Here is the article:

If given his way Swofford says the ACC would consider having the two teams with the best record in the ACC play for the conference championship, not necessarily the division champions. Which means this season Florida State would have played Clemson instead of Duke, and last year Florida State and Clemson would have met again rather than the Seminoles facing a 6-6 Georgia Tech squad.

Which, honestly, makes sense, but here's where things start getting weird.

Swofford says the ACC could keep its divisions, though teams would not be required to play every single opponent in their division each season. Which begs the question of why the ACC would keep the divisions if they will play no role in determining the conference champion or its schedule? If the ACC is allowed to move in this direction just get rid of the divisions and treat it like basketball.

In basketball there aren't divisions, and schools will play some teams twice a season and others only once. In football, if the ACC desires, it can just be one 14-team conference in which schools play eight or nine conference opponents -- which is something else the league will decide soon enough -- and don't play the rest, with schedules rotating from season to season. You know, exactly how it was before the conference title game came into existence.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...title-game

(01-14-2014 08:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  Here is the article:

If given his way Swofford says the ACC would consider having the two teams with the best record in the ACC play for the conference championship, not necessarily the division champions. Which means this season Florida State would have played Clemson instead of Duke, and last year Florida State and Clemson would have met again rather than the Seminoles facing a 6-6 Georgia Tech squad.

Which, honestly, makes sense, but here's where things start getting weird.

Swofford says the ACC could keep its divisions, though teams would not be required to play every single opponent in their division each season. Which begs the question of why the ACC would keep the divisions if they will play no role in determining the conference champion or its schedule? If the ACC is allowed to move in this direction just get rid of the divisions and treat it like basketball.

In basketball there aren't divisions, and schools will play some teams twice a season and others only once. In football, if the ACC desires, it can just be one 14-team conference in which schools play eight or nine conference opponents -- which is something else the league will decide soon enough -- and don't play the rest, with schedules rotating from season to season. You know, exactly how it was before the conference title game came into existence.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...title-game

Sounds like either; 1) He has not thought his idea through before spouting off to the media, or 2) He was thinking of anything other than saying the ACC might split into 4 divisions, which means revealing prior to the NCAA convention that the ACC would have to expand. I'm going to go with number 2.

(01-14-2014 08:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  If the ACC is allowed to move in this direction just get rid of the divisions and treat it like basketball.

This is what will happen if the NCAA gets rid of the rules requiring two divisions and a round-robin within each division in order to have a conference title game.

(01-14-2014 08:13 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 08:00 AM)Maize Wrote:  Here is the article:

If given his way Swofford says the ACC would consider having the two teams with the best record in the ACC play for the conference championship, not necessarily the division champions. Which means this season Florida State would have played Clemson instead of Duke, and last year Florida State and Clemson would have met again rather than the Seminoles facing a 6-6 Georgia Tech squad.

Which, honestly, makes sense, but here's where things start getting weird.

Swofford says the ACC could keep its divisions, though teams would not be required to play every single opponent in their division each season. Which begs the question of why the ACC would keep the divisions if they will play no role in determining the conference champion or its schedule? If the ACC is allowed to move in this direction just get rid of the divisions and treat it like basketball.

In basketball there aren't divisions, and schools will play some teams twice a season and others only once. In football, if the ACC desires, it can just be one 14-team conference in which schools play eight or nine conference opponents -- which is something else the league will decide soon enough -- and don't play the rest, with schedules rotating from season to season. You know, exactly how it was before the conference title game came into existence.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...title-game

Sounds like either; 1) He has not thought his idea through before spouting off to the media, or 2) He was thinking of anything other than saying the ACC might split into 4 divisions, which means revealing prior to the NCAA convention that the ACC would have to expand. I'm going to go with number 2.

We have a winner. I am glad I didn't have to do the explaining for the herd.

I think we actually look through a lot of this stuff more than conference commissioners/school presidents. Keep in mind, their job is about a ton of things and format changes aren't actually generally at the top of their list of priorities. Right now, the ACC knows its got scheduling issues it needs to talk about and it knows the current NCAA rules aren't helping, but I'd be stunned if they actually have any sort of a plan at more than a drawing stage. Keep in mind the history:

1. ACC went to 11 (Boston College entered a year later) and looked at a CCG with that number before going to 12 when it was clear that was necessary. Then they had to consider divisions.
2. The Big Ten expanded to 12 and did not have plans in place for divisions. They had talked about theoretically a little before and figured Ohio State and Michigan should be in opposite divisions, but that was about it.
3. The PAC-10 went to 12 and there no was pre-decided divisions or scheduling format. All that came later and went with negotiations over financial issues.
4. The Big Ten went to 14, there was a great deal of debate afterward about how the divisions should look.
5. The SEC went to 14. There was a great deal of debate about the divisions for awhile.
6. The American is going to 12 and hasn't announced divisions.

My point in all of this is that the conferences/schools take it a step at a time. Right now, the ACC and SEC are learning that 14 teams and 8 conference games with 2 divisions and a needed locked crossover is a headache. They want more flexibility with scheduling. Is it impossible they are thinking about conference semi-finals now? No, but there's nothing to suggest they are either and something that big being discussed would likely beyond a couple presidents talking and thus would probably have made the news.

I'm not saying I don't think they'll ever come (although hope they won't), but I don't think so at this point.

That's a pretty big logical leap to infer that a request to alter the rules that allow for one exempted game will lead to two exempted games.

My comment is off topic but related to the ACC championship game. I think the location should be changed to Orlando or Miami. Both cities are popular tourist resorts and are just as accessible by air as Charlotte. Given the numerous alternative entertainment activities each city offers, I think ACC fans could easily be persuaded into planning a short 3-4 day vacation around the game.

My inside sources tell me that Swofford's plan is to rank all ACC teams via the following formula, with the 2 highest ranked teams advancing to the Championship Game:

(conference victories) multiplied by (average home attendance).

Clemson vs. Florida State in Charlotte every year!

The ACC has struggled with divisions because it isn't really possible to satisfy all of the intra-conference rivalries with static divisions. But then, the same can be said of the Big Tean and the SEC - these conferences are too big and the rivalries don't cleanly fit into East/West or North/South or x/y divisions. You need a basketball-like scheduling format.

I imagine that Ohio State might want to play some of the Western teams more often in exchange for playing Maryland and Rutgers less often... nothing against those schools, but why lock them in? Eliminating the division requirement gives a LOT more flexibility.

The SEC is stuck with Missouri in the West, but dropping divisions would allow them to fix that, too.

The Big XII can't even have a CG now... this would allow them to do so.

My guess is the Pac-12 would also prefer a flexible schedule and 2 best teams (especially after the 2011 championship game!)

There has got to be some kind of limits on who can play in the CCG or else it will just turn into some glorified exhibition game. Can Notre Dame play in this game? Can 1 team only play 5 conference game while another plays 9? Can it just be a loose collection of schools that don't play each other at all? What exactly does automony mean?

should there be rules where there has to be a minimum number of teams (12?) And everybody has to play each other at least once every 3 or 4 years?

(01-14-2014 08:59 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think we actually look through a lot of this stuff more than conference commissioners/school presidents. Keep in mind, their job is about a ton of things and format changes aren't actually generally at the top of their list of priorities. Right now, the ACC knows its got scheduling issues it needs to talk about and it knows the current NCAA rules aren't helping, but I'd be stunned if they actually have any sort of a plan at more than a drawing stage. Keep in mind the history:

1. ACC went to 11 (Boston College entered a year later) and looked at a CCG with that number before going to 12 when it was clear that was necessary. Then they had to consider divisions.
2. The Big Ten expanded to 12 and did not have plans in place for divisions. They had talked about theoretically a little before and figured Ohio State and Michigan should be in opposite divisions, but that was about it.
3. The PAC-10 went to 12 and there no was pre-decided divisions or scheduling format. All that came later and went with negotiations over financial issues.
4. The Big Ten went to 14, there was a great deal of debate afterward about how the divisions should look.
5. The SEC went to 14. There was a great deal of debate about the divisions for awhile.
6. The American is going to 12 and hasn't announced divisions.

My point in all of this is that the conferences/schools take it a step at a time. Right now, the ACC and SEC are learning that 14 teams and 8 conference games with 2 divisions and a needed locked crossover is a headache. They want more flexibility with scheduling. Is it impossible they are thinking about conference semi-finals now? No, but there's nothing to suggest they are either and something that big being discussed would likely beyond a couple presidents talking and thus would probably have made the news.

I'm not saying I don't think they'll ever come (although hope they won't), but I don't think so at this point.

You sir just went through the whole reason why this is headed to something bigger. It is literally going in a very uniform fashion. The cause is the teams moving slowly each season and the effect is the conference starting rule changes on structure not long after the move. The next conference agrees to their own change and we see the conferences start to mimic each other. This is NOT chess in my opinion it is the big conferences putting the puzzle (together.)

(01-15-2014 05:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC has struggled with divisions because it isn't really possible to satisfy all of the intra-conference rivalries with static divisions. But then, the same can be said of the Big Tean and the SEC - these conferences are too big and the rivalries don't cleanly fit into East/West or North/South or x/y divisions. You need a basketball-like scheduling format.

I imagine that Ohio State might want to play some of the Western teams more often in exchange for playing Maryland and Rutgers less often... nothing against those schools, but why lock them in? Eliminating the division requirement gives a LOT more flexibility.

The SEC is stuck with Missouri in the West, but dropping divisions would allow them to fix that, too.

The Big XII can't even have a CG now... this would allow them to do so.

My guess is the Pac-12 would also prefer a flexible schedule and 2 best teams (especially after the 2011 championship game!)

I thought that Missouri was in the east!

(01-15-2014 05:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC has struggled with divisions because it isn't really possible to satisfy all of the intra-conference rivalries with static divisions. But then, the same can be said of the Big Tean and the SEC - these conferences are too big and the rivalries don't cleanly fit into East/West or North/South or x/y divisions. You need a basketball-like scheduling format.

I imagine that Ohio State might want to play some of the Western teams more often in exchange for playing Maryland and Rutgers less often... nothing against those schools, but why lock them in? Eliminating the division requirement gives a LOT more flexibility.

The SEC is stuck with Missouri in the West, but dropping divisions would allow them to fix that, too.

The Big XII can't even have a CG now... this would allow them to do so.

My guess is the Pac-12 would also prefer a flexible schedule and 2 best teams (especially after the 2011 championship game!)

Maybe the P5 would relax the championship game rule enough to allow a 10 team conference to have one but I have my doubts.

(01-15-2014 05:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The ACC has struggled with divisions because it isn't really possible to satisfy all of the intra-conference rivalries with static divisions. But then, the same can be said of the Big Tean and the SEC - these conferences are too big and the rivalries don't cleanly fit into East/West or North/South or x/y divisions. You need a basketball-like scheduling format.

I imagine that Ohio State might want to play some of the Western teams more often in exchange for playing Maryland and Rutgers less often... nothing against those schools, but why lock them in? Eliminating the division requirement gives a LOT more flexibility.

The SEC is stuck with Missouri in the West, but dropping divisions would allow them to fix that, too.

The Big XII can't even have a CG now... this would allow them to do so.

My guess is the Pac-12 would also prefer a flexible schedule and 2 best teams (especially after the 2011 championship game!)

Exactly. I think that the fact that the ACC is pushing for this would open the door to the elimination of divisions and a return to a more round-robin rotation for all conferences, which is better than the division structure for the 14-team conferences. There are a ton of benefits for all the P5 to be had and it could allow for the XII to host a CCG without having to expand.

(01-14-2014 11:09 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  My comment is off topic but related to the ACC championship game. I think the location should be changed to Orlando or Miami. Both cities are popular tourist resorts and are just as accessible by air as Charlotte. Given the numerous alternative entertainment activities each city offers, I think ACC fans could easily be persuaded into planning a short 3-4 day vacation around the game.

The ACCCG is fine where it is at. It was in Florida prior to moving to Charlotte and it was an unabashed failure. No way does someone plan a 3-4 day vacation a week in advance.

(01-14-2014 10:20 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  That's a pretty big logical leap to infer that a request to alter the rules that allow for one exempted game will lead to two exempted games.

Of course it is. But some of these guys on here just are hoping to have that and are pushing anything and everything into that prism. And mind you, why would some conferences agree to that at all- like the Big 12, Pac 12(who can't really get anyone else)- or even the ACC. They agree to the semifinals, and it's poach city. Big Ten doesn't rule everything the way that some folks on here think they do.

Once you get to 15 the following conference alignments all work:

At 15 - three divisions of 5, three champions, one at large, 4 team playoff
At 16 - four divisions of 4, four champions, 4 team playoff
At 18 - three divisions of 6, three champions, one at large, 4 team playoff
At 20 - four divisions of 5, four champions, one at large, 4 team playoff
At 21- three divisions of 7, three champions, one at large, 4 team playoff

From a practical and interest standpoint, it will be difficult to have 14 teams and the top two meet, because that will ruin the season early for too many fan bases. In the future environment of the 4 team national playoff - you need to maintain as much interest as possible until the end of the season.

(01-15-2014 02:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Once you get to 15 the following conference alignments all work:

At 15 - three divisions of 5, three champions, one at large, 4 team playoff
At 16 - four divisions of 4, four champions, 4 team playoff
At 18 - three divisions of 6, three champions, one at large, 4 team playoff
At 20 - four divisions of 5, four champions, one at large, 4 team playoff
At 21- three divisions of 7, three champions, one at large, 4 team playoff

From a practical and interest standpoint, it will be difficult to have 14 teams and the top two meet, because that will ruin the season early for too many fan bases. In the future environment of the 4 team national playoff - you need to maintain as much interest as possible until the end of the season.

same thing can be said by divisions. I mean- Clemson's season was over in early October last few years because they lost.