The ACC is facing a critical challenge: its traditional stronghold on NCAA tournament bids is slipping, and the league is actively seeking ways to reverse this trend. But here's where it gets controversial – are the changes enough to restore its former basketball dominance?
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips openly acknowledged the conference’s "recent decline in sending its usual number of teams to the NCAA tournament." To counter this, the ACC is taking deliberate steps aimed at boosting its national standing and increasing the total tournament bids for its 18 teams. One notable move, announced this past summer, was trimming the conference schedule from 20 games down to 18. Phillips shared these insights at the ACC’s Tipoff event in Charlotte, explaining that this reduction grants coaches "greater flexibility in their non-conference scheduling," which could lead to matchups against tougher opponents and ultimately enhance teams' résumés.
However, this strategy isn't without downsides. Some cherished rivalry games will now be played just once a season instead of twice, and certain teams won’t face off at all during the regular conference slate. This change “came at a cost,” Phillips admitted. The crucial point, though, is that shifting to an 18-game schedule will only pay off if teams actively seek challenging non-conference games and manage to win more of those matchups than in previous years. The upcoming 2025-26 season will be the true test of whether the ACC's efforts can restore its reputation as the premier basketball conference in the nation.
Expanding on these efforts, sports journalist Luke DeCock from Raleigh highlights that the ACC has "done practically everything within its power to gain ground—from revamping marketing and branding strategies, returning to an 18-game league schedule, to consulting experts like Joe Lunardi and Jerry Palm who specialize in the NCAA selection process." The conference has even benchmarked spending against other top basketball programs. Yet, DeCock argues, "there’s only one real solution to the ACC’s basketball woes: winning more games."
It’s striking that it has now been four years since the ACC sent more than five teams to the NCAA tournament, with only four making the cut last March. DeCock bluntly describes the situation: "The ACC is fighting for its basketball relevance—a status it once held without question. This battle can't be won through spreadsheets or television ratings alone. The only place to solve this problem is on the court."
So, here’s the big question for basketball fans and analysts alike: Is the ACC’s strategy of schedule reduction and tougher non-conference play enough to reignite its dominance, or is there a deeper issue at play that these moves won’t solve? What do you think—are these changes a smart step forward or just cosmetic adjustments? Share your thoughts and let the debate begin!
