I've been watching the NCAA Tournament Bracektology show. It's amusing to me to hear pundits like Doug Gottlieb make arguments in favor of VT based on their 10 conference wins while ignoring the unbalanced (or is it imbalanced?) conference strength of schedule.
As you can see in the above chart, VT has the WORST conference strength of schedule. Gottlieb can't seem to grasp this fact. He explains away the fact that VT has NO wins of note against teams in the RPI Top 25 and keeps pointing to the 10 conference wins. Wouldn't you recognize that none of VT's ACC wins are quality ones?
Sorry VT fans. Y'all are good people, but Seth's scheduling continually puts y'all in this position. It's not his fault, necessarily, that his conference schedule ranking this year is so low--that's out his hands. But by REFUSING to play any quality teams out of conference this year, he provided no insurance against his weak conference slate. And since the conference game rotations are known years in advance, there's no reason he can't add a few stronger teams when his conference schedule shapes up to be a weak one.
(If you need an explanation of what the above chart means, go here.)
like you wrote in that other article, this is why the ACC tournament is more important now for deciding the ACC champ and for helping teams get into the NCAA tournament.
ReplyDeletei really think the ACC should do something about that schedule. i gave two suggestions in the past. play 22 conference games; or split into two divisions as in football which each division team playing the others in their division twice and each team in the other division once.
sbas2
correction: "as in football with each division" as opposed "to as in football which each"
ReplyDeletesbas2
sbas: I remember you posting those ideas on the last entry, and I didn't have time to respond then.
ReplyDelete1) Regarding going to 22 conference games: Every two additional conference games means losing one potential home game against an out-of-conference opponent. Typically this would be against a lower-tier program; guaranteed money and a guaranteed win. Those are two very good reasons for ADs and coaches to resist expanding the conference schedule. We'll never see the return of the round-robin conference schedule.
However, I do think adding two more conference games--from 16 to 18--is feasible. And while only two more games doesn't seem like a lot, it means playing 6 conference opponents twice and only 4 once, instead of vice-versa like it is now. That would be a far more balanced slate than it is now. And the sacrifice--just one non-conference home game--would be much easier to stomach than trying to give up three. Further, I would argue that most teams would recoup almost all of the lost revenue from a lousy non-conference game in December in increased ticket prices and attendance rates of an extra home conference game.
Not quite right on going to 18. You would play 7 teams twice, instead of 5.
ReplyDeleteOne way to do this:
- Each team adds a third primary opponent that you always play home-and-home.
- Then out of the other 8, either you alternate years with playing them once and twice; or you play the home-and-home for two years, then two years of just once a season.
Either way, you get one more team that you always see at home. And out of the rest of the conference, you see everyone three years out of four, instead of two years out of three.
when i first wrote about expanding to 22 conference games, i added that there was no chance of it happening. but i do like my division concept over 18 conference games.
ReplyDeletei should also add that t.v. would like 22 conference games, and the revenue from these televised games might make up for not having as many home games against cupcakes-in state's instance, not many attend those games anyway. sbas2
acc10k: I appreciate that--my math was a bit off!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'd love to add Duke as our second primary opponent. I can't believe that the three triangle teams aren't guaranteed to play on another each year.