Should ACC hoops split into divisions?
Column by Patrick Hite
patrick@accnation.com
Poll: What format would you like to see?
The ACC’s athletics directors will discuss a possible 18-game schedule for men’s basketball at next week’s spring meetings.
So far, I’ve seen just one benefit from an 18-game schedule - the ACC can line its pocket a little more. With the additional games, it’s hard to believe that the conference wouldn’t ask Raycom for more money to broadcast the games.
I guess there’s a benefit to fans because we get to see more games, but it also will hurt the quality of non-conference games. Add Maryland and Duke to your schedule and you better believe Michigan and Davidson will be gone. South Carolina State and Centenary will remain.
Some — and by some I mean Lee Fowler and Seth Greenberg in this particular story– want you to believe two more conference games will help the ACC come Selection Sunday. How is this possible? The ACC is already the top RPI conference and, as discussed above, two more confernece games will almost certainly mean two less quality non-conference games. If anything, the ACC will drop in the RPI rankings.
Greenberg would like to think home games against Clemson and North Carolina — something that didn’t happen this past season for the Hokies — would have pushed Virginia Tech off the bubble and into the NCAA Tournament. Of course, it may have, but only if Tech would have won those games. Lose both and the Hokies aren’t even on the bubble. Split those two and nothing changes from what happened this year.
If the ACC really wants to be radical and do something that may help come NCAA Tournament time, the athletics directors should consider splitting into divisions like football and baseball. Just last May, I went on record opposing divisional play in hoops. I haven’t totally reversed my thinking. I still think 16 games in the current format is fine. Teams that didn’t make the Big Dance wouldn’t have made the Final Four, much less won the national title, so I find it hard to feel sympathy for them.
But if you want to get radical, how about two divisions with the top four teams from each qualifying for the ACC Tournament? For those who argue the the current scheduling format is unbalanced and, thus, unfair, this solves that problem. Each team plays the other five in its division twice and the six teams in the other division once. Since you’re only competing against your divisional opponents for a berth in the ACC Tournament, all is fair.
It also eliminates that Thursday round in the ACC Tournament. As much as I love basketball, two days in a row of four games is a lot to take, especially when the first day is as bad as it was this season. Now, you go back to the traditional three-day tournament with eight teams that are, supposedly, quality teams.
The divisional format also makes the regular season, especially down the stretch, even more exciting because teams are fighting for a spot in the tournament, not just a seed in the tournament.
Now, there are plenty of drawbacks. That’s why I can’f fully support this option.
First, with the current divisional alignment, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami and Georgia Tech will have plenty to complain about. All four will get Duke and North Carolina twice a season, while the six teams in the other division only have to worry about the Devils and Heels once a year, maybe even at home.
Duke and Carolina have to be together since it’s the best rivalry in sports (forget Yankees-Red Sox or Michigan-Ohio State). Splitting them and increasing the schedule to 18 games so the two can still play twice totally erases the benefits of divisional play in the in the first place. Two more games and, all of a sudden, the schedule is no longer balanced.
While my system may bring back the traditional three-day tourney, it also does away with the tradition of all the conference teams playing in the ACC Tournament. If you listened to the podcast this week, you’ll hear why I think all conferences should have postseason tournaments and invite all of their teams.
I’m not supporting divisional play in basketball, but I can at least see some benefits to the idea. That’s more than I can say about an 18-game schedule.
Let us know what you think by leaving a comment and voting in our poll.
Filed under: 02-Men's Hoops, Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest | Tagged: UVa., Yellow Jackets, ACC, atlantic Coast Conference, UNC, BC, N.C. State, Wolfpack, Eagles, FSU, Seminoles, Hokies, Tar Heels, Blue Devils, Hurricanes, VA Tech, Tigers, sports, Demon Deacons, college basketball, GA Tech, VT, GT, cavalies, divisional play, 18 game schedule
Hi Patrick -
This has been a hot topic and you’ve done a great job covering the options.
I had a couple of quick hit thoughts.
1) It should be noted that I am a scheduling curmudgeon. If I had my druthers, I’d go back to the old ACC and have everyone play each other home and away (the way the Pac-10 does it now). I hate the unbalanced schedule - even if it meant a regular season acc title for the Wahoos. I realize it’s bonkers to think this way, but hey that’s me.
2) I hate hate hate hate hate the idea of divisions. (Did I mention I hate it?), especially by including them as part of conference tourney qualification. It can create significant unbalance, which makes for ugly pairings and additional title inflation (”We won the ACC Coastal Division title!!” Yuck.)
Look at the SEC, where the Eastern division is so much stronger than the Western. The middle teams in the western totally get the shaft.
People bitch and moan all the time in the NBA and MLB about one league being superior to the other and oh, how they wish they could just seed by record. The execs believe that the division titles mean something, so it never gets changed. Let’s not go around creating “fake” crowns when we’ve got something decent now.
3) I’m indifferent between an 18 game ACC schedule and a 16 game ACC schedule. I think the effects will wash out come selection Sunday. Yes, it probably will hurt conference rpi (which I think is a bogus stat anyway, but that’s another column).
I’m sort of torn on this. Basically, does my desire to watch ACC teams play other quality opponents outweigh my desire to watch them play each other (which is good because I know both teams better)?
I say no. The more variety the better. One of the best games I ever watched was Duke vs. St. John’s in December 1998. Bootsy Collins (I think that was his name) lit Duke up for like 40 pts and Ron Artest played out of his gord. Yet Trajan Langdon and Shane Battier wouldn’t let Duke lose.
Stick with the current schedule! (/old man voice)
OK - on point #3. I started out being indifferent then made up my mind four sentences in. Perhaps I ought to read my comments before I hit submit.
Also, it was Bootsy Thorton in January 1999.
Man, I’m off today.
I agree Ben that playing every team twice is the best solution, but coaches will never go for a 22-game schedule.
As I wrote in the column, I’m not in favor of divisional play in basketball, but it does solve some of the problems of the unbalanced schedule. But you have a point. If the fifth-place team in the Atlantic is a better team than the fourth-place team in the Coastal, it doesn’t seem fair that the Coastal team is in the ACC Tournament and the Atlantic team is out.
The bottom line is things haven’t been fair since expansion to 12 teams and an unbalanced schedule. And things will never be totally fair again, which is sad. Whichever system the powers-that-be go with will have pros and cons.
Isn’t Bootsy Collins a musician? I think he played with George Clinton.
When I said, go back to the old ACC, I meant, literally the old ACC (No BC, VT, Miami - sorry guys), but that’s as likely to happen as the 22 game schedule - probably less so.
Heck, while we’re at it, let’s also throw out FSU and Georgia Tech and see if South Carolina would like to come back home.
Here! Here!
Let’s ditch the shot clock and three point line too.
I think it has come to a point where the ACC made football-related decisions which are hurting their basketball programs. Although the better solution would probably be for two teams to leave the ACC, that ain’t happening anytime soon.
So the basketball teams have to decide if the stilted format is hurting their long term ‘product’. I personally think it does, when a team has an away game against an ACC opponent but no home game, how can it create a fair game?
A better solution would be anytime only one game is played, it should be played on a nuetral floor. The ACC probably has enough of a fan base to pull that off, so if Wake plays UNC in Charlotte, there will be a lot of UNC fans but there will be Wake fans as well. It’s still not a perfect solution, but it’s better than what they are doing now.
[...] floats a “radical” concept: [H]ow about two divisions with the top four teams from each qualifying for the ACC Tournament? For [...]
Rob at the Good Ol’ Blog put my term radical in quotation marks. So, OK, maybe it’s not that radical. It sounded good at the time I wrote it though.
Well, maybe you’re not “the norm.” Or you’re not “camera-friendly.”
Or maybe I don’t “let my scabs heal” or can’t “reach all the parts of my body.”
I want the ACC to go to 2 different divsions like they do in football and baseball. Keep it at 16 games play each division team twice then with the teams in the other division u play 3 home,3 away and switch the home-away with them the next year.
They can make a 3 divsions also with 4 teams each in it like:
ACC North: BC,MD,UVA,VT
ACC Central: UNC,DUKE,WF,NCS
ACC South: CLEM,GT,FSU,MIAMI
Make it a 14 game conference schedule, play each division team twice and play the other 8, 4 home-4 away.
You don’t need divisions to pull off a 18-game schedule. By adding 1 extra permanent partner and 1 more game, you restore some of the lost rivalries (NC State-Duke, UNC-Clemson/VA, FSU-GT) while playing 7 of the 11 teams home-and-home per year. That seems best fix short of the old traditional format.