Jim Boeheim's "Money Grab" Comment

[sagegrouse]

Boeheim, among many other coaches, would like to ease into the college hoops season, playing lower-tiered schools and, well, patsies. In fact, in a Sports Illustrated article he is quoted as calling it a "money grab"

Get a grip, Jim! It's really good for the sport.


Following Syracuse’s 48-34 season-opening loss to defending champion Virginia at the Carrier Dome, coach Jim Boeheim blasted the ACC during his postgame press conference, calling the early-season conference matchup “a money grab.”

...[T]he main target of his ire was the ACC.

“You never want to play the league games early. That’s stupid. It’s just a money grab,” said Boeheim to reporters after the game. “You want to build up to league. The league’s the most important thing, so why would you play the first game of the year in the league? Makes no sense to me but that’s what happens when you go up to 20 games…”

Uh, Jim, laying the blame at the feet of the ACC is an easy target, when it's really the networks and sports channels. Their position seems to be, "We are paying you all this money, why don't you play some games that people want to watch?" I think they are right; the early-season schedules have been laughable... Moreover, losses to tough teams, in addition to helping the teams develop, are unlikely to be penalized by the Tournament Selection Committee.

[JasonEvans]

If it was Izzo or one of the coaches who plays a challenging early season schedule complaining then I might put some weight in it, but Boeheim would schedule local high school teams if he could for the first third of his season. Syracuse routinely enters January having not played a single top 100 team and having not left the state of New York. Jim knows that kind of thing is not good for the sport and that if other teams did it the TV revenues would plummet and no one would pay any attention to college hoops the first two months of the season. He has forfeited his right to complain about scheduling.

-Jason "the mention of scheduling high school teams makes me think... how would this year's IMG or Sierra Canyon teams do playing D1 teams... I think they could be close to .500 in some of the mid-major conferences" Evans

[AGDukesky]

Absolutely agree with both of you. Boeheim is just so predictable and loves to blame everyone but himself. Just retire and become an analyst who can freely attack anyone you want without seeming quite so bitter- right, Seth Greenberg?

[MChambers]

Heck, NCAA football and men's basketball are mostly money grabs. Boeheim has gotten wealthy on a giant money grab.

[OldPhiKap]

Glad to see that Boeheim is already in mid-season grump form though. He must have trained during the off-season.

Although to the extent the ACC made this scheduling move to give content to its precious fledgling ACCN, he's got a point. There is nothing fairer or inherently greater about 20 conference games than there was 18.

[mattman91]

I kind of agree with Jim here.

[elvis14]

I like challenging early season games, like the game we played Tuesday night where we beat Kansas. I think teams should play these types of games early in the season and not just patsies. That said, I'm actually not a fan of playing ACC games early in the season. If you care about being first seed in the conference (I won't call it a regular season championship because with an unbalanced schedule there is not such thing) then you care about conference games more. For example, had we lost to Kansas Tuesday night I wouldn't have been that upset and looked at it as a growth opportunity for our young team. But had we lost to UVa, I would have been upset about it.

Of course, we beat Kansas Tuesday....and ah....there's no real point to this sentence, I just like typing we beat Kansas.

[ShaneRyan]

It's probably a slight money grab to some extent, but from a fan's perspective I still think it's terrific to have ACC games in November and December, and from a practical perspective all Duke fans should be happy since our team is usually far better at getting to prime form early thanks to Coach K, so the more ACC games we have before the rest of the slow starters find their footing, the better. But truly, I don't see the point in the extensive Nov-Dec cupcake scheduling, and it's always felt frustrating. You have one good game to start the year, one good ACC/B1G game, and if you're lucky a decent tournament somewhere with a wet floor or poor lighting, and aside from that you have to wait until January to see consistent basketball. I would frankly be happy with a 24-game ACC schedule and eliminating all the soft teams.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I kind of agree with Jim here.

I was about to post the same thing. Jim is an easy target for lots of reasons. But what happens of we play Kansas close and lose? We shrug, learn something, and move on.

If we played Notre Dame first, had a close game, and lost - it has season long repurcussions. Might bump us from a Thursday ACC start to a Wednesday. Or worse.

I'm glad we got tested this week and passed. I'm also glad it had no consequence.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Absolutely agree with both of you. Boeheim is just so predictable and loves to blame everyone but himself. Just retire and become an analyst who can freely attack anyone you want without seeming quite so bitter- right, Seth Greenberg?

Or run for president?

[devildeac]

Or run for president?

Make Syracuse great again?

;):rolleyes:

[Indoor66]

Absolutely agree with both of you. Boeheim is just so predictable and loves to blame everyone but himself. Just retire and become an analyst who can freely attack anyone you want without seeming quite so bitter- right, Seth Greenberg?

Maybe he can get the seat next to Bilas.

[JasonEvans]

There is nothing fairer or inherently greater about 20 conference games than there was 18.

That's not true. Every step closer to a true home-and-home round-robin gets you closer to a legitimate regular season champion. While we are still a long way from that happening (28 ACC games per team) a 20 game schedule is closer than an 18 game schedule.

Under the 18 game sked, you played 10 teams once and 4 teams twice. Under the 20 game schedule, you will play 8 teams once and 6 teams twice. The latter is better than the former.

-Jason "personally, I would like to see the first ACC games the week before thanksgiving, giving teams 3-4 regular season games before they play their first ACC contest" Evans

[Edouble]

Boeheim would schedule local high school teams if he could for the first third of his season. Syracuse routinely enters January having not played a single top 100 team and having not left the state of New York. Jim knows that kind of thing is not good for the sport and that if other teams did it the TV revenues would plummet and no one would pay any attention to college hoops the first two months of the season. He has forfeited his right to complain about scheduling.


I kind of agree with Jim here.

Fully agree with Boeheim.

Conference games should not be played to start the season. It is bad for the sport, IMO.

Starting the season with a conference game should not happen. Starting the season by scheduling 15 glorified high school teams in a row should also not happen.

However, they are not mutually exclusive.

[throatybeard]

There is no value in playing in November, none.

🤣🤣🤣

[House P]

You have one good game to start the year, one good ACC/B1G game, and if you're lucky a decent tournament somewhere with a wet floor or poor lighting


LOL, but is there a reason you excluded the tournaments played in ballrooms with low ceilings? :cool:


9931

[OldPhiKap]

Or run for president?


Make Syracuse great again?

;):rolleyes:

Orange is the new . . . something.

[budwom]

Initially I was going to post that Boeheim does pretty well in the whole money grab thing, but when I looked up his salary, it's only $2.6million, which seems surprisingly low (but above starvation wages to be sure). Would have thought he'd be making $4-5million.l Includes only Syracuse money, not shoe company money grab money.

Here's one list of the top 10 coaches by salary, and I still have no idea who Chris Holtmann is...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/the-10-highest-paid-ncaa-basketball-coaches.html

[OldPhiKap]

That's not true. Every step closer to a true home-and-home round-robin gets you closer to a legitimate regular season champion. While we are still a long way from that happening (28 ACC games per team) a 20 game schedule is closer than an 18 game schedule.

Under the 18 game sked, you played 10 teams once and 4 teams twice. Under the 20 game schedule, you will play 8 teams once and 6 teams twice. The latter is better than the former.

-Jason "personally, I would like to see the first ACC games the week before thanksgiving, giving teams 3-4 regular season games before they play their first ACC contest" Evans

Well, you either have round robin or you don't. If one team picked up extra games against Duke/UNC/UVA/Louisville, while another picked up games against Wake/GT/BC, how does that make things better?


There is no value in playing in November, none.

������

This is the real answer.

Alabama-LSU is this weekend. Duke-ND is this weekend. Basketball does not need to run from the end of baseball season until the beginning of next season. Unless you want more games for more money because, well, Boeheim is right.

[JasonEvans]

Well, you either have round robin or you don't. If one team picked up extra games against Duke/UNC/UVA/Louisville, while another picked up games against Wake/GT/BC, how does that make things better?

Because this is not an all-or-nothing situation. The 28 game round robin is ideal... getting as close as possible to it is good.

I am sure you would agree that a 27 game schedule would come darn close to being perfect. If Duke, UNC, Louisville, and Virginia each played a 27 game schedule and each missed a road game against one of Syracuse, NC St, Notre Dame, or Miami then I can imagine at least 95% of us would say Duke, UNC, Lou, and Virginia had played pretty much equal schedules and the team with the best record certainly deserved to be crowned some kind of ACC champion.

27 is better than 26 is better than 25 is better than 24... and so on. Therefore 20 is better than 18. I'm not saying 20 is perfect, not even close. I am merely saying it gets us closer to a fair schedule than 18 does.

[sagegrouse]

Because this is not an all-or-nothing situation. The 28 game round robin is ideal... getting as close as possible to it is good.

I am sure you would agree that a 27 game schedule would come darn close to being perfect. If Duke, UNC, Louisville, and Virginia each played a 27 game schedule and each missed a road game against one of Syracuse, NC St, Notre Dame, or Miami then I can imagine at least 95% of us would say Duke, UNC, Lou, and Virginia had played pretty much equal schedules and the team with the best record certainly deserved to be crowned some kind of ACC champion.

27 is better than 26 is better than 25 is better than 24... and so on. Therefore 20 is better than 18. I'm not saying 20 is perfect, not even close. I am merely saying it gets us closer to a fair schedule than 18 does.

Another reason for a longer conference schedule, is that it prevents miscreants like Syracuse from depreciating the ACC currency by playing a total joke of a non-conference schedule.

Also,Duke's non-conference schedule has included some competitive games. This year we have two challenging and two other potentially interesting non-conference match-ups in November and December: Kansas, Cal, Georgetown/Texas and Michigan State. Last year's was even more challenging -- Kentucky, Maui (SD State, Auburn, Gonzaga), Indiana and Texas Tech.

[OldPhiKap]

Because this is not an all-or-nothing situation. The 28 game round robin is ideal... getting as close as possible to it is good.

I am sure you would agree that a 27 game schedule would come darn close to being perfect. If Duke, UNC, Louisville, and Virginia each played a 27 game schedule and each missed a road game against one of Syracuse, NC St, Notre Dame, or Miami then I can imagine at least 95% of us would say Duke, UNC, Lou, and Virginia had played pretty much equal schedules and the team with the best record certainly deserved to be crowned some kind of ACC champion.

27 is better than 26 is better than 25 is better than 24... and so on. Therefore 20 is better than 18. I'm not saying 20 is perfect, not even close. I am merely saying it gets us closer to a fair schedule than 18 does.

I would say that the fairest thing is to drop down to 14/12 conference games, just home and away with your seven/six division opponents. Then seed the ACC tournament #1 Coastal v. #4/#5 Atlantic, #1 Atlantic v. #4/#5 Coastal, etc.

Unbalanced schedules are inherently unfair, and lack of home/away in a season is inherently unequal. The only reason games are starting this early and adding stuff like this is because ACCN, SECN, etc. need content to fill during the week. Boeheim is right IMHO.

[JasonEvans]

I would say that the fairest thing is to drop down to 14/12 conference games, just home and away with your seven/six division opponents. Then seed the ACC tournament #1 Coastal v. #4/#5 Atlantic, #1 Atlantic v. #4/#5 Coastal, etc.

Unbalanced schedules are inherently unfair, and lack of home/away in a season is inherently unequal. The only reason games are starting this early and adding stuff like this is because ACCN, SECN, etc. need content to fill during the week. Boeheim is right IMHO.

Agree to disagree.

[AGDukesky]

This is my complete list of things that are unfair about starting the season with a conference game (in alphabetical order):











Nothing, absolutely








That is all...

[Wahoo2000]

Can't seem to find any of them right now (not for lack of looking, b/c I searched for a good 20 min), but I'm almost positive Kenpom and some of the other advanced metrics gurus have done multiple studies to show that the variance in conference schedule strength due to unbalanced schedules has little/no effect on who wins the title, and that variance plays a MUCH bigger role. If I'm remembering correctly, even the difference in expected win totals from the weakest to strongest conference schedules was usually less than 1/2 of a win.

In other words, fans at UVa or UNC or Duke (and others) will always complain that, "so-and-so finished with the best record but thats BS because they didn't play such-and-such on the road/twice", when it's really the fact that their own team slipped up more frequently to a middle of the road or lower tier foe they shouldn't have that cost them the #1 seed in the conf tourney.

Conf schedule strength CAN affect the conference title race, but in reality, it VERY rarely does. If I have some more time this afternoon, I'll dig some more for those articles/studies in case anyone is interested.

[uh_no]

Can't seem to find any of them right now (not for lack of looking, b/c I searched for a good 20 min), but I'm almost positive Kenpom and some of the other advanced metrics gurus have done multiple studies to show that the variance in conference schedule strength due to unbalanced schedules has little/no effect on who wins the title, and that variance plays a MUCH bigger role. If I'm remembering correctly, even the difference in expected win totals from the weakest to strongest conference schedules was usually less than 1/2 of a win.

In other words, fans at UVa or UNC or Duke (and others) will always complain that, "so-and-so finished with the best record but thats BS because they didn't play such-and-such on the road/twice", when it's really the fact that their own team slipped up more frequently to a middle of the road or lower tier foe they shouldn't have that cost them the #1 seed in the conf tourney.

Conf schedule strength CAN affect the conference title race, but in reality, it VERY rarely does. If I have some more time this afternoon, I'll dig some more for those articles/studies in case anyone is interested.

Kenpom's analysis method in that case was deeply flawed, a rarity for him.

https://kenpom.com/blog/on-unbalanced-conference-schedules/

It was very lazy effort which didn't consider final record (only final standing), and certainly didn't examine how the probability of attaining a given record changed depending on the unbalanced schedule.

The only reason the result comes as it does is because teams in most cases are spaced apart by enough to not make a difference on average. It says nothing about how a regular-season champion may be affected by an unbalanced schedule in a close race.

The analogue may be if I was racing against usain bolt, and you made me wear concrete galoshes, and then said "well usain bolt was going to win anyway, so the concrete galoshes made no difference." That conclusion is, of course, total insanity when trying to extend it to say "if usain bolt were racing michael johnson," which is the case we are actually caring about.

[BeachBlueDevil]

We got to the annual "Jim Boeheim get off my lawn" rant early this year.

Should be a good season if we're getting to this early.

[Wahoo2000]

Kenpom's analysis method in that case was deeply flawed, a rarity for him.

https://kenpom.com/blog/on-unbalanced-conference-schedules/

It was very lazy effort which didn't consider final record (only final standing), and certainly didn't examine how the probability of attaining a given record changed depending on the unbalanced schedule.

The only reason the result comes as it does is because teams in most cases are spaced apart by enough to not make a difference on average. It says nothing about how a regular-season champion may be affected by an unbalanced schedule in a close race.

The analogue may be if I was racing against usain bolt, and you made me wear concrete galoshes, and then said "well usain bolt was going to win anyway, so the concrete galoshes made no difference." That conclusion is, of course, total insanity when trying to extend it to say "if usain bolt were racing michael johnson," which is the case we are actually caring about.

I *did* find that article on the blog, but it's not the one I was referencing. There was one by him (or maybe it was one of the other stats guys), where they calculated everything based on the actual strength of each teams and came up with the conclusion that even the difference between the hardest and easiest schedule was likely to result in a difference in projected win total of WAY less than a single game (even applied to the best teams), even slightly under 1/2 game if I'm remembering correctly.

[budwom]

yeah, while it may be true that teams ought not lose to lesser teams (as most teams invariably do), it is equally true that a team that has to play the very top teams on the road is at a disadvantage vs a team that doesn't.

[devildeac]

You mean *this* Jim Boeheim?


https://foxsports-wordpress-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/content/dam/fsdigital/fscom/NCAA-BK/images/2014/02/26/022614-CBK-Jim-Boeheim-PI.jpg

;):rolleyes:

[uh_no]

I *did* find that article on the blog, but it's not the one I was referencing. There was one by him (or maybe it was one of the other stats guys), where they calculated everything based on the actual strength of each teams and came up with the conclusion that even the difference between the hardest and easiest schedule was likely to result in a difference in projected win total of WAY less than a single game (even applied to the best teams), even slightly under 1/2 game if I'm remembering correctly.

See, that's still a bit silly. 1/2 game flips the title 50% of the time when the title is decided by a game or less. That's spectacularly common.

In the past 10 years, 6 times has the ACC RS been decided by a game or less. So 30% of ACC RS have been effectively flipped by the unbalanced schedule.

[75Crazie]

If we're dreaming of a true double-round-robin league basketball slate, why not consider a radical approach? Drop the three schools that are the biggest cheaters or don't participate in both football and basketball (goodbye uNC, Louisville, ND) and play a true 22 game home-and-home league schedule. If anybody still cares about the pseudo-rivalry with the Cheaters (and if you do, why?), schedule them out-of-conference.

I know, money (the true motivator of college athletics) will not allow that to happen. But, I can still dream.

[throatybeard]

No one needs to play 28 conference games. The conference being too big does not entail that we need to pursue an impossible round robin that sailed fifteen years ago.

[wsb3]

Boeheim is right IMHO.

Mine as well. It may be the only time I agree with anything Boehim says.

[wobatus]

Virginia Tech has played a much weaker ooc than Syracuse the last few years. Well into the 300s each of last 4 years under Buzz. Syracuse was usually mid 100s. But it’s true Jimmy B. loved to play Colgate, Cornell etc early.

NC State played a weak OOC last year and it may have cost them a bid. But I think the schedule likely seemed a little stronger when first set up.

[arnie]

If we're dreaming of a true double-round-robin league basketball slate, why not consider a radical approach? Drop the three schools that are the biggest cheaters or don't participate in both football and basketball (goodbye uNC, Louisville, ND) and play a true 22 game home-and-home league schedule. If anybody still cares about the pseudo-rivalry with the Cheaters (and if you do, why?), schedule them out-of-conference.

I know, money (the true motivator of college athletics) will not allow that to happen. But, I can still dream.

This works for me; move the Cheats, VaT and Vile to reestablish the old Southwest conference and I think we have a winner. ND will join ACC in football soon and we have a great 12-team conference.

[Edouble]

This works for me; move the Cheats, VaT and Vile to reestablish the old Southwest conference and I think we have a winner. ND will join ACC in football soon and we have a great 12-team conference.

My thoughts exactly... let's keep ND, who fits the ACC profile much more than VaTech.

Who knows, maybe they can be our new chief rival? We certainly need someone much more deserving.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

My thoughts exactly... let's keep ND, who fits the ACC profile much more than VaTech.

Who knows, maybe they can be our new chief rival? We certainly need someone much more deserving.

One of the many things that makes Duke basketball great is the rivalry with UNC (2 or 3 games/season). Widely acknowledged as the best rivalry in college sports. What could replace that and improve Duke basketball?

[75Crazie]

One of the many things that makes Duke basketball great is the rivalry with UNC (2 or 3 games/season). Widely acknowledged as the best rivalry in college sports. What could replace that and improve Duke basketball?
Just about anything. There is NO rivalry with that group of cheating cheat-muddied scumbag cheaters.

[arnie]

One of the many things that makes Duke basketball great is the rivalry with UNC (2 or 3 games/season). Widely acknowledged as the best rivalry in college sports. What could replace that and improve Duke basketball?

A rivalry with world renowned scum is nothing to be proud of. It puts Duke in their class and you know they’re still cheatin. I think the rivalry helps their brand and I don’t like that.

[ChillinDuke]

Because this is not an all-or-nothing situation. The 28 game round robin is ideal... getting as close as possible to it is good.

I am sure you would agree that a 27 game schedule would come darn close to being perfect. If Duke, UNC, Louisville, and Virginia each played a 27 game schedule and each missed a road game against one of Syracuse, NC St, Notre Dame, or Miami then I can imagine at least 95% of us would say Duke, UNC, Lou, and Virginia had played pretty much equal schedules and the team with the best record certainly deserved to be crowned some kind of ACC champion.

27 is better than 26 is better than 25 is better than 24... and so on. Therefore 20 is better than 18. I'm not saying 20 is perfect, not even close. I am merely saying it gets us closer to a fair schedule than 18 does.

I think you're right conceptually. But practically, I don't think it moves the needle. Sure, going from 18 to 24 games would be preferable for parity - not perfect but preferable. Going from 18 to 20 may technically be preferable as well, but not in a quantum that makes me care more.

- Chillin

[Wahoo2000]

See, that's still a bit silly. 1/2 game flips the title 50% of the time when the title is decided by a game or less. That's spectacularly common.

In the past 10 years, 6 times has the ACC RS been decided by a game or less. So 30% of ACC RS have been effectively flipped by the unbalanced schedule.

Well, not really. Because that's only the difference between the absolute hardest and weakest schedules, which I doubt has been the case for any of those teams battling for the top spot in the last 10 years (or even since we went to the unbalanced schedules) . PLUS, you're not accounting for tiebreakers (cases in which if you bring the 2nd place team up to tie the top team, they'd finish second anyway). My guess is that the actually % of time the SOS determines the conf "regular season champion" is almost definitely less that 5%, maybe as low as 1-2%.

[uh_no]

My guess is that the actually % of time the SOS determines the conf "regular season champion" is almost definitely less that 5%, maybe as low as 1-2%.

you're very wrong see my other thread with a complete analysis. it's affected 4 acc titles in the past 10 years.