Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    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.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    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.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    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.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    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...

  5. #25
    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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Wahoo2000 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by uh_no; 11-08-2019 at 01:03 PM.
    Duke Football:

    Winning in the ACC AND the NFL.

    "If you don't address the things you're not doing well when you're winning the winning will eventually stop."

    -David Cutcliffe

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Beach
    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.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Wahoo2000 View Post
    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.
    Duke Football:

    Winning in the ACC AND the NFL.

    "If you don't address the things you're not doing well when you're winning the winning will eventually stop."

    -David Cutcliffe

  12. #32
    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.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    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.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Carolina Beach
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Boeheim is right IMHO.
    Mine as well. It may be the only time I agree with anything Boehim says.

  15. #35
    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 itís 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.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by 75Crazie View Post
    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.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cabbagetown, Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by arnie View Post
    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.
    Hard at work making beautiful things.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by Edouble View Post
    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?

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Bay Area Duke Fan View Post
    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.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Bay Area Duke Fan View Post
    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 theyíre still cheatin. I think the rivalry helps their brand and I donít like that.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 04:44 PM
  2. NAIA "allows" player to keep prize money
    By 94duke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-11-2013, 03:15 PM
  3. ESPN's Medcalf on Coach K's salary: "Thatís Lilí Wayne money."
    By Selover in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-19-2013, 01:32 PM
  4. Boeheim Calls Andy Katz "An Idiot" during Press Conference
    By Billy Dat in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-15-2013, 02:32 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-15-2012, 07:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •