ACC Tournament - Seeds, schedule and thoughts

[Seacoaster(1)]

Pittsburgh wins the play in game (and the right to play UNC). Congrats to them. A really great inaugural year.

Pitt's goalie also set an ACC tournament record for saves with 19. They have far exceeded my expectations this year

Certainly helps to be loaded with transfers and 5th year players who know what it takes to win at this level. Not many first year programs get that benefit! Hopefully next year's team can keep the momentum going. Good for Pitt lacrosse, good for this team. I'm sure they'll bring their best game on Friday, as they have all season regardless of who they're playing.

I only was able to watch about 20 minutes of game but was really surprised with how poor Louisville played. It must be a tough flight home when you are the first team eliminated in a tourney. Kudos to Pitt what a great year they are having!!

Only game I see as competitive tomorrow is ND/Duke. I am going with the upset....

Yep, agreed on the only really competitive game:

12:00 Noon North Carolina vs. Pitt
2:30 PM Duke vs. Notre Dame
5:00 PM Boston College vs. Virginia Tech
7:30 PM Syracuse vs. Virginia

I think Duke may have some trouble too, and don't think the Irish will let them get very far away. But I think Duke wins, a little closer than ONW's score. Let's say 15-14 Duke.

[Dr. Tact]

Pittsburgh wins the play in game (and the right to play UNC). Congrats to them. A really great inaugural year.

Pitt's goalie also set an ACC tournament record for saves with 19. They have far exceeded my expectations this year

Certainly helps to be loaded with transfers and 5th year players who know what it takes to win at this level. Not many first year programs get that benefit! Hopefully next year's team can keep the momentum going. Good for Pitt lacrosse, good for this team. I'm sure they'll bring their best game on Friday, as they have all season regardless of who they're playing.

I only was able to watch about 20 minutes of game but was really surprised with how poor Louisville played. It must be a tough flight home when you are the first team eliminated in a tourney. Kudos to Pitt what a great year they are having!!

Only game I see as competitive tomorrow is ND/Duke. I am going with the upset....

Yep, agreed on the only really competitive game:

12:00 Noon North Carolina vs. Pitt
2:30 PM Duke vs. Notre Dame
5:00 PM Boston College vs. Virginia Tech
7:30 PM Syracuse vs. Virginia

I think Duke may have some trouble too, and don't think the Irish will let them get very far away. But I think Duke wins, a little closer than ONW's score. Let's say 15-14 Duke.

I think I was hoping more than knowing....

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

[Bart]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

Games more meaningful to whom? A bunch of has-been's, never-been's and wanna-bee's? I would guess that close to 100% of people who have stepped on the field thinks every game they play is meaningful. Every single one. I do not see limiting the number of playoff spots making a particular game any more "meaningful" to the players on the field.

Certainly the definition of meaningful here is some standard relevant to the standings. That is fine, for me, in all honesty...I could care less. It is more lacrosse to watch. Might the games be less competitive? Perhaps, but I can always enjoy a game and learn something from every single game I watch. In the end it really does not matter to me..........you know why? I've had my chance. I do not view it as narrow as some and that is fine.

You know who it really matters to? The players playing the game and even...ahem, Pitt players.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Certainly the definition of meaningful here is some standard relevant to the standings.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

Games more meaningful to whom? A bunch of has-been's, never-been's and wanna-bee's? I would guess that close to 100% of people who have stepped on the field thinks every game they play is meaningful. Every single one. I do not see limiting the number of playoff spots making a particular game any more "meaningful" to the players on the field.

Certainly the definition of meaningful here is some standard relevant to the standings. That is fine, for me, in all honesty...I could care less. It is more lacrosse to watch. Might the games be less competitive? Perhaps, but I can always enjoy a game and learn something from every single game I watch. In the end it really does not matter to me..........you know why? I've had my chance. I do not view it as narrow as some and that is fine.

You know who it really matters to? The players playing the game and even...ahem, Pitt players.

+1.

[Dr. Tact]

Big games for UVA and ND today. Need to win to stay over(or ultimately at) the .500 NCAA qualifier.

[8meterPA]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

Games more meaningful to whom? A bunch of has-been's, never-been's and wanna-bee's? I would guess that close to 100% of people who have stepped on the field thinks every game they play is meaningful. Every single one. I do not see limiting the number of playoff spots making a particular game any more "meaningful" to the players on the field.

Certainly the definition of meaningful here is some standard relevant to the standings. That is fine, for me, in all honesty...I could care less. It is more lacrosse to watch. Might the games be less competitive? Perhaps, but I can always enjoy a game and learn something from every single game I watch. In the end it really does not matter to me..........you know why? I've had my chance. I do not view it as narrow as some and that is fine.

You know who it really matters to? The players playing the game and even...ahem, Pitt players.

I couldn't agree more - it's about the players, coaches and families. Doesn't matter if the game is 20 - 2, or 12-11, those memories will last a lifetime and are incredibly meaningful. Those on the inside understand the sacrifices these kids have made over their life to get this point, and to be rewarded by a tournament game is well worth it, no matter the score at the end. Musings by anonymous fanboys and trolls, well we know what they are worth.

[wlaxphan20]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

Games more meaningful to whom? A bunch of has-been's, never-been's and wanna-bee's? I would guess that close to 100% of people who have stepped on the field thinks every game they play is meaningful. Every single one. I do not see limiting the number of playoff spots making a particular game any more "meaningful" to the players on the field.

Certainly the definition of meaningful here is some standard relevant to the standings. That is fine, for me, in all honesty...I could care less. It is more lacrosse to watch. Might the games be less competitive? Perhaps, but I can always enjoy a game and learn something from every single game I watch. In the end it really does not matter to me..........you know why? I've had my chance. I do not view it as narrow as some and that is fine.

You know who it really matters to? The players playing the game and even...ahem, Pitt players.

I agree. Additionally I think every team makes the conference because only 8 out of 15 ACC schools field a team. Could they scale the conference tournament to fit the current size of the conference? Sure, but if they can afford to have that many teams, and choose to, why not? As the conference expands I don’t think they’ll expand to a 15 team tournament. If it ever gets to the point where at least 85% of the conference fields a team, I’d hope the parity is at a point where most of the quarterfinal games are competitive.

I’m interested in the Pitt/UNC game because I think think Pitt has grown a lot since they played UNC in February. UNC has probably made changes along the way, and I don’t expect an upset or barn burner. But I’m interested in how the matchup compares to the first.

[hmmm]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

The flip side to your argument is the other conference you mentioned, the B1G. Only 4 of 7 make the tournament and barring a big upset by Michigan over MD on Saturday there will be a 3 way tie for 4th place and Hopkins will go to the tournament based on goal differential in the games between the 3 tied teams. Is that more fair than the ACC letting everyone play? Michigan is a top 20 team and they won't be able to play for a conference championship. OSU has been ranked quite a bit this season and has an RPI of 23 and beat Michigan. Last year they allowed all 7 teams in the tournamaent due to COVID. The B1G lets all the men's teams play in the conference tourney so why don't they do the same with the women? Granted there is one more women's team. At a minimum the B1G should let 6 teams in and give the top 2 seeds a bye to the semis just like they do with them men.

[Bart]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

Games more meaningful to whom? A bunch of has-been's, never-been's and wanna-bee's? I would guess that close to 100% of people who have stepped on the field thinks every game they play is meaningful. Every single one. I do not see limiting the number of playoff spots making a particular game any more "meaningful" to the players on the field.

Certainly the definition of meaningful here is some standard relevant to the standings. That is fine, for me, in all honesty...I could care less. It is more lacrosse to watch. Might the games be less competitive? Perhaps, but I can always enjoy a game and learn something from every single game I watch. In the end it really does not matter to me..........you know why? I've had my chance. I do not view it as narrow as some and that is fine.

You know who it really matters to? The players playing the game and even...ahem, Pitt players.

I’m interested in the Pitt/UNC game because I think think Pitt has grown a lot since they played UNC in February. UNC has probably made changes along the way, and I don’t expect an upset or barn burner. But I’m interested in how the matchup compares to the first.

Agree with this. How far have they come? Why you can find something interesting and learn something in every game.

[crazyhorse]

Need I really remind everyone... in 2015 Syracuse won the ACC tournament as the 6 seed. Took down 3 BC and eventual fellow Final Four contenders 2 Duke and 1 UNC on the way. Without this opportunity, Cuse does not receive the 4 seed in the NCAA tournament, does not gain the confidence that comes from beating three top teams in one weekend, and likely does not make it to championship weekend. And despite 6 regular season losses, once May rolled around, that was a team that belonged at championship weekend.

This is a conference that routinely receives 5-7 playoff bids. The dogfight that is the ACC tournament is actually phenomenal preparation for the first and final weekends of the NCAA tournament. Are there always 1-3 irrelevant teams in the mix? Sure. But given the depth of the conference, IMO this is absolutely not a tournament that should be top-4 only.

You make good points. I have to agree with you--the ACC should be an exception.

Rethinking this after watching the Bucs and Knights battle for playoff spots/positions last night. In the Big 10, as we know, only the top 4 of 7 teams make the Big 10 tournament. I've always believed less playoff spots are better than more, in spite of the odd exception. Makes the regular season games more meaningful. What would we really be missing if marginal regular season teams like Ginny, Ginny Tech, Notre Dame and, ahem, Pitt (no offense to the Panthers--Louisville would have been an equally non-competitive hors d'oeuvre for the Tar Heels) weren't going to be served up as appetizers in the quarters of the ACC? Three of the 4 games we watch today will most likely be blowouts, and maybe 4 if Duke gets back the mojo they had woikin for most of the season. Yes--the ACC is elite, but not that elite that every team should make or have the chance (via the play-in game) to make the ACC tournament.

The flip side to your argument is the other conference you mentioned, the B1G. Only 4 of 7 make the tournament and barring a big upset by Michigan over MD on Saturday there will be a 3 way tie for 4th place and Hopkins will go to the tournament based on goal differential in the games between the 3 tied teams. Is that more fair than the ACC letting everyone play? Michigan is a top 20 team and they won't be able to play for a conference championship. OSU has been ranked quite a bit this season and has an RPI of 23 and beat Michigan. Last year they allowed all 7 teams in the tournamaent due to COVID. The B1G lets all the men's teams play in the conference tourney so why don't they do the same with the women? Granted there is one more women's team. At a minimum the B1G should let 6 teams in and give the top 2 seeds a bye to the semis just like they do with them men.

Absolutely. The Bucks had Rutgers on the ropes for much of that game last night. If you asked those girls whether they are content with their regular season body of work, or whether they want another crack at a top 20 win what do you think they'd say?

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

barring a big upset by Michigan over MD on Saturday there will be a 3 way tie for 4th place and Hopkins will go to the tournament based on goal differential in the games between the 3 tied teams. Is that more fair than the ACC letting everyone play? Michigan is a top 20 team and they won't be able to play for a conference championship. OSU has been ranked quite a bit this season and has an RPI of 23 and beat Michigan.

Thanks for weighing in, hmmm. I think Michigan had their chance and they blew it. Earlier in the season they were looking good but then they went on that slide where they lost 4 straight, 3 to conference opponents. Similarly, Ohio State was presented with a win-and-in proposition last night. They had a 3 goal lead almost midway through the 3rd quarter vs Rutgers. If the Bucs hold on--they were in and the three team goal differential tie-breaker becomes moot. It pays to win. If a team doesn't want to have to rely on a tie-breaker, they should win more games and control their own destiny. And who knows--those teams left out of the Big 10 tourney could still make the Big Dance.

[hmmm]

barring a big upset by Michigan over MD on Saturday there will be a 3 way tie for 4th place and Hopkins will go to the tournament based on goal differential in the games between the 3 tied teams. Is that more fair than the ACC letting everyone play? Michigan is a top 20 team and they won't be able to play for a conference championship. OSU has been ranked quite a bit this season and has an RPI of 23 and beat Michigan.

Thanks for weighing in, hmmm. I think Michigan had their chance and they blew it. Earlier in the season they were looking good but then they went on that slide where they lost 4 straight, 3 to conference opponents. Similarly, Ohio State was presented with a win-and-in proposition last night. They had a 3 goal lead almost midway through the 3rd quarter vs Rutgers. If the Bucs hold on--they were in and the three team goal differential tie-breaker becomes moot. It pays to win. If a team doesn't want to have to rely on a tie-breaker, they should win more games and control their own destiny. And who knows--those teams left out of the Big 10 tourney could still make the Big Dance.

So you're saying that QF matchups of Rutgers v OSU and Hopkins vs Michigan with the winners playing NU and MD wouldn't be interesting? If trying to grow the game why would you limit the B1G tourney to 3 games? It's quite easy to have 6 teams play over a weekend. Michigan will definitely make the NCAAs. OSU may not. But allowing them to play those QF games would have given them another opportunity for resume building wins which could get more B1G teams in the NCAAs. Seems like a bad business decision for the profile of the conference to remove that opportunity.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Thanks for weighing in, hmmm. I think Michigan had their chance and they blew it. Earlier in the season they were looking good but then they went on that slide where they lost 4 straight, 3 to conference opponents. Similarly, Ohio State was presented with a win-and-in proposition last night. They had a 3 goal lead almost midway through the 3rd quarter vs Rutgers. If the Bucs hold on--they were in and the three team goal differential tie-breaker becomes moot. It pays to win. If a team doesn't want to have to rely on a tie-breaker, they should win more games and control their own destiny. And who knows--those teams left out of the Big 10 tourney could still make the Big Dance.

So you're saying that QF matchups of Rutgers v OSU and Hopkins vs Michigan with the winners playing NU and MD wouldn't be interesting?

On the contrary, I think those matchups would be immensely interesting and competitive, but remember, my initial point was about the ACC 1-8, 2-7 and 3-6 matchups which I predict will not make for competitive games, and that the ACC allows too many teams into their tournament. But back to your question, I watched a portion of the final regular season game between RU and OSU last night and it had that playoff feel. There was a lot riding on the game. So we had the same playoff-like intensity for a regular season game that we could expect in a tourney game.

If trying to grow the game why would you limit the B1G tourney to 3 games?

This wasn't a part of my initial thought, but by that standard, doesn't it also help grow the game to have more contests during the regular season that have the win-or-go-home urgency to them?

It's quite easy to have 6 teams play over a weekend. Michigan will definitely make the NCAAs. OSU may not. But allowing them to play those QF games would have given them another opportunity for resume building wins which could get more B1G teams in the NCAAs. Seems like a bad business decision for the profile of the conference to remove that opportunity.

Maybe so, but I don't mind it as much as I mind everyone making the playoffs in the ACC (and other conferences if memory serves.) Ultimately, it's no biggie. But thinking on the fly here, a case could be made for the upper echelon teams in the ACC resenting the fact that they have to play one extra game than some of the other conferences. For example: Maryland comes into the big dance only having had to play two games, whereas Carolina had to play three. Could it be said that one less game played in-conference leaves a team fresher coming into the field for all the marbles?

[wlaxphan20]

DiFatta very much on pace to break her own record with 9 saves very early in the 2nd

[laxagainsthumanity]

Maybe so, but I don't mind it as much as I mind everyone making the playoffs in the ACC (and other conferences if memory serves.) Ultimately, it's no biggie. But thinking on the fly here, a case could be made for the upper echelon teams in the ACC resenting the fact that they have to play one extra game than some of the other conferences. For example: Maryland comes into the big dance only having had to play two games, whereas Carolina had to play three. Could it be said that one less game played in-conference leaves a team fresher coming into the field for all the marbles?

I think the typical upper-tier ACC player has tremendous gratitude for the gauntlet the conference puts them through, and that includes the ACC tournament. For the couple of teams that earn the right to give their bench some playing time on a bigger stage, I very much doubt anyone on the roster would trade that for a practice. For the rest, they get another opportunity to earn a significant win and to get better.

[Bart]

DiFatta very much on pace to break her own record with 9 saves very early in the 2nd

She is fun to watch but I don't think UNC is shooting particularly well.

[wlaxphan20]

DiFatta very much on pace to break her own record with 9 saves very early in the 2nd

She is fun to watch but I don't think UNC is shooting particularly well.

No I agree, they aren’t

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Maybe so, but I don't mind it as much as I mind everyone making the playoffs in the ACC (and other conferences if memory serves.) Ultimately, it's no biggie. But thinking on the fly here, a case could be made for the upper echelon teams in the ACC resenting the fact that they have to play one extra game than some of the other conferences. For example: Maryland comes into the big dance only having had to play two games, whereas Carolina had to play three. Could it be said that one less game played in-conference leaves a team fresher coming into the field for all the marbles?

I think the typical upper-tier ACC player has tremendous gratitude for the gauntlet the conference puts them through, and that includes the ACC tournament. For the couple of teams that earn the right to give their bench some playing time on a bigger stage, I very much doubt anyone on the roster would trade that for a practice. For the rest, they get another opportunity to earn a significant win and to get better.

I can see that. How about from the coaching perspective? Would a staff choose another day of rest, especially if some of the teams best players were beginning to show some wear and tear--not only physically but mentally?