Brian: Yesterday, the ACC announced the future schedule format for both football and basketball, as well as announcing the new divisional alignment inclusive of Pitt and Syracuse. The conference will stick with the current composition of both the Atlantic and Coastal Divisions, slotting Syracuse in the Atlantic Division, Pitt in the Coastal Division and adding Syracuse-Pitt as a permanent cross-over rivalry (and keeping all other cross-overs the same, so, more Virginia Tech).

The conference also announced that they are moving to a 9-game conference schedule for football whenever Pitt and Syracuse extricate themselves from the Big East.

In addition, the conference scaled back the primary partners in hoops (annual home-and-homes) to just one, pairing BC and Syracuse together.

Finally, the ACC Tournament will include all 14 programs, though the format of the new tournament is still TBD.

Overall impressions of the new, new ACC? What do you like about the new setup? What don't you like that you think could have been improved?

Jeff: I love getting Syracuse in the Atlantic Division for football since that will mean we play them annually and Pitt on the rotating Coastal schedule. I also love playing Syracuse home and home annually in basketball. Going to only one primary partner in basketball was very much up in the air and who BC's sole partner would be was also up for debate. I think all the other considerations that might have been discussed for BC to partner with in hoops would have been worse for the Eagles and exposure for our basketball team.

The only thing I don't know if I'm excited about or not is the 14 team ACC Tournament for basketball. If the tournament becomes five days long, there just won't be very much interest those first two days and I wonder if that will diminish the tournament. I think the Big East is able to have more success with five days because they are playing in NYC annually and can get so much fan interest from the local area for whatever teams end up playing games the first two days. The ACC Tournament meanwhile is much more of a destination trip for ACC fans and if it turns into a week long event, it would eliminate a lot of fans from coming for the entire time.

Continue reading this post »

Brian: When the ACC meets next week as part of the conference's annual winter meetings, a decision may come on what the conference's 18-game basketball schedule looks like going forward. Currently, the Eagles play two permanent partners twice each season -- Miami and Virginia Tech. Here is the list of the ACC's permanent partners:

Boston College -- Miami and Virginia Tech
Clemson -- Georgia Tech and Florida State
Duke -- North Carolina and Maryland
Florida State -- Miami and Clemson
Georgia Tech -- Clemson and Wake Forest
Maryland -- Duke and Virginia
Miami -- Boston College and Florida State
N.C. State -- North Carolina and Wake Forest
North Carolina -- Duke and N.C. State
Virginia -- Maryland and Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech -- Boston College and Virginia
Wake Forest -- N.C. State and Georgia Tech

One scheduling model that is being proposed would increase the number of permanent partners to three. Under that plan, the four North Carolina schools could each play one another twice each season, as they did in prior to the ACC's expansion to 11 programs.

Another model, supported by Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski, proposes scaling back the permanent partners to just one. This would send Syracuse and Pitt around to more ACC venues, giving opposing fans an opportunity to see either the Orange or Panthers sooner.

Which model do you prefer, and which programs should be BC's permanent scheduling partners?

Jeff: With the addition of Syracuse and Pitt, I like the permanent partners. BC would almost certainly pick up Syracuse as a permanent partner and might even get both of the new additions. I would prefer that to seeing UVA, GT, Wake, FSU, and NC State more often. Duke and UNC would never be our permanent partners regardless of how it shakes out.

In football, you often correctly argue that BC gets screwed a little because they have to play Virginia Tech annually. In basketball though, picking up Syracuse in addition to Miami and Virginia Tech would be fair. Syracuse is a power but Virginia Tech and Miami never will be.

The good thing about ACC basketball though, as opposed to ACC football, is even the worst programs have seen the top 25 at various points in the season in recent memory. In football, whether or not you play Duke can be such a huge scheduling advantage.

Continue reading this post »

Brian: Around the Res recently interviewed Gene DeFilippo. Discussion topics included the state of the BC basketball and football programs. When asked what DeFilippo thought the ceiling is for BC basketball in four years, here's what he had to say:

"You know, I look at it this way...George Mason made it to the Final Four, and Butler made it to the Final Four on two different occasions. If those teams can make it to the Final Four, Boston College can make it to the Final Four. And, you know, I'm not saying we're going to do it every year, but we have that ability to do that and I would not be at all surprised if down the road Steve Donahue gets one of our teams and we go to the Final Four. He's that good of a coach and he's that good of a recruiter."

Considering Boston College has never made a Final Four, isn't this setting the bar too high for the program? Or is it if Donahue ever gets BC to its first Final Four, would that be enough, or should the theoretical ceiling be winning a National Championship? In other words, if Donahue built this program into a Final Four team, would BC just be happy to be there?

What is a realistic ceiling for this program under Donahue? What are your expectations for years 3-5 under the Don?

Jeff: The expectation under Donahue should be to be competitive in the ACC annually once he has some upperclassmen on the team. The ceiling should be a final four or national championship. I am surprised that GDF did not say that the ceiling would be winning the ACC. Al Skinner almost had an ACC title in 2006 and there is no reason why an ACC title should not be a goal for a Donahue-coached team down the road.

Making a Final Four has a lot to do with matchups and many well coached teams that have been very successful have failed to make Final Fours despite winning their conference.

I don't feel that winning the ACC is a big step below making a Final Four, but it is more achievable and it is winning something. Simply making a Final Four is still not really winning anything. Yes, the guys would get to cut down the nets at their Regional, but you don't later celebrate winning the West Region of the NCAA Tournament.

Since Donahue is most famous for taking Cornell to the Sweet 16, it might be logical to say well then you need to take Boston College, an ACC school, two steps further. I'm OK with it from that perspective.

Continue reading this post »

Brian: I wouldn't exactly call BC's 59-57 win over Clemson a huge surprise, though the young Eagles did turn some heads on Thursday night. After all, the Tigers were only a 8.5 point favorite on the road in BC's home opener. But after reviewing the early season results in the ACC, and taking into account the fact that Clemson was coming off a 20-point victory over Florida State, is BC's win over Clemson the biggest surprise of the year thus far in the ACC?

Every ACC program has now played two games. Here are the early season results in conference play:

#3 Duke 81, Georgia Tech 74
Wake Forest 58, Virginia Tech 55
#4 North Carolina 83, Boston College 60
Clemson 79, Florida State 59
#23 Virginia, Miami 51
N.C. State 79, Maryland 74

Florida State 63, Virginia Tech 59
#3 North Carolina 73, Miami 56
Maryland 70, Wake Forest 64
Georgia Tech 82, N.C. State 71
Boston College 59, Clemson 57
#6 Duke 61, #17 Virginia 58

Thoughts on the ACC's early results? Is BC's victory over Clemson the early surprise of the season?

Jeff: The only true surprises of the ACC season this year will be either Carolina or Duke losing to someone other than each other. Duke and UNC are so much better than the rest of the league that those would be the only real shockers.

BC's victory Thursday night was a nice surprise for Eagle fans but probably not a surprise for Clemson fans. Clemson had already had its share of suspect losses that Tiger fans can't expect to beat anyone this season. Also, Clemson has Duke at home on Sunday so it was a trap game for the road team.

The real surprise of the season so far was Clemson winning at Florida State by 20. Most people thought FSU was the third best ACC team entering the season. Since then, FSU has lost to two Ivy League teams but has shown signs of being very good including winning at Virginia Tech after the Clemson loss and taking UConn to overtime. Today FSU plays UNC and is only a 6.5 point underdog, so Vegas expects UNC-FSU to be competitive.

How in the world did the Seminoles lose to Clemson by 20 at home? Maybe by the end of the season that result will make more sense but for now, Clemson's 20 point road victory is the biggest surprise of the season.

Continue reading this post »

Jeff: After Wednesday night's debacle of an Orange Bowl, would you want to see Boston College in the same position as Clemson? I can't imagine being a fan as passionate as you and I are, and watching our team get destroyed in a game they were favored and at the end of an extremely successful season without injuries or any other obvious excuse. Watching Clemson go down in flames in the matter of one quarter in a game that fans had been looking forward to was just painful and I had little to nothing invested in Clemson's success.

If BC were to make the Orange Bowl some year I would of course attend and have very high hopes. So, if we had a crystal ball and knew that BC would lose to a Big East team by 37, would you rather BC lose the ACC Championship Game? Or would you rather BC win the ACC at the expense of getting completely embarrassed in their BCS game?

Brian: Is this seriously a question?

If the goal of the program year in and year out is to win an ACC title and play in the Orange Bowl, than this isn't even a question. Of course I'd want the Eagles to still win the ACC title, even if the program proceeded to get waxed in the Orange Bowl. Even against a (non-UConn) Big East opponent, though can't West Virginia technically be considered a Big 12 opponent now?

The final outcome of bowl games have little to no bearing on much of anything. All but one of the bowl games doesn't count towards crowning the sport's eventual National Champion. A majority of bowl games participants have no bearing on the final AP or Coaches Poll rankings. Really, the only thing a bowl game counts for is a W or an L on the team's final season record.

And really, could any other ACC program hold a BC Orange Bowl thrashing against them? This would simply be consistent with all the other ACC BCS bowl failures over the years. Florida State is 1-5 in BCS bowl games and 0-3 in the Orange Bowl. Virginia Tech is 1-4 and 0-3 in the Sugar Bowl. Miami is 3-1 but hasn't even made a BCS bowl game appearance as a member of the ACC. Maryland, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and now Clemson all 0-1.

Getting throttled and losing the program's first BCS bowl game would be the most ACC thing the Eagles have done since joining the conference in 2005.

Continue reading this post »

Brian: On Sunday, Boston College basketball hosts the Bryant Bulldogs and yet another former BC staffer, former Skinner assistant Tim O'Shea. O'Shea enters his fourth season as head coach of the Bryant, a program that is making the transition to Division I. In the three seasons at the Division I-A level, Bryant has compiled seasons of 8-21, 1-29 (!) and 9-21. This season, Bryant is just 1-9 with the Bulldogs' lone win a 70-63 victory over UC Davis in the Basketball Travelers Classic in San Diego, and losses to San Diego State, Southern Utah, Dartmouth, Army, Notre Dame, Central Connecticut State, Quinnipiac, Yale and Providence.

Against the one shared opponent on the year, Providence, the Eagles lost 64-57 while the Bulldogs lost 72-61.

Bryant ranks 318 in Ken Pomeroy's rankings, while BC isn't that far ahead at No. 252.

Extremely winnable game for the Eagles, but is it a must-win? Or have you given up on evaluating this extremely young Eagles team on mere wins and losses? Your thoughts?

Jeff: Is it a must win for what? BC is pretty much eliminated from the postseason discussion already. We're just looking for improvement at this point. Then maybe, just maybe, the young team can start clicking for the ACC Tournament and win some games to keep things interesting. Unfortunately, this team will not qualify for any other postseason.

I will judge this team on wins and losses come conference play time though. The ACC has plenty of teams that this team should be able to compete with, and since this is their first year playing together, the learning curve should be steeper than it is for other schools. I expect the team to start slow in league play and probably only win one of its first eight but will hope to see two or three wins out of the second 8 conference games. At this point that would be a mild success this year and would mean we are headed in the right direction with this young group.

Continue reading this post »

Brian: With the Boston College football season now behind us, many are starting to pay attention to college basketball. Or maybe after looking at BC’s 2-7 record, you’re conveniently skipping this season (either way). But over the course of the season you may hear announcers and pundits saying that the ACC conference is down this year in hoops. So just how far down is the conference as a whole?

Clearly losing this year’s Big Ten / ACC Challenge 8-4 didn’t help the national perception of the conference. Neither does early season losses to the ACC bluebloods Duke (63-85 at Ohio State) and North Carolina (80-90 vs. UNLV and 72-73 at Kentucky). And of course BC hasn’t done anything to give the conference a boost this year.

Here is the ACC’s performance data as told by Ken Pomeroy's ratings, including some early season losses.

Not a pretty overall resume at all. So just how far down is the ACC this year? Is this the type of year where the conference can only realistically get 3-4 teams into the NCAA Tournament? Your thoughts?

Jeff: Often times there is an ACC team or two that enters the conference season undefeated. It is not always one of the top two teams that do it but it does happen regularly and Clemson accomplished the feat multiple times under Oliver Purnell. This season clearly no one will be undefeated when conference play begins. Add to that though, there are a lot of ACC teams that have losses to teams outside the top 100. Then there's BC, who already has 5 such losses. It is not pretty at all. If Boston College were sitting around or in the top 50 right now, the ACC wouldn't look so terrible. Maryland and Wake Forest would still be outside the top 100 but that would not be so unusual. The big problem is after Duke and UNC, there's no one else in the top 25 and a depressing mere 4 teams crack the top 50. It is going to be a rough year for the ACC come tournament selection time. This is a proud basketball conference that expects to get more than 4 teams into the dance every year.

Continue reading this post »

Brian: On Monday, the ACSMA announced the 2011 All-ACC football team. Surprisingly, no player from the top two defenses in the conference -- Florida State and Virginia Tech -- made the All-ACC first team defense. Virginia Tech defensive coordinator Bud Foster did not take too kindly to this news:

"That goes to show you what whoever votes on it knows," said Foster. "I think it's a slap in the face now that I hear about it because I'd put our defense up against anybody in the league . . . I'm disappointed for our kids if that's the case, I really am, because we've got some kids that have played extremely, extremely well. Our record says enough for us, but obviously that means people don't give us enough respect, in my opinion, that we deserve."

There weren't similar outcries coming from Chestnut Hill, where the Eagles placed just one player on the first and second teams. That player was obviously All-American linebacker Luke Kuechly, who was the only unanimous selection on the defensive side of the ball. Other than Kuechly though, nada. Not even an honorable mention.

As Saturday on Shea points out, BC's one selection is the lowest total number of players recognized in the Eagles' seven years in the ACC.

2005 -- 7 Eagles named All- ACC selections, either first or second team or honorable mention
2006 -- 7
2007 -- 10
2008 -- 9
2009 -- 7
2010 -- 4
2011 -- 1

Clearly individuals don't exactly stand out when you play on a 4-8 team, and the fact that BC stunk this year certainly doesn't help any other Eagles chances at landing on this list. But still that is a pretty stark drop off in individual players recognized. Who's to blame for this perceived talent gap? Is it a talent gap? And if so, can you chalk this up entirely to the recruiting efforts of the previous coaching staff?

Jeff: The previous coaching staff and the previous staff is not all that different. There is a different head man but a lot of staff members have been around a while. So if it is because of recruiting efforts, then is it really the previous staff's fault, or is it the current staff, or is it some combination of the two.

Continue reading this post »