I'm sorry to say it, but I am highly skeptical that the current divisions can be tweaked to make them perfect for all the schools and the fans. Actually, I think the divisions are in the best current set up they can be, and any changes will cause more issues among the fans and schools. This assumes that at a minimum that Miami and VT can field teams that can periodically challenge for national titles. I don't intend to slam any other school to imply that they can't, but it's fair to say that Pitt, UNC, GT and NCSU can do a whole lot better given their traditions and/or access to recruiting grounds.

However, if we assume that there are structural changes within the ACC schools where FSU and Clemson will be able to thrive while the coastal schools have built in glass ceilings that will prevent them from competing at the top levels, then the divisions need to be changed on a massive scale. Bottom line, no tweaking can be done from what I can tell. If we assume that the majority of the ACC schools CAN compete for national titles - or at least shoot for a top 10 ranking on a regular basis - then the divisions are already optimally set given that most of the schools are in the "right" division regarding shared history. If the assumption becomes that at least half of the ACC schools have NO CHANCE in doing better than sneaking into the top 25 once in awhile, then MAJOR realignment of the divisions is needed.

The major realignment (assuming over half the ACC will NEVER compete well enough in football due to structural issues) would have to start with the splitting of FSU and Clemson into separate divisions. Is that a non-starter? I assume yes. But fortunately for us, I strongly believe that most of the ACC CAN compete at the highest levels - or at least shoot for top 10 finishes - due to the resources available to each school. With that in mind, I don't see how you can make the divisions any better than they currently are.

Just win baby and the rest will take care of its self!

Divisions should be north & south.

(01-04-2014 06:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Divisions should be north & south.

This may be the first time I am able to mostly agree with you.

Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville
Virginia-----------North Carolina
Virginia Tech-----NC State (?)
Miami-------------Florida State
--------------------Wake
--------------------Duke
--------------------Clemson
--------------------Georgia Tech

I could live with it, but I fear UVA and VT would be drawn elsewhere. Plus, I'm not sure Miami would be a fan.

I much prefer a straight North/South if all heads can agree:

Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville
Virginia-----------North Carolina
Virginia Tech-----NC State (?)
Wake-------------Duke
-------------------Clemson
-------------------Georgia Tech
-------------------Florida State
-------------------Miami

It's logical and memorable, but I assume VT would fight this beak and talon.

(01-04-2014 06:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 06:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Divisions should be north & south.

This may be the first time I am able to mostly agree with you.

There is no way the ACC can go to a north/south alignment as long as UVA and VT are members.

UVA would throw a fit if the ACC put them in a division with all former Big East schools. Within weeks of the ACC announcing a move to a north/south alignment you would see UVA announcing they are joining the Big 10. Without UVA + being saddled in the north division, you would see VT trying to get in the SEC or even try to ride on UVA coattails to the Big 10.

So if you think Uconn and Cincinnati are adequate replacements or even staying at 12, then a guess you can start the groundswell of N/S alignment, but a big chunk of the mid-atlantic would be missing from the footprint.

(01-04-2014 11:29 AM)Star City Hokie Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 06:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 06:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Divisions should be north & south.

This may be the first time I am able to mostly agree with you.

There is no way the ACC can go to a north/south alignment as long as UVA and VT are members.

UVA would throw a fit if the ACC put them in a division with all former Big East schools. Within weeks of the ACC announcing a move to a north/south alignment you would see UVA announcing they are joining the Big 10. Without UVA + being saddled in the north division, you would see VT trying to get in the SEC or even try to ride on UVA coattails to the Big 10.

So if you think Uconn and Cincinnati are adequate replacements or even staying at 12, then a guess you can start the groundswell of N/S alignment, but a big chunk of the mid-atlantic would be missing from the footprint.

Star is totally correct. The VT BOV does not want the Hokies in another de-facto Big East - they fought too long to get back with UVA, the Big 4 and Clemson to be stuck in a geographical north.

If there are just two divisions, the ACC has to be east/west like a zipper. Only the addition of Penn State or Michigan State along with ND upping it's annual commitment to 8-9 games would create the necessary compensations to politically allow for a north/south split that did not piss off VT, UVa, and Louisville.

What's wrong with the old big east? VT could dominate the NE corridor. That's where the media is!

(01-04-2014 01:03 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 11:29 AM)Star City Hokie Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 06:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 06:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Divisions should be north & south.

This may be the first time I am able to mostly agree with you.

There is no way the ACC can go to a north/south alignment as long as UVA and VT are members.

UVA would throw a fit if the ACC put them in a division with all former Big East schools. Within weeks of the ACC announcing a move to a north/south alignment you would see UVA announcing they are joining the Big 10. Without UVA + being saddled in the north division, you would see VT trying to get in the SEC or even try to ride on UVA coattails to the Big 10.

So if you think Uconn and Cincinnati are adequate replacements or even staying at 12, then a guess you can start the groundswell of N/S alignment, but a big chunk of the mid-atlantic would be missing from the footprint.

Star is totally correct. The VT BOV does not want the Hokies in another de-facto Big East - they fought too long to get back with UVA, the Big 4 and Clemson to be stuck in a geographical north.

If there are just two divisions, the ACC has to be east/west like a zipper. Only the addition of Penn State or Michigan State along with ND upping it's annual commitment to 8-9 games would create the necessary compensations to politically allow for a north/south split that did not piss off VT, UVa, and Louisville.

The ACC would need to take both PSU and MSU - they aren't coming to the ACC without each other. They wouldn't want to leave behind the Land Grant rivalry.

(01-04-2014 03:10 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  What's wrong with the old big east? VT could dominate the NE corridor. That's where the media is!

What's wrong is that VT was NEVER a Big East school.

VT was a and original SAIAA, original Southern Conference school that got kicked out of the ACC right at the start because their president was for the Bowl ban. VT has ALWAYS seen itself as an ACC school that was blackballed. And that's what VT has always been and how they thought of themselves from 1954-2003.

They hated the Big East. They went to the Big East because they could not get back into the ACC due to UVa's blocking them after the original blackball by MD, Duke, Clemson, and UVa.

Most Big East fans are too young, or too far detached from VT to know what the real history is and how long VT fought to get back with the group.

(01-04-2014 03:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 03:10 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  What's wrong with the old big east? VT could dominate the NE corridor. That's where the media is!

What's wrong is that VT was NEVER a Big East school.

VT was a and original SAIAA, original Southern Conference school that got kicked out of the ACC right at the start because their president was for the Bowl ban. VT has ALWAYS seen itself as an ACC school that was blackballed. And that's what VT has always been and how they thought of themselves from 1954-2003.

They hated the Big East. They went to the Big East because they could not get back into the ACC due to UVa's blocking them after the original blackball by MD, Duke, Clemson, and UVa.

Most Big East fans are too young, or too far detached from VT to know what the real history is and how long VT fought to get back with the group.

Not quite.

As their voting the small school line in 1950 suggests VPI might have thought they belonged with the ACC schools, but they weren't even close. The fact that they remained behind in the SoCon for a decade despite independence being a viable option in those days shows they were quite comfortable with their station in life. If anything it wasn't until the DI started the discussions about splitting into I-A and I-AA that VPI decided it wanted to play big boy football rather than be relegated to minor league status. Until that point there is little to distinguish the Hokies from Bill & Mary and VMI.

And if there was such bad blood explain why it took all of two years (1954) for VPI to show back up on Clemson's schedule.

(01-04-2014 04:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Not quite.

As their voting the small school line in 1950 suggests VPI might have thought they belonged with the ACC schools, but they weren't even close. The fact that they remained behind in the SoCon for a decade despite independence being a viable option in those days shows they were quite comfortable with their station in life. If anything it wasn't until the DI started the discussions about splitting into I-A and I-AA that VPI decided it wanted to play big boy football rather than be relegated to minor league status. Until that point there is little to distinguish the Hokies from Bill & Mary and VMI.

And if there was such bad blood explain why it took all of two years (1954) for VPI to show back up on Clemson's schedule.

Right, plus I'm pretty sure Virginia Tech was horrible back then into the 70's. They were applying to the ACC for years and then Georgia Tech leapfrogged them.

In theory, North/South would be great, but knowing the background of the institutions and their athletic programs, the zipper makes the most sense. I think trading VT for Syracuse pacifies FSU and Clemson; they won't have to travel to the north pole every year. VT has more history with NC State, Wake, Clemson and FSU than they do with UNC, Duke, GT, and Miami respectively.

(01-04-2014 06:04 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Divisions should be north & south.

…and this thread just turned into another division realignment thread.

It looks like the posters on this thread confirmed that the current alignment is the best one moving forward. It may not be ideal for everyone, but it's the least controversial. The moment you start swapping teams, it seems to cause even more issues.

(01-04-2014 11:33 PM)C Marlow Wrote:  It looks like the posters on this thread confirmed that the current alignment is the best one moving forward. It may not be ideal for everyone, but it's the least controversial. The moment you start swapping teams, it seems to cause even more issues.

I couldn't tell you who is in what division.

(12-31-2013 09:58 AM)C Marlow Wrote:  I'm sorry to say it, but I am highly skeptical that the current divisions can be tweaked to make them perfect for all the schools and the fans. Actually, I think the divisions are in the best current set up they can be, and any changes will cause more issues among the fans and schools. This assumes that at a minimum that Miami and VT can field teams that can periodically challenge for national titles. I don't intend to slam any other school to imply that they can't, but it's fair to say that Pitt, UNC, GT and NCSU can do a whole lot better given their traditions and/or access to recruiting grounds.

However, if we assume that there are structural changes within the ACC schools where FSU and Clemson will be able to thrive while the coastal schools have built in glass ceilings that will prevent them from competing at the top levels, then the divisions need to be changed on a massive scale. Bottom line, no tweaking can be done from what I can tell. If we assume that the majority of the ACC schools CAN compete for national titles - or at least shoot for a top 10 ranking on a regular basis - then the divisions are already optimally set given that most of the schools are in the "right" division regarding shared history. If the assumption becomes that at least half of the ACC schools have NO CHANCE in doing better than sneaking into the top 25 once in awhile, then MAJOR realignment of the divisions is needed.

The major realignment (assuming over half the ACC will NEVER compete well enough in football due to structural issues) would have to start with the splitting of FSU and Clemson into separate divisions. Is that a non-starter? I assume yes. But fortunately for us, I strongly believe that most of the ACC CAN compete at the highest levels - or at least shoot for top 10 finishes - due to the resources available to each school. With that in mind, I don't see how you can make the divisions any better than they currently are.

I have to agree that the current alignment is probably the best. No one will be completely happy but I think the north/south split would not work unless Notre Dame joined as a full member. Then it would be workable as Notre Dame would probably be enough to keep the northern teams happy as they would have annual games with Notre Dame.
I suspect Miami will be back eventually. With the talent in south florida they should be able to scoop up some really good recruits.
Not sure about VT, as Beamer is probably close to retirement and its always a crap shoot with new coaches. Its not like they have a great recruiting base. Its ok but nothing great. I think GT's problem are their academic standards are too high. Maybe if they lowered it to Georgia's then they might be able to compete nationally.

(01-04-2014 09:03 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 04:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Not quite.

As their voting the small school line in 1950 suggests VPI might have thought they belonged with the ACC schools, but they weren't even close. The fact that they remained behind in the SoCon for a decade despite independence being a viable option in those days shows they were quite comfortable with their station in life. If anything it wasn't until the DI started the discussions about splitting into I-A and I-AA that VPI decided it wanted to play big boy football rather than be relegated to minor league status. Until that point there is little to distinguish the Hokies from Bill & Mary and VMI.

And if there was such bad blood explain why it took all of two years (1954) for VPI to show back up on Clemson's schedule.

Right, plus I'm pretty sure Virginia Tech was horrible back then into the 70's. They were applying to the ACC for years and then Georgia Tech leapfrogged them.

In theory, North/South would be great, but knowing the background of the institutions and their athletic programs, the zipper makes the most sense. I think trading VT for Syracuse pacifies FSU and Clemson; they won't have to travel to the north pole every year. VT has more history with NC State, Wake, Clemson and FSU than they do with UNC, Duke, GT, and Miami respectively.

That would not be bad to switch Syracuse to the other division. There is not much desire to play against NC State, Wake, Clemson or FSU by Syracuse. Especially in comparison to North Carolina, Duke, GT and Miami.

As a Pitt fan who has surrendered all of our rivals to join this league, I'm not at all for giving up annual games with Virginia Tech (or Georgia Tech for that matter) to pacify the whining babies at FSU and Clemson. Based on my brief experience with those fans, trust me, even after we do that, give them 10 minutes and they'll be crying about something else.

Virginia Tech is one of the few relatively easy trips we have and they always bring a lot of fans to Heinz for our games against them. That is no small issue for a team that shares a market with an NFL team. That becomes a bigger issue with Maryland now off to the Big Ten.

Look, we have all made concessions to get to this point and that's how it goes. We used to play Notre Dame every single year and now we'll get them once every three or four years. We used to play West Virginia and Penn State every year and now there is probably room for one at most on the schedule going forward. That's our issue and the cost of doing business. However, make no mistake, we have made some major concessions to get to this point and the next concession is coming from someone else for a change.

I'm with the OP. I would like the divisions to remain the same. If we have to swap someone out because of Louisville's entrance, we'll give the other side Coastal champ Duke in exchange for the Cardinals.

(01-04-2014 04:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 03:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 03:10 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  What's wrong with the old big east? VT could dominate the NE corridor. That's where the media is!

What's wrong is that VT was NEVER a Big East school.

VT was a and original SAIAA, original Southern Conference school that got kicked out of the ACC right at the start because their president was for the Bowl ban. VT has ALWAYS seen itself as an ACC school that was blackballed. And that's what VT has always been and how they thought of themselves from 1954-2003.

They hated the Big East. They went to the Big East because they could not get back into the ACC due to UVa's blocking them after the original blackball by MD, Duke, Clemson, and UVa.

Most Big East fans are too young, or too far detached from VT to know what the real history is and how long VT fought to get back with the group.

Not quite.

As their voting the small school line in 1950 suggests VPI might have thought they belonged with the ACC schools, but they weren't even close. The fact that they remained behind in the SoCon for a decade despite independence being a viable option in those days shows they were quite comfortable with their station in life. If anything it wasn't until the DI started the discussions about splitting into I-A and I-AA that VPI decided it wanted to play big boy football rather than be relegated to minor league status. Until that point there is little to distinguish the Hokies from Bill & Mary and VMI.

And if there was such bad blood explain why it took all of two years (1954) for VPI to show back up on Clemson's schedule.

The VPI president was the one who pushed the Bowl Ban. They stayed in the SoCon for a decade because they kept thinking they would get back with the group since they only lost on a 4-4 vote when UNC tried to get them back in to the league in 1954. What you aren't taking into account was that getting to VT in the late fall and winter was pure hell back then. Their location in the Appalachian Mountains made any late fall or winter trip a potential odyssey. That was going against them for years until the Appalachian Regional Commission was successful in improving the highway access to the Roanoke region.

What was left of the SoCon included West Virginia who had represented the SoCon already in a major bowl and William and Mary had been trying to have a major program for the prior 10 years. VT left before West Va.

However if you are attempting to understand what happened to VT, you are not the school that had the main friction with them - it was Maryland and Duke and once they have UVa on board, that was three blackballs in the can. Yes, your representative voted against VT, but to say there was bad blood was not accurate.

Perhaps if you had worked at VT and had the opportunity to pick the minds of the old geezers and some of the English family you would know how VT feels. I'm pretty certain I know how they feel and they don't want a recreation of themselves in the Big East.

Would you rather have Pittsburgh on an island in the Big XII with WVU in the ACC? I'm not trying to be facetious but Pitt had no other options and Louisville for VaTech is an even trade, sure it's a little further but I bet they bring just as many fans.

Do you think ND would have dropped the Pitt series had the Panthers not joined the ACC?