forums

ACC Tournament

Advertisement
WanderFranco said:
We weren't talking about the difference between hosting and being a #2. That's obvious. We're trying to tell you that going all-in to win the ACCT isn't worth the possible bump of one or two spots among the top 8. All that matters is being in the top 8. Half a dozen people are trying to explain this to you.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. You have your opinion. Just leave it there.
 
WanderFranco said:
How about addressing other peoples' posts, like all of the evidence that winning a conference tournament doesn't benefit anyone in the postseason.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't benefit Duke when they won the conference tournament and got to game 3 of a super regional against Vanderbilt?

Look you can just save all this rhetorical responses.

I have a players mindset. So, whatever you think, the players aren't thinking that way.
 
Advertisement
Number1CanesFan said:
No, it didn't benefit Duke when they won the conference tournament and got to game 3 of a super regional against Vanderbilt?

Look you can just save all this rhetorical responses.

I have a players mindset. So, whatever you think, the players aren't thinking that way.
Click to expand...

LMAO.

The year Duke took Vanderbilt to three games in the Super Regionals (2019), they didn't get out of their pool at the ACC Tournament.

When Duke won the ACC Tournament (2021), they went 1-2 in their regional.

Add this to the list of things I have had to correct.
 
Number1CanesFan said:
It's not meaningless to the players and it does affect national seeding. See my other posts.
Click to expand...
Winning 2 games is all that matters. Trust me the players feel the same way.

Just Listen to Gino’s presser. There’s no talk of winning this thing because they handled their business in regular season.

If we win first two games and than magically win the tournament playing guys who haven’t played this year than that is awesome, but I don’t expect that to happen
 
Allabouttheu95 said:
Winning 2 games is all that matters. Trust me the players feel the same way.

Just Listen to Gino’s presser. There’s no talk of winning this thing because they handled their business in regular season.

If we win first two games and than magically win the tournament playing guys who haven’t played this year than that is awesome, but I don’t expect that to happen
Click to expand...
That's the coach. The players don't think that way. You really think the players don't want to or care if they win? They do.

The players aren't going there just to win 2 games then tank the 3rd game. They're there to win all of them. That's their mindset. The coach may not put them in the best position to win, but they will play to win and want to win.
 
Advertisement
Number1CanesFan said:
Obviously you never played the game so it doesn't mean anything to you. Every player in that tournament or any other tournament wants to win. No player is saying, "Let’s just win 2 games and tank the 3rd so we can go home." I guarantee it

On the 2nd part, your complete my wrong. I broke it down in another post in this thread. Winning or not winning the ACC could change the seeding by as much as 5 spots. If Stanford wins the PAC-12 and Louisville wins the ACC, they will move ahead of us in the seeding where we could be bumped to 6-8. If we win the ACC we would move to 2-3. Maybe you don't think it's a big deal, but it is for super regionals and seeding at the CWS. Being a 2-3 seed means being opposite the #1 seed at the CWS. Better to face them in the Championship series than having to beat them Maybe even twice in your bracket.
Click to expand...
I mean, I did play the game. Got paid (actual money, not a lot) to. But that’s besides the point. Not a single person has said that any of the players are out there thinking "let's tank" - that's a ridiculous strawman that you have built yourself. So you can keep tilting at that windmill, but it's not going to change anyone's mind - "player mindset" or not.

Conference tournaments are dumb. Why should 4 games try to determine something that 30 games have already shown? That said, there is myriad evidence that shows "seeding" is, at best, an inexact science. And, by no means are the teams actually ranked 1-64 in this tournament - the committee admits that.

If, and that's a biiiig if (basically impossible based on precedent), the tournament goes all chalk and the actual seeding was done 1-64, then, maybe, your obsession with being the #3 seed as opposed to the #7 seed has some merit. Ultimately, though, you still have to beat the 1 seed (if they even make it to Omaha) sooner or later, so why would it matter if it's in pool play or in the final series?
 
IndayArtHauz said:
Do we know dates yet?
Click to expand...


1653406234287.png
 
I think the ACC tourney matters more than most people here do. I wouldn't destroy my pitching staff for the rest of the post-season over it, but there is a BIG difference in my mind between say landing a #3 national seed and a #7 national seed.

#7 means a potential matchup with the #10 national seed in the supers.

#3 means a potential matchup with the #15 national seed in the supers, and the #15 team is likely going to have a harder, more vulnerable regional to get out of than the #10 and the likelihood of an upset sending a lesser team to CG for the supers is greater.

Also, these are kids. You don't get cute with their psyches. You play to win, the feel what the staff is up to, and in this crazy extended college baseball post-season world we live in these days, where the national champ is often a wild card, being ACC Champion is quite an accomplishment, for the kids, the staff, the program. It's a big cornerstone to build on and recruit with. We are in the best baseball conference in America. You get a ring. You get a banner forever. You get to own that for the rest of your life.

Not to mention what momentum means to a young team.
 
Ajcane8 said:
I mean, I did play the game. Got paid (actual money, not a lot) to. But that’s besides the point. Not a single person has said that any of the players are out there thinking "let's tank" - that's a ridiculous strawman that you have built yourself. So you can keep tilting at that windmill, but it's not going to change anyone's mind - "player mindset" or not.

Conference tournaments are dumb. Why should 4 games try to determine something that 30 games have already shown? That said, there is myriad evidence that shows "seeding" is, at best, an inexact science. And, by no means are the teams actually ranked 1-64 in this tournament - the committee admits that.

If, and that's a biiiig if (basically impossible based on precedent), the tournament goes all chalk and the actual seeding was done 1-64, then, maybe, your obsession with being the #3 seed as opposed to the #7 seed has some merit. Ultimately, though, you still have to beat the 1 seed (if they even make it to Omaha) sooner or later, so why would it matter if it's in pool play or in the final series?
Click to expand...
You can say the same thing for any college sport. They all have conference tournaments and/or conference championships.

Why does the Big 12 have a conference championship in football with only one division? The ACC is about to do the same thing.
 
Advertisement
Cryptical Envelopment said:
the #15 team is likely going to have a harder, more vulnerable regional to get out of than the #10 and the likelihood of an upset sending a lesser team to CG for the supers is greater.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely not true. There is no seeding after #16. It's all about geography.
 
Advertisement
halocanex said:
I feel like every year the consensus is that the conference tournaments don't carry much weight. Then the selection show happens, and we come back to the board and say, "Man, I can't believe how much weight the committee put into the tournaments this year."
Click to expand...


And I'm sensing...it's about to happen again...the committee is sooo predictable...
 
WanderFranco said:
This is absolutely not true. There is no seeding after #16. It's all about geography.
Click to expand...

Ok, well, you can remove that 3% part of my argument if you like, but I would contend that it's not ENTIRELY geographic. Especially as an outsized part of the field of from the ACC/SEC region. There are some regionally similar teams that get assigned based on seed. But I don't care to argue such a tiny point.
 
WanderFranco said:
I've tried to post many examples which prove that a team's performance in the conference tournament literally means nothing with regard to postseason performance.
Click to expand...

I believe that you have. But as a former player, coach and (slight) student of sports psychology, I would disagree.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top