If I have learned nothing else it is that no matter what is ultimately decided, it won't be enough to appease the malcontents.

(08-05-2014 12:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The hangup is that the barrier seems a lot higher to make the top two as opposed to having to win a possibly weak division with the benefit of tiebreakers.

In other words, and history has shown it, you catch a down cycle or a year of probation for somebody in a given division, and ANYONE has at least a chance to win the division. Change qualifying to top two teams, it reduces the chance of catching lightning in a bottle substantially.

It's a viable concern for coastal teams. If you're Boston College right now, the threshold to winning the coastal is a hell of a lot lower than having to be the second best team in the conference. Duke last year for that matter. You're just making it a lot harder for those programs to be able to claim a division title.

I don't agree with it, and I don't think it's a good reason to allow this to fail, but it's 100% understandable from a self-preservation perspective.

The solution to that might be that you still have divisions, but they are not static. They can rotate every two years. Then you still have the division race, a second tier school still has a chance to catch the right circumstances to win a division, and coaches still have "division title" to claim in contract time. And it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Syracuse or NC State to get rotated away from FSU and Clemson once in a while and have a shot.

It makes a lot of sense. Nobody outside ACC die-hards even know the way the ACC divisions break anyway, and plenty of ACC fans don't even know. Nationally nobody is going to care who's in what division.

You just change your pennants from "ACC Atlantic Division Champion 2010" to "ACC Divisional Champion 2010."

That might be the compromise that works for everyone.

I just don't have the math skills to meld that with a 3-5 schedule setup to see if you could form two round-robin divisions every year, or if not, how you would have to design it.

But if there is insurmountable opposition to eliminating divisions, that is not a good enough reason to stick with the status quo.

BC is in the Atlantic.

(08-06-2014 04:31 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The hangup is that the barrier seems a lot higher to make the top two as opposed to having to win a possibly weak division with the benefit of tiebreakers.

In other words, and history has shown it, you catch a down cycle or a year of probation for somebody in a given division, and ANYONE has at least a chance to win the division. Change qualifying to top two teams, it reduces the chance of catching lightning in a bottle substantially.

It's a viable concern for coastal teams. If you're Boston College right now, the threshold to winning the coastal is a hell of a lot lower than having to be the second best team in the conference. Duke last year for that matter. You're just making it a lot harder for those programs to be able to claim a division title.

I don't agree with it, and I don't think it's a good reason to allow this to fail, but it's 100% understandable from a self-preservation perspective.

The solution to that might be that you still have divisions, but they are not static. They can rotate every two years. Then you still have the division race, a second tier school still has a chance to catch the right circumstances to win a division, and coaches still have "division title" to claim in contract time. And it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Syracuse or NC State to get rotated away from FSU and Clemson once in a while and have a shot.

It makes a lot of sense. Nobody outside ACC die-hards even know the way the ACC divisions break anyway, and plenty of ACC fans don't even know. Nationally nobody is going to care who's in what division.

You just change your pennants from "ACC Atlantic Division Champion 2010" to "ACC Divisional Champion 2010."

That might be the compromise that works for everyone.

I just don't have the math skills to meld that with a 3-5 schedule setup to see if you could form two round-robin divisions every year, or if not, how you would have to design it.

But if there is insurmountable opposition to eliminating divisions, that is not a good enough reason to stick with the status quo.

BC is in the Atlantic.

And they won that twice. Only team other than Clemson and FSU to win multiple Atlantic titles.

IMO if the ACC wants 2 or more teams in the playoff bowls then a #1 vs. #2 ACC CG should be AVOIDED. Having #2 possibly lose to #1 twice would probably bump them all the way down to the Russell Athletic Bowl. Why would anyone want to do that?

Having division winners is not a bad thing, IMO. However, having them only play 2 teams from the other division (only one of which rotates) IS a problem, because it gives too much of an advantage to certain teams (e.g. Miami always plays FSU while Duke always plays Wake Forest). Fix that and the whole thing gets a lot better.

There is no "perfect" solution, but the 80/20 rule can be applied - get 80% of the benefit for only 20% of the cost and call it a day.

It is not my issue, but I have no idea which ACC schools are in which divisions.

It seems like a disorganized or ad hoc jumble of schools to me.

Most other conferences try to make some geographic sense out of their divisions.

(08-06-2014 07:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  It is not my issue, but I have no idea which ACC schools are in which divisions.

It seems like a disorganized or ad hoc jumble of schools to me.

Most other conferences try to make some geographic sense out of their divisions.

Correction. ALL of them do it by geography. No casual follower knows who is in what division because the league is horrible at maximizing their football product.

I can't recall which schools are where even after I go to the ACC website and look at them.

Ten minutes later, I can't tell you. My Oldtimers Disease may be part of it, but the lack of rhyme or reason is another, in my opinion.

Well the leaches claim that the zipper is best for everyone and works for the conference but it is all ridiculous.

And if there is a true zipper, Virginia/Virginia Tech and Syracuse/BC would be split between the 2 divisions. I am sure the Coastal isn't going to get right on that though because they don't want Syracuse or BC..... (Syracuse/VT swapping would go with the zipper theory)

(08-06-2014 07:29 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Well the leaches claim that the zipper is best for everyone and works for the conference but it is all ridiculous.

And if there is a true zipper, Virginia/Virginia Tech and Syracuse/BC would be split between the 2 divisions. I am sure the Coastal isn't going to get right on that though because they don't want Syracuse or BC..... (Syracuse/VT swapping would go with the zipper theory)

The ONLY conference where a zipper would've made sense is the Pac-12, but even they went the geographic route (North/South).

(08-06-2014 07:21 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I can't recall which schools are where even after I go to the ACC website and look at them.

Ten minutes later, I can't tell you. My Oldtimers Disease may be part of it, but the lack of rhyme or reason is another, in my opinion.

Terry, I suspect that my Oldtimers Disease has progressed further than yours. But it isn't that there is no rhyme or reason to the divisions. I think you would have to have some experience with the history of the conference and the schools involved to know what the reasons are.

IMO, it has to do with preserving rivalries - more precisely, rivalries near and dear to the hearts of some schools without whose votes none of the expansion moves could have happened in the first place.

Carolina would never agree to giving up either Duke or Virginia. While Duke is their primary rival, the UVa game is billed as the "oldest rivalry in the south" for good reason. Va Tech's invitation to join was enabled purely by Virginia's political clout, so they are going to be in Virginia's division, and therefore also UNC and Duke's division. And outside of UNC, Duke has played Georgia Tech more than anybody else, and even though their football has been less than stellar, their hoops strength, coupled with their alliance with UNC, gives them enough clout to make that division assignment happen.

When the league was at 12 teams, that meant that there was only one more opening in that division, and the league chose to fill it with Miami, who they anticipated would also add competitive balance.

In short, the decision wasn't just random and arbitrary. Many members may not have agreed with it or liked it. But it reflected the political realities of 2004.

(08-06-2014 05:12 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:31 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The hangup is that the barrier seems a lot higher to make the top two as opposed to having to win a possibly weak division with the benefit of tiebreakers.

In other words, and history has shown it, you catch a down cycle or a year of probation for somebody in a given division, and ANYONE has at least a chance to win the division. Change qualifying to top two teams, it reduces the chance of catching lightning in a bottle substantially.

It's a viable concern for coastal teams. If you're Boston College right now, the threshold to winning the coastal is a hell of a lot lower than having to be the second best team in the conference. Duke last year for that matter. You're just making it a lot harder for those programs to be able to claim a division title.

I don't agree with it, and I don't think it's a good reason to allow this to fail, but it's 100% understandable from a self-preservation perspective.

The solution to that might be that you still have divisions, but they are not static. They can rotate every two years. Then you still have the division race, a second tier school still has a chance to catch the right circumstances to win a division, and coaches still have "division title" to claim in contract time. And it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Syracuse or NC State to get rotated away from FSU and Clemson once in a while and have a shot.

It makes a lot of sense. Nobody outside ACC die-hards even know the way the ACC divisions break anyway, and plenty of ACC fans don't even know. Nationally nobody is going to care who's in what division.

You just change your pennants from "ACC Atlantic Division Champion 2010" to "ACC Divisional Champion 2010."

That might be the compromise that works for everyone.

I just don't have the math skills to meld that with a 3-5 schedule setup to see if you could form two round-robin divisions every year, or if not, how you would have to design it.

But if there is insurmountable opposition to eliminating divisions, that is not a good enough reason to stick with the status quo.

BC is in the Atlantic.

And they won that twice. Only team other than Clemson and FSU to win multiple Atlantic titles.

Haha, yes I typed BC when I meant Pitt, but yes, if BC was in the Coastal right now they'd feel that way.

And absolutely, it's a Coastal thing at the moment, but it wasn't that long ago that Wake Forest and BC were winning the Atlantic. Divisions will always give a better chance of a second tier team reaching the title game.

(08-06-2014 09:20 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 05:12 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:31 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:30 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The hangup is that the barrier seems a lot higher to make the top two as opposed to having to win a possibly weak division with the benefit of tiebreakers.

In other words, and history has shown it, you catch a down cycle or a year of probation for somebody in a given division, and ANYONE has at least a chance to win the division. Change qualifying to top two teams, it reduces the chance of catching lightning in a bottle substantially.

It's a viable concern for coastal teams. If you're Boston College right now, the threshold to winning the coastal is a hell of a lot lower than having to be the second best team in the conference. Duke last year for that matter. You're just making it a lot harder for those programs to be able to claim a division title.

I don't agree with it, and I don't think it's a good reason to allow this to fail, but it's 100% understandable from a self-preservation perspective.

The solution to that might be that you still have divisions, but they are not static. They can rotate every two years. Then you still have the division race, a second tier school still has a chance to catch the right circumstances to win a division, and coaches still have "division title" to claim in contract time. And it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Syracuse or NC State to get rotated away from FSU and Clemson once in a while and have a shot.

It makes a lot of sense. Nobody outside ACC die-hards even know the way the ACC divisions break anyway, and plenty of ACC fans don't even know. Nationally nobody is going to care who's in what division.

You just change your pennants from "ACC Atlantic Division Champion 2010" to "ACC Divisional Champion 2010."

That might be the compromise that works for everyone.

I just don't have the math skills to meld that with a 3-5 schedule setup to see if you could form two round-robin divisions every year, or if not, how you would have to design it.

But if there is insurmountable opposition to eliminating divisions, that is not a good enough reason to stick with the status quo.

BC is in the Atlantic.

And they won that twice. Only team other than Clemson and FSU to win multiple Atlantic titles.

Haha, yes I typed BC when I meant Pitt, but yes, if BC was in the Coastal right now they'd feel that way.

And absolutely, it's a Coastal thing at the moment, but it wasn't that long ago that Wake Forest and BC were winning the Atlantic. Divisions will always give a better chance of a second tier team reaching the title game.

Doesn't your decision about division alignment depend on what you think the purpose of having a CCG is in the first place?

Is it, should it be, a goal to give a second tier team some hope of reaching the title game? That's kind of the approach in professional sports, who want to keep as many teams "in the hunt" for as long as possible into the season.

Is it a goal to try to get two teams into major bowl games? And if so, do you think having your #2 team suffer another loss, or possibly having your best team suffer a loss immediately prior to selection week furthers that goal?

Or is the goal just to have a "legitimate champion" regardless of any negative financial or national consequences that may result from the process?

This should be the Divisions:

Miami
FSU
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina

North Carolina State
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Louisville
Pitt
Syracuse
Boston College

(08-06-2014 09:44 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  This should be the Divisions:

Miami
FSU
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina

North Carolina State
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Louisville
Pitt
Syracuse
Boston College

There will never be just one Big 4 school in a division. However, if you swapped Pitt/NCSU for Duke/UNC, I have no issue with that arrangement.

(08-06-2014 09:44 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  This should be the Divisions:

Miami
FSU
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina

North Carolina State
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Louisville
Pitt
Syracuse
Boston College

FAIL. Big Time. If you want this to have ANY hope, you MUST keep UVA, VT, UNC and Duke together (for historical reason I won't go into here). If you put NC State and Louisville in the South and UNC and Duke in the North (er, East, call it East please!) then you might have something.

Why does VT have to be with UNC/Duke? They could easily be in another division with UVA as their crossover.

(08-06-2014 10:39 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why does VT have to be with UNC/Duke? They could easily be in another division with UVA as their crossover.

VT only has to be with UVa.

UVa has to be with UNC.

UNC has to be with Duke.

VT can be in another division from all of them with UVA as the crossover. They dont have to be in that group. UVA/Duke/UNC are the power brokers of the ACC. VT isnt in that group.

For personal reasons I always liked Inner and outer divisions but it really isn't fair to the other souther teams, but rivalries are still there. It isn't drastically different FSU, CU already play Cuse and BC, takt away Wake and State add Pitt, Miami and GT. Seems like a fair trade to me. Everyone gets more geographic rivalries on a yearly basis.


Inner: UoflL,UVA,VT, UNC,Duke, NCSU, Wake,

Outer: Clemson, GT, Miami, FSU, Pitt, BC. SU

so VT does NOT have to be in the same division as unc, duke and uva. they just need to preserve the uva rivalry.

bc - clemson
syracuse - miami
pitt - gt
louisville - fsu
uva - vt
unc - ncsu
duke - wf

you could flip the miami and gt crossover rivalries. i just think NY vs. miami would be good exposure in major markets.

(08-06-2014 11:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 10:39 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Why does VT have to be with UNC/Duke? They could easily be in another division with UVA as their crossover.

VT only has to be with UVa.

UVa has to be with UNC.

UNC has to be with Duke.