18 game conference schedule

[jjasper0729]

I was just thinking about this yesterday and last night for some reason. Even if the coaches would agree to it whole heartedly, the ACC is averse to having divisions for basketball for some reason. Basically, they need to get over that for scheduling purposes. They need to block the schools into 3 divisions of 4 for basketball (north, central (the big 4), and south). Then, with an 18 game schedule, you could play everyone in your division twice and one oft he other divisions twice with the last division once. Then you could flip the outside division every other year.

For example, central would play each other twice and the first year play north twice and south once, in year two, they would play south twice and north once, and continue to flip flop it. In theory, this should average out the schedule strength for everyone since more teams play each other twice more often.

Take Duke as an example. In year one, they would play UNC, Wake and State twice, Maryland, UVA, VT and BC twice, this constitutes 14 games with 7 on the road and 7 at home. They would then play Clemson and Georgia Tech on the road and Florida state and Miami at home. In year two, the southern four would replace the northern four on the schedule and two northern teams would be played on the road and two at home. In year three, playing the south once each, duke would play clemson and GT at home and FSU and Miami on the road. The good thing though is that you'd never go more than one year without playing every team at home. You'd get a team outside of your block of 4 two years in a row at home and then one year on the road.

From a standing standpoint, you don't worry about the divisions and still rank the standings in order of wins and losses, not first in the north, first in the central or first in the south. This way, the top four teams in the CONFERENCE would get the opening round bye in the tournament and everything would work just like it does now, only be more fair to everyone.

The big thing about this is from the get go, the ACC said they DID NOT want to create divisions in basketball. I think this was aimed at how the SEC does things and has an east west set up for basketball like football. That kind of situation would work in the ACC, but I think the 3 divisions (for scheduling only) would work best because of the geography. The only real complaints might be from Gary Williams who in this kind of set up wouldn't get to play Duke and UNC home and away every year. However, it's more equitable for everyone as far as schedule strength.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[Cameron]

Terrible idea. The ACC should NEVER go to divisions. The ACC system is fine just as is. I'm not a big fan of the conference expansion, which has been the reason as to why the schedules are all mixed up, but creating divisions would only make things worse. I hate how the SEC operates. Just look at the SEC West this season, something like three or four teams tied for the division championship, and they all had horrible records.

Not to mention that if we went to the 18 game format, we'd have to give up the ACC Tournament. It would be too many games and not enough time to fit the tourney in. That would be the dumbest move in NCAA history. Giving up the Grand Daddy of all tournaments would be a major, major embarrassment for the ACC officials IMO. If it happens, they deserve all the threats they would be getting. I know that sounds horrible, but it would be devestating for me as a fan to see our conference move into divisions and lose the ACC Tournament.

[jjasper0729]

I don't think you got the premise I was putting forth. The divisions do NOT determine seeding in the conference tournament (which would be kept. The argument against 18 games by the coaches is that they would lose 2 non conference games in the season for conference games, not drag out the season an extra week). In theory, the top four seeds for the tournament could come from the same division in the plan I described. The divisions would only be for scheduling ease. It makes a TON of sense to break basketball up into 3 divisions, north, central and south with groups of 4.

I hated the idea of expansion beyond 10 teams in the conference because I knew that would destroy the round robin schedule. The tournament would work exactly like it does now. The only idea I had for divisions was that you could group schools together a little bit better and help balance out the schedule strength disparity by blocks of teams playing other blocks twice each rather than it being by individual school. It's just more fair that way.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I heard an interview on Wednesday with commish John Swofford and Adam Gold asked him about this. Swofford said it will be discussed, but next year is the third year of the current 3-year rotation and the schedule will stay at 16 games for 2007-2008. Beyond that, if the coaches/ADs/University Presidents want 18 games, it can be done and the league office is open to it.

I would just like us to play both State and carolina twice each year. Wake too. But the league will never allow a "Big 4" division - the outer (Alaskan!) teams will I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. too much about not playing us (TV exposure and gate receipts involved here.)

[drion97]

Could someone clarify how they pick who we play twice now? I know we'll always play UNC twice, but how are the rest decided? I know we had the toughest schedule by far this year-- and suspect because it's our big name going up against other big names.

If year after year we're going to play the toughest theoretical ACC schedule, I might be more ok with divisions or something. Really, I'd like to kick Miami, Boston College, and Va Tech out. Absent of that, I don't care what we have, but I don't want to constantly play the toughest ACC sched year in and year out. I realize most years this wouldn't be a problem, and we'd be saying "We'll play anyone anytime", but down years like this would seem much less down had we played Wake, Miami, etc twice this year...

[DU82]

Could someone clarify how they pick who we play twice now? I know we'll always play UNC twice, but how are the rest decided? I know we had the toughest schedule by far this year-- and suspect because it's our big name going up against other big names.

If year after year we're going to play the toughest theoretical ACC schedule, I might be more ok with divisions or something. Really, I'd like to kick Miami, Boston College, and Va Tech out. Absent of that, I don't care what we have, but I don't want to constantly play the toughest ACC sched year in and year out. I realize most years this wouldn't be a problem, and we'd be saying "We'll play anyone anytime", but down years like this would seem much less down had we played Wake, Miami, etc twice this year...

Two "permanent" partners were chosen by ESPN, er, the Conference. In theory, they were long-time rivals, or geographic matches. (Except us, it seems.) Then, the other nine were randomly selected, three per year, to be home and home, meaning h/h with every other team in the three year time frame. Next year, I know State will be a home and home, finally, and I'm not sure of the other two (it's on the conference page, I'm sure.)

[coblue]

We have crappy unofficial divisions now post expansion, why not try and improve things by trading 2 non-conference games for a more equitable system? We don't have to have ridgid official north, central and south divisions, just 3 groupings and a plan of mathups with tourney seeding being overall record as always - just maybe getting there is better for the fans and more fair to the kids.

[tbyers11]

I was just thinking about this yesterday and last night for some reason. Even if the coaches would agree to it whole heartedly, the ACC is averse to having divisions for basketball for some reason. Basically, they need to get over that for scheduling purposes. They need to block the schools into 3 divisions of 4 for basketball (north, central (the big 4), and south). Then, with an 18 game schedule, you could play everyone in your division twice and one oft he other divisions twice with the last division once. Then you could flip the outside division every other year.



Getting the ACC teams to agree to an 18-game schedule may be difficult, but I am fairly certain this could be done without losing the ACC tourney. The Pac-10 plays an 18 game conference schedule and I believe the Big 10 is moving to an 18 game schedule in the near future and both still have a conference tourneys. Coaches might not like getting rid of 2 non-con games, or sure wins, in favor of 2 ACC games, but too bad.

If the coaches and league agree to 18 games, a new scheduling methodology beyond the current permanent partner idea made by the ACC (or as a previous poster mentioned ESPN) will be needed and your geographical plan makes sense to me. There is at least some reasoning behind who plays who and it ensures two home and two away games between teams every three years. Just call it a new scheduling format, don't make actual divisions, and rank teams 1-12 for the tourney and it might work.

[jjasper0729]

If the coaches and league agree to 18 games, a new scheduling methodology beyond the current permanent partner idea made by the ACC (or as a previous poster mentioned ESPN) will be needed and your geographical plan makes sense to me. There is at least some reasoning behind who plays who and it ensures two home and two away games between teams every three years. Just call it a new scheduling format, don't make actual divisions, and rank teams 1-12 for the tourney and it might work.

The divisions are more for blocking together groups of teams rather than try to come up with individual plans for home and home arrangements. It would probably make it a little more equitable so that ther'es a little more balance (not the best that a round robin would ensure), but enough that there's not the disparity like this season. I don't like the idea of having basketball "divisions" but for scheduling purposes, three groups of four teams makes practical sense.

Also, even with an 18 game schedule, I'd be pretty sure there's NO WAY the conference abandons the tournament. It's the oldest and it set the standard then and now. It stays and basically there's a loss of a couple of non-conference games. However, even with the scheduled loss of a couple of non-cons, there's the allowance by the NCAA for exempted tournaments practically every year so those could be made right back up to a degree.