PDA

View Full Version : Do we still need the ACC tournament?



duke79
03-09-2015, 11:52 AM
I realize this may be sacreligious (sic) to many on this board, but I've wondered for the past few years if we still need an ACC tournament at the end of the season. Couldn't we just say that the "ACC Champion" is the team that compiles the best W-L record over the course of the entire season (which seems more fair to me) and forget about a tournament at the end of the season. I think you could make an argument that the tournament made more sense in the old days - 35 years ago or so - when the ACC had fewer teams and there were only 32 teams in the NCAA tournament and the only ACC team that got to play in the NCAA tournament was the ACC tournament champion. In more recent times, with a larger NCAA tournament pool, there are often multiple ACC teams that get into the "big show", regardless (in many cases) of how they do in the ACC tournament. I also think that maybe the teams that are going to play in the NCAA tournament might benefit from having a week and half off before the tournament starts. It would give the players a chance to rest up some after the long season, let some nagging injuries heal, and perhaps catch up on some school work (though maybe not relevant for some teams where the players apparently do very little school work during the season). I sometimes wonder if the embarrassing and disappointing Duke losses to Lehigh and Mercer in recent years were because the team was psychologically and physically tired when the NCAA tournament started, after playing a gruelingly long season and then having to play two or three more games in the ACC tournament? I realize there is a long history to the tournament and some teams actually do play their way into the NCAA tournament by doing well in ACC tournament and maybe some teams gain momentum from the ACC tournament but I just wonder if, overall, the negatives outweigh the positives of holding the tournament?

CDu
03-09-2015, 11:59 AM
Can of worms opened.

You aren't going to get any sort of consensus on this question. Good luck trying though.

sagegrouse
03-09-2015, 12:05 PM
Every single Division I conference except one has a post-season tournament to determine its NCAA representative. The exception is the Ivy League.

The ACC Tournament, through its ancestry in the Southern Conference, is the grandpappy of all conference tournaments. It ain't going away. Moreover, in a 15-school conference, it is arguably a fairer test than when the ACC had eight members playing a round-robin schedule.

Duvall
03-09-2015, 12:07 PM
I mean, we don't *need* college basketball, or any other sport. But the sports persist because people enjoy watching them (and, I hope, enjoy playing them). The same is true, I think, of the ACC Tournament.

Andre Buckner Fan
03-09-2015, 12:08 PM
Coach K has always said that the ACC tourney is important (in fact any tournament prep is important which is why he schedules those early season ones). We can't blame Lehigh or Mercer on the ACC tourney. We played well in the ACC tourney in other years where we've gone all the way.

I am glad that the championship will be on Saturday this year though. I never understood why we didn't bring it back a day.

killerleft
03-09-2015, 12:16 PM
Every team has a shot at it. It gives some meaning to the regular season without the champion being decided (some years) by the team with the easiest schedule.

The byes make it tough for a lower seed to win, which is as it should be.

And the tournament is an ACC tradition, and more and more traditions are falling by the wayside.

AIRFORCEDUKIE
03-09-2015, 12:23 PM
There is more than one way to look at this, lets say Duke had a down year and we were a bubble team? Then the ACC Tournament is a handy little tool we can use to boost our resume. Also, years where we lose to NC State or a Miami and we are itching for a revenge game because we only played them once in the regular season, the ACC is again a handy little tool. Gaining momentum and learning what it feels like to win a championship, is also beneficial. Once you cut those nets down once you itch to do it again. Its about a culture of winning, and I love it. I think our recent failures in the ACC and NCAA is clouding the minds here a bit. Winning Championships is all that matters to Duke there are no years where we can use the excuse that we fought hard but just couldn't get it done and feel good about it. Make no mistake Duke is in the business of winning Championships, any Championship!!! Now lets go get them both!!!! GO DUKE

hurleyfor3
03-09-2015, 12:27 PM
Believe it or not, I agree. We don't need any conference tournaments anymore.

Many of the smaller conferences are rigging their tournaments to help the best teams. Usually this involves playing the championship game on the home court of the higher seed. In a couple cases the high seeds get extra byes. There are good reasons to favor the high seeds, but if this is the point, why have the tournament in the first place? If you want single-elimination drama and teevee exposure just do a one-game playoff between the teams with the two best records, similar to what the the Ivy League does but every year.

For the major conferences, the good teams already have bids and the bad teams have to win four or five games in as many days to win, which rarely happens. I would argue the bad teams should have sucked less in the regular season and don't deserve it.

From a fan's standpoint, the tournaments have become much less attractive to attend. To go to the whole ACC tournament now essentially requires an entire workweek. It's harder to plan ahead because you don't know when your team will start playing, and with expansion your team is less likely to play the entire tournament than in the 8-10 team era. These problems aren't such a big deal when most of the fanbase is within easy driving distance, like the ACC used to be with Greensboro. But when you expand across timezones and and have your tournament in a place everyone needs to fly to and has obscene travel costs (ahem, Brooklyn), why bother?

Tickets have been easier to come by for an average fan, especially for the ACC. But that is a natural outcome of too many inconsequential games and a higher proportion of fans who realize the math doesn't work.

If we got rid of conference tournaments, save for one-game playoffs on the final weekend, we could expand the regular season by a couple games. This would allow conferences to get closer to a true round-robin or schedule more non-conference games. The argument in favor of the tournaments is ticket and teevee revenue, but you'd still capture most of that with additional home games.

Indoor66
03-09-2015, 12:29 PM
Coach K has always said that the ACC tourney is important (in fact any tournament prep is important which is why he schedules those early season ones). We can't blame Lehigh or Mercer on the ACC tourney. We played well in the ACC tourney in other years where we've gone all the way.

I am glad that the championship will be on Saturday this year though. I never understood why we didn't bring it back a day.

The Tourney was a three day event -Friday through Sunday - dating back to a simpler time. It was as much a social occasion as a basketball tournament. Fans traveled and stayed for the weekend and visited with the same people year after year. It began in a simpler time.

The winner face an Eastern Regional that featured four teams. In those days, four wins and you were the national champion.

We need the tradition to continue. It is part of what makes following college basketball fun.

devil84
03-09-2015, 12:31 PM
I am glad that the championship will be on Saturday this year though. I never understood why we didn't bring it back a day.

I liked the good ol' days, where the Triangle schools (heck, probably those in the whole state) would turn on the TV in every class on Friday. Some very lucky kids were "sick" or absent for "religious observances" on Friday to go to the games, only missing one day of school for the entire tournament. That ship sailed. (Cue "Sail with the Pilot" ditty.)

Now that my kids are either in grad school (and off this week) or gainfully employed, it doesn't impact us as much. But my neighbor was lamenting that the only time he and his high school age son could go now was the final game. It's much more fun to go for the semi-final session and possibly the finals (without missing school or work).

superdave
03-09-2015, 12:32 PM
The conference tournament gives many of the weaker teams a shot at making the NCAAs that they would otherwise not have. I like that and want to keep it forever. The Cardiac Pack is the best example of this.

I would be willing to listen to the argument that the bottom two teams in a 14 team conference (or four teams in a 16 team conference) should be excluded from the conference tournament, but that's completely different conversation.

Skitzle
03-09-2015, 12:37 PM
The conference tournament will give Duke a chance to meet and BEAT Virginia again.

Or Maryland or UNC or whoever the heck that years rivalry was with. Remember BC in 2006? Yea. You do. Cause great things happen in the Tournament.

so is it needed no?

Is it awesome? Yes

:D

53n206
03-09-2015, 12:40 PM
Money talks. General admissions and television revenues. Come on, this tournament will continue.

rifraf
03-09-2015, 12:40 PM
Crowning the regular season champ the "ACC Champ" makes more sense to me if we can go back to every team playing every team twice. But with schedules not being even due to expansion, I'm in favor of the tourney.

flyingdutchdevil
03-09-2015, 01:01 PM
BCS teams don't really need tournaments. More often than not, the tournaments move seedings by 1/2 spots. Examples of when a team not on the bubble makes a run at the tournament and wins it/impresses the committee are kinda rare (Syracuse and UConn in the mid/late 2000s).

However, fans love the conference tournaments. At least, I love the conference tournaments. Plus, it allows teams to tinker a little bit more and get players healthy who aren't healthy.

Also, the media loves it. Look at all that $$$$!!!! Money that doesn't go to CBS or the NCAA. Money that goes to the pockets of ESPN, ABC, and Disney (I know, all the same company).

Count me a fan of conference tournaments, but I don't think they're relevant for basketball-caring conferences.

CDu
03-09-2015, 01:03 PM
Every single Division I conference except one has a post-season tournament to determine its NCAA representative. The exception is the Ivy League.

The ACC Tournament, through its ancestry in the Southern Conference, is the grandpappy of all conference tournaments. It ain't going away. Moreover, in a 15-school conference, it is arguably a fairer test than when the ACC had eight members playing a round-robin schedule.

I disagree completely with the idea that it is remotely a fairer test than the current regular season. It is not, nor is it close. I do agree that it isn't going away. But if you remove the incorrect part of your post, there really isn't anything supporting a need for the tourney. It is all about entertainment, not need.

bbosbbos
03-09-2015, 01:23 PM
With a balanced schedule the regular season acc champ should be the real champ. However, how can you have a balanced schedule in such a big conference?

If it is not possible to determine the acc champ by regular season results, ACCT is necessary.

weezie
03-09-2015, 01:37 PM
The Tourney was a three day event -Friday through Sunday - dating back to a simpler time. It was as much a social occasion as a basketball tournament. Fans traveled and stayed for the weekend and visited with the same people year after year. It began in a simpler time.


And the tailgating is still excellent, at least in the southern climes. Although I intend to endow a Brooklyn bar when we head to the Large Apple in 2017.

Olympic Fan
03-09-2015, 01:44 PM
And the NBA playoffs are not necessary -- just crown the team with the best regular season record.

And the NCAA Tournament is not necessary -- give Kentucky the title right now. How unfair would it be if they go through the season unbeaten and lose on a fluke to an inferior team in the NCAA.

Forget the world series and the baseball playoffs -- one seven-game series can't be as fair as a 162 game regular season.

I don't understand the reasoning of some fans -- almost all sports settle their championships in playoffs or championship games. That's the very essense of sports.

The ACC will decide its championship this week in Greensboro. I'm excited to see it.

freshmanjs
03-09-2015, 01:46 PM
And the NBA playoffs are not necessary -- just crown the team with the best regular season record.

And the NCAA Tournament is not necessary -- give Kentucky the title right now. How unfair would it be if they go through the season unbeaten and lose on a fluke to an inferior team in the NCAA.

Forget the world series and the baseball playoffs -- one seven-game series can't be as fair as a 162 game regular season.

I don't understand the reasoning of some fans -- almost all sports settle their championships in playoffs or championship games. That's the very essense of sports.

The ACC will decide its championship this week in Greensboro. I'm excited to see it.

a better analog would be if there were nba division championships where all teams were invited and it was a 1-done format and was completely immaterial to the actual nba championship.

flyingdutchdevil
03-09-2015, 01:50 PM
And the NBA playoffs are not necessary -- just crown the team with the best regular season record.

And the NCAA Tournament is not necessary -- give Kentucky the title right now. How unfair would it be if they go through the season unbeaten and lose on a fluke to an inferior team in the NCAA.

Forget the world series and the baseball playoffs -- one seven-game series can't be as fair as a 162 game regular season.

I don't understand the reasoning of some fans -- almost all sports settle their championships in playoffs or championship games. That's the very essense of sports.

The ACC will decide its championship this week in Greensboro. I'm excited to see it.

Actually, the conference tourney comp for the NBA could be to have tournaments for each division in each conference (ie Southeast division in the Eastern Conference), which they currently do not have.

No one is arguing against the necessity of the NCAA Tournament, just the ACC Tournament. And lack of "necessity" doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Fans love the conference tournaments, so let's keep em.

W&LHoo
03-09-2015, 01:55 PM
Every team has a shot at it. It gives some meaning to the regular season without the champion being decided (some years) by the team with the easiest schedule.

The byes make it tough for a lower seed to win, which is as it should be.

And the tournament is an ACC tradition, and more and more traditions are falling by the wayside.

To me, this has always been the best argument for the conference tourneys. We all know it's wildly unlikely, but if Virginia Tech wins their next 11 games, they're the national champions and will go down in history as the greatest cinderella story of all time.

Significantly more realistically, if Miami or NC State get hot and win the thing (unlikely but not impossible - none of us would beat either of those teams 10 out of 10 times) they cement a decent seed in the NCAAs and their kids get to hang a banner.

It keeps hope alive for an amazing season even for kids on teams that are struggling. That's important. Ultimately, as invested as we all are in these teams, we should be mindful of the fact that the kids are the point. At least theoretically.

Lar77
03-09-2015, 01:58 PM
Do we need the ACC Tournament? No. It has little influence on the NCAA tournament selections, except for bubble teams and "cinderellas," so its importance to that process is greatly diminished.

Has the ACC lost some of its luster? Yes. Instead of a weekend event providing an opportunity to spend some time with people and see some really good basketball, it is now takes 5 days. I'm sure the BC fans are really looking forward to travelling to Greensboro for a short stay (weather is projecting as poor so even golf is out on Wednesday).

But I have to go with Sagegrouse on this one. It is a matter of opinion on whether it is a fairer test than an unbalanced regular season, but the same issue applies to the NCAA tournament. An ACC Tournament, in my opinion, is the way to determine the ACC Champion.

As I stated in an earlier thread, it is time to rework the format. We don't need 15 teams and 5 days. But that's a different issue and longer discussion.

hurleyfor3
03-09-2015, 02:02 PM
And the NBA playoffs are not necessary -- just crown the team with the best regular season record.

And the NCAA Tournament is not necessary -- give Kentucky the title right now. How unfair would it be if they go through the season unbeaten and lose on a fluke to an inferior team in the NCAA.

I don't understand the reasoning of some fans -- almost all sports settle their championships in playoffs or championship games. That's the very essense of sports.

This misses the point. Holding a conference tournament in college comes with an opportunity cost. Duke could have had an extra home game against UVa/Looville/NCSU. And an extra road game against Miami or Pitt... and if either of those teams had won it would have strengthened their NCAA tournament resume. And if your argument is, "some years the extra games would've been Virginia Tech at home and BC on the road", well, you can't predict whom you're going to get in a tournament, either!

And again, most of the basketball-watching world has jobs, budgets and vacation days to manage around.


Forget the world series and the baseball playoffs -- one seven-game series can't be as fair as a 162 game regular season.

The most recent change to the wild-card format served to emphasize the regular season more, so I'm not sure what argument this is supposed to strengthen.

gumbomoop
03-09-2015, 02:09 PM
I'll answer the OP's question from a completely different perspective, one that comes specifically from Duke's seed-and-regional-placement situation for the upcoming NCAAT.

Allow me to repeat something I posted on another thread: both Duke and UVa are 1-locks, unless either loses embarrassingly badly in the ACCT quarters. I don't expect this to happen. Thus, absent an embarrassing performance, UVa seems destined for Charlotte/Syracuse, Duke for Charlotte/Houston, both as 1-seeds.

But do Krzyzewski and staff strongly prefer Syracuse? And if so, is that still a possibility? I'll guess "yes" to both.

If UVa loses in ACCT semis while Duke wins ACCT, or if UVa loses to Duke in ACCT final, where does Selection Committee send Hoos and Devils for regionals?

Well, until Anderson injury and appendectomy, UVa was poised to win ACC by at least 2 games; looked a good shot to go an amazing 17-1. Duke, it seemed possible a couple of weeks ago, might wind up 3d, or tied with ND for 2d at 14-4. But Duke kept winning, very impressively (save VT near-stunner), lots of impressive wins, stock rising. Meanwhile, UVa's stock wobbles ever so slightly, because there's that Anderson thing. So the storyline has shifted just a bit, symbolized by latest/today's polls, in which Duke rises to 2 while Hoos fall to 3/4.

UVa's body of work still merits a 1-seed, but one wonders whether the Selection Committee just now might be thinking that Duke's body of work -- which does, after all, include that win @ UVa -- surpasses UVa's, and thus deserves the geographic preference of the Syracuse region.

So maybe Duke, this season, right where we are now at this moment, does "need" this ACCT, for the opportunity to win it, over either UVa or the team that beat UVa, and get the Syracuse spot. A Duke-UVa ACCT final would be a "Geography Bowl."

Or, we could look at it another way: maybe Duke has already surpassed UVa and is set for Syracuse, in which case the ACCT is the Hoos' chance to recover its mojo, win the Geography Bowl, and send the Devils to hell, er, Houston.

[I am aware that Duke will have to win 2 in Charlotte first. But that placement is set and is irrelevant to regional placement issue.]

duke79
03-09-2015, 02:11 PM
Yea, I realized I might be opening a can of worms with this thread (but, hell, I'm bored at work) and I know that there are reasons to hold the tourney every year (history, revenues, fan interest, allowing lower ranked teams to get into the NCAA tourney, etc.) but I'm still not 100% convinced that the tourneys (in the ACC and other conferences) really make sense any more (and maybe the financial argument is the strongest - why would the conferences want to give up the money?). I'm not advocating (obviously) that we do away with the NCAA tourney or the World Series in baseball or the NBA playoffs, as one poster suggested. Maybe because I don't live in NC, I don't really care whether Duke wins the ACC tourney or not. I view it as almost inconsequential. However, I DO care how Duke does in the NCAA tourney. I mean, if, by chance, Miami or VT gets hot and wins the ACC tourney, am I going to consider them the ACC champions? Not in my mind, given the seasons Virginia and Duke had over the past three months. As I noted in my first post, I think it is probably a good time to give the kids on the teams playing in the NCAA tourney a short break before the intense schedule of the tourney. I'd be interested to know how the coaches feel about these season-ending tournaments?

toooskies
03-09-2015, 02:19 PM
First: let's get out of the mindset of, seeding in (or just making) the NCAA tournament is the most important thing. It's not. The ACC Tournament has value in and of itself. It's why we hang a banner. It's a championship, and it's worth earning even when it's not the greatest championship in the land. Basketball has too much randomness to assign all of the value of a season to one single-elimination tournament, and to only call one team in the country worthy of a championship.

OK, second: The problem with everyone being allowed into the tournament is, you're not actually giving them all a chance to win. The bad teams can't win 5 straight. But it actually hurts the RPIs of the "bubble" teams, meaning you're tangibly hurting the conference's NCAA tournament outcomes by seeding everyone.

The RPI actually penalizes you for playing bad teams, as it lowers your strength of schedule. Playing a bad team in the post-season is a lose-lose proposition, and the only good to come of it is playing a good team in the next round. One of the reasons VPI got left out in the Greenberg era was that they played Wake Forest three times when Wake was 200+ in the RPI.

It could really hurt Miami's chances to make the tournament if, say, Wake Forest loses to VT this year. All of a sudden Miami will have an RPI-200 team on its schedule.

In the meantime, letting the bottom-feeders of the league play in the ACCT does them no favors, either. KenPom's ratings say that no team seeded 9-14 this year has more than a 5.3% chance of making the semifinals of the ACCT, let alone winning the thing. 10th-seeded Pitt has a 1/1000 chance of winning the whole thing, and no one seeded below them is any better. It's true that it's a top-heavy year, but in the past 3 years there have been no teams seeded in double digits with more than a 1% chance of winning the tournament.

So what I'm in favor of, is only allowing the top 8-10 teams into the tournament in the first place. It makes the regular season mean more to middle-of-the-pack teams who otherwise couldn't care less about the conference standings. If you go 8 seeds, you get quarterfinals, semis, and finals. We could go back to the 3-day tournament. Or if we go 10, it's a 4-day with a couple play-in games. Bubble teams aren't forced to play potentially harmful RPI games, then play a game that could determine their tournament entry on only a single night's rest while the other team has had 4+ days to prepare. No need to award double-byes to the favorites, either.

captmojo
03-09-2015, 02:24 PM
I have thought for a long time, that the NCAA should set up a scenario that incorporates the national tournament in combination with all conferences, and therefore it would incorporate ALL teams. Nobody would have a beef with a committee of oracles, and be left arguing and decrying a case for themselves for being overlooked and left out. Everyone has a chance and everyone gets to participate. Early losers can still have time to formulate another tournament (NIT), and still have something to do and have hope for.

scottdude8
03-09-2015, 02:30 PM
I don't think this is so trivial a question as some. I still definitely think the ACC Tournament is necessary, and is a good thing; however, I could see a scenario in which it wouldn't be necessary.

I think the key reason the ACC Tournament is still necessary is because of the uneven scheduling: even though Virginia has a better ACC record than Duke this season, given the different matchups that the uneven scheduling provides you could make a legitimate argument that Duke had a better ACC season given it's much more challenging schedule.

A situation like the Big 12 is different: given that they play a true round robin, if there is a true regular season champion (ie there's no tie at the top, or if there is a tie at the top one team won both head to head matchups) I think that team will have a near unimpeachable argument that they were the best team in the conference that season, and thus should be the conference champion.

However, one reason that I think conference tournaments, and playoffs in general in all of sport, will never go away is because (ignoring the obvious entertainment and money aspect of a playoff system) of the concept that you want to judge who is the best at the end of the season, after a team has gotten the chance to coalesce and improve. As an example (and one that I'm particularly fond of), think about Michigan two years ago: they were certainly not the second best team in the country judging solely off of the regular season. But by the end of the season the team had really discovered itself and improved: Trey Burke decided he was the best player in the country, Mitch McGary finally found his rhythm, and Spike Albrecht discovered the ability to activate god-mode. None of that was true of the team for much of the regular season.

So to get back to the originally asked question, I think that given the current design of the ACC regular season, a conference tournament is most definitely necessary. I also think it will always exist not only given the entertainment aspect of the tournament, but also the idea of wanting to crown the best team at the end of the season the conference champion. However, if the regular season schedule was balanced, I think you could make a reasonable and convincing argument for scrapping the tournament, even though I personally wouldn't be in favor of it.

Atldukie79
03-09-2015, 02:52 PM
Love the ACC Tourney.
If for no other reason than I like to track the Duke (and Triangle) dominance through the years. :)

Any area where we beat UNC (or anyone else) is a good thing.
I enjoy the drama of competition. No interest in whether KenPom or RPI or anything else is affected by the tourney.
Like K, I love me some championship banners.
Yes, the big prize is the NCAA championship...but a season is not worthless when you do not win the big one. An ACC Championship is a worthy goal.

ACC Tourney Stats by decade:


ACC Tournament Championships
By Decade

Dec Du NC NCS Other Du % Triangle %
50's...0..... 1......4......1..... 0% 83%
60's...4..... 3......1......2..... 40% 80%
70's...1......4.....3......2..... 10% 80%
80's...3..... 3......2......2..... 30% 80%
90's...2..... 4......0......4..... 20% 60%
00's...7..... 2......0......1..... 70% 90%
10's...2..... 0......0......3..... 40% 40%
Total.19... 17...10.....15

....... 31% 28% 16% 25%

Stray Gator
03-09-2015, 03:15 PM
Yea, I realized I might be opening a can of worms with this thread (but, hell, I'm bored at work) and I know that there are reasons to hold the tourney every year (history, revenues, fan interest, allowing lower ranked teams to get into the NCAA tourney, etc.) but I'm still not 100% convinced that the tourneys (in the ACC and other conferences) really make sense any more (and maybe the financial argument is the strongest - why would the conferences want to give up the money?). I'm not advocating (obviously) that we do away with the NCAA tourney or the World Series in baseball or the NBA playoffs, as one poster suggested. Maybe because I don't live in NC, I don't really care whether Duke wins the ACC tourney or not. I view it as almost inconsequential. However, I DO care how Duke does in the NCAA tourney. I mean, if, by chance, Miami or VT gets hot and wins the ACC tourney, am I going to consider them the ACC champions? Not in my mind, given the seasons Virginia and Duke had over the past three months. As I noted in my first post, I think it is probably a good time to give the kids on the teams playing in the NCAA tourney a short break before the intense schedule of the tourney. I'd be interested to know how the coaches feel about these season-ending tournaments?

Count me as one who doesn't live in North Carolina but still cares a great deal whether Duke wins the ACC Tourney, and wants to see the ACC Tourney endure whatever the results for Duke. Why?

First, because winning the ACC Tourney would make Duke the ACC Champion. With all due respect, whether you or anyone else considers the winner of the tournament to be the legitimate ACC Champion in your mind doesn't alter the fact that, by rule and tradition, the tournament winner is the official conference champion.

Second, as an alumnus and long-time fan, I love seeing Duke teams play. The ACC Tourney provides an opportunity for us to see this Duke team -- which has been especially fun to watch -- play as many as three more games.

Third, although some of the interest and intensity has been diluted a bit by changes to the tournament schedule resulting from conference expansion, the ACC Tourney remains one of the most exciting and entertaining events in sports -- at least for longtime ACC fans. I'll be back in Greensboro on Wednesday to attend my 21st ACC Tournament. As an alumnus of both Duke and Florida, I've also been fortunate to attend 9 Final Fours involving one or both my teams and 4 college football national championship games. Other than the Saturday Semifinals at the Final Four, the four-games-in-one-day quarterfinals at the ACC Tourney is about as good as it gets for me. Much of the fun doesn't get conveyed through TV viewing -- seeing the same familiar faces in the crowd each year; watching the allegiances among the different sections of the "pie" holding each school's fans shift from one game to the next depending on rivalries or preferred match-ups in the next round; finding yourself on the concourse standing next to a couple of former coaches or players sharing conversations (mostly amusing) about remembered experiences; meeting up between games or after games with friends to discuss game results, forecasts of contests to come, or the effects of games in other conference tourneys. (Sadly, as fewer friends attend each year, those moments are dwindling.)

I could go on, but I'll stop there except to make one final point: The main argument for dispensing with the tournament seems to be that our players would benefit from the additional rest before the start of the NCAA Tourney. I don't agree with that premise. I've never seen a team that played in the ACC Tourney come out looking "tired" when the NCAA Tourney starts the following weekend; and now even the teams that play in the ACC Championship game will get an extra day of rest. Conversely, I've seen plenty of instances where a team that had a break longer than the customary interval between games actually suffered in its performance when it resumed play, due to "rust" or a loss of rhythm.

So in my admittedly old-timer's opinion, the reasons for playing in, and trying to win, the ACC Tourney far outweigh any benefit of discontinuing that tradition.

Wander
03-09-2015, 05:38 PM
I don't understand the reasoning of some fans -- almost all sports settle their championships in playoffs or championship games. That's the very essense of sports.


Yes, but "ACC basketball" is not a sport. None of the examples you gave are remotely analogous to conference tournaments in college basketball.

I'm split on this issue. There's a lot going against conference tournaments:

1. No other sport I know of has anything that's equivalent to college basketball's conference tournaments. In that sense, the answer to the question "Do we NEED conference tournaments" is an obvious and resounding "of course not." The sport would survive just fine without them, like every single other sport does.
2. The smaller conferences are hurt by it - as someone pointed out in the other thread, we have a game tonight between Wofford and Furman, which is the difference between that conference getting a 12 seed and a 16 seed. For conferences with no at-large teams, the conference tournament devalues the regular season A LOT.
3. I don't have a problem with people valuing the tournament championship more than the regular season championship, or pointing out that it has more tradition, or liking it because it selects the official ACC entry into the NCAAs. But I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that the regular season championship more often selects the best team. And when the regular season DOESN'T select the best team, it always selects ONE of the best teams in the conference, whereas the tournament can crown a mediocre or even bad team.

All that being said, the smaller conference tournaments are one of my favorite parts of the year, they have some tradition, and there's something cool about everyone still being alive in March. It comes down to this... the conference tournaments are nonsensical, but fun. I don't know where I really come down on having them vs getting rid of them, but either view is fine with me.

DukieInKansas
03-09-2015, 06:38 PM
And the tailgating is still excellent, at least in the southern climes. Although I intend to endow a Brooklyn bar when we head to the Large Apple in 2017.

Please remember your friends when you do!

I agree with those that way it isn't "needed" but I think it is wanted and important. Besides, something has to fill the time between the final Duke-UNC game and Selection Sunday.

DukieInKansas
03-09-2015, 06:39 PM
a better analog would be if there were nba division championships where all teams were invited and it was a 1-done format and was completely immaterial to the actual nba championship.

But we live in a digital world. ;)

sagegrouse
03-09-2015, 06:50 PM
I disagree completely with the idea that it is remotely a fairer test than the current regular season. It is not, nor is it close. I do agree that it isn't going away. But if you remove the incorrect part of your post, there really isn't anything supporting a need for the tourney. It is all about entertainment, not need.

CDu: I said that a tournament in a 15-team conference makes more sense as a test of the best team than it does in an eight-team conference with a double round-robin. Perhaps I could have stated it more clearly. My words --


Moreover, in a 15-school conference, it is arguably a fairer test than when the ACC had eight members playing a round-robin schedule.

CDu
03-09-2015, 06:59 PM
CDu: I said that a tournament in a 15-team conference makes more sense as a test of the best team than it does in an eight-team conference with a double round-robin. Perhaps I could have stated it more clearly. My words --

Ah, I misread what you said. I would say that the regular season (though slightly unbalanced) is still way more fair an assessment than the tourney. But since that wasn't what you were talking about, I apologize for my error! :o