PDA

View Full Version : Featherston Piece -- ACC Schedules



Jaymf7
03-07-2007, 02:11 PM
As always, I found Featherston's piece on the front page to be very enjoyable. At its end, he provided some analysis of the relative ACC schedules. After reviewing that a bit, I concluded that it actually understated the disparity.

For a more telling analysis, I would look only at the teams played twice in a season. Indeed, because everyone plays everyone else once, those games can be removed. By eliminating those games and only counting the rematches, the relative difference increases and we see how much more difficult it was for teams like Duke (or NC State) this season.

For example, here are the teams Duke played twice (with opponents ACC records): UNC (11-5), Maryland (10-6), BC (10-6), GT (8-8), Clemson (7-9) -- for a combined record of 46-34, or 58% winning percentage. Perhaps more importantly, not a single "easy" game (if there is such a thing in the ACC).

By comparison, UNC's rematch games were: Virginia Tech (10-6), Duke (8-8), GT (8-8), NC State (5-11) and Wake (5-11) -- combined 36-44 or 45%.

Virginia had an arguably better draw: VT (10-6), Maryland (10-6), NC State (5-11), Wake (5-11), and Miami (4-12) -- combined 34-46 or 43% (and 3 rematch games in which they should have been heavy favorites).

For such a young team, we really had a brutal schedule this year. here's hoping that we won't have to wait until next year to see it pay off.

bird
03-07-2007, 04:11 PM
I was glad to see Featherston's piece and your post.

Because I hate expansion.

Beating a dead horse, the expansion most damaged ACC basketball by destroying the double round robin.

I don't dislike Miami or BC. While I have the same feelings for Va. Tech football that I do for Maryland basketball, I have no particular problems with Va. Tech's b-ball team.

But the double round robin was a symetrical thing of beauty, clean, understandable, transparent. The ACC regular season was a test of fire, mitigated by the fairness of home-and-home scheduling. Mental and athletic weaknesses were ruthlessly exposed and exploited; tactical adjustments made rematches coaching highpoints. An ACC regular season championship meant a lot. It was perfect. Something you could believe in in this age of degraded standards.

The post-expansion regular season is an awkward construct aimed not to facilitate beautiful basketball but rather collection of the almighty dollar.

The loss of the double round robin has had several bad consequences, among them: (a) lack of fairness or even logic in seeding for the ACC tournament; (b) loss of credibility in the "regular season" championship; and (c) loss of games against traditional rivals (such as NC State).

How am I supposed to feel about a team like UVA? A team that in 2005-2006 was strong at home but weak on the road; and in 2006-2007 ACC regular season "co-champions" with a team that to all appearances has a road weakness disguised by a weak road schedule? Maybe it is the same team, with a different schedule, waiting to flame out early in the NCAAs?

Its just a mess. We've taken Mona Lisa and turned it into bad Picasso. Yes, it means something, but just what?