PDA

View Full Version : Late season check on the unbalanced schedule



Constantstrain 81
03-01-2009, 07:41 AM
And for third year out of four, the winner is ... Duke!

Looking at the bottom four teams in the league this year - Duke plays them all exactly once. Looking at the top seven teams in the league, Duke plays them all twice (except for Clemson and BC, who we play only once each, on the road). It might be the worst schedule for a team in the short history of the beloved unbalanced schedule.

Powerful Carolina? They play three of the bottom four twice (only Ga Tech once). They also play Maryland twice (the bottom of the top eight). Of the top contenders, they play WF once, Clemson once (home), BC once (home), Va Tech once, Fla State once. It might be the best schedule ever for the unbalanced schedule.

The main point? Despite all of this, the can't get it done, fold in February, no inside game, K gets all the calls Blue Devils are sitting alone in 2nd place with two games to go. Win out, and conference tourney #1 seed could be ours. This is a tough team. Go Duke!

oso diablo
03-01-2009, 08:51 AM
it would be interesting to take this schedule and quantify the variances among teams. perhaps look at the average Sagarin rating (adjusting for home/away) of the 16 ACC games for each team.

TigerDevil
03-01-2009, 09:18 AM
Maybe if there's enough complaining it could get switched. If I recall correctly, Oliver Purnell bemoaned having to play Duke to start off the ACC season for several years straight and that got changed.

pfrduke
03-01-2009, 01:34 PM
it would be interesting to take this schedule and quantify the variances among teams. perhaps look at the average Sagarin rating (adjusting for home/away) of the 16 ACC games for each team.

I'm doing this (using efficiency margin from home/away) and will report in at the end of the regular season. So far, Duke's and Virginia Tech's project to be the most difficult (the Hokies played Duke, FSU, Clemson, BC, and UVA twice, and had to go on the road to Wake and Miami), and Clemson's projects to be the easiest (Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Wake, and FSU twice, plus Duke in Littlejohn). UNC's projects among the easiest as well.

Papa John
03-01-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm doing this (using efficiency margin from home/away) and will report in at the end of the regular season. So far, Duke's and Virginia Tech's project to be the most difficult (the Hokies played Duke, FSU, Clemson, BC, and UVA twice, and had to go on the road to Wake and Miami), and Clemson's projects to be the easiest (Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Wake, and FSU twice, plus Duke in Littlejohn). UNC's projects among the easiest as well.

To me, the interesting question is how the unbalanced schedule affects the teams in the middle of the pack... For instance, is BC where they are at the moment--the surprise of the ACC--because they benefited from an easier schedule? Did FSU benefit in similar manner?

dcarp23
03-01-2009, 02:12 PM
The obvious solution is divisions, with each six teams playing the same schedule. It's not like any rivalries are actually being preserved using the current system, and the ACC championship is determined by the tourney any way. Why this doesn't appear to even be considered is beyond me.

COYS
03-01-2009, 02:14 PM
This thread outlines the reason why the unbalanced schedule has taken the luster away from the regular season champion. Although I'm not particularly old, I am pretty old school in that I've never been completely sold on the conference tournaments. I actually like the Ivy League's old school style . . . round robin home and away. Tournament begins with the first game of the regular season. It's more indicative of the best team in the conference than a tournament held in four days with games every day. That being said, I do love the excitement and fun of the tournament so I understand why it's there. However, now that the regular season championship is almost meaningless, I think it's even less clear who the best team in the ACC is year in and year out.

OZZIE4DUKE
03-01-2009, 02:29 PM
And for third year out of four, the winner is ... Duke!

Duke can't have the toughest schedule in the conference because Duke doesn't have to play Duke at all. :eek: How come Gary and Seth don't complain about that? Huh? Huh? Why don't they? :rolleyes::D

wisteria
03-01-2009, 02:33 PM
And to this, UNC fans offer an explanation, and I am not making this up: The reason the bottom four are bottom four, is because UNC plays them twice.

CDu
03-01-2009, 02:37 PM
This thread outlines the reason why the unbalanced schedule has taken the luster away from the regular season champion. Although I'm not particularly old, I am pretty old school in that I've never been completely sold on the conference tournaments. I actually like the Ivy League's old school style . . . round robin home and away. Tournament begins with the first game of the regular season. It's more indicative of the best team in the conference than a tournament held in four days with games every day. That being said, I do love the excitement and fun of the tournament so I understand why it's there. However, now that the regular season championship is almost meaningless, I think it's even less clear who the best team in the ACC is year in and year out.

I agree completely. The ACC tournament is fun and probably REALLY profitable, and it gives us something to talk about in early March and gives every team (even Ga Tech) hope for a second chance. But the reality is that a 3-4 game tournament is a weaker measure of the best representative of the conference than a full round robin is.

Unfortunately, it's a moot point. We're never going to go back to that format. The tournament format is so ingrained in our culture and the sporting world has realized that the money to be made outweighs the benefit of having having a true champion.

-jk
03-01-2009, 03:02 PM
I don't think I've posted on my "Premier League" plan this year, so here goes!

Split the ACC into two divisions, Upper and Lower. The top 4 teams in the Upper division stay Upper. The bottom two teams in the Upper division drop to the Lower. The top 2 teams in Lower move to Upper. The bottom 4 teams in Lower stay.

Double round robin within division (10 games) and single games across division (six games).

Killer SOS in the Upper division. A chance for a Lower division team to really stand out.

The middle of the pack battles in both 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.

A very balanced schedule within division.

It's that or go to a full 22 game round-robin and eliminate a few Little Sisters of the Poor.

-jk

devildeac
03-01-2009, 03:07 PM
And to this, UNC fans offer an explanation, and I am not making this up: The reason the bottom four are bottom four, is because UNC plays them twice.

You just can't beat that carowhina logic:rolleyes:.

DukeDevilDeb
03-01-2009, 03:16 PM
Duke can't have the toughest schedule in the conference because Duke doesn't have to play Duke at all. :eek: How come Gary and Seth don't complain about that? Huh? Huh? Why don't they? :rolleyes::D

LOL, Ozzie. You are 100% right. In fact, I'd rather play Wake three times than Duke once. What's our record? 24-5? We're pretty damn good for a time that is, once again, falling apart at the end of the season! :D

Given the fact that we are hampered by the academic requirements of the university (including no PE major or anything like that) and Coach K, by getting everyone's best shot all year long, and by the fact that we don't have an outstanding point guard OR big man, we are really doing extraordinarily well! I hope everyone who has complained so loudly about the various losses, coaching decisions, players' minutes, and so on takes just a moment to reflect on what our magnificent coaching staff and team have done this year.

Of course, we would like to have had the win at Michigan, certainly wins at Boston College and Clemson... but we really only played one terrible game at Littlejohn. I'm going to be thanking not only the seniors but all the players for having made a difficult, end-of-season adjustment to a new line up that has done nothing but win. Scheyer has been magificent at the point (is there another point guard or forward who has as few turnovers as he's had in the last four games); Elliot has brought energy and skill to the court; Gerald has really stepped up big (although his 3 point shooting has suffered), and Kyle showed yesterday just why he was MOTM so much, especially early in the season.

Would I like this team to go to the Final Four? YOU BET I WOULD! Will I be devastated if they don't? Well, ... I want them to play to their potential, and I'm pretty sure that no one (not even K) really knows what that potential is. So I'm going to cheer and watch for as long as they're playing and celebrate their terrific season!

Go Devils!

oso diablo
03-03-2009, 05:19 PM
I'm doing this (using efficiency margin from home/away) and will report in at the end of the regular season. So far, Duke's and Virginia Tech's project to be the most difficult (the Hokies played Duke, FSU, Clemson, BC, and UVA twice, and had to go on the road to Wake and Miami), and Clemson's projects to be the easiest (Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Wake, and FSU twice, plus Duke in Littlejohn). UNC's projects among the easiest as well.
i just took a stab, using current Sagarin ratings, and giving a home opponent a 4 point boost (i believe this is what Sagarin uses).

Results:
1. i'm surprised, but i didn't find much quantitative difference. The average rating for the 16 ACC games are:

Duke - 86.4
UNC - 85.4

2. I looked at # of games where the opponent has a rating of 88+ (which is roughly equivalent to playing a mid-teens ranked team on a neutral court). Both Duke & UNC have 6 such games.

3. Each team's 3 toughest games are the head/head matchups and the game at Wake Forest. The biggest difference is in the 4th toughest game. Duke's #4 is at Clemson. UNC's #4 is at Miami. Sagarin has Miami ranked #29, and Clemson at #15. That's a 3 point swing.

All in all, i don't find much here. Common sense tells you that there is a schedule imbalance, but perhaps it doesn't make all that much difference.

Virginian
03-03-2009, 05:39 PM
I do understand the way the schedule is set up with primary opponents, etc. But when the conference schedule was set up for this season, it was well accepted that Carolina and Duke would likely be the No. 1 and No. 2 teams, right? Why not give both teams basically the same schedule for their entire ACC games? Why does UNC end up playing twice those three teams that we play once, etc.? If the NFL can get a balanced schedule with half the number of games, the ACC ought to be able to do better.

Perhaps there's a logical explanation and I just don't see it.

pfrduke
03-03-2009, 06:12 PM
I do understand the way the schedule is set up with primary opponents, etc. But when the conference schedule was set up for this season, it was well accepted that Carolina and Duke would likely be the No. 1 and No. 2 teams, right? Why not give both teams basically the same schedule for their entire ACC games? Why does UNC end up playing twice those three teams that we play once, etc.? If the NFL can get a balanced schedule with half the number of games, the ACC ought to be able to do better.

Perhaps there's a logical explanation and I just don't see it.

The conference schedule is set well in advance, on a three-year rotating basis. There are two opponents you always play twice. The nine remaining teams are split into groups of three, and each year you play a different group twice. There is no effort made by the ACC to try to tailor schedules on a season-by-season basis to give better teams tougher (or equal) schedules.

Also, the NFL's schedule is exactly the same length as the ACC's schedule, and is far, far from balanced. If you think the Arizona Cardinals and the New York Giants had relatively equal schedules this year, I don't know what to tell you.

pfrduke
03-03-2009, 06:14 PM
i just took a stab, using current Sagarin ratings, and giving a home opponent a 4 point boost (i believe this is what Sagarin uses).

Results:
1. i'm surprised, but i didn't find much quantitative difference. The average rating for the 16 ACC games are:

Duke - 86.4
UNC - 85.4

2. I looked at # of games where the opponent has a rating of 88+ (which is roughly equivalent to playing a mid-teens ranked team on a neutral court). Both Duke & UNC have 6 such games.

3. Each team's 3 toughest games are the head/head matchups and the game at Wake Forest. The biggest difference is in the 4th toughest game. Duke's #4 is at Clemson. UNC's #4 is at Miami. Sagarin has Miami ranked #29, and Clemson at #15. That's a 3 point swing.

All in all, i don't find much here. Common sense tells you that there is a schedule imbalance, but perhaps it doesn't make all that much difference.

I don't think you can look at full season performance for this. The pre-conference schedules are too disparate to know if the numbers are reliable. For example, according to full season play, a matchup with Maryland is roughly equal to a matchup with FSU. Against ACC opponents, FSU has been much, much tougher - probably more than a full standard deviation harder.

pfrduke
03-03-2009, 06:18 PM
All in all, i don't find much here. Common sense tells you that there is a schedule imbalance, but perhaps it doesn't make all that much difference.

This last point may be right, regardless of how you analyze it. I've looked at SOS for three years running now, and the final standings tend not to look very different from the expected final standings. The biggest gap was two seasons ago, where UVA had a ridiculously easy schedule - they ended up with three more wins than their schedule-adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency said they should get. Of course, I don't remember now how great of a difference there was between their raw expected winning percentage and their schedule-adjusted expected winning percentage, so the three-win increase could have been more due to a luck factor than ease of schedule.

devildownunder
03-03-2009, 07:18 PM
A

The main point? Despite all of this, the can't get it done, fold in February, no inside game, K gets all the calls Blue Devils are sitting alone in 2nd place with two games to go. Win out, and conference tourney #1 seed could be ours. This is a tough team. Go Duke!

Well, as you point out, we get all the calls so, really, scheduling concerns are irrelevant!

Hey that reminds me, how is Singler's throat doing anyway? Grrrrrrr!

Virginian
03-03-2009, 07:24 PM
The conference schedule is set well in advance, on a three-year rotating basis. There are two opponents you always play twice. The nine remaining teams are split into groups of three, and each year you play a different group twice. There is no effort made by the ACC to try to tailor schedules on a season-by-season basis to give better teams tougher (or equal) schedules.

Also, the NFL's schedule is exactly the same length as the ACC's schedule, and is far, far from balanced. If you think the Arizona Cardinals and the New York Giants had relatively equal schedules this year, I don't know what to tell you.

Thanks for the additional information, especially the three-year schedule. Maybe that should change so that the schedule can be set every year, taking into account the relative strength of each team.

As for the NFL, what I was referring to is the fact that each team in a conference will play every other team in its conference twice (home and away) and then also play another conference's teams equally. So the Giants may not have played the same schedule that Arizona did, but they played essentially the same schedule the Redskins (their conference opponents) did. This obviously is important because your in-conference record is so vital to your final playoff standings, as is Duke's final standings within the ACC.

I wouldn't expect that Duke would play the same schedule that UConn would, but I don't think it's far-fetched to want them to play the same schedule as UNC.

77devil
03-03-2009, 10:33 PM
Thanks for the additional information, especially the three-year schedule. Maybe that should change so that the schedule can be set every year, taking into account the relative strength of each team.


Frankly, I prefer the roll of the dice to subjective meddling by the league office.

pfrduke
03-11-2009, 01:42 AM
Ok, so I did a schedule analysis based on tempo free performance (offensive and defensive efficiency) and home/road splits, with the team's individual performance zeroed out to discount for the team effect (so UNC's schedule doesn't look comparatively weak because the teams played UNC).

The biggest potential flaw with the methodology is that I treat each team's home and away performance as essentially two separate teams. So the teams that play Duke at home only get credit for playing the Duke team that's played outside of Cameron, and gets no credit for playing the Duke team that played in Cameron. I think this may be too drastic of an adjustment, but that's how I've done it.

The schedules didn't differ by a ton - a total spread of just 3 points per possession between the toughest schedule and the easiest.

First, the underlying information - here's how teams played at home this season (by efficiency margin):

Duke 18.79
North Carolina 18.12
Clemson 14.17
Wake Forest 10.78
Florida State 8.11
Miami 6.38
Maryland 0.84
Virginia Tech -1.19
Boston College -2.28
NC State -3.59
Virginia -6.11
Georgia Tech -7.40


And how they played on the road:

North Carolina 8.50
Wake Forest -0.05
Florida State -0.31
Clemson -0.45
Duke -1.02
Boston College -2.01
Miami -6.32
Virginia Tech -7.28
NC State -9.14
Georgia Tech -12.12
Virginia -14.03
Maryland -15.26


With that in mind, here's who faced the toughest set of offenses (sorted by highest opponent offensive rating to lowest):

Georgia Tech 105.43
Virginia 105.41
Florida State 104.89
Duke 104.83
Miami 104.82
Wake Forest 104.57
NC State 103.81
Virginia Tech 103.77
North Carolina 103.31
Maryland 103.30
Boston College 102.75
Clemson 102.07


And here's who faced the toughest slate of defenses:

Virginia Tech 102.86
North Carolina 103.09
Maryland 103.23
NC State 103.46
Duke 103.52
Clemson 103.76
Wake Forest 104.16
Boston College 104.27
Miami 104.59
Virginia 104.91
Florida State 105.02
Georgia Tech 106.97


With all that, here's how the schedules stacked up, ranked by opponent efficiency margin:

Duke 1.31
Virginia Tech 0.92
Virginia 0.49
Wake Forest 0.40
NC State 0.36
Miami 0.23
North Carolina 0.21
Maryland 0.07
Florida State -0.12
Boston College -1.52
Georgia Tech -1.54
Clemson -1.69


Duke hosted the three toughest road teams and traveled to seven of the eight toughest home teams (no counting Duke).