- This topic has 21 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As we all know, the ginormous conferences have led to a situation where teams are technically in the same conference, but hardly ever play each other.
[See the full post at: Variations in ACC BB Schedules]It is all money driven. You are correct the 10 team conference is the best for the two major revenue sports. 12 should be the max but that will never happen. Who knows what the landscape will look like in another 3-4 yrs.
Very well done and an interesting analysis.
How much of the a factor is the “we had to play you, you had to play us” in this? For example, we got a 16 win factor by playing UVA. They got a 10 win factor by playing us.
I guess a head-to-head comparison might give different results than looking at the conference as a whole.
But you could still do a head-to-head comparison using the same technique. For instance, UVA and State played each other and both played WF, so the difference in schedule between these two teams would be:
State: UNC and Clemson
UVA: L’ville and VTGlancing quickly at the matrix, I guess a head-to-head technique would flip UNC and Duke as to which had the hardest schedule. But the difference between the two schedules is slight no matter what technique you use.
Trout, here’s a blurb from last year’s article:
Line #1 is equivalent. Line #3 is identical. Line #4 is nearly equivalent. This leaves the variation in schedule strength between Duke, UNC, and State to the differences in just one opponent.
Duke’s opponent (SYR) > State’s opponent (Pitt) > UNC’s opponent (State). So the difference in schedule difference between UNC and State…is that UNC played State twice.
I wish the conference would consider going to three 5 team divisions for all sports that include Notre Dame as a full participant:
North (a.k.a. the Big East division): Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville
Central: State, UNC, Duke, UVA, VT
South: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, WakeAdmittedly, it feels artificial to stick Wake in the South division. But it seems like either them, UVA, or VT, as it does not make sense to split the Triangle universities.
Anyway, in a system like this, you could move to a 23 game conference schedule, where each team plays every team in its division twice, every team in one other division twice, and every team in the remaining division once, with the latter two divisions alternating each year.
That would not solve all of the schedule imbalance, but it would reduce it. It would also serve to rid us of the artificial “rivalries” that were mentioned above. And, other than possibly Wake and the rest of the Big 4 universities, it doesn’t feel like this setup would actually divorce any real/traditional rivalries. And, even where it does that, they still play 5 times every 3 seasons in this setup.
One thing an odd numbered game schedule would mean is that half of the teams in the conference would have 12 home games and half would have 11. I suppose one answer to that is to bump it to 24 games and randomly play one team in the single game division twice. Or leave it, and ensure the teams with the extra road games are home for the Big 10 challenge, which means all teams could have 19 home games if they so choose.
This season, State had 23 home games. So this would represent sacrificing 4 home games per season, at least for as long as teams are constrained to 31 total regular season games. Even though I would think that 3 extra home conference games would draw more attendance than games against the likes of Jackson State, Wofford, Jacksonville, USF, Charleston Southern, et al., I assume this would still be a net negative from a revenue perspective.
It would also very likely serve to reduce the number of times teams would be willing to schedule non-conference road games, which would deprive us of occasional interesting matchups and potentially deprive programs of greater national exposure. And I expect the coaches wouldn’t like this because they would have less time to prepare their teams for the conference season.
It also could make it more difficult to assess relative strength of teams in the ACC vs. other conferences, since they would have a reduced non-conference schedule to assess.
But I don’t see conferences reverting and getting smaller again. So as a fan I would prefer something like this, even with the cons it represents. I realize it will never happen, though. At least not unless the NCAA bumps the max number of regular season games to 35 or so.
you could move to a 23 game conference schedule,
If you’re going to dream, you should start with something that might happen in this reality.
you could move to a 23 game conference schedule,
If you’re going to dream, you should start with something that might happen in this reality.
There was a time when no one could envision an 18 game schedule. Or a 15 team ACC. Just saying.
If you divide the ACC into three basketball divisions, I think everyone would agree that the ACC North should be BC, Syracuse, Pitt, ND and Louisville. They would also agree that division rivals should play each other twice each season.
The problem would be dividing up the rest of the ACC. If the league would allow two out-of-division primary playing partners, then you could split the Big Four yet maintain those rivalries twice a season; otherwise, I don’t think it makes financial or geographical sense, let alone common sense, to continue disallowing local rivals to play each other twice every season. That means NOT SPLITTING the Big Four into an odd-man-out setup.
If State, for instance, could play each of its four division basketball rivals twice, plus have two primary playing partners, that would comprise twelve games, with six more among the other 8 teams. To avoid not playing someone at all during the season, the two primary playing partners could be rotated out once every few years to make room for the other two teams, assuring the Wolfpack it would play everyone at least once each season.
A better solution to me would be to go to a 20-game league schedule, allowing those two extra league games without a team having to be rotated out. The fans I talk to, and there are many, WANT more conference games, yet the league coaches and apparently the ACC hierarchy continue to oppose them.
Television and the ACC have not been kind to the Wolfpack or Deacons. The ACC (and ESPN) killed the State-Maryland rivalry by making it the Duke-Maryland rivalry instead (and making the Devils and Terps primary playing partners), which to me never reached the intensity of the Pack vs Terps. Now, the prime expansion teams, Syracuse and Louisville, are being pushed by ESPN to play the Blues, with State and Wake being relegated to ESPNU or more likely the local tv network. ACC officials sure don’t seem to mind.
Splitting the ACC into separate football divisions has been disastrous for attendance and longstanding rivalries, especially in the Big Four. I want to see State play Duke and UVA every season, not once every decade. I don’t want to see State playing teams like South Alabama three times over a period when Duke doesn’t show up even once. I want to see Miami, Georgia Tech and especially Virginia Tech on our schedule more often rather than be forced to see Syracuse and Boston College EVERY season. And I want to see a 9th game added to the conference schedule, which would help achieve this as well as put the Big Four back on each other’s schedule every season.
Anyone who’s seen State’s OOC football schedule for next season plus our home league opponents can’t be very happy with this turkey. It’s a big part of why I’m not going to attend any more football games after being there for the past twenty seasons.
ACC Baseball teams play 40 or more games every season. So they get to play more league opponents, right? Uh-uh. State, despite having so many home games this spring, has not ONE home game vs Duke, Carolina or Wake. The ACC can take its league expansion and PC scheduling and shove ’em where the sun don’t shine!
Why don’t we just jettison Notre Dame, Pitt, Louisville, Miami, cincy or navy to “the alaska” region in honor of Gary Williams.
Nice work vawolf. Next year’s schedule could be very tough if wake turns a corner.
CONCLUSIONS
The conference is too big.
It is but its going to get bigger before it gets smaller. Rumors abound that espn and nbc are working on deal for ND to become full member in football and to add a 16th team to the league……it’s ALL about the TV money.
I
-
really
miss the old days of the ACC. Bigger is not always better and money will eventually destroy college athletics if it has not already.
It’s all about money. If the TV money was sufficient to outweigh the extra home game revenue, it would happen. Apparently…it ain’t.
I do think centralized scheduling will eventually come to college football, when super conferences break away and form their own NFL-style playoff system.
I enjoyed this post.
One thing that jumped out at me was this passage:
“No one fighting for a spot on the NCAAT bubble wants to ‘waste’ their home games against the bottom of the conference.”
I understand the logic but it still seemed odd coming from a fan of a team that lost on the road at two sub-100 RPI teams that played on the first day of the conference tournament.
Its not though. It’s a fact that a home game against a bottom feeder doesn’t help your RPI. OTOH, a road win almost always results in a good bump using the “new” formula.
North (a.k.a. the Big East division): Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville
Central: State, UNC, Duke, UVA, VT
South: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, WakeWhy is this in State’s best interests? To be more specific, why is it in State’s interest to have amongst the toughest basketball schedules year after year?
I understand the logic but it still seemed odd coming from a fan of a team that lost on the road at two sub-100 RPI teams that played on the first day of the conference tournament.
Why should piss-poor results change my logic?
North (a.k.a. the Big East division): Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville
Central: State, UNC, Duke, UVA, VT
South: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, WakeWhy is this in State’s best interests?
I didn’t post it specifically because I think it would be good for State. I posted it because I think it is an improvement for the conference over the current system. And because as a fan I would like to see State play both UNC and Duke twice every season.
That being said, how much different is it for State’s schedule? Worst case, 1 more game vs. Duke and UVA. But possibly at least partially offset by 1 fewer game vs. Louisville, Notre Dame, Syracuse, et al. and 1 more game vs. VT.
To be more specific, why is it in State’s interest to have amongst the toughest basketball schedules year after year?
Well, it seems that this season is a perfect example of why. State has 13 losses, including 2 bad losses, and is just above .500 in conference at 11-9. Yet they are viewed to be safely in the tournament, perhaps as high as an 8 seed.
Why is that? First reason is their top SOS, which is exactly what you are asking about. So it is self-evident.
The second reason is the 3 top 25 wins. Well, you can’t get those wins without playing the games.
If State and Wake were switched in the above scenario, I doubt many State fans would like it. With the ACC’s determination to make sure teams are forced to play each other regardless of rivalries and geography, any Big Four team that ended up as an odd-man-out would be screwed big-time. The current system might leave State and Carolina as out-of-division opponents twice a season, but it would take away our home-and-away setup from Wake like it already does with Duke, while the other 3 Big Four members would return to twice a season games vs each other.
As for seeds, I’m still not convinced that State will get higher than an 8 or 9 seed, and in fact could end up a 10 or even lower. Yes, they finished strong except for BC and Duke, but they SUCKED most of January and part of February. I hope I’m wrong here, but to me the Pack had way too many WTF losses this season to merit a seeding higher than a 10.
And had we been allowed to have played Duke TWICE this season as we had historically done until John Swofford came along, I seriously doubt we would have been ambushed by Duke in a 3rd meeting in the ACCT.
I’m one of those who’d like to see State abandon this GD conference and go it alone if need be, because this league has turned Blue and has clearly demonstrated that it doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about State and Wake Forest. So much for founding members.
Someone mentioned that the ACC is working on making Notre Dame a full conference member and adding a 16th team. Anyone know who the prospective 16th team might be?
Maybe that would set the stage for four 4 team divisions, with one of them reuniting the Big 4. That would mean home and home with division opponents and one game against all others in the conference to get to the 18 game schedule. That would ensure imbalanced SOS, but I would still prefer that as a fan to what we have now.
Of course, in that scenario, Swofford would probably come up with a worse system.
As for seeds, I’m still not convinced that State will get higher than an 8 or 9 seed, and in fact could end up a 10 or even lower. Yes, they finished strong except for BC and Duke, but they SUCKED most of January and part of February. I hope I’m wrong here, but to me the Pack had way too many WTF losses this season to merit a seeding higher than a 10.
You really do have a thick skull on this. It was just a couple weeks ago you were saying we were NIT bound.
The way this works is we will be seeded relative to our peers. There aren’t many others that have the big wins that we have. EVERYBODY has WTF losses. We had two. No biggie. We showed very well in the best conference in America. Beat a bunch of tournament teams. So, prepared to be wrong, again.
I posted it because I think it is an improvement for the conference over the current system.
How is setting blatantly unbalanced and unfair schedules an “improvement for the conference”?
First reason is their top SOS, which is exactly what you are asking about. So it is self-evident.
What is self-evident is that State was able to put together a great SOS without needing the hardest conference schedule. What is also self-evident is that consistently having the toughest schedule in the conference would make it even more difficult to earn a two-round bye in the ACCT.
– A complete round-robin schedule is fair, but will never happen.
– More conference games would make the schedules more fair, but are unlikely to happen.
– Completely random schedules would still leave some teams with harder schedules in a given year, but should tend to even out over time and is as fair as we could get.What we have now is not fair, but not expected to change.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
