It's the offseason, so let's talk how the basketball schedule will look when we move to 20 conference games. Found the article linked on a UofL board. Interesting proposal, though I doubt the league would institute it.

Let’s stop with the permanent partners in Atlantic Coast Conference basketball and go to an equity schedule, similar to the NFL. Based on the results of the previous season the higher ranked teams play each other twice and the lower ranked teams play each other twice.

My proposal schedules the coming season based on the previous year’s seedings for the ACC tournament. It divides the league into three “PODS” just for scheduling purposes, starts with all teams playing each other once, and adds six duplicate games based on a set formula.

Equity scheduling for a 20-game ACC schedule

With so many conference games, why can't they do a hybrid of the two? Meaning, why can't rivals like Virginia and Virginia Tech play twice annually but then you have room on the schedule for made for television match ups?

(04-18-2017 01:06 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  With so many conference games, why can't they do a hybrid of the two? Meaning, why can't rivals like Virginia and Virginia Tech play twice annually but then you have room on the schedule for made for television match ups?

I see your hybrid as a more realistic option than the proposed. In fact at the end the article he summarizes that ESPN would crow enough about not having having two annual guaranteed UNC-Duke match-ups that he says the league would tweak his idea to ensure that matchup.

I don't see the conference going away from permanent partners, if for no other reason than to protect the Duke-UNC rivalry. However, for the rest of the conference, with 20 conference games, and 2 permanent partners, schools will be playing each of the remaining 12 schools in the conference 4 times every three years, twice at home and twice away. That ensures that everyone will be getting home games from Duke, UNC, UL, SU, etc. on a regular basis, no matter who your permanent partners are. The three tiered system described in the article may limit the number of "name brand" opponents that would travel to the bottom tier schools, which could hurt both attendance and recruiting for those schools.

(04-18-2017 01:41 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I don't see the conference going away from permanent partners, if for no other reason than to protect the Duke-UNC rivalry. However, for the rest of the conference, with 20 conference games, and 2 permanent partners, schools will be playing each of the remaining 12 schools in the conference 4 times every three years, twice at home and twice away. That ensures that everyone will be getting home games from Duke, UNC, UL, SU, etc. on a regular basis, no matter who your permanent partners are. The three tiered system described in the article may limit the number of "name brand" opponents that would travel to the bottom tier schools, which could hurt both attendance and recruiting for those schools.

I imagine that most of the conference would be more than happy to keep the two permanent partners if it means seeing the others more often.

I do wonder if there will be some push from certain members to go to a third permanent partner. I wouldn't be shocked to see the North Carolina schools take that stance, since it could mean guaranteed home-and-homes every year with your three in-state foes.

Not sure it makes a ton of sense for any other schools to make that push though.

(04-18-2017 01:41 PM)orangefan Wrote:  However, for the rest of the conference, with 20 conference games, and 2 permanent partners, schools will be playing each of the remaining 12 schools in the conference 4 times every three years, twice at home and twice away.

Truth be told, playing 4 games every three years vs everyone (non-permanent partners) is not bad. You essentially are guaranteed a home and home with every club once every three years. Currently you only have a home and home with non-permanent partners once every six years. I don't have a big issue with basketball scheduling, and still won't if they keep the current set-up, but it's interesting to see other ideas.

(04-18-2017 12:44 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  It's the offseason, so let's talk how the basketball schedule will look when we move to 20 conference games. Found the article linked on a UofL board. Interesting proposal, though I doubt the league would institute it.

[i]Let’s stop with the permanent partners in Atlantic Coast Conference basketball ...

I was with you until you said that.

You'd be a candidate for a Nobel prize of some sort, or POTUS, if you could work an arrangement that saw the elimination of Duke & Carolina's home-and-home partnership.

(04-18-2017 12:44 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  It's the offseason, so let's talk how the basketball schedule will look when we move to 20 conference games. Found the article linked on a UofL board. Interesting proposal, though I doubt the league would institute it.

Let’s stop with the permanent partners in Atlantic Coast Conference basketball and go to an equity schedule, similar to the NFL. Based on the results of the previous season the higher ranked teams play each other twice and the lower ranked teams play each other twice.

My proposal schedules the coming season based on the previous year’s seedings for the ACC tournament. It divides the league into three “PODS” just for scheduling purposes, starts with all teams playing each other once, and adds six duplicate games based on a set formula.

Equity scheduling for a 20-game ACC schedule

Why do they call this an "equity" schedule? To me, equity implies a level playing field. That's not what this is.

Rather, it seems to be a "parity" schedule, designed to give weaker teams more wins and stronger teams fewer wins, so that everybody will be more bunched up at the end of the regular season.

The NFL does this to keep more teams in the playoff picture until the last week or two of the season as a way to maintain fan interest longer. That may be smart business, but it isn't equity.

I understand why ESPN would want this. It's the same reason they (and Fox, CBS, NBC et al) want the late game rules that favor the losing teams and punish the winning teams. They keep eyeballs on the TV while the last few minutes of most games take forever to play out.

And I guess I can see why a majority of coaches and ADs might want it, since there are a lot more mediocre teams than very good ones. This is similar to the handicap systems in golf and bowling. It tilts the playing field to favor mediocrity.