(07-05-2018 08:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  The truth is Pitt is Syracuse's most played opponent (Syracuse is Pitt's third behind WVU and PSU) and instead of forcing the BC-Syracuse game during rivalry week, and continuing on with unbalanced zipper divisions, BC and Pitt should trade spots. Pitt replaces Miami with FSU, GT with Clemson, keeps Virginia Tech as a cross-division game and gains Louisville for some Ohio River duel and Syracuse during rivalry week.

BC gets Miami back on the schedule every year—the main reason they wanted to join the ACC in the first place—and balances the zipper to please Clemson and FSU. They also keep Virginia Tech, for whatever that is worth, and add games with Duke, which has a large alumni base in Boston.

I think the BC-Syracuse game as a cross-division works better because the game could be scheduled in October right after baseball season in the Bronx or at Fenway Pahk.

Swapping Pitt and BC would seem to be a change small enough for the original ACC teams to accept. It slightly widens the power gap between the Atlantic and Coastal, but not so much that anybody could tell without a microscope.

Syracuse becomes BC's crossover, and Va Tech should get Louisville, leaving Pitt to play Virginia every year. Now the top three teams in the Coastal would all play one of the top three from the Atlantic every year.

This may be the only ACC division realignment it would be possible to sell.

(07-05-2018 12:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 08:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  The truth is Pitt is Syracuse's most played opponent (Syracuse is Pitt's third behind WVU and PSU) and instead of forcing the BC-Syracuse game during rivalry week, and continuing on with unbalanced zipper divisions, BC and Pitt should trade spots. Pitt replaces Miami with FSU, GT with Clemson, keeps Virginia Tech as a cross-division game and gains Louisville for some Ohio River duel and Syracuse during rivalry week.

BC gets Miami back on the schedule every year—the main reason they wanted to join the ACC in the first place—and balances the zipper to please Clemson and FSU. They also keep Virginia Tech, for whatever that is worth, and add games with Duke, which has a large alumni base in Boston.

I think the BC-Syracuse game as a cross-division works better because the game could be scheduled in October right after baseball season in the Bronx or at Fenway Pahk.

Swapping Pitt and BC would seem to be a change small enough for the original ACC teams to accept. It slightly widens the power gap between the Atlantic and Coastal, but not so much that anybody could tell without a microscope.

Syracuse becomes BC's crossover, and Va Tech should get Louisville, leaving Pitt to play Virginia every year. Now the top three teams in the Coastal would all play one of the top three from the Atlantic every year.

This may be the only ACC division realignment it would be possible to sell.

I'm sure everyone in the Atlantic would be fine with that, however I don't know that Pitt would like that, moreover, I would think Pitt would welcome VT more than UVa. Also, Louisville and UVa seem to make an annual French contest - oui?

If there is opposition to dividing between old ACC & BE then we could try starting with an old Metro core. Louisville, FSU, VT & GT are 4 strong programs to start with. You could add Clemson here so that they both play each other & GT every year but it would cause a massive unbalancing of the divisions.

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

Personally I prefer going divisionless (thanks B1G!) but short of that I think Louisville should play it's closest conference neighbor every year, who we have yet to play in football. We won't get to play them for several more years! If we were to lose FSU & Clemson then Miami & VT are a must.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't Louisville to Pittsburgh just about the same as it is to Blacksburg? Besides, Louisville and Virginia Tech never did much to schedule one another throughout the years anyway.

(07-06-2018 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  Isn't Louisville to Pittsburgh just about the same as it is to Blacksburg? Besides, Louisville and Virginia Tech never did much to schedule one another throughout the years anyway.

That really never entered my thinking. I was only concerned with having the top three programs in the Atlantic play one of the top three in the Coastal every year to help their SOS.

(07-06-2018 10:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  Isn't Louisville to Pittsburgh just about the same as it is to Blacksburg? Besides, Louisville and Virginia Tech never did much to schedule one another throughout the years anyway.

That really never entered my thinking. I was only concerned with having the top three programs in the Atlantic play one of the top three in the Coastal every year to help their SOS.

I was actually referring to the post above mine, but regardless, I think those programs don't have any history with one another besides Virginia Tech playing Pitt solely because of the Big East.

Pittsburgh to Blacksburg ~5 hrs
Pittsburgh to Charlottesville ~5 hrs
Louisville to Pittsburgh ~6 hrs
Louisville to Blacksburg ~6 hrs
Louisville to Charlottesville ~7 hrs

If Pittsburgh is in the Atlantic then the Cards get one of their two closest opponents every year. I figure there would be more interest from Pitt to play VaTech than UVA, but I could be wrong.

(07-06-2018 10:56 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 10:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  Isn't Louisville to Pittsburgh just about the same as it is to Blacksburg? Besides, Louisville and Virginia Tech never did much to schedule one another throughout the years anyway.

That really never entered my thinking. I was only concerned with having the top three programs in the Atlantic play one of the top three in the Coastal every year to help their SOS.

I was actually referring to the post above mine, but regardless, I think those programs don't have any history with one another besides Virginia Tech playing Pitt solely because of the Big East.

Pittsburgh to Blacksburg ~5 hrs
Pittsburgh to Charlottesville ~5 hrs
Louisville to Pittsburgh ~6 hrs
Louisville to Blacksburg ~6 hrs
Louisville to Charlottesville ~7 hrs

If Pittsburgh is in the Atlantic then the Cards get one of their two closest opponents every year. I figure there would be more interest from Pitt to play VaTech than UVA, but I could be wrong.

VT and Louisville were conference mates in the old Metro - but it was a non-football league.

During the Metro years (1979-95), VT played UVA and WVU every year, and the following teams about half of the years: Clemson, Syracuse, Miami, S Carolina, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Louisville, Florida State. Ironically, while there are 7 ACC teams on that list, only 2 of them are in the Coastal, with 5 of them in the Atlantic. The divisions are nowhere near ideal for VT.

Yes, the Metro was a marriage of convenience for the Gobblers. A league to house their other programs while the football team played against more similar foes. Cincinnati, Louisville, and Memphis all managed to schedule one another in football, yet Virginia Tech hardly played those schools on the gridiron.

I’ve always thought of South Carolina, FSU, Tulane, and Virginia Tech as the “Old South” members of the Metro while UC, Louisville, St. Louis, and Memphis were sort of basketball-centric Missouri Valley schools that outgrew that conference. I still really don’t know how Southern Miss fit into the puzzle to replace St. Louis. I’ve tried to research if any other schools were considered, but I couldn’t find anything. Closest I’ve come was reading about West Virginia’s athletic board approving them to move to the Metro around the time Tulane dropped hoops, but the academic heads denied it.

*and yes, I’ve pointed it out that VT has more history with NCSU/Wake than UNC/Duke. Don’t forget, UNC did sponsor Tech from the get go.

(07-06-2018 12:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  Yes, the Metro was a marriage of convenience for the Gobblers. A league to house their other programs while the football team played against more similar foes. Cincinnati, Louisville, and Memphis all managed to schedule one another in football, yet Virginia Tech hardly played those schools on the gridiron.

I’ve always thought of South Carolina, FSU, Tulane, and Virginia Tech as the “Old South” members of the Metro while UC, Louisville, St. Louis, and Memphis were sort of basketball-centric Missouri Valley schools that outgrew that conference. I still really don’t know how Southern Miss fit into the puzzle to replace St. Louis. I’ve tried to research if any other schools were considered, but I couldn’t find anything. Closest I’ve come was reading about West Virginia’s athletic board approving them to move to the Metro around the time Tulane dropped hoops, but the academic heads denied it.

*and yes, I’ve pointed it out that VT has more history with NCSU/Wake than UNC/Duke. Don’t forget, UNC did sponsor Tech from the get go.

...but then voted against expansion when VT was trying to get in! So VT owes nothing to UNC - it's well-documented that it was UVA that cast the swing vote go get the Hokies into the ACC.

Yes, initially UNC and Duke voted no on any expansion, not specifically VT. When UNC voted yes, it was for Miami and VT.

IMO, VT should have been in the ACC long ago.

(07-06-2018 02:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  Yes, initially UNC and Duke voted no on any expansion, not specifically VT. When UNC voted yes, it was for Miami and VT.

IMO, VT should have been in the ACC long ago.

Agreed - and no hard feelings. Now it's business, and the best business move is probably going to involve adding WVU. The other business move the ACC needs to make is North/South divisions, with Miami in the North - which happens to be old ACC vs old Big East. Nothing personal, just business! (Mo' money)

(07-04-2018 01:29 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-04-2018 12:48 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  
Old Big East
Boston College or Connecticut (your opinion on which one)
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
Virginia Tech
Miami

Old ACC
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake Forest
Clemson
George Tech
Florida State

FIFY. I like it this way, but it requires expanding to 16 teams, one of which is bound by a GoR.

That is my choose also.

(07-06-2018 02:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 02:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  Yes, initially UNC and Duke voted no on any expansion, not specifically VT. When UNC voted yes, it was for Miami and VT.

IMO, VT should have been in the ACC long ago.

Agreed - and no hard feelings. Now it's business, and the best business move is probably going to involve adding WVU. The other business move the ACC needs to make is North/South divisions, with Miami in the North - which happens to be old ACC vs old Big East. Nothing personal, just business! (Mo' money)

How many votes to change divisions? I just don’t see it happening because Virginia and your own Virginia Tech would not want to be stuck in the North, and there’s no way Wake is getting screwed into it.

If Maryland and West Virginia were the two, I’d be all for it, but UMD is gone for good. I don’t think Navy is realistic, although I personally wouldn’t mind it because they have a lot of history with the original ACC and Eastern Independents. There’s just no way they could survive week in and week out, plus they are losing a ton of national exposure even compared to their current schedule with games in Texas, Louisiana, and Tennessee, etc.

Why not wait ten years for Liberty to become a super power and invite them? WVU isn’t going anywhere.

Its a majority vote. Pitt of course would like Clem, FSU (and maybe BC,Ville) more often but definitely prefers VT and Miami and I'm guessing wouldn't vote to give that up.

None of the Coastal teams are unhappy division wise.

1. They have an annual game with a Florida school
2. They don't have to go to recruiting dead spots like New England, New York, and Kentucky
3. Carolina gets Duke, UVa, NC State, and GT, while avoiding FSU and Clemson

Only Atlantic teams have gripes.

Here is my take of some schools "perfect world" in ACC play:

Clemson would like to see FSU, GT, Louisville, UNC, and Pitt every year. UVa/VT, and Miami/NCSU, every other year. WF, Duke, BC, and Syracuse once every four years. A big chunk of UNC's fan base is in and around Charlotte, so trading UNC and NC State probably gets more demand to travel to Clemson. Cutting games with small population schools and northeast schools also fits Clemson's preference.


Carolina's only improvement to the current schedule would likely be having Clemson and NC State every other year.


NC State would prefer UNC, Clemson, Duke, and WF every year. Pitt/GT, VT/UVa, FSU/Miami every other year. Then a rotation of Louisville, Syracuse and BC.


FSU would probably prefer Clemson, GT, Miami, Louisville, VT, UNC/NC State, WF/Duke, and a rotation of Pitt, Syracuse, and BC


WF wants UNC, UVa, and VT.


Some schools want the easiest path to the division title. Some want to fill their stadium at the highest possible price. Some want to appear in certain areas for recruiting. Some don't like certain areas and venues. Who really wants to go play football in the Carrier Dome? Who wants to be in Boston, Pittsburg, or Blacksburg in November? Who really is dying to play in Wallace Wade Stadium? Conversely, no one turns down a trip to Miami.

Since the Coastal is happy, and ND has evidently recused itself from voting on this you have stalemate until someone is added.

What about switching Louisville & Pittsburgh?

FSU-Miami
Clemson-GT
NCSt-NC
WF-Duke
Pitt-VT
Syracuse-Louisville
BC-Virginia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-08-2018 07:08 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  What about switching Louisville & Pittsburgh?

FSU-Miami
Clemson-GT
NCSt-NC
WF-Duke
Pitt-VT
Syracuse-Louisville
BC-Virginia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While that's probably what should have been done when MD left, it doesn't do anything positive for Pitt. That means two schools in the Coastal have to be willing to cut Pitt's throat. No one hates or is pissed off at Pitt. They don't cheat like hell, their fans are not rude, their University is always top 50 or so in almost all ranking systems and they have had no hand in past intra-conference shenanigans. I think the only way to sell something like this to Pitt is to allow them to play ND every other year or so.


This is the problem - Coastal schools have everything they want - a less rigorous division, the better road trips for recruiting, and direct home exposure in the three of the four really large metropolitan areas - Atlanta, Miami, and Pittsburgh. The Atlantic only has Boston.


Only an addition or a subtraction is going to change the current alignment.


Everyone in the conference is probably in favor of three divisions if that can be pushed through rest of the P-5. Having 3 division champions means a 50% increase in the number of schools that get to claim a division championship, hang a banner and buy rings. You get a 200% increase in playoff games with 2 conference semifinals. You also get a wild-card to cause disputes, angst, and controversy which draws attention.


You don't need a 15th school for football to be any good to make money of a split into three divisions. You could add Davidson, Furman, or Richmond and make a lot more money with three divisions.


But something like this is what's needed to address the imbalance.

We sports fans are prone to recency bias when it comes to realignment questions. We tend to assume that the way things are today is the way they will always be going forward. For that matter, we also think that the way things are today is the way they have largely been in the past.

The Coastal division is seen as significantly weaker, and in the current cycle of the last few years it no doubt is. But what was the situation in 2003, when the league first had to go to divisions? Back then, the opposite was true. Based on the teams' performance in the 10 years before division assignments were made, the Coastal was significantly stronger. These are their win totals during that period, ranked in order from most wins to fewest.

.1...Florida State.....103
.2...Miami................96
.3...Virginia Tech.......92
.4...Virginia..............76
.5...Clemson.............68
......Georgia Tech......68
......NC State............68
.8...North Carolina....65
.9...Boston College....64
10..Maryland............61
11..Wake Forest........42
12..Duke..................26

Three of the top four, and five of the top eight were placed in the Coastal Division. Nobody back then was thinking that Clemson was going to be a consistent national contender as they have become over the past 7 years under Dabo Swinney. Nobody was expecting Miami to fall asleep for a decade or more.

I think we would be making a big mistake if we think the next ten years will produce the same results as the last ten. And I think we should be very slow to change division alignments based on recent performance. If we want to change to facilitate traditional rivalries, and are willing to live with whatever temporary imbalances that result from that for the sake of the long term view, I'm OK with that.

(07-08-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  We sports fans are prone to recency bias when it comes to realignment questions. We tend to assume that the way things are today is the way they will always be going forward. For that matter, we also think that the way things are today is the way they have largely been in the past.

The Coastal division is seen as significantly weaker, and in the current cycle of the last few years it no doubt is. But what was the situation in 2003, when the league first had to go to divisions? Back then, the opposite was true. Based on the teams' performance in the 10 years before division assignments were made, the Coastal was significantly stronger. These are their win totals during that period, ranked in order from most wins to fewest.

.1...Florida State.....103
.2...Miami................96
.3...Virginia Tech.......92
.4...Virginia..............76
.5...Clemson.............68
......Georgia Tech......68
......NC State............68
.8...North Carolina....65
.9...Boston College....64
10..Maryland............61
11..Wake Forest........42
12..Duke..................26

Three of the top four, and five of the top eight were placed in the Coastal Division. Nobody back then was thinking that Clemson was going to be a consistent national contender as they have become over the past 7 years under Dabo Swinney. Nobody was expecting Miami to fall asleep for a decade or more.

I think we would be making a big mistake if we think the next ten years will produce the same results as the last ten. And I think we should be very slow to change division alignments based on recent performance. If we want to change to facilitate traditional rivalries, and are willing to live with whatever temporary imbalances that result from that for the sake of the long term view, I'm OK with that.

How are you controlling for the fact that VT, BC, and Miami were not in the ACC in the years you are using for comparison? Everyone in the ACC was having to play FSU every year, but BC and VT did not. Moreover you are talking about results from 15 to 25 years ago.

Setting aside the wins and losses the great disparity is with recruiting footprint. Georgia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are massively superior to Kentucky, New York, and Massachusetts in producing football recruits.

(07-08-2018 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  We sports fans are prone to recency bias when it comes to realignment questions. We tend to assume that the way things are today is the way they will always be going forward. For that matter, we also think that the way things are today is the way they have largely been in the past.

The Coastal division is seen as significantly weaker, and in the current cycle of the last few years it no doubt is. But what was the situation in 2003, when the league first had to go to divisions? Back then, the opposite was true. Based on the teams' performance in the 10 years before division assignments were made, the Coastal was significantly stronger. These are their win totals during that period, ranked in order from most wins to fewest.

.1...Florida State.....103
.2...Miami................96
.3...Virginia Tech.......92
.4...Virginia..............76
.5...Clemson.............68
......Georgia Tech......68
......NC State............68
.8...North Carolina....65
.9...Boston College....64
10..Maryland............61
11..Wake Forest........42
12..Duke..................26

Three of the top four, and five of the top eight were placed in the Coastal Division. Nobody back then was thinking that Clemson was going to be a consistent national contender as they have become over the past 7 years under Dabo Swinney. Nobody was expecting Miami to fall asleep for a decade or more.

I think we would be making a big mistake if we think the next ten years will produce the same results as the last ten. And I think we should be very slow to change division alignments based on recent performance. If we want to change to facilitate traditional rivalries, and are willing to live with whatever temporary imbalances that result from that for the sake of the long term view, I'm OK with that.

The two teams with the most ACC titles in the only sport where divisions matter are in the same division so your limited snapshot doesn't matter. If Maryland were still here it would be three for three.