The validity of conference tournaments

[snowdenscold]

I used to be all about the "Tournament determines the true conference champion... what is this johnny-come-lately regular season champion nonsense" - but that attitude was back when we were winning the ACCT almost every year and UNC had starting making a fuss about their regular season results.

However, I've mostly changed my mind on the matter. I think CDu hits a lot of the points well, so I won't repeat them in detail, but just want to reiterate that the ACCT has at least as many flaws as determining a regular season champion in an unbalanced schedule. Furthermore, it's helpful to remember all the language about "official" conference champions and the like derives from when you had to win the ACCT to even make the NCAA's. Obviously that's been a non-issue for many decades now. I understand the bylaws haven't changed on this matter since 1961, but we should always remember the context. And so while I used to be in line w/ Bob Green and Newton's thinking, now it's more of an "Ehhh..."

So I'm not going to go overboard and say the ACCT is unimportant, or not something to be excited about winning (and I do enjoy watching it each year and obviously really desire Duke to win), just that I quite value the larger sample size of a regular season over a single-elimination format played in a condensed time period.

It's the same reason I said in the football thread that I think 4 teams is ideal for the CFPlayoffs, and while I could stomach 8 (which seems to be what the majority prefers), I absolutely do not want 16. I mean, heck, at that point why not just everyone play 7 exhibition games and then have teams enter into a 128 field playoff? (Of course I say that as someone whose favorite sport to follow is tennis, which consists of nothing but single elimination tournaments every week, but that's neither here nor there ;) )

[Kedsy]

So I'm not going to go overboard and say the ACCT is unimportant, or not something to be excited about winning (and I do enjoy watching it each year and obviously really desire Duke to win), just that I quite value the larger sample size of a regular season over a single-elimination format played in a condensed time period.

Except if we should downgrade the importance of the ACC tournament, why is everyone so gaga about the NCAA tournament -- it's also a "single-elimination format played in a condensed time period," isn't it?

[uh_no]

Except if we should downgrade the importance of the ACC tournament, why is everyone so gaga about the NCAA tournament -- it's also a "single-elimination format played in a condensed time period," isn't it?

I, for one, am completely in favor of a 700 game double round robin among all the D-1 teams :)

[MarkD83]

I, for one, am completely in favor of a 700 game double round robin among all the D-1 teams :)

Followed by a 514 team single elimination tournament. Yes, 514 you still need the two play-in games in Dayton.

[cptnflash]

Except if we should downgrade the importance of the ACC tournament, why is everyone so gaga about the NCAA tournament -- it's also a "single-elimination format played in a condensed time period," isn't it?

I think people are "gaga" about the NCAA tournament because it's tons of fun. But it's also very obvious that the format is poorly suited for identifying/rewarding the best team, and even for programs that are consistently in contention for winning it (ours included), the NCAAT shouldn't be THE defining barometer of achievement in a season. I think the excitement aspect causes many people (year-round fans and "March only" fans alike) to overvalue it from a basketball achievement standpoint.

[snowdenscold]

Except if we should downgrade the importance of the ACC tournament, why is everyone so gaga about the NCAA tournament -- it's also a "single-elimination format played in a condensed time period," isn't it?


I think people are "gaga" about the NCAA tournament because it's tons of fun. But it's also very obvious that the format is poorly suited for identifying/rewarding the best team, and even for programs that are consistently in contention for winning it (ours included), the NCAAT shouldn't be THE defining barometer of achievement in a season. I think the excitement aspect causes many people (year-round fans and "March only" fans alike) to overvalue it from a basketball achievement standpoint.

I'll second what cptnflash said.

I too have reservations about the nature of the NCAA tournament, despite the enormous amount of fun and entertainment it brings each year (to me included). And to the casual fan, they mostly want to see the first weekend, w/ all the potential upsets occurring and multiple games going on simultaneously (where an exciting game is usually happening somewhere). But I seriously hope we don't end up w/ many more 2011's where the Final Four was the 3, 4, 8 and 11 seeds. That was unfortunate, not something exciting or special, IMO. I thought 2007, 2008 and 2009 were great years from a FF perspective: [ (1,1,2,2), (1,1,1,1), (1,1,2,3) ]. Of course terrible years in the sense that Florida repeated, diminishing the 1992 team's accomplishment, and UNC won*. Bleh.

[Seattle Hoo]

Yep. That will always be my stance.
I far value the tourney over the regular season, always have, always will. I get we hang banners for finishing first in the very unbalanced Reg Season but the tourney means far more to me.

You realize the regular season is just "unbalanced", not "very unbalanced". Last year, with all the hullabaloo over the "unbalanced schedule," Virginia's conference SOS rated by KenPom was the strongest in the conference. He took into account ALL conference games, not just "games against the top however many fits our argument." While Virginia played ONE fewer games against the top three or four competitors than did some of the other top competitors, the Hoos' had a tougher mix of games against the rest of the ACC than did the other top competitors.

I would also point out that even if we use the "games against the top however many fits our argument" metric rather than overall conference SOS, the difference between schedules of the teams only matters when the difference between schedules is greater than the difference between records. In the case of last year, the difference in schedules was -1 for Virginia, while the difference in records was +2. So even if the extra game were put onto Virginia's record as a loss, the Hoos would still have finished with the top seed.

Finally, as someone else has pointed out, the tournament is even more "unbalanced." I love the tournament, it means a lot to me, Virginia's failure to win even one in all the time I was a Virginia fan was very painful to me and winning it last year made the season a smashing success for me, but it does not demonstrate which conference team is the best. All it does towards that end is add more data.

This is not to say that anybody is "right" or "wrong" for how they value one or the other, because each individual is free to value things as he chooses. Value is purely subjective and the right to choose how something will be valued is part of being a free sovereign entity. But we need to separate out how we value the different parts of the season from empirical issues such as which part of the season most demonstrates which is the best team. If you value the tournament more than the regular season because you think it shows which conference team is "best," you're simply incorrect in your reasoning.

Personally, I value three of the four parts of the season fairly evenly. I break the season down into OOC, conference, conference tournament and NCAAT. The OOC portion means the least to me, but the other three are fairly equal. It's why I value 2014 more than 1984 even though the 1984 team went to the Final Four. That was a mediocre ACC team that got hot and made a run at the right time in fairly favorable circumstances. The 2014 team dominated the conference, and while Sweet Sixteen is not as far as a 1 seed should go, the loss to Michigan State is nothing to be ashamed of. That team probably would have been at worst a 2 seed if the players who played in that game had played the whole regular season, and that game could have gone either way.

[tbyers11]

You realize the regular season is just "unbalanced", not "very unbalanced". Last year, with all the hullabaloo over the "unbalanced schedule," Virginia's conference SOS rated by KenPom was the strongest in the conference. He took into account ALL conference games, not just "games against the top however many fits our argument." While Virginia played ONE fewer games against the top three or four competitors than did some of the other top competitors, the Hoos' had a tougher mix of games against the rest of the ACC than did the other top competitors.


I generally agree with your stance that the "unbalancedness" of the ACC conference schedule is a bit overblown.

However, my reading of the 2014 KenPom ACC Conf SOS (against all teams) shows that Virginia had the WEAKEST (15th out of 15) schedule in the conference. Also, the magnitude of SOS difference between Virginia at 15 and Duke at 13 was almost identical to the difference between Duke at #13 and FSU at #3.

By this metric, Virginia did have a really easy conference schedule last year but in the end it doesn't really matter when a team outpaces its nearest competitors by at least 2 games like UVa did last year.

[CDu]

I think people are "gaga" about the NCAA tournament because it's tons of fun. But it's also very obvious that the format is poorly suited for identifying/rewarding the best team, and even for programs that are consistently in contention for winning it (ours included), the NCAAT shouldn't be THE defining barometer of achievement in a season. I think the excitement aspect causes many people (year-round fans and "March only" fans alike) to overvalue it from a basketball achievement standpoint.


I'll second what cptnflash said.

I too have reservations about the nature of the NCAA tournament, despite the enormous amount of fun and entertainment it brings each year (to me included). And to the casual fan, they mostly want to see the first weekend, w/ all the potential upsets occurring and multiple games going on simultaneously (where an exciting game is usually happening somewhere). But I seriously hope we don't end up w/ many more 2011's where the Final Four was the 3, 4, 8 and 11 seeds. That was unfortunate, not something exciting or special, IMO. I thought 2007, 2008 and 2009 were great years from a FF perspective: [ (1,1,2,2), (1,1,1,1), (1,1,2,3) ]. Of course terrible years in the sense that Florida repeated, diminishing the 1992 team's accomplishment, and UNC won*. Bleh.

I'll agree with these two points and note also that the NCAA tournament (while even more flawed than the ACC tourney due to being an even longer single-elimination format) is the only we have of top team at the national level. It's pretty poorly designed to measure that, but it is all we have. It is also final. You win the championship, that's it. You lose, and your season is over.

This is much different than the ACC tournament, which is no longer necessary. When the ACC tourney was the only way to get into the NCAA tournament, I totally understand valuing it more than the regular season (even though back then the regular season was CLEARLY the best measure of the best team). Without it, you couldn't move on to the NCAAs, so it obviously had more importance. Your season (at least at the national relevance level - there was still the NIT) effectively ended if you didn't win it. Now? The ACCs are just not nearly as relevant as in the old days. It is still a lot of fun, and still a nice goal to win it, but we haven't "needed" to win it in about 20 years, and we've only needed to win it a few times in Coach K's tenure.

But in terms of measuring the best team? The ACC tourney is terrible at doing it within the ACC, and the NCAA tournament is terrible for doing it at the national level. But the NCAA tournament is all we have to do that, whereas the ACC tourney is not all we have to measure best team in the conference.

[Bob Green]

But in terms of measuring the best team? The ACC tourney is terrible at doing it...

South Carolina agrees with you. :eek:

[Papa John]

But in terms of measuring the best team? The ACC tourney is terrible at doing it within the ACC, and the NCAA tournament is terrible for doing it at the national level. But the NCAA tournament is all we have to do that, whereas the ACC tourney is not all we have to measure best team in the conference.

But why is the NCAA tournament all we have to measure the best team nationally if the ACC tournament is not all we have to measure the best team? Based on your logic, I'm guessing that the other measure of the best team in the ACC is the team that best navigates the unbalanced regular season schedule. Based on that logic, isn't the best team in the NCAA the one that best navigates the unbalanced NCAA schedule? So, in the case of regular season record ties in the ACC, you have split champions... Wouldn't you then be able to use the same logic at the NCAA level?

Regardless of the purpose, the league champion, per the conference bylaws, is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Much as the national champion is the winner of the NCAA tournament. Until league reps change the bylaws, that's just the way it is.

[CDu]

But why is the NCAA tournament all we have to measure the best team nationally if the ACC tournament is not all we have to measure the best team? Based on your logic, I'm guessing that the other measure of the best team in the ACC is the team that best navigates the unbalanced regular season schedule. Based on that logic, isn't the best team in the NCAA the one that best navigates the unbalanced NCAA schedule? So, in the case of regular season record ties in the ACC, you have split champions... Wouldn't you then be able to use the same logic at the NCAA level?

Regardless of the purpose, the league champion, per the conference bylaws, is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Much as the national champion is the winner of the NCAA tournament. Until league reps change the bylaws, that's just the way it is.

There are degrees of imbalance. I trust that you can understand that the very slightly unbalanced conference schedule is WAY more suited to determine the best team than comparing resumes across conferences with very few head-to-heads.

And again, not sure why you are trotting out the bylaws champion argument. No one is disputing that.

[Kedsy]

I think people are "gaga" about the NCAA tournament because it's tons of fun. But it's also very obvious that the format is poorly suited for identifying/rewarding the best team, and even for programs that are consistently in contention for winning it (ours included), the NCAAT shouldn't be THE defining barometer of achievement in a season. I think the excitement aspect causes many people (year-round fans and "March only" fans alike) to overvalue it from a basketball achievement standpoint.

I completely, 100%, absolutely, and in all other ways agree with every sentence you've written here. (Honestly, no snark here.) This is exactly how I feel about the subject.


But why is the NCAA tournament all we have to measure the best team nationally if the ACC tournament is not all we have to measure the best team? Based on your logic, I'm guessing that the other measure of the best team in the ACC is the team that best navigates the unbalanced regular season schedule. Based on that logic, isn't the best team in the NCAA the one that best navigates the unbalanced NCAA schedule? So, in the case of regular season record ties in the ACC, you have split champions... Wouldn't you then be able to use the same logic at the NCAA level?

Regardless of the purpose, the league champion, per the conference bylaws, is the winner of the ACC Tournament. Much as the national champion is the winner of the NCAA tournament. Until league reps change the bylaws, that's just the way it is.

I agree with this as well. This was more or less my point when I wrote my earlier post. The only caveat I'd add is that it's a lot harder to tell who "best navigates the unbalanced NCAA schedule" than it is to tell the same thing for the ACC, so I understand what CDu is saying as well.

[jhmoss1812]

There have been some excellent points in this thread so far. Here are my thoughts.

The regular season determines who is the most consistently good team in the conference and that's it. I don't think it necessarily determines who the best team is. Some times it does, but not always. For example, this year Duke is probably the best team in the ACC (based on my personal eye test) but UVA has been the most consistent team in the ACC. Duke has the best collection of wins in the country but they've also dropped a few games that they probably shouldn't have. That doesn't mean that Duke isn't the best team. It just means they aren't the most consistently good team. Obviously, there are still games to play so that's just up to this point.

In college basketball, single-elimination tournaments determine champions. They do not determine the best team. In fact, the champion in college basketball usually is not the best team. But that really doesn't matter because the best team doesn't always win. Nor do you have to beat the best teams to win the NCAAT. In 2010, Duke didn't have to face another 1-seed and beat a 5-seed in the championship game. They are still the champion regardless. Here's another example that should illustrate my point. Let's say Kentucky goes undefeated all the way to the national championship this year and loses in the final to a team like Iowa State on a buzzer beater. Are we really going to claim that Kentucky wasn't the best team this year? Of course not. But they won't be the champion. The single-elimination format is a double-edge sword. On one hand, it provides the most excitement and entertainment. On the other hand, it doesn't determine the best team.

[Olympic Fan]

I return to the point -- it's not about measuring the best team. It's about winning a CHAMPIONSHIP.

I don't understand why so many on this thread resist this point.

Most team sports determines champions by some kind of postseason tournament or playoff format.

Last season, the Washington Nationals had the best record in the National League .. I guess they were the Regular Season Champions. But the real 2014 National League champions were the Giants -- because they won a two-round NL playoff (and then a third round to be World Series champions).

A few years ago, the New England Patriots were undefeated in the regular season. Again -- regular season champs -- but they lost the Super Bowl to a Giants team with a much inferior record. Which one was the NFL champion that year? Two years ago, a Duke football team with two ACC losses played a Florida State team that was unbeaten in the ACC in the conference championship game. If Duke had won, we'd have celebrated our official ACC championship, even though FSU still would have had a better conference record. Last year, an Oregon team with one loss beat a Florida State team with no losses in the semifinals ... and got to move on to the title game.

In the NBA and NHL, the best record in the regular season gives you the top seed in the playoffs, not a championship. And, as others have pointed out, in the NCAA, the regular season "championship" is a minor affair, compared to the NCAA championship determined by a playoff. If not, we'd celebrate our No. 1 national finishes in 1986, 1999, 2000 and 2002 as much as our four NCAA titles.

Is it so bizarre that the ACC settles it's championship with a postseason tournament?

The regular season is a nice achievement, winning the tournament is winning the championship.

That's the banner I want.

[freshmanjs]

I return to the point -- it's not about measuring the best team. It's about winning a CHAMPIONSHIP.

I don't understand why so many on this thread resist this point.

Most team sports determines champions by some kind of postseason tournament or playoff format.

Last season, the Washington Nationals had the best record in the National League .. I guess they were the Regular Season Champions. But the real 2014 National League champions were the Giants -- because they won a two-round NL playoff (and then a third round to be World Series champions).

A few years ago, the New England Patriots were undefeated in the regular season. Again -- regular season champs -- but they lost the Super Bowl to a Giants team with a much inferior record. Which one was the NFL champion that year? Two years ago, a Duke football team with two ACC losses played a Florida State team that was unbeaten in the ACC in the conference championship game. If Duke had won, we'd have celebrated our official ACC championship, even though FSU still would have had a better conference record. Last year, an Oregon team with one loss beat a Florida State team with no losses in the semifinals ... and got to move on to the title game.

In the NBA and NHL, the best record in the regular season gives you the top seed in the playoffs, not a championship. And, as others have pointed out, in the NCAA, the regular season "championship" is a minor affair, compared to the NCAA championship determined by a playoff. If not, we'd celebrate our No. 1 national finishes in 1986, 1999, 2000 and 2002 as much as our four NCAA titles.

Is it so bizarre that the ACC settles it's championship with a postseason tournament?

The regular season is a nice achievement, winning the tournament is winning the championship.

That's the banner I want.

no one is resisting the point. some just put different relative value than you do on the regular season vs. post season tournaments. no one is disputing that the tournaments are used for establishing tournament champions.

personally, i do celebrate the 1986 and 1999 teams about the same as the 4 teams that won the tournament. and if i were making a list of best duke teams of all time, 1999 would be near the top (in the top 3).

[Wander]

Is it so bizarre that the ACC settles it's championship with a postseason tournament?


Yes, it is, actually. No other sport that I can think of does the weird sort-of-postseason that college basketball does. The closest things are the conference championship games in college football, but those only involve two teams and are necessary since conference teams don't all play each other each season. The examples you listed aren't analogous - an equivalent example would be, say, the NFL setting up a 4 team tournament at the end of the season where the Patriots play the Jets, the Bills play the Dolphins, the winners play each other, and then the winner of that game goes to the NFL playoffs.

I like the conference tournaments just fine (especially the nationally televised finals for the smaller conferences that are de facto playoff games, which are the most underrated part of the season and a ton of fun to watch) and like winning the ACC championship. But it's definitely a bizarre part of the sport.

[Henderson]

Yes, it is, actually. No other sport that I can think of does the weird sort-of-postseason that college basketball does. The closest things are the conference championship games in college football, but those only involve two teams and are necessary since conference teams don't all play each other each season. The examples you listed aren't analogous - an equivalent example would be, say, the NFL setting up a 4 team tournament at the end of the season where the Patriots play the Jets, the Bills play the Dolphins, the winners play each other, and then the winner of that game goes to the NFL playoffs.

I like the conference tournaments just fine (especially the nationally televised finals for the smaller conferences that are de facto playoff games, which are the most underrated part of the season and a ton of fun to watch) and like winning the ACC championship. But it's definitely a bizarre part of the sport.

This was Bob Knight's view, and I'm sympathetic to it. But he was looking at a Big 10 where every team played the other home and away. An unbalanced schedule diminishes my sympathy for that argument significantly.

In any event, the ACC charter provides that the winner of the tourney is the conference champion. So that's where we are currently. That team gets the automatic bid. And it's not going to change anytime soon.

[CDu]

In any event, the ACC charter provides that the winner of the tourney is the conference champion. So that's where we are currently. That team gets the automatic bid. And it's not going to change anytime soon.

And again, nobody is arguing otherwise.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

So I'm curious. In this age of conference expansion and unbalanced schedules, what alternative to the tourneys would you guys offer up as a mechanism for identifying AND REWARDING the "best" team? Surely you are not advocating for today's youth league approach where everyone gets a trophy for participating, are you?

If the unbalanced scheduled cannot be used to determine who is best, and the tourney is also insufficient, then how are we to identify a champion?

I personally think the tourneys are as good as any mechanism. Your play all season helps determine your relative seeding vis-a-vis the rest of the league (or nation). So there is a reward/penalty for good/bad (or consistent/inconsistent) play across the season. And then it's up to each team to deliver their best performance. To me, it's pretty hard to argue that one team is "still the best team even though they lost." If they were the most talented, best prepared team, they had every chance to win and they didn't. Period.

I don't get the argument. Take the last world cup... Spain was ranked 1 in the world. Then blew it early on. Are we really to argue that they were still the best team heading into the tourney and so therefore really should be considered the champ and not Germany?

I guess my point is that if you are going to argue in favor of consistent excellence being a key measure of greatness or of being "the best", then rewarding the continuation of consistently strong play into a championship tournament should be a fair way to determine the champion. I mean, really, it's rare that a significant underdog upends an entire tournament (2011 UConn notwithstanding). It's usually several really strong teams battling it out for the title. So what's wrong with identifying one of them as the best on the basis of winning said tourney?

[jhmoss1812]

A playoff format that involves series play would be the best way to determine the best team. It's just not feasible when you have 351 D1 teams.

[Wander]

But he was looking at a Big 10 where every team played the other home and away. An unbalanced schedule diminishes my sympathy for that argument significantly.


That's fair. But we have actual observations. Since the ACC expanded in 2005 and teams started playing unbalanced schedules...

The unbalanced schedule regular season top seed in the conference tournament was the same as the ACC tournament champion in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2014.

Out of the four years remaining, in three of them the regular season champion was clearly the best team in the conference, and not the ACC tournament champion - 2005, 2009, and 2012. In 2011, I'd say Duke and UNC were pretty close - depending on who you believe was better, the regular season got it right 3-4 times out of 4, and the tournament got it right 0-1 times out of 4.

So while there may be a small sample size issue, I think it's pretty clear that so far the regular season, unbalanced schedule and all, has done a better job identifying the best ACC team than the conference tournament.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

A playoff format that involves series play would be the best way to determine the best team. It's just not feasible when you have 351 D1 teams.
I'd absolutely watch the top 8 teams play in a best of 3 format playoff series for three straight weeks in March/April.

But can you imagine the $#%@storm that would arise from trying to pick the top 8 teams.

[Newton_14]

You realize the regular season is just "unbalanced", not "very unbalanced". Last year, with all the hullabaloo over the "unbalanced schedule," Virginia's conference SOS rated by KenPom was the strongest in the conference. He took into account ALL conference games, not just "games against the top however many fits our argument." While Virginia played ONE fewer games against the top three or four competitors than did some of the other top competitors, the Hoos' had a tougher mix of games against the rest of the ACC than did the other top competitors.

I would also point out that even if we use the "games against the top however many fits our argument" metric rather than overall conference SOS, the difference between schedules of the teams only matters when the difference between schedules is greater than the difference between records. In the case of last year, the difference in schedules was -1 for Virginia, while the difference in records was +2. So even if the extra game were put onto Virginia's record as a loss, the Hoos would still have finished with the top seed.

Finally, as someone else has pointed out, the tournament is even more "unbalanced." I love the tournament, it means a lot to me, Virginia's failure to win even one in all the time I was a Virginia fan was very painful to me and winning it last year made the season a smashing success for me, but it does not demonstrate which conference team is the best. All it does towards that end is add more data.

This is not to say that anybody is "right" or "wrong" for how they value one or the other, because each individual is free to value things as he chooses. Value is purely subjective and the right to choose how something will be valued is part of being a free sovereign entity. But we need to separate out how we value the different parts of the season from empirical issues such as which part of the season most demonstrates which is the best team. If you value the tournament more than the regular season because you think it shows which conference team is "best," you're simply incorrect in your reasoning.

Personally, I value three of the four parts of the season fairly evenly. I break the season down into OOC, conference, conference tournament and NCAAT. The OOC portion means the least to me, but the other three are fairly equal. It's why I value 2014 more than 1984 even though the 1984 team went to the Final Four. That was a mediocre ACC team that got hot and made a run at the right time in fairly favorable circumstances. The 2014 team dominated the conference, and while Sweet Sixteen is not as far as a 1 seed should go, the loss to Michigan State is nothing to be ashamed of. That team probably would have been at worst a 2 seed if the players who played in that game had played the whole regular season, and that game could have gone either way.

You took my comment as a slight of UVA. It was not. I say this every season no matter who finishes first in the Regular Season even if it is Duke. The tournament is the League's official champion (I never said the tourney decides the better team either) and it means more to me to win the tourney than it does to finish first in the regular season. As for the unbalance, unc was once sitting in 2nd with a record of 7-2 simply because of the schedule. The best teams still eventually rise to the top, but the difference in opponents and/or where the games were played still schew's the standings. For example any team that got VaTech and BC twice this year but UVA and Duke only once gained a significant advantage over a team that got Vatech and BC once but UVA and Duke twice (don't know that that particular scenario exists this season, but without looking, it is possible it did).

I was not slighting UVA or anyone else. It's just 3 things for me. 1. I personally care more about winning the tourney over finishing first in the regular season, and that is my personal right to feel that way. 2. The official ACC Champion is the Tourney Winner (technically speaking) 3. The schedule is unbalanced with 15 teams. Sans a round robin, it is not possible for it to be fair to every team

[uh_no]

3. The schedule is unbalanced with 15 teams. Sans a round robin, it is not possible for it to be fair to every team

Sure it is. if you play a team twice, each game only counts for half in the standings.

duke beats unc twice? they get one win
duke and UNC split? they each go .5 and .5

That way you don't get penalized for playing a tough team twice, or rewarded for beating up on VT.

[Bluedog]

I'd absolutely watch the top 8 teams play in a best of 3 format playoff series for three straight weeks in March/April.

But can you imagine the $#%@storm that would arise from trying to pick the top 8 teams.

They do it in football, but with half as many teams, and with a much much smaller sample size given teams play 1/3 of the games. (Not saying they should go this way, though -- just saying it's done in a sport that is an even bigger heavy hitter. Although in football there are probably fewer elite teams since it's much easier to find 5 strong players for a b-ball team than 60+ guys to field an elite football team.)

[Papa John]

Yes, it is, actually. No other sport that I can think of does the weird sort-of-postseason that college basketball does. The closest things are the conference championship games in college football, but those only involve two teams and are necessary since conference teams don't all play each other each season. The examples you listed aren't analogous - an equivalent example would be, say, the NFL setting up a 4 team tournament at the end of the season where the Patriots play the Jets, the Bills play the Dolphins, the winners play each other, and then the winner of that game goes to the NFL playoffs.

I like the conference tournaments just fine (especially the nationally televised finals for the smaller conferences that are de facto playoff games, which are the most underrated part of the season and a ton of fun to watch) and like winning the ACC championship. But it's definitely a bizarre part of the sport.

Or the NFL playoffs, where more than a third of each league are seeded and play single elimination to decide who goes head-to-head in the Super Bowl... Agree that the NBA and NHL are fundamentally different because they have 5 and 7 game series in each round to determine who advances, although [to be fair] in both of those leagues about half of the teams are making it to the playoffs [which is a tad ridiculous, particularly this season where it is likely that two teams from the East in the NBA will make the playoffs with records well under .500]...


There are degrees of imbalance. I trust that you can understand that the very slightly unbalanced conference schedule is WAY more suited to determine the best team than comparing resumes across conferences with very few head-to-heads.

Well now, that's a subjective opinion in this new era, isn't it?

Ultimately, all of these systems are imperfect... Which is one main reason why folks came up with the conference tournaments and the NCAA [and NIT] tournaments in the first place—to let teams settle the question of who is best on the court. Perhaps the NCAA tourney could be improved by moving more toward a college world series model, with a losers bracket that avoids the one-and-done consequences and a three-game series to determine the champion...

[CDu]

Or the NFL playoffs, where more than a third of each league are seeded and play single elimination to decide who goes head-to-head in the Super Bowl... Agree that the NBA and NHL are fundamentally different because they have 5 and 7 game series in each round to determine who advances, although [to be fair] in both of those leagues about half of the teams are making it to the playoffs [which is a tad ridiculous, particularly this season where it is likely that two teams from the East in the NBA will make the playoffs with records well under .500]...



Well now, that's a subjective opinion in this new era, isn't it?

Ultimately, all of these systems are imperfect... Which is one main reason why folks came up with the conference tournaments and the NCAA [and NIT] tournaments in the first place—to let teams settle the question of who is best on the court. Perhaps the NCAA tourney could be improved by moving more toward a college world series model, with a losers bracket that avoids the one-and-done consequences and a three-game series to determine the champion...

Actually, no, my statement is pretty objective. You can quite easily and objectively measure imbalance of schedules, and objectively you can see that schedules are more similar within a conference than across conferences.

And I won't pretend to guess why conference tournaments were crafted, but I can say that it wasn't to address an imperfect system, because when the tourneys originated we already had a much better system: home-and-home round robin.

[snowdenscold]

And I won't pretend to guess why conference tournaments were crafted, but I can say that it wasn't to address an imperfect system, because when the tourneys originated we already had a much better system: home-and-home round robin.

And indeed plenty of ACC coaches over the decades thought it was absurd to choose the winner based on the ACCT when the full home-and-away double round robin schedule was in effect.

No way of knowing, but I'd be curious what people's opinion on the regular season vs. ACCT in this unbalanced schedule era would look like had we chosen the "official" conference champion by regular season record for 40+ years before the expansion a decade ago.



Now, to comment on an earlier suggestion, I would quite intrigued by the idea of an NCAA tournament that was the top 16 teams - 4 weekends of best-of-3 games. Won't ever happen, but very interesting.

[CDu]

And indeed plenty of ACC coaches over the decades thought it was absurd to choose the winner based on the ACCT when the full home-and-away double round robin schedule was in effect.

No way of knowing, but I'd be curious what people's opinion on the regular season vs. ACCT in this unbalanced schedule era would look like had we chosen the "official" conference champion by regular season record for 40+ years before the expansion a decade ago.



Now, to comment on an earlier suggestion, I would quite intrigued by the idea of an NCAA tournament that was the top 16 teams - 4 weekends of best-of-3 games. Won't ever happen, but very interesting.

I too would love to see that. Heck, I would love it for the ACC too: take the top 4 teams from the regular season, best-of-three series over two weekends. As you said, it will never happen. But it should! ;)

[Seattle Hoo]

I generally agree with your stance that the "unbalancedness" of the ACC conference schedule is a bit overblown.

However, my reading of the 2014 KenPom ACC Conf SOS (against all teams) shows that Virginia had the WEAKEST (15th out of 15) schedule in the conference. Also, the magnitude of SOS difference between Virginia at 15 and Duke at 13 was almost identical to the difference between Duke at #13 and FSU at #3.

By this metric, Virginia did have a really easy conference schedule last year but in the end it doesn't really matter when a team outpaces its nearest competitors by at least 2 games like UVa did last year.

Tbyers, I went back to Pomeroy to look at this, and I think that you were suckered by a very bizarre display. If you look at the NATIONAL team ratings, Virginia had the 21st toughest overall schedule in the NATION, but their non-conference SOS was 112th. There is no way possible that Virginia could have the weakest conference schedule in the ACC, the 112th toughest OOC schedule, and have that add up to the 21st toughest schedule in the country.

To test my theory, I went to the national rankings and saw that KANSAS had the toughest overall SOS in the nation (1 overall, 13 OOC), went to the Big 12 stats, and sure enough, Kansas is ranked "10" in the Big 12 in SOS, which would be 10 out of 10. Similarly, Wisconsin was #2 overall nationally, 82nd OOC, and is listed as 12 of 12 in the Big Ten.

[Troublemaker]

So I'm curious. In this age of conference expansion and unbalanced schedules, what alternative to the tourneys would you guys offer up as a mechanism for identifying AND REWARDING the "best" team? Surely you are not advocating for today's youth league approach where everyone gets a trophy for participating, are you?

If the unbalanced scheduled cannot be used to determine who is best, and the tourney is also insufficient, then how are we to identify a champion?

I personally think the tourneys are as good as any mechanism.

Yeah, among the four major North American sports, only NBA fans can really be comfortable that their sport crowns the best team the vast majority of the time. The NFL holds a single-elimination tournament. Baseball and hockey have so much randomness built in to their sports that even a 7-game playoff series can't smooth that out enough.

The problem of finding a way to crown the best is unfortunately pretty common in sport.

[tbyers11]

Tbyers, I went back to Pomeroy to look at this, and I think that you were suckered by a very bizarre display. If you look at the NATIONAL team ratings, Virginia had the 21st toughest overall schedule in the NATION, but their non-conference SOS was 112th. There is no way possible that Virginia could have the weakest conference schedule in the ACC, the 112th toughest OOC schedule, and have that add up to the 21st toughest schedule in the country.

To test my theory, I went to the national rankings and saw that KANSAS had the toughest overall SOS in the nation (1 overall, 13 OOC), went to the Big 12 stats, and sure enough, Kansas is ranked "10" in the Big 12 in SOS, which would be 10 out of 10. Similarly, Wisconsin was #2 overall nationally, 82nd OOC, and is listed as 12 of 12 in the Big Ten.

I wasn't suckered by anything. You are looking at Virginia's overall schedule. For the conference only SOS go the ACC conference page for 2014. The right most column is Conf SOS. Virginia is listed as 15th out of 15 with a value of .7387. This is derived from the Pythagorean values of all your ACC opponents.

Virginia could definitely have the weakest schedule in the ACC, the 112th OOC schedule and finish 21st in overall. I don't have time to show my work tonight but an OOC SOS Pythagorean value of .5452 over 13 games, a conference value of .7387 over 18 games plus the ACC/NCAA tourney games (that are going to bring the SOS up (except for Coastal Carolina)) could definitely end up with an overall SOS of .6921 which is good for 21st.

Being last in conf SOS in a power Big 5 conference will still bring up your overall SOS a lot from your OOC SOS. That is also what happened to Wisconsin and Kansas. Virginia's conf SOS value of .7387 last year was stronger than any team in any conference from the A10 (#8) on down. It wasn't weak amongst all the teams in DI. It was just weakest amongst the other 14 teams in the ACC, by quite a bit too.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

Or the NFL playoffs, where more than a third of each league are seeded and play single elimination to decide who goes head-to-head in the Super Bowl... Agree that the NBA and NHL are fundamentally different because they have 5 and 7 game series in each round to determine who advances, although [to be fair] in both of those leagues about half of the teams are making it to the playoffs [which is a tad ridiculous, particularly this season where it is likely that two teams from the East in the NBA will make the playoffs with records well under .500]...



Well now, that's a subjective opinion in this new era, isn't it?

Ultimately, all of these systems are imperfect... Which is one main reason why folks came up with the conference tournaments and the NCAA [and NIT] tournaments in the first place—to let teams settle the question of who is best on the court. Perhaps the NCAA tourney could be improved by moving more toward a college world series model, with a losers bracket that avoids the one-and-done consequences and a three-game series to determine the champion...

This could actually work, except in my mind the best way to do it would be to start the losers bracket after the first weekend. So if you make it past the first weekend of games then you have the opportunity to get sent to the losers bracket and still have a shot at winning the Championship. That would preserve the fun of having huge upsets, yet once the sweet 16 gets here the best teams still have a shot. That would create even more interest in the tourney because those final 16 teams would all have a fighting chance even after a loss. Im calling the NCAA and asking them to try this next season.

[Seattle Hoo]

I wasn't suckered by anything. You are looking at Virginia's overall schedule. For the conference only SOS go the ACC conference page for 2014. The right most column is Conf SOS. Virginia is listed as 15th out of 15 with a value of .7387. This is derived from the Pythagorean values of all your ACC opponents.

Virginia could definitely have the weakest schedule in the ACC, the 112th OOC schedule and finish 21st in overall. I don't have time to show my work tonight but an OOC SOS Pythagorean value of .5452 over 13 games, a conference value of .7387 over 18 games plus the ACC/NCAA tourney games (that are going to bring the SOS up (except for Coastal Carolina)) could definitely end up with an overall SOS of .6921 which is good for 21st.

Being last in conf SOS in a power Big 5 conference will still bring up your overall SOS a lot from your OOC SOS. That is also what happened to Wisconsin and Kansas. Virginia's conf SOS value of .7387 last year was stronger than any team in any conference from the A10 (#8) on down. It wasn't weak amongst all the teams in DI. It was just weakest amongst the other 14 teams in the ACC, by quite a bit too.

Ok, thank you for the education in statistics.

[DarkstarWahoo]

I return to the point -- it's not about measuring the best team. It's about winning a CHAMPIONSHIP.


This is where I land on it, although everyone on this thread has made good points. Why is it such a bad thing that there are upsets in the tournament as long as people recognize it for what it is? The NCAA tournament has become, more or less organically, the stick by which the top teams measure themselves, and it's resulted in one of the best sporting events in the world.

I do really enjoy European soccer, which does determine its league champions through a round-robin home-and-home. But they have tournaments (cups), too. And while teams prioritize them in different ways, they're all exciting and rewarding in their own right. Even the Johnstone's Paint Trophy or whatever it is now.

[Matches]

I adore the ACC Tournament, always have. But there's no way, even with an unbalanced schedule, that it's a better format than the regular season for identifying the best team. The argument for the ACCT being more meaningful than the RS pretty much begins and ends with "The ACC Charter says whoever wins the tournament is the conference champion", which of course no one disputes, but that's very different from identifying the best team.

As to whether I'd rather win the RS or the ACCT, it kind of depends on the year. I wouldn't have traded "titles" with UNC in 2011, for example, but I also wouldn't have traded with Maryland in 2004. I'd rather win the RS but bow out in the tournament than finish 9th in the RS and go on a miracle run in the ACCT (as much fun as that would be for a weekend).

Really I want to win them both. They both matter - I don't agree with just dismissing the ACCT as a glorified cocktail party, but the resistance by some to concede that the RS title has *any* meaning baffles me too.

[ChillinDuke]

I return to the point -- it's not about measuring the best team. It's about winning a CHAMPIONSHIP.

I don't understand why so many on this thread resist this point.

Most team sports determines champions by some kind of postseason tournament or playoff format.

Last season, the Washington Nationals had the best record in the National League .. I guess they were the Regular Season Champions. But the real 2014 National League champions were the Giants -- because they won a two-round NL playoff (and then a third round to be World Series champions).

A few years ago, the New England Patriots were undefeated in the regular season. Again -- regular season champs -- but they lost the Super Bowl to a Giants team with a much inferior record. Which one was the NFL champion that year? Two years ago, a Duke football team with two ACC losses played a Florida State team that was unbeaten in the ACC in the conference championship game. If Duke had won, we'd have celebrated our official ACC championship, even though FSU still would have had a better conference record. Last year, an Oregon team with one loss beat a Florida State team with no losses in the semifinals ... and got to move on to the title game.

In the NBA and NHL, the best record in the regular season gives you the top seed in the playoffs, not a championship. And, as others have pointed out, in the NCAA, the regular season "championship" is a minor affair, compared to the NCAA championship determined by a playoff. If not, we'd celebrate our No. 1 national finishes in 1986, 1999, 2000 and 2002 as much as our four NCAA titles.

Is it so bizarre that the ACC settles it's championship with a postseason tournament?

The regular season is a nice achievement, winning the tournament is winning the championship.

That's the banner I want.

Absolutely.

I don't understand a lot of these posts arguing to the contrary.

In basketball, just like in any game, there are rules to win.

In our sport, to be declared the winner, you must win the championship of a single-elimination tournament. Thems the rules. You play by them.

I don't really care about anything else other than this.

It's the nature of sport. It's the nature of any game you ever play. I doubt anyone on this board really wonders about who is the better player when they are collecting the chips from everyone else at the table.

- Chillin

[freshmanjs]

Absolutely.

I don't understand a lot of these posts arguing to the contrary.

In basketball, just like in any game, there are rules to win.

In our sport, to be declared the winner, you must win the championship of a single-elimination tournament. Thems the rules. You play by them.

I don't really care about anything else other than this.

It's the nature of sport. It's the nature of any game you ever play. I doubt anyone on this board really wonders about who is the better player when they are collecting the chips from everyone else at the table.

- Chillin

that is a strawman. no one is arguing to the contrary. it's obvious that the champion is decided by the tournament.

and, yes, people often consider who the best poker player is at the table especially after a bad beat.

[Lar77]

Absolutely.

I don't understand a lot of these posts arguing to the contrary.

In basketball, just like in any game, there are rules to win.

In our sport, to be declared the winner, you must win the championship of a single-elimination tournament. Thems the rules. You play by them.

I don't really care about anything else other than this.

It's the nature of sport. It's the nature of any game you ever play. I doubt anyone on this board really wonders about who is the better player when they are collecting the chips from everyone else at the table.

- Chillin


Great points by OF and Chillin. College basketball is strong because of the single elimination. Best of 2, 5, 7 doesn't solve the "best team" issue, although it might make it more likely. Is it "best team" without injuries? Is it "best team" with perfect refs?

I have nothing against putting up a banner if you are the regular season winner or if you are the Final #1 team (we have both) because both show superior performance over a long season. But as Olympic Fan has pointed out, that is not the Champion. The regular season in basketball is currently designed to develop a team that can win in March.

I wouldn't mind the ACC tournament going back to an 8 or even 4 team event. It's different now that we are 15 teams. I don't see it as a money issue. The event would sell out. The games would be good games to watch. ESPN would still fill its programming schedule.

We could split the league into 2 divisions (old ACC and Not?) and have home and away within the division, play the other one game each and drop some of the "Little Sisters of the Poor" games. That would make the Regular Season better and the Tournament would be the way to declare a Conference Champ.

[uh_no]

We could split the league into 2 divisions (old ACC and Not?)

The "Big East" division:
UL
SU
Pitt
BC
Miami
VT
ND

The "Atlantic" division:
Duke
UNC
NCSU
Wake
FSU
Clemson
UVA
GT

[-jk]

Ooh - time to dust off my relegation idea:

This has been my dream since we got too large for our traditional double round-robin: Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper (now 8) and Lower (7). Each team plays a double round robin within division (14 or 12 games) and 4 rotating single games across divisions, and maybe one extra game across divisions (call it the ESPN money-game rule for a temporarily down-and-out school - c.f., unc under Doherty). Given the current imbalance, the Lower teams get an extra out of conference chance to pad their resume. When we choose a 16th team, it'll rebalance.

This leads to killer SOS (with more balance!) in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups - and the chance for a strong Lower division team to really stand out. Just imagine a season of double round-robin games with Duke, UVa, unc, Louisville and four other good teams.

Here's where it gets really fun: At the end of the season, the top teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom teams in Lower stay Lower. But the bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower. Premier League relegation awesomeness. (Watch those one-and-dones!)

The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the end of the season. No one near the middle of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last couple weeks of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key matchups. And ESPN gets to launch "Relegation Week!"

Tourney seeding could be worked out. Maybe just limit the ACC Tourney to the 8 Upper and top 4 Lower schools. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days we have now.

-jk

[freshmanjs]

Ooh - time to dust off my relegation idea:

This has been my dream since we got too large for our traditional double round-robin: Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper (now 8) and Lower (7). Each team plays a double round robin within division (14 or 12 games) and 4 rotating single games across divisions, and maybe one extra game across divisions (call it the ESPN money-game rule for a temporarily down-and-out school - c.f., unc under Doherty). Given the current imbalance, the Lower teams get an extra out of conference chance to pad their resume. When we choose a 16th team, it'll rebalance.

This leads to killer SOS (with more balance!) in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups - and the chance for a strong Lower division team to really stand out. Just imagine a season of double round-robin games with Duke, UVa, unc, Louisville and four other good teams.

Here's where it gets really fun: At the end of the season, the top teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom teams in Lower stay Lower. But the bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower. Premier League relegation awesomeness. (Watch those one-and-dones!)

The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the end of the season. No one near the middle of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last couple weeks of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key matchups. And ESPN gets to launch "Relegation Week!"

Tourney seeding could be worked out. Maybe just limit the ACC Tourney to the 8 Upper and top 4 Lower schools. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days we have now.

-jk

fun idea...but wouldn't a middle of the pack team be much better off in lower?

[flyingdutchdevil]

Ooh - time to dust off my relegation idea:

This has been my dream since we got too large for our traditional double round-robin: Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper (now 8) and Lower (7). Each team plays a double round robin within division (14 or 12 games) and 4 rotating single games across divisions, and maybe one extra game across divisions (call it the ESPN money-game rule for a temporarily down-and-out school - c.f., unc under Doherty). Given the current imbalance, the Lower teams get an extra out of conference chance to pad their resume. When we choose a 16th team, it'll rebalance.

This leads to killer SOS (with more balance!) in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups - and the chance for a strong Lower division team to really stand out. Just imagine a season of double round-robin games with Duke, UVa, unc, Louisville and four other good teams.

Here's where it gets really fun: At the end of the season, the top teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom teams in Lower stay Lower. But the bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower. Premier League relegation awesomeness. (Watch those one-and-dones!)

The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the end of the season. No one near the middle of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last couple weeks of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key matchups. And ESPN gets to launch "Relegation Week!"

Tourney seeding could be worked out. Maybe just limit the ACC Tourney to the 8 Upper and top 4 Lower schools. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days we have now.

-jk

Absolutely love this idea. Accept for the fact that teams change personnel / talent / ability year-on-year. A team like Duke and UNC will most likely be in the Upper division every time, but this system penalizes teams that are good once every 2-3 years (think Miami, NCSU, FSU). Also, another problem is recruiting for these low-level teams. If I'm a top recruit, why would I want to play for a team that's in the lower tier? Promotion/relegation basically enables the top tier teams to always succeed while keeping the lesser talented teams down. This is, in essence, a capitalistic structure. But maybe that's why I like it.

[Lar77]

Ooh - time to dust off my relegation idea:

This has been my dream since we got too large for our traditional double round-robin: Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper (now 8) and Lower (7). Each team plays a double round robin within division (14 or 12 games) and 4 rotating single games across divisions, and maybe one extra game across divisions (call it the ESPN money-game rule for a temporarily down-and-out school - c.f., unc under Doherty). Given the current imbalance, the Lower teams get an extra out of conference chance to pad their resume. When we choose a 16th team, it'll rebalance.

This leads to killer SOS (with more balance!) in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups - and the chance for a strong Lower division team to really stand out. Just imagine a season of double round-robin games with Duke, UVa, unc, Louisville and four other good teams.

Here's where it gets really fun: At the end of the season, the top teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom teams in Lower stay Lower. But the bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower. Premier League relegation awesomeness. (Watch those one-and-dones!)

The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the end of the season. No one near the middle of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last couple weeks of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key matchups. And ESPN gets to launch "Relegation Week!"

Tourney seeding could be worked out. Maybe just limit the ACC Tourney to the 8 Upper and top 4 Lower schools. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days we have now.

-jk

JK, this is a great concept. Always thought relegation would be worthwhile for many sports leagues here (in particular, MLB and NBA).

Alternative, have 7 in the Upper and 8 in the Lower. Bottom 4 Upper play top 4 Lower with winner invited to the League tournament with the 3 byes.

[ChillinDuke]

that is a strawman. no one is arguing to the contrary. it's obvious that the champion is decided by the tournament.

and, yes, people often consider who the best poker player is at the table especially after a bad beat.

It's not a strawman. It is a viewpoint meant to weigh in on the title of this thread as well as the OP's original assertion that "[I] want to reiterate that the ACCT has at least as many flaws as determining a regular season champion in an unbalanced schedule". What are these "flaws" in the ACC Tournament? It's a tournament, defined by Google as a series of contests between competitors who compete for an overall prize. It's not supposed to find the best team. It's not intended to find some inherent righteousness regarding who deserves it most. That's for a philosophy class. Or a thread on this board.

It's supposed to find the winner.

And anyone can win.

That's why they play the games.

That's why they have a tournament.

- Chillin

[freshmanjs]

It's not a strawman. It is a viewpoint meant to weigh in on the title of this thread and the OP's original assertion that "[I] want to reiterate that the ACCT has at least as many flaws as determining a regular season champion in an unbalanced schedule". What are these "flaws" in the ACC Tournament? It's a tournament, defined by Google as a series of contests between competitors who compete for an overall prize. It's not supposed to find the best team. It's not intended to find some inherent righteousness regarding who deserves it most. That's for a philosophy class. Or a thread on this board.

It's supposed to find the winner.

And anyone can win.

That's why they play the games.

That's why they have a tournament.

- Chillin

well, i agree with the OP that the ACCT has at least as many flaws in determining a champion as the unbalanced regular season.

i also agree with your point that the tournament is supposed to find a winner (and does). i agree that's why they play the games, anyone can win, etc. i suspect that you could not find anyone that disagrees with those points, as they are obvious.

[ChillinDuke]

well, i agree with the OP that the ACCT has at least as many flaws in determining a champion as the unbalanced regular season.

i also agree with your point that the tournament is supposed to find a winner (and does). i agree that's why they play the games, anyone can win, etc. i suspect that you could not find anyone that disagrees with those points, as they are obvious.

You're probably right on the last bolded part. But I think the friction with some of us die-hard advocates for the tournament vs the regular season is that the tournament is just what it claims to be. A tournament. It's sole purpose is to determine a winner.

The regular season is not designed to determine a winner. While I understand the significance of winning it, applauding it, hanging banners for it, pointing to it, banging one's chest about it, drinking a beer to cheers it, the very clear distinction that I and others draw between the two is simply one of purpose. I'm not so naive as to declare there isn't a team that may perform best in the regular season. I'll go so far as to say that you can "win" the regular season. However, the nuance of purpose is of paramount importance to me on this topic. Because those are the rules of this game that we play.

- Chillin

[TexHawk]

I wasn't suckered by anything. You are looking at Virginia's overall schedule. For the conference only SOS go the ACC conference page for 2014. The right most column is Conf SOS. Virginia is listed as 15th out of 15 with a value of .7387. This is derived from the Pythagorean values of all your ACC opponents.

Virginia could definitely have the weakest schedule in the ACC, the 112th OOC schedule and finish 21st in overall. I don't have time to show my work tonight but an OOC SOS Pythagorean value of .5452 over 13 games, a conference value of .7387 over 18 games plus the ACC/NCAA tourney games (that are going to bring the SOS up (except for Coastal Carolina)) could definitely end up with an overall SOS of .6921 which is good for 21st.

Being last in conf SOS in a power Big 5 conference will still bring up your overall SOS a lot from your OOC SOS. That is also what happened to Wisconsin and Kansas. Virginia's conf SOS value of .7387 last year was stronger than any team in any conference from the A10 (#8) on down. It wasn't weak amongst all the teams in DI. It was just weakest amongst the other 14 teams in the ACC, by quite a bit too.

Low SOS numbers for Wisconsin and KU come about for the same reason that Texas Tech, Boston College, and Northwestern have high numbers. They can't play themselves.

[NSDukeFan]

... i suspect that you could not find anyone that disagrees with those points, as they are obvious.

I am quite certain that you can find someone to disagree with just about any point, obvious or not.

[tbyers11]

Low SOS numbers for Wisconsin and KU come about for the same reason that Texas Tech, Boston College, and Northwestern have high numbers. They can't play themselves.

Agree. The best teams can't have the highest SOS because they can't play themselves. For Kansas, in a true round-robin like the Big 12 (10), that is definitely the case.

However, Wisconsin with the unbalanced schedule in the Big Ten (14) gets a big break from the schedule gods this year. With 14 teams, each Big 10 team plays 5 teams twice and the other 8 teams once. The 5 teams that Wisconsin plays twice: Northwestern, Penn St, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa are currently 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th, and 7th in the conference standings. Even after Wisconsin plays Michigan St, Maryland and Ohio St to finish the conference slate, I'm fairly certain they will have the lowest conference SOS in the Big Ten.

[Seattle Hoo]

You're probably right on the last bolded part. But I think the friction with some of us die-hard advocates for the tournament vs the regular season is that the tournament is just what it claims to be. A tournament. It's sole purpose is to determine a winner.


- Chillin


Yeah, but the conference tournament selects the league champion. If you accept the following two positions, you will see the problem:

1) The "champion" of a league should be the best team in the league

2) A single elimination tournament is an inferior method of selecting the best team, especially compared to an 18 game schedule where every team plays every other team at least once.

If you don't agree with one of those positions, then that's fine. But the second one is pretty much a factual matter. The first one is, I guess, a matter of choice, although most people probably agree.

[Newton_14]

I adore the ACC Tournament, always have. But there's no way, even with an unbalanced schedule, that it's a better format than the regular season for identifying the best team. The argument for the ACCT being more meaningful than the RS pretty much begins and ends with "The ACC Charter says whoever wins the tournament is the conference champion", which of course no one disputes, but that's very different from identifying the best team.

As to whether I'd rather win the RS or the ACCT, it kind of depends on the year. I wouldn't have traded "titles" with UNC in 2011, for example, but I also wouldn't have traded with Maryland in 2004. I'd rather win the RS but bow out in the tournament than finish 9th in the RS and go on a miracle run in the ACCT (as much fun as that would be for a weekend).

Really I want to win them both. They both matter - I don't agree with just dismissing the ACCT as a glorified cocktail party, but the resistance by some to concede that the RS title has *any* meaning baffles me too.

Here's the thing that keeps getting missed though, at least in my points and likely Oly's as well. We aren't saying the tourney determines the best team. We are saying the winner of the tourney is the conference champion for one (and the one and done format brings maximum pressure), and two, I at least, am saying it means more to me to win the tourney. I respect that it means more to others to finish first in the regular season. That's their right. I would think it my right to have the tourney mean more to me, but guess not.

[ChillinDuke]

Yeah, but the conference tournament selects the league champion. If you accept the following two positions, you will see the problem:

1) The "champion" of a league should be the best team in the league

2) A single elimination tournament is an inferior method of selecting the best team, especially compared to an 18 game schedule where every team plays every other team at least once.

If you don't agree with one of those positions, then that's fine. But the second one is pretty much a factual matter. The first one is, I guess, a matter of choice, although most people probably agree.

I dont accept #1. That's the whole thing. There's no such thing as #1 in the game.

The point of the game is to win the game (Herm Edwards?). The champion is the winner of all the games. If you like competing and winning at things, then certainly you understand the distinction.

Remember in 5th grade when that big dude, well he was talking smack about his game, and you challenged him and beat him? He might've been better - I dunno. But you beat him. You won.

To be the champion you win. The descriptor of best, most talent, etc. They are not synonymous with win.

While some may disagree with my view, I don't think many of the actual players competing would characterize themselves as best (let alone better) if they lose.

- Chillin

[freshmanjs]

Here's the thing that keeps getting missed though, at least in my points and likely Oly's as well. We aren't saying the tourney determines the best team. We are saying the winner of the tourney is the conference champion for one (and the one and done format brings maximum pressure), and two, I at least, am saying it means more to me to win the tourney. I respect that it means more to others to finish first in the regular season. That's their right. I would think it my right to have the tourney mean more to me, but guess not.

it's not getting missed at all. your first point is clear and agreed by everyone. your second is obviously your right. the entire debate is about the 2nd issue. some feel one way, some feel the other. i don't believe anyone has come anywhere close to denying anyone's right to an opinion on the matter.

[Seattle Hoo]

I dont accept #1. That's the whole thing. There's no such thing as #1 in the game.

The point of the game is to win the game (Herm Edwards?). The champion is the winner of all the games. If you like competing and winning at things, then certainly you understand the distinction.
- Chillin

Like I said, #1 is really a matter of personal choice, so I respect your choice. Personally, I think the best team should be the champion. I love the tournament, but if I'm picking a champion, I want the best team fighting for me. Hey, I love the ACC tournament, too. I cried at the end of the final last year, because it was a lifetime of frustration overcome.

[camion]

Like I said, #1 is really a matter of personal choice, so I respect your choice. Personally, I think the best team should be the champion. I love the tournament, but if I'm picking a champion, I want the best team fighting for me. Hey, I love the ACC tournament, too. I cried at the end of the final last year, because it was a lifetime of frustration overcome.

The best team depends on the metric you choose to define "best." No method is perfectly fair to all teams though I preferred the regular season winner when we had a full home and home schedule in conference play. Now I prefer the tournament winner and am content to designate that team as champion.

In any event the way I see it "best" is always subjective and a valid topic for discussion. "Champion" is objective, no discussion.

[uh_no]

Here's the thing that keeps getting missed though, at least in my points and likely Oly's as well. We aren't saying the tourney determines the best team. We are saying the winner of the tourney is the conference champion for one (and the one and done format brings maximum pressure), and two, I at least, am saying it means more to me to win the tourney. I respect that it means more to others to finish first in the regular season. That's their right. I would think it my right to have the tourney mean more to me, but guess not.

I think there's really 3 things at play:

1) which championship an individual fan would LIKE to win
2) which championship is better at determining the "better" team
3) how the championships are treated in an archaic ACC document

These can all have different answers in any valid solution, but the largest problem i'm seeing in this thread is people trying to use arguments from one domain to support or refute an argument in another.

Example:

Alice: I'd love UVA to lose two more games so we can win the acc this regular season (1)
Bob: That's silly. the tournament champion is the only TRUE champion (3)
Alice: Well, the regular season is better at determining the best team (2)
Bob: I don't care. I'd rather win the tournament, since the tournament's purpose is to determine a winner (1)
....

And round and round it goes....you'll notice that neither alice or bob have actually argued against eachother's points....but merely made some orthogonal argument. Because of this NOBODY can win.

Invalid arguments that we should refrain from making the rest of the way out:
1) What the ACC document says does not mean a regular season title does not exist, nor especially that someone can't prefer to win it over a tournament title
2) Just because you like something better doesn't mean it's objectively the best way to measure team quality
3) Just because something doesn't guarantee to pick the best team doesn't mean it's necessarily worse than any other method, or that any person can't want to win it more regardless
4) Not having a round robin does not invalidate the regular season title. It's still a thing. It may not be as good, but just because it's less good doesn't mean it's necessarily worse than the tournament....in some fans' eyes.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[CDu]

I completely and totally agree with the most recent posts by freshmanjs and uh_no on this matter. Well said by both. This whole thread has been an exercise in arguing past one another.

[snowdenscold]

I completely and totally agree with the most recent posts by freshmanjs and uh_no on this matter. Well said by both. This whole thread has been an exercise in arguing past one another.

Definitely.

I also want to clarify that even though I appear to be the OP, this thread was split off from a previous one, and so my first post was responding to previous posts that didn't make the transition. I also did not name the thread.


I will put forward my opinions though:
- That if we were still in the days of only selecting 1 team to go to the NCAA's (which thankfully we are not), I would be fully behind using the regular season champion in a double round robin style over the ACCT to do so.
- And that in this era of 15 teams, I think only the top 8 should make the ACCT. Make the regular season have some more meaning in the ACCT context (just like having to make the cut to get into the NCAA's, or most any post-season and/or tournament event in any sport). It would also bring it back down to a 3-day event, and eliminate junk games between two double-digit seeds.

[Kedsy]

I think there's really 3 things at play:

1) which championship an individual fan would LIKE to win
2) which championship is better at determining the "better" team
3) how the championships are treated in an archaic ACC document

These can all have different answers in any valid solution, but the largest problem i'm seeing in this thread is people trying to use arguments from one domain to support or refute an argument in another.

Example:

Alice: I'd love UVA to lose two more games so we can win the acc this regular season (1)
Bob: That's silly. the tournament champion is the only TRUE champion (3)
Alice: Well, the regular season is better at determining the best team (2)
Bob: I don't care. I'd rather win the tournament, since the tournament's purpose is to determine a winner (1)
....

And round and round it goes....you'll notice that neither alice or bob have actually argued against eachother's points....but merely made some orthogonal argument. Because of this NOBODY can win.

Invalid arguments that we should refrain from making the rest of the way out:
1) What the ACC document says does not mean a regular season title does not exist, nor especially that someone can't prefer to win it over a tournament title
2) Just because you like something better doesn't mean it's objectively the best way to measure team quality
3) Just because something doesn't guarantee to pick the best team doesn't mean it's necessarily worse than any other method, or that any person can't want to win it more regardless
4) Not having a round robin does not invalidate the regular season title. It's still a thing. It may not be as good, but just because it's less good doesn't mean it's necessarily worse than the tournament....in some fans' eyes.

And that's all I have to say about that.

I don't think it's nearly as simple as you're saying. The relationship between ACC regular season and the ACC tournament is roughly analogous to the relationship between the final AP rankings and the NCAA tournament. I say roughly because the ACC regular season at least has standings while the final rankings are voted on, and standings seem more objective than voted rankings -- though perhaps a little less objective due to the imbalanced schedule. Still, it's the best analogy I can think of between the battles for the ACC and national championships.

With that in mind, consider:

In 2006, Duke was #1 in the final AP rankings, lost in the Sweet 16.
In 2002, Duke was #1 in the final AP rankings, lost in the Sweet 16.
In 2000, Duke was #1 in the final AP rankings, lost in the Sweet 16.
In 1991, Duke was #6 in the final AP rankings, won the national championship.

In 2012, Duke was #8 in the final AP rankings, lost in the first round.
In 2014, Duke was #8 in the final AP rankings, lost in the first round.
In 1990, Duke was #15 in the final AP rankings, went to the national championship game.

Now rank those seasons in order of success? 1991 is WAY ahead of 2000, 2002, and 2006, right? 1990 is WAY ahead of 2012 and 2014, right? Why? Because we went much further in the tournament, competing for the championship.

If you buy that even a little, it helps explain why some people think the ACC tournament is more important -- it has little to do with an "archaic ACC document," and more to do with who won the championship.

[uh_no]

I don't think it's nearly as simple as you're saying.

I'm confused...I wasn't saying anything....only observing what has been argued in this thread. You're arguing against a point I never made....(which, coincidently WAS what I was saying in that post)

[Kedsy]

I'm confused...I wasn't saying anything....only observing what has been argued in this thread. You're arguing against a point I never made....(which, coincidently WAS what I was saying in that post)

In fact, you were saying something: you were characterizing the arguments. And I believe you were characterizing them unfairly.

The real argument here is whether the regular season winner can be considered the league "champion" or not. But your entire post begs the question and assumes that the ACC regular season winner is a "champion" -- just a different kind of champion. Thus you point out the questions, "which championship an individual fan would LIKE to win" and "which championship is better at determining the 'better' team" when one side of the debate isn't interested in those questions at all. Nor are they interested in "how the championships are treated in an archaic ACC document," except to refute the idea that the regular season winner is any kind of champion.

I tried to use the analogy of the AP final ranking because pretty much nobody considers the final regular season #1 team to be a "champion" of any kind. It's an achievement, to be sure, and Duke hangs banners for it, just like we hang banners for winning the ACC regular season. But the NCAA champion is determined in the NCAA tournament, just as the ACC champion is determined in the ACC tournament.

I don't actually feel that strongly about the significance of the ACC tournament winner vs. the ACC regular season winner. They're both great achievements. I do feel that you unfairly framed the debate, which at least in my mind means I was arguing against a point you did make.

[Thurber Whyte]

I am a tournament fan. I respect those who would look more to the regular season standings. You have a valid point. For me, However, I cannot separate this issue for the historic context. Duke and State have always loved the tournament. That is why both teams have overachieved in it. Carolina and Maryland have always hated the tournament and griped about it for self serving reasons.

Carolina has far fewer ACC championships than regular season first place finishes even accounting for the fact that first place finishes can be shared by more than one team. They have been the #1 seed in the Tournament 25 times and won it only 17 times. Dean Smith never liked the Tournament and did not care. Long before the Conference started recognizing the regular season first place finisher with a trophy in the 1990s, Smith would go ahead and hang banners awarding his team some mythological “regular season championship” that he made up if they finished first. Roy Williams has continued the tradition by dismissing the Tournament as a “cocktail party.”

Maryland is a different story. Maryland fans always subscribed to the theory that the tournament is rigged against them because it is most often held in North Carolina and the North Carolina teams, therefore, have a home court advantage. With their delusions of grandeur, they always believed that they would have had way more ACC Championships if not for this supposed handicap. Of course, Maryland has won the ACC Tournament exactly the same number of times it has been the #1 seed (three). It did not necessarily do so in the same years, but you cannot say that they have done worse (or better) than expected over the years. Bonus fun fact: Each of Maryland’s Championships were won in North Carolina (one in Reynolds and two in Greensboro) and none of them when the tournament was held elsewhere. I was lucky enough to go to the 2005 ACC Championship in Washington. One of my favorite memories (besides Duke winning the whole thing) was that a local bank had paid for posters in the Metro Station next to the MCI Center saying “Fear the Turtle!” and emblazoned with the Maryland logo. I walked past those to watch Maryland lose in the first game on the first day to an inferior Clemson team and then passed by them again each of the remaining three days of the tournament. Nevertheless, Maryland had had that rare opportunity that they coveted: a less than ten mile bus ride back to campus and no hotel cancellation fees. But I digress!

My injunctions here:


1. Love the tournament. It has been good to us because we have been good to it.
2. Go ahead and argue that the Regular Season Championship means more or should be the proper way to recognize the official conference champion if you want to. However, do not accept the special pleading of certain teams’ fan bases that excuses their performance in the Tournament and/or argues that they are the “real ACC Champions” when they do not win the Tournament.

I will add two other observations:


1. Ironically, the best way to fix the distortion of the unbalanced schedule is a 14 game schedule where everyone plays each other once. The trade off is fewer games and we would still be arguing about who had better home versus away matchups, but everyone would play the same schedule. I do not think most people want to see this because we like to see more rather than fewer conference games and we want rivals to have home and away games.
2. End of season tournaments have an advantage in terms of capturing where teams are at the end of the season. College sports, as opposed to the pros, is much more about how teams grow and come together over the course of the season. New players come in every year. All of the players are in a phase of their careers where they are still growing and developing much more than in the pros. That was the joy of Mike Krzyzewski’s early teams, the 2010 team and, lately, Tom Izzo’s teams: they improved substantially over the course of the season and peaked in March.

[uh_no]

In fact, you were saying something: you were characterizing the arguments. And I believe you were characterizing them unfairly.

The real argument here is whether the regular season winner can be considered the league "champion" or not. But your entire post begs the question and assumes that the ACC regular season winner is a "champion" -- just a different kind of champion.

I am making no such presumption in that post. I'm simply pointing out that people are arguing about it. If you disagree, I have a thread's worth of posts showing where people are arguing about all three things I indicated.

With respect, I'm not sure any individual here gets to determine what the "real" argument is. I've seen several different arguments being made....I pointed them out. That's all.

I DO have an opinion on them, and it's been shared before, but not in this particular post.

[Kedsy]

I've seen several different arguments being made....I pointed them out. That's all.

You pointed some of them out.

In my opinion you left out the major argument being made by one side. That's why I said it's not as simple as you were saying.

[CDu]

The relationship between ACC regular season and the ACC tournament is roughly analogous to the relationship between the final AP rankings and the NCAA tournament. I say roughly because the ACC regular season at least has standings while the final rankings are voted on, and standings seem more objective than voted rankings -- though perhaps a little less objective due to the imbalanced schedule. Still, it's the best analogy I can think of between the battles for the ACC and national championships.

Please don't take offense, but that is a terrible analogy. There is very little similarity between finishing first in the regular season (based on a schedule that is only very slightly imbalanced) and being voted 1st in a poll (which involves all sorts of inherent biases). It's not roughly analogous; it's almost completely different.

It may be the closest analogy one can think of, but given how bad an analogy it is, it probably shouldn't be used make comparisons at all (because such comparisons would be largely meaningless given how different the regular season championship is from the Final regular season AP poll).

[Wander]

Please don't take offense, but that is a terrible analogy. There is very little similarity between finishing first in the regular season (based on a schedule that is only very slightly imbalanced) and being voted 1st in a poll (which involves all sorts of inherent biases). It's not roughly analogous; it's almost completely different.

It may be the closest analogy one can think of, but given how bad an analogy it is, it probably shouldn't be used make comparisons at all (because such comparisons would be largely meaningless given how different the regular season championship is from the Final regular season AP poll).

Right. For it to be analogous, the regular season would have to be 400-500 games long. Obviously, it's not anywhere close. In some alternate universe where it's somehow possible to play each single other Division 1 team one time and some of them twice, I would probably agree that the final AP ranking would be more meaningful than the NCAA tournament winner. (and, similarly, if the ACC ever gets so big that you don't play every single conference team during the regular season, I'll change my relative value for the ACC regular season vs conference tournament in favor of the latter).

[CDu]

Right. For it to be analogous, the regular season would have to be 400-500 games long. Obviously, it's not anywhere close. In some alternate universe where it's somehow possible to play each single other Division 1 team one time and some of them twice, I would probably agree that the final AP ranking would be more meaningful than the NCAA tournament winner. (and, similarly, if the ACC ever gets so big that you don't play every single conference team during the regular season, I'll change my relative value for the ACC regular season vs conference tournament in favor of the latter).

Furthermore, there would have to be no voting for the national scenario. The ACC Regular Season champ is a purely objective measure, whereas the AP Regular Season Final #1 is largely subjective. It would have to be, as you said, based on a 400-500 game season, with the team with the best record winning the honor. About the only thing similar between the regular season champion and the AP final regular season poll is that both are decided prior to a tournament.

I certainly respect the opinions of those who value the ACC Tournament champion over the ACC Regular Season champion. I personally don't share that opinion. But that's perhaps because I've grown up entirely in an era in which the ACC Tournament championship didn't mean much more than bragging rights. As in almost every case since I was born (1979) and certainly in every case since I've been following college basketball (~1986), the ACC Tournament champ was already safely in the field. And if all we're really talking about is bragging rights, I think winning the regular season championship is still more impressive. It was unequivocally more impressive back when they had the full home-and-home round robin, and I think it is still more impressive now.

You can certianly feel free to disagree with that viewpoint, but to suggest that the ACC Regular Season champ is in any way analagous to the AP regular season final #1 is silly.

[nocilla]

Please don't take offense, but that is a terrible analogy. There is very little similarity between finishing first in the regular season (based on a schedule that is only very slightly imbalanced) and being voted 1st in a poll (which involves all sorts of inherent biases). It's not roughly analogous; it's almost completely different.

It may be the closest analogy one can think of, but given how bad an analogy it is, it probably shouldn't be used make comparisons at all (because such comparisons would be largely meaningless given how different the regular season championship is from the Final regular season AP poll).

Isn't that how the National Champion in college football was decided for decades? I don't think it is that bad of an analogy. Sure the polls are subjective but do you really think they are that far off? Say UVA loses a couple games because Perrantes doesn't play. But he returns along with Anderson at the end of the season. Wouldn't some subjective polling be beneficial?

[Kedsy]

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun
(1) a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
(2) a correspondence or partial similarity.
(3) a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.



Please don't take offense, but that is a terrible analogy. There is very little similarity between finishing first in the regular season (based on a schedule that is only very slightly imbalanced) and being voted 1st in a poll (which involves all sorts of inherent biases). It's not roughly analogous; it's almost completely different.

It may be the closest analogy one can think of, but given how bad an analogy it is, it probably shouldn't be used make comparisons at all (because such comparisons would be largely meaningless given how different the regular season championship is from the Final regular season AP poll).

It's only a "terrible analogy" if you think "analogy" means "exactly the same." I even mentioned in my earlier post that "the ACC regular season at least has standings while the final rankings are voted on, and standings seem more objective than voted rankings -- though perhaps a little less objective due to the imbalanced schedule."

You seem to be saying that because the ACC regular season title is a reasonable measure of which team is best in the conference and the AP final #1 team is a much less reliable measure of which team is best in the country that the two are not analogous. And if my point was to equate the two as measures of which team was best I might agree with you (although nocilla makes some good points above, so I'm not entirely sure). But that was not my point at all.

My point was that it could be argued that the purpose of the regular season is to determine which are the best teams in the conference/country and to determine seeding in the post-season tournament. On the one hand, for the ACC, that determination is made based on the regular season standings, and on the other hand, for the nation, it's made by the polls and the selection committee. In both cases, the "champion" is determined in a tournament. Sounds pretty analogous to me.

In some ways this gets back to uh_no's post to which I originally responded, in that the argument in your response to me has little to do with the argument I was making. You are arguing that the AP final ranking does so much of a worse job than the ACC regular season standings at measuring the best team that it's a bad analogy. Because in this thread you've spent all your energy arguing that the standings are better at measuring the best team than the tournament (an assertion that I happen to agree with, by the way). But my argument is entirely different, and for my purposes in this thread I couldn't care less which system most accurately measures which team is best. So for the purposes of my original post, I still believe it is a perfectly legitimate analogy.

[CDu]

It's only a "terrible analogy" if you think "analogy" means "exactly the same." I even mentioned in my earlier post that "the ACC regular season at least has standings while the final rankings are voted on, and standings seem more objective than voted rankings -- though perhaps a little less objective due to the imbalanced schedule."

You seem to be saying that because the ACC regular season title is a reasonable measure of which team is best in the conference and the AP final #1 team is a much less reliable measure of which team is best in the country that the two are not analogous. And if my point was to equate the two as measures of which team was best I might agree with you (although nocilla makes some good points above, so I'm not entirely sure). But that was not my point at all.

My point was that it could be argued that the purpose of the regular season is to determine which are the best teams in the conference/country and to determine seeding in the post-season tournament. On the one hand, for the ACC, that determination is made based on the regular season standings, and on the other hand, for the nation, it's made by the polls and the selection committee. In both cases, the "champion" is determined in a tournament. Sounds pretty analogous to me.

In some ways this gets back to uh_no's post to which I originally responded, in that the argument in your response to me has little to do with the argument I was making. You are arguing that the AP final ranking does so much of a worse job than the ACC regular season standings at measuring the best team that it's a bad analogy. Because in this thread you've spent all your energy arguing that the standings are better at measuring the best team than the tournament (an assertion that I happen to agree with, by the way). But my argument is entirely different, and for my purposes in this thread I couldn't care less which system most accurately measures which team is best. So for the purposes of my original post, I still believe it is a perfectly legitimate analogy.

Regarding your first paragraph I respectfully disagree. I wasn't asking that the two be exactly the same. I just ask that they be remotely similar. And I don't think they are. You do, but that doesn't make your first paragraph correct at all. But I do thank you for the snarky inclusion of the definition.

And I absolutely concur with the rest in that we (in this case, more on me) have continued this thread's theme of arguing totally different points.

[snowdenscold]

Please don't take offense, but that is a terrible analogy. There is very little similarity between finishing first in the regular season (based on a schedule that is only very slightly imbalanced) and being voted 1st in a poll (which involves all sorts of inherent biases). It's not roughly analogous; it's almost completely different.

It may be the closest analogy one can think of, but given how bad an analogy it is, it probably shouldn't be used make comparisons at all (because such comparisons would be largely meaningless given how different the regular season championship is from the Final regular season AP poll).


Right. For it to be analogous, the regular season would have to be 400-500 games long. Obviously, it's not anywhere close. In some alternate universe where it's somehow possible to play each single other Division 1 team one time and some of them twice, I would probably agree that the final AP ranking would be more meaningful than the NCAA tournament winner. (and, similarly, if the ACC ever gets so big that you don't play every single conference team during the regular season, I'll change my relative value for the ACC regular season vs conference tournament in favor of the latter).

Another big difference between the situations is that the NCAA's are selective, whereas everyone is invited to the ACCT. If, as I said earlier, we made the ACCT only the top 8 (or 6 ?!) teams it might bring the comparisons more in line.

But again, I'm the outlier who wants to reduce the play-off fields across all sports*. Smaller ACCT, get rid of the silly 1-game baseball round, bring the NBA from 16 teams down to 12 - or at least don't make it a forced 8 from each conference, keep the College Football Playoff at 4, etc.

I love the excitement of the first weekend of the NCAA's, so I'm OK keeping that at 64 (or rather down from 68!), but I certainly wouldn't cry if it got cut to 32 (which of course will never happen).


* Tennis can stay at 128 player fields for Grand Slam events, but that's different, since tournaments are the standard way the season is played - it's not a post-season event following a regular season. Plus, they have a year-end finals that everyone strives to make the top 8 for. There they play 2 x 4-field round robins, followed by a 4-person playoff (top 2 from each bracket).