(03-26-2024 05:14 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:16 PM)Schema Wrote:  So, with 18 conference games, you could have one permanent rival that you play home-and-away, and then you play everyone else once, either home or away. Is that correct?

For example, Clemson and Georgia Tech would play once in Littlejohn and once in McCamish. Then, they would each play eight schools once at home and eight different schools once away.

You don’t have to play everyone.

Correct, the number of schools in the SoCon and an unbalanced schedule is the reason for a tournament.

Other than Carolina and Clemson, everyone played a 300 or worse team this year. Some played as many as four. The whose who includes the Citadel, NJIT, MD Eastern Shore, NC A&T, and Copping State getting played by two different ACC schools. Detroit, Elon, American, Bellarmine, DePaul, Morgan State, Ga Southern, Alabama A&M, Dartmouth, Southern Indiana, FIU, Long Island, and Stonehill round out the list of awfulness.

But isn't it important for schools to play a few games each year with nearby schools? I like to see Big 4 schools play Campbell, Elon, NCCU, ASU, UNCG, UNCW, Davidson, UNCA etc. because there are local connections. I would think the same would be true for other states. I hope OOC scheduling leaves room for a few of these games.

What if teams/conferences that were snubbed this year could be made up on the following year and vise versa? Higher seeded teams that lost to lower seeded teams in the NCAAT first round, the conference gets punished the following year. Lower seeded teams that beat higher seeded teams, the conferences is rewarded the following year. Perhaps winning the NIT can also factor into the equation.

So what might this look like? If a team is a 1 seed, they they are expected to be in the F4. If a team is a 2 seed, then they are expected to make it to the E8. If a team is a 3 and 4 seed, they are expected to be in the S16. If a team is a 5,6,7,8 seed, they are expected to make it out of the first round.

Any conference not meeting expectations has a point(s) taken from their "tournament score card" depending on how far they failed to meet expectations. The overachieving conferences has a point(s) added to their "tournament score card" depending how far their team advances. Any conference with a positive score card at the end of the tournament get an extra team in the next NCAAT. Conferences with a negative score card get 1 less in the next NCAAT. The winner of the NIT could also get an extra NCAAT bid the following year for their conference.

(03-27-2024 02:53 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  What if teams/conferences that were snubbed this year could be made up on the following year and vise versa? Higher seeded teams that lost to lower seeded teams in the NCAAT first round, the conference gets punished the following year. Lower seeded teams that beat higher seeded teams, the conferences is rewarded the following year. Perhaps winning the NIT can also factor into the equation.

So what might this look like? If a team is a 1 seed, they they are expected to be in the F4. If a team is a 2 seed, then they are expected to make it to the E8. If a team is a 3 and 4 seed, they are expected to be in the S16. If a team is a 5,6,7,8 seed, they are expected to make it out of the first round.

Any conference not meeting expectations has a point(s) taken from their "tournament score card" depending on how far they failed to meet expectations. The overachieving conferences has a point(s) added to their "tournament score card" depending how far their team advances. Any conference with a positive score card at the end of the tournament get an extra team in the next NCAAT. Conferences with a negative score card get 1 less in the next NCAAT. The winner of the NIT could also get an extra NCAAT bid the following year for their conference.

The Big Ten and the SEC ain't going for that because, well, they want MORE than they really deserve.

(03-27-2024 02:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 05:14 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:16 PM)Schema Wrote:  So, with 18 conference games, you could have one permanent rival that you play home-and-away, and then you play everyone else once, either home or away. Is that correct?

For example, Clemson and Georgia Tech would play once in Littlejohn and once in McCamish. Then, they would each play eight schools once at home and eight different schools once away.

You don’t have to play everyone.

Correct, the number of schools in the SoCon and an unbalanced schedule is the reason for a tournament.

Other than Carolina and Clemson, everyone played a 300 or worse team this year. Some played as many as four. The whose who includes the Citadel, NJIT, MD Eastern Shore, NC A&T, and Copping State getting played by two different ACC schools. Detroit, Elon, American, Bellarmine, DePaul, Morgan State, Ga Southern, Alabama A&M, Dartmouth, Southern Indiana, FIU, Long Island, and Stonehill round out the list of awfulness.

But isn't it important for schools to play a few games each year with nearby schools? I like to see Big 4 schools play Campbell, Elon, NCCU, ASU, UNCG, UNCW, Davidson, UNCA etc. because there are local connections. I would think the same would be true for other states. I hope OOC scheduling leaves room for a few of these games.

Important announcement to people of the board. What you see posted above is an example of the NC State takes pity on ECU syndrome that has existed for the last 60 years.

Dawg, ECU is not your kid brother that you are taxed with looking after. Campbell helped put a shiv in Jimmy V over the golf course. This "NC State must help look after ECU" is not good for NC State, it's just good for ECU.

I suspect the disease spreads from sexual contract with an ECU coed combined with the actual touch of Brightleaf, Flu-Cured Tobacco in the field or at grading time.

If the ACC dropped conference games, added 300+ ranked programs and RUTS on all OOC games, it would do wonders for our NET rankings and # of teams in the tournament.

Does the ACC really want to do that though? I know it's about money. The more teams you get in the more you can make but the ACC is regularly putting more teams in the Sweet 16, Final 4 and Finals than any other conference. I'd hate to play with the formula that makes ACC teams NCAA tournament caliber teams. And likewise, the B1G, SEC and B12 so soft.

(03-27-2024 03:58 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 02:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 05:14 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:16 PM)Schema Wrote:  So, with 18 conference games, you could have one permanent rival that you play home-and-away, and then you play everyone else once, either home or away. Is that correct?

For example, Clemson and Georgia Tech would play once in Littlejohn and once in McCamish. Then, they would each play eight schools once at home and eight different schools once away.

You don’t have to play everyone.

Correct, the number of schools in the SoCon and an unbalanced schedule is the reason for a tournament.

Other than Carolina and Clemson, everyone played a 300 or worse team this year. Some played as many as four. The whose who includes the Citadel, NJIT, MD Eastern Shore, NC A&T, and Copping State getting played by two different ACC schools. Detroit, Elon, American, Bellarmine, DePaul, Morgan State, Ga Southern, Alabama A&M, Dartmouth, Southern Indiana, FIU, Long Island, and Stonehill round out the list of awfulness.

But isn't it important for schools to play a few games each year with nearby schools? I like to see Big 4 schools play Campbell, Elon, NCCU, ASU, UNCG, UNCW, Davidson, UNCA etc. because there are local connections. I would think the same would be true for other states. I hope OOC scheduling leaves room for a few of these games.

Important announcement to people of the board. What you see posted above is an example of the NC State takes pity on ECU syndrome that has existed for the last 60 years.

Dawg, ECU is not your kid brother that you are taxed with looking after. Campbell helped put a shiv in Jimmy V over the golf course. This "NC State must help look after ECU" is not good for NC State, it's just good for ECU.

I suspect the disease spreads from sexual contract with an ECU coed combined with the actual touch of Brightleaf, Flu-Cured Tobacco in the field or at grading time.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm saying it is a good thing for the big boys in the ACC to play the smaller schools in the area as part of their OOC schedule. And what the heck does Keith Hills have to do with Jimmy V? I've never heard anything negative between Coach Valvono and Campbell or their golf course?

(03-27-2024 10:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  If the ACC dropped conference games, added 300+ ranked programs and RUTS on all OOC games, it would do wonders for our NET rankings and # of teams in the tournament.

Amen to this.

Does the ACC really want to do that? I think they should do something to send more teams to the tournament.

Yes, it’s all about money and perception.

(03-27-2024 11:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 03:58 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 02:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 05:14 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 04:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  You don’t have to play everyone.

Correct, the number of schools in the SoCon and an unbalanced schedule is the reason for a tournament.

Other than Carolina and Clemson, everyone played a 300 or worse team this year. Some played as many as four. The whose who includes the Citadel, NJIT, MD Eastern Shore, NC A&T, and Copping State getting played by two different ACC schools. Detroit, Elon, American, Bellarmine, DePaul, Morgan State, Ga Southern, Alabama A&M, Dartmouth, Southern Indiana, FIU, Long Island, and Stonehill round out the list of awfulness.

But isn't it important for schools to play a few games each year with nearby schools? I like to see Big 4 schools play Campbell, Elon, NCCU, ASU, UNCG, UNCW, Davidson, UNCA etc. because there are local connections. I would think the same would be true for other states. I hope OOC scheduling leaves room for a few of these games.

Important announcement to people of the board. What you see posted above is an example of the NC State takes pity on ECU syndrome that has existed for the last 60 years.

Dawg, ECU is not your kid brother that you are taxed with looking after. Campbell helped put a shiv in Jimmy V over the golf course. This "NC State must help look after ECU" is not good for NC State, it's just good for ECU.

I suspect the disease spreads from sexual contract with an ECU coed combined with the actual touch of Brightleaf, Flu-Cured Tobacco in the field or at grading time.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm saying it is a good thing for the big boys in the ACC to play the smaller schools in the area as part of their OOC schedule. And what the heck does Keith Hills have to do with Jimmy V? I've never heard anything negative between Coach Valvono and Campbell or their golf course?

I know what you are saying, in fact you said it all when you used the phrase "Coach" Valvano.

I'm old enough to know what some of these smaller schools in the area and their henchmen have actually done to NC State in past in order to get what they wanted from someone in the General Assembly or Board of Governors. I don't forget.

One year ago, I posted these suggestions (in response to similar suggestions from the OP, "Air Wolf"):

How to get more ACC teams into the Big Dance

1. Get rid of the 20-game conference schedule (drop to 16).
Why this could help: bad conference teams wouldn't drag down NET as much if you play them less often. Also might be able to saddle opponents with more losses.

The problem with this idea: ESPN wants more ACC conference games, not less. Better to focus on bringing up the bottom of the ACC so that those games don't drag the league down.

NOW: It seems the ACC will consider dropping back to 18 games.

2. Play stronger teams in NOV/DEC to work the NET algorithm
ACC teams do such a good job recruiting that they typically have Freshmen starters, so moving some OOC games to later in the season gives them more time to "gel". Also, to some extent it appears like NET rewards you for simply playing tough opponents - whether you win or lose.

3. Play a FEB non-con of national interest the day before the Super Bowl.
Same effect as #2, but with the added bonus of creating a made-for-tv event that would likely enhance revenue as well. I like it!

4. Switch from a B1G to a Big East/B12 challenge.
The ACC/B1G Challenge is dead anyway, to be replaced by an ACC/SEC Challenge - but that probably helps the SEC more than the ACC. Playing one of either the Big East or the Big XII is a good idea, since those are the very leagues the ACC is competing against, but ESPN will probably insist on the ACC vs SEC, since those are their two main properties.

PS: I really hope they do play more Big XII and Big East teams.

5. Only invite Top 8 to ACCT.
You might think this is another way to improve NET rankings (by eliminating the lower "quad" match-ups for the teams that are NCAA contenders), and it has the added appeal of improving the quality of the ACC Tournament . The downside - it also eliminates the possibility of getting an extra team in with the auto-bid (although you could ask when's the last time that happened?)

NOW: The ACC expanded to 18, but will only invite 15 -- so they are going to drop the bottom 3 teams from the ACCT, starting next year.

I thought it was incorporate the encouraged poor sportsmanship of running up the score on Q3 and Q4 programs?

(03-27-2024 10:48 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  If the ACC dropped conference games, added 300+ ranked programs and RUTS on all OOC games, it would do wonders for our NET rankings and # of teams in the tournament.

Does the ACC really want to do that though? I know it's about money. The more teams you get in the more you can make but the ACC is regularly putting more teams in the Sweet 16, Final 4 and Finals than any other conference. I'd hate to play with the formula that makes ACC teams NCAA tournament caliber teams. And likewise, the B1G, SEC and B12 so soft.

Dropping the number of conference games actually helps the analytics for all the schools:

1) Weaker teams will be stronger in the analytics. This year the weaker teams were Louisville, GT, Miami and ND. Two fewer conference games = two fewer conference losses = one or two more OOC wins. These teams were rebuilding, they had no shot at the NCAA tournament (although Miami and GT could have been eligible for the NIT postseason with a slightly easier schedule). These are the only teams that will be playing more 300+ NET ranked teams.

2) Bubble teams will achieve the biggest benefit because they’ll have more flexibility on how to enhance their resume. UVa/Tony Bennett likes the MSU/Tom Izzo approach…schedule hard OOC and rely on the SOS to differentiate your team. Pitt would have benefited from an easier early season schedule, because the team didn’t gel until the last two months. The ACC had 7 or 8 bubble teams this year. Only UVa and NC State (via the AQ) made the tournament. Pitt and WFU were clearly worthy but got eliminated during the last weekend by the bid-thieves. Syracuse and VT would have been near the cut-off line that the SEC and B12 are creating. Each of these programs will make their own determination about the SOS.

3) Upper tier teams will also benefit because the increased OOC H2H should drive better Tournament seeds. Duke and Clemson have good records and relatively mediocre seeds. These teams are not going to schedule weaker teams…in fact, they’ll likely have stronger SOS.

What is lost is ACCN content and conference cohesion. Conference games drive better ratings and should result in improved rivalries.

(03-28-2024 04:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How to get more ACC teams into the Big Dance

1. Get rid of the 20-game conference schedule (drop to 16).
Why this could help: bad conference teams wouldn't drag down NET as much if you play them less often. Also might be able to saddle opponents with more losses.

The problem with this idea: ESPN wants more ACC conference games, not less. Better to focus on bringing up the bottom of the ACC so that those games don't drag the league down.

NOW: It seems the ACC will consider dropping back to 18 games.

Now that the conference has 18 teams for basketball, I wouldn't want to drop to 16 games. UNC and Duke basketball games are high demand ticket items, I would hate for one of them to not even be on the schedule.

(03-29-2024 03:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-28-2024 04:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How to get more ACC teams into the Big Dance

1. Get rid of the 20-game conference schedule (drop to 16).
Why this could help: bad conference teams wouldn't drag down NET as much if you play them less often. Also might be able to saddle opponents with more losses.

The problem with this idea: ESPN wants more ACC conference games, not less. Better to focus on bringing up the bottom of the ACC so that those games don't drag the league down.

NOW: It seems the ACC will consider dropping back to 18 games.

Now that the conference has 18 teams for basketball, I wouldn't want to drop to 16 games. UNC and Duke basketball games are high demand ticket items, I would hate for one of them to not even be on the schedule.

100% Agree. TBH, I never liked the idea of just 16 games, even before expansion.