Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BC should never have been allowed into the ACC.
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
UNCheat is a hokey school.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.
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.
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
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
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’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.
Amen x1000I 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.
This is why UVA has been winning the ACC title every year, their conference schedule every year is laughable compared to ours.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
There’s 18 games to decide, and the best team will win the acc regular season.
Sure. I'm really not trying to argue, but seems like you're contradicting yourself again after being provided with facts.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.
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.Sure. I'm really not trying to argue, but seems like you're contradicting yourself again after being provided with facts.
This is why UVA has been winning the ACC title every year, their conference schedule every year is laughable compared to ours.
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