So Hartford won at BC
- Thread starter kwyjibos13
- Start date
We know that Princeton team is way better than our final score indicated...we happened to play an out of our minds last 12+ minutes to make a competitive game into a laugher.
No, BC shouldn’t have fired Al Skinner. And should have found a better coach to succeed him once Skinner was ready to move on. I remember the days of Craig Smith, Jared Dudley, Sean Williams, and Tyrese Rice. When BC first came they were certainly competitive from a b-ball standpoint.
Firing Skinner squandered Reggie Jackson’s talent and they never put much around Hanlon. The Steve Donohue era was a disaster IMO. At some point hopefully they turn the ship.
Also keep in mind BC opens up the New England market. From a $$$ perspective, BC to the ACC makes total sense
Which only matters if New England sports fans can take their minds off the Red Sox, Pats, Celtics and Bruins long enough to care about college sports.
Which happens during the random solar eclipse.
As an aside, BC's football program is pretty good. But they are the only school in the ACC that can properly be called a hockey school.
My fondest memory of BC basketball was in the second round of the 1994 NCAA Tourney.
Billy Curley, Howard Eisley and Danya Abrams had the gall to upset the mighty Cheats of Ras**t Wallace, Easy Ed Cota, Touche McGinnis and Stackhouse.
After the game El Deano being classy as he always was after a loss complained of officiating and Danya Abrams being a dirty player.
You see El Deano never lost a game. He always blamed a loss on officiating, other team having dirty players or opposing fans being unruly.
Billy Curley, Howard Eisley and Danya Abrams had the gall to upset the mighty Cheats of Ras**t Wallace, Easy Ed Cota, Touche McGinnis and Stackhouse.
After the game El Deano being classy as he always was after a loss complained of officiating and Danya Abrams being a dirty player.
You see El Deano never lost a game. He always blamed a loss on officiating, other team having dirty players or opposing fans being unruly.
Dukeman, El Deano just got OUTCOACHED and couldnt take it. He was loaded like Otis Campbell in Mayberry with a snootful to go back to back like K, but couldnt get past the 1st weekend. No love lost that year between upperclassmen returning from '93 title team and El Deano's prized recruits! I loved it!!!! Thanks for the memories buddy!
OFC
Another innovation by Dean smith, Whining about the officiating was has become a unc cheater u tradition being perfected by their fan base. This is another example of the carolina way. Dukeman and I have been around a long time and we remember what a cry baby dean was. Yes a great coach but a whining baby. He could get by with publicly blasting the officiating back in those days. OFC
A week later Duke upset Purdue and Big Dog Robinson in East Regional Final and advanced to NCAA Final losing to Arkansas in Charlotte.
I’d be interested to see the actual $$$ numbers BC brings to the ACC. If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it. But, BC has been relatively irrelevant in most major sports for a long time.
Last edited:
I’ll also add that my opinion that BC doesn’t belong in the ACC starts from the expansion when they were added. It was a geographical anomaly and made little sense. Now that the ACC has expanded even further that argument loses weight, but I was happy with the 9 we had. I could see Va Tech given the rivalry with UVA, but that’s it.
You are most likely correct. Boston is a pro sports town and cares less about college sports. ECU or W.Va.. would have brought more to the sporting table than BC. I dont know that VA.Tech would have allowed W.Va to get in. I know there was bad blood between the two schools.
I know I'm an old fart, and I'm finally starting to admit it. (Had to take my son to the ER yesterday and the doc wasn't even born yet when I got out of high school)
But, if I were king of the world every NCAA conference would have 8 teams and they'd be geographic. Would take some work to lay them out, but it can be done. Football you can play everyone in your conference and 5 non-conference. Basketball you can play everyone in your conference twice and nearly all the non-conference you'd be able to schedule. Football wouldn't need a conference championship game, basketball can have a nice tidy 3-day tournament with no byes, it's all nice and clean.
I know these super conferences are driven by money and TV and all of that, but I like the old traditional 8-team conferences so much better from a play and competitive aspect.
But, if I were king of the world every NCAA conference would have 8 teams and they'd be geographic. Would take some work to lay them out, but it can be done. Football you can play everyone in your conference and 5 non-conference. Basketball you can play everyone in your conference twice and nearly all the non-conference you'd be able to schedule. Football wouldn't need a conference championship game, basketball can have a nice tidy 3-day tournament with no byes, it's all nice and clean.
I know these super conferences are driven by money and TV and all of that, but I like the old traditional 8-team conferences so much better from a play and competitive aspect.
100% agree Marvin, it absolutely sucks for conference teams not to play each other twice. It turns the conference reg season championship into putty.
This is why UVA has been winning the ACC title every year, their conference schedule every year is laughable compared to ours.
The cream rises to the top. The unbalanced schedule is what it is. UVA won the regular season because they were the best team. They beat Duke, the holes and N.C. state. We blew it. Simple as that.
There’s 18 games to decide, and the best team will win the acc regular season.
There’s 18 games to decide, and the best team will win the acc regular season.
Agreed. Don’t like to use the unbalanced schedule as an excuse. If you’re the best team, you’ll win the regular season. Now the tournament is a different story. In a one game win or go home scenario, anything can happen.
I think this is right. To my knowledge, the only profit sharing for conference teams is splitting things like TV contracts and bowl revenues - and I don't see where BC adds much there.
2015- Duke went 15-3 and UVA went 16-2 and won the ACC. We beat UVA at their place, we won the national title. Who was the best team that year? Whose cream rose to the top? We played UNC and a VERY GOOD ND team twice that year. Were ACC champs had we not played ND twice.
2016- Yeah, UVA was better than us. Though we beat them in Cameron on Grayson's "he maybe walked" shot. Oh, and we made it a round further in the tourney. Clearly they were the cream that year.
2017- We both went 11-7 and we beat them at their place, Tatum was superman that game. UNC won the league. Advantage Duke over UVA.
2018- They beat us and won the league. We go much further in the tournament. I think we were a better team, but that one is up for debate.
Score: 2-1 Duke with 2018 up for debate.
A couple (or 3) things I would like to add.
One, the unbalanced schedule does matter when it comes to winning the ACC championship. No way to argue otherwise.
Two, even though I would love winning the regular season, it's not as likely now that Duke is bringing in OAD's, and there are a few WTF losses along the way.
THIRD, I've seen a lot of love towards Tony Bennett and the Hoos here and just about everywhere (they deserve much of it). In the last 5 seasons they've won 30 or more games 3 times, won the ACC regular season 3 times, and tied for 2nd once. Impressive. But in that time they've made 1 Sweet Sixteen, 1 Elite Eight...and got their asses sent packing by a 16 seed last year, convincingly at that. In that same time period, Duke has a Sweet Sixteen, an Elite Eight, and a National Championship.
OFC
One, the unbalanced schedule does matter when it comes to winning the ACC championship. No way to argue otherwise.
Two, even though I would love winning the regular season, it's not as likely now that Duke is bringing in OAD's, and there are a few WTF losses along the way.
THIRD, I've seen a lot of love towards Tony Bennett and the Hoos here and just about everywhere (they deserve much of it). In the last 5 seasons they've won 30 or more games 3 times, won the ACC regular season 3 times, and tied for 2nd once. Impressive. But in that time they've made 1 Sweet Sixteen, 1 Elite Eight...and got their asses sent packing by a 16 seed last year, convincingly at that. In that same time period, Duke has a Sweet Sixteen, an Elite Eight, and a National Championship.
OFC
The comment is about the regular season, not any one team. They won it last season because of their consistency. This isn't a Duke vs uva thing. It's simply saying there's 18 games to decide, and they happen to have been the most consistent team during the 'regular' season. Has nothing to do with who won the title. That's for another debate.
Personally, I like playing everybody twice, but that's not happening.
some times a teams 18 game path is far less daunting than others
Sure. I'm really not trying to argue, but seems like you're contradicting yourself again after being provided with facts.
REGULAR season. Fair or not, it is the way it is. Yes, we’ve won a natty, and yes we’ve won the ACC Tournament, and yes, we’ve had good success against uva, but over the last several years, we haven’t been consistent enough for the season.
We can spin this however we want. Were State and BC better than we were last season, because they beat us? We both know they weren’t. Only proves that our consistency has not been there over the 18 game season.
Winning the ACC regular season no longer means you're the best or most consistent team. There's times where it could mean that, but it's not one of those mutually exclusive things.
Last season we had the easiest ACC slate we've had in a long time. We didn't get it done. By the end of the year I think we were best team in the ACC, but not the regular season.
Now, two years ago our conference schedule was brutal. We still shouldn't have gone 11-7, but we did. The schedule this season is maybe harder (on paper) than it was two years ago.
The truth of the matter is, it's very possible to play a much harder 18-game schedule than someone else in the conference. It's kind of a matter of luck. Last year, UNC faced a difficult schedule and this year it's much lighter. For us, it's reversed.
It's reasons like this that you see RPIs, BPIs, KenPom and all those other 'systems' being taken into account come March. Few major conferences are left doing true round-robins.
Last season we had the easiest ACC slate we've had in a long time. We didn't get it done. By the end of the year I think we were best team in the ACC, but not the regular season.
Now, two years ago our conference schedule was brutal. We still shouldn't have gone 11-7, but we did. The schedule this season is maybe harder (on paper) than it was two years ago.
The truth of the matter is, it's very possible to play a much harder 18-game schedule than someone else in the conference. It's kind of a matter of luck. Last year, UNC faced a difficult schedule and this year it's much lighter. For us, it's reversed.
It's reasons like this that you see RPIs, BPIs, KenPom and all those other 'systems' being taken into account come March. Few major conferences are left doing true round-robins.
They won it in some years where they had to play Duke and UNC once each. Think some other teams wouldn't love to play Duke or UNC only once?
Conference unbalanced schedule most definitely matters. Remember 2015? Uva had one less conference loss. Both lost in the acc semis. Duke was a one seed, uva wasn't...
It matters. In 2005 (11 teams), Duke was 14-5 in the ACC and UNC was 15-3 (including acc tournament). I was pissed unc was the second one seed and Duke 3rd one seed. Duke played all the top seven teams not themselves twice. UNC played each of the bottom four teams twice and only two of the top 7 twice. So glad the committee at least SEEMS to also take conference SOS into account.
See why VT was left out one year going 11-5.
The ACC handbook clearly states that the ACC Champion is the tournament champion. No mention of anything for the best regular season team as anything but the one seed. And with the unbalanced schedule, I'm home, the tournament is the only way to crown a champion
It matters. In 2005 (11 teams), Duke was 14-5 in the ACC and UNC was 15-3 (including acc tournament). I was pissed unc was the second one seed and Duke 3rd one seed. Duke played all the top seven teams not themselves twice. UNC played each of the bottom four teams twice and only two of the top 7 twice. So glad the committee at least SEEMS to also take conference SOS into account.
See why VT was left out one year going 11-5.
The ACC handbook clearly states that the ACC Champion is the tournament champion. No mention of anything for the best regular season team as anything but the one seed. And with the unbalanced schedule, I'm home, the tournament is the only way to crown a champion
I’ll take it even farther....
In 2017 we were the five seed in the ACCT and won it. We were awarded a two seed in the NCAAT. Last season UNC was the six overall seed in the conference tournament and made the finals. They got a two seed in the big dance.
UNC fans were furious we were a two in 2017, and Duke fans were outraged last year. But, both of those teams’ resumes supported their seeding.
Similar threads
