Maryland loses to bad BC.

Ironman92;1392715 wrote:What seed they looking at? Will they get tossed into that #8/#9 matchup?

One of the latest projections did have them as a #9 seed, I think. Lunardi has them as a #10 in his latest Bracketology.

Florida loses.

Missouri takes down Florida. Frank Haith has a job for another year.

ironman02;1392720 wrote:One of the latest projections did have them as a #9 seed, I think. Lunardi has them as a #10 in his latest Bracketology.

No way will they be a #10.....the big names are always thrown in that matchup....usually against a well-known mid major.

Florida was outscored 10-3 to finish the game.

reclegend22;1392718 wrote:It's a good thing then that winning the ACC regular-season means nothing. I'd rather Duke not "win it" and be the first team to beat Miami this year, spoiling their attempt at the first undefeated 18-game ACC regular season.

Plus, as a loyal fan of the ACC, I am glad that Miami is in position to perhaps get a one seed. They have been a fantastic surprise this season. Although, certainly walking a tight rope recently. But who isn't.

Ok, Coach K. Maybe Duke should just forfeit all their ACC games and just wait until the ACCT to start playing.

It's actually a big deal to have the best record over an 18-game schedule. I am fully aware of the fact that the "official" champion for the ACC is the winner of the ACCT, but I hardly think the regular season means "nothing".

Back to Miami. Only two road games left...at Wake and at Duke. Their games at home aren't very difficult. I can't see them any worse than 17-1 in ACC play. If they win at Cameron, then they're probably gonna be perfect and win the conference by 4 games. That's just unbelievable, even though the ACC isn't very good right now.

ironman02;1392726 wrote:Ok, Coach K. Maybe Duke should just forfeit all their ACC games and just wait until the ACCT to start playing.

It's actually a big deal to have the best record over an 18-game schedule. I am fully aware of the fact that the "official" champion for the ACC is the winner of the ACCT, but I hardly think the regular season means "nothing".

I obviously want Duke to win each game it plays, but, if Duke doesn't do that (and it hasn't in 15 years -- in 1999 Duke went 19-0 including ACC Tournament), then I am not upset at all if another team wins the ACC regular-season. Duke has had plenty of luck winning the ACC championship as a variety of seeds. The Blue Devils won the ACC Tournament as a third seed in the ACC regular-season in 2009, for example. North Carolina, the regular-season first place finisher, was bounced in the tournament semi-finals by fourth-seeded Florida State. Seedings mean very little in an event when you have the all-time ACC Tournament championship leader on your sideline (to Dean Smith's credit, he is also tied with Coach K with 13 career ACC titles).

reclegend22;1392734 wrote:I obviously want Duke to win each game it plays, but, if Duke doesn't do that (and it hasn't in 15 years -- in 1999 Duke went 19-0 including ACC Tournament), then I am not upset at all if another team wins the ACC regular-season. Duke has had plenty of luck winning the ACC championship as a variety of seeds. The Blue Devils won the ACC Tournament as a third seed in the ACC regular-season in 2009, for example. North Carolina, the regular-season first place finisher, was bounced in the tournament semi-finals by fourth-seeded Florida State. Seedings mean very little in an event when you have the all-time ACC Tournament championship leader on your sideline (to Dean Smith's credit, he is also tied with Coach K with 13 career ACC titles).

And proceeded to win a national championship with double-digit victories in every round.

We basically have this conversation every year, so I'm going to say it one final time and leave it at that. The winner of the ACCT is the ACC Champion...no two ways about it. However, that does not mean that the team that wins the ACCT is the best team in the conference. Obviously upsets can happen, and some teams just match up well against others. But when you look at a 16 or 18 game body of work, it proves much more to me than a 3 or 4 day tournament. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the ACCT...not at all. I just don't understand the point of downplaying the regular season.

Basically no one has a chance to finish ahead of Miami this year anyway since they have a 3 game lead. For my own selfish reasons, I don't want them to be the first team to go 18-0 in ACC play.

TCU loses at home by 9 to 12-14 Kansas. I guess they are no KU
BYU wins over Utah State.
I can't believe Maryland lost to BC, huge blow to the Terps and NCAA hopes.

Minnesota/Ohio State
Kansas/Oklahoma State
Colorado State/UNLV
Santa Clara/Gonzaga

Some big games tomorrow.

ironman02;1392749 wrote:And proceeded to win a national championship with double-digit victories in every round.

We basically have this conversation every year, so I'm going to say it one final time and leave it at that. The winner of the ACCT is the ACC Champion...no two ways about it. However, that does not mean that the team that wins the ACCT is the best team in the conference. Obviously upsets can happen, and some teams just match up well against others. But when you look at a 16 or 18 game body of work, it proves much more to me than a 3 or 4 day tournament. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the ACCT...not at all. I just don't understand the point of downplaying the regular season.

Basically no one has a chance to finish ahead of Miami this year anyway since they have a 3 game lead. For my own selfish reasons, I don't want them to be the first team to go 18-0 in ACC play.

I think the reason we have differing opinions on the value of the ACC Tournament is that Duke has won the ACC Tournament nine times since 2000, while North Carolina has won it just twice.

In terms of ACC regular-season first place banner things, North Carolina has won or shared seven since 2000, while Duke has won or shared five. So each has had its fair share of success in the regular-season.

Don't get me wrong, I very much value the pre-tournament games. Obviously, without winning a good portion of them, Duke would not be in good position for NCAA seeding, and, of course, you always want to win every game you play, especially against your rivals in conference. Those games are all extremely important for many reasons. However, I don't look at winning them as a pursuit to win a trophy. I view them as necessary to get a proper seeding for the tournament that will crown the champion. So, I guess the only difference between you and I is that we value the games for different reasons, but still value them all the same.

Azubuike24;1392759 wrote:TCU loses at home by 9 to 12-14 Kansas. I guess they are no KU
BYU wins over Utah State.
I can't believe Maryland lost to BC, huge blow to the Terps and NCAA hopes.

Minnesota/Ohio State
Kansas/Oklahoma State
Colorado State/UNLV
Santa Clara/Gonzaga

Some big games tomorrow.

I wish

Azubuike24;1392759 wrote:TCU loses at home by 9 to 12-14 Kansas. I guess they are no KU
BYU wins over Utah State.
I can't believe Maryland lost to BC, huge blow to the Terps and NCAA hopes.

Minnesota/Ohio State
Kansas/Oklahoma State
Colorado State/UNLV
Santa Clara/Gonzaga

Some big games tomorrow.

As a Duke fan, sigh. But totally expected. This is Maryland basketball since 2004.

Yeah I meant to type Texas obviously haha.

I guess, to go with the NC-Duke fan "what's more important: regular season championships or league tournament championships", as someone who doesn't care what fans of those two teams think is better, I'd say this.

1. If you're a small conference team, winning the league tournament is the biggest thing. After all, you could go unbeaten in the regular season in your conference, but if you lose in the tournament, there's a good chance you'll be "enjoying" the NIT.

2. In a big conference, it'd be the same if you're a bubble team or someone who's not looked at as a NCAA contender, as a good showing could put you over the top AND winning it all gets you in no matter how bad the rest of your year has been.

3. But overall...meh, works to improve your seeding and being in a single elimination format for a few days does help get a team into the "win or go home" mindset they will need to be in for the NCAA tournament, but as far as just the league goes, is it really bigger and better to win out over a 3-4 day period of single-elimination games than it is to be there and win consistently over a period of a couple months?

My teams are Ohio and Ohio State. The former is a "tournament or bust" conference team; the latter has won both regular season and the conference tournament multiple times under their current coach. If you take this year and say OSU finishes fifth in the Big 10 (where they currently are) and then wins the tournament, I'd be very happy, as that would mean they're entering the tournament on a roll (although that does often mean nothing when NCAA begins), but to me, there's a certain logical failing in saying that no matter what happened in the regular season, those four or so days mean my team's the best in the conference and/or the real champs.

Sort of the same sort of mindset, I guess, as it would be if a #4 seed won it all in the NCAA. Does it mean they're the best team in the country or just a team that got red hot at the right time and won the biggest tournament? I'm not detracting from the winning of league tournaments, as it is a great accomplishment and pays dividends in seeding, but I just don't think they're equal in prestige to being a regular season champion.

Heretic;1392970 wrote:I guess, to go with the NC-Duke fan "what's more important: regular season championships or league tournament championships", as someone who doesn't care what fans of those two teams think is better, I'd say this.

1. If you're a small conference team, winning the league tournament is the biggest thing. After all, you could go unbeaten in the regular season in your conference, but if you lose in the tournament, there's a good chance you'll be "enjoying" the NIT.

2. In a big conference, it'd be the same if you're a bubble team or someone who's not looked at as a NCAA contender, as a good showing could put you over the top AND winning it all gets you in no matter how bad the rest of your year has been.

3. But overall...meh, works to improve your seeding and being in a single elimination format for a few days does help get a team into the "win or go home" mindset they will need to be in for the NCAA tournament, but as far as just the league goes, is it really bigger and better to win out over a 3-4 day period of single-elimination games than it is to be there and win consistently over a period of a couple months?

My teams are Ohio and Ohio State. The former is a "tournament or bust" conference team; the latter has won both regular season and the conference tournament multiple times under their current coach. If you take this year and say OSU finishes fifth in the Big 10 (where they currently are) and then wins the tournament, I'd be very happy, as that would mean they're entering the tournament on a roll (although that does often mean nothing when NCAA begins), but to me, there's a certain logical failing in saying that no matter what happened in the regular season, those four or so days mean my team's the best in the conference and/or the real champs.

Sort of the same sort of mindset, I guess, as it would be if a #4 seed won it all in the NCAA. Does it mean they're the best team in the country or just a team that got red hot at the right time and won the biggest tournament? I'm not detracting from the winning of league tournaments, as it is a great accomplishment and pays dividends in seeding, but I just don't think they're equal in prestige to being a regular season champion.

While you make very solid points, my view of course is completely shaped by the fact that the ACC deems the tournament champion the official conference winner for the season. Until that day changes, I will always feel that way.

The real argument is whether or not the ACC maintains a dated philosophy regarding the conference tournament, which in the olden days really did determine the champion of the conference as only one team from each league got into the dance. I can see that argument, and fully get that side of the spectrum. But, as someone who grew up watching ACC basketball, I am fully entrenched in its traditions and that tradition of crowning the tournament winner the conference champ is what, IMO, has made the ACC Tournament the most legendary in the country for so many decades.

rec,

On a subconscious level, I think you may be right. Carolina has finished first in the ACC Regular Season standings 29 times to Duke's 19, while Duke holds a 19-17 advantage in ACC Tournament championships. It's probably in our nature to favor those instances in which our respective team has an advantage.

I also appreciate the history of the conference, and I actually like the fact that the ACCT champion is recognized as THE champion for that season. However, I do still think that the team that has proven itself to be the "top" team in the conference over an 18-game schedule deserves some recognition. As far as I know, that does happen. We really don't disagree on anything other than the fact that the regular season means more than "nothing". To each his own.

Gosh...remember when Hofstra, Drexel and Old Dominion were good, and Delaware and Towson were 2 of the worst teams in D-1, especially Towson?

The CAA is literally upside down this year...

Azubuike24;1393251 wrote:Gosh...remember when Hofstra, Drexel and Old Dominion were good, and Delaware and Towson were 2 of the worst teams in D-1, especially Towson?

The CAA is literally upside down this year...

Towson is a pretty good story. Benimon is a legit talent.

Yeah. For that reason, I'd like to see them win the CAA and get in the dance. There aren't any legit contenders in there to steal a bid from, so why not.

Get ready for an awesome game in Stillwater in 10 min.

My friend is in the student section...he's a neutral fan just moved there recently so he's at this game. He says the atmosphere is nuts. OK State fans think KU is washed up and they're going to dominate. We shall see...I'd like to see KU be dethroned before believing in something like that.

It's a pick'em line in Stillwater. OSU fans are delusional if they think "dominate."

Azubuike24;1393280 wrote:It's a pick'em line in Stillwater. OSU fans are delusional if they think "dominate."

Idk, they went into Lawrence and whooped up on KU.

Even more reason to not believe it. Wasn't really a whooping.