Talk:2009 ACC men's basketball tournament
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Seedings and tie-breakers
[edit]Could you add a section clarifying seedings like the 2009 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament does.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since standings are in a table to the right, I've put in prose explaining the tiebreakers and how they resolved, including a link to the ACC policy. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I added this table earlier, but it was removed because others felt the information was best represented in prose instead. Jober14 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Seed | School | Record | Tiebreaker |
---|---|---|---|
1 | North Carolina | 13-3 | |
2 | Wake Forest | 11-5 | 1-1 vs Duke 1-0 vs North Carolina |
3 | Duke | 1-1 vs Wake Forest 0-2 vs North Carolina | |
4 | Florida State | 10-6 | |
5 | Clemson | 9-7 | 1-0 vs Boston College |
6 | Boston College | 0-1 vs Clemson | |
7 | Maryland | 7-9 | 2-1 vs Virginia Tech & Miami |
8 | Virginia Tech | 1-1 vs Maryland & Miami | |
9 | Miami | 1-2 vs Virginia Tech & Maryland | |
10 | NC State | 6-10 | |
11 | Virginia | 4-12 | |
12 | Georgia Tech | 2-14 |
- I guess my issue with the table is it's redundant. It looks like we've already got the standings in a table to the right, and two tables is, well, table-heavy. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I hate pages loaded with tables and little actual written information as well. As I wrote on TonyTheTiger's talk page, I'm indifferent to whether a table is used here or not. I think you did a good job transposing the information from table to written form. Either way I think we've presented the information in a clear fashion. Jober14 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. The standings are in the template to the right, the seedings can be seen from the bracket. As a bonus, the comment about Florida State getting their first bye ever tucks nicely into the prose section. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)