All-ACC Team -- how is Kennard not POY?

[SilkyJ]

Since I know we have some voters around here, can someone explain to me how Kennard is the ONLY unanimous player on the 1st Team, received more votes and points than anyone else, and yet he is fourth in the POY voting??

While my glasses are tinted the most royal of blues, this seems to defy logic. Based on what I am seeing in the numbers, its clear that All-ACC team voting is a separate vote than POY, meaning voters cast their ballot for All ACC then cast a separate vote for POY. I still struggle with the logic--clearly some voters thought John Collins, Justin Jackson, and Bonzie should be on the 2nd team--no one thought that about Kennard--and yet somehow all of those guys get more votes than Kennard for POY?

It just seems to defy logic. Luke outscored Jackson in PPG, out dueled him head to head, shot better % overall, from 3, and the FT line, and yet he finishes wayyyy behind?! I guess voters are clearly valuing being the best player on the best team, but these votes just don't add up for me...

[kAzE]

Since I know we have some voters around here, can someone explain to me how Kennard is the ONLY unanimous player on the 1st Team, received more votes and points than anyone else, and yet he is fourth in the POY voting??

While my glasses are tinted the most royal of blues, this seems to defy logic. Based on what I am seeing in the numbers, its clear that All-ACC team voting is a separate vote than POY, meaning voters cast their ballot for All ACC then cast a separate vote for POY. I still struggle with the logic--clearly some voters thought John Collins, Justin Jackson, and Bonzie should be on the 2nd team--no one thought that about Kennard--and yet somehow all of those guys get more votes than Kennard for POY?

It just seems to defy logic. Luke outscored Jackson in PPG, out dueled him head to head, shot better % overall, from 3, and the FT line, and yet he finishes wayyyy behind?! I guess voters are clearly valuing being the best player on the best team, but these votes just don't add up for me...

It's also kind of a joke that he wasn't even close to winning most improved player. He got 1 vote. Seriously? Matt Farrell (whose statiscal improvement is mostly based on him averaging 20 more minutes than last year) got 9 votes and Luke gets 1?? These awards feel like fake news.

[blUDAYvil]

Since I know we have some voters around here, can someone explain to me how Kennard is the ONLY unanimous player on the 1st Team, received more votes and points than anyone else, and yet he is fourth in the POY voting??

While my glasses are tinted the most royal of blues, this seems to defy logic. Based on what I am seeing in the numbers, its clear that All-ACC team voting is a separate vote than POY, meaning voters cast their ballot for All ACC then cast a separate vote for POY. I still struggle with the logic--clearly some voters thought John Collins, Justin Jackson, and Bonzie should be on the 2nd team--no one thought that about Kennard--and yet somehow all of those guys get more votes than Kennard for POY?

It just seems to defy logic. Luke outscored Jackson in PPG, out dueled him head to head, shot better % overall, from 3, and the FT line, and yet he finishes wayyyy behind?! I guess voters are clearly valuing being the best player on the best team, but these votes just don't add up for me...

It wouldn't defy logic if Kennard were a strong #2 (or #3) pick for voters.

[Matches]

I guess voters are clearly valuing being the best player on the best team, but these votes just don't add up for me...

Yea, there's your answer. UNC won the ACCRS - if they hadn't, someone other than Jackson would be POY. I can see where that could be an unfair result but I also remember being annoyed the year Erick Green won it on a last-place VaTech team.

[Troublemaker]

It definitely doesn't literally defy logic.

There were 53 voters. Only 24 of them voted for Jackson to be POY. Of the remaining 29 voters who didn't vote for Jackson to be POY, some small number ALSO didn't think he belonged on the 1st team. If two voters voted him 2nd team and a third voter left him off the ballot completely, that would account for his point total. For example.

[vick]

It definitely doesn't literally defy logic.

There were 53 voters. Only 24 of them voted for Jackson to be POY. Of the remaining 29 voters who didn't vote for Jackson to be POY, some small number ALSO didn't think he belonged on the 1st team. If two voters voted him 2nd team and a third voter left him off the ballot completely, that would account for his point total. For example.

Yes, also, it's hard to imagine how you construct a good system differently. How would you account for a situation like, e.g., 2006, where any competent observer thought Redick and Williams deserved first team, and virtually all of them thought Redick should win POY?

Furthermore, Kennard wasn't the runner-up this year, Collins was (much like how Plumlee wasn't runner-up in 2013, Larkin was). And frankly it's a little hard to see how people can be so upset over that, given Collins outscored Kennard in ACC play (and a good bit more efficiently), had a huge rebounding edge, more blocks, essentially equal in steals. And Wake finished closer to us than we did to UNC in the standings. Please don't get me wrong, I love love love Kennard's game, and he absolutely deserved his All-America award for play over the whole season, but even if UNC had a 2002-like-disaster this year, Collins would very likely have beaten Kennard, and justifiably so.

ETA: One possible modification would be a vote more like the NBA MVP where you rank top candidates 1-3 or 1-5 and assign different points (e.g., 10 for 1st, 7 for 2nd, and so on). I still think Collins would have outpolled Kennard though.

[SilkyJ]

It definitely doesn't literally defy logic.

There were 53 voters. Only 24 of them voted for Jackson to be POY. Of the remaining 29 voters who didn't vote for Jackson to be POY, some small number ALSO didn't think he belonged on the 1st team. If two voters voted him 2nd team and a third voter left him off the ballot completely, that would account for his point total. For example.

This makes sense. Thanks for splaining. I guess I "literally" understand it, but still can't quite make sense of how the voting panned out.

Yea, there's your answer. UNC won the ACCRS - if they hadn't, someone other than Jackson would be POY. I can see where that could be an unfair result but I also remember being annoyed the year Erick Green won it on a last-place VaTech team.

I agree re: VaTech. But that's an extreme case as they were a basement dweller. Kennard had better stats than Jackson--heck Collins had better stats than both of them--and played for a team that was in the hunt. I don't think I would give that much preference to the team that's in first place, especially with an unbalanced league sked, especially to a team that didn't beat anyone in the top half of the league on the road.

And let's be clear, UNC's conference sked this year was a JOKE. An Absolute JOKE.

Of the top 9 teams in the ACC (8 other teams as UNC was #1) they played 2 of those teams on the road. That's 2 road games against the 8 other tournament teams, and they lost them both at Duke and UVA. (their best road win was a 6 point win at Wake Forest, who is on the bubble)

Duke, on the other hand, played 8 road games against the top 9 (8 other teams, as Duke was #5) and was 2-6 in those games.

IMO, this level of unbalanced schedule means you can't just hand the best player on the best team the POY award. His numbers alone suggest he should be behind Collins and Kennard, and given Duke's much harder road schedule and UNC's cakewalk, I would not have voted for Jackson.

Yes, also, it's hard to imagine how you construct a good system differently. How would you account for a situation like, e.g., 2006, where any competent observer thought Redick and Williams deserved first team, and virtually all of them thought Redick should win POY?

Furthermore, Kennard wasn't the runner-up this year, Collins was (much like how Plumlee wasn't runner-up in 2013, Larkin was). And frankly it's a little hard to see how people can be so upset over that, given Collins outscored Kennard in ACC play (and a good bit more efficiently), had a huge rebounding edge, more blocks, essentially equal in steals. And Wake finished closer to us than we did to UNC in the standings. Please don't get me wrong, I love love love Kennard's game, and he absolutely deserved his All-America award for play over the whole season, but even if UNC had a 2002-like-disaster this year, Collins would very likely have beaten Kennard, and justifiably so.

No one is upset by Collins being #2. I certainly am not. Frankly, I agree that Collins had a better case for POY. His numbers were all better than Kennards (and better than Jackson's!).

But if Collins has a better case for POY, then why is he behind Luke for All-ACC voting? Huh?
Same for Jackson--if he is such a better candidate than Kennard for POY (24 vs 8 points--a huge difference), then why is he behind Kennard for All-ACC voting? Huh?

[Reilly]

Why are we talking about this -- I don't think we're finished talking about the Joe Forte/Shane Battier 2001 injustice.

[sandinmyshoes]

I think Jackson got a lot of style points. I mean Luke's game is gritty with a workmanlike quality to it. Same with Collins. Jackson has a weird game full of long arm floaters, twisting layups and lanky three pointers. I have to admit that I wonder who in the world left Jackson off their ACC first team? That is even worse than Luke not being the POY.

I'd have ranked them Collins, Kennard, Jackson and Colson for POY, but I think Collins not playing on a contending team hurt his exposure and chances.

[El_Diablo]

And let's be clear, UNC's conference sked this year was a JOKE. An Absolute JOKE.

Of the top 9 teams in the ACC (8 other teams as UNC was #1) they played 2 of those teams on the road. That's 2 road games against the 8 other tournament teams, and they lost them both at Duke and UVA. (their best road win was a 6 point win at Wake Forest, who is on the bubble)

Duke, on the other hand, played 8 road games against the top 9 (8 other teams, as Duke was #5) and was 2-6 in those games.

IMO, this level of unbalanced schedule means you can't just hand the best player on the best team the POY award. His numbers alone suggest he should be behind Collins and Kennard, and given Duke's much harder road schedule and UNC's cakewalk, I would not have voted for Jackson.

I agree with your general point, but UNC actually played three (not two) road games against the top nine ACC teams, as they also got spanked by Miami. But that just means they were 0-3 on the road against the rest of the top nine, and the best team they beat on the road is still Wake Forest.

[TruBlu]

I think Jackson got it due to sympathy votes for having to wear that ugly blue during games.

[Troublemaker]

I think Jackson got a lot of style points. I mean Luke's game is gritty with a workmanlike quality to it. Same with Collins. Jackson has a weird game full of long arm floaters, twisting layups and lanky three pointers.

I dunno. I think Luke has a lot of style with his footwork and ambidexterity in the lane. To me, his game is more beautiful than Jackson's.

I have to admit that I wonder who in the world left Jackson off their ACC first team? That is even worse than Luke not being the POY.

I'm not surprised that a very small number of people left Jackson off the 1st team. I had him on my first-team, but I also liked all four of the other first-teamers better; so for me, Jackson was on the edge, so to speak.

The real scandal, if you will, is that somebody left Jackson off the ballot completely (i.e. no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team vote). Jackson was 9 points behind Luke's total, which was the max total (obviously):



Now, look at those point assignments: 5 points for first-team, 3 points for second-team, 1 point for third-team. It's not possible for Jackson to be 9 points behind Luke unless one voter left him off the ballot.

Everyone can double-check my math, but I see only two possibilities for Jackson's point total:
(1) 2 voters voted him second-team, and 1 voter left him off the ballot
(2) 1 voter voted him third-team, and 1 voter left him off the ballot

Right? Am I crazy?

[Indoor66]

I think Jackson got it due to sympathy votes for having to wear that ugly blue during games.

And that damn argyle.😛😎

[El_Diablo]

I dunno. I think Luke has a lot of style with his footwork and ambidexterity in the lane. To me, his game is more beautiful than Jackson's.



I'm not surprised that a very small number of people left Jackson off the 1st team. I had him on my first-team, but I also liked all four of the other first-teamers better; so for me, Jackson was on the edge, so to speak.

The real scandal, if you will, is that somebody left Jackson off the ballot completely (i.e. no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team vote). Jackson was 9 points behind Luke's total, which was the max total (obviously):



Now, look at those point assignments: 5 points for first-team, 3 points for second-team, 1 point for third-team. It's not possible for Jackson to be 9 points behind Luke unless one voter left him off the ballot.

Everyone can double-check my math, but I see only two possibilities for Jackson's point total:
(1) 2 voters voted him second-team, and 1 voter left him off the ballot
(2) 1 voter voted him third-team, and 1 voter left him off the ballot

Right? Am I crazy?

That's right, assuming the reported vote totals are accurate.

[Troublemaker]

That's right, assuming the reported vote totals are accurate.

Thanks, Diablo. So it's either a typo or some Wake Forest beat writer tried to rig the vote in favor of Collins. (Well, it couldn't be anyone associated with Duke, rigging for Luke!)

[sandinmyshoes]

I dunno. I think Luke has a lot of style with his footwork and ambidexterity in the lane. To me, his game is more beautiful than Jackson's.



I'm not surprised that a very small number of people left Jackson off the 1st team. I had him on my first-team, but I also liked all four of the other first-teamers better; so for me, Jackson was on the edge, so to speak.

The real scandal, if you will, is that somebody left Jackson off the ballot completely (i.e. no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team vote). Jackson was 9 points behind Luke's total, which was the max total (obviously):



Now, look at those point assignments: 5 points for first-team, 3 points for second-team, 1 point for third-team. It's not possible for Jackson to be 9 points behind Luke unless one voter left him off the ballot.

Everyone can double-check my math, but I see only two possibilities for Jackson's point total:
(1) 2 voters voted him second-team, and 1 voter left him off the ballot
(2) 1 voter voted him third-team, and 1 voter left him off the ballot

Right? Am I crazy?

Good post all around. I would only clarify that Jackson's weird combination of physical contortion and grace is more noticeable, especially to the casual observer or those who might not have watch every game both players played. Or, Jackson's game is unique, even though statistically it's not as efficient as Luke's. I certainly wouldn't have traded Luke for Jackson.

[PackMan97]

Since I know we have some voters around here, can someone explain to me how Kennard is the ONLY unanimous player on the 1st Team, received more votes and points than anyone else, and yet he is fourth in the POY voting??

...

It just seems to defy logic. Luke outscored Jackson in PPG, out dueled him head to head, shot better % overall, from 3, and the FT line, and yet he finishes wayyyy behind?! I guess voters are clearly valuing being the best player on the best team, but these votes just don't add up for me...

It's quite simple. The media is punishing UNC for being the biggest cheaters in the ACC and NCAA history.

[Doria]

It's quite simple. The media is punishing UNC for being the biggest cheaters in the ACC and NCAA history.

You joke, but I'm sure you realize that every perceived slight is explained over at other boards as being some grand conspiracy where the NCAA ropes in media, refs, etc., to punish them...