New ACC tourney format

[YoungSting]

Looks like we are going back to single elimination tourney: https://theacc.com/news/2025/2/5/acc-announces-new-format-for-acc-baseball-championship.aspx

i think this will make regular season series more important because won’t be guaranteed multiple chances to get any last minute quad 1 wins

 

[FredJacket]

Every format has its pros/cons when you're balancing numbers of games (total & per team) over a 6-day event.

This format puts a premium on finish up high in standings.
Seeds 1-4 need to go 3-0 to win it
Seeds 5-8 4-0
Seeds 9-16 5-0

If you're a bubble team (usually that 7-12 seed)... you better win that 1st game. ACC setting up possible scenarios where bottom of conference teams bounce a bubble team out of NCAA tournament field selection.

This format is fine. Should make the "meaningless pool play games" crowd happy.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I like the format which gives more advantage based on the entire season body of work.

Top 7 to 8 ACC teams should make tourney? Not a problem now.

 

[Golden Tornadoes]

This format also helps the teams that are "locks" from wasting arms on a meaningless game. If said "lock" team drops the first game, no need to go through the motions for two more games. Just get to save your stuff for the NCAA tourney.

 

[FredJacket]

It is difficult for me to get my head around a single elimination tournament for baseball. Just not something you see very often.

For the top 4 seeds... it really is similar to previous format. Need to win 1 game to make semi-finals... (of course its 1 of 1 instead of 1 of 2). but you do only have to play 1 (before semis).

 

[FredJacket]

It is difficult for me to get my head around a single elimination tournament for baseball. Just not something you see very often.

For the top 4 seeds... it really is similar to previous format. Need to win 1 game to make semi-finals... (of course its 1 of 1 instead of 1 of 2). but you do only have to play 1 (before semis).

Disregard the 2nd paragraph there. Pretty much ... all incorrect.

 

[LargeFO]

Every format has its pros/cons when you're balancing numbers of games (total & per team) over a 6-day event.

This format puts a premium on finish up high in standings.
Seeds 1-4 need to go 3-0 to win it
Seeds 5-8 4-0
Seeds 9-16 5-0

If you're a bubble team (usually that 7-12 seed)... you better win that 1st game. ACC setting up possible scenarios where bottom of conference teams bounce a bubble team out of NCAA tournament field selection.

This format is fine. Should make the "meaningless pool play games" crowd happy.

Never cared for the pool play setup.

 

[gtbeak]

Disregard the 2nd paragraph there. Pretty much ... all incorrect.

How is that incorrect? It looks right to me. As you said, the only difference is you only play 1 game to get to the semi-final. Previously you played 2, but only the game against the winner of the the #2/#3 teams in your pool mattered. Now you simply don't play the other game against the loser of the #2/#3 game. It's the same as before except with the "meaningless" games stripped out in favor of all 16 teams making it in. TBH, I prefer the old way, as it gave bubble teams a chance to make a statement without having to worry about playing a weak 13-16 team, which will probably hurt your RPI simply for playing the game.

Details:
Before 5 v 9, 6 v 10, 7 v 11, and 8 v 12. Then 1 had to beat winner of 8/12 game, 2 had to beat winner of 7/11 game, etc. Then a 4 team single elimination tourney.
Now: 9 v 16, 10 v 15, 11 v 14, 12 v 13. Now you're where you started previously. 5 v 12/13, 6 v 11/14, 7 v 10/15, and 8 v 9/10. Next 1 has to beat the winning team from its pool (8/9/10), similarly for 2, 3, and 4. Then a 4 team single elimination tourney.

 

[FredJacket]

How is that incorrect? It looks right to me. As you said, the only difference is you only play 1 game to get to the semi-final. Previously you played 2, but only the game against the winner of the the #2/#3 teams in your pool mattered. Now you simply don't play the other game against the loser of the #2/#3 game. It's the same as before except with the "meaningless" games stripped out in favor of all 16 teams making it in. TBH, I prefer the old way, as it gave bubble teams a chance to make a statement without having to worry about playing a weak 13-16 team, which will probably hurt your RPI simply for playing the game.

Details:
Before 5 v 9, 6 v 10, 7 v 11, and 8 v 12. Then 1 had to beat winner of 8/12 game, 2 had to beat winner of 7/11 game, etc. Then a 4 team single elimination tourney.
Now: 9 v 16, 10 v 15, 11 v 14, 12 v 13. Now you're where you started previously. 5 v 12/13, 6 v 11/14, 7 v 10/15, and 8 v 9/10. Next 1 has to beat the winning team from its pool (8/9/10), similarly for 2, 3, and 4. Then a 4 team single elimination tourney.

Your before "details" only addresses top 4 beating the winner of lower seed game. If they beat the loser & lose to winner (1-1)... they wouldn't advance. That's why I was incorrect.

 

[gtbeak]

Your before "details" only addresses top 4 beating the winner of lower seed game. If they beat the loser & lose to winner (1-1)... they wouldn't advance. That's why I was incorrect.

No, you were correct before. The top 4 had to beat the winner of the game between the 2 lower seeds in their pool. No different than now. The only difference is that they don't bother playing the "meaningless" game. I use the air quotes around "meaningless" because the game wasn't meaningless for making the NCAA tourney. It mattered quite a bit to the bubble team. Now ACC bubble teams will have the opportunity to hurt their RPI even if they win if the teams in slots 13-16 are bad enough. This isn't a well thought out format if the goal is to get teams in the NCAA.

 

[YoungSting]

We could always get real funky with it like the west coast conference is with basketball

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

No, you were correct before. The top 4 had to beat the winner of the game between the 2 lower seeds in their pool. No different than now. The only difference is that they don't bother playing the "meaningless" game. I use the air quotes around "meaningless" because the game wasn't meaningless for making the NCAA tourney. It mattered quite a bit to the bubble team. Now ACC bubble teams will have the opportunity to hurt their RPI even if they win if the teams in slots 13-16 are bad enough. This isn't a well thought out format if the goal is to get teams in the NCAA.

I believe what @FredJacket is saying is that he intoned that a top 4 seed only had to win 1 game in the previous format. That is true if they beat the team that won the #2 vs #3 pool matchup, but if #3 beat #2, and #1 then beat #2 and lost to #3, #3 moves on. So #1 in the pool could win one game in the previous format and not move on to the semi's. In the new format, they don't get the opportunity to beat the losing team and lose to the winning team. They just play the winning team. Win or lose.

 

[FredJacket]

No, you were correct before. The top 4 had to beat the winner of the game between the 2 lower seeds in their pool. No different than now. The only difference is that they don't bother playing the "meaningless" game. I use the air quotes around "meaningless" because the game wasn't meaningless for making the NCAA tourney. It mattered quite a bit to the bubble team. Now ACC bubble teams will have the opportunity to hurt their RPI even if they win if the teams in slots 13-16 are bad enough. This isn't a well thought out format if the goal is to get teams in the NCAA.

I think we're talking past each other. Nothing you've said is incorrect. ...I'll just say my original was poorly worded. I appreciate you telling me how correct I am, though.

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

All I know is that now I have to root against getting the #8, #9, or #16 seeds. An 11 am start was bad enough for me while on a baseball vacation, but 9 am? I did that a couple of times at Pittsburgh when snow impacted the schedule and it is not pleasant as someone who is not a morning person.

You think if we get the #8 seed and I attend the 9 pm game on Tuesday, they'd let me just sleep in the stadium?