I wrote about this in one of my notebooks last week but today as most of you know it was made official. I would love to get all of your opinions about it but I will start by giving you mine - it is an act of desperation by a desperate league and I hate it.
I can't bring myself to believe that the ACC is willingly and so easily conceding that it is no longer the top or even one of the top two BASKETBALL conferences in the land. It makes no sense to me to be honest. But that is exactly what this plan does - it is saying that teams need to find two nonconference games that can help them get to the NCAA Tournament.
When the ACC went to 20 games originally the belief was that ACC inventory was invaluable and that by having each team play two extra ACC games it would generate better TV matchups to sell, more of the TV shares would stay in the ACC and teams would get a boost for their RPI/NET/SOS/KEN POM/Whatever the metric of the day is for the NCAA Tournament at-large bids. The idea was the more these teams play ACC games, the better their SOS will be and the more they will benefit in those metrics.
So what changed? Why all of the sudden is the move to go back to 18 games? Basically the ACC Is admitting that is no longer the case, that teams at the top like Duke and UNC are being dragged down by having to play 20 ACC games against teams that are painfully mediocre. This is no doubt a move to take care of some of their most valued teams and it will certainly help, though, Duke, last time I checked was a No. 1 seed so not sure what the issue is.
For a team like Pitt it means going out and trying to find two games - likely one home and one away/neutral - that will give them a boost in their metrics but that they can also win. Jamie Dixon was the master at finding those games but it has proven more difficult for Jeff Capel.
Of course there is a discussion to be had that if Capel won more this wouldn't be an issue but this is not just about Pitt and Capel, it is a Hail Mary by the ACC to try and figure out how to get more teams into the NCAA Tournament. Imagine if I would have told you five or six years ago that playing LESS ACC games was going to be the way you punch your ticket. I am not sure any of you would have believed me.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...dule-from-20-to-18-after-multiple-down-years/
Here is the actual news article and here is the key paragraph to me.....
"Some upper-echelon programs — Duke chief among them — wanted to drop two games from the league schedule in an effort to avoid dead weight dragging down NCAA Tournament résumés. (Duke nevertheless overcame this, earning a No. 1 seed last season.) The more Quad 3 and Quad 4 games on a league schedule, the worse a conference's chances at more NCAA Tournament bids. The league expanded to 18 teams last season with the additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU. "
If you read the article further one source nails it on the head ""You aren't going to fix the problem by going from 20 to 18," one source told CBS Sports. "The problem for the ACC is, a lot of these teams just haven't been good."
The solution isn't to play less conference games - and force teams like Pitt to scramble to find two good ones to enhance their resume as well as the conference strength of schedule numbers - it is for the teams to win more and that means a commitment to winning in terms of NIL money and payroll. The ACC has too many teams that are cash strapped, too many teams who have to make tough choices about how to fund both football and basketball properly and too many teams that are only casually interested in winning at a high level.
I hate to say it but unless I am told something different, Pitt is a team that is always going to be middle of the pack unless they make a real commitment to payroll. That's what all of those SEC programs that suddenly have life have done and there are examples all over the map from Houston to BYU of teams that have committed to winning.
The ACC is struggling right now and yes I could go through the list of great coaches it has lost that last 10-11 years but that's only a part of the story. The ACC pivoted to trying to become a football conference and as a result lost its roots and now is left with a lot of teams who aren't sure they can fully compete and fund ultracompetitive teams in both sports.
The one good thing out of it is that Pitt and Syracuse are going to remain rivals and play a home and home every year. I would argue the other team Pitt should be paired up with is either Louisville or Notre Dame but each team only gets one home and home rivalry game every year. The second home and home opponent will rotate every season. And there will be one team every year that Pitt doesn't play and that will rotate too.
I can't bring myself to believe that the ACC is willingly and so easily conceding that it is no longer the top or even one of the top two BASKETBALL conferences in the land. It makes no sense to me to be honest. But that is exactly what this plan does - it is saying that teams need to find two nonconference games that can help them get to the NCAA Tournament.
When the ACC went to 20 games originally the belief was that ACC inventory was invaluable and that by having each team play two extra ACC games it would generate better TV matchups to sell, more of the TV shares would stay in the ACC and teams would get a boost for their RPI/NET/SOS/KEN POM/Whatever the metric of the day is for the NCAA Tournament at-large bids. The idea was the more these teams play ACC games, the better their SOS will be and the more they will benefit in those metrics.
So what changed? Why all of the sudden is the move to go back to 18 games? Basically the ACC Is admitting that is no longer the case, that teams at the top like Duke and UNC are being dragged down by having to play 20 ACC games against teams that are painfully mediocre. This is no doubt a move to take care of some of their most valued teams and it will certainly help, though, Duke, last time I checked was a No. 1 seed so not sure what the issue is.
For a team like Pitt it means going out and trying to find two games - likely one home and one away/neutral - that will give them a boost in their metrics but that they can also win. Jamie Dixon was the master at finding those games but it has proven more difficult for Jeff Capel.
Of course there is a discussion to be had that if Capel won more this wouldn't be an issue but this is not just about Pitt and Capel, it is a Hail Mary by the ACC to try and figure out how to get more teams into the NCAA Tournament. Imagine if I would have told you five or six years ago that playing LESS ACC games was going to be the way you punch your ticket. I am not sure any of you would have believed me.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...dule-from-20-to-18-after-multiple-down-years/
Here is the actual news article and here is the key paragraph to me.....
"Some upper-echelon programs — Duke chief among them — wanted to drop two games from the league schedule in an effort to avoid dead weight dragging down NCAA Tournament résumés. (Duke nevertheless overcame this, earning a No. 1 seed last season.) The more Quad 3 and Quad 4 games on a league schedule, the worse a conference's chances at more NCAA Tournament bids. The league expanded to 18 teams last season with the additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU. "
If you read the article further one source nails it on the head ""You aren't going to fix the problem by going from 20 to 18," one source told CBS Sports. "The problem for the ACC is, a lot of these teams just haven't been good."
The solution isn't to play less conference games - and force teams like Pitt to scramble to find two good ones to enhance their resume as well as the conference strength of schedule numbers - it is for the teams to win more and that means a commitment to winning in terms of NIL money and payroll. The ACC has too many teams that are cash strapped, too many teams who have to make tough choices about how to fund both football and basketball properly and too many teams that are only casually interested in winning at a high level.
I hate to say it but unless I am told something different, Pitt is a team that is always going to be middle of the pack unless they make a real commitment to payroll. That's what all of those SEC programs that suddenly have life have done and there are examples all over the map from Houston to BYU of teams that have committed to winning.
The ACC is struggling right now and yes I could go through the list of great coaches it has lost that last 10-11 years but that's only a part of the story. The ACC pivoted to trying to become a football conference and as a result lost its roots and now is left with a lot of teams who aren't sure they can fully compete and fund ultracompetitive teams in both sports.
The one good thing out of it is that Pitt and Syracuse are going to remain rivals and play a home and home every year. I would argue the other team Pitt should be paired up with is either Louisville or Notre Dame but each team only gets one home and home rivalry game every year. The second home and home opponent will rotate every season. And there will be one team every year that Pitt doesn't play and that will rotate too.
