Olympic Fan
05-30-2008, 10:14 AM
In reference to the Barry Jacobs article linked on the first page, I like several of his points, but I think his argument is fatally flawed its reliance on the views of Craig Littlepage.
Littlepage was recently on the NCAA Men's Basketball Committee (which is the tournament selection committee) and was, in fact, chairman of the committee in 2006, when the ACC got just four bids. As I'm reading Barry's article, I'm hearing the same pious propaganda that Littlepage -- and other committee chairmen -- spew every year when suddenly he says:
-- Crafting a strong slate of nonconference opponents is a must, especially since the effects of playing in a tough league can be diluted, [Littlepage] said. “You can be a member of a conference like the Pac-10, for example, and if your conference schedule does not have you playing the better schools on your conference schedule, that may minimize what being in that conference might do for you."
Nice example -- except the Pac 10 plays a full, round-robin conference schedule! That says something about how well-informed the members of the committee are.
Last year, the ACC played a BETTER non-conference schedule than any other conference -- almost twice as many matchups with other BCS schools than the Pac 10 ... the ACC had winning overall records in a significant number of games with the SEC, Big Ten and Big East -- yet now they suggest that the ACC needs to beef up its non-conference schedules.
The ACC was hurt by the PERCEPTION that it was a mediocre league, while the Pac 10 was boosted by PERCEPTION that it was strong. So when the ACC teams beat each other, it was a sign that they were mediocre. When the Pac 10 beat each other, it was touted as a sign that the league was incredibly strong and deep.
Yet, when you look at it dispassionately, the ACC was more successful in non conference play than the Pac 10!
Littlepage was recently on the NCAA Men's Basketball Committee (which is the tournament selection committee) and was, in fact, chairman of the committee in 2006, when the ACC got just four bids. As I'm reading Barry's article, I'm hearing the same pious propaganda that Littlepage -- and other committee chairmen -- spew every year when suddenly he says:
-- Crafting a strong slate of nonconference opponents is a must, especially since the effects of playing in a tough league can be diluted, [Littlepage] said. “You can be a member of a conference like the Pac-10, for example, and if your conference schedule does not have you playing the better schools on your conference schedule, that may minimize what being in that conference might do for you."
Nice example -- except the Pac 10 plays a full, round-robin conference schedule! That says something about how well-informed the members of the committee are.
Last year, the ACC played a BETTER non-conference schedule than any other conference -- almost twice as many matchups with other BCS schools than the Pac 10 ... the ACC had winning overall records in a significant number of games with the SEC, Big Ten and Big East -- yet now they suggest that the ACC needs to beef up its non-conference schedules.
The ACC was hurt by the PERCEPTION that it was a mediocre league, while the Pac 10 was boosted by PERCEPTION that it was strong. So when the ACC teams beat each other, it was a sign that they were mediocre. When the Pac 10 beat each other, it was touted as a sign that the league was incredibly strong and deep.
Yet, when you look at it dispassionately, the ACC was more successful in non conference play than the Pac 10!