PDA

View Full Version : ACC Operation Basketball, articles, interviews



watzone
10-19-2011, 12:35 PM
I just voted for All ACC, rookie of the year and player of the year at ACC Media Day from the Ritz-Carlton in Charlotte. There will be a lot of news coming tomorrow, so I figured a new thread is in order. Al and Jim are here, so DBR should get an earful later. Until then, here are two videos with this seasons Duke captains - http://bluedevilnation.net/2011/10/acc-operation-basketball-bdn-talks-with-ryan-kelly-and-miles-plumlee/

Coach K will be out after lunch and this is always the best session you will get with him before the season.

Dev11
10-19-2011, 01:59 PM
Coach K will be out after lunch and this is always the best session you will get with him before the season.

For those who listen to the radio at work, K is going to be on the Scott Van Pelt show at 2:45. SVP is a Maryland guy but he is normally really good with guests on the radio.

watzone
10-19-2011, 04:36 PM
Well, it is always good to hear Coach K say, I plan on coaching for a while. He also talks of Seth Curry and how he can step up. I voted Seth All ACC and the results should come out shortly as will the pre season standings. I am heading back to Durham with Al Featherston. Coach had a lot to say today and there is a ton of recordings to get to them all. Here is the only video you will see from today and there is more coming. Go Duke! http://bluedevilnation.net/2011/10/coach-k-ill-be-coach-for-a-while-duke-head-honco-talks-seth-curry-as-well/

Bluedog
10-19-2011, 05:44 PM
Media picks:

1.) UNC (57 of 59 first place votes)
2.) Duke (2 first place votes)
3.) Florida State
4.) Virginia
5.) Miami
6.) Virginia Tech
7.) Clemson
8.) N.C. State
9.) Maryland
10.) Georgia Tech
11.) Wake Forest
12.) Boston College

POY: Barnes
ROY: Rivers

All-ACC (in order, although not sure about Zeller/Henson):
Barnes
Zeller
Henson
Grant
Scott/Curry
(Scott and Curry tied for last spot)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-accoperationbasketball

NSDukeFan
10-19-2011, 09:14 PM
Media picks:

1.) UNC (57 of 59 first place votes)
2.) Duke (2 first place votes)
3.) Florida State
4.) Virginia
5.) Miami
6.) Virginia Tech
7.) Clemson
8.) N.C. State
9.) Maryland
10.) Georgia Tech
11.) Wake Forest
12.) Boston College

POY: Barnes
ROY: Rivers

All-ACC (in order, although not sure about Zeller/Henson):
Barnes
Zeller
Henson
Grant
Scott/Curry
(Scott and Curry tied for last spot)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-accoperationbasketball

I assume that is Mike Scott and not Durand?

Troublemaker
10-19-2011, 09:28 PM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-10-19/dukes-shifting-pieces-a-new-challenge-for-mike-krzyzewski

Short article but a couple interesting quotes in there, I thought. Will hopefully quench some thirst until the local guys get their articles online.

CDu
10-19-2011, 10:53 PM
I assume that is Mike Scott and not Durand?

Good question. Could very well have been either. It was Mike Scott, but Durand Scott is a pretty good player too. I'd imagine Durand Scott would have made second team, given how similar his numbers were to those of Malcolm Grant (who made first team).

OldPhiKap
10-19-2011, 11:04 PM
Good question. Could very well have been either. It was Mike Scott, but Durand Scott is a pretty good player too. I'd imagine Durand Scott would have made second team, given how similar his numbers were to those of Malcolm Grant (who made first team).

I was afraid that Dennis Scott had another year of eligibility. That would send Tech way up the list.

davekay1971
10-20-2011, 08:21 AM
I like all the attention the Heels are getting. There's no question they're going to be good (likely very, very good), but I'll take Duke in the stalking horse position.

I'm getting more and more excited about this season. It sounds like Curry and Kelly are going to be very solid contributors for us. The biggest question marks are (1) is Austin Rivers going to be as good as advertised; and (2) can Dawkins and the Plumlees produce consistently? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, we're going to be a very good basketball team, with athleticism and scoring options at 5 positions.

gumbomoop
10-20-2011, 11:21 AM
ACC commish Swofford says when Pitt and 'Cuse arrive, ACC likely to go to 18-game schedule.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/once-at-14-acc-will-likely-go-to-18-game-league-hoops-schedule

How's that math work out?

If 2 divisions of 7 teams each, each team plays its 6 division partners twice = 12; then plays each team in other division once = 7. Then, under the old math, 12 + 7 = 19. Seven teams would have 10 home/9 away; other 7 have 9 home/10 away. Unbalanced messy but doable.

If no divisions, each team plays 8 opponents once = 8, and some random 5 opponents twice = 10. Then, 8 + 10 = 18. Pretty random. Talk about unbalanced mess.

If pod system, forget it, unless we're to have 7 pods. Surely not 2 pods of 5 teams, and 1 pod of 4. Surely not.

Wait, I get it. Two divisions, with Duke and Carolina in different divisions. Then, Duke plays its division partners twice = 12. Then, Duke plays 6 of the 7 in the other division once = 6. Then, 12 + 6 = 18. Which of the 7 teams in the other division will Duke not play at all. Probably UNC. Start of a great new tradition. Makes sense.

19-game schedule, right? Help, either me or John Swofford.

Kedsy
10-20-2011, 12:19 PM
ACC commish Swofford says when Pitt and 'Cuse arrive, ACC likely to go to 18-game schedule.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/once-at-14-acc-will-likely-go-to-18-game-league-hoops-schedule

How's that math work out?

If 2 divisions of 7 teams each, each team plays its 6 division partners twice = 12; then plays each team in other division once = 7. Then, under the old math, 12 + 7 = 19. Seven teams would have 10 home/9 away; other 7 have 9 home/10 away. Unbalanced messy but doable.

If no divisions, each team plays 8 opponents once = 8, and some random 5 opponents twice = 10. Then, 8 + 10 = 18. Pretty random. Talk about unbalanced mess.

If pod system, forget it, unless we're to have 7 pods. Surely not 2 pods of 5 teams, and 1 pod of 4. Surely not.

Wait, I get it. Two divisions, with Duke and Carolina in different divisions. Then, Duke plays its division partners twice = 12. Then, Duke plays 6 of the 7 in the other division once = 6. Then, 12 + 6 = 18. Which of the 7 teams in the other division will Duke not play at all. Probably UNC. Start of a great new tradition. Makes sense.

19-game schedule, right? Help, either me or John Swofford.

My first thought when I heard the 18 number was the same: shouldn't it be 19? My guess is if it wasn't a typo or slip of the tongue then it will be your "no divisions" option. It's not really much more random than what we have now.

roywhite
10-20-2011, 12:58 PM
ACC commish Swofford says when Pitt and 'Cuse arrive, ACC likely to go to 18-game schedule.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/once-at-14-acc-will-likely-go-to-18-game-league-hoops-schedule

How's that math work out?

If 2 divisions of 7 teams each, each team plays its 6 division partners twice = 12; then plays each team in other division once = 7. Then, under the old math, 12 + 7 = 19. Seven teams would have 10 home/9 away; other 7 have 9 home/10 away. Unbalanced messy but doable.

If no divisions, each team plays 8 opponents once = 8, and some random 5 opponents twice = 10. Then, 8 + 10 = 18. Pretty random. Talk about unbalanced mess.

If pod system, forget it, unless we're to have 7 pods. Surely not 2 pods of 5 teams, and 1 pod of 4. Surely not.

Wait, I get it. Two divisions, with Duke and Carolina in different divisions. Then, Duke plays its division partners twice = 12. Then, Duke plays 6 of the 7 in the other division once = 6. Then, 12 + 6 = 18. Which of the 7 teams in the other division will Duke not play at all. Probably UNC. Start of a great new tradition. Makes sense.

19-game schedule, right? Help, either me or John Swofford.

To this brain teaser, might as well add the ACC Tournament and how that will work.

How many days? Does everybody play or some don't make it to the tournament? Byes, seeding?

18 or 19 games plus the ACC Tournament takes up a good portion of the schedule.
Will teams schedule more or less aggressively out-of-conference when this comes to pass?

ChillinDuke
10-20-2011, 01:15 PM
To this brain teaser, might as well add the ACC Tournament and how that will work.

How many days? Does everybody play or some don't make it to the tournament? Byes, seeding?

18 or 19 games plus the ACC Tournament takes up a good portion of the schedule.
Will teams schedule more or less aggressively out-of-conference when this comes to pass?

Seems to me the ACC Tournament is an easy fix.

Only the top 2 teams get byes.

Done.

jimsumner
10-20-2011, 03:07 PM
Seems to me the ACC Tournament is an easy fix.

Only the top 2 teams get byes.

Done.

Easy in one sense. But that leaves 12 other teams. Which means six first-round games. I suppose you could play six games in one place in one day. If you start at 9 A.M. Long day. Not a good option.

Or you could play in two different sites, on the same day. Not a good option.

Or you could split it over two days, which creates a competitive imbalance in terms of rest between games. Again, not an ideal option but maybe the best.

So, is it really that easy?

Duvall
10-20-2011, 03:09 PM
Easy in one sense. But that leaves 12 other teams. Which means six first-round games. I suppose you could play six games in one place in one day. If you start at 9 A.M. Long day. Not a good option.

Or you could play in two different sites, on the same day. Not a good option.

You could make (http://www.thegarden.com/) it work (http://barclayscenter.com/).

MChambers
10-20-2011, 03:42 PM
My first thought when I heard the 18 number was the same: shouldn't it be 19? My guess is if it wasn't a typo or slip of the tongue then it will be your "no divisions" option. It's not really much more random than what we have now.

maybe they'll play 19 games, but each game will only be 36 minutes long?

I agree: the 18 number doesn't work.

ChillinDuke
10-20-2011, 04:09 PM
Easy in one sense. But that leaves 12 other teams. Which means six first-round games. I suppose you could play six games in one place in one day. If you start at 9 A.M. Long day. Not a good option.

Or you could play in two different sites, on the same day. Not a good option.

Or you could split it over two days, which creates a competitive imbalance in terms of rest between games. Again, not an ideal option but maybe the best.

So, is it really that easy?

Point: Jim. Love-15.

I guess there's no ideal option. Such are the problems with large leagues and the spirit of "everyone gets a shot at making the tournament."

And on this 18-game schedule thing, yeah it's a lil tricky. But doable.

An interesting arrangement for an 18-game schedule is to make two 7-team divisions. Intra division opponents twice = 12 games. Permanent rival in other division twice = 2 games. And remaining 4 games against the remaining six teams...would have to be a 3-year home-and-home rotation. Obviously not balanced but it fits.

Maybe pin the divisions against each other, so the division with a better record against the other gets to play 1st round ACCT games at their home court. Winner of each division gets a bye.

A 19-gamer is certainly easier.

- Chillin

jimsumner
10-20-2011, 04:24 PM
maybe they'll play 19 games, but each game will only be 36 minutes long?

I agree: the 18 number doesn't work.

This could be the solution to the tournament dilemma. On day one, play six 30-minute games. :)

davekay1971
10-20-2011, 05:36 PM
Easy in one sense. But that leaves 12 other teams. Which means six first-round games. I suppose you could play six games in one place in one day. If you start at 9 A.M. Long day. Not a good option.

Or you could play in two different sites, on the same day. Not a good option.

Or you could split it over two days, which creates a competitive imbalance in terms of rest between games. Again, not an ideal option but maybe the best.

So, is it really that easy?

Nah, we used to figure that problem out all the time in the East Campus gym. Just run two games simultaneously side to side, splitting the main court in two. You could have a couple scorers tables set up with the old fashioned green and red flip score-cards. The teams could go shirts/skins. It'd be a nice old-school feel to the new ACC tournament. And an incentive: you want to play full court, make it to day 2!

Really, there's a certain appeal to seeing Miami-Va Tech in the 8-9 game playing next to Maryland-NC State in the 7-10 game all pick-up tournament style with Seth Greenberg sweating out the will-we-or-won't-we-get-an-invite-if-we-lose-this-game question for the nth straight year.

OldPhiKap
10-20-2011, 06:01 PM
Half-court H-O-R-S-E.

theAlaskanBear
10-20-2011, 06:26 PM
ACC commish Swofford says when Pitt and 'Cuse arrive, ACC likely to go to 18-game schedule.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/once-at-14-acc-will-likely-go-to-18-game-league-hoops-schedule

How's that math work out?

If 2 divisions of 7 teams each, each team plays its 6 division partners twice = 12; then plays each team in other division once = 7. Then, under the old math, 12 + 7 = 19. Seven teams would have 10 home/9 away; other 7 have 9 home/10 away. Unbalanced messy but doable.

If no divisions, each team plays 8 opponents once = 8, and some random 5 opponents twice = 10. Then, 8 + 10 = 18. Pretty random. Talk about unbalanced mess.

If pod system, forget it, unless we're to have 7 pods. Surely not 2 pods of 5 teams, and 1 pod of 4. Surely not.

Wait, I get it. Two divisions, with Duke and Carolina in different divisions. Then, Duke plays its division partners twice = 12. Then, Duke plays 6 of the 7 in the other division once = 6. Then, 12 + 6 = 18. Which of the 7 teams in the other division will Duke not play at all. Probably UNC. Start of a great new tradition. Makes sense.

19-game schedule, right? Help, either me or John Swofford.

Edited for idiocy -- you have this scenario already.

gumbomoop
10-20-2011, 06:55 PM
Edited for idiocy -- you have this scenario already.

I have several questions:

1. Who's the editor? I'm guessing it's you.
2. Who's the idiot? I'm voting for Swofford, if only to avoid voting for me.
3. Does "you" = "we"?
4. Does "this scenario" = any scenario involving a 14-team league is an unbalanced mess, which we have already?


My first thought when I heard the 18 number was the same: shouldn't it be 19? My guess is if it wasn't a typo or slip of the tongue then it will be your "no divisions" option. It's not really much more random than what we have now.

Except for the fact that this article......

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7126142/acc-coaches-want-league-expand-16-teams-college-basketball

...... seems to say that the AC coaches favor a divisional structure, I think Kedsy's on to something here, and it may parallel theAlaskanBear's point in the first tag quote [subject to clarification by tAB]: namely, that my [actually anyone's] "no division" structure will require an unbalanced mess, but we're saddled with that with our current 12-team conference.

Moreover, the divisional option, which seems logically to require 19, not 18, games, has one particularly irritating problem: each season, 7 teams have 10H/9A games, the other 7 have 9H/10A. Even worse, assuming finishing high in one's division is meaningful, ACCT-seeding-wise, within each division, 4 teams have the 10H/9A, and the other 3 have the 9H/10A.

So, I'm with tAB, despite the fact that, and/or because, s/he thinks I'm an idiot, and with Kedsy, who has a good point. Between the 3 of us, we should be able to convince the coaches to forget divisions. Piece of cake.

Kedsy
10-20-2011, 08:18 PM
Moreover, the divisional option, which seems logically to require 19, not 18, games, has one particularly irritating problem: each season, 7 teams have 10H/9A games, the other 7 have 9H/10A. Even worse, assuming finishing high in one's division is meaningful, ACCT-seeding-wise, within each division, 4 teams have the 10H/9A, and the other 3 have the 9H/10A.

Unless they use the great idea from another thread (maybe by MulletMan?) that the season kicks off with all the teams playing cross-divisional games in a two-day, neutral site event. That would mean that teams will wait three seasons to host one cross-divisional rival, but it solves the imbalanced home/away thing.

pfrduke
10-20-2011, 09:04 PM
Unless they use the great idea from another thread (maybe by MulletMan?) that the season kicks off with all the teams playing cross-divisional games in a two-day, neutral site event. That would mean that teams will wait three seasons to host one cross-divisional rival, but it solves the imbalanced home/away thing.

Ahem (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26267-Duke-Basketball-Media-Day-2011-12&p=522573#post522573)...

theAlaskanBear
10-20-2011, 09:37 PM
I have several questions:

1. Who's the editor? I'm guessing it's you.
2. Who's the idiot? I'm voting for Swofford, if only to avoid voting for me.
3. Does "you" = "we"?
4. Does "this scenario" = any scenario involving a 14-team league is an unbalanced mess, which we have already?



Except for the fact that this article......

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7126142/acc-coaches-want-league-expand-16-teams-college-basketball

...... seems to say that the AC coaches favor a divisional structure, I think Kedsy's on to something here, and it may parallel theAlaskanBear's point in the first tag quote [subject to clarification by tAB]: namely, that my [actually anyone's] "no division" structure will require an unbalanced mess, but we're saddled with that with our current 12-team conference.

Moreover, the divisional option, which seems logically to require 19, not 18, games, has one particularly irritating problem: each season, 7 teams have 10H/9A games, the other 7 have 9H/10A. Even worse, assuming finishing high in one's division is meaningful, ACCT-seeding-wise, within each division, 4 teams have the 10H/9A, and the other 3 have the 9H/10A.

So, I'm with tAB, despite the fact that, and/or because, s/he thinks I'm an idiot, and with Kedsy, who has a good point. Between the 3 of us, we should be able to convince the coaches to forget divisions. Piece of cake.

Sorry, I edited my post because of my own idiocy -- no one else's...I put up your middle scenario without realizing you already had it up -- and with better math than my own ;)

ForkFondler
10-20-2011, 10:15 PM
There is no reason for the ACC to have unbalanced schedule now. I suppose it occurs out of a desire to NOT have unbalanced divisions, but that is a lesser problem in my view. Two six team divisions yields 2*5 + 6 = 16 games. Why wait for Pitt ans SYr, let's get it rolling.

Also, on the value of a regular season title. Once the newcomers show up, I see no reason why a divisional title in a 7 or 8 team division isn't just as banner worthy as a 7 or 8 team league title was 20 or 30 years ago.

uh_no
10-20-2011, 11:04 PM
Also, on the value of a regular season title. Once the newcomers show up, I see no reason why a divisional title in a 7 or 8 team division isn't just as banner worthy as a 7 or 8 team league title was 20 or 30 years ago.

haha, it might be banner worthy, but unless we plan on hanging banners on the trees outside cameron, I don't think we will start hanging divisional championship banners...just no room in the rafters!

Bob Green
10-20-2011, 11:20 PM
Also, on the value of a regular season title. Once the newcomers show up, I see no reason why a divisional title in a 7 or 8 team division isn't just as banner worthy as a 7 or 8 team league title was 20 or 30 years ago.

Well I'm going to go back over 40 years instead of 20 or 30 but I suggest you go ask South Carolina how valuable being the best team in the ACC during the regular season was in 1970. They had a powerhouse team with John Roche, Tom Owens, Tom Rikker, John Ribock and Bobby Cremins. Unfortunately for them, come post season, they were playing in the NIT courtesy of NC State and a double overtime loss in the ACC Tournament Championship Game. Ah, the memories of my youth, I love DBR!

I know, different era and all that, but in the ACC, whether it is 1970 or 2012 or 2016, it will always be about winning the ACC Tournament. At least I hope so...

ForkFondler
10-20-2011, 11:24 PM
haha, it might be banner worthy, but unless we plan on hanging banners on the trees outside cameron, I don't think we will start hanging divisional championship banners...just no room in the rafters!

mini-banners!!! Fans will have to bring binoculars to see them. You could use them for divisional championships, UPI #1 rankings, and even Helms championships.

Kedsy
10-20-2011, 11:24 PM
Ahem (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26267-Duke-Basketball-Media-Day-2011-12&p=522573#post522573)...

A thousand humble apologies, Mr. pfrduke. Yes, now that you point it out, I recall it was your idea and I was too lazy to go back and look. At least I pumped up the idea, which I think is brilliant.

ForkFondler
10-20-2011, 11:29 PM
Well I'm going to go back over 40 years instead of 20 or 30 but I suggest you go ask South Carolina how valuable being the best team in the ACC during the regular season was in 1970. They had a powerhouse team with John Roche, Tom Owens, Tom Rikker, John Ribock and Bobby Cremins. Unfortunately for them, come post season, they were playing in the NIT courtesy of NC State and a double overtime loss in the ACC Tournament Championship Game. Ah, the memories of my youth, I love DBR!

I know, different era and all that, but in the ACC, whether it is 1970 or 2012 or 2016, it will always be about winning the ACC Tournament. At least I hope so...

The most significant difference about that era was that the only team got invited to the NCAA-T was the ACC-T winner. Other than that, South Carolina had a fine year. Banner worthy, in fact. Or at least a mini-banner. :D

uh_no
10-20-2011, 11:47 PM
mini-banners!!! Fans will have to bring binoculars to see them. You could use them for divisional championships, UPI #1 rankings, and even Helms championships.

I was just thinking 1 per win.

ForkFondler
10-21-2011, 12:01 AM
I was just thinking 1 per win.

Those would be the microbanners.

ACCBBallFan
10-21-2011, 12:35 AM
Regardless of 18 or 19, I think coach K will be happy all ACC teams have to improve their RPI's by playing Syracuse and Pitt at least once each, rather than some of the bottom feeders they all have been scheduling.

The only really weak OOC teams on Duke's schedule, so not counting BC, GA Tech and Wake are Presbyterian and UNC-Greensboro. All 11 other ACC teams have 4-5 or more rummies, some of whom are unavoidable in early rounds of a pre-season trounament:

4-5: Clemson, VA Tech (so some improvements over past years)

5 - UNC, Miami, NC St

6- FSU, GA Tech and BC

6-7: UVA. WF

7 - MD

Some of this may be new coach syndrome but no excuse for Tony Bennett to be scheduling Winthrop, Towson, Seattle, Longwood, So Carol St and MD E Shore, a possibly Drake..

Or Leonard Hamilton 9 years in the ACC with so many seniors to be scheduling Auburn, So Alab, Loyola Marymount, Charleston So, Stetson and UNC Greensboro.

Even Roy Williams with the #1 rated team in the NCAA should be scheduling better, though a couple he ends up facing in Las Vegas Invitational early rounds Nov 20 and Nov 22. Proibably some leveraging in case Henson, Zeller and Barnes had left early.

Southland Nicholls St -8 @D19
BS UNC-Asheville -3 N13
SWAC MS Valley St -2 @N20
OVC TN St -5 @N22
Southern Elon -8 @D29
NE Monmouth -11 @J01

Indoor66
10-21-2011, 07:32 AM
I think we should go to 16 teams. Then divide into two divisions. Then each division play a round robin schedule in it's division. Then the top four teams in each division meet for a tournament to determine the conference champion.

Rather than that, why not two eight team conferences?

davekay1971
10-21-2011, 08:16 AM
Those would be the microbanners.

That would be a UNC level of bannerism

OldPhiKap
10-21-2011, 08:45 AM
That would be a UNC level of bannerism

That helps explain the 18-conference games math:

Actually play everyone once, and have the Helms Committee vote on who would win five rematches drawn at random.

dukeballboy88
10-21-2011, 09:10 AM
I would like for the ACC to let all the teams play each other twice, home and away. Its hard for me to crown a regular season champ if teams dont play each other twice.

uh_no
10-21-2011, 09:20 AM
I would like for the ACC to let all the teams play each other twice, home and away. Its hard for me to crown a regular season champ if teams dont play each other twice.

SURE....lets just have a 26 or 30 team league schedule....we can start playing league games in early november.

Even Better, lets turn februrary into "ACC Mania" Every day you play 1 game...for the entire month. That means there is still plenty of time to play all your OOC foes! If your kids need a day off, then call up your opponent and see if you can move the game and play a double header instead!

This sounds like an awesome idea.

94duke
10-21-2011, 09:54 AM
I think we should go to 16 teams. Then divide into two divisions. Then each division play a round robin schedule in it's division. Then the top four teams in each division meet for a tournament to determine the conference champion.

Rather than that, why not two eight team conferences?

The coaches aren't going to like only half of each division being invited to the ACCT. Six teams per division invited to the ACCT might be easier to swallow. Only two teams from each division don't get invited, and the ACCT has the same format as it does now.

jimsumner
10-21-2011, 12:18 PM
I would like for the ACC to let all the teams play each other twice, home and away. Its hard for me to crown a regular season champ if teams dont play each other twice.

If you can't play a double round-robin with a 12-team league, it's really going to be tough in a 16-team circuit.

MChambers
10-21-2011, 12:31 PM
The coaches aren't going to like only half of each division being invited to the ACCT. Six teams per division invited to the ACCT might be easier to swallow. Only two teams from each division don't get invited, and the ACCT has the same format as it does now.

Ol' Roy usually says the ACCT isn't that important. Maybe UNC would take a pass.