ACC Regular Season vs. ACC Tournament Conversation

[Olympic Fan]

I'm with that, though at the very least I'm counting on him being out for awhile, which at this point would still be a welcome scenario. That ends hope for finally capturing another conference title. But hope for something else beyond that is not dead yet. Just got to get enough conference wins to get into the tournament.

I don't see why.

The conference title is decided by the tournament in March. Plenty of time for Amile to get back.

The "regular season" title ... so what. In the ACC, the tournament title is officially the conference tile.

[gam7]

I don't see why.

The conference title is decided by the tournament in March. Plenty of time for Amile to get back.

The "regular season" title ... so what. In the ACC, the tournament title is officially the conference tile.

I know that we here at DBR like to pull out this semantic argument, and maybe some of us have internalized it to such an extent that we truly have a "so what" opinion about the regular season. But let's be real - winning the regular season conference is a big deal. If you don't think it is, then you are deluding yourself.

[uh_no]

I know that we here at DBR like to pull out this semantic argument, and maybe some of us have internalized it to such an extent that we truly have a "so what" opinion about the regular season. But let's be real - winning the regular season conference is a big deal. If you don't think it is, then you are deluding yourself.

it's so unimportant that it's one of the few things that we hang a banner in cameron for....

[Coballs]

I know that we here at DBR like to pull out this semantic argument, and maybe some of us have internalized it to such an extent that we truly have a "so what" opinion about the regular season. But let's be real - winning the regular season conference is a big deal. If you don't think it is, then you are deluding yourself.

Agree 100000000% ACC regular season championship is a much bigger accomplishment than the ACC tourney even with the unbalanced scheduling.

[Steven43]

I know that we here at DBR like to pull out this semantic argument, and maybe some of us have internalized it to such an extent that we truly have a "so what" opinion about the regular season. But let's be real - winning the regular season conference is a big deal. If you don't think it is, then you are deluding yourself.

And why is it a big deal? I honestly have no idea who has won the ACC regular season title ever since they went to the unbalanced schedule. Unless all ACC teams are playing each other home and away you can't establish a legitimate league champion. So what's the point?

[CDu]

And why is it a big deal? I honestly have no idea who has won the ACC regular season title ever since they went to the unbalanced schedule. Unless all ACC teams are playing each other home and away you can't establish a legitimate league champion. So what's the point?

As uh-no said, it is a big deal because it means a banner.

Ask Coach K about his first ACC championship. He will speak glowingly of that 1986 team... when they clinched it by beating UNC in Cameron in the final regular season game.

It matters. Coach K values all championships: preseason tournaments, ACC regular season, ACC tournament, and NCAA tournament.

[Steven43]

it's so unimportant that it's one of the few things that we hang a banner in cameron for...

I wish Duke would take down the ACC Championship, AP regular season #1, and Final Four banners, though I could be persuaded to keep those. I would prefer to see only retired jerseys and National Championship banners hanging in Cameron. The excessive banners seems to somehow takes away from the whole.

[freshmanjs]

And why is it a big deal? I honestly have no idea who has won the ACC regular season title ever since they went to the unbalanced schedule. Unless all ACC teams are playing each other home and away you can't establish a legitimate league champion. So what's the point?

It's certainly more balanced and "legitimate" than a 1 and done tournament...

[Edouble]

I know that we here at DBR like to pull out this semantic argument, and maybe some of us have internalized it to such an extent that we truly have a "so what" opinion about the regular season. But let's be real - winning the regular season conference is a big deal. If you don't think it is, then you are deluding yourself.


Agree 100000000% ACC regular season championship is a much bigger accomplishment than the ACC tourney even with the unbalanced scheduling.


I don't see why.

The conference title is decided by the tournament in March. Plenty of time for Amile to get back.

The "regular season" title ... so what. In the ACC, the tournament title is officially the conference tile.

Agree with Olympic Fan, the ACC Championship is the ACC Tournament Championship, unrelated to the relative merit of winning the Regular Season ACC Championship vs the ACC Tournament. One should not refer to the ACC Regular Season Championship as the ACC Championship. Not right.

[Steven43]

It's certainly more balanced and "legitimate" than a 1 and done tournament...

If you would rather win the ACC title than the National Championship more power to you. I doubt you will find even one person to agree with you, though.

[freshmanjs]

If you would rather win the ACC title than the National Championship more power to you. I doubt you will find even one person to agree with you, though.

Bizarre response. I would rather win the NC and never even hinted otherwise...classic strawman. However, the NCAA tournament is definitely not "balanced"...and it is a really weird argument you made that the problem with the regular season is imbalance, so we should use a 1 and done tournament instead.

[gam7]

...from Amile vigil thread.

[jimsumner]

If you would rather win the ACC title than the National Championship more power to you. I doubt you will find even one person to agree with you, though.

I believe the one-and-done tournament referenced is the ACC Tournament. At least that's how I read it.

And I could never agree with removing the FF banners. Making the FF is a big, freaking deal and should never be minimized.

IMO.

[uh_no]

1) The regular season title is important...we hang banners for it
2) the tournament is the REAL ACC title
3) but people consider RS important, and titles are valuable if people think they are
4) yeah but it's unbalanced
5) yeah but the tournament is just as unbalanced
6) then why bother playing the games

/thread

[sagegrouse]

I believe the one-and-done tournament referenced is the ACC Tournament. At least that's how I read it.

And I could never agree with removing the FF banners. Making the FF is a big, freaking deal and should never be minimized.

IMO.

I agree totally. Although we have a lot of laundry hanging from the ceiling, it is well deserved. Moreover, former players get to see their accomplishments celebrated, which is important for tradition in one of the greatest college basketball programs.

Sage
'If I observed correctly, the Southern Conference championship banners have come down. Since those were in 1940, 1942 and 1943, perhaps that is OK'

[gam7]

And why is it a big deal? I honestly have no idea who has won the ACC regular season title ever since they went to the unbalanced schedule. Unless all ACC teams are playing each other home and away you can't establish a legitimate league champion. So what's the point?

This is a bunch of malarkey. First, I would bet that you can name at least as many regular season league winners as you can ACC tournament winners (without looking it up) since the league expanded in the 2013 season. Second, it's absurd to say you can't establish a regular season league winner. Do you follow NFL football? Teams in each division have unbalanced schedules. Does that make it impossible to establish a division winner? What about teams in a conference that plays home and home, but Team A plays three other teams whose best player is out with injury/suspended, etc., and Team B plays those same three teams when their injured stars are back in the lineup? Is that unbalanced? If no, then why not? If yes, then do you really think you can't declare a legitimate regular season winner?


Agree with Olympic Fan, the ACC Championship is the ACC Tournament Championship, unrelated to the relative merit of winning the Regular Season ACC Championship vs the ACC Tournament. One should not refer to the ACC Regular Season Championship as the ACC Championship. Not right.

Reasonable minds can disagree on the relative merits of regular season title vs. ACC Tournament title. I happen to think winning the regular season is a bigger accomplishment. But, I was more taking issue with OF's "so what" opinion of the regular season.

[gam7]

1) The regular season title is important...we hang banners for it
2) the tournament is the REAL ACC title
3) but people consider RS important, and titles are valuable if people think they are
4) yeah but it's unbalanced
5) yeah but the tournament is just as unbalanced
6) then why bother playing the games

/thread

And yeah, what he said.

/thread

[MarkD83]

And don't forget they are all interconnected. Win the acc regular season and play the easiest road to the acc tournament final. Win the acc tournament and get a top seed in the ncaas

[Olympic Fan]

Jist wanted to clarify my original response to jipops in the Amile Vigil thread, which one of the moderators broke off into a new thread ...

I was responding to the assertion that Amile's injury "ends hope for finally capturing another conference title."

I merely pointed out that the conference title is decided in the tournament in March.

I know you can argue -- and we have! -- that the regular season is more important. While I don't agree, I understand that reasonable people can hold that opinion.

But what's not debatable is that the official ACC champion is the tournament winner, not the best team in the regular season. That was the unofficial situation through the 1950s, but it became official on July 1, 1961, when at the conference meeting the eight league members voted unanimously to make the tournament winner the conference champion.

My point is, when you say "the conference championship" you're talking about the tournament. If you mean the regular season champion, then say that. Just be sure that the word champion is preceded by the words "regular season".

It's a lot like the Electoral College. I think because Clinton got almost 3 million more votes nationally than Trump, she should be president. But the law says that the Electoral College is what matters and in a few days. Trump will be sworn in. Personally, I think the popular vote is a more rational means of choosing a President, but I accept the law.

You might think that a better unbalanced regular season record is a more rational way of choosing a champion. But the ACC "law" is that the tournament winner is the champ.

[CDu]

Jist wanted to clarify my original response to jipops in the Amile Vigil thread, which one of the moderators broke off into a new thread ...

I was responding to the assertion that Amile's injury "ends hope for finally capturing another conference title."

I merely pointed out that the conference title is decided in the tournament in March.

I know you can argue -- and we have! -- that the regular season is more important. While I don't agree, I understand that reasonable people can hold that opinion.

But what's not debatable is that the official ACC champion is the tournament winner, not the best team in the regular season. That was the unofficial situation through the 1950s, but it became official on July 1, 1961, when at the conference meeting the eight league members voted unanimously to make the tournament winner the conference champion.

My point is, when you say "the conference championship" you're talking about the tournament. If you mean the regular season champion, then say that. Just be sure that the word champion is preceded by the words "regular season".

It's a lot like the Electoral College. I think because Clinton got almost 3 million more votes nationally than Trump, she should be president. But the law says that the Electoral College is what matters and in a few days. Trump will be sworn in. Personally, I think the popular vote is a more rational means of choosing a President, but I accept the law.

You might think that a better unbalanced regular season record is a more rational way of choosing a champion. But the ACC "law" is that the tournament winner is the champ.

I completely agree... although I think the addition of "unbalanced" in front of "regular season" at the end seems biased. Because the tournament is much more unbalanced than the regular season. Both are unbalanced, one moreso than the other. It would be more appropriate to say "you might think that a better regular season record is a more rational way..." or "you might think that a better unbalanced regular season record is a more rational way of choosing a champion than winning an even-more unbalanced tournament." Either would be fine. But tossing in the "unbalanced' on one side seems slanted.

But that said, yes, the official ACC champion is the one that wins the ACC tournament. The regular season champion is just the regular season champion. Both are things, but the official representative of the ACC as champion is defined as the tournament winner. And as such, if referencing the regular season championship it should be noted that it is "the regular season championship" and not "the championship."

[Olympic Fan]

I completely agree... although I think the addition of "unbalanced" in front of "regular season" at the end seems biased. Because the tournament is much more unbalanced than the regular season. Both are unbalanced, one moreso than the other. It would be more appropriate to say "you might think that a better regular season record is a more rational way..." or "you might think that a better unbalanced regular season record is a more rational way of choosing a champion than winning an even-more unbalanced tournament." Either would be fine. But tossing in the "unbalanced' on one side seems slanted.

But that said, yes, the official ACC champion is the one that wins the ACC tournament. The regular season champion is just the regular season champion. Both are things, but the official representative of the ACC as champion is defined as the tournament winner. And as such, if referencing the regular season championship it should be noted that it is "the regular season championship" and not "the championship."

Well, the NCAA Tournament is unbalanced too.

How many of us confuse finishing No. 1 in the regular season (as we did in 1999, 2000 and 2002) with winning "the championship".

The NCAA determines its champion the same way the ACC does -- with an unbalanced, one-and-done tournament.

[CDu]

Well, the NCAA Tournament is unbalanced too.

How many of us confuse finishing No. 1 in the regular season (as we did in 1999, 2000 and 2002) with winning "the championship".

The NCAA determines its champion the same way the ACC does -- with an unbalanced, one-and-done tournament.

I completely agree that the NCAA tournament is unbalanced. It is one of its biggest limitations, borne somewhat of necessity (there are perhaps better ways, but less profitable/exciting and thus not considered). My point was simply that it is inappropriate to call the regular season out as unbalanced and omit that the tournament is more unbalanced.

[Indoor66]

I completely agree that the NCAA tournament is unbalanced. It is one of its biggest limitations, borne somewhat of necessity (there are perhaps better ways, but less profitable/exciting and thus not considered). My point was simply that it is inappropriate to call the regular season out as unbalanced and omit that the tournament is more unbalanced.

Give everyone a participation trophy and move on. Heck, even life is unfair.

[freshmanjs]

Well, the NCAA Tournament is unbalanced too.

How many of us confuse finishing No. 1 in the regular season (as we did in 1999, 2000 and 2002) with winning "the championship".

The NCAA determines its champion the same way the ACC does -- with an unbalanced, one-and-done tournament.

No one is arguing against anything you say here. Only that citing imbalance as a reason why the regular season does not determine the champion of the conference is odd.

[CDu]

No one is arguing against anything you say here. Only that citing imbalance as a reason why the regular season does not determine the champion of the conference is odd.

Bingo! Both the regular season and (to a greater extent) the tournaments are unbalanced. They are what they are, and I think most if not all of us accept that reality. Just don't use lack of balance as a reason to downplay one when the other is even more unbalanced.