(06-05-2013 06:46 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 04:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How about this for North/South?

N: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, VT, UVA, UNC, NC State
S: Duke, Wake, Louisville, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

* No crossovers except for UNC-Duke and NC State-Wake
* 9 games (3 crossovers)
* Every North team guaranteed to play at least 1 of Miami, FSU, GT annually
* Miami plays 3 N schools; FSU plays 3 different N schools; 1 school has to "settle" for GT that year, but it rotates every year which one; 2 schools play both GT AND one of the FL schools
* Yeah, there appears to be more power in the South, but play the games and see - I think you might be surprised.
* N is made more palatable by putting both UNC and NC State there; if UVA wants to play Duke every year, I'm fine with that "tweak"

This is something I think everyone was hoping to see when the announcement was made, but it is obvious to me the only thing was done here to the schedule was drop Maryland and replace them with Louisville. I was hoping maybe a change up of some sort, but what this poster shows is something the ACC office can't comprehend. Email this to the office and show them what sitting down and actually thinking up of a scheme for a new version to the schedule for they don't get it.

Good job on the post I agree with you 100%.

Honestly I think its more a matter of the topic being very divisive and they didn't want to open that can of worms again. Getting into redoing them would require a decent chunk of time and not guarantee better results from a lot of perspectives. That said, there are a lot of solutions better than what they have.

(06-05-2013 06:46 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  This is something I think everyone was hoping to see when the announcement was made, but it is obvious to me the only thing was done here to the schedule was drop Maryland and replace them with Louisville. I was hoping maybe a change up of some sort, but what this poster shows is something the ACC office can't comprehend. Email this to the office and show them what sitting down and actually thinking up of a scheme for a new version to the schedule for they don't get it.

Good job on the post I agree with you 100%.

The fact that divisions weren't altered tells me one of three things.

#1. The presidents don't feel that realigning the divisions is something that is necessary or required. Some of them may even be happy with the current alignment and see no reason to change things (keep in mind that presidents and fans don't always see things the same way).

#2. There was a lot of fighting about who would be in what division when the ACC expanded to 12 members. Rather than re-opening an old topic and fighting about it all over again, the presidents decided to stick with the compromise solution (i.e. the current alignment).

#3. The conference's TV partners suggested to the presidents who they wanted in each division for ratings purposes. TV execs might have wanted certain match-ups more so than others and suggested that those match-ups be made divisional games (since intradivisional match-ups occur every year).

I'm highly confident that the people working for and participating in the ACC are smart enough to have explored every conceivable divisional alignment (e.g. North-South; Old ACC vs New ACC; completely geographic, non-geographic, etc). There are reasons why the ACC put together the divisions like it did just as there are reasons why they have decided to keep those divisions thus far.

(06-05-2013 10:11 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 06:46 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  This is something I think everyone was hoping to see when the announcement was made, but it is obvious to me the only thing was done here to the schedule was drop Maryland and replace them with Louisville. I was hoping maybe a change up of some sort, but what this poster shows is something the ACC office can't comprehend. Email this to the office and show them what sitting down and actually thinking up of a scheme for a new version to the schedule for they don't get it.

Good job on the post I agree with you 100%.

The fact that divisions weren't altered tells me one of three things.

#1. The presidents don't feel that realigning the divisions is something that is necessary or required. Some of them may even be happy with the current alignment and see no reason to change things (keep in mind that presidents and fans don't always see things the same way).

#2. There was a lot of fighting about who would be in what division when the ACC expanded to 12 members. Rather than re-opening an old topic and fighting about it all over again, the presidents decided to stick with the compromise solution (i.e. the current alignment).

#3. The conference's TV partners suggested to the presidents who they wanted in each division for ratings purposes. TV execs might have wanted certain match-ups more so than others and suggested that those match-ups be made divisional games (since intradivisional match-ups occur every year).

I'm highly confident that the people working for and participating in the ACC are smart enough to have explored every conceivable divisional alignment (e.g. North-South; Old ACC vs New ACC; completely geographic, non-geographic, etc). There are reasons why the ACC put together the divisions like it did just as there are reasons why they have decided to keep those divisions thus far.

Pretty sure the reason is #2. That's why ACC divisions look more like a camel than a horse - it was designed by a committee.

For folks that wanted to know. Some acc members wanted to go to 9 as was voted on 2 years ago. The two objected was fsu and Clemson . Their objection was so bad their eyes were looking to other conferences. When the nd vote came it was fsu and Clemson as well as gt basically said get rid of the 9 game schedule or no vote on nd. Also nd was very uncomfortable with a 9 game schedule if for any reason they decided to join.

Therefore acc game plan is schedule 8 then schedule great ooc game for each school and the 5 games a year nd series. That should meet the SOS for the bcs.

Btw that is what the sec wants to do but problem is assure great ooc scheduling consistently by all the members .

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...full.story

(06-05-2013 10:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Pretty sure the reason is #2. That's why ACC divisions look more like a camel than a horse - it was designed by a committee.

I agree which is why I don't understand some of the attitudes in these threads. Some of the posters act like the ACC just threw darts at a board to decide divisions. Others act like redoing the divisions is as simple as saying "You just make it north-south with Miami in the north. Problem solved".

The reality is it isn't as simple as that. Getting a consensus from 14 academics is a ridiculously hard feat to accomplish, particularly when they have different wants and red-lines. For example, a north/south alignment might be preferable to some of the southern schools (FSU, Clemson, GTech, etc) but it simply isn't going to fly with the northern schools without moving to 9 conference games (which as I understand it is a red-line for some of the southern schools). Some of the older ACC schools (UVA) might be adamantly opposed to being a division composed of all of the recent ACC members (i.e. those added in 2005, 2013, and 2014). Conference politics makes most of these "simple and common sense" alignments non-starters in reality which is why the divisional alignments turned out the way they did in the first place.

Could some ever schedule a conf member as a 'non conference' game?

(06-05-2013 11:05 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 10:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Pretty sure the reason is #2. That's why ACC divisions look more like a camel than a horse - it was designed by a committee.

I agree which is why I don't understand some of the attitudes in these threads. Some of the posters act like the ACC just threw darts at a board to decide divisions. Others act like redoing the divisions is as simple as saying "You just make it north-south with Miami in the north. Problem solved".

The reality is it isn't as simple as that. Getting a consensus from 14 academics is a ridiculously hard feat to accomplish, particularly when they have different wants and red-lines. For example, a north/south alignment might be preferable to some of the southern schools (FSU, Clemson, GTech, etc) but it simply isn't going to fly with the northern schools without moving to 9 conference games (which as I understand it is a red-line for some of the southern schools). Some of the older ACC schools (UVA) might be adamantly opposed to being a division composed of all of the recent ACC members (i.e. those added in 2005, 2013, and 2014). Conference politics makes most of these "simple and common sense" alignments non-starters in reality which is why the divisional alignments turned out the way they did in the first place.

I'm not one of those people acting like the ACC threw darts. The bottom line is that when the conference went to 12, UNC/UVA/Duke got together and made their desired division and then just threw everyone else in the Atlantic. Then when Pitt/Syracuse came in, we all knew Pitt would go to the Coastal because that is the better recruiting area and such. I said this months before the alignment.

It is very predictable. If Notre Dame and Navy joined they would probably just throw Navy in the Atlantic. That is how the ACC works. It is run by UNC/Duke/UVA.

(06-05-2013 11:45 AM)Ragu Wrote:  I'm not one of those people acting like the ACC threw darts. The bottom line is that when the conference went to 12, UNC/UVA/Duke got together and made their desired division and then just threw everyone else in the Atlantic. Then when Pitt/Syracuse came in, we all knew Pitt would go to the Coastal because that is the better recruiting area and such. I said this months before the alignment.

It is very predictable. If Notre Dame and Navy joined they would probably just throw Navy in the Atlantic. That is how the ACC works. It is run by UNC/Duke/UVA.

Yeah maybe when your team plays a game in the ACC in 2014, you can begin to see how the conference works....

Also while everybody is talking about this true "zipper" and how it helps everyone and is most fair..

Can any of these people tell me how Virginia/Va Tech are both in the Coastal and BC/Syracuse are both in the Atlantic? Seems that if it were a true zipper a Virginia team would be swapped for BC or Syracuse.

But hey the trade would be to the detriment of the Coastal because they would pick up a NE barren recruiting area team. So we know nothing will change.

Let's put it this way on the zipper. A true zipper would have put PItt in the Atlantic and Syracuse in the Coastal to start.

BC and Syracuse split

Maryland/Pitt and UVA/Va Tech split

Now with Maryland gone, the difference is even more extreme. The Coastal keeps Pitt to add to Va Tech/UVA and the Atlantic gets the other Northeastern most team in a bad recruiting area in Syracuse.

Now how the hell is that fair or equal for the zipper?

(06-05-2013 02:38 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Let's put it this way on the zipper. A true zipper would have put PItt in the Atlantic and Syracuse in the Coastal to start.

BC and Syracuse split

Maryland/Pitt and UVA/Va Tech split

Now with Maryland gone, the difference is even more extreme. The Coastal keeps Pitt to add to Va Tech/UVA and the Atlantic gets the other Northeastern most team in a bad recruiting area in Syracuse.

According to the map and stats that HokieMark put up a couple days ago, New York has put more players in the NFL than all but 16 States. That is not great but it isnt bad either. There are 34 other States that are worse. Why would a program like FSU have to worry about recruiting anyway? Not only does FSU have the name brand to get the attention of any recruit, but they have some of the best and fastest players in all of college fb right within their own State border.

Well that is the attitude the ACC has. "You guys are in Florida so it doesn't matter who you play". Why should they have to put up with this just because they happen to house their team in Florida? That doesnt' give an excuse for the zipper being off since Pitt/Cuse were added and it being even worse with Maryland gone now. FSU gets a lot of players from that DC/VA area. It certainly doesn't help to have that area taken away and to be given Kentucky/NY instead.

And Syracuse/BC/Louisville have the worst recruiting area in the ACC. That is the bottom line. Everyone knows that. They are all in the Atlantic and all far trips for FSU too.

The example I showed above shows why the zipper reasoning is pure bs. If they want a true zipper BC or Cuse should be in the other division. They don't do that because they know that it would hurt the Coastal as a division.

We got Clemson at home in '15. I like it.

It is in the best interests of the ACC to preserve the little historical tradition it has. This explains why UVa's schedule for example, is treated with care. It's rivalry with UNC is the oldest in the whole South and one of the oldest in the nation. It started in 1892 and Bleacher Report ranked it as 8th in its power rankings of all the college football rivalies. UVa and VaTech rivalry goes back to 1895 and is ranked 12th. The only other schools in the league that are in the rankings are UNC vs NCST whose rivalry is ranked at 15 and Clemson vs GaTech at 17.
Since UVa is part of the top two rivalries, and UNC is part of two them, then it shows why there is such deference to make sure these are protected. And since UVa is the one that lost its annual game with Maryland due to their defection, then you can understand why UVa would be disinclined to lose any others. But I think UVa is mollified by having a high-level opponent such as UofL to replace Maryland and thus help its strength of schedule.
If there is a way to preserve these nationally-ranked rivalries and improve other match-ups then I am sure it will happen, but it's not easy to change one piece positively without negatively impacted another piece.

(06-05-2013 11:05 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 10:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Pretty sure the reason is #2. That's why ACC divisions look more like a camel than a horse - it was designed by a committee.

I agree which is why I don't understand some of the attitudes in these threads. Some of the posters act like the ACC just threw darts at a board to decide divisions. Others act like redoing the divisions is as simple as saying "You just make it north-south with Miami in the north. Problem solved".

The reality is it isn't as simple as that. Getting a consensus from 14 academics is a ridiculously hard feat to accomplish, particularly when they have different wants and red-lines. For example, a north/south alignment might be preferable to some of the southern schools (FSU, Clemson, GTech, etc) but it simply isn't going to fly with the northern schools without moving to 9 conference games (which as I understand it is a red-line for some of the southern schools). Some of the older ACC schools (UVA) might be adamantly opposed to being a division composed of all of the recent ACC members (i.e. those added in 2005, 2013, and 2014). Conference politics makes most of these "simple and common sense" alignments non-starters in reality which is why the divisional alignments turned out the way they did in the first place.

UVA would still play UNC and Va Tech every year under every proposal.

Now someone who argues with me trying to justify that the divisions are fair.....

Tackle the zipper reasoning and tell me how BC/Cuse both in the Atlantic is fair. Because I see no possible way that anyone can objectively say that it is fair for the Atlantic to have to take both of these teams. As I said it won't change because the power brokers are in the Coastal and do what they want.

(06-05-2013 03:02 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Well that is the attitude the ACC has. "You guys are in Florida so it doesn't matter who you play". Why should they have to put up with this just because they happen to house their team in Florida? That doesnt' give an excuse for the zipper being off since Pitt/Cuse were added and it being even worse with Maryland gone now. FSU gets a lot of players from that DC/VA area. It certainly doesn't help to have that area taken away and to be given Kentucky/NY instead.

And Syracuse/BC/Louisville have the worst recruiting area in the ACC. That is the bottom line. Everyone knows that. They are all in the Atlantic and all far trips for FSU too.

The example I showed above shows why the zipper reasoning is pure bs. If they want a true zipper BC or Cuse should be in the other division. They don't do that because they know that it would hurt the Coastal as a division.

This should cheer you up. New York produces just as many NFL recruits as Maryland. So Syracuse essentially cancels out the loss of Maryland recruiting grounds. And here you were thinking that New York has bad recruiting areas. doesnt that make you feel a whole lot better? now there is less reasons for you to complain. The best part is that FSU still gets to recruit the DC/Virginia area since the Acc still has Virginia and Virginia Tech.

(06-05-2013 02:55 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Why would a program like FSU have to worry about recruiting anyway?

Methinks because for the most part FSU isn't recruiting against crap ACC schools but legitimate national title contending SEC schools. Just a guess...

(06-05-2013 07:54 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-04-2013 08:12 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-04-2013 04:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  We won't be seeing Miami at home until 2024?!? Explain to me again why we aren't going to 9 conference games?

Cheers,
Neil

You mean other than at least 3 schools already having permanent OOC matchups and ~1/3 of the conference having a pre-selected OOC matchup against ND?

Talk about nonsense.

We've been through this before. Not going to a 9 game conference schedule has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with having a "fixed" OOC opponent. USC and Stanford in the Pac-12 do it just fine.

It's all about NOT getting 7 HOME games each and every year, but having to settle for alternating 7 one year and 6 the next.

My own personal belief is that there will be no change in how the divisions are set up until FSU and Clemson relent on the 9 conference game schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

If you weren't so blinded by your own agenda you'd realize that having a fixed OOC opponent is EXACTLY the reason that schools would lose that additional home game some years and that that lost home game is the major issue.

Apparently, VT's home game this year vs. Maryland counts as Louisville's game in Blacksburg. That sucks. We won't get Louisville at home in this cycle at all.

The ACC did VT a favor by having FSU and Clemson play Tech in 2017 and 2018. Clemson in 2017 give Tech an attractive home game to go with the away game against Wisconsin. 2018 was the first of 2 years we don't have a marquee OOC opponent and we're hoping to get ND at home that year. FSU away would give us a marquee away game to go with the Irish or an as yet unscheduled neutral site for that year. If we have this Irish in 2018, then we'll need a marquee Neutral site in 2019 and vice versa if the Irish visit in 2019.