PDA

View Full Version : ACC Contraction?



Ken Stallings
24th February 2009, 21:33
I put it in question mark because it's not going to happen. I'm wondering what you all think about the expansion. Personally, I disagree that it's been a failure. I think it's added to the conference. This column in today's N&O made me ask you all the question:

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/bring-back-the-round-robin

What I don't agree with is limiting the basketball conference games. What I would do is stop playing as many non-conference games and take advantage of the strength of your own conference. Play 22 basketball conference games each season and go back to the round robin format. That still leaves seven non-conference games each year -- more than enough.

Leave football as it is, but I am torn about adding enough conference games in football to play each team each season, but I like the split system and think there is value there. Perhaps the solution there is to add one more cross division rivalry game so that for example NC State would always play Duke. I think giving up one non-conference game would be a good tradeoff to re-establish all the North Carolina based schools playing each other in football each season.

Ken

Matt Nicholson
24th February 2009, 21:47
I do not like the expansion because of the unbalanced schedule in both football and basketball.

I am for removing some meaningless football game against a crappy Div1AA school and adding another conference game.

I woud like to see us move towards 18 conference games in basketball. The PAC10 does it, why can't we?

Those two things would go a long way in making me hate the current setup less.

packinjax
25th February 2009, 07:22
18 games or 22 games, they're both doable. We played 13 non-conference games, but iirc some of the other teams played more. Obviously the draw back to this is the teams would beat each other up (not that they don't do that now...). Not exactly what you want to do from a national standpoint.

2 regular season non conference games in FB is good, if you schedule at least one of them against a decent opponent and not 2 2A teams. This helps prevent familiarity with just our conference, it's teams and style of play. At this point though I would move the championship game to the top teams school (or at a minimum to a centralized location). It's embarassing and not a good draw for our conference atm. Logistically I'm not sure how feasible that is from a facility standpoint (not knowing until a week before your having a game at your stadium).

Matt Nicholson
25th February 2009, 07:58
We should have stopped at 10 teams. Everyone would play each other in football, everyone would play each other twice in basketball. The PAC-10 got it right...

Ken Stallings
25th February 2009, 09:06
I like the expansion. I think adding Miami provides an outstanding intra-state rivalry for FSU. Adding Boston College provided the conference expansion in area and frankly BC has been a major draw for us in both football and basketball -- not to mention it got Tom O'Brien interested in joining us!

No one seems to disagree with adding Va Tech but I remember how we really lucked in to that because Stafford and Co. wanted to add Syracuse and were forced into Va Tech. But that was always the better addition. It's a better geographical fit and Tech has more than held up its end of the bargain in football and basketball both.

I think the carping the basketball coaches did was self-serving. They want to load up on weak sister out of conference opponents to pad the stats for the NCAA but that only short changes us who watch the games. All we need to do is force the NCAA selection committee to put more emphasis on strength of schedule vice raw record.

Ken

Matt Nicholson
25th February 2009, 13:38
I would have prefered UCONN over one of the 3 we added. They did just recenty step up to 1A football, but they've been pretty sucessful so far.

Derreck
25th February 2009, 21:06
I despise the expansion. Not necessarily because we expanded, but the teams we took. BC is just not a good fit in the ACC, period. Also I have never been crazy about the Florida schools either. We lost the closeness and rivalry feel with each and every game when we expanded (This go back to adding FSU as well).

Matt Nicholson
26th February 2009, 08:04
Didn't we have to expand in order to be a BCS conference? As long as everyone plays everyone the same number of times, I don't have much problem with it. The format we have, though, sucks. Though I still think adding 2 more bball games and one in football would make it suck less. In the end though, expanding did not improve our football and basketball competetiveness. We have not competed for a championship in football for a good while, and we haven't improved our competetiveness in basketball. At best we've held even.

Steve M
26th February 2009, 10:43
The addition of BC and Miami was for an expanded TV market and a BSC label. More ACC games would be better than the current set up. For the first time in my lifetime ACC BB tournament tickets are being sold. I know the economy is bad and Atlanta is hosting, but how can tickets be for sale with 12 teams in the conf?

Derreck
26th February 2009, 10:58
The addition of BC and Miami was for an expanded TV market and a BSC label. More ACC games would be better than the current set up. For the first time in my lifetime ACC BB tournament tickets are being sold. I know the economy is bad and Atlanta is hosting, but how can tickets be for sale with 12 teams in the conf?

If the tourney was still in Greensboro, it would be a sellout. However NC State has only sold about 2/3 of their allotted tickets. I know that I will not be going this year because business is slow, we are cutting staff hours, and I want to save that money in case I so not have a job in the near future.

Prowling Woofie
26th February 2009, 11:47
The addition of BC and Miami was for an expanded TV market and a BSC label. More ACC games would be better than the current set up. For the first time in my lifetime ACC BB tournament tickets are being sold. I know the economy is bad and Atlanta is hosting, but how can tickets be for sale with 12 teams in the conf?

The available tickets are the BC allotment !

:D

avisocan
26th February 2009, 12:08
Of the three that were added, I would have preferred a team other than BC. WV would have been my choice.

As far as the football format, it hasn't seemed to have hurt the SEC any. And whether or not we play Dook in football every year isn't of any consequence in how I view our schedule. I think we do better in getting some good OOC competition and getting nationally televised games.

For Basketball look at the Big Least. Do all 16 teams play each other? I'd assume not. Once again, I'd prefer to see the Big-11 challenge and other OOC games over expanding the schedule.