16 Team Mechanics

[gep]

Well... here's one from "left field". What about a 15-game conference schedule. Every team plays every team once. Then, have a full 16-team conference tournament... like the NCAAT sweet-sixteen format... even over 2 weekends. Just another crazy thought... what about a double-elimination tournament? This would provide more than 15 games "in-conference". (please go easy on me for this)

[uh_no]

Well... here's one from "left field". What about a 15-game conference schedule. Every team plays every team once. Then, have a full 16-team conference tournament... like the NCAAT sweet-sixteen format... even over 2 weekends. Just another crazy thought... what about a double-elimination tournament? This would provide more than 15 games "in-conference". (please go easy on me for this)

and you are satisfied with having a UNC game at cameron every other year? I'm not.

[gep]

and you are satisfied with having a UNC game at cameron every other year? I'm not.

Neither am I, but as I heard discussions on the radio today, we may be in for a whole new reality in college sports. No regions, no traditional rivalries (that go back MANY years), etc. If so, maybe the best is to go-with-the-flow, get the "best" structure for the "current" situation.

Also, another crazy thought. Why couldn't Duke and UNC schedule an "out-of-conference" game each year... that is, other than the 15-game conference schedule.

[uh_no]

Neither am I, but as I heard discussions on the radio today, we may be in for a whole new reality in college sports. No regions, no traditional rivalries (that go back MANY years), etc. If so, maybe the best is to go-with-the-flow, get the "best" structure for the "current" situation.

Also, another crazy thought. Why couldn't Duke and UNC schedule an "out-of-conference" game each year... that is, other than the 15-game conference schedule.

Well, while your statement about no regions may be coming to fruition, the ACC has demonstrated more than other conferences that it cares about maintaining the region and the tradition. Also, just because rivalries are falling apart elsewhere does not mean we have to ruin ours here, or that unnecessarily canning the biggest basketball rivalry is the "best" structure.

The ACC has been with an unbalanced schedule for some years now, and its doubtful that they would go down from 18 to 15 games (money still rules all here...). The only two possibilities I see are with 14 teams: home and away against your division and single game against the other division, for 6+6+7=19 games or with 14 or 1 teams, single round robin and fill out the schedule with whomever (guaranteeing a "rivalry" game)

[ForkFondler]

Well... here's one from "left field". What about a 15-game conference schedule. Every team plays every team once. Then, have a full 16-team conference tournament... like the NCAAT sweet-sixteen format... even over 2 weekends. Just another crazy thought... what about a double-elimination tournament? This would provide more than 15 games "in-conference". (please go easy on me for this)

That's a balanced schedule, and a two weekend tournament would be cool. Double elimination sounds like too many games, but you could have losing team play subsequent games for tourney placements (e.g. two teams playing for 15th place in the fourth round).

You could also have some preseason games among conference opponents that don't count in the conference standings (ETA, already suggested, I see).

[AluminumDuke]

That's a 14 game variation of option 1, where you only play 2 (instead of 3) of the other pods every year. I don't like it because the schedules can be extremely unbalanced. (BTW, the 22 game option 2 is the only completely balanced schedule proposed.)

Call it what you want (option 1a instead of 4 if you like), but I wouldn't call it "extremely unbalanced." The teams in each pod have a completely balanced schedule, and differences between the pods' strengths of schedule are addressed by seeding for the tournament in a way that creates pod vs. pod rivalries.

While the 22 game option 2 is completely balanced, I don't think that it is realistic to believe that the coaches would agree to a plan that so severely limits their out of conference schedules.

[sammy3469]

Well, while your statement about no regions may be coming to fruition, the ACC has demonstrated more than other conferences that it cares about maintaining the region and the tradition. Also, just because rivalries are falling apart elsewhere does not mean we have to ruin ours here, or that unnecessarily canning the biggest basketball rivalry is the "best" structure.

The ACC has been with an unbalanced schedule for some years now, and its doubtful that they would go down from 18 to 15 games (money still rules all here...). The only two possibilities I see are with 14 teams: home and away against your division and single game against the other division, for 6+6+7=19 games or with 14 or 1 teams, single round robin and fill out the schedule with whomever (guaranteeing a "rivalry" game)

Absolutely. That's one reason it wouldn't totally shock me if they upped the number of conference games or did some other creative "events" to up the TV deal which would lock up some other dates. If they do 8 team divisions, you could certainly do something like a old-ACC/new-ACC challenge with games in say MSG, DC, Charlotte, and Atlanta over a two day period (you could certainly expand that concept to football as well on one weekend) or other such events. I certainly think the ACC will be pretty proactive about creating made for TV "events" in major East Coast cities.

[uh_no]

Absolutely. That's one reason it wouldn't totally shock me if they upped the number of conference games or did some other creative "events" to up the TV deal which would lock up some other dates. If they do 8 team divisions, you could certainly do something like a old-ACC/new-ACC challenge with games in say MSG, DC, Charlotte, and Atlanta over a two day period (you could certainly expand that concept to football as well on one weekend) or other such events. I certainly think the ACC will be pretty proactive about creating made for TV "events" in major East Coast cities.

I'm not sure that teams in the conference would support relinquishing one of their home conference games each year. The ACC is very traditional, and while having an old vs new ACC challenge, it flies in the face of equality among members, creates division in a conference that did not get ripped apart in the last month because it was UNIFIED like the Big East was not.

[Bluedog]

The ACC has been with an unbalanced schedule for some years now, and its doubtful that they would go down from 18 to 15 games (money still rules all here...).

The ACC only has 16 conference games still, not 18. So, it'd be going from 16 to 15. Still not very likely, though.

[uh_no]

The ACC only has 16 conference games still, not 18. So, it'd be going from 16 to 15. Still not very likely, though.

Sorry, you're correct. I've been a big east guy for too long I could imagine staying at 16 and going 13+3 for the scheduling...That's probably K's desire, since he loves scheduling OOC games (st johns, georgetown) in the bye slots.

[UrinalCake]

I'm with Chillin, 22 games would take away too many OOC games. There's already been resistance under the current format to expanding to 18 games, so even with the additional teams I don't foresee anyone wanting to go up to 22. I like option 2 the best, it's the simplest and seems to mimic the SEC. As soon as I hear the word "pod" I think of the NCAA brackets, which are so overly complex that only the most die-hard college basketball fan can understand them.

[gep]

Absolutely. That's one reason it wouldn't totally shock me if they upped the number of conference games or did some other creative "events" to up the TV deal which would lock up some other dates. If they do 8 team divisions, you could certainly do something like a old-ACC/new-ACC challenge with games in say MSG, DC, Charlotte, and Atlanta over a two day period (you could certainly expand that concept to football as well on one weekend) or other such events. I certainly think the ACC will be pretty proactive about creating made for TV "events" in major East Coast cities.

Assuming a 15-game season, I've got another crazy ides regarding an "event" that may be attractive? What about a pre-conference ACC "preview" tournament, in early to mid-December. Group the 16 teams into 2 groups, give each group a creative name (not regional, not old/new, etc). Then pair up the teams based on pre-season rankings, prior year standings, or even random drawing out of a hat. Hold it over 2 days, 4 games each, at the same place. One big "event".

[ChillinDuke]

Assuming a 15-game season, I've got another crazy ides regarding an "event" that may be attractive? What about a pre-conference ACC "preview" tournament, in early to mid-December. Group the 16 teams into 2 groups, give each group a creative name (not regional, not old/new, etc). Then pair up the teams based on pre-season rankings, prior year standings, or even random drawing out of a hat. Hold it over 2 days, 4 games each, at the same place. One big "event".

I like the attempt here, and I like the positivity/excitement over the new ACC.

But having an intra-conference "event" or "challenge" is not a smart idea. Pitting ACC teams against each other is exactly what conference play does. It should not warrant it's own 2-day spectacle. The conference season is supposed to be the spectacle, and the increased exposure and teams allow it to be more competitive, farther-reaching, and entertaining (amongst other things).

Bear in mind that the new ACC as it stands (with the addition of 'Cuse and Pitt) will still not be as competitive in basketball as the Big East was last year (while this is an opinion and not a fact, it's not overly debatable). Last year's preseason AP/Coaches' Poll had 4 Big East teams vs 3 ACC teams. The final poll favored the Big East 7 to 2. Yes, the Big East tanked in the NCAAT for the most part. But it's hard to imagine the ACC having more than 5 teams ranked in the Top 25 at any point next season let alone 7 (even if you include 'Cuse and Pitt).

So it seems we are far from such rarefied air to suggest the ACC just playing the ACC because we are the premier show in town. And it's not consistent with where we are as a bball conference at this point in time.

Just trying to keep things in perspective. Not trying to tear you apart, gep, as I like the positivity and want to hear more ideas from people, especially since I think marketing is going to be a big new thing for these conferences ("super-conferences" if/when that happens) to bolster their networks and contracts. I'm excited about the new ACC too, especially from a basketball standpoint. But let the conference battle it out during conference play.

Now, if you want to have the ACC/B1G Challenge, ACC/Pac-12 Battle, ACC/SEC Showdown, ACC/Big-12 ... bring 'em all on!

- Chillin

[ChillinDuke]

And speaking of marketing, I (and I'm probably alone on this one) would like a different scheduling concept for a 16-team ACC.

Play each team once for 15 games. Play a permanent rival again (opposing court) for a 16th game. Then play two additional games against strategically chosen opponents that the ACC chooses.

Hypothetically, for example UNC is supposed to be the cat's meow this year. Let them play us twice + Syr + Pitt this year. It's not balanced. It's not random. It's probably not even reasonable. But it's most likely what the majority of people want to see. It gets the ACC on TV nationwide and tests the best (albeit the best by preseason expectations) teams against each other.

I understand this is a pretty far-out concept and most traditionalists are likely cringing at the idea. But these are new times we live in. TVs and contracts make the decisions. It may be something conferences start to consider: annually tailored matchups to maximize revenues.

Just an idea.

- Chillin

[gep]

And speaking of marketing, I (and I'm probably alone on this one) would like a different scheduling concept for a 16-team ACC.

Play each team once for 15 games. Play a permanent rival again (opposing court) for a 16th game. Then play two additional games against strategically chosen opponents that the ACC chooses.

Hypothetically, for example UNC is supposed to be the cat's meow this year. Let them play us twice + Syr + Pitt this year. It's not balanced. It's not random. It's probably not even reasonable. But it's most likely what the majority of people want to see. It gets the ACC on TV nationwide and tests the best (albeit the best by preseason expectations) teams against each other.

I understand this is a pretty far-out concept and most traditionalists are likely cringing at the idea. But these are new times we live in. TVs and contracts make the decisions. It may be something conferences start to consider: annually tailored matchups to maximize revenues.

Just an idea.

- Chillin

Thanks Chillin... please know that I don't take your comments as "tearing me apart". I just thought that some crazy, "outside of the box" ideas (even if dumb) will at least have some discussion. We are entering new times for college sports. Your idea of a "permanent rival", and 2 "random" opponents each year (as determined by the ACC) is very interesting... a much better way of adding a few more ACC games than a "preview" tournament (which is what that thought was for). Like the ACC/Big10 challenge... the conferences determine who plays who each year probably based in interest, equal competition, etc.

[hurleyfor3]

While we're busy tossing crazy ideas around, why not go to three five-team divisions? (The identity of the 15th team is left as an exercise to the reader.) I recall Conference USA doing this at one point, although I believe with only 12 teams. An 18-game schedule would work quite nicely in such an arrangement.

If we're staying with 14, the obvious arrangement would be to have Classic and Challenger divisions. The Classic division would be the 1970s ACC (or if you wish, the 1980s ACC minus GIT). The Challengers would then be everyone else. This has obvious geographic advantages, preserves most of the rivalries, maintains competitive balance and gives a nod to history.

[awhom111]

The original post asked for other sports besides Basketball and Football, so I put together this little list to show the ACC Sports, current Duke sports, and what the confirmed members bring to the table:

Men's
Sport          ACC Duke Pitt Syr Total
Baseball        x   x    x        13
Basketball      x   x    x    x   14
Cross Country   x   x    x    x   14
Football        x   x    x    x   14
Golf            x   x             11
Indoor T&F      x   x    x    x   14
Lacrosse        x   x         x    5
Rowing                        x   n/a
Soccer          x   x    x    x   11
Swimming        x   x    x        10
Diving          x   x    x        11
Tennis          x   x             12
Track&Field     x   x    x    x   14
Wrestling       x   x    x         7

Women's
Sport          ACC Duke Pitt Syr Total
Basketball      x   x    x    x   14
Cross Country   x   x    x    x   14
Field Hockey    x   x         x    7
Gymnastics               x        n/a
Golf            x   x              9
Ice Hockey                    x   n/a
Indoor T&F      x   x    x    x   14
Lacrosse        x   x         x    7
Rowing          x   x         x    7
Soccer          x   x    x    x   13
Softball        x        x    x   10
Swimming&Diving x   x    x        12
Tennis          x   x    x    x   13
Track&Field     x   x    x    x   14
Volleyball      x   x    x    x   14

Adding these two schools already will likely have some effect on the ability to maintain a full round-robin/balanced schedule. The ACC sports besides basketball and football that do not have a balanced schedule are baseball (everyone plays 10 of the 11 teams) and volleyball (everyone plays 9 teams twice and 2 teams once).

A question for the more lacrosse knowledgeable among us... How many games can be played in a short stretch of time? What is the lowest amount of days in which it would be safe to play 3 games? 4? 5?

Also, a kind of wild basketball question for the ACC tournament. What potential facilities could host simultaneous games with building partitioned off into two courts and two seating areas? I assume the Georgia Dome could though it is reserved by the SEC. What would be the acoustic challenges of two games in the building at the same time (making sure that referee whistles aren't heard in the other game, etc.)?

[Son of Jarhead]

Thanks Chillin... please know that I don't take your comments as "tearing me apart". I just thought that some crazy, "outside of the box" ideas (even if dumb) will at least have some discussion. We are entering new times for college sports. Your idea of a "permanent rival", and 2 "random" opponents each year (as determined by the ACC) is very interesting... a much better way of adding a few more ACC games than a "preview" tournament (which is what that thought was for). Like the ACC/Big10 challenge... the conferences determine who plays who each year probably based in interest, equal competition, etc.

Sounds like the old Big Four Tournament that Duke, UNC, NC State, & Wake used have, playing games against each other in early season. They ended it, if I recall, because they decided beating on each other an extra time was not in their best interest. Others may remember more details of the Big Four's demise, but in it's day, it was a big deal here on Tobacco Road.

[hurleyfor3]

Also, a kind of wild basketball question for the ACC tournament. What potential facilities could host simultaneous games with building partitioned off into two courts and two seating areas? I assume the Georgia Dome could though it is reserved by the SEC. What would be the acoustic challenges of two games in the building at the same time (making sure that referee whistles aren't heard in the other game, etc.)?

I think you'd be better off holding the other games in a nearby gym. Georgia Dome and Alexander Coliseum. Greensboro and Joel Coliseum. Verizon Center and Cole Field House. Madison Square Garden and the thing they're building in Brooklyn. Make the "lesser" arena general admission and/or sell an "all-day" Thursday ticket that allows one to go back and forth between sites. If desired, let teams play on homecourts if it arises -- this might help ticket sales. The league has indicated it wants to do a better job filling arenas for the Thursday game. Well, here's its chance.

[gep]

Sounds like the old Big Four Tournament that Duke, UNC, NC State, & Wake used have, playing games against each other in early season. They ended it, if I recall, because they decided beating on each other an extra time was not in their best interest. Others may remember more details of the Big Four's demise, but in it's day, it was a big deal here on Tobacco Road.

I don't have that ACC history in me, but was the season a true round-robin back then? So, 3 regular season games against the same team, plus the tournament? In this current situation, I think we're talking about a 15-game season with 15 different teams. So, this would provide 2 games each season with the same team, like Duke/unc home/away each year, just like it is now