Nothing, Status Quo?

Shuffle Divisions?

Drop Perm Crossover?

Probably nothing. Continue not to maximize the football assets as usual under the idiot Swofford

(01-14-2016 10:27 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Nothing, Status Quo?

Probably

Quote:Shuffle Divisions?

Never happen. Nobody in the Coastal wants to possibly get stuck with the two powers.

Quote:Drop Perm Crossover?

Never happen. GT would raise mortal hell at losing an assured sell-out in the year they get UGA in Athens and Miami would raise hell at losing one of the few games they actually draw fans.

Well, it worked about as well as it could have this year with the status quo. Combine that with the Coastal's clear impending comeuppance and the importance/history of some of these cross-division rivalries and I don't see anything changing in the near future. For once I'm pretty convinced it's even the right decision.

The notion that no Coastal team wants to get stuck playing two powers is laughable. You don't think SEC West teams use the "you get to play Bama and LSU" for recruiting purposes?? You don't think Louisville uses playing FSU and Clemson for recruiting purposes? Please.

(01-14-2016 10:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never happen. Nobody in the Coastal wants to possibly get stuck with the two powers.

Pitt would HAPPILY play in a division with Florida State and Clemson. Where do we sign?

I can't speak for any other school but from Pitt's perspective, we would dearly LOVE to play you both on an annual basis.

We're worried about being stuck with the teams on the other end of the spectrum. We have to sell tickets and convince a boatload of diehard NFL fans that college football is also worth watching/spending money on.

That's two more games on national TV with a full stadium. We'd take that in a heartbeat.

BTW, if I read it correctly, this legislation is crafted in a way that specifically hurts the ACC. Basically says that we have to have two equal divisions, right?

That's a good thing from my perspective. I was not in favor of round-robin scheduling in a 14-team league. I didn't see that as being in Pitt's best interests.

(01-14-2016 10:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 10:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never happen. Nobody in the Coastal wants to possibly get stuck with the two powers.

Pitt would HAPPILY play in a division with Florida State and Clemson. Where do we sign?

I can't speak for any other school but from Pitt's perspective, we would dearly LOVE to play you both on an annual basis.

We're worried about being stuck with the teams on the other end of the spectrum. We have to sell tickets and convince a boatload of diehard NFL fans that college football is also worth watching/spending money on.

Yeah but who cares about the 2 schools carrying this conference being stuck with all 3 of bc cuse and wake every single season right?

Who cares that the excuse for the divisions was the zipper model all while ignoring sticking us with both dead recruiting areas in the northeast. And somehow both va teams stay in the coastal

At least you were honest this time. There is a reason why fans of the 2 powers are pissed. This format is crap for both

There really aren't that many options. Status quo, change divisions or swop 4 out every other year. I like the later.

Atlantic - Coastal
FSU - Miami
Clemson-GT
Louisville-VT
-Rotate-
NC - NC State
Duke- Syracuse
Virginia- Pittsburgh
WF - BC

Can be setup anyway you want. Or you could rotate 3 teams.

I'm sure status quo. Pretty sure it was going to be status quo even if this passed.

The problem is that most of the coaches and administrators, with a few specific complaints here and there, like this model. Some would like to force the football schools into a 9th game, but other than that, they want divisions and they want them to be non-geographic.

I wonder if the ACC, had they put for a very specific request, such as the permission to not play round robin in division, might have gotten it through. Clearly Delaney was spooked by the unknown, which is I guess a form of a compliment. I can't imagine five years ago that anyone would feel the slightest concern over ACC football teams having an advantage no matter how they set up things.

The best thing they could do is what every other conference sees the sense of...break on geography. And they should eliminate the set crossover, so you rotate two on the other side.

Syracuse
Boston College
Pitt
Louisville
Wake
VT
UVA

Duke
NC State
UNC
Miami
FSU
GT
Clemson

They can protect the UNC-UVA game the way the B1G does the Purdue-Indiana game. Clemson NCSU is lost. Wake is in a tough spot for sure, but something has to give. While as an FSU fan I'd like to have GT and Miami, I'd even consider swapping GT or Miami for Wake, but then you'd end up protecting Clemson-GT or FSU-UM, and you're back to restricting some of the most valuable opponents (FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT) in terms of marquee value back to infrequent opponents. Granted that happens for UVA and UNC in my scenario, but while those are attractive opponents, you're still likely to have a presence in the region. If you lock up FSU-Miami in a crossover that restricts people getting into Florida, and if GT is locked up with Clemson, you're stuck out of Georgia.

I don't have an answer for the position Wake gets put in there in terms of it's North Carolina partners.

(01-15-2016 10:11 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'm sure status quo. Pretty sure it was going to be status quo even if this passed.

The problem is that most of the coaches and administrators, with a few specific complaints here and there, like this model. Some would like to force the football schools into a 9th game, but other than that, they want divisions and they want them to be non-geographic.

I wonder if the ACC, had they put for a very specific request, such as the permission to not play round robin in division, might have gotten it through. Clearly Delaney was spooked by the unknown, which is I guess a form of a compliment. I can't imagine five years ago that anyone would feel the slightest concern over ACC football teams having an advantage no matter how they set up things.

The best thing they could do is what every other conference sees the sense of...break on geography. And they should eliminate the set crossover, so you rotate two on the other side.

Syracuse
Boston College
Pitt
Louisville
Wake
VT
UVA

Duke
NC State
UNC
Miami
FSU
GT
Clemson

They can protect the UNC-UVA game the way the B1G does the Purdue-Indiana game. Clemson NCSU is lost. Wake is in a tough spot for sure, but something has to give. While as an FSU fan I'd like to have GT and Miami, I'd even consider swapping GT or Miami for Wake, but then you'd end up protecting Clemson-GT or FSU-UM, and you're back to restricting some of the most valuable opponents (FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT) in terms of marquee value back to infrequent opponents. Granted that happens for UVA and UNC in my scenario, but while those are attractive opponents, you're still likely to have a presence in the region. If you lock up FSU-Miami in a crossover that restricts people getting into Florida, and if GT is locked up with Clemson, you're stuck out of Georgia.

I don't have an answer for the position Wake gets put in there in terms of it's North Carolina partners.

wake is always willing to take one for the team. they'd agree to this, albeit reluctantly.

I think status quo.

For FSU, a 9 game is a total deal breaker. Only thing FSU will fight very hard against.

Personally, the non-geographic is funny.......FSU in the ACC makes sense because of geography (often used argument) but there are non-geographic divsions. OK....

(01-14-2016 10:43 PM)marleycard Wrote:  Well, it worked about as well as it could have this year with the status quo. Combine that with the Coastal's clear impending comeuppance and the importance/history of some of these cross-division rivalries and I don't see anything changing in the near future. For once I'm pretty convinced it's even the right decision.

I agree. I think the NCAA may have saved the ACC from itself (or at least its most vocal in-house critics). The whining will no doubt continue, and maybe even get louder. Some of the views expressed here are, IMO, just hyperbole born out of frustration.

Nobody in the Coastal would want to have to play Clemson and FSU every year? Seriously? That sounds as if someone is saying the Coastal teams are "chicken" - they are afraid to play good teams. What nonsense. If other ACC members didn't want to play FSU every year, why did we invite them to join the league in the first place? IIRC, they were pretty good when they were invited.

And they were invited shortly after Clemson had its first strong period of consistently good teams in the 80's. So the other 7 schools (now six with the departure of Maryland) were quite willing to play both of them in the same year. We played a full round robin. But once FSU joined, Clemson came back to the pack, and didn't start to really separate again until about 5 years ago, after the league had split into two divisions.

I think it's safe to say most Coastal teams would love to play Clemson and FSU every year, as long as they didn't have to sacrifice relationships that are just as, and in some cases more, important to them. The divisions are the way they are because that is the best way to reconcile the conflicting needs of all its members. For (some) Clemson and FSU fans to say the ACC ought to think a certain way because they think that way may be understandable. But it's not how conferences work.

And to say the league doesn't care about football they way it should, that too is nonsense. Every move the league has made since 1980 belies that notion. By multiple conference commissioners. There are a lot of critics of the current commissioner, and almost to a man those critics aren't smart enough or competent enough to sniff his jockstrap. You can bet the people who count - the university presidents - don't share their opinions.

For all the whining, ACC football over the past several years is at its highest level since the league was started in 1953. We got here with the same divisions that some are eager to dump. To them I say be careful what you wish for.

Or another option, which is a bit geographically bizarre, more of an inside/outside alignment:

Pitt
Wake
Duke
NC State
UNC
VT
UVA

Miami
FSU
GT
Clemson
Syracuse
Boston College
Louisville

Can you break GT away from North Carolina? Like Clemson-NC State, nationally nobody would care and it wouldn't impact the conference's value in any negative way. It matters only to the schools themselves, and probably mostly to older fans. From a conference perspective, it's VERY little to give up to be able to eliminate crossover games completely and play 2 of seven across divisions.

I would also advocate eliminating home-and-home, so you'd get through everyone in 3.5 years...in other words, each recruiting class plays every other school at least once.

To me, this would be a massive improvement. I know it's unbalanced, but so is the SEC, so is the B1G. The B1G specifically tried the ACC way and rejected it. The net result of the B1G "unbalance" was Iowa in the freaking national championship hunt. If the inside division is so weak, there are programs there that should be able to string together 10-12 wins, and that is not a bad thing for the conference any more than it's hurting the B1G or SEC.

This

"I'm sure status quo. Pretty sure it was going to be status quo even if this passed.

The problem is that most of the coaches and administrators, with a few specific complaints here and there, like this model."

I think there might have been a chance the ACC went divisionless, but that's about it. Teams aren't swapping, and I'm not sure it matters anyways.

Yes Clemson and FSU are the nationally elite powers in a category by themselves, but in the last 2 years you could argue Georgia Tech and UNC were the 2nd best teams in the ACC. The championship games were well attended, well watched, and featured top 15 matchups both years, so I don't see that big a problem.

I really wouldn't want to see a rematch in the ACCCG anyways. It can still happen but the chances aren't as high.

Personally the ACC's biggest topic is getting an additional revenue generator going whether it be a network or some other model. It is only a matter of time before an ACC school starts going Oklahoma on the conference.

(01-15-2016 10:11 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'm sure status quo. Pretty sure it was going to be status quo even if this passed.

The problem is that most of the coaches and administrators, with a few specific complaints here and there, like this model. Some would like to force the football schools into a 9th game, but other than that, they want divisions and they want them to be non-geographic.

I wonder if the ACC, had they put for a very specific request, such as the permission to not play round robin in division, might have gotten it through. Clearly Delaney was spooked by the unknown, which is I guess a form of a compliment. I can't imagine five years ago that anyone would feel the slightest concern over ACC football teams having an advantage no matter how they set up things.

The best thing they could do is what every other conference sees the sense of...break on geography. And they should eliminate the set crossover, so you rotate two on the other side.

Syracuse
Boston College
Pitt
Louisville
Wake
VT
UVA

Duke
NC State
UNC
Miami
FSU
GT
Clemson

They can protect the UNC-UVA game the way the B1G does the Purdue-Indiana game. Clemson NCSU is lost. Wake is in a tough spot for sure, but something has to give. While as an FSU fan I'd like to have GT and Miami, I'd even consider swapping GT or Miami for Wake, but then you'd end up protecting Clemson-GT or FSU-UM, and you're back to restricting some of the most valuable opponents (FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT) in terms of marquee value back to infrequent opponents. Granted that happens for UVA and UNC in my scenario, but while those are attractive opponents, you're still likely to have a presence in the region. If you lock up FSU-Miami in a crossover that restricts people getting into Florida, and if GT is locked up with Clemson, you're stuck out of Georgia.

I don't have an answer for the position Wake gets put in there in terms of it's North Carolina partners.

(01-15-2016 10:41 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Or another option, which is a bit geographically bizarre, more of an inside/outside alignment:

Pitt
Wake
Duke
NC State
UNC
VT
UVA

Miami
FSU
GT
Clemson
Syracuse
Boston College
Louisville

Can you break GT away from North Carolina? Like Clemson-NC State, nationally nobody would care and it wouldn't impact the conference's value in any negative way. It matters only to the schools themselves, and probably mostly to older fans. From a conference perspective, it's VERY little to give up to be able to eliminate crossover games completely and play 2 of seven across divisions.

I would also advocate eliminating home-and-home, so you'd get through everyone in 3.5 years...in other words, each recruiting class plays every other school at least once.

To me, this would be a massive improvement. I know it's unbalanced, but so is the SEC, so is the B1G. The B1G specifically tried the ACC way and rejected it. The net result of the B1G "unbalance" was Iowa in the freaking national championship hunt. If the inside division is so weak, there are programs there that should be able to string together 10-12 wins, and that is not a bad thing for the conference any more than it's hurting the B1G or SEC.

prefer either your N-S option or swapping VT for either Louisville or Syracuse to get a true zipper model.

Why not this (to appease UNC/UVa/Duke just a bit):

EAST (DON'T CALL IT NORTH!):
Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke

SOUTH:
Louisville, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

about as equal as you can get in terms of Old ACC / Old Big East mix, and no need for cross-over except NC State vs. UNC, which could be protected or an annual "ACC as OOC" game for both teams.

Caveat: to make this fly, you MAY have to go to 9 games per year just to insure that [almost] every team in the "East" gets to play a Florida team every year. But you might be able to get away from that by giving them either Miami, FSU or GT every year (well, 6 of the 7 teams, at least) and stay at 8 games.

Explored in WAY more gory detail here:
http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2013/0...sions.html

(01-15-2016 11:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:41 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Or another option, which is a bit geographically bizarre, more of an inside/outside alignment:

Pitt
Wake
Duke
NC State
UNC
VT
UVA

Miami
FSU
GT
Clemson
Syracuse
Boston College
Louisville

Can you break GT away from North Carolina? Like Clemson-NC State, nationally nobody would care and it wouldn't impact the conference's value in any negative way. It matters only to the schools themselves, and probably mostly to older fans. From a conference perspective, it's VERY little to give up to be able to eliminate crossover games completely and play 2 of seven across divisions.

I would also advocate eliminating home-and-home, so you'd get through everyone in 3.5 years...in other words, each recruiting class plays every other school at least once.

To me, this would be a massive improvement. I know it's unbalanced, but so is the SEC, so is the B1G. The B1G specifically tried the ACC way and rejected it. The net result of the B1G "unbalance" was Iowa in the freaking national championship hunt. If the inside division is so weak, there are programs there that should be able to string together 10-12 wins, and that is not a bad thing for the conference any more than it's hurting the B1G or SEC.

prefer either your N-S option or swapping VT for either Louisville or Syracuse to get a true zipper model.

Can't break up VT-UVA though, and need to get rid of cross-division opponents.

The problem is seeing only one cross division opponent per year.

I would like to see The ACC develop a competition matrix, perhaps using statistics and probabilities, to realign the divisions every year. I'm sure that some type of predictive competition value could be assigned to each program. These values, along with some some agreed upon "rules" like VT must play UVa or FSU must play Miami could be used to build the divisions each season.

This system would build match-ups for TV, increase competition and ensure all conference schedules were as equally challenging as possible. Add in annual Notre Dame match-ups to increase a schedule value where necessary and build additional "Made for TV" games as needed.

What I envision is a scheduling system based on a ratings system like Sagarin to create value games using statistical probability instead of relying geography, history or chance to build competitive schedules.
CJ