The conference schedule matters in the post-expansion ACC.
We've dabbled in the uneven scheduling business in previous seasons. StateFans Nation has thorough statistical analysis of the four basketball schedules since the ACC went to a 12-team model. Interpreting the data can be complicated but the fourth chart on SFN is the most helpful.
Intuitively, the 2009 data makes the most sense. Virginia, which was a bad team, had the toughest schedule because it didn't have the benefit of playing Virginia. UNC, which was the best team, had the easiest schedule because it didn't have to play UNC.
Here's one loophole in the numbers. Let's look at Georgia Tech this season. According to the data, GT played the second-toughest schedule. Yet the Jackets didn't play either Duke or UNC twice. Maryland's five slots below GT yet Maryland had to play both powers twice. Which schedule would you rather have?
For the best chance to rack up ACC wins, the answer is Georgia Tech (assuming it was a functional team with a competent coach). But Maryland used the four games against UNC and Duke to its advantage.
Maryland, at 7-9 in the ACC, made the NCAA Tournament — like an 8-8 GT team in '07 — because of the strength of its schedule and the opportunity to notch a marquee win (they beat UNC).
On the other end of the spectrum is Boston College. The Eagles rank 11th and parlayed that easier schedule (one game each with Duke and UNC — and to their credit they won both) into a 9-7 league record and an NCAA bid.
Of course, like Virginia in 2006 and Virginia Tech in 2007 — two other teams that benefitted greatly from weaker ACC schedules — the Eagles were exposed quickly in the NCAA Tournament, losing in the first round to USC.
Comments
add more teams
Fri, 03/27/2009 - 07:51 — fdub11make the conferences 16 teams, have two full schedule divisions. Winner of each division goes to the NCAA's. The rest battle it out in the conference tourney, winner and runnerup move on, the rest go home. Do this for every conference, making the conference tourneys the first round of the NCAAs. That puts meaning (and fairness) back into the regular season and definitely puts meaning back in the ACC tourney. AND, get the ACC tourney out of domes....what an awful venue we had in Atlanta.
this is all wrong
Fri, 03/27/2009 - 07:48 — fdub11The ACC regular season has gone the way of the tournament, no real meaning. You said it in your article....one can't determine real standings from the regular season when the teams don't play the same schedules. Solution: All the teams play 7-9 patsies. Drop all but 3 of those and play a full ACC schedule. The fans would love it (oh, I forget, it's not about the fans). Then the NCAA should make the conference tournaments the first rounds of the NCAA and bring some meaning back into them. Give the top two teams in the regular season an automatic bid to the next rounds. Anybody who went to this year's ACC tourney can see it's lost its luster. Remember the days when every game mattered?
20/20 Hindsight
Thu, 03/26/2009 - 13:41 — heelsno1The league expansion plan was a mistake. It has diminished longstanding rivalries in football and basketball. It is my understanding that UNC and Duke were the only instituitions to vote against the plan. It appears that they felt that the plan posed some risk to the rich ACC basketball traditions. They were right.
This opinion is nothing against VT, BC or Miami for that matter. They are all fine universities, and they field competitive teams. But, the expanision plan was sold around the premise of expanded TV markets for football. Miami has clearly wavered from its glory days in football and even VT is not as consistently strong as years past. BC is solid but not a Top 10 football school. At one point, the rumor mill had Notre Dame headed to the ACC. All of this was done in the hope of powerhouse college football.