ACC Tournament Seeds

[What Would Jesus Do?]

We are currently TIED in the ACC race with State and FSU. Tied for 5th place with 5-4 conference records.

Looking ahead, State has an easier road ahead than we do. FSU's is harder than State's but easier than ours.

Our losses to State and FSU may matter when it's ACC tournament time. Right now we aren't getting a double-bye. We don't get another shot at FSU, so they get that tie-breaker. We need to beat State in the rematch on their court, or that's 2 tie-breakers we lose.

Right now Clemson is tied with Duke in 3rd place. But with the loss of Grantham, I expect them to start sliding. If you count them out, we're tied for 4th, but still don't get a double-bye.

Later this week, Miami, Va Tech and Syracuse should all move from 4-4 to 5-4. So they are threats, too. We lose the tie-breaker with Va Tech, as well.

At a glance, Va Tech's home stretch looks just about as brutal as ours - home and away against Duke and Miami, on the road at UVa, home against Louisville. Miami and Syracuse have easier schedules.

We are still ranked 3rd best in our conference. But rankings don't earn seeds. Wins do. And right now we are starting to move behind the 8-ball.

We need wins.

 

[dadika13]

Selfishly I hope we don't have the double bye so I get to see them in the Barclay's on that Wednesday.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Selfishly I hope we don't have the double bye so I get to see them in the Barclay's on that Wednesday.

Ha.

Personally, I hate the double-bye. We should do away with it, imo.

Instead of this bizarre system, just leave the last place team out of the tournament.

That way the top 2 get a 1-round bye. So the bye really means something. The other 12 play, yielding 6 winners. Add in the 2 bye teams and you have 8 to play the rest of the way. Easy.

Frankly, the last place team deserves to be left out, as far as I'm concerned. Take it more seriously, for crying out loud. Why should they benefit if they suck that badly?

 

[DeuceManJones]

I get your point, WWJD, but the bottom line is the ACC Tournament doesn't hold anywhere near the same weight it used to. The ACC will likely have 10 at-large bids this year without the need for winning the tournament. The "cocktail party" criticism is legitimate.

Therefore, I really don't mind the double-byes and prolonging of the week. It's fun to me. Nothing more, nothing less. I even enjoy watching the 6 worst teams playing on a Tuesday afternoon in March. It's a celebration of the league.

Lamenting the frivolity of the event is valid, but you can't take something too seriously if it's not a serious occasion anymore. It's become a gimmick and I've resigned myself to enjoying it for what it is.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I get your point, WWJD, but the bottom line is the ACC Tournament doesn't hold anywhere near the same weight it used to. The ACC will likely have 10 at-large bids this year without the need for winning the tournament. The "cocktail party" criticism is legitimate.

Therefore, I really don't mind the double-byes and prolonging of the week. It's fun to me. Nothing more, nothing less. I even enjoy watching the 6 worst teams playing on a Tuesday afternoon in March. It's a celebration of the league.

Lamenting the frivolity of the event is valid, but you can't take something too seriously if it's not a serious occasion anymore. It's become a gimmick and I've resigned myself to enjoying it for what it is.

You make good points.

 

[dadika13]

I like the double bye. There have been some really good games between low seeds fighting for their season.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I like the double bye. There have been some really good games between low seeds fighting for their season.

I like that element, too, but don't think we need a double-bye to have that sort of excitement or to give late bloomers a chance.

 

[DeuceManJones]

I like that element, too, but don't think we need a double-bye to have that sort of excitement or to give late bloomers a chance.

The issue seems to be the awkward number of teams. If you're going to have 15 teams, you might as well have 16, right? Too bad they didn't add one more during realignment. WVU would've been perfect.

 

[gauchoheel]

I think there are three considerations that go into deciding the structure of the ACC tournament:

1. Make money
Unfortunately, this one is probably the most important. Inviting all the teams makes sense because it gives you more games and therefore a better product. Having a double bye means the best teams are more likely to make it to the end, which probably helps you sell more tickets and ads in the long run.

2. Get more ACC teams in the NCAA tournament
Also important, because it means more money and exposure for the conference. Given our current setup it's really hard for a team that's not going to get an at-large bid to win the tourney. They have to play at least one extra game, maybe two more than the top teams. We could make it more likely for there to be upsets and underdog champions by limiting the byes, though they'd still probably be rare. On the other hand, the 7-10 seeds (usually going to be bubble teams) have a winnable game against a fair opponent they can add to their resume. To really add to their resume they need to win two games though, to beat one of the double bye teams. I'd say the structure could be better if we wanted to help more teams get in the NCAAs.

3. Crown a champion fairly
If you consider the tournament an extension of the regular season, I think the byes are quite fair. Why not reward the teams that have performed so well over 18 (soon to be 20 games)? But if you consider the tourney it's own thing, I can see why you'd like to see everyone start off on the same playing field.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why not reward the teams that have performed so well over 18 (soon to be 20 games)?

I get your point, but I really think the seeding system is all the reward that's appropriate.

Because we have an unbalanced conference, a single bye for 1 or 2 teams may make logistical sense. But when you are giving single byes to 60% of the teams and double byes to a quarter of the teams, I think you are well into making a mockery of "rewarding" teams for regular season success.

 

[gauchoheel]

I get your point, but I really think the seeding system is all the reward that's appropriate.

Because we have an unbalanced conference, a single bye for 1 or 2 teams may make logistical sense. But when you are giving single byes to 60% of the teams and double byes to a quarter of the teams, I think you are well into making a mockery of "rewarding" teams for regular season success.

I really don't think the seeding is sufficient reward if you view the tourney as an extension of the regular season, or even an important event on its own account. There is much more on the line given the byes we have in place, and that makes the regular season more enjoyable to watch.

 

[tarheel0910]

The issue seems to be the awkward number of teams. If you're going to have 15 teams, you might as well have 16, right? Too bad they didn't add one more during realignment. WVU would've been perfect.

They would have to add another basketball only, otherwise you would have the same issue with football. The only P5 school worth having as a non football member is ND and that's only because they would be worth a lot of money if they joined the conference in football.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

We could go back to making the "Atlantic Coast" part of the ACC mean what it says. That would mean ditching Notre Dame, Louisville and Pitt - unless you give Pitt a pass for being in a state that borders a main tributary (the Delaware River).

Get us down to 12 teams. Everybody plays home-and-away against 9 teams, plus single games against the other 2. Four first round byes in the tournament.

But her face the money!