Jim Boeheim's "Money Grab" Comment

[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-unbalance...nce-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-unbalance...nce-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...Boeheim-PI.jpg

[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.