ACC Schedule expansion possibility

[CameronBornAndBred]

Interesting food for thought (http://www.charlotte.com/hoops/story/602774.html) here.
I'm for anything that will get more ACC teams in the tourney, but I'm not sure adding two more ACC vs ACC games will help. I see the problem as there is so much parity, there could be a 100 games added and we will still beat each other up, except for the top 2 or 3 teams. The 3rd and 4th will be safe, but not positive about it, and the 5th is praying for a good ACC tourney showing.

[Indoor66]

Interesting food for thought (http://www.charlotte.com/hoops/story/602774.html) here.
I'm for anything that will get more ACC teams in the tourney, but I'm not sure adding two more ACC vs ACC games will help. I see the problem as there is so much parity, there could be a 100 games added and we will still beat each other up, except for the top 2 or 3 teams. The 3rd and 4th will be safe, but not positive about it, and the 5th is praying for a good ACC tourney showing.

Maybe we should restructure the league so that, annually, we have 6 good teams and 6 lousy teams. That would assure tourney participation. We could then expand to 16 and be just like the Big East!

[CDu]

Interesting food for thought (http://www.charlotte.com/hoops/story/602774.html) here.
I'm for anything that will get more ACC teams in the tourney, but I'm not sure adding two more ACC vs ACC games will help. I see the problem as there is so much parity, there could be a 100 games added and we will still beat each other up, except for the top 2 or 3 teams. The 3rd and 4th will be safe, but not positive about it, and the 5th is praying for a good ACC tourney showing.

It almost certainly wouldn't help. There would be 24 wins and 24 losses split among the 12 teams. Those 12 added games would replace 12 out of conference games. The question is whether the teams schedule two fewer winnable games against lower-level schools (which would rob the conference of twelve wins) or two fewer games against "BCS schools" (which would weaken our out-of-conference strength of schedule and RPI). There really isn't a strong argument that I can see in favor of adding the two conference games.

[MHTorringjan]

Yeah, I personally don't like this league-game-expansion idea. I'd rather have Duke go out and play and beat good teams like Kansas and UConn (just used as examples) than play more games against NC State and UVa (again, just used as examples based on this past year's results). I understand it's a bit more complicated than that (and I expect it possibly comes down to increased revenue for the conference more than quality of play; as usual), but that's how I see it. I personally agree with DBR's article on this, tell Georgia Tech and Florida State to stop playing Savannah State and NJIT (ex.), and maybe that will improve their marketability come tournament time.

Besides that, they can't even claim that the teams deserved to get in, seeing as how many of them flopped in the NIT. (I can't seem to find 2007's bracket, but I seem to remember that Clemson made it late into the NIT that year, being one of the few exceptions that comes to mind.)

M.H.

[CDu]

Yeah, I personally don't like this league-game-expansion idea. I'd rather have Duke go out and play and beat good teams like Kansas and UConn (just used as examples) than play more games against NC State and UVa (again, just used as examples based on this past year's results). I understand it's a bit more complicated than that (and I expect it possibly comes down to increased revenue for the conference more than quality of play; as usual), but that's how I see it. I personally agree with DBR's article on this, tell Georgia Tech and Florida State to stop playing Savannah State and NJIT (ex.), and maybe that will improve their marketability come tournament time.

Besides that, they can't even claim that the teams deserved to get in, seeing as how many of them flopped in the NIT. (I can't seem to find 2007's bracket, but I seem to remember that Clemson made it late into the NIT that year, being one of the few exceptions that comes to mind.)

M.H.

Actually, the ACC did fairly well in the NIT. Clemson made the final (losing by 5 to WVU). FSU and NC State made the quarterfinals, losing to Miss State and WVU. Nobody from the ACC flopped last year in the NIT.

[rtnorthrup]

If this would mean that we get a home and home with NC State and Wake every year, I would be for it.

[CDu]

If this would mean that we get a home and home with NC State and Wake every year, I would be for it.

As has been said, two additional ACC games wouldn't negatively affect us very much, as we're one of the elite teams. We'd be the favorite to win both games anyway. It's the middle-tier and lower-tier teams in the conference that would be negatively affected. They'd lose two games that would likely be wins against weaker OOC schools and add two games that they'd be expected to split (at best). So it's counterintuitive to the idea of improving the tourney resumes for our conference's teams.

[MHTorringjan]

Actually, the ACC did fairly well in the NIT. Clemson made the final (losing by 5 to WVU). FSU and NC State made the quarterfinals, losing to Miss State and WVU. Nobody from the ACC flopped last year in the NIT.

Ah, good call. Sorry about that one, the brackets for that year seem to have disappeared off the interwebs for me, although do I get points for remembering Clemson? ;-)

rtnorthrup: This may be for a different thread, but I wouldn't overlook Wake for long, with their stellar recruiting class and solid returning players from their better-than-expected team of this past year. NC State, on the other hand, I think will be down for a while, especially if Hickson stays in the draft.

M.H.

[BlueintheFace]

This is just a bad idea...

[Devildog]

Clearly this is really about adding games to the ACC TV package so the price of the package goes up for Raycom or whoever picks up those games.

[CDu]

Clearly this is really about adding games to the ACC TV package so the price of the package goes up for Raycom or whoever picks up those games.

that is the only rational explanation.

[DBFAN]

I know that not everybody likes this idea. But I would guesstimate that coach K would. I recall a Basketball and Beyond episode when he had Calhoun on there, and they both talked about how not playing every team in the league twice makes the kids less prepared for March. The reason being that it is a whole lot harder to be a team the second time. Having that experience gives the kids a mental toughness.

[rtnorthrup]

I wasnt clear on my post. I didnt mean to imply that games against NC State and Wake would improve our resume. I only wish a return to the days when all 4 NC schools played each other home/home. Only playing NC State or Wake one time in a season is a travesty.

[Classof06]

I like the ACC schedule the way it is. That being said, most Duke fans should; the league makes sure we get to play UNC and Maryland twice a year, so we really don't have much to complain about. And we get to play NC State and Wake at least once a year (though I know most of you would like to play them 2x a year).

In my opinion, the current ACC schedule structure isn't the reason the ACC has only gotten in 4 teams in 2 of the past 3 years; it's because the league simply hasn't been as strong as it's been in the past.

For one, when you add schools like VT, BC and Miami that are not traditional basketball schools and it takes then a few years to get acclimated to being part of what is traditionally a basketball league. Last seaon was first year Miami made the tournament while both VT and BC have been inconsistent with making the NCAAs.

Then you have traditionally strong teams that have fallen off a bit, such as Wake, Maryland, Georgia Tech and even NC State. I think this is the main reason the ACC has struggled. Duke and UNC are mainstays but that 2nd tier has really been inconsistent lately. Maryland is the most glaring example but Georgia Tech was really hurt by Thaddeus Young and Javaris Crittendon both leaving after last season.

Finally, you have teams like Florida State and Clemson that just can't seem to get over the hump and get into the tournament; at least until this year where Clemson made the tournament but now graduates James Mays and Cliff Hammonds, their 2 senior leaders. We'll see if they can get back to the dance next season.

[hurleyfor3]

Reminder: The ACC regularly got six bids as an eight-team league, and usually got five.

[msdukie]

Here is an ACC schedule that I would favor for Duke. I really think anything else is unacceptable:

Home:
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Maryland
State
Virginia
Wake
Carolina

Road:
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Maryland
State
Virginia
Wake
Carolina

I'm sure none of us could imagine what that would be like... :mad:

[CDu]

Reminder: The ACC regularly got six bids as an eight-team league, and usually got five.

That's a function of a different era of basketball. Back then, "mid majors" simply didn't get at-large bids. That's partly true because mid-majors weren't thought of as highly and partly true because there was less parity in college basketball back then.

Today the talent pool is deep enough that the mid-majors are more deserving of at-large bids and the selection committee is more cognizant of that. We would not be getting 5-6 teams into the tournament in an 8-team league today, unless the bottom 2-3 teams were going basically winless or unless their was unbelievable parity at the top (i.e., no 1999 Duke 16-0 teams).