ACC 2014

Thanks for the links. But, I can't find any drop down schedule for anything but the 2014 spring schedule on the Pittsburgh site. And, the Syracuse site says "this schedule is currently unavailable." Maybe they've pulled it because they're updating it?

 

I think the ACC moves were smart. 10 games is good and should increase the number of NCAA participants from 8 to 10, perhaps 11. If 8 teams got in last year and all 8 made the Sweet 16 then the conference should get more in (Maryland should have been in last year).

My guess is the same 8 teams will have good years and get bids in: Florida State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Boston College, Notre Dame, and Wake Forest. And a good number of them will make impactful deep runs in November and hopefully December. I think Clemson gets in too as they have done a very rebuilding job. As for the 10th or possibly 11th teams that remains to be seen. Could be Louisville, but from what I hear they graduated their 2 best players and will need to make an adjustment to the ACC level of play. Will need to see what happens to Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Miami, and NC State. Miami seems to be sliding downward where the others are at least making improvements within recruiting so perhaps we'll see a nice surprise.

Will all come down to taking care in the non-conference schedule, picking up points where you can in the ACC, and staying healthy. Will be another fun and competitive season this fall in the ACC.

 

With all due respect for a very informative fan, I think you are too close to the ACC to make this call. I just don't see how, objectively a #47 RPI at 10-10 overall can be considered a snub, especially when they started the year 7-3 and finished 3-7. The ACC was too strong for the Maryland side last year, and it caught up to them. Maryland played 20 matches to a 10-10 record with no ties. They weren't competitive enough based on this record to have an NCAA resume just on the merits of their conference and by losing to Virginia twice, an unfortunate matchup for them in the ACC tournament. The 8 seed gets punished, but when it comes to scheduling irregularities, UPENN got the worse.

By comparison, Penn was a #40 and only loss was to 50th ranked Harvard. If you let a 9th ACC team in, at whose expense would it be?

Maryland's ACC wins: Clemson OT (10th), Wake (9), NC St (13), Miami (11), Syracuse (12), Pittsburgh (14). Therefore, Maryland did not defeat anyone above them in the ACC standings, they managed to get only 2 wins against teams with winning records, and they beat only teams they were supposed to. As impressive as 1-0 over Wake at home is, and Miami 1-0 on the road, these are not the most glaring results either.

Meanwhile, Maryland's OOC: 4-2 whereas UPENN was 7-0-3.

 

Hykos1045 you make some very valid points. I should be clearer in my rationale.

First, by me saying Maryland should have gotten in does not mean that I don't think Penn should not have gotten in. With the RPIs they had after the conference tournaments were over for everyone (I know the Ivy League does not have a tournament) both Maryland and Penn could have gone through. I was surprised to see Arkansas and Ohio State get in over them, for example.

My point about the 8 ACC teams getting in, and then all 8 of them getting in to the Sweet Sixteen, 6 of them going to the Elite Eight, and 3 making the Final Four shows the class of the conference on a national level. Had the ACC gotten a 9th team in I think there is a pretty good shot they at least make the second round.

To be clearer on my point I think Maryland would have gotten in if they used the 2014 fall format for fall 2013. 10 conference games, instead of 13. Maryland would have had a couple less ACC losses and instead would have had a couple more non-conference wins and their RPI would have been stronger. And the new conference tournament format would have helped. Playing in the first round of the ACC tournament and losing 6-1 against UVa and ending up at .500 did not help them either. Maryland didn't need that loss so eliminating the need for teams 5th-8th in the conference tournament is a good thing. This new format the ACC has taken should help these teams that are 7th-11th in the ACC standings to get them in to the big dance.

 

As I am not in the loop. What is the new ACC conf tournament format?

 

ACC has gone minimum for the "Tournament": The four top teams in the regular season standings have a simple weekend semis and a final. The genius is that teams further down don't get that extra loss to be examined by the NCAA selection committee, while the top 4 are going to the big dance anyway. Look for other conferences to imitate this soon.

 

Isn't this all just "gaming the system". What is the competitive objective here anyway??
If you want to know who the best team is in any given conference over the course of a season, isn't playing a full round robin the best way to do it? And if you want to decide who the best "in form" team is at the end of the season, to qualify for another post-season tournament, isn't having at least 6 or 8 teams (out of 14) in that conference tournament the best way to do it?

So, the ACC now has a partial round-robin and an abbreviated conference tournament and this is a good move??

A very frequent argument you get about college soccer is the season is too short and there "aren't enough meaningful games". So the ACC has decided to allow its teams to play more inferior non-conference teams and then have less teams play in the super competitive ACC tournament. So please explain, for example, how does Wake Forest playing weaker regular-season teams and then not having the opportunity to play in the ACC tournament HELP Wake Forest compete in the NCAA Tournament? It MAY help them get IN the NCAA tournament under the current system, but does it help them win games in that tournament?

 

The "best way" is a home-and-away series with each conference opponent, which would eliminate possible home-field scheduling advantage. However, for the ACC, that would equal 26 conference games for each team, which exceeds the maximum games allowed by the NCAA. So, every allowable option is going to fall short of the ideal.

Last year's option (i.e., play each opponent once, yielding 13 games) apparently was not liked by the coaches. Another possible option is to have 2 seven team divisions and play home-and-away series with each divisional opponent, which would equal 12 games for each team, and have the divisional champions play-off. But 12 games isn't much different than 13 games and, likely much more important, it gives each division no games against the other division. So, we have this year's option: 6 divisional games and 4 rotating cross-over games. Clearly, an imperfect solution, but a perfect solution was not possible.

The "best way" would be to have all the teams participate, but finding the most "in form" team at the end of the season is not what conference tournaments are all about. Conference tournaments are about selling tickets, increasing exposure, and getting on TV. The ACC perfected this plan with its men's basketball tournament. However, these goals don't really fit well with non-revenue sports that have limited interest. So, a 4-team single weekend soccer event seems adequate to hit those goals, mirrors the NCAA tournament weekends, and reduces physical demands on the student-athletes.

 

I think the new format works our well for the student part of the student athlete. I would think that lowering the number of conference games and, thus, the need traveling for Thursday/Sunday games one or two less times a season is good academically. It also likely gives teams a few more home games for the fan base. I think the tournament could expand to 8 teams (top 2 in each pod and next 4 overall) with first round being home games for the pod winners and runners up, then a weekend semis and finals but not necessary.

 

Really? Since when was this about the student-athlete? They would play only overnight trips on Sat/Sun if that was really a priority (as in D3). Ask WVU kids about travel in the Big-12. Wonder how MD and Rutgers will travel in the Big10 in soccer or in sports like Softball or Track? Maryland isn't sending these kids to Minnesota and Wisconsin because it's "in the best interests of student-athlete welfare".
Why is UNC choosing to go to California for 2 games AFTER classes begin - for RPI or GPA??

We all know big-time DI sports is about trying to swim in the wake of pointy football and not drown but my problem is - the ACC had a very easy chance to continue to compete in a full round-robin and decided not to (and would still have had 2 weekends open). So they will be declaring champions in a regular season and abbreviated tournament when every school will NOT play every other school - intentionally. Maybe I'm a soccer puriest but this seems absurd. When you set up even an intramural or U-10 event, the first thing you do is make fair groupings so everyone has the same competitive opportunity to advance and win. Seems clear that the ACC (and others) have chosen to expand and now don't want to live with the consequences.

 

It depends on what the big picture "game" is. Is it to win the ACC Championship? Or is it to win the NCAA Championship? If it's the latter, which I think clearly is the case with the ACC, then part of the rules of the "game" come from the NCAA Tournament selection process criteria. All the ACC is doing with women's soccer is maximizing its opportunity to produce a winner in the big picture "game." What's wrong with that?

Of course, if you think winning the ACC Tournament is the big picture "game" then you won't like what the ACC is doing. But that simply means the big picture "game," to you, is different than it is for the ACC women's soccer coaches.

 

To recap, Maryland lost to Virginia, 6-1 in the #1/#8 ACC game. I can understand Virginia not wanting to play a game where they have more to lose (injury, chance for fluke upset or stalemate/PK loss) than gain from the RPI Top50 win. However, I like a 6team conf tourney format because then 3 plays 6 in a competitive game, and the 4/5 game would be even more competitive, and the best teams from that quarterfinal advance to play #1 and #2 in the ACC. The coaches should have gone in that direction IMO.

I don't know why they had to shrink from 8 to 4. All four teams are qualified for NCAA's automatically, and the fifth through seventh place teams have a pretty strong chance of an at large, so they effectively are granted a bye week before NCAA's start. The fifth/sixth place teams in the ACC are too good to stay home and get a bye week before the NCAA's. The 7th/8th place teams, too, perhaps being on the bubble can't afford to stay home and wait for other bubble teams to lose when they could have been playing meaningful games against #2 and #1 in the ACC.

As for the regular season, shrinking from 13 to 10 games can still effect a somewhat balanced schedule if there is some parity in the league, except when you add a 10-0 team and an 0-10 team in the mix, the teams in the middle may have vastly different strengths of schedule, I'm afraid. The conf. schedules in this sport are known to have some variance built in and most coaches don't complain about their schedule because they are proponents of playing the hand you're dealt and to be the conf champion you must be able to "beat the best" and not be as concerned with uncontrollable elements such as conf scheduling. (nonconf scheduling, on the other hand, is controllable to a degree and coaches must utilize (maybe exploit, even) any advantages there that they can find.

 

Geesh - way too logical and practical a response! Good points and of course there are practical implications and you hope there was some real debate before these decisions were made. I take positions on BS sometimes to stir the pot and (hopefully) get people thinking why they think what they think.

Here's an Idea- Have a Tournament with 2 Brackets -
The top 4 teams play a semi and final for the "ACC Cup" while the same weekend, maybe same location, the next 4 teams play a semi and final for the "ACC Challenge" and the ACC automatic bid goes to this winner, not the Cup winner. (Kind of like the promotion playoff in the English 2nd and 3rd tier)
Now this would be "gaming the system" but no more illogical than playing an incomplete regular-season round robin when you don't have to.

 

Eddie K, good points. Here is what I think the ACC coaches wanted. I feel they think that playing a full round-robin schedule is impractical. Unfortunately we have gone to the format of 'super-conferences'. Some of the other big conferences are split into divisions and this is the model the ACC follows now due to expansion of 14 programs (not including Georgia Tech here in this discussion). I still think any ACC team will have an advantage of getting into the tournament with a strong RPI, and be very well-prepared to take on any team in the nation come November. You play 10 games in the ACC there is a pretty good chance you will play 7-8 teams in the top 25 and that prepares you for strong postseason play. Playing 13 games and getting 9-10 teams in the top 25 has shown it doesn't help RPI and last year proves it.

As far as "gaming the system" goes we have to recognize what the needs are coach. Coaches want to hold on their jobs. It's pretty tangible to an AD to say how many times you qualified or didn't qualify for the NCAA tournament. If this is the best system for coaches to get their respective teams in then that is what they will go with.

Lastly, in regards to the ACC tournament my guess is the coaches don't even want the conference tournament. It's unnecessary for a conference that will get anywhere from 8-10 teams in. They probably have to hold some kind of a conference tournament as that is what the ACC wants to promote some kind of conference championship, so the coaches did what they could to limit the number of teams that were to participate.

 

Just an observation stimulated by those posters who have maintained that Miami is going down hill. In looking at recruiting, I would disagree.

While it is true that with the sudden and unexpected firing of Tom Aganost after all of the 2013 and 2014 recruiting was all wrapped up there was an exodus of players from those two classes, this was entirely to be expected. I think that Mary-Frances Monroe is proving to be an adequate if not good recruiter. Her 2015 class is looking quite strong. and the 2016 is starting to take shape.

So I expect that there will be a few weak seasons as she transitions into her own recruits, but I would say that things are looking up for Miami. They will not be in the top echelon of the ACC in the near future, but within three years I think that they will be in the middle of the pack.

 

Can't wait for the ACC season to start. Can't wait to see Notre Dame's schedule to see who comes to South Bend this fall. ACC in my own Chicago backyard. Who would have thought?

 

Really? I defer to your experience in recruit evaluations but I really don't enough there to build an ACC roster around. Time will tell.

 

Indeed, time will tell. But just to be clear about what I am observing:

1. Yes. No argument about the 2013 and 2014 Miami classes. After Aganost's firing a year ago, most all of the higher rated recruits jumped ship. Big down turn for Miami. It was too late for Mary-Frances Monroe to find much talent. Dead last in the ACC.

2. The 2015 class is shaping up as a middle of the road ACC class. Monroe's class is in the middle of th ACC pack in terms of strength. While there is still time to add more recruits, the Miami 2015s are arguably stronger as a group than VT, Syracuse, Louisville, NCSU, Clemson, and Pitt.

3. It's way too early to say much about the 2016 class because it is going to change, but Monroe is, for the moment, ahead of Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, WFU, and NCSU. So with a few more strong commitments, she would have another class in the middle of the ACC recruiting ranks.

In summary, what I am saying is that, contrary to doom and gloom, three years from now (2017) her team may be competitive in the middle of the ACC if she continues to recruit as well as she has for 2015.

 

Mary-France Monore made a major error when she landed the Miami job. She didn't connect with her recruits right away, which should be the first thing any newly hired coach does. So she had good classes recruited by the previous coaching staff but they were all poached away. That is on her; an exodus is not be expected had she done her job when hired. Didn't have a great 2013 year, although they did tie BC and shock Notre Dame, but didn't make the Tournament which they had been doing previously. She now loses her best 2 players to graduation and has a very weak class coming in this year. Would not be surprised if Syracuse, Pitt, and NC State all jump Miami this year for the bottom of the ACC.

Agreed that 2015 and 2016 is better. Issue for her is will she have the time?

Aganost was given a 4-year extension on a $100,000+ salary. He was let go after year 1. So Miami has to pay him out. They hired Monore as she was a very cheap get, heard she is getting about $70-$75K on a 4-year deal. She is vastly underqualified to coach at this level but Miami got what they wanted and they can pay her minimally and also pay off Aganost. Year 1 she did nothing. Year 2 (this fall) she will be at the bottom of the ACC. Year 3 and 4 she has to do something to stay, and not sure if she'll be able to. 2015 and 2016 classes are decent, but you're counting on youngsters to get the job done and you have a tactically inexperienced coach and those things typically don't bode well in the ACC. My guess is Miami makes another hire for 2017.

 

There is no way the Miami 2015 and 2016 classes are better then the schools mentioned. Those kid of opinions are what skews the crazy recruit rankings.

So, when Miami does worse then those teams over the next few years, are you going to then admit Miami is that inferior from a coaching perspective since their players are so much better?