ACC may not change. It is a disadvantage to make a team play in the ACC tournament if they are on the bubble of the .500 rule. Could take a loss and bump them out. So adding let’s say a 10 team tournament. The number 8,9 and 10 seed could be .500 and a loss would put them out of ncaa bid even if the rpi is in a range for at large when they already probably qualify for ncaa.
Appreciate the altruism but If you look at the records of the current ACC teams, the top 10 are all comfortably over a .500 overall win percentage. If what you bring up arises couldn't that team just decline the tournament offer? This is a strong conference where any team can win on a given day. Competition should be encouraged- to benefit the players and yes allow chances for unexpected heroes and results. Being in the tournament is an advantage and an opportunity which should be allowed to more than 6 teams in this conference.
how about the flip side when the bigger tournament helps the lower seeds. A few years ago Florida State was a the 7 seed. meaning they would miss the tournament in todays setting. Back then it was top 8 go to the ACC tournament. Florida State ended up winning the ACC tournament which boosted their RPI and they ended p with a 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. wouldn't have got that if they didn't win the ACC tournament. Went on to win the national championship that year. Probably helped having all of those games in Tallahassee and not having to go on the road in the NCAA tournament. ADs always say student athlete experience is the most important thing. If that's the case let more student athletes experience the conference tournament
Expanding to a 10+ team tournament would probably mean less regular season games and don't play more teams. Is only 8-9 ACC games really a true representation? Need a math whiz to tell us what's the best format for 17 teams but student-athlete experience for teams that don't make it is an issue too since they'd experience less ACC games.
You can not opt out of the ACC tournament. Remember a few years ago when FSU did not bring their starters and left them at home. MK did not want his best players to have to play in the tournament to save their legs. He wanted to win the National Tournament. He got so much push back including fined by the ACC and suspended by the ACC. So I do not think they will allow you to opt out.
An 8-team tournament doesn't add any more to the maximum number of ACC tournament games a team plays (3). With 17 teams, they should go with 8 - especially since there are 6 teams each team won't play in their ACC schedule. I'd also increase the number of ACC games to 11, or even 12.
From what I have been hearing I expect that they will go to an 8-12 team tournament. Pensky discussed this in the video I posted above but I doubt that they increase the number of ACC games. Although I personally would have no problem with it the coaches of the weaker ACC teams would fight against it. They want to be able to schedule more games against weaker non-con opponents to improve their record. There are also travel issues with having more ACC games.
Seems like other conferences may be modeling after the ACC. I heard the Big 12 is changing to a 6 team conference tournament starting next fall. They currently have a 12 team tournament for 16 teams in the league.
As a fan I just don't understand the difference between 6 and 8 teams. Why not give two other teams a chance for the conference tournament experience? It seems silly, especially with these huge conferences now, to only allow 6 teams in. Having 8 over 6 doesn't add any days to the event.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but I can give you 1 reason for 6. As the best soccer conference in the country, you may prioritize winning national championships over a robust conference tournament. Your top 2 teams are always going to be in the Natty discussion and giving them a bye and 1 less game has multiple benefits. If I am not mistaken, Cpthomas has already said conference tournaments do not really help RPI and may slightly hurt it. Say the #2 seed loses to #7 seed and it costs them a #1 seed and home quarterfinal in the NCAA tournament. In an already overcrowded schedule, it is also one less game to have the top players on the top teams get injured. I would personally lean to 8, but understand the reasons behind 6. Just don’t do 10. If you need reasons, go look at the current stupidity and horrible setup of the Big 10 tournament.
Fair enough on the ACC but the Big West and Mountain West also have six. Only one team goes to the NCAAs typically in those conferences so I think they should give two more teams the experience of post season play.
ACC Tournament is set… Wait for the official bracket but, ACC Tournament should be:(1) Duke(2) Wake Forest(3) Florida State vs (6) Notre Dame(4) North Carolina vs (5) Virginia Tech— Chris Henderson (@chris_awk) November 1, 2024
So I believe that FSU will host ND Sunday and UNC will host Va Tech. If we win, we get WF and Duke awaits the winner of UNC and VT.
that looks correct. I think Duke has pretty much locked up a #1 seed, but if UNC can at least get a win against VT they'll secure a 1 as well. I'm not sure how I feel about FSU getting a #1 seed if they manage to win 2 games, but they certainly should deserve it if they can win the tournament.
Duke is surely a lock at 1. I think if UNC, FSU or Wake win the tournament they’ll also get a one seed.
FSU's game with Miami is a stark reminder that in soccer, the best team can lose to a lesser team with either a moment of brilliance or a stupid mistake. We didn't in this case, but if UM can hold us to one goal, it can happen to any of us. I think that happened to UCLA Last year?...
UNC may have to do more. If you have Duke, SEC, Big Ten as 1s and then FSU or Wake win or even go further than UNC in acc tourney, UNC likely doesnt get a 1 with 5 losses (albeit three of them to Duke).
Good observation, Tom. UNC had a great example last night. From my oblique angle, a defender in the box yelled and pointed to a teammate to cover an opening just as Duke took a shot about 10 feet away. She tried to move her arm out of the way, but not fast enough and a PK resulted.
Realistically the non ACC teams still vying for a 1 seed are USC (B1G), Miss St. (SEC), Arkansas (SEC) and Iowa (B1G). I’d argue that Miss St. is at or close to lock status for 1 seed going undefeated in SEC play. Even if Penn State wins the B1G tournament, they’ve probably lost too many games already to be seriously considered and had a poor conference finish. TCU fans are loud on Twitter, but the Big 12 is way too weak of a conference to do them any favors.
I find it a good exercise to go back and see how my predictions fare. In general, it reminds me of how little I forsee. I was reminded. Duke WF FSU UNC Va Tech ND Cal Stanford UVA BC Pitt Louisville SMU Clemson Miami NC State Syracuse - Very Big Misses Lower Clemson and Pitt - Big Misses Lower Stanford - Big Misses Higher VA Tech, WF Observations FSU is not what it was last year - to the relief of the rest of the ACC - but is peaking at the right time UNC's season is remarkable given all the turnover from last year WF and Duke rode experience - Duke did exceptionally well with their transfers adding to a solid, but offensively challenged core from last year ND has a slew of talented freshman VA Tech is an experienced, physical team with an excellent defense BC with a 4-4-2 ACC mark exceeds expectations Stanford and Pitt have to be disappointed with their results - Stanford averaged 1.1 goals per game in the ACC - Pitt was 3-2-1 before tying Miami and then dropping 3 straight to FSU, WF, and ND with 12 GA and 3 GF in the last 3 games. - I didn't follow or see any Clemson games, but the dropoff from last year is extreme
Good exercise, @whatagoodball. I did pre-season ranks as did the coaches. Mine are based on average Balanced RPI rankings for the last 7 years for all teams, translated from there into predicted rankings this year, from there into predicted RPI ratings, from there into conference game results based on opponents' comparative RPI ratings as adjusted for home field advantage. and finally from there into conference standings using the 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie system. Here is a table that shows how your pre-season ranks compared to the coaches, mine, and the final standings: Your rankings missed the final ones by 3.88 positions on average. The coaches missed by 3.53. I missed by 3.41. Chris Henderson did not do internal conference rankings this year, but in the past his, mine, and the coaches have had very similar "miss" rates across all conferences, with the coaches doing the best, then Henderson, and then me. I llike to do these comparisons because they tend to show that team history is more important than most people take into account. One can have all sorts of specific information about changes from year to year, but they often do not make as much difference as one might expect. As a matter of interest, the miss rates for the ACC this year are very high compared to what has happened in the past across all conferences. In the past, miss rates have been in the low 2s. Some of this may be due to this year's major conference membership changes.