Two weeks ago, I mentioned that one of the ACC's biggest offseason stories would be (again) looking into expanding the conference basketball season to 18 games. For the third straight season, the current system of scheduling has been a talking point.
Last year, Virginia won a share of the ACC regular season crown with what was, statistically, the weakest schedule in the conference. This past season, Virginia Tech played UNC, Duke and Clemson just once apiece ... and that may have cost them an NCAA Tournament bid.
Now, the ACC may look into expanding the season from 16 to 18 games.
The Big East, Big Ten and Pac-10 all play the 18-game schedule and it hasn't hurt them come tournament time. The ACC is currently in a tournament funk (getting bids and winning games) and losing those bids to teams from those conferences.
Some say that adding the two extra games actually hurts the conference's RPI because it means those bad teams have to play more games, too. True, but one of the reasons the ACC continues to sit near the top of those RPI standings is because their "bad" teams are usually better than the other league's "bad" teams.
Typically the lower level teams in the ACC still can stick with the best of the bunch. Last season, Boston College and Virginia put scares into #1 ranked North Carolina. That's what has made the ACC what it is.
Now, there would be the worry that it would cannibalize the league a bit. I don't see it that way: I see it as giving an opportunity for those bubble teams to get an extra game or two against the ACC's top teams, pumping up their RPI and giving them a shot to get a big win or two on their tournament resume. It may cost a UNC or Duke a loss on their record, but could give a Florida State or Virginia Tech that one extra win they need to get in.
The ones who hate this idea is the coaches, of course. They say the ACC season is hard enough and that adding those two games who hurt their non-conference scheduling. The conference ... outside of Clemson ... prides itself on taking on anyone anywhere (well, as long as anywhere for Duke is New York).
ADVERTISEMENT
_thumbnail.jpg "NASCAR Cowboy Hats")
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Assassin, I know your a Tar Heel and all, but really, taking shots at Duke for playing at MSG? Call me crazy, but wasn't it UNC who didn't leave the state of Carolina for the first month to six weeks of the season? I'd say that's slightly more of an advantage than playing in NYC. It seemed to help the Heels get to the Final 4 this year.
As far as the schedule goes, I'd love to see these changes. Duke/UNC play 2x's a year regardless. I look forward to those games. I think it is crazy that not all teams in the ACC play each other 2x's a season.
Posted at 8:55PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Slim
2. Are you kidding me? UNC has home and home series going with both Kentucky and Arizona, who haven't been amazing lately, but since the series started both have been in and out of the top 25. I'm not sure what you're referring to about UNC's month long homestand, the Heels played 6 consecutive road games from November to December this past year. Duke hasn't played a road game at a top 25 team in 7 years, the last I can find is Temple in 2001 (this is ACC-Big Ten not withstanding since Duke doesn't electively schedule that game).
That said, bring on more ACC games, the conference has only gone downhill (based on ncaa championships, performance, and overall talent production) since the football-centric move was made to get the money grubbing AD's and presidents a football championship game.
Posted at 10:03PM on Apr 30th 2008 by Ryan
3. You're right, Slim.
UNC did schedule the ACC Tournament in Charlotte. And UNC did schedule the first round of the NCAA Tournament in Raleigh. And UNC did schedule the East Regional Finals in Charlotte.
UNC scheduled those games ... unless I'm mistaken?
Oh, and Duke could have had the same ride if (a) they could've beaten UNC in the final game of the season and (b) won the ACC Tournament.
That would suck if UNC scheduled all those games just for Duke to get those advantages, eh?
This season, Duke played ZERO non-conference games on the campus of their opponent. None.
In 2006-07, they played ONE road game -- at St. John's. The only other non-conference games away from home was two games in the CBE Classic in Kansas City and a game against Gonzaga in ... New York.
In 2005-06, the only road non-conference games were at UNC Greensboro and at Indiana (in the ACC/Big Ten Challenge which Duke doesn't schedule).
In 2004-2005, the only road non-conference game was ... again ... at St. John's.
Thank you
-The Sportz Assassin
Posted at 1:21AM on May 1st 2008 by Sportz Assassin
4. Now, while I certainly won't brag about Clemson's OOC of the past, I'm not sure why you choose the Tigers to single out for this topic.
Was Clemson's OOC last year truly that much worse than the rest of the conference? 25th in the country overall, vs. 38 for Miami, 39 for VTech, 42 for the Terps, a staggering 92 for Wake.
I realize y'all are used to using Clemson as the punch line of any basketball comments, but you might do well to at least acknowledge we're climbing the ladder.
Posted at 12:43PM on May 2nd 2008 by Revdodd
5. Hey Putz Assassin:
The reason Duke has no travel plans is that teams want to come to Cameron to play in one of the most storied venues in sports. What player wouldn't love to tell his grandkids some day that his team beat the best in their own backyard?
I saw Cornell play this year and their supporters in attendance seemed to enjoy the competition. The bantering back and forth between fans was both clever and cutting.
UNC is a great school/program, but The Dean Dome.... please! Sam Cassell said years ago (when FSU beat them there) that it was " a wine and cheese crowd"
At some point you need to pull your head out of UNC's arse before your hairstyle starts looking like a dingleberry.
Posted at 2:56PM on May 6th 2008 by Fred