Question for Syracuse basketball fans
by mdak06 on Sep 22, 2011 2:18 PM EDT
Email
PrintBefore the question, a bit of background is necessary about the ACC basketball schedule ...
Currently, the ACC's basketball conference schedule has a "partners and groups" setup (not a divisional setup). There are 16 in-conference games, and the schedule basically works like this:
Each team has two "partners" that they play home & away every year (4 games). The remaining nine teams are divided into groups of three, and each year a team plays one group home & away (6 games), one group at home (3 games), and one group away (3 games). Each team sees every non-partner conference foe 4 times in 3 years.
This plan can work easily enough with a 14-team league, if the number of partners is increased to three, and instead of three groups of three teams, the remaining teams in the conference are broken into five groups of two teams (one group home & away, two groups at home, two groups away). It makes for an 18-game schedule that still allows every team to play every other team at least once.
The best thing about this schedule is that each team has their own individual set of partners, so that rivalries can be maintained as best as they can with a large league, but still allows round-robin play. For example, Duke has North Carolina and Maryland, while Maryland has Duke and Virginia. This flexibility doesn't exist in a divisional setup.
So here's my question:
If the ACC uses the expanded "partners and groups" system for an 18-game conference schedule, who would you want Syracuse's three partners to be?
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Easy
BC, Maryland, and Pitt.
We aren’t getting NC. They have to play Duke and Virginia (their oldest rival).
Dictated, but not read.
Beat me to it
Had it ready to roll at 11:28, then got a phone call. You win.
http://cusepulp.blogspot.com/
by Lots of Pulp on Sep 22, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Boston College, Maryland and Pitt
As much as I would like to play Duke and UNC twice every year, the rivalries here would be better. BC and Pitt already exist from the Big East, and Maryland makes sense regionally and for reasons Sean brought up the other day.
http://cusepulp.blogspot.com/
Gots to go w/ the flow
MD, BC, Pitt
We will not rest until we see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
-Che Marrone
BC, Pitt, Duke
BUT only if Coach K and Jimmy B are still coaching. I’d just love to see those two go at at twice every year.
Syracuse '13
I'm gonna go with the consensus
and pick Pitt, BC and Maryland. Travelwise, it’s the most logical and it has the advantage of Syracuse playing old Big East opponents.
"Over?! Did you say over?! Nothing is over until we decide it is!" John Blutarsky (John Belushi) in the movie 'Animal House'
Leaving the wishful thinking part out of the equation
I’d rather not see ND twice a year were it possible, which it currently is not. UConn? Meh. I’d be ok with swapping UConn for Pitt if they were in the ACC, leaving UConn, BC, MD.
We will not rest until we see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
-Che Marrone
Just messin around....
If those three schools were added, that’s what I’d like to see…
If not, I agree with the majority that Pitt, BC and Maryland make the most sense from a geographical and rivalry perspective…..
Hmmmm....let's see if we can do this equitably.
Let’s start with what we have now:
Wake Forest-NC State-UNC-Duke-MD-UVA-VT-BC-Miami-FSU-Clemson-GT
This is what it is currently, I believe.
I believe we’d be squeezed in between VT and Boston College, with Pitt and VT having a protected home-and-home and us and BC having a protected home-and-home, as well as us and Pitt.
I’d think the third home-and-home should be arbitrary, but let’s see if we can work something out:
Miami-VT
Duke-Wake
UNC-UVA
NC State-Clemson
BC-Pitt
SU-MD
FSU-GT
Yeah, it actually works out nicely that Maryland would be our third rival.
Duke, BC, Maryland
Fuck Pitt, I’m tired of them.
by Nick Petrilli on Sep 22, 2011 4:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree.
Born in '87, Orange fan since '86
by StealthTurkey on Sep 22, 2011 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I like this schedule set-up
and I think it makes it pretty equitable. Bud and the Manchild (I’m a glutton for punishment, and driving back from Rochester when the alternative was Cowherd) were not fundamentally against the ACC move but were railing about how Duke and/or UNC would only come to the Dome “once every four years or so” and if you do the numbers, that’s just not true.
You get more repeat games and a chance to build rivalries with the partners/groups system, but if 18 games is OK, why not two divisions of 7 teams and make it 19?
Home-and-home with every divisional team = 12 games
One game apiece with the other division’s teams= 7 games
Total = 19 games
Rotate the other division so that 1) you alternate home and away annually with the other division and 2) 1) no team is stuck with Duke and UNC away the same year then home the same year (to guarantee at least one big home game)
If you REALLY don’t think they’d go to 19, rotate one team from the other division off. (12+6=18)
It's the most bullshit thing I've seen in thirty years.
This said,
I really like the current ACC scheduling described by the OP and I’ll throw my hat in for BC, Pitt, UMd
It's the most bullshit thing I've seen in thirty years.
by Girardi Party on Sep 22, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
There are definitely a few possibilities for scheduling.
The first time I saw the format they currently use, I thought it was a bit bizarre, but after thinking about it, I think it makes a lot of sense.
Divisions are certainly natural to consider, but I think the best part of the “partner & group” system is that it allows each team to have its own set of rivals, not those that are dictated to it by a division. It also means that over time, each team will play a two-game set (in a year) against all conference opponents.
In short, a team plays two games against its partners every year, and six games in five years against everyone else.
I also think that as long they stay at 14 teams, they’ll want to have round-robin play in the conference, so they’ll have to figure out a way to make it work.
In some ways, divisions don’t really matter too much anyway, since everyone will play in the ACC tournament at the end of the season. The only thing being a division winner would (presumably) give a team is a bye in the first round of the ACC tournament. Instead, the top two teams would get a bye, and one team would still be considered the regular season ACC champ.
Dont be wimps!
Duke, UNC, and BC…. we’re not going to the ACC to play home & home with Pitt! we hardly ever did that in the BEAST… I dislike Pitt; but I already hate-on UNC and Roy Williams… hey, I moved to the NC Triangle 15 yrs ago, based on my boyhood thoughts that UNC showed that area as the “new south”… reality was I had to hate those redneck good ‘ole boys… up here Im a fiscally consertive libertarian… down south I was a flamin liberal Yankee. If we’re going down Tobacco Road… I want to kick some ass home & home! and I wanna take it out of Roy Williams hide. Glad to finally be in a league with a big-name coach who whines more than anyone I know!
There's also a matter of being realistic
I seriously doubt the ACC is going to give Syracuse a home and home with Duke and UNC every year.
We will not rest until we see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
-Che Marrone
OTTOman empire
Its well known that Syracuse Basketball is a National, and Global Brand. It would be foolish if the ACC did not monetize their new jewel to its maximum…. TV eyeballs wanna see the Orange take on the traditional powers. I acknowledge that the good ole boys are not going to give SU any breaks… but in their own interest and TV $$$$… they should have Duke & UNC in the Carrier Dome with 33000 fans as much as possible
Clemson, NC State and Va Tech
are the rivalries I’ve been pining for for years. And our OOC series with Cornell and St. Bonnies.
Making an assumption
That UConn will also be in the ACC sooner rather than later. So, for partners, I’d go with Pitt, UConn and BC. I’d like to keep a NE/Old Big East grouping together. I’m tired of losing games in the mid 40’s to Pitt also, but put more value in maintaining the rivalry. But if UConn somehow doesn’t end up there, I’ll jump on the Pitt, BC, Maryland bandwagon. I’m not scared to play Duke or UNC home/home every year, but I agree that it’ll be unlikely to happen given the established rivalries those two schools already have within the ACC.
Another question, though. Why the hell didn’t the BEast have a similar scheduling format? If you’re not going to go the divisional route, then this “partners and groups” approach is a hell of a lot better than the “random home/home and play everyone else once” route.
"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes
by FeloniousPhunk on Sep 23, 2011 10:06 AM EDT reply actions
I think TV dictated who the home/home matchups were for the Big East
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-tip
If that were the case
We;d end up playing G’Town, Nova and UConn every year, because those are the games people want to see. I know it wasn’t completely random, but whatever system they used (if they even had a system) made no sense at all. Any method that results in Syracuse/G’Town not playing home/home every single year is bullshit.
"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes
by FeloniousPhunk on Sep 23, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
