CSNbbs

Yep basketball is the backbone of the new network, not football.

(07-21-2016 01:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep basketball is the backbone of the new network, not football.

This is what I and some others have been saying for some time. Especially since the BIG commish said that it was basketball that got their fans complaining to their cable companies about missing so many games because they were on the BIGN, which at the time wasnt carried by many cable systems and negotiations had stalemated. With the basketball crazy folks in NY and NC, Kentucky and Virginia, its no surprise to me that basketball will be the backbone of this network. All the leagues have their strong points. The ACC just happens to be bb, a little moreso than fb. Even the mighty BIG had to rely on their bb to get them over the top.

(07-21-2016 01:52 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2016 01:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep basketball is the backbone of the new network, not football.

This is what I and some others have been saying for some time. Especially since the BIG commish said that it was basketball that got their fans complaining to their cable companies about missing so many games because they were on the BIGN, which at the time wasnt carried by many cable systems and negotiations had stalemated. With the basketball crazy folks in NY and NC, Kentucky and Virginia, its no surprise to me that basketball will be the backbone of this network. All the leagues have their strong points. The ACC just happens to be bb, a little moreso than fb.

We've been saying it all along, except our voices have been drowned out by the FB-crazed malcontents...

Would love to have at least one more permanent mirror game. Either Louisville or Duke. I wonder if that will happen for all the teams to get a permanent mirror game against another rival.

This seemed likely whether the coaches wanted it or not. It will mean one less home game for nearly everyone in the league but better content for the network.

It remains to be seen if teams drop 2 buy games against weak opponents or if we lose premier non-conference match-ups. We'll probably see some ACC schools taking both approaches.

This screws over the Cuse...we have several annual nationally relevant games...but you won't hear us complain...happy to be in the ACC.

(07-21-2016 08:21 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]This screws over the Cuse...we have several annual nationally relevant games...but you won't hear us complain...happy to be in the ACC.

All of the good teams in the conference do. It just comes with the territory of being the best.

You can kiss preseason tournaments like the Battle 4 Atlantis bye for Louisville.

Louisville only does one of these bigger tournaments every few years, but with UK, IU, and another B10 opponent on the schedule, Pitino will schedule the rest as home game gimmes.

(07-21-2016 02:21 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]Would love to have at least one more permanent mirror game. Either Louisville or Duke. I wonder if that will happen for all the teams to get a permanent mirror game against another rival.

It would be nice to restore all the Tobacco Road rivalries and make Syracuse-Louisville a yearly home and home match up.

So, just to be sure I understand, the current format allows a school to play four conference opponents home and home each year, with two being annual opponents and two being of the rotating variety. That leaves five home only and five away only games.

With the move to 20 total conference games, there will be a total of six home and home games each year, leaving four home only and four away only. Is that correct?

Assuming that is correct, it sounds like the decision we are waiting on is if there will be...

2 x Annual Home and Home & 4 x Rotating Home and Home
or
3 x Annual Home and Home & 3 x Rotating Home and Home
or
4 x Annual Home and Home & 2 x Rotating Home and Home

I think it will be the first scenario you laid out. This will allow the ACC to create a bunch of made-for-television match ups prior to each season. The fewer games you're locked in to the better.

There have been classic matchups between Duke and Cuse, Louisville and UNC, Louisville and UVa, etc. So, there is no doubt in my mind that the powers that be will try their hardest to get home and home for the 5 schools listed. That is a given.

(07-22-2016 03:01 PM)MegaCard Wrote: [ -> ]You can kiss preseason tournaments like the Battle 4 Atlantis bye for Louisville.

Louisville only does one of these bigger tournaments every few years, but with UK, IU, and another B10 opponent on the schedule, Pitino will schedule the rest as home game gimmes.

How long is the contract for IU? Isn't the ACC/B1G Challenge contract about up? Either way, with 20 ACC games plus those 3 the schedule will be tough. I could see UL & IU take a year off for a tourney like Battle 4 Atlantis.

(07-24-2016 09:13 PM)Schema Wrote: [ -> ]So, just to be sure I understand, the current format allows a school to play four conference opponents home and home each year, with two being annual opponents and two being of the rotating variety. That leaves five home only and five away only games.

With the move to 20 total conference games, there will be a total of six home and home games each year, leaving four home only and four away only. Is that correct?

Assuming that is correct, it sounds like the decision we are waiting on is if there will be...

2 x Annual Home and Home & 4 x Rotating Home and Home
or
3 x Annual Home and Home & 3 x Rotating Home and Home
or
4 x Annual Home and Home & 2 x Rotating Home and Home

The math for 3 annual home and home doesn't work out. If 15 teams play 3 opponents, that makes 45 games. But there must be an even number, since it takes two teams to play a game. One school would have to have only 2 permanent, and adjust the rotating opponents accordingly. It's complicated.

(07-25-2016 11:50 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]The math for 3 annual home and home doesn't work out. If 15 teams play 3 opponents, that makes 45 games. But there must be an even number, since it takes two teams to play a game. One school would have to have only 2 permanent, and adjust the rotating opponents accordingly. It's complicated.

Ah! OK, scratch that middle option.

Unless my math is wrong it's 4 and 10. 10 single games, and 4 home and aways.

Two will be set, the other two will rotate.

Set Pairs

UNC and Duke/NC State
NC State and UNC/WF
Duke and UNC/Syracuse
Syracuse and Duke/Louisville
Louisville and ND/Syracuse
ND and Pitt/Louisville
Va and VT/Miami
Miami and FSU/UVa
VT and WF/UVa
CU and GT/FSU
FSU and Miami/CU
GT and CU/BC
WF and VT/NCSU
Pitt and ND/BC
BC and GT/Pitt

There might be a little movement in this, but not much.

Beyond Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Louisville, and ND, the national viewing variables really depend on what UVa, NC State, and Miami put on the floor.

(07-25-2016 05:01 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless my math is wrong it's 4 and 10. 10 single games, and 4 home and aways.

Two will be set, the other two will rotate.

That's what we have now with the 18 game schedule.

When all is said and done, I believe under a 20 game schedule that each school would have four permanent home/home opponents, four rotating home/home (2 each year) and six opponents that they would only play once a year, alternating home and away.

On average, under my scheme, the top six programs would play each other 8.5 times a year. The other nine teams would play those top six teams an average of 7.67 times a year. If the schedules were purely random, rather than planned to deliberately have more top six matchups, then the top six would play each other less often than the bottom nine would play them, simply because each of the top six would never have to play itself.

So, in effect, the weaker teams would be given a handicap in the scheme that I worked out trying to use geography and tradition to determine the home/home opponents. The system needs some tweaking, because Miami seems to get too big a break thanks to being in the deep south, while Pitt gets the toughest road because they are in the north where there are more good teams.

But the most important thing is that there needs to be a payoff for going to 20 games. That payoff is more great games involving the better teams, even if that gives an "unfair" advantage to the weaker ones.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cavalierins...905dc.html

From the link:

Quote:DP: What’s your take on the recent announcement that the ACC will go from 18 to 20 games beginning in 2019-20?

TB: I was a little surprised. I’m not trying to go against the grain here, but I think the inventory because of the ACC Network was [the big factor].



DP: So do you think it will be good or bad?

TB: That’s a lot of games. It’s a daunting thing. When we went from 16 to 18, everybody was like, “Oh my goodness.” Now you’re talking 18 to 20. Who knows what that means with the ACC/Big Ten Challenge and nonconference games. There have been a lot of studies about whether [more league games] helps your strength of schedule, and it’s a little gray. If it provides more income for the athletic department and for the league, and helps for making the game good and positioning teams for the postseason, then I’m all for it. But I just don’t know yet.

Interesting stuff! Is this trip (games) being televised and if not, is it something the new network would cover?