The ACC announced on Tuesday that its men’s basketball conference, now 18 teams strong, will revert to an 18-game league schedule.
This change comes after a 20-game schedule was implemented since the 2019-20 season, a decision that seemed solidified with the recent additions of SMU, Stanford, and California. But, well, here we are.
The current landscape is somewhat uncharted for the ACC.
While the SEC and Big Ten celebrate unprecedented success, the ACC hasn’t sent more than five teams to the NCAA Tournament since 2021. If we look back at the first four tournaments for North Carolina, the ACC might find itself sending just three teams to the Big Dance for the first time since 2000. That’s a big deal.
In a conference that prides itself on basketball prowess, falling behind the other major leagues could spell significant change.
And once again, here we are.
The unexpected aspect of Tuesday’s announcement was the idea of a return, not just a mere comeback.
Starting in the 2025-26 season, all teams will face 14 opponents twice, with one team left out each season, deviating from the previous format of playing 16 teams once and one team twice.
Each team will participate in two types of home-and-home matchups: two games against a “Primary Partner” each season, and two against a “Variable Partner,” which changes annually.
The list of Primary Partners includes:
Boston College – Notre Dame
Clemson – Georgia Institute of Technology
Stanford – California
Duke – North Carolina
Florida – Miami
Louisville – SMU
NC State – Wake Forest
Pitt – Syracuse
Virginia Tech – Virginia
This strategy is logical; it allows the strongest teams to face each other more frequently, enhancing competition.
What the ACC hopes to avoid is scenarios like Duke’s 19-1 season facing off only once against Louisville’s 18-2. Additionally, having both Clemson and Louisville at 18-2 in the league, with differing playoff seeds, complicates the landscape.
Overall, this initiative feels a bit like treating a spreading virus with just pain relievers—there are benefits, yet it doesn’t tackle the underlying issues.
If the league can’t improve its standing against other major conferences come November and December, having two additional non-conference games may not really matter.
Last season, the ACC’s 18 teams recorded the seventh-best mark among Division-I’s 31 leagues with a 331-270 record in non-conference games. For four straight seasons, the league has fallen below .500 against top-100 opponents. Notably, during the ACC-SEC Challenge, the record was a disheartening 4-30, including just 2-14 against SEC teams.
The combination of insufficient quality victories and humbling losses has left Duke with little margin for error.
Changing the scheduling approach won’t necessarily solve these issues.
In today’s financial climate, it’s no surprise that the leagues generating the most revenue also see the most success on the court. The SEC, in particular, enjoys its most fruitful run, largely due to hiring and retaining top coaching talent and consistently assembling elite rosters.
Meanwhile, several ACC programs are seeking rejuvenation by bringing in younger, innovative head coaches this offseason. Will Wade aims to revitalize NC, Jay Lucas is already rebuilding talent at Miami, Ryan Odom has taken over in Virginia, touted as a rising star in coaching, and Luke is attempting to redefine the roster-building approach in Florida.
With respect to Phillips and his team, this seems to be the only strategy to reclaim the ACC’s stature. But until the calendar hits 2026, simply shifting the schedule won’t mask performance issues for the next two months.
The formula for successful leagues has shifted dramatically in recent years, but the core ingredients—great players, skillful coaches, and accumulating wins—remain unchanged. It feels different, yet the essence is the same.
