ADVERTISEMENT

ACC: More conf games, rotate repeat opponents?

It's all about the benjamins. Pitt vs. Wake or Pitt vs. RMU?? Duke vs. BC or Duke vs. NC A&T?? All it will do is cheapen the product a bit....too many TV games already. Do we really need 300 teams?? Has expansion improved MLB?? NBA?? NFL?? NHL??
Sadly, the idea of rivalries has been the best part of college hoops. Stuff like this will make it harder for mid-majors to get respect.....fewer games against the big guys.
 
A couple of odd remarks in that article. It says 20 games would preclude the B1G-ACC Challenge. You get 31 games in a year, why does that have any impact?

It also seems strange that Dixon would be against breaking up the annual rivalries, since Pitt definitely has the worst matchups (highest SOS, though). I think they should go back to having only 1 guaranteed rivalry, and rotating everyone else.

I actually agree with Larranaga. The ACC really botched the opportunity to create a meaningful arrangement with the A10 for their Brooklyn event. The ACC should absolutely be pursuing high profile neutral or home-and-home deals rather than adding more league games.

The problem the ACC has (and has had) getting more teams into the tournament is that the ACC champion typically has a really good record and destroys some mediocre or bad teams at the bottom. The Big East champion typically did not have that gaudy a record, and had to battle the teams near the bottom. (Think 2009 Pitt losing to Providence.) Adding extra league games is just going to pad the win totals of the top 5-6 teams and drop even further the teams at the bottom. I don't see how a team finishing in the middle at 10-10 is going to be any better than 8-8 or 9-9. Now give that 9-9 team 1 or 2 more respectable OOC wins, and that makes a much bigger impact.
 
20 games would preclude an ACC-Big Ten challenge because way too many coaches are opposed to playing good basketball teams that they could realistically lose to. If given a choice between playing two more conference games or two home games against middle of the NCAA teams (or worse) most coaches are going to pick the two games against the middle of the road teams at home, because they assume they will beat them most of the time. They'd rather go 2-0 against teams that won't challenge them most of the time than 1-1 against good teams.

Really, it's kind of pathetic. But that's the way it is.
 
I do understand that, but you're in a high profile event that is controlled by ESPN. I don't see how they could opt out of that unless ESPN wants it to happen. From ESPN's perspective, there's no benefit in substituting a December Challenge game for a December MEAC home game.

Again, a team finishing 9-9 with no quality OOC wins is not any worse than a team finishing 10-10 with no quality OOC wins. Even from the SOS perspective, which is mentioned in that article, subbing an extra game against Wake Forest rather than Purdue would not help Pitt's SOS.
 
subbing an extra game against Wake Forest rather than Purdue would not help Pitt's SOS.

No, but subbing in an extra game against Georgia Tech rather than a game against Central Arkansas certainly would. As would the fact that the two conference games would be one home and one away every year, whereas the current system is giving you one home and one away game one year and then two home games the following year, so half the time it would theoretically give you one extra road game.
 
I hope everyone realizes that it was my idea for a 20 or 22 game conference schedule. Everybody keeps stealing my ideas off this board. Delaney playing at MSG, Wiz, now this.

This is really a no-brainer. It shouldn't take a guy like me to come up with it. Football teams' schedules are 75% conference games. Basketball is only 58%. That's FAR too low. Even if we go to 20, its only 65%. 22 would be 71% still lower than football.

College basketball cant continue to give up Nov/Dec by playing garbage games nobody cares about. 20 is a start. 22 is the right number.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT