home court they avoid is Duke - but one fewer home game, for a 3/6 split. Basically, our schedule is very slightly more difficult than UVA's because we double-dip against UNC while they double-dip against Virginia Tech. If pressed, I'd trade our schedule for theirs, but it's a pretty small difference. Here's how the schedule stacks up for the top 8 in terms of total games against each other and the home/road split:

Duke - 10 total games (4 home, 6 away) - ND, Miami, Syracuse, UNC, @ND, @UVA, @NCSU, @UNC, @Syracuse, @Louisville
Virginia - 9 total games (3 home, 6 away) - NCSU, Duke, Louisville, @UNC, @Syracuse, @ND, @Miami, @Louisville, @NCSU
UNC - 10 total games (6 home, 4 away) - ND, Louisville, Syracuse, UVA, NCSU, Duke, @NCSU, @Louisville, @Duke, @Miami
Notre Dame - 8 total games (4 home, 4 away) - UVA, Miami, Duke, Syracuse, @UNC, @NCSU, @Duke, @Louisville
Louisville - 10 total games (6 home, 4 away) - Duke, UNC, NCSU, Miami, ND, UVA, @UNC, @Miami, @UVA, @Syracuse
Miami - 8 total games (4 home, 4 away) - UVA, NCSU, Louisville, UNC, @Duke, @ND, @Syracuse, @Louisville**
NC State - 9 total games (5 home, 4 away) - Duke, UNC, ND, UVA, Syracuse, @UVA, @Miami, @Louisville, @UNC
Syracuse - 8 total games (4 home, 4 away) - Miami, Duke, Louisville, UVA, @ND, @Duke, @NCSU***

*The range for top-8 games is 7 to 11 because each team plays everybody once but only 4 opponents twice. The worst draw would be to have each of those 4 opponents come from the top 8, which no one got stuck with this year.

**Miami has already played 5 of these 8 games; 9 of its remaining 12 are against the bottom of the conference, and 2 of the 3 remaining against top opponents are at home. They could be well on their way to a 14-4 finish.

***Syracuse has only played 2 of these 8 games - their next 3 are against bottom half opponents, and then they finish with 6 of 7 against the top of the conference. They could be well on their way to a 9-9 finish, notwithstanding the schedule aid.

[DarkstarWahoo]

I think as the season progresses, the 'Cuse will work their way steadily out of the tournament discussion. Their resume is pretty empty so far, and I think they are in mostly on name right now (Lunardi is not a basketball analyst, so he's not good at projecting; he's just reasonably okay at figuring out in March who will be in the tournament).

I haven't looked at the bottom of the at-large contenders list, so I don't know how likely it is that State and Miami get in. But I would certainly order the conference as the top-5 (UVa, Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Louisville, with the last three in no particular order), then a big drop to Miami and State in no particular order, then a drop to Syracuse, then a chasm to the 9th team. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Syracuse works its way closer to the 9th team than to State/Miami as the season plays on.

No quibble with any of that. I think your analysis is spot on. And I just went back and looked at the date of that bracket, and it's from 1/22, so last night's UNC-Cuse game isn't reflected.

[CDu]

No quibble with any of that. I think your analysis is spot on. And I just went back and looked at the date of that bracket, and it's from 1/22, so last night's UNC-Cuse game isn't reflected.

Nor does it include Syracuse's loss to Miami. The 'Cuse had a much more digestible resume 5 days ago: 14-5, 5-1 in the ACC. The home loss to Miami and the loss to UNC start to paint a less appealing picture.

For what it is worth, the bracket (as updated yesterday) had Syracuse out (as the 7th best team left out). And I think that also excludes the UNC loss.

[jhmoss1812]

The reason I find Kentucky's defense better is two-fold:

1) Sheer size/length - UVA doesn't have the stable of rim protectors. And honestly, I feel like UVA's defense is more scheme than talent.

2) The platoon system - This allows Kentucky to wear teams down on defense and keep their guys fresh.

As for offense, one reason UVA is more efficient is their pace. They play slow because that's probably the only way they can win without the blue chip talent.

Kentucky's offense will likely be the only reason they may lose a game, but they have many more weapons on offense than UVA. Ullis, Harrison twins, etc have all shown that they can be threats from the perimeter. And the aforementioned size allows the front court to clean up misses and get putbacks.

Kentucky is in no way perfect, but I think they'd run UVA out of the gym.

Those are fair points. However, some of them are misleading. UVA actually has more size than Kentucky because our guards and wings are so big. We don't have the rim protectors they do but we have pretty good size and depth at that position. While we don't play a platoon system, we go pretty deep as well. We also tend to wear teams down over the course of a game. I agree that our defense is more about scheme than talent but I'm not sure why that matters so much. It's still incredibly effective.

As for offense, we don't play that slow. We play slow compared to other teams but we average 20.6 seconds per/possession of offense. That ranks 340th in the country. However, Kentucky averages 17.2 seconds (66th) and Duke averages 17.5 seconds (103rd). So it's not like we just dribble the ball around for 34 seconds and then shoot. We don't even really come close to using the whole shot clock. We play at a slower pace but those aren't huge differences.

It's just hard for me to imagine any team running us out of the gym. They may beat us more often than not but getting run out of the gym just doesn't happen to UVA.

[FerryFor50]

Nor does it include Syracuse's loss to Miami. The 'Cuse had a much more digestible resume 5 days ago: 14-5, 5-1 in the ACC. The home loss to Miami and the loss to UNC start to paint a less appealing picture.

For what it is worth, the bracket (as updated yesterday) had Syracuse out (as the 7th best team left out). And I think that also excludes the UNC loss.

That slide coincides with the loss of Chris McCullough.

http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2015/01/chris_mccullough_continues_syracuse_basketballs_re cent_run_of_season-ending_inju.html

That effectively ended Syracuse's chances. After that, they lost to Clemson (!), Miami and UNC.

[jhmoss1812]

As an aside, I just want to say that this is easily my favorite non-UVA board for college basketball. I just want to express my gratitude to you all for letting me come here and express my thoughts. All of your replies have been thoughtful and insightful and, even if I don't agree with something you said or you don't agree with something I said, the conversation is still civil and respectful.

[FerryFor50]

Those are fair points. However, some of them are misleading. UVA actually has more size than Kentucky because our guards and wings are so big. We don't have the rim protectors they do but we have pretty good size and depth at that position.

UVA's roster/size at guard (out of those that play major minutes):

Brogden 6'5"
Perrantes 6'2"
Anderson 6'6"
Shayok 6'6"


Kentucky:

Booker 6'6"
Harrison twins 6'6"
Ullis 5'9"

The only advantage is over Ullis. The rest of the Kentucky guards are just as big. I'd argue that Ullis is quicker than any of UVA's guards.

As for the front court, UVA has one big: Mike Tobey at 6'11". No one else is over 6'8." Kentucky has 5 guys over 6'9" they can rotate in. And one of them is a 7 footer that can hit from 3.

[CDu]

That slide coincides with the loss of Chris McCullough.

http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2015/01/chris_mccullough_continues_syracuse_basketballs_re cent_run_of_season-ending_inju.html

That effectively ended Syracuse's chances. After that, they lost to Clemson (!), Miami and UNC.

Yeah, unless Joseph and Roberson grow up REALLY fast or Gbinije suddenly figures it out, they are going nowhere fast. Christmas has played extremely well for them (a candidate for First Team All-ACC) and Cooney has been about as good as he can be, but they are are really light on scoring threats and ballhandlers/playmakers. Barring a fluke win or two against the big boys left on their schedule, it looks very bleak for them this year.

Even with McCullogh, I thought they were only an okay team. Without him, they are really thin on talent.

[DarkstarWahoo]

What's the general opinion of Gbinije around here? I watched him a lot in high school and always thought "Duke? Really?" Interested to hear what people who watched him more closely think.

[jhmoss1812]

UVA's roster/size at guard (out of those that play major minutes):

Brogden 6'5"
Perrantes 6'2"
Anderson 6'6"
Shayok 6'6"


Kentucky:

Booker 6'6"
Harrison twins 6'6"
Ullis 5'9"

The only advantage is over Ullis. The rest of the Kentucky guards are just as big. I'd argue that Ullis is quicker than any of UVA's guards.

As for the front court, UVA has one big: Mike Tobey at 6'11". No one else is over 6'8." Kentucky has 5 guys over 6'9" they can rotate in. And one of them is a 7 footer that can hit from 3.

I remember one broadcast that mentioned that UVA had more size than Kentucky, which really surprised me. I think they used the total roster though including walk-ons. I thought that I was probably wrong after I wrote it lol

[FerryFor50]

What's the general opinion of Gbinije around here? I watched him a lot in high school and always thought "Duke? Really?" Interested to hear what people who watched him more closely think.

We always wanted to see him succeed. He was 6'7" with good athleticism. Would have been a plus defender. But he never seemed to be able to put it all together and transferred out after his freshman year.

He's been decent for Syracuse and ideal for the 2-3 zone, but no world beater.

[CDu]

Those are fair points. However, some of them are misleading. UVA actually has more size than Kentucky because our guards and wings are so big. We don't have the rim protectors they do but we have pretty good size and depth at that position. While we don't play a platoon system, we go pretty deep as well. We also tend to wear teams down over the course of a game. I agree that our defense is more about scheme than talent but I'm not sure why that matters so much. It's still incredibly effective.

As for offense, we don't play that slow. We play slow compared to other teams but we average 20.6 seconds per/possession of offense. That ranks 340th in the country. However, Kentucky averages 17.2 seconds (66th) and Duke averages 17.5 seconds (103rd). So it's not like we just dribble the ball around for 34 seconds and then shoot. We don't even really come close to using the whole shot clock. We play at a slower pace but those aren't huge differences.

It's just hard for me to imagine any team running us out of the gym. They may beat us more often than not but getting run out of the gym just doesn't happen to UVA.


UVA's roster/size at guard (out of those that play major minutes):

Brogden 6'5"
Perrantes 6'2"
Anderson 6'6"
Shayok 6'6"


Kentucky:

Booker 6'6"
Harrison twins 6'6"
Ullis 5'9"

The only advantage is over Ullis. The rest of the Kentucky guards are just as big. I'd argue that Ullis is quicker than any of UVA's guards.

As for the front court, UVA has one big: Mike Tobey at 6'11". No one else is over 6'8." Kentucky has 5 guys over 6'9" they can rotate in. And one of them is a 7 footer that can hit from 3.

As FerryFor50 has said, UVa is not bigger than Kentucky. The only guy that UVa plays that is under 6'6" is the 5'9" Uhlis, and his game isn't hendered at all by his height. At SG, they play 3 6'6" guys (the Harrisons and Booker). At SF, they play two 6'6" guys (one of the Harrisons and Booker) or a 6'10" guy (Lyles). And at PF and C they roll with 4 guys 6'10" or taller and a 6'9" guy as the 5th big.

There are only two NBA teams that play a bigger regular lineup than Kentucky. There are no college teams that come close to Kentucky's size.

[FerryFor50]

I remember one broadcast that mentioned that UVA had more size than Kentucky, which really surprised me. I think they used the total roster though including walk-ons. I thought that I was probably wrong after I wrote it lol

Yea, even on the wings UVA is smaller. Unless they have a Sim Bhullar clone redshirted somewhere, they are definitely smaller than Kentucky. :)

[Henderson]

Slight correction here. There are still two championships in the ACC: regular season and tournament.

No. The ACC championship belongs to the tournament championship. And we know that because the teams in the ACC have agreed that to be so.

Teams can put up banners for bread awards, NIT runners up, best SAT scores, or "ACC Regular Season Champions," but there is only one ACC champion, and that is the winner of the tournament. That's not my opinion; it's a fact.

[FerryFor50]

No. The ACC championship belongs to the tournament championship. And we know that because the teams in the ACC have agreed that to be so.

Teams can put up banners for bread awards, NIT runners up, best SAT scores, or "ACC Regular Season Champions," but there is only one ACC champion, and that is the winner of the tournament. That's not my opinion; it's a fact.

Where does the Helms Championship fall into this discussion? :p

[devil84]

As a triathlete (not a good one, but I compete and finish), a trusted competitor and one who studies exercise science told me that I have three matches to burn during a triathlon. What's a match? When you strike a match, it flares up with a burst of energy, then burns brightly for a few seconds, then burns out. Just like that match, you have the ability to kick it in and max out your performance, but it's only for a very short stretch and it really takes a toll on your reserves. The average endurance athlete can burn three matches per race. A smart endurance athlete will examine the race course and decide where to burn those matches. A sprint triathlon starts with a half-mile swim followed by a 15 mile bike ride and finishes with a 3 mile run. A match might work for perhaps 5-10% or less of the total leg -- the swim start or finish, a killer hill on the bike/run leg, or overtaking a competitor anywhere on the course. If you burn one on the swim and two on the bike leg, there's likely going to be nothing left on that killer hill in the run. A better idea might be to resist burning one in the swim, use two in the bike leg, reserving one for that final hill in the run. Basically, this concept helps an endurance athlete not burn out too quickly during a race (or training, for that matter).

Likewise, a good coach and player (and fan) will look at the schedule and determine where the most effort is needed. A team might have three matches to burn during the season. So, at the beginning of the season, where in the ACC would you choose to burn your matches? If you could choose just ONE win that would really elevate your team, which would it be? Well, an obvious one is your rival team. That's one. The next would be a preseason top 5 or top 10 team. In the ACC, that's usually Duke and UNC, with Louisville and Syracuse as other possible targets. You've got two more matches to burn: where do you choose to use them? Are there two other teams that you'd burn a match for over beating Duke who has the winningest coach ever, particularly if you can be one of the few who win in Cameron? Where does beating UNC (or Louisville or Syracuse or whoever is at the top of the heap, this year being undefeated UVA) rank with regard to beating Duke if you could choose the win? (And can you wind up burning two matches in one game?)

That's why Duke is circled on the calendar. We get everyone's "match." And there have been an inordinate number of Duke losses (and close wins) where an opposing player has had a career game, equaling or exceeding their stats for the previous 4-8 games combined. For the non-Duke fans on the board, how many times has that happened in your losses for the past several seasons?

That said, I wouldn't trade that for the world. I love that we're circled on the calendar. We get everyone's best shot. Bring it on. We've got the best coach and the best players, and elite athletes love competing at the highest level. Sure, we'll lose a few games we "shouldn't," but it's the cost of an insanely successful program. And we've seen it happen time and time again...the game after beating us, that team will wilt. They burnt their match (or three) and need to replenish their reserves. It's predictable, and really annoying when the next team is UNC and they steamroll the same opponent easily.

As far as strength of schedule goes, a friend of mine on another email list looked at the schedules for UVA, Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke, and UNC (the top 6 at the time). Syracuse, and Notre Dame play 6 games against the others. UNC and Louisville play 7. Duke plays 8 games against the top 6.There are only two teams that play more away than home: UVA plays 4 of 6 on the road, and Duke plays 5 of 8 on the road (UNC gets 5 of those 7 games at home).

So yes, I do think that Duke's schedule isn't as favorable as others. UVA's is no cakewalk, either. Such is life. But you still have to play the games, and any team can get upset by a team that, on paper, doesn't look as good. That's why you play the games. The good news is that come tournament time, Duke should be nicely prepared for playing good teams who want to beat Duke in a hostile environment.

[CDu]

What's the general opinion of Gbinije around here? I watched him a lot in high school and always thought "Duke? Really?" Interested to hear what people who watched him more closely think.


We always wanted to see him succeed. He was 6'7" with good athleticism. Would have been a plus defender. But he never seemed to be able to put it all together and transferred out after his freshman year.

He's been decent for Syracuse and ideal for the 2-3 zone, but no world beater.

Yeah, he's long and athletic, but lacking in impact skill. I sort of see Gbinije as a poor man's version of Justise Winslow. He does a little bit of everything (handles the ball, shoots, drives, passes, defends), but nothing particularly well (unlike Winslow who does a little of everything but does several things pretty well).

Gbinije's problem at Duke was that he was stuck in a very talented backcourt (behind Austin Rivers and Andre Dawkins) with a coach who does not play deep into his bench. So he chaffed at the end-of-bench role and decided to move on (perhaps ironically, as the next year we lacked options at the bigger wing spot with the departure of Rivers and the redshirt of Dawkins).

I think Syracuse is a very good fit for him, as his length and athleticism play perfectly in the zone. Unfortunately, he's been cast as the backup PG on this team, which is not a good role for him. Ideally, he'd be a slashing wing with a capable PG so that his offensive role is minimal. But on a team without good ballhandlers and shooters, he's being asked to do more of those things that he isn't great at doing.

[Henderson]

Where does the Helms Championship fall into this discussion? :p

You missed the "bread award" thingy maybe. Easy to do with the posts flying fast.

[CDu]

No. The ACC championship belongs to the tournament championship. And we know that because the teams in the ACC have agreed that to be so.

Teams can put up banners for bread awards, NIT runners up, best SAT scores, or "ACC Regular Season Champions," but there is only one ACC champion, and that is the winner of the tournament. That's not my opinion; it's a fact.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that it is not a fact. I'm pretty sure that the ACC doesn't let you put up an "ACC Regular Season Champions" banner without being the best team in the regular season. If they didn't recognize that championship, they'd say "don't put up a banner with our name on it." Thus, they do inherently recognize that championship.

It is not the champion that represents the conference, however. For financial reasons (a tourney means more money), the ACC (as other conferences have done) has gone to the tournament model to decide their official conference representative in the tournament - even back when we had 9 or fewer teams and everyone played everyone else twice (so there was no need for a tournament).

[devildeac]

As an aside, I just want to say that this is easily my favorite non-UVA board for college basketball. I just want to express my gratitude to you all for letting me come here and express my thoughts. All of your replies have been thoughtful and insightful and, even if I don't agree with something you said or you don't agree with something I said, the conversation is still civil and respectful.

Noted. Thanks for being an intelligent, thoughtful participant.

[Henderson]

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that it is not a fact. I'm pretty sure that the ACC doesn't let you put up an "ACC Regular Season Champions" banner without being the best team in the regular season. If they didn't recognize that championship, they'd say "don't put up a banner with our name on it." Thus, they do inherently recognize that championship.
.

No. According to the ACC charter, only the tournament champion is the ACC Champion. It's been that way for over 50 years.

[devil84]

In an effort to resolve the regular season championship debate, I'll direct everyone to Al Featherston's excellent history lesson, The Real ACC Champion is Crowned in Greensboro (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2014/2/28/5456134/the-real-acc-champion-is-crowned-in-greensboro).

[CDu]

No. According to the ACC charter, only the tournament champion is the ACC Champion. It's been that way for over 50 years.

Two things:

1. Have you read the charter? Does it specifically say that they don't acknowledge the regular season champion? Happy to be proven wrong on this.
2. I suspect we are arguing two different things. The "official" ACC champion is, and has for over 50 years been the Tournament champion. No disagreement there. But the ACC also acknowledges the regular season champion by allowing them to raise a banner for winning that honor.

Unless the charter specifically says "we do not acknowledge the regular season champion at all" (or something to that effect), then nothing you said above disagrees with what I've said. They are two different things.

It's not a mythical honor to be ACC Regular Season champion. And as members of the conference, if the ACC did not recognize of the regular season championship they wouldn't allow their members to raise banners for it. They do recognize the regular season champion though, and the honor is that you can raise a banner for it (and nothing more substantial than that).

[jv001]

Two things:

1. Have you read the charter? Does it specifically say that they don't acknowledge the regular season champion? Happy to be proven wrong on this.
2. I suspect we are arguing two different things. The "official" ACC champion is, and has for over 50 years been the Tournament champion. No disagreement there. But the ACC also acknowledges the regular season champion by allowing them to raise a banner for winning that honor.

Unless the charter specifically says "we do not acknowledge the regular season champion at all" (or something to that effect), then nothing you said above disagrees with what I've said. They are two different things.

It's not a mythical honor to be ACC Regular Season champion. And as members of the conference, if the ACC did not recognize of the regular season championship they wouldn't allow their members to raise banners for it. They do recognize the regular season champion though, and the honor is that you can raise a banner for it (and nothing more substantial than that).

Didn't the ACC begin to recognize the regular season champs when Clemson won the regular season championship several years ago? Just recognize not crown them champs. ACCT Champs are the real champions. GoDuke!

[CDu]

In an effort to resolve the regular season championship debate, I'll direct everyone to Al Featherston's excellent history lesson, The Real ACC Champion is Crowned in Greensboro (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2014/2/28/5456134/the-real-acc-champion-is-crowned-in-greensboro).

And as Al states, since 1990 the conference has begun acknowledging the ACC Regular Season Championship. It's a thing. It's not the overall ACC Champion, which is the Tournament Champion. But the conference does acknowledge the ACC Regular Season Championship as well. It is a different and less prestigious (in the minds of the ACC, at least) championship, but it is an acknowledged championship.

Thanks for the link.

[Wander]

In an effort to resolve the regular season championship debate, I'll direct everyone to Al Featherston's excellent history lesson, The Real ACC Champion is Crowned in Greensboro (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2014/2/28/5456134/the-real-acc-champion-is-crowned-in-greensboro).

This argument is tired. Duke fans generally favor the ACC tournament championship because Duke has had relatively more success there. UNC fans generally favor the ACC regular season championship because UNC has had relatively more success there. That's all. Who cares if one was implemented later? They're both meaningful and "real." Period.

[CDu]

This argument is tired. Duke fans generally favor the ACC tournament championship because Duke has had relatively more success there. UNC fans generally favor the ACC regular season championship because UNC has had relatively more success there. That's all. Who cares if one was implemented later? They're both meaningful and "real." Period.

Agreed. The Featherston article should be the definitive statement on it.

It's pretty simple. The conference has, for over 25 years now, recognized the ACC Regular Season champion. They also recognize the ACC Tournament champion (and have for over 50 years). The conference has, for whatever reason, long set their preference for the Tournament champion. But they do recognize both championships.

And as you say, it is pretty petty to disparage the ACC regular season champion. In fact, up until the 2000s I'd have vehemently argued that the regular season championship (based on home-and-home round robin) was a more impressive accomplishment. I'd still argue that it is just as impressive as the tourney champ today, even with the unbalanced schedules, as the tournament itself is an extremely unbalanced schedule itself. But that's for another day; the point is that both are impressive honors and both are recognized by the conference.

[Henderson]

Agreed. The Featherston article should be the definitive statement on it.

It's pretty simple. The conference has, for over 25 years now, recognized the ACC Regular Season champion. They also recognize the ACC Tournament champion (and have for over 50 years). The conference has, for whatever reason, long set their preference for the Tournament champion. But they do recognize both championships.

And as you say, it is pretty petty to disparage the ACC regular season champion. In fact, up until the 2000s I'd have vehemently argued that the regular season championship (based on home-and-home round robin) was a more impressive accomplishment. I'd still argue that it is just as impressive as the tourney champ today, even with the unbalanced schedules, as the tournament itself is an extremely unbalanced schedule itself. But that's for another day; the point is that both are impressive honors and both are recognized by the conference.

I simply disagree that the ACC has recognized two champions. They recognize only one. And they don't prohibit banners signifying team accomplishments. Those aren't the same thing.

That said, I think there is substantial agreement that being the best regular season team is a huge accomplishment, and in my view more impressive than a conferance tourney title. I'll go further and agree with Bob Knight that the regular season success is (er, should be) more important than the tourney.

So I don't mean to denigrate the significance of winning the ACC in the regular season. It's a big accomplishment. I was just talking a technical definitional point under ACC rules.

But the bottom line from a technical point of view: You ain't the ACC Champion unless you win the tourney.

[CDu]

I simply disagree that the ACC has recognized two champions. They recognize only one. And they don't prohibit banners signifying team accomplishments. Those aren't the same thing.

That said, I think there is substantial agreement that being the best regular season team is a huge accomplishment, and in my view more impressive than a conferance tourney title. I'll go further and agree with Bob Knight that the regular season success is (er, should be) more important than the tourney.

So I don't mean to denigrate the significance of winning the ACC in the regular season. It's a big accomplishment. I was just talking a technical definitional point under ACC rules.

But the bottom line from a technical point of view: You ain't the ACC Champion unless you win the tourney.

I have no disagreement with the last sentence. That is, unquestionably true.

My disagreement is only with the first sentence. They have, since 1990, recognized the best regular season record as the Regular Season Champion. They gave a trophy to Clemson for it in 1990; they have retroactively honored the pre-1990 teams with the honor; and they have explicitly allowed teams to hang banners for it. What more could be representative of recognizing the championship than that?

The ACC recognizes (since 1990) an ACC Regular Season champion.
The ACC recognizes (since much longer ago) an ACC Tournament champion.
And the official ACC Champion is the latter.

[Henderson]

I have no disagreement with the last sentence. That is, unquestionably true.

My disagreement is only with the first sentence. They have, since 1990, recognized the best regular season record as the Regular Season Champion. They gave a trophy to Clemson for it in 1990; they have retroactively honored the pre-1990 teams with the honor; and they have explicitly allowed teams to hang banners for it. What more could be representative of recognizing the championship than that?

The ACC recognizes (since 1990) an ACC Regular Season champion.
The ACC recognizes (since much longer ago) an ACC Tournament champion.
And the official ACC Champion is the latter.

Totally agree with ##2 and 3, but about #1...

If you are correct, someone needs to update the ACC wiki page. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Coast_Conference#Tournament_as_championsh ip

And let Shane Ryan know. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-invisible-crown-syracuse-and-virginia-meet-for-the-acc-regular-season-title/

I'm not saying you're wrong; just wondering how pitiful my search capabilities are. :o

[andyw715]

'Cuse isn't going to the NCAA tourn, nor the ACCT. My gut feeling.

[CDu]

Totally agree with ##2 and 3, but about #1...

If you are correct, someone needs to update the ACC wiki page. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Coast_Conference#Tournament_as_championsh ip

And let Shane Ryan know. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-invisible-crown-syracuse-and-virginia-meet-for-the-acc-regular-season-title/

I'm not saying you're wrong; just wondering how pitiful my search capabilities are. :o

To be fair, even Ryan (who is hardly an expert on these things, and as a Duke alum has surely been brought up in the "the tourney is all that matters" mantra) cites Featherston's article, saying that the ACC allows the regular season champ to raise a banner. And the wiki page is, per Featherston's article, incorrect.

The reason there isn't more discussion of it is because there isn't much to discuss. The official ACC champion is the tournament champion, as has been the case for forever. Since 1990, they've recognized the regular season champ. But aside from getting to raise a banner, there isn't any more to that recognition. So for practical reasons, it IS insignificant (you don't get an automatic bid, and I don't think you get a trophy anymore).

The tournament champion (and official conference champion) gets a trophy and gets the conference's automatic bid. It is by far the more prestigious honor from the ACC's perspective (certainly reasonable minds can disagree on whether their emphasis was placed poorly, but so be it), but it is not the only honor that the ACC recognizes.

[CDu]

'Cuse isn't going to the NCAA tourn, nor the ACCT. My gut feeling.

Agree on the first, but how do you figure they won't make the ACC tournament?

[pfrduke]

'Cuse isn't going to the NCAA tourn, nor the ACCT. My gut feeling.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on how Syracuse will miss the ACC Tournament, which includes all 15 teams.

[pfrduke]

Agree on the first, but how do you figure they won't make the ACC tournament?

Ugh, on a related point, I just looked at the ACC tournament bracket for this season and was reminded that it a) starts on a Tuesday(!) and b) finishes on Saturday. Gone are the days of the Les Robinson Thursday game and spending Sunday afternoon watching the ACC title and then taking a long walk with the dogs to kill time before the selection show.

[gumbomoop]

I'm curious as to your thoughts on how Syracuse will miss the ACC Tournament, which includes all 15 teams.

Only thing I could imagine is that andyw715 thinks the NCAA investigation will produce an immediate bombshell. But to say that that's really hard to imagine is an understatement.

[Lauderdevil]

The original premise of this thread was that UVa is getting a bit of an unfair break, based in part on the fact that they only have to play us once.

They're currently the top team in the conference. We only have to play them once. Aren't we the ones getting a break here?

[jv001]

The original premise of this thread was that UVa is getting a bit of an unfair break, based in part on the fact that they only have to play us once.

They're currently the top team in the conference. We only have to play them once. Aren't we the ones getting a break here?

No, we don't get to play the top team in a home and home situation this season. GoDuke!

By the way, how's the weather in Florida today. Man, I'm tired of the cold weather here in NC. GoDuke!

[Duvall]

Totally agree with ##2 and 3, but about #1...

If you are correct, someone needs to update the ACC wiki page. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Coast_Conference#Tournament_as_championsh ip

And let Shane Ryan know. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-invisible-crown-syracuse-and-virginia-meet-for-the-acc-regular-season-title/

I'm not saying you're wrong; just wondering how pitiful my search capabilities are. :o

I don't see how we can really argue about whether the ACC recognizes a regular season champion - they hand out a trophy for it. They probably have one sitting out in Cameron somewhere now.

[W&LHoo]

As an aside, I just want to say that this is easily my favorite non-UVA board for college basketball. I just want to express my gratitude to you all for letting me come here and express my thoughts. All of your replies have been thoughtful and insightful and, even if I don't agree with something you said or you don't agree with something I said, the conversation is still civil and respectful.

I want to second this. I bounce around all the ACC boards (except Notre Dame, which seems to hide all of their good conversations behind a paywall. Who's gonna pay for some other team's site?).

This board is generally respectful and thoughtful, and seems to have a lot of posters that understand basketball and are happy to celebrate the success of the conference because you understand that it only makes us all stronger programs.

[W&LHoo]

The original premise of this thread was that UVa is getting a bit of an unfair break, based in part on the fact that they only have to play us once.

They're currently the top team in the conference. We only have to play them once. Aren't we the ones getting a break here?

Also, I love this post and I'm sad that I didn't post it first.

[DBFAN]

Would you rather trade in all your national championships and ACC championships so that teams don't circle you on the calendar? People circle you guys because of all the success you've had. Take it as a compliment and stop using it as an excuse for why you might lose games.

Umm that's an interesting reply, I'm guessing you just didn't take the time to read the entire paragraph, as long as it was, I won't ask you to read it again. But basically that's what I said. That other teams and fans may circle us, but.. Here it is..the reward is great.

Now that's out of the way.. You can say what you like but in the changing culture of college ball with teams that land more one and done type players will indeed have more trouble adjusting, because the young kids haven't experienced that kind of struggle. Look at the Duke teams from 1990-2010. Now some of those teams didn't work out, but the vast majority of them were good to great for the entire season, because they had leadership. When UVA basketball shows dominance for 20 years like that, I bet your opinion on this matter may change. Nobody here would ever think that we don't like being everybodies target, but what we are saying is that players like Mr Rodrigeuez who blow up against Duke, often dont do much outside of that one game.

[MCFinARL]

We had the same complaint last year with only getting to play Duke once at Cameron. You guys won that game but we proved we were the best team in the conference by crushing the regular season (winning the conference by 2 games) and winning the ACCT against you guys. You guys will have the same opportunity this year. While we might have an easier conference schedule, it is not the reason we are a very good team. We've lost 3 games since Jan 1 2014 (@Duke, @MD, MSU in NCAAs). There will be quibbles about the conference schedule every year and there may be some years when you have an easier conference schedule than we do. It is not our fault that one of your primary rivals is UNC and ours is VT. We can't control that. At least we get Louisville twice a year. Finally, although we only play most of the top teams once, the majority of them (UNC, ND, Cuse, Miami) are on the road and the only one that we get at home is Duke. We already beat Miami and ND on the road and we beat Maryland and VCU (both ranked teams) on the road as well. But, if you want to complain about our schedule, that's your prerogative.

Maybe I am just feeling ornery tonight, but I'm not sure why you are calling me out for complaining about your schedule. My first paragraph addresses the general point that it is hard to predict with any certainty which conference schedules will turn out to be hard or easy, because teams don't always perform according to expectations. It didn't really talk about whether UVa's schedule, either as conceived when set or as it looks now, is actually an easy schedule, compared to Duke's or in general. It didn't address your out-of-conference schedule at all, which I agree had some strong teams on it.

My second paragraph said that, at least as of now, regardless of schedule, UVa is the best team in the conference--again, not really a complaint. I did say that, as a Duke fan, I would rather have the Duke-UVa game in Cameron, and that I would rather face a UVa team with less rest when Duke is playing Wednesday in South Bend. That's just a fact--I would rather that those things were true. It's not a complaint or a suggestion that the schedule is somehow unfair to Duke--the schedule is what it is. Duke has had some games to play after longer rest than the opponent as well.

Re VT, I could argue (I'm being facetious here, now, so don't freak out) that it is your fault that one of your primary rivals is VT, since UVa (backed by Virginia politics--which I say as a resident of Virginia--not a criticism, just a statement of the facts as I know them) is the reason VT is in the ACC. But of course, speaking seriously now, you are right that these guaranteed home-and-homes take both traditional rivalries and regional pairings into account, and I certainly wouldn't suggest trading the opportunity for Duke to play the Heels twice a season for greater schedule balance vis a vis the Wahoos or any other team.

[nocilla]

I don't see how we can really argue about whether the ACC recognizes a regular season champion - they hand out a trophy for it. They probably have one sitting out in Cameron somewhere now.

I don't think this is correct. Someone surely would have found a picture by now if the regular season trophy existed. The only way the ACC recognizes the regular season winner is by giving them the #1 seed in the Championship tournament. They allow teams to hang a banner just like they allowed UNC to issue rings for football a couple years ago when they were ineligible.

[jhmoss1812]

Maybe I am just feeling ornery tonight, but I'm not sure why you are calling me out for complaining about your schedule. My first paragraph addresses the general point that it is hard to predict with any certainty which conference schedules will turn out to be hard or easy, because teams don't always perform according to expectations. It didn't really talk about whether UVa's schedule, either as conceived when set or as it looks now, is actually an easy schedule, compared to Duke's or in general. It didn't address your out-of-conference schedule at all, which I agree had some strong teams on it.

My second paragraph said that, at least as of now, regardless of schedule, UVa is the best team in the conference--again, not really a complaint. I did say that, as a Duke fan, I would rather have the Duke-UVa game in Cameron, and that I would rather face a UVa team with less rest when Duke is playing Wednesday in South Bend. That's just a fact--I would rather that those things were true. It's not a complaint or a suggestion that the schedule is somehow unfair to Duke--the schedule is what it is. Duke has had some games to play after longer rest than the opponent as well.

Re VT, I could argue (I'm being facetious here, now, so don't freak out) that it is your fault that one of your primary rivals is VT, since UVa (backed by Virginia politics--which I say as a resident of Virginia--not a criticism, just a statement of the facts as I know them) is the reason VT is in the ACC. But of course, speaking seriously now, you are right that these guaranteed home-and-homes take both traditional rivalries and regional pairings into account, and I certainly wouldn't suggest trading the opportunity for Duke to play the Heels twice a season for greater schedule balance vis a vis the Wahoos or any other team.

Those are all fair points. Maybe I read too much into your previous post. It's just incredibly frustrating that fans of every team want to quibble about our schedule these past two years. We can only play the games on our schedule and try to win as many of them as possible. And I will not take blame for VT being in the ACC. I wanted nothing to do with that. Sadly, I have very little influence over these matters.

[CDu]

Those are all fair points. Maybe I read too much into your previous post. It's just incredibly frustrating that fans of every team want to quibble about our schedule these past two years. We can only play the games on our schedule and try to win as many of them as possible. And I will not take blame for VT being in the ACC. I wanted nothing to do with that. Sadly, I have very little influence over these matters.

Nobody is blaming UVa (or UVa fans). But it is absolutely fair to note that UVa's schedule has been easier than the other big boys the past two years. It is not UVa's fault, and it is certainly not the fans' fault. But it is still reality that you had an easier schedule last year, and you have an easier schedule this year.

It is also true that you defended your easier schedule by winning the ACC tournament last year. So while you had an easier schedule, you earned the right to call yourself the best team anyway. And you have the chance to do the same.

I can understand your frustration, but you have to also understand that those other fans have a valid point as well. You just have to hope that your guys can make it moot again this year like you did last year.

[cato]

I don't think this is correct. Someone surely would have found a picture by now if the regular season trophy existed. The only way the ACC recognizes the regular season winner is by giving them the #1 seed in the Championship tournament. They allow teams to hang a banner just like they allowed UNC to issue rings for football a couple years ago when they were ineligible.

From the team's official website:

4671

[jhmoss1812]

Nobody is blaming UVa (or UVa fans). But it is absolutely fair to note that UVa's schedule has been easier than the other big boys the past two years. It is not UVa's fault, and it is certainly not the fans' fault. But it is still reality that you had an easier schedule last year, and you have an easier schedule this year.

It is also true that you defended your easier schedule by winning the ACC tournament last year. So while you had an easier schedule, you earned the right to call yourself the best team anyway. And you have the chance to do the same.

I can understand your frustration, but you have to also understand that those other fans have a valid point as well. You just have to hope that your guys can make it moot again this year like you did last year.

There's a difference between easier and significantly easier. I will agree that our schedule has been easier than the other big boys but I don't think it's been significantly easier (especially this year with all the road games against top teams in the conference). We also won the conference by 2 games last year, so that's obviously not just a by-product of an easier schedule. I have no problem with proving people wrong and I don't think the team does either as it's part of the territory of being the new guy on the block. But it's just definitely frustrating that our best teams have coincided with relatively easier schedules. I'm sure some people will use that as an explanation for our success but I think it's more of a coincidence. I guess we just have to keep winning, which I'm perfectly fine with. It'll be interesting to see how the media and other fans react when UVA does lose (to say Duke or UNC or Louisville).

[Dukehky]

There's a difference between easier and significantly easier. I will agree that our schedule has been easier than the other big boys but I don't think it's been significantly easier (especially this year with all the road games against top teams in the conference). We also won the conference by 2 games last year, so that's obviously not just a by-product of an easier schedule. I have no problem with proving people wrong and I don't think the team does either as it's part of the territory of being the new guy on the block. But it's just definitely frustrating that our best teams have coincided with relatively easier schedules. I'm sure some people will use that as an explanation for our success but I think it's more of a coincidence. I guess we just have to keep winning, which I'm perfectly fine with. It'll be interesting to see how the media and other fans react when UVA does lose (to say Duke or UNC or Louisville).

You don't have a road game against Duke...

Also, UL was really overrated at the beginning of the year. By the end of the year, I think it will be pretty clear that Duke, UVA, and UNC are the 3 best teams in the conference. In that order, regardless of record (I'm not biased, I swear!).

[DarkstarWahoo]

You don't have a road game against Duke...

Also, UL was really overrated at the beginning of the year. By the end of the year, I think it will be pretty clear that Duke, UVA, and UNC are the 3 best teams in the conference. In that order, regardless of record (I'm not biased, I swear!).

Agree that Louisville has flaws, but Notre Dame might have something to say about your top 3.

[jhmoss1812]

You don't have a road game against Duke...

Also, UL was really overrated at the beginning of the year. By the end of the year, I think it will be pretty clear that Duke, UVA, and UNC are the 3 best teams in the conference. In that order, regardless of record (I'm not biased, I swear!).

I know. I didn't say we had a road game against ALL the top teams in the conference but we have road games only against UNC, ND, Miami and Cuse. And we still play home and homes with Louisville and NCSU. Duke is the only team we got a favorable matchup with (and yes, I realize I'm on a Duke message board haha). I just don't think our schedule is all that easy this year. Of course I'd love to play home and homes with all the top teams but it's not feasible. And I'd much rather play these teams twice than just play them once on the road.

[pfrduke]

I know. I didn't say we had a road game against ALL the top teams in the conference but we have road games only against UNC, ND, Miami and Cuse. And we still play home and homes with Louisville and NCSU. Duke is the only team we got a favorable matchup with (and yes, I realize I'm on a Duke message board haha). I just don't think our schedule is all that easy this year. Of course I'd love to play home and homes with all the top teams but it's not feasible. And I'd much rather play these teams twice than just play them once on the road.

I agree with this. Among the top half of the conference, I think UVA would trade schedules with half of them - Notre Dame, Miami, Syracuse (in a heartbeat), and NCSU. And I think reasonable minds could differ about whether UNC and Louisville have tougher schedules. The only schedule trade I think UVA definitely would not make is with Duke, but even that still isn't a huge difference.

[jhmoss1812]

I agree with this. Among the top half of the conference, I think UVA would trade schedules with half of them - Notre Dame, Miami, Syracuse (in a heartbeat), and NCSU. And I think reasonable minds could differ about whether UNC and Louisville have tougher schedules. The only schedule trade I think UVA definitely would not make is with Duke, but even that still isn't a huge difference.

Agreed. Duke has the hardest schedule of the top teams. There's no question about that. But I don't think UVA's is that much easier. I'm hoping that with UVA's recent success, though, we'll start seeing more home and homes with UNC and Duke since they will be tabbed as marquee games that the nation wants to see too. We'll see though.

[CDu]

There's a difference between easier and significantly easier. I will agree that our schedule has been easier than the other big boys but I don't think it's been significantly easier (especially this year with all the road games against top teams in the conference). We also won the conference by 2 games last year, so that's obviously not just a by-product of an easier schedule. I have no problem with proving people wrong and I don't think the team does either as it's part of the territory of being the new guy on the block. But it's just definitely frustrating that our best teams have coincided with relatively easier schedules. I'm sure some people will use that as an explanation for our success but I think it's more of a coincidence. I guess we just have to keep winning, which I'm perfectly fine with. It'll be interesting to see how the media and other fans react when UVA does lose (to say Duke or UNC or Louisville).

First, I'm not sure how you would test for significance/non-significance. I would say your schedule last year certainly contributed to you winning the division by two games instead of by one or in a tie. This year, it remains to be seen, but I think I'd go ahead and eliminate Syracuse from the list of concerns. They are not good this year. And Miami obviously beat us, but I wouldn't really call them a top-tier team either (we just laid an egg that night defensively).

Really, there are 4 or 5 "big boy" teams this year: Duke, UVa, UNC, Notre Dame, and (maybe) Louisville. Everyone else is a game you "should" win regardless of location (and yes, I realize Duke has two losses that they "shouldn't" have already). And you play those teams a total of 5 times with 3 of the 5 on the road (but the toughest one at home). We play them 6 times, with 4 of the 6 on the road (and the toughest one on the road). That's a noteworthy difference in schedule in my mind.

That doesn't mean you guys aren't also a very good team. As I said, you silenced some critics by winning the ACC tournament last year. And you can do the same this year. But I think it is absolutely fair for (at least) Duke fans to mention that your schedule is much easier than ours.

[flyingdutchdevil]

But I don't think UVA's is that much easier.

It's not. My guess is that many Duke fans are unwilling to concede that UVA is the best team in the ACC right now and trying to rationalize it (not all, but many). Duke is really good, but UVA is better right now and there is really nothing that can prove that otherwise. Can it change before the tournies? Of course! Will it change? I hope so.

SIDE NOTE: I often don't like opposing teams in the ACC. I never liked UNC or Maryland teams and often found myself rooting hard against the GTs, FSUs, VTs, and nearly everyone else. Well, I didn't really care for UVA pre-Bennett. The teams that I usually root for are non-ACC, have likable coaches, maximize the talent, and are defensive-minded. Well, with the exception of the non-ACC part, this completely applies to UVA. I really like Tony Bennett and find myself rooting for UVA for every game that they don't play Duke. Tony Bennett is by far my favorite non-Coach K coach in the country and I believe that, right now, he is the best Xs-and-Os coach right now. He can't recruit like Calipari or Coach K, but he can damn get this players to compete with them.

[jhmoss1812]

First, I'm not sure how you would test for significance/non-significance. I would say your schedule last year certainly contributed to you winning the division by two games instead of by one or in a tie. This year, it remains to be seen, but I think I'd go ahead and eliminate Syracuse from the list of concerns. They are not good this year. And Miami obviously beat us, but I wouldn't really call them a top-tier team either (we just laid an egg that night defensively).

Really, there are 4 or 5 "big boy" teams this year: Duke, UVa, UNC, Notre Dame, and (maybe) Louisville. Everyone else is a game you "should" win regardless of location (and yes, I realize Duke has two losses that they "shouldn't" have already). And you play those teams a total of 5 times with 3 of the 5 on the road (but the toughest one at home). We play them 6 times, with 4 of the 6 on the road (and the toughest one on the road). That's a noteworthy difference in schedule in my mind.

That doesn't mean you guys aren't also a very good team. As I said, you silenced some critics by winning the ACC tournament last year. And you can do the same this year. But I think it is absolutely fair for (at least) Duke fans to mention that your schedule is much easier than ours.

Yeah i don't really know how to test for significance either (despite getting my PhD in psychology and relying on statistically significant results lol). The tournament rightfully determines the ACC champion but that is based on 3-4 games rather than 18 in the regular season. In addition, the tournament is flawed too because the teams are seeded based on unbalanced regular season schedules. So one could say that UVA only won the ACC tournament because they had an "easier" path in the ACC tournament because they had an easier regular season schedule. It's a slippery slope that's really not worth going down. It's either not worth talking about at all or worth talking about every year. Or more importantly, something worth changing.

[MarkD83]

Tony Bennett is by far my favorite non-Coach K coach in the country and I believe that, right now, he is the best Xs-and-Os coach right now. He can't recruit like Calipari or Coach K, but he can damn get this players to compete with them.

I'll disagree slightly with the "can't recruit" statement. Bennett gets the best recruits that fit his system. This is a different strategy of recruiting and seems to work well. They are competitive and showing that it can be sustained over many years. The down side is they may not get the extradonairy talent that most folks think you need to win a National Championship.

I cheer for UVA and Bennett because it is the anti-thesis of the UK point of view which is just get as many talented players as you can and have them leave after a year. Duke is somehwere in the middle. Coach K can get the "one and dones" but tries to maintain a system that has talented juniors and seniors as leaders.

[pfrduke]

That doesn't mean you guys aren't also a very good team. As I said, you silenced some critics by winning the ACC tournament last year. And you can do the same this year. But I think it is absolutely fair for (at least) Duke fans to mention that your schedule is much easier than ours.

This is a stretch. We have 11 common games (opponent and location) on our schedule. Of the remaining games, we have three common opponents:

BC - Duke hosts, Virginia travels - slightly more difficult for UVA, but it's still BC
Miami - Duke hosts, Virginia travels - more difficult for UVA
FSU - Duke travels, Virginia hosts - slightly more difficult for Duke, but it's still FSU

So then there are only 4 left. One is the Duke-UVA game itself, which UVA gets the benefit of hosting this year.

For the other three:

1 - Duke hosts UNC; UVA hosts Louisville - pretty close to a push
2 - Duke hosts Syracuse; UVA hosts NC State - more difficult for UVA, somewhat
3 - Duke hosts Notre Dame; UVA hosts Virginia Tech - much more difficult for Duke

The real meaningful difference in the teams' respective schedules out of 18 games is essentially (1) UVA gets to host the sole matchup between the teams and (2) UVA's 18th game is against Virginia Tech while ours is against Notre Dame. That one game is obviously much easier for Virginia, but I don't think it makes their entire schedule that much easier.

[CDu]

Yeah i don't really know how to test for significance either (despite getting my PhD in psychology and relying on statistically significant results lol). The tournament rightfully determines the ACC champion but that is based on 3-4 games rather than 18 in the regular season. In addition, the tournament is flawed too because the teams are seeded based on unbalanced regular season schedules. So one could say that UVA only won the ACC tournament because they had an "easier" path in the ACC tournament because they had an easier regular season schedule. It's a slippery slope that's really not worth going down. It's either not worth talking about at all or worth talking about every year. Or more importantly, something worth changing.

I mean, it's gonna get talked about most years when things like this happen. That's just reality. Not much can be done with a 15 team conference (they aren't playing 30 ACC games). Ultimately, it's all just discussion anyway. So the best thing to do is just accept that there is going to be doubt and try not to get frustrated when folks make reference to said doubt.

In a lot of years, the difference in schedules doesn't factor in too much, because one team is clearly better than the rest. That hasn't really been the case lately, though you have a chance to make that case this year.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'll disagree slightly with the "can't recruit" statement. Bennett gets the best recruits that fit his system. This is a different strategy of recruiting and seems to work well. They are competitive and showing that it can be sustained over many years. The down side is they may not get the extradonairy talent that most folks think you need to win a National Championship.

I cheer for UVA and Bennett because it is the anti-thesis of the UK point of view which is just get as many talented players as you can and have them leave after a year. Duke is somehwere in the middle. Coach K can get the "one and dones" but tries to maintain a system that has talented juniors and seniors as leaders.

There are plenty of talented players who are more highly ranked than the Gills, Andersons, and Brogdons who can play UVA's system (these three players were ranked 88, 49, and 79, respectively according to ESPN). And I guarantee Tony Bennett would love to get his hands on them. But he hasn't. Yet. With the positive exposure over the last two years, I assume that Tony will be able to compete more effectively on the recruiting end. Bennett may not be able to hit the top 10, but he can definitely hit the top 50s.

[jhmoss1812]

There are plenty of talented players who are more highly ranked than the Gills, Andersons, and Brogdons who can play UVA's system (these three players were ranked 88, 49, and 79, respectively according to ESPN). And I guarantee Tony Bennett would love to get his hands on them. But he hasn't. Yet. With the positive exposure over the last two years, I assume that Tony will be able to compete more effectively on the recruiting end. Bennett may not be able to hit the top 10, but he can definitely hit the top 50s.

Perhaps.

For 2015, we have Jarred Reuter (3-star PF, #140) coming in. Also Darius Thompson, a transfer PG from Tennessee, will be available.

For 2016 - we have Kyle Guy (4-star SG, #60), Ty Jerome (3-star PG, #119) and Sacha Killeya-Jones (3-star PF, #114). We are still really trying to get Mamadi Diakite (4-star F, #83) who we definitely lead for. These are all Bennett's #1 options so he obviously feels like they fit our system the best. But these are not top recruits. But I trust in Bennett so I'm going to believe that he'll be able to turn these guys into All-ACC players.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Perhaps.

For 2015, we have Jarred Reuter (3-star PF, #140) coming in. Also Darius Thompson, a transfer PG from Tennessee, will be available.

For 2016 - we have Kyle Guy (4-star SG, #60), Ty Jerome (3-star PG, #119) and Sacha Killeya-Jones (3-star PF, #114). We are still really trying to get Mamadi Diakite (4-star F, #83) who we definitely lead for. These are all Bennett's #1 options so he obviously feels like they fit our system the best. But these are not top recruits. But I trust in Bennett so I'm going to believe that he'll be able to turn these guys into All-ACC players.

Interesting. That is surprising. Maybe Bennett is the new Gary Williams (amazing in Xs-and-Os, refuses to play the recruiting game). I'd be interested to see how Bennett recruits next year, especially with the positive exposure.

[eddie_yvp]

First, I'm not sure how you would test for significance/non-significance. I would say your schedule last year certainly contributed to you winning the division by two games instead of by one or in a tie. This year, it remains to be seen, but I think I'd go ahead and eliminate Syracuse from the list of concerns. They are not good this year. And Miami obviously beat us, but I wouldn't really call them a top-tier team either (we just laid an egg that night defensively).

Really, there are 4 or 5 "big boy" teams this year: Duke, UVa, UNC, Notre Dame, and (maybe) Louisville. Everyone else is a game you "should" win regardless of location (and yes, I realize Duke has two losses that they "shouldn't" have already). And you play those teams a total of 5 times with 3 of the 5 on the road (but the toughest one at home). We play them 6 times, with 4 of the 6 on the road (and the toughest one on the road). That's a noteworthy difference in schedule in my mind.

That doesn't mean you guys aren't also a very good team. As I said, you silenced some critics by winning the ACC tournament last year. And you can do the same this year. But I think it is absolutely fair for (at least) Duke fans to mention that your schedule is much easier than ours.

Good discussion. Have enjoyed reading this forum for a long time - finally decided to join to offer my two cents.

First off, I agree that Duke has the tougher ACC schedule this year. I wouldn't have thought that at the beginning of the season, but ND is obviously better than people thought and Louisville doesn't appear to be as strong (although they tend to peak later in the season).

With that said, I think the "who plays who twice" talk is overrated. In my opinion, for the top teams, the relative difficulty of schedule is more about who you play on the road. And with the exception of not playing Duke on the road, (which is a huge deal), UVA plays every other top team on the road this year. So yeah, the only thing that UVA's schedule is missing this year is a return trip to Cameron. That would be an expected loss for UVA and it may be the difference in who wins the regular season "title" (but can't sleep on ND).

So I certainly don't have an issue with anybody saying UVA has an easier schedule than Duke this year. But I attribute it 100% to not playing at Duke. I can't see how anybody would argue that UVA is catching a break by not having to play UNC or Cuse in Charlottesville.

For that same reason, I think UVA got unfairly slammed for its schedule last year. Was a second game against Duke in Charlottesville really a likely loss for UVA? Sure, if you gave UVA a second Duke game last year and two extra road games against Cuse and UNC, I'd argue the expected additional losses for those three games would be between 1.0 and 1.5. That outcome would still earn UVA the #1 seed in the ACC tournament, despite that hypothetical schedule being decidedly unbalanced against UVA.

So that's my take. In the end, I don't think it matters much. But sure, Duke has a tougher road this year. Should be a great game on Saturday.

[DarkstarWahoo]

Interesting. That is surprising. Maybe Bennett is the new Gary Williams (amazing in Xs-and-Os, refuses to play the recruiting game). I'd be interested to see how Bennett recruits next year, especially with the positive exposure.

That's an interesting comparison, in no small part because UVA's best player this year is Justin Anderson, who I'm pretty sure is also the highest-rated recruit on the roster. And he's in Charlottesville largely because Gary retired.

[nocilla]

From the team's official website:

4671

Well there you go. I stand corrected. I still find it curious that this trophy is 22 years old. Was this a temporary thing or are they still handing them out today? Do any of our UVA fans recall seeing or hearing of a trophy for last season? Or is it like the banners and the school produces a trophy if they want to put one in the trophy case?

[-jk]

Interesting. That is surprising. Maybe Bennett is the new Gary Williams (amazing in Xs-and-Os, refuses to play the recruiting game). I'd be interested to see how Bennett recruits next year, especially with the positive exposure.

I suspect Bennett will struggle to get the absolute best recruits - his style doesn't convey to the NBA quite so well as some other coaches'. On the other hand, they'll stick around, learn the system, and win a bunch of games.

-jk

[uh_no]

Well there you go. I stand corrected. I still find it curious that this trophy is 22 years old. Was this a temporary thing or are they still handing them out today? Do any of our UVA fans recall seeing or hearing of a trophy for last season? Or is it like the banners and the school produces a trophy if they want to put one in the trophy case?

a championship is only as good as the faith people put in it.

the "helms champions" was a real thing....but despite that, it's still obviously a farce.

A "regular season" champion is a relatively well defined and agreed upon thing. Even if the ACC had no official recognition, among the populace the regular season champion could still be (and is) defined as the team with the best conference record.

So arguing the semantics of whether the ACC officially recognizes it is largely pointless...as it's accepted as a meaningful thing in the world of college basketball. Pointing out that "the conference champion is the only TRUE champion" would be like claiming the D1 FCS tournament champion was the only "true" football national champion. Most people put stock in winning the conference regular season. If you don't that's fine....but it's silly to pretend it's not a thing.

[W&LHoo]

a championship is only as good as the faith people put in it.

the "helms champions" was a real thing....but despite that, it's still obviously a farce.

A "regular season" champion is a relatively well defined and agreed upon thing. Even if the ACC had no official recognition, among the populace the regular season champion could still be (and is) defined as the team with the best conference record.

So arguing the semantics of whether the ACC officially recognizes it is largely pointless...as it's accepted as a meaningful thing in the world of college basketball. Pointing out that "the conference champion is the only TRUE champion" would be like claiming the D1 FCS tournament champion was the only "true" football national champion. Most people put stock in winning the conference regular season. If you don't that's fine....but it's silly to pretend it's not a thing.

As evidenced by the fact that commentators all season have described UVA as "the defending ACC regular season and tournament champions."

[mykeuva]

I'm not denying UVA is a great team, but I just noticed they only play Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, and Syracuse, once on their schedule. It seems like they benefitted last year from a weak schedule as well if I recall correctly. I guess I'm more concerned with equal balance in scheduling than just picking on them. They were definitely the best team, but playing the top 3 only once this year is troubling.


Whatever advantage UVA gets from playing those teams mentioned only once is negated by the fact that 3 of the 4 games are on the road for UVA. Not exactly logical to state UVA is "lucky" by not getting to play UNC, Syracuse, or Notre Dame at home (especially as UVA has beaten Notre Dame on the road this year).

Same as last year. Could it really be said that UVA lucked out by only getting Duke once, as UVA lost by a bucket in the closing seconds at Duke, and won fairly comfortably on a neutral court? Would the expected outcome of a Duke @ UVA last year really be a win for Duke in Charlottesville, considering the results of the two games Duke and Virginia played last year?

Oh, and as mentioned, Louisville was left off the list of teams above, and UVA plays them twice every year.

[jv001]

As evidenced by the fact that commentators all season have described UVA as "the defending ACC regular season and tournament champions."

And you certainly deserved both. GoDuke!