WWTBAM Bored

I know some schools aren't the greatest in sports. Sometimes they're good in one major sport, not in another (e.g., Bama in football, Kentucky in basketball, but not the reverse).

It takes some kind of "special" to stink at both major sports.

Submitted for your consideration: Boston College of this season. Yes, the school of Doug Flutie and the Hail Mary, etc.

This season, in conference play (ACC), they went 0-8 in football. OK, they haven't really been a football powerhouse post-Flutie (especially once they left the Big East for the ACC), but that included close losses to Duke and Wake Forest.

Now the basketball team has ended up the conference season at 0-18, plus an opening-round exit in the conference tournament.

So, the BC Eagles ended up at 0-26 in conference play for football and basketball. So, how bad is that?

The last time that happened -- TCU in 1976-77 (Southwest Conference), 0-24.

The last team before that? Georgia, in 1943-44 (0-5; you can blame WWII for that, no football team that year, and limited basketball games).

Before that, there was a string of six-of-eight years of 0-fers in the 1930s by Sewanee (University of the South), which basically phased out its once mighty sports program in that era. And the only one prior to that was Northwestern in 1923-25 (0-18).

In short, it's bad and it's rare. And it's not like every team they play is of FSU/Clemson (football) or UNC/Duke (basketball) caliber. They just plain stink this year.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Now the basketball team has ended up the conference season at 0-18, plus another opening-round exit in the conference tournament.

Why bother having a regular season if a 0-18 team gets to play in the conference tournament?

jarnon wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Now the basketball team has ended up the conference season at 0-18, plus another opening-round exit in the conference tournament.

Why bother having a regular season if a 0-18 team gets to play in the conference tournament?

They'd have been a #5 seed in the old 21 team NHL....

lb13

jarnon wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:Now the basketball team has ended up the conference season at 0-18, plus another opening-round exit in the conference tournament.

Why bother having a regular season if a 0-18 team gets to play in the conference tournament?

I think most conferences have all the teams (or at least all those who are eligible; e.g., Louisville and Missouri didn't play in their respective tourneys because they weren't able to play in the NCAA Tournament), no matter what the result. The regular season ends up setting the seedings in the tournament, which is important if you are in the top four and get an extra day to not play.

I know it sounds silly, but I guess they figure some alums might be upset if their team was left out, and I'm not sure what the NCAA rules are about such things. Of course, given how many folks were at a recent home game for BC against VippySue (announced at about 1600 folks, but you would be hard pressed to count that many, even including the players, the vendors, the ticket takers, etc.), it might not matter for BC. But it might matter if that team were, say, Wake Forest or another "traditional" ACC school.

SpacemanSpiff wrote: I know it sounds silly, but I guess they figure some alums might be upset if their team was left out, and I'm not sure what the NCAA rules are about such things.

Major tournaments like the ACC sell tickets in books for the entire tournament, so a Duke fan can't just walk up to the gate and buy tickets for whatever session that Duke is playing in. When you see the opening round of these tourneys featuring the bottom few teams, there may only be a few thousand (or sometimes a few hundred) people in the seats, but every one of those seats was sold at quite an expensive price. And 14 teams playing in the tournament means 13 games. Limit it to the top eight and that means only seven games.

The economics isn't all that complicated.