If I Ruled the ACC & Pitt Hoops

[DC_Area_Panther]

1. ACC with 18 teams in 2024-25 plays a 17 game conference schedule. Play everyone once = balanced except who you get home vs away. No games until January.

2. Pitt plays an OOC tourney in a tropical place with a minimum of 3 games.

3. Pitt and Duquene host the steel bowl.

4. ACC challenge game w/ SEC or Big 12.

5. Play WVU and PSU.

6. Play 6 cupcakes--3 weak + 3 halfway decent.

Too bad I am not in charge.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

1. ACC with 18 teams in 2024-25 plays a 17 game conference schedule. Play everyone once = balanced except who you get home vs away. No games until January.

2. Pitt plays an OOC tourney in a tropical place with a minimum of 3 games.

3. Pitt and Duquene host the steel bowl.

4. ACC challenge game w/ SEC or Big 12.

5. Play WVU and PSU.

6. Play 6 cupcakes--3 weak + 3 halfway decent.

Too bad I am not in charge.

No offense but its lazy to suggest an 18 game schedule without some guarantee that the coaches are going to use those 2 extra games to schedule good teams because without that guarantee, its extremely likely that they will not. Coaches want wins, first and foremost. Sure, they'll schedule a few tough games in the non-con but by and large, they want wins and let the cards fall where they may.

If I was the ACC commish, I'd tell the schools they are required to play 26 P5 games. Also, they can count schools which meet a certain threshold to count towards the 26 (Memphis, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St, Gonzaga, etc). 5 games against cupcakes is plenty. So whether they want to do 18+8, 20+6, 22+4, whatever. I'd still prefer 20 conference games.

More importantly though, the ACC needs to be forward thinking and realize what's going on. The non-con games are the most important of the season so why the eff are they playing them in November when you dont know who your team is? They should play 4-6 ACC games in Nov/Dec and then play 4-6 non-cons in Jan/Feb when your lineup and rotation is defined and the 8 transfers you brought in know each other's name.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

They should play 4-6 ACC games in Nov/Dec and then play 4-6 non-cons in Jan/Feb

It would be nearly impossible, scheduling-wise, to get 4-6 decent or better non-conference games in January and February.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

And when I say "nearly impossible", I mean nearly impossible for one ACC team to do that. It would be actually impossible for all of the 17 league teams to do that. You would somehow have to find as many as 102 good non-conference opponents for every team in the league to do it. At a time when most other P5s are going to not be playing any non-conference games.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

And when I say "nearly impossible", I mean nearly impossible for one ACC team to do that. It would be actually impossible for all of the 17 league teams to do that. You would somehow have to find as many as 102 good non-conference opponents for every team in the league to do it. At a time when most other P5s are going to not be playing any non-conference games.

Using the 1980s schedule model that we currently use, sure. But I am suggesting that the ACC actually be forward thinking. Here's how you do it:

The Big 12 played a conference challenge with the SEC in February up until a few years ago. Ask them to partner up with you for a Feb challenge. They wont say no. Then go ask the Big East or Big Ten for a challenge game. BE would probably do it. B10 maybe not. So that's 2.

For the last 2 games of this, you partner up with leagues like the CAA, SoCon, and Sun Belt to play. Instead of pre-scheduling HBCU teams ranked 300 in November, you have an agreement to schedule these games 2 weeks out in Jan or Feb. Instead of Pitt beating #297 South Carolina State in December, maybe they instead beat #112 Hofstra in January. That one game could have been the difference between getting in and not.

This would take ACC commissioner actually doing something but this could be done. The ACC needs to do something different.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

No offense but its lazy to suggest an 18 game schedule without some guarantee that the coaches are going to use those 2 extra games to schedule good teams because without that guarantee, its extremely likely that they will not. Coaches want wins, first and foremost. Sure, they'll schedule a few tough games in the non-con but by and large, they want wins and let the cards fall where they may.

More importantly though, the ACC needs to be forward thinking and realize what's going on. The non-con games are the most important of the season so why the eff are they playing them in November when you dont know who your team is? They should play 4-6 ACC games in Nov/Dec and then play 4-6 non-cons in Jan/Feb when your lineup and rotation is defined and the 8 transfers you brought in know each other's name.

Using the 1980s schedule model that we currently use, sure. But I am suggesting that the ACC actually be forward thinking. Here's how you do it:

The Big 12 played a conference challenge with the SEC in February up until a few years ago. Ask them to partner up with you for a Feb challenge. They wont say no. Then go ask the Big East or Big Ten for a challenge game. BE would probably do it. B10 maybe not. So that's 2.

For the last 2 games of this, you partner up with leagues like the CAA, SoCon, and Sun Belt to play. Instead of pre-scheduling HBCU teams ranked 300 in November, you have an agreement to schedule these games 2 weeks out in Jan or Feb. Instead of Pitt beating #297 South Carolina State in December, maybe they instead beat #112 Hofstra in January. That one game could have been the difference between getting in and not.

This would take ACC commissioner actually doing something but this could be done. The ACC needs to do something different.

A 17 Game schedule would be played (not 18). If there are 18 teams and you play every opponent once you get 17 games. That gives you three more OOC slots (i.e., 14 vs the current 11). [The current 20 ACC games with two in December is horrible, IMHO.]

A 17 game ACC schedule allows adding that 3 game tourney in Hawaii or the Bahamas or Puerto Rico, etc. [or a 2nd 2-game tourney (like a return of the Steel Bowl)] to the OOC schedule on top of playing the same sort of 11 game schedule played now.

As to the other question--the NCAA should do away with a selection committee doing anything-- except arranging seeding-- and let a computer ranking (or averaged rankings of more than one computer system) select the at-large field in computer ranked order-- leave the human factor out of that picture. If Net or KenPom were used that way without the committee playing "navel gazing" games using sub-components of NET (which have already been accounted for in the ranking itself) to put teams in who shouldn't be in (like Virginia and others this time) and leave teams out like Pitt, St. John's and several others.

Bottom line, however, was that my original post was just an "if I ran things" -- so, just my wishful thinking (dream) as to how, in my personal opinion, things should/could be done differently. Don't take it for more than was intended.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

A 17 Game schedule not 18 If there are 19 teams and you play every team once you get 17 games. That gives you three more OOC slots. [Twenty ACC games with two in December is horrible, IMHO.]

The 17 game ACC schedule allows adding that 3 game tourney in Hawaii or the Bahamas or Puerto Rico, etc. to the OOC schedule on top of playing the same sort of 11 game schedule played now.

As to the other--the NCAA should do away with a selection committe and let a computer ranking (or averaged rankings of more than one) select the at-large field in ranking order-- leave the human factor out of the picture. If Net or KenPom were used that way without playing "navel gazing" games by humans to use sub-components of NET to put teams in who shouldn't be in (like Virginia this time)/26 P5 games. Also, they can count schools which meet a certain threshold to count towards the 26 (Memphis, VCU, Dayton, San Diego St, Gonzaga, etc). 5 games against cupcakes is plenty. So whether they want to do 18+8, 20+6, 22+4, whatever. I'd still prefer 20 conference games.



A 17 Game schedule would be played (not 18). If there are 18 teams and you play every opponent once you get 17 games. That gives you three more OOC slots (i.e., 14 vs the current 11). [The current 20 ACC games with two in December is horrible, IMHO.]

A 17 game ACC schedule allows adding that 3 game tourney in Hawaii or the Bahamas or Puerto Rico, etc. [or a 2nd 2-game tourney (like a return of the Steel Bowl)] to the OOC schedule on top of playing the same sort of 11 game schedule played now.

As to the other question--the NCAA should do away with a selection committee doing anything-- except arranging seeding-- and let a computer ranking (or averaged rankings of more than one computer system) select the at-large field in computer ranked order-- leave the human factor out of that picture. If Net or KenPom were used that way without the committee playing "navel gazing" games using sub-components of NET (which have already been accounted for in the ranking itself) to put teams in who shouldn't be in (like Virginia and others this time) and leave teams out like Pitt, St. John's and several others.

Bottom line, however, was that my original post was just an "if I ran things" -- so, just my wishful thinking (dream) as to how, in my personal opinion, things should/could be done differently. Don't take it for more than was intended.

Duke and UNC have to play twice so in a 17 game schedule, they wouldn't play 1 team but forget that for a second, you still need some guarantee that these teams are going to play a tough enough 14 game non-con. Are these coaches going to schedule 7-9 P5 games in the non-con? I doubt it. You'd have to mandate it because coaches want guaranteed wins and just cross their fingers that they do enough in conference.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Duke and UNC have to play twice so in a 17 game schedule, they wouldn't play 1 team but forget that for a second, you still need some guarantee that these teams are going to play a tough enough 14 game non-con. Are these coaches going to schedule 7-9 P5 games in the non-con? I doubt it. You'd have to mandate it because coaches want guaranteed wins and just cross their fingers that they do enough in conference.

No one actually HAS to play twice in the regular season. They obviously like doing it because it is tradition--but as I said, IF I was in charge it wouldn't happen. There would be no more playing anyone twice with a league of 18 teams. A second meeting could only happen in the conference tourney.

How the tourney will look next year with 18 teams will be interesting. Maybe they eliminate byes and have #s 15, 16, 17 & 18 have a play in 2 eliminate 2 of them--or maybe just leave #s 17 & 18 out of the ACCT entirely.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

No one actually HAS to play twice in the regular season. They obviously like doing it because it is tradition--but as I said, IF I was in charge it wouldn't happen. There would be no more playing anyone twice with a league of 18 teams. A second meeting could only happen in the conference tourney.

How the tourney will look next year with 18 teams will be interesting. Maybe they eliminate byes and have #s 15, 16, 17 & 18 have a play in 2 eliminate 2 of them--or maybe just leave #s 17 & 18 out of the ACCT entirely.

They are leaving 16, 17, and 18 out. Kinda stupid, at least allow 16 to play 9. 9 doesn't need a bye.

In your 17 game season, would you mandate any number or P5 OOC games? Because you see what I'm saying, unless you do that, these teams are all going to play Q4s instead of high quality non-cons.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

And when I say "nearly impossible", I mean nearly impossible for one ACC team to do that. It would be actually impossible for all of the 17 league teams to do that. You would somehow have to find as many as 102 good non-conference opponents for every team in the league to do it. At a time when most other P5s are going to not be playing any non-conference games.

But they would if they wanted to. You said it so yourself. Just busting your balls.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Using the 1980s schedule model that we currently use, sure.

Actually, back in the 80s teams did play a non-conference game or two in January and February on a regular basis.

But not five or six. No one has ever done that. Because no one has any interest in doing it. Because it's a dumb idea.

If you want an example of the 80s scheduling model, I happen to have my game program from the "send it in Jerome" game sitting here. It has the Big East conference schedule in it, in calendar form, and it includes non-conference games. The first conference game of the season was Villanova at St. John's on January 4. From that point on, the following non-conference games were played:

Pitt: Duquesne, at Oklahoma
Georgetown: at DePaul
St. John's: Rutgers, DePaul
Providence: UNLV, Miami
Syracuse: Michigan, at Kentucky
BC: Fairfield
UConn: at Holy Cross, at Fairfield
Villanova: at Temple, Drexel, at Vermont
Seton Hall: at St. Peters

So everyone played at least one, five played two, and Villanova played three. But no one played five or six. Of course that was also a nine team league playing a 16 game conference schedule, so there were open spots in every team's schedule that they could easily slip a non-conference game into. Come to think of it, just like there is in 2024.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Actually, back in the 80s teams did play a non-conference game or two in January and February on a regular basis.

But not five or six. No one has ever done that. Because no one has any interest in doing it. Because it's a dumb idea.

If you want an example of the 80s scheduling model, I happen to have my game program from the "send it in Jerome" game sitting here. It has the Big East conference schedule in it, in calendar form, and it includes non-conference games. The first conference game of the season was Villanova at St. John's on January 4. From that point on, the following non-conference games were played:

Pitt: Duquesne, at Oklahoma
Georgetown: at DePaul
St. John's: Rutgers, DePaul
Providence: UNLV, Miami
Syracuse: Michigan, at Kentucky
BC: Fairfield
UConn: at Holy Cross, at Fairfield
Villanova: at Temple, Drexel, at Vermont
Seton Hall: at St. Peters

So everyone played at least one, five played two, and Villanova played three. But no one played five or six. Of course that was also a nine team league playing a 16 game conference schedule, so there were open spots in every team's schedule that they could easily slip a non-conference game into. Come to think of it, just like there is in 2024.

Would this be so impossible? Hypothetical ACC 2024-25 team schedule

Fri, Nov 9: cupcake
Tue, Nov 12: ACC game
Sat, Nov 16: ACC game
Tue, Nov 19: cupcake
Fri-Sun: tournament (2-3 games)
Tue, Nov 26: SEC Challenge
Fri, Nov 30: cupcake
Tue, Dec 3: ACC
Sat, Dec 7: ACC
Sat, Dec 14: cupcake
Tue, Dec 17: ACC
Sat, Dec 21: ACC
Sat, Dec 28: ACC

So before January, you have played 7 non-cons and 7 conference games so you need to play 13 more conference games and 4 more non-cons in Jan/Feb

Sat, Jan 4: ACC
Week of Jan 6: 2 ACC
Week of Jan 13: 1 ACC
Week of Jan 20: 2 ACC

Week of Jan 27: midweek vs Sun Belt, weekend vs Big 12

Week of Feb 3: midweek vs CAA, weekend vs Big East

Week of Feb 10: 2 ACC
Week of Feb 17: 1 ACC
Week of Feb 24: 2 ACC
Week of March 3: 2 ACC

It would take coordination with the Big 12, BE, and 2 mid-major leagues but it could be done. This would allow ACC teams to get resume games to improve their non-con in Jan/Feb when your new teams is more ready to play than it is in November.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It would take coordination with the Big 12, BE, and 2 mid-major leagues but it could be done. This would allow ACC teams to get resume games to improve their non-con in Jan/Feb when your new teams is more ready to play than it is in November.

And as we have all seen, the Big East and the Big 12 would like nothing better than to help the ACC teams to improve their resumes.

Other than you, no one in the whole country would rather play lots of conference games at times when no one is paying attention and fewer people are going to games, rather than at times when lots of people are paying attention and going to games.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

And as we have all seen, the Big East and the Big 12 would like nothing better than to help the ACC teams to improve their resumes.

Other than you, no one in the whole country would rather play lots of conference games at times when no one is paying attention and fewer people are going to games, rather than at times when lots of people are paying attention and going to games.

Val Ackerman is complaining all over social media about the Big East getting 3 while Jim Phillips is picking out furniture. In fact, Greg Sankey is complaining as well and he has nothing to complain about. The Big East would happily sign up for this. Its grear exposure for both leagues. Would the Big 12? I think they would because they did it with their Feb SEC Challenge.

I think we all realize Jim Phillips is an idiot so nothing will change but something NEEDS to change. You cant just keep scheduling like its 1980. This is every year now the ACC gets screwed. Here's a song from the legendary Hayes Parmer from 2 years on that. Sounds like this year.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Just to summarize--

On the premise that the NCAA Committee continues to play its selection games (dredging up subsets of data underlying the NET ratings)---Then the ACC and Pitt need to change the way they schedule OOC games. If the committee is to play games then you need to game the system accordingly with how you schedule.

That being said, I hate that selection is done the way it is done. A teams overall Net ranking should be used and all the underlying subset data should be ignored as it is already factored into the overall NET ranking.

IMHO, it should be as simple as--

A. Slot the auto bid teams NET ranked #68 or lower in their proper numerical slots.
B. Fill in the open slots from #68 downward with the autobid teams ranked outside the top 68. Do this in ranked order from worst ranked to best ranked.
C. Fill all open slots remaining in the top 68 in NET rank order starting with the best NET ranked team not in as an autobid until all open slots in the top 68 are filled.

Then, the committee can seed the field after having not gamed the at large selections with human agendas.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Just to summarize--

On the premise that the NCAA Committee continues to play its selection games (dredging up subsets of data underlying the NET ratings)---Then the ACC and Pitt need to change the way they schedule OOC games. If the committee is to play games then you need to game the system accordingly with how you schedule.

That being said, I hate that selection is done the way it is done. A teams overall Net ranking should be used and all the underlying subset data should be ignored as it is already factored into the overall NET ranking.

IMHO, it should be as simple as--

A. Slot the auto bid teams NET ranked #68 or lower in their proper numerical slots.
B. Fill in the open slots from #68 downward with the autobid teams ranked outside the top 68. Do this in ranked order from worst ranked to best ranked.
C. Fill all open slots remaining in the top 68 in NET rank order starting with the best NET ranked team not in as an autobid until all open slots in the top 68 are filled.

Then, the committee can seed the field after having not gamed the at large selections with human agendas.

You cant just go off NET rankings. Then the MWC would get 10 teams in. This is honestly not hard. JUST watch the teams play. If you are FAU and already have 2 Q4 losses and have 2 wins against the field, you just cant lose to 20-loss Temple the day before Selection Sunday. And they looked so so bad. I watched that game rooting hard for FAU and they just looked awful. You cant watch that game and feel that FAU, who already has a suspect resume to get in.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Penn State and VT will play in Baltimore next season. I think you are going to see more and more of these games. The NCAA has made it clear that its better to lose to a good team out or conference than beat a bad team. Not sure if either of these teams will be good but you never know. Teams really need to cut out most of the home cupcakes.

 

[Pitt NET SMF]

Penn State and VT will play in Baltimore next season. I think you are going to see more and more of these games. The NCAA has made it clear that its better to lose to a good team out or conference than beat a bad team. Not sure if either of these teams will be good but you never know. Teams really need to cut out most of the home cupcakes.

It’s better to play well vs a good team and lose than beat the teams Capel Scheduled.

Wow. DC and SMF. Can’t think of 2 less qualified people to speak on anything Basketball related