Saturday, May 16, 2009

ACC Coaches Say "NO" to 18-Game Conference Schedule

We're not sure if many of you were following this story, but apparently the ACC was purposing a change in schedule from 16 games to 18 conference games. Those for it argued that it would increase revenue and allow the ACC and the schools more money from TV contracts and ticket sales. However, those that opposed (which included each and every head coach) said that it would make their schedule so strong that they may be reluctant to add a high profile non-conference game.

The NCAA committee has always held non-conference schedule as a important standard in seeding, come NCAA Tournament time, so the idea of taking a big time game away from your non-conference schedule could be dangerous to teams lurking on the bubble (and with the strength of the ACC you can guarantee there will be a few.)

What do you guys think? Did the coaches make the right decision?


14 Responses to "ACC Coaches Say "NO" to 18-Game Conference Schedule"
  1. Anonymous said...
    May 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM

    As much as I would love to see some more conference match ups, and no matter how good it may be for the programs financially on the local level, I would have to say that the coaches are right.

    It's a wise decision. They'd just end up beating each other into the ground even worse, and as we all know, the NCAA selection committee seems to be taking that into consideration less and less these days.

  2. Wolfpack Hoops said...
    May 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM

    ^ I certainly agree with your last statement. However, I'm on the fence about it because I do not like the fact that we've only been playing Duke once a year. That is a local rivalry that needs to be played twice IMO.

  3. Anonymous said...
    May 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM

    if the conference stays at 16 games i would like to see the divisions have more consideration as they do in football. i would like to see a team play each division team twice during a season and each team of the other division once for 16 games. the acc tournament should then take only the top four teams from each division. the first two games of the tournament should be in the division with the championship game being between the two division winners. this is along the lines of what the nba does with the east and west divisions. the schedule would become more balanced also. if state, for example, wants two games with duke and unc, each team could be scheduled as an out of conference game.


  4. Anonymous said...
    May 16, 2009 at 10:41 AM

    WPH, this is redfred, and that first "Anonymous" comment was from me up there. My pass word doesn't seem to working ??? It doesn't matter.

    I totally agree with you about only playing Duke once, it's not right, I'm old school though. Heck, back when I was very young, the interest in college BB in this area kind of ended when the ACC wrapped up. 1973-74 changed all of that for me though.

  5. Anonymous said...
    May 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM

    ^^Um, if you're already playing in a very tough conference to begin with, and you want to grant yourself some leeway in regards to getting into the NCAA tournament before the season starts, then I don't you actively choose to schedule a very tough opponent from within that same conference, call it an "away" game, and then hope and pray that the selection commitee will smile down on you for being so niave.

    Also, as for the ACCT, PLEASE no NBA models, it's fine, just leave it alone.


  6. Anonymous said...
    May 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM

    This is Afterglow

    What is with the password situation? I'm experiencing the same problem and have been for some time.

    As far as an 18 game season; I would agree. As stated, the ACC is already strong and this way it leaves more room to adjust a schedule accordingly rather than be binded by one.

  7. Pack Leader said...
    May 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM

    Redfred: a lil help because I had trouble working my password as well. Make sure under username you enter your email address not your blogger Id name, and also reset the password then reenter it. hopefully that will help a little...

    As for the extended conference schedule, I don't see how this would help any team in the acc. Everyone already just beats up each other I don't think the NCAA committee would recognize the significance of 2 extra games. Why make the hardest in conference schedule harder?? also i believe it would wear down the teams right before the conference tourney.

  8. Simspack said...
    May 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM

    As a fan, I would love to have a full round-robin regular season conference schedule, as it was before the recent conference expansion. I think conference standings are skewed when you don't play all teams home and away.

    However, I know that a 22-game conference schedule is not practical for numerous reasons, some of which are included here.

    I'd settle for a 18-game conference slate. That would increase the number of complete home-and-away series each season, and make the conference standings more accurate each season.

    I'm sure financially, it makes great sense, both for ticket sales and for TV contracts. I went to quite a few of the cupcake non-conference games last season, and the RBC Center wasn't near capacity. A conference game would attract more interest and fill the RBC Center.

    As for a tougher (and larger) conference slate taking away from premium non-conference games, I don't buy it too much. While easy, cupcake games are useful for giving your team a live-fire drill before a legitimate opponent, I know State had, IMO, way too many such games last season. Losing two of those for a conference opponent would be more preferable to me. I'm fairly certain that losing two cupcake games for two conference games shouldn't hurt the non-conference scheduling as long as the teams themselves don't let it.

    I agree with WPH that we as State fans must demand a home and away with Duke every year. An 18 game schedule would help with that.

    I did see an article stating how two conference games versus two cupcake games would affect the RPI. As we all (should) know, RPI is looked at when comparing teams to get into the NCAA Tournament.

    It was related to the PAC-10's round robin scheduling. I think their argument was to drop their round-robin scheduling, dropping one conference game to add a cupcake team. It adds insight into our discussion here.

    The conference strength of schedule would increase, which seems good.

    However, conference winning percentage would drop, because it would add a win and a loss for each conference game played. Again, I'm speaking for the conference as a whole. For the whole conference, you're looking at 1-1 for each game, or figuring in a .500 winning percentage per game. Since the overall conference winning percentage per season is considerably higher than that, you'll drag conference winning percentage down.

    Applied to each team, since most teams in the ACC finish over .500, even splitting the two newly-added games would hurt your winning percentage. Most teams would have to win both to help your winning percentage. Naturally, that won't happen but to a few teams, so it stands to hurt most of the ACC's winning percentage (and hurt even more if you lose both).

    Looking more specifically at the RPI and its formulation, it was written in the article that I read that your cupcake games, presumed to be wins, help your RPI about as much (if not slightly more) increasing your winning percentage than the increase in schedule strength by adding two conference games. But then adding those two conference games, and thereby reducing winning percentage as illustrated above, would actually drag down the RPI for most ACC teams, more than the increase for the schedule strength.

    To summarize, it would only help a few that managed to win both new ACC games, and hurt most everyone else.

    There are exceptions, like if a team, which is just below the threshold to get into the NCAA Tournament, won both newly-added games, it would help them get into the Tournament, but that is, indeed, the exception, not the rule.

    Also, a bottom-of-the-ACC team with a sub-.500 winning percentage would help their winning percentage by splitting two conference games. But, again, that would be the exception. A sub-.500 team likely won't split the two games (much less win both), but, then again, if they are sub-.500, they aren't going to the NCAA Tournament anyways. It could help get into the CBI, but who plays for that?

    Looking at it in that light, I'm just fine with 16 conference games if it helps State get into the NCAA Tournament.

    The ACC is typically viewed as the nation's toughest conference already. Two more games won't increase that perception. Also, a lower winning percentage for the conference, as a result of adding two conference games, would hurt that perception.

    I still want to play Duke twice each year, even with only 16 conference games. In fact, I think we should play Duke guranteed each year in football, too.

  9. Afterglow said...
    May 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM

    Let's see if that works for password?

  10. Riverpack said...
    May 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM

    The ACC tourney defines the true conference champion to me. Not having a round robin effects seeding for the ACCT and has a slight effect on perception as far as getting into the dance as an at large team. Some teams will have an easier road to 8-8 in the conference and being on the buble.

    The positives for adding more ACC games besides money is that it helps to level the playing field for seeding and the fans get to see more quality basketball.

    The negatives are that it reduces our exposure to different styles on bb (reducing readiness for the NCAA's) and it can lessen the likelyhood of borderline teams from getting into the dance or the seeding of higher teams. A win against NC Central is better than a loss at home to say... Duke.

    Lets go for an example. Say we replaced NC Central last year with Duke at home. If we lost it wouldn't have helped us at all. If we had won we still wouldn't have gotten into the dance and in all probability reduced Duke's seeding in the dance. This is what people mean by beating up on each other and hurting the ACC overall.

    Truth be told if we had scheduled an extra Duke game last year we wouldn't have droped NC Central because that would be suicide, just like the coaches are saying. We would have droped Florida or another such team.

    So yeah, I agree with the coaches. Under the current system adding more ACC games is not smart and self destructive. As a fan I would love to see more quality basketball but not at the expense of our chances of making the dance.

  11. Anonymous said...
    May 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM

    ^Dang Simspack, that was a very informative and easy-to-understand synopsis! You must be a journalist/analyst. If not, you should!

    Since the Wolfpack's newest b-ball era began (coming up on the 4th year now), i think it's been beneficial for the team to schedule several cup-cake games to gain some much needed experience. But now our new coaches have had the time to adjust, we have some some experienced ballers who have bought-in to the new system, and we've got plenty of athletic talent coming in.

    It's time to trade a couple of those cup-cakes for a couple of decent OOC teams.

    Keep up the good work WPH!

  12. Wolfpack Hoops said...
    May 16, 2009 at 10:34 PM

    Nice to have you over here. Thats quite the rundown you wrote there. Very nice.

  13. Anonymous said...
    May 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM

    I really don't care what they do with the number of conference games now that there are so many teams. For me, the importance of conference games and records were ruined once there was expansion beyond the point where round robin was possible. As loathsome to me as interleague play.

  14. Anonymous said...
    May 18, 2009 at 1:36 PM

    The real anon here : I did not think they would go for it do you know how we voted?


Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner | Blogger template converted & enhanced by eBlog Templates