Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Williamson's Modest Proposal

    Very thoughtful, and should be seriously considered.

    Before anyone laughs at the idea of a 22-game conference schedule, consider that the 12-team ECAC D1 hockey league plays a 22-game double-round-robin conference regular season schedule, AND has a conference tournament that stretches over three weekends. And that's a league whose membership (which includes six Ivies, Union, and Colgate) takes academics fairly seriously.

  2. #2
    I think there is zero chance of the ACC going to a 22 game schedule.

    First, there's no way they'd get rid of the Tournament.

    Second, schools would be too spooked to play that many conference games thinking it would mean more chances to lose tough games and not pile up enough wins to get more spots in the NCAA Tournament (not saying I agree with this view, but only that the schools will have it).

    Third, schools probably would take the position that the financial benefit of having more conference games to sell in a tv package is outweighed by losing some home games. (My guess is that the financial benefit of cupcake home games is vastly overstated in basketball for all teams but Duke and UNC and maybe State or Maryland -- unlike football, where Clemson makes a pile of money hosting Wofford, they probably make little or nothing from "guarantee" basketball games).

    Having said that, the proposal to go to 18 games, which would allow Duke to play NCSU and Wake home and home every year, should definitely happen.

    If the Big East and Big 10 can survive -- and, indeed, thrive, with much more widespread NCAA success lately than the ACC, leaving out Duke and UNC -- playing 18 conference games (as will the Big 12 starting next year), so can the ACC. No excuses for not going to 18.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    I'm going to laugh at the possibility of a 22-game schedule because it will kill all ACC non-conference schedules. Assuming that everyone wants to play an exempted tourney to get the extra games, teams will only be left with the freedom to schedule five games. That also assumes that the extra rigors of conference season will cause the ACC will cancel the ACC-Big Ten challenge. If they don't, that will lower the number to four. There are several teams with non-conference rivals that they don't want to drop (Florida St-Florida, Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia Tech-Georgia). Even if some teams do it excessively, cupcake games are a necessity in the youth-driven landscape of today. It allows teams to work on their game and get better while still putting W's on the board and not hurting their season.

    The 3-division model is only somewhat less ridiculous and actually less likely. The reason: I can think of 12 schools that would hate it. The 8 non-North Carolina schools would abhor the idea since it would give an unfairly advantageous travel schedule to the NC schools given that they get to play in state for a significant portion of the schedule. Right now, Miami and BC play a home and home since they have to get on a plane no matter where they go. I don't think think that Maryland or Georgia Tech would enjoy the increased travel load while Duke and UNC get to stay home regularly. Right now, only Virginia Tech and Florida St. have to deal with a home and home with BC and Miami. Those schools have more history with each other anyway.

    If you miraculously got everyone to agree to the travel, there is no way that it would work because of competitive balance. As Williamson said, Duke and UNC are almost always on top, so I doubt that Wake and NC State would enjoy fighting for the third spot in the tourney every year. Given that Duke and UNC are regularly 1 and 2, I don't think that they would enjoy forcing one of them to be at best the fourth seed in the ACCT every year. The SEC is a pretty good example of why using divisions for anything other than scheduling doesn't work. Even using divisions for scheduling is risky.

    Finally, I don't think that the 12-team league is the reason for the decline. Right now, the only major conference without at least 11 teams and a full double round robin is the PAC-10, and they are the worst conference out there. Meanwhile, as much as people loathe the concept of a 16 team conference, it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't the best this year. I also can't trust those attendance figures in a vacuum given that attendance is down in college basketball across the board. If you were to tell me that the ACC's attendance suffered the biggest drop of major conferences by a large margin, I would be worried, but I don't think that's the case (though I don't know for sure).

    Where I do agree is that the status quo isn't great. As much as VaTech's non-conference schedule hurt them last year, their conference schedule hurt them just as much. They went 10-6, but most of their home and home series were against the bottom of the league. One of the biggest obstacles though is just having to compete against Duke and UNC. It's pretty tough to argue that they are 1-2 in terms of the being the best programs nationally in the modern (64-team tourney) era. With dominance like Duke and UNC have had, it's really tough to build any momentum.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    I haven't posted my "Premier League" plan recently, so here goes!

    Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper and Lower. Each team plays a double round robin within division (10 games) and single games across division (six games), and maybe an extra game or two across divisions (call it the Duke-UNC rule).

    Leads to killer SOS in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups, and the chance for a Lower division team to really stand out.

    At the end of the season, the top four teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom four teams in Lower stay Lower. The bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower.

    The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the the end of the season. No one near the bottom of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last week of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key match ups.

    Tourney seeding could be worked out. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days of the Big East.

    -jk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    I truly hate the "expanded" ACC and would instantaneously return to the nine-team conference (or even better, the pre-FSU eight-team ACC). However, that will NOT happen, despite the FACT that the enlarged ACC has failed to meet both its financial and its athletic promises.

    A twenty-two game ACC schedule would undermine revenues and would also essentially eliminate those tough non-conference games that are so significant in determining NCAA Tournament eligibility, especially for the so-called "bubble" teams. Just ask Seth Greenberg how crucial this can be.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    I haven't posted my "Premier League" plan recently, so here goes!

    Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper and Lower. Each team plays a double round robin within division (10 games) and single games across division (six games), and maybe an extra game or two across divisions (call it the Duke-UNC rule).

    Leads to killer SOS in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups, and the chance for a Lower division team to really stand out.

    At the end of the season, the top four teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom four teams in Lower stay Lower. The bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower.

    The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the the end of the season. No one near the bottom of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last week of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key match ups.

    Tourney seeding could be worked out. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days of the Big East.

    -jk
    Number One, make it so.

    I have long wished that many US sports leagues would take a page of wisdom from English soccer and group divisionally with promotions/demotions. It would seem to solve many, but not all, of the problems of small market teams. You can compete among your peers, but need not be limited to them if you have the budget and talent to move up. A good example in England was Watford FC - moved from Fourth Div to First for a while.

    In doing this for the ACC, you seem to imply that there ought to be a Duke UNC rule (or more broadly, a key rivalry rule) whereby if rivals are in different divisions they could play two games a year instead of the one. I sure hope Duke is always in the first Division! But I guess UNC might have been demoted once or twice in the last 20 years. (Duke once too). Anyway, for such things, I guess you should really have to give up an out of conference game to get a second one there. How would you do it otherwise? And would it count for conference standings? I have a bit of a flat taste from some of these fake rivalries created by the unbalanced schedule (as well as the ones left out, like Duke/Wake).

    Alternatively, what tougher form of punishment for slipping off the radar than to lose a game with your main rival? What better way to develop a rivalry with other good teams than to play them more often than the lousier teams? To play them twice to avoid demotion, or twice to earn promotion?

    Some details to work out, but better than anything out there, assuming we stick with 12 teams in the ACC.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    I haven't posted my "Premier League" plan recently, so here goes!

    Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper and Lower. Each team plays a double round robin within division (10 games) and single games across division (six games), and maybe an extra game or two across divisions (call it the Duke-UNC rule).

    Leads to killer SOS in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups, and the chance for a Lower division team to really stand out.

    At the end of the season, the top four teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom four teams in Lower stay Lower. The bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower.

    The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the the end of the season. No one near the bottom of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last week of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key match ups.

    Tourney seeding could be worked out. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days of the Big East.

    -jk
    This is the best idea I have heard in a long, long time. It will never happen, because it would be just too awesome.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Delaware
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    I haven't posted my "Premier League" plan recently, so here goes!

    Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper and Lower. Each team plays a double round robin within division (10 games) and single games across division (six games), and maybe an extra game or two across divisions (call it the Duke-UNC rule).

    Leads to killer SOS in the Upper division, and lots of great TV match-ups, and the chance for a Lower division team to really stand out.

    At the end of the season, the top four teams in the Upper division stay Upper and the bottom four teams in Lower stay Lower. The bottom two teams in Upper swap divisions with the top two teams in Lower.

    The middle of the pack battles in both divisions would go down to the the end of the season. No one near the bottom of Lower would coast down the stretch if they had a chance to move to Upper, and the middle of the Upper would fight dropping down. Almost every game would matter in the last week of regular season; it wouldn't just be a few key match ups.

    Tourney seeding could be worked out. Lord knows it couldn't be worse than the five days of the Big East.

    -jk
    Aside from the relegation aspect, this sounds eerily similar to the SEC.

Similar Threads

  1. Proposal Stories!
    By ugadevil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 04:50 PM
  2. A modest recruiting proposal: NO CENTERS EVER
    By SeattleIrish in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 08:35 PM
  3. Gerald and Jon - a modest proposal
    By mus074 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-18-2008, 04:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •