The time has come for the ACC to seriously re-evaluate how it manages its men’s basketball asset. Either that, or accept the fact the ACC is a high-mediocre league whose prowess and statistical rating are distorted by the presence of perennial powers Duke and North Carolina.

Consider, for a moment, the message sent by the NCAA Tournament selection committee in extending bids to the ACC’s membership this week. “We got one-third, the top RPI conference,” Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said, disgust in his voice. That mirrors the proportion in 2006.

While the timing may be coincidental, two of the three years with only four ACC teams in the NCAA field have come since the league expanded to 12 members.

By contrast, the ’08 NCAAs include seven teams from the Big 12 and six from the Pac-10, better than half their membership, and eight from the 16-school Big East.

The SEC, supposedly down this year, has six entrants, thanks to Georgia’s improbable capture of the automatic bid. Another supposedly drooping power conference, the Big 10 -- which the ACC tops annually in their post-Thanksgiving challenge series -- was accorded the same number of berths as the ACC.

The success of the ACC women provides another warning signal. For the 12th consecutive season, they got at least half their membership into the NCAA Tournament, far better than the men.

The number of invitations accorded the ACC men has been in decline for a decade. Since 1999, the league has gotten half or more of its teams into the tournament only three times: 2001 (6 of 9), 2004 (6 of 9), and 2007 (7 of 12). During the preceding decade, 1989-98, the ACC got half or more of its teams into the NCAAs all but once (4 of 9 in 1995).

Coaches believed vigorous public lobbying helped the Big East get eight bids in 2006. So they huffed and puffed, and the ACC got seven invitations in 2007. Unfortunately, except for North Carolina, the league’s 2007 representatives flamed out after two rounds. That ended a streak of Sweet Sixteens with at least two ACC teams that began in 1980, far longer than any other conference.

The ACC has always been able to fall back on its NCAA record, best in the nation, and on the fact it seemed to have a reserved spot in the Final Four, with 28 entrants in the 29 years from 1977 through 2005. That nearly blanketed the span in which multiple entrants were allowed from the same league.

But the conference has been shut out of the Final Four the past two seasons, matching its longest dry spell since 1979 and 1980. Should no ACC team get to the Final Four in 2008, that would constitute the longest drought since 1958-61.

It may be painful to admit, but despite an ability to cite impressive statistics on strength of schedule, RPI, tough road games, No. 1 seeds, and the like, the ACC’s slogan, “A Tradition of Excellence: Then, Now and Always,” sounds increasingly smug rather than accurate.

Exactly what remedial efforts might shift the tide to favor the ACC men is unclear.

“I would try everything,” said Krzyzewski, long a vocal proponent of more vigorous self-promotion by the ACC. “Sending out material, I don’t think that does it. I think you have to talk and make a discussion point, get on shows.”

Perhaps it’s time to consider some structural or procedural changes, too.

Unbalanced league schedules already have ruined parity and the notion of a level playing field. Maybe the men should drop to 14 league games, rather than 16, as the women have done. They could conversely consider adding two more conference games, as was discussed last year by ACC officials. An 18-game league schedule has not hurt the Big East.

A bit of tinkering with the ACC Tournament might be in order. The Big East plays its tournament championship game on Saturday night, prime time for TV, while the ACC waits to play its finals on Sunday afternoon. If exposure of the ACC’s basketball product is important, then bolstering TV viewership is a consideration and the league should seek the best time to be seen.

Additionally, playing the title game on Saturday would give teams an extra day of rest prior to entering the NCAAs, and an extra day to savor and celebrate the ACC’s premier event.

ACC coaches and athletics directors might also consider adopting guidelines regarding nonconference scheduling. Require each program to play no more than two or three teams that finished in the bottom 100 in the previous year’s RPI.

Virginia Tech coach Seth Greenberg famously declared, after a close loss to top-ranked North Carolina in the ACC Tournament semifinals, that those who did not consider his team worthy of an NCAA bid were “certifiably insane.” Sorry, but neutral observers were not apt to be impressed with four victories by the Hokies over bottom-100 RPI squads this year. Five ’08 opponents had been rated among the 100-weakest in 2007, so Greenberg knew what he was getting.

Granted, taking the measure of non-power conference opponents is problematic. Virginia Tech played Hofstra, which had a 73 RPI in 2007, but fell to 242 this season. Old Dominion, another Hokie opponent, went from an RPI of 39 to 129 in 2008. Twelve of 14 Virginia Tech opponents in 2008 finished with RPIs below 100; only nine of those teams were below 100 in 2007.

Crafting a schedule is a delicate balancing act. Scaled-back challenges were probably indicated for Virginia Tech, devoid of experienced guards, with two freshmen in its starting lineup and four among its top six players. Unfortunately, a single triumph against a top-50 opponent (league member Miami) hurt when NCAA bids went out. The nonconference strength of schedule was a modest 137, with no wins over top-100 teams from outside the ACC.

A grand showing by the ACC in the upcoming NCAAs may obscure the disturbing trend in tournament inclusion. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to ignore that the emphasis on qualifying criteria has shifted, and parity is on the rise. (Three of 8 members of the West Coast Conference made the field, a higher percentage than the ACC.)

NCAA success in 2008 should not preclude serious discussion within ACC ranks of ensuring that the league’s opportunities and strengths are commensurate with its hard-earned reputation for competitive excellence. More than talk is required. Either that, or quit bragging.