(10-01-2013 05:39 PM)jmc79er Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 02:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'm not opposed to a 9th conference game in concept, I HATE how long it takes to cycle through the schedule. I'd actually like to go to 9 and then reallign divisions so we don't need permanent crossovers and consecutive home/homes. That would make a world of difference if you could through the entire opposite division in just over two seasons.

But, there's the issue with the SEC rivals and home games. It was going to be tough already, and with ND, it's just that much more difficult.

It's a really tough situation, and needs to be worked out, not just voted in over the objectives of your top football schools. You just can't do something that's going to hurt FSU, Louisville, Clemson and Georgia Tech, which happen to be probably 4 of the 6 teams this conference is counting on to carry the football banner. That's old-style thinking, and I think (and I pray) that the ACC has left that kind of approach behind.

I'm really afraid the ACC-SEC rivalries are going to be at risk of going away with a nine-game schedule in each conference. Save me the "It'll never happen" because we've heard that one before.

What if we move to a 9-game conference schedule and exclude the 4 schools with SEC rivalries from the ND rotation? If I'm calculating correctly, that leaves only 10 schools to rotate with ND; each gets ND every other year. I'd be pretty happy about BC counting on a ND home game every fourth year.

As good as that sounds, I'm pretty sure FSU, Clemson, GT and Louisville don't want to give up their tri-annual ND game.

(10-01-2013 06:16 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 05:39 PM)jmc79er Wrote:  What if we move to a 9-game conference schedule and exclude the 4 schools with SEC rivalries from the ND rotation? If I'm calculating correctly, that leaves only 10 schools to rotate with ND; each gets ND every other year. I'd be pretty happy about BC counting on a ND home game every fourth year.

As good as that sounds, I'm pretty sure FSU, Clemson, GT and Louisville don't want to give up their tri-annual ND game.

Safe to say, that's the understatement of the year in regards to UofL. Jurich has openly said he has been trying to schedule ND for years, and the AD's office is more than happy to have the Irish on the schedule every 3 years.

(10-01-2013 05:39 PM)jmc79er Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 02:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'm not opposed to a 9th conference game in concept, I HATE how long it takes to cycle through the schedule. I'd actually like to go to 9 and then reallign divisions so we don't need permanent crossovers and consecutive home/homes. That would make a world of difference if you could through the entire opposite division in just over two seasons.

But, there's the issue with the SEC rivals and home games. It was going to be tough already, and with ND, it's just that much more difficult.

It's a really tough situation, and needs to be worked out, not just voted in over the objectives of your top football schools. You just can't do something that's going to hurt FSU, Louisville, Clemson and Georgia Tech, which happen to be probably 4 of the 6 teams this conference is counting on to carry the football banner. That's old-style thinking, and I think (and I pray) that the ACC has left that kind of approach behind.

I'm really afraid the ACC-SEC rivalries are going to be at risk of going away with a nine-game schedule in each conference. Save me the "It'll never happen" because we've heard that one before.

What if we move to a 9-game conference schedule and exclude the 4 schools with SEC rivalries from the ND rotation? If I'm calculating correctly, that leaves only 10 schools to rotate with ND; each gets ND every other year. I'd be pretty happy about BC counting on a ND home game every fourth year.

Yeah I am sure those 4 would be thrilled to take on another random ACC team instead of getting Notre Dame. Makes perfect sense.

(09-30-2013 02:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I'm not opposed to a 9th conference game in concept, I HATE how long it takes to cycle through the schedule. I'd actually like to go to 9 and then reallign divisions so we don't need permanent crossovers and consecutive home/homes. That would make a world of difference if you could through the entire opposite division in just over two seasons.

This was suggested by someone else, but the best alternative is to have four pods. have fours groups, 2 of 4 teams, 2 of three teams. The groups of 4 are always in opposite divisions, as are the groups of 3. The groups of 3 switch every year or other year so that the divisions aren't static. Every crossover game in a year is against the teams in the group you are never with for a division.

Essentially if you are in a pod of four, you will play each team in your pod every year, and each team in the other pod of four 3 out of four years, and play the rest of the schools twice every four years. If you are in a pod of three, you play each team in your pod and the other pod of three every year, and the other teams 2 times every four years.

Of course the caveat to this it still works best playing nine games. If you only play eight, while you still get to play everyone at least twice every four years, you lose one game cross pod.

(10-02-2013 12:39 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 05:39 PM)jmc79er Wrote:  What if we move to a 9-game conference schedule and exclude the 4 schools with SEC rivalries from the ND rotation? If I'm calculating correctly, that leaves only 10 schools to rotate with ND; each gets ND every other year. I'd be pretty happy about BC counting on a ND home game every fourth year.

Yeah I am sure those 4 would be thrilled to take on another random ACC team instead of getting Notre Dame. Makes perfect sense.

It's not an issue for Louisville. Six homes games is the norm. Our scheduling philosophy has generally been to do home and home series and nothing else. So we often had six home games, especially the years we only had 3 conference games. But it works both ways. Both with teams "above" them (Miami, FSU, GA, etc) as well as teams "below" them (Southern Miss, FIU, Middle Tenn, etc).

However the reality is this. If you have non conference games and a permanent OOC rivalry game, that is still 5 home games our of ten games, with two more to schedule. If you want seven home games, nothing will stop you. Every three years you are given a sixth home game from the conference via the ND game. As stated, save for the one game every six years or so to ND, you can still have seven home games if you wish. The conferences just have to work together to ensure that the years a team has five road conference games, they have the home game with the rival school With 4 SEC/ACC matchups, that should be easy to attain.

Yeah you can get guaranteed home games if you play a bunch of nobodies OOC. FSU/Clemson like to play other good OOC games to make up for the crap divisions the ACC has forced on them. Those type of games require road trips as well.

(10-02-2013 02:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah you can get guaranteed home games if you play a bunch of nobodies OOC. FSU/Clemson like to play other good OOC games to make up for the crap divisions the ACC has forced on them. Those type of games require road trips as well.

Man you like to complain. You do realize the ninth conference game IS that extra game you seek?

(10-02-2013 02:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah you can get guaranteed home games if you play a bunch of nobodies OOC. FSU/Clemson like to play other good OOC games to make up for the crap divisions the ACC has forced on them. Those type of games require road trips as well.

Man you like to complain. You do realize the ninth conference game IS that extra game you seek?

No it isn't. Get educated and then people wouldn't have to correct you. Nothing to do with complaining. More to do with you not being informed.

If they go to 9 ACC games, it will take the opportunity of scheduling better OOC games away from FSU/Clemson.

You would have 5 home games and 5 away games between the ACC games and UF for FSU.

That leaves 2 games. For FSU to have 7 home games, they would have to have both of them be teams that don't require an away trip. So that means they lose a home game or have to schedule 2 easy teams that are not a marque matchup. And for that they get a random Coastal team.

With the current setup FSU can schedule 2 games that don't require a return trip. They also have another OOC slot open to schedule a marque matchup. With your setup they would lose a home game to get a matchup that in many cases isn't close to what they can get OOC. The only time it can work out is the ND years. The other years it won't work out as well for FSU/Clemson.

So no I wouldn't even think of 9 until the divisions are aligned properly. FSU/Clemson shouldn't give the schools that want this game the 9th game unless they get something in return. Realign the divisions and then this can be done as a compromise. Otherwise, it isn't going to happen.

This is the breakdown:

Current: 4 ACC Home, 2 chumps home, either UF or other good OOC home for a total of 7 home games.

Your proposal: 5 ACC Home (or 4 ACC + UF), 1 Chump, then if they went marque, they lose a home game every other year.

No thanks on losing an extra home game and better OOC opponent to rotate in teams like Pitt, Duke, Virginia etc more.

(10-02-2013 03:15 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah you can get guaranteed home games if you play a bunch of nobodies OOC. FSU/Clemson like to play other good OOC games to make up for the crap divisions the ACC has forced on them. Those type of games require road trips as well.

Man you like to complain. You do realize the ninth conference game IS that extra game you seek?

No it isn't. Get educated and then people wouldn't have to correct you. Nothing to do with complaining. More to do with you not being informed.

If they go to 9 ACC games, it will take the opportunity of scheduling better OOC games away from FSU/Clemson.

You would have 5 home games and 5 away games between the ACC games and UF for FSU.

That leaves 2 games. For FSU to have 7 home games, they would have to have both of them be teams that don't require an away trip. So that means they lose a home game or have to schedule 2 easy teams that are not a marque matchup. And for that they get a random Coastal team.

With the current setup FSU can schedule 2 games that don't require a return trip. They also have another OOC slot open to schedule a marque matchup. With your setup they would lose a home game to get a matchup that in many cases isn't close to what they can get OOC. The only time it can work out is the ND years. The other years it won't work out as well for FSU/Clemson.

So no I wouldn't even think of 9 until the divisions are aligned properly. FSU/Clemson shouldn't give the schools that want this game the 9th game unless they get something in return. Realign the divisions and then this can be done as a compromise. Otherwise, it isn't going to happen.

This is the breakdown:

Current: 4 ACC Home, 2 chumps home, either UF or other good OOC home for a total of 7 home games.

Your proposal: 5 ACC Home (or 4 ACC + UF), 1 Chump, then if they went marque, they lose a home game every other year.

No thanks on losing an extra home game and better OOC opponent to rotate in teams like Pitt, Duke, Virginia etc more.

Personally, I am for sticking to 8 conference games until the point ND would decide to join the conference fully, but how would re-arranging the divisions help?

(10-02-2013 03:39 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  Personally, I am for sticking to 8 conference games until the point ND would decide to join the conference fully, but how would re-arranging the divisions help?

It wouldn't. There will always be complaints about the divisions and the current divisions settle all complaints as best as possible.

(10-02-2013 03:47 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:39 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  Personally, I am for sticking to 8 conference games until the point ND would decide to join the conference fully, but how would re-arranging the divisions help?

It wouldn't. There will always be complaints about the divisions and the current divisions settle all complaints as best as possible.

That's what I suspected.

(10-02-2013 03:56 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:47 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:39 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  Personally, I am for sticking to 8 conference games until the point ND would decide to join the conference fully, but how would re-arranging the divisions help?

It wouldn't. There will always be complaints about the divisions and the current divisions settle all complaints as best as possible.

That's what I suspected.

It's a compromise. If Clemson/FSU had a more Southern division with Georgia Tech/North Carolina etc, they could possibly relent on the 9th game. You give something to get something.

But if it is just another random game and no changes in division then FSU/Clemson should continue to say no thanks. These other teams that want it don't need to get something they want while giving up nothing in return.

It's mostly the Va Tech crowd/administration that wants the 9th game in conference yet complains whenever divisional changes are talked about. Can't get your way on everything.

FSU loses out on more revenue which is needed because this conference payout is less and the prestige is way less than the SEC already. No thanks in giving up more money and a chance at another marque matchup every year to give the other members something they want.

Florida State fans complain about one thing with the divisions, not playing Georgia Tech annually. I honestly don't even care if GT flips with Syracuse. The only teams that lose anything from this new line-up are Miami, UNC, and Duke but honestly the divisions are very favorable to UNC and Duke who get local cross division rivals plus each other, UVA, and Virginia Tech all within driving distance. Miami is also a loser in this but they fly everywhere anyway and have played Syracuse more often than Georgia Tech in their history. While Virginia Tech would also lose their annual game with Georgia Tech, they pick up Clemson which is also close to Atlanta and is a better team right now.

Coastal-Atlantic
Miami-Florida State
North Carolina-NC State
Duke-Wake Forest
Virginia-Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech-Clemson
Syracuse-Boston College
Pittsburgh-Louisville

I still think it's hilarious how people call FSU fans out for complaining on the divisions. They then want no changes in divisions but to add a 9th conference game. So pretty much they want it to all go their way and if fans from the other side bring up those other viewpoints, they are just complainers.

Cracks me up.

(10-02-2013 04:15 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:56 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:47 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:39 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  Personally, I am for sticking to 8 conference games until the point ND would decide to join the conference fully, but how would re-arranging the divisions help?

It wouldn't. There will always be complaints about the divisions and the current divisions settle all complaints as best as possible.

That's what I suspected.

It's a compromise. If Clemson/FSU had a more Southern division with Georgia Tech/North Carolina etc, they could possibly relent on the 9th game. You give something to get something.

But if it is just another random game and no changes in division then FSU/Clemson should continue to say no thanks. These other teams that want it don't need to get something they want while giving up nothing in return.

It's mostly the Va Tech crowd/administration that wants the 9th game in conference yet complains whenever divisional changes are talked about. Can't get your way on everything.

FSU loses out on more revenue which is needed because this conference payout is less and the prestige is way less than the SEC already. No thanks in giving up more money and a chance at another marque matchup every year to give the other members something they want.

As a Yankee who went to FSU, I would still never have a problem with a move to the SEC, if it were ever offered. However, since I doubt that would ever be in the offing, the next best option is the ACC. Always has been. From that perspective, I guess I just don't see the divisional situation as something to get worked up about.

acc is going to try to stay at 8 and arrange 'premier scheduling alliances. Look already VT has basically a 10 schedule with the big 10, UVA with Pac 10 oregon, Stanford UCLA.... etc.....

This helps in regards to TV markets and rights, because ACC has marquee games (TV would rather see Mich VT versus VT vs wake

(10-02-2013 04:15 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:56 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:47 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:39 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  Personally, I am for sticking to 8 conference games until the point ND would decide to join the conference fully, but how would re-arranging the divisions help?

It wouldn't. There will always be complaints about the divisions and the current divisions settle all complaints as best as possible.

That's what I suspected.

It's a compromise. If Clemson/FSU had a more Southern division with Georgia Tech/North Carolina etc, they could possibly relent on the 9th game. You give something to get something.

But if it is just another random game and no changes in division then FSU/Clemson should continue to say no thanks. These other teams that want it don't need to get something they want while giving up nothing in return.

It's mostly the Va Tech crowd/administration that wants the 9th game in conference yet complains whenever divisional changes are talked about. Can't get your way on everything.

FSU loses out on more revenue which is needed because this conference payout is less and the prestige is way less than the SEC already. No thanks in giving up more money and a chance at another marque matchup every year to give the other members something they want.

I still say 9 games with a North/South Division split is the way to go. Give Miami the option of being in the North if they want. You get three games against the other division each year and you won't go 6 years in between playing schools. Without that, stay at 8 games, even though N/S is the best division setup.

I don't know what all can be done to tweak the current divisions. If you take it to the most extreme case and try to go purely by "Old Big East" and "Old ACC", you will still run into people that will be pissed off. If you do something like:

North
Pitt
Boston College
Syracuse
Virginia Tech
Miami
Louisville
Virginia

South
Florida St
Clemson
North Carolina
Duke
NC State
Wake
Georgia Tech

I would not be opposed to the idea of this tweak with the goal of going to a 9 game conf schedule and nixing permanent cross overs so that you can cycle thru the opponents in the other division more quickly, but you will still have angry schools and fans. Most likely Virginia and VT would balk at the "Old BE" division. GT would probably be upset about losing the "battle of the Techs". Then maybe you can still cycle thru everyone decently enough with a permanent cross over, but that would get a little dicier too. My stab would be to make FSU/Miami, GT/VT, UNC/UVA, Clemson/BC, NCSU/Pitt, Duke/Syracuse, Wake/UL.

Does that satisfy everyone? I'm guessing not...

(10-03-2013 12:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't know what all can be done to tweak the current divisions. If you take it to the most extreme case and try to go purely by "Old Big East" and "Old ACC", you will still run into people that will be pissed off. If you do something like:

North
Pitt
Boston College
Syracuse
Virginia Tech
Miami
Louisville
Virginia

South
Florida St
Clemson
North Carolina
Duke
NC State
Wake
Georgia Tech

I would not be opposed to the idea of this tweak with the goal of going to a 9 game conf schedule and nixing permanent cross overs so that you can cycle thru the opponents in the other division more quickly, but you will still have angry schools and fans. Most likely Virginia and VT would balk at the "Old BE" division. GT would probably be upset about losing the "battle of the Techs". Then maybe you can still cycle thru everyone decently enough with a permanent cross over, but that would get a little dicier too. My stab would be to make FSU/Miami, GT/VT, UNC/UVA, Clemson/BC, NCSU/Pitt, Duke/Syracuse, Wake/UL.

Does that satisfy everyone? I'm guessing not...

This is exactly the lineup I think is best. You would still play 3 games a year against the other division, with one being a permanent opponent and rotating two others each year. Play everyone every three years. Virginia would have the biggest complaint, but I think this is the best for the conference.

(10-02-2013 03:15 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Yeah you can get guaranteed home games if you play a bunch of nobodies OOC. FSU/Clemson like to play other good OOC games to make up for the crap divisions the ACC has forced on them. Those type of games require road trips as well.

Man you like to complain. You do realize the ninth conference game IS that extra game you seek?

No it isn't. Get educated and then people wouldn't have to correct you. Nothing to do with complaining. More to do with you not being informed.

If they go to 9 ACC games, it will take the opportunity of scheduling better OOC games away from FSU/Clemson.

You are not "educating me." You specifically complained that because FSU doesn't play enough of the teams in the other division, and that it hurts your SOS. This is a proposal that alleviates that... by having you play more of the teams you are complaining that you don't play. That is what I meant by it "IS that extra game you seek?"
Using the last five years as an example, FSU would be replacing games (the second big OOC game after UF) with Nevada, South Florida (3-9), Oklahoma (10-3), Oklahoma (12-2), BYU (11-2), Colorado (5-7), Alabama (7-6), Rice (7-6), and Syracuse (1-10, with games against Georgia Tech (2) Virginia Tech (2), North Carolina (2)Pittsburgh (2) Virginia, and Duke. I don't see any noticeable difference here in the quality of opponent. I see three 10 win teams you played over ten years, being replaced by probably three 10 win teams. Also I noticed one year you scheduled three teams with home and home (Alabama, Florida, and Colorado) and the last two years you avoided power teams, and seemingly were looking to soften the schedule. I just don't see your argument.


Unless of course you wan to change course and now say :"you didn't mean you wanted to play more teams in the other division." You made a complaint. The proposal attempts to alleviate said complaint. Then you say the proposal is hampering you. Essentially you are complaining just to complain.