(02-21-2014 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 01:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 09:09 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  The ACC's strategy was to try and make Syracuse/Louisville-Duke or Syracuse/Louisville-UNC happen as much as possible home and home. Seems that Syracuse latched hold of Duke, perhaps Louisville will latch on to UNC? Look you will hear from UNC and Duke fans alike that there are no other rivalries between our two teams but we have a rivalry with State and they had a rivalry with Maryland plain and simple. Perhaps Syracuse-BC is the next big rivalry though

OHH..... #BeatDook

Syracuse latched on to Duke? No, it's Syracuse's first season so the schedulers put Duke on their schedule twice this year. Just like how Pitt got FSU and Miami at home, Cuse got Clemson at home and UL is getting Miami at home in their inaugural ACC football seasons.

There are only 2 permanent rivals (4 games). There are 2 rotating series (4 games). Then there are 10 games, one against each remaining school. Maybe that setup has been changed, but if it has, no one on here has mentioned it yet in response to my question and proposal.

To conclude, Cuse won't be playing Duke twice next year. They may be playing VT and Clemson twice for all we know, along with BC and Pitt who are their 2 permanent rivals. Duke only plays 2 schools twice EVERY year, UNC and Wake.

(02-20-2014 10:29 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 01:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 10:46 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Cuse and UL should be permanent rivals. I assume UL is taking over UMD's basketball rivals just like they're taking over UMD's football slot?

If so, just make these changes (I think everything would be in order):

Cuse - BC, UL
Pitt - UL, UVA
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, Pitt

But I think Pitt and Cuse should play yearly instead of Cuse and BC. That would look like this:

Cuse - Pitt, UL
Pitt - UL, Cuse
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, BC
BC - ND, UVA

in the past I have argued that louisville was in the process of being our major rival. Had the big east continued without losing members louisville would of overtaken uconn in the same way uconn overtook gtown

Sorry to disagree with you John, but Uconn did not overtake GTown as our main rival. Not for us older guys. If you are 30 and under, maybe.

Nobody cares about Gtown anymore.

(02-20-2014 10:38 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 10:46 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Cuse and UL should be permanent rivals. I assume UL is taking over UMD's basketball rivals just like they're taking over UMD's football slot?

If so, just make these changes (I think everything would be in order):

Cuse - BC, UL
Pitt - UL, UVA
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, Pitt

But I think Pitt and Cuse should play yearly instead of Cuse and BC. That would look like this:

Cuse - Pitt, UL
Pitt - UL, Cuse
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, BC
BC - ND, UVA

Never happen...ESPN drives this. Cuse will play lots of 2 game sets with Duke, UNC, Louisville and Pitt going forward along with BC.

Cuse only plays 2 games against BC and Pitt each year. That's it. Every one else rotates through on a 6 year cycle.

I do agree that, just like in football, the best teams should all face each other more often (and not inconsequentially, the non-best teams will face the best teams more frequently as well). The only problem is how do you go about doing that? Do you reduce the permanent rivals from 2 to 1? Do you expand to 20 conference games? I'm almost certain some schools will reject the permanent rival reduction immediately. I have no idea about schools' OOC scheduling practices and how additional conference games would impact that, however.

I think I'd like to see 20 conference games (2 permanent rivals, 4 rotating rivals, 8 rotating singles). You'd rotate through the conference every 3 years instead of every 6. It'd guarantee schools like FSU, Miami, Clemson and VT yearly 2-game series with at least one top school each year, which doesn't happen at times in the current setup, while also allowing the top schools to face each other more often, too.

I think the league would be smart to change that. We have a chance for some dynamite nationally televised games, and we should maximize that, IMO. Let's have four permanent home and home rivals and ten single games every year. Keep as many existing rivalries as possible, but also maximize the games between the top programs.

My suggestions:

Syracuse - Duke, Louisville, Pitt and BC
Duke - UNC, NC State, WFU and Syracuse
UNC - Duke, Louisville, NC State, WFU
Louisville - Syracuse, UNC, Pitt, Notre Dame
Pitt - Syracuse, Louisville, BC, Notre Dame
Notre Dame- Louisville, Pitt, BC, Miami
BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Miami
Miami - BC, Notre Dame, FSU, GT
NC State - UNC, Duke, WFU, VT
WFU - UNC, Duke, State, VT
VT - UVa, WFU, NC State, Clemson
UVa - VT, Clemson, GT, FSU
Clemson - VT, UVa, FSU, GT
FSU - Miami, UVa, Clemson, GT
GT - Miami, UVa, Clemson, FSU

I'm a big fan. Looks like a good 4 rival set for each school. I know those are Syracuse's top 4.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(02-20-2014 10:38 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 10:46 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Cuse and UL should be permanent rivals. I assume UL is taking over UMD's basketball rivals just like they're taking over UMD's football slot?

If so, just make these changes (I think everything would be in order):

Cuse - BC, UL
Pitt - UL, UVA
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, Pitt

But I think Pitt and Cuse should play yearly instead of Cuse and BC. That would look like this:

Cuse - Pitt, UL
Pitt - UL, Cuse
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, BC
BC - ND, UVA

Never happen...ESPN drives this. Cuse will play lots of 2 game sets with Duke, UNC, Louisville and Pitt going forward along with BC.

This is not the BE where ESPN gets to choose the home away match ups every year. In the ACC you have 2 permanent rivals and then rotate the other games. Cuse won't have UNC/Duke any more often than any other non-permanent rival team.

(02-21-2014 05:57 PM)DXcuse Wrote:  

(02-21-2014 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 01:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 09:09 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  The ACC's strategy was to try and make Syracuse/Louisville-Duke or Syracuse/Louisville-UNC happen as much as possible home and home. Seems that Syracuse latched hold of Duke, perhaps Louisville will latch on to UNC? Look you will hear from UNC and Duke fans alike that there are no other rivalries between our two teams but we have a rivalry with State and they had a rivalry with Maryland plain and simple. Perhaps Syracuse-BC is the next big rivalry though

OHH..... #BeatDook

Syracuse latched on to Duke? No, it's Syracuse's first season so the schedulers put Duke on their schedule twice this year. Just like how Pitt got FSU and Miami at home, Cuse got Clemson at home and UL is getting Miami at home in their inaugural ACC football seasons.

There are only 2 permanent rivals (4 games). There are 2 rotating series (4 games). Then there are 10 games, one against each remaining school. Maybe that setup has been changed, but if it has, no one on here has mentioned it yet in response to my question and proposal.

To conclude, Cuse won't be playing Duke twice next year. They may be playing VT and Clemson twice for all we know, along with BC and Pitt who are their 2 permanent rivals. Duke only plays 2 schools twice EVERY year, UNC and Wake.

(02-20-2014 10:29 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 01:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  in the past I have argued that louisville was in the process of being our major rival. Had the big east continued without losing members louisville would of overtaken uconn in the same way uconn overtook gtown

Sorry to disagree with you John, but Uconn did not overtake GTown as our main rival. Not for us older guys. If you are 30 and under, maybe.

Nobody cares about Gtown anymore.

(02-20-2014 10:38 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 10:46 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Cuse and UL should be permanent rivals. I assume UL is taking over UMD's basketball rivals just like they're taking over UMD's football slot?

If so, just make these changes (I think everything would be in order):

Cuse - BC, UL
Pitt - UL, UVA
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, Pitt

But I think Pitt and Cuse should play yearly instead of Cuse and BC. That would look like this:

Cuse - Pitt, UL
Pitt - UL, Cuse
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, BC
BC - ND, UVA

Never happen...ESPN drives this. Cuse will play lots of 2 game sets with Duke, UNC, Louisville and Pitt going forward along with BC.

Cuse only plays 2 games against BC and Pitt each year. That's it. Every one else rotates through on a 6 year cycle.

I do agree that, just like in football, the best teams should all face each other more often (and not inconsequentially, the non-best teams will face the best teams more frequently as well). The only problem is how do you go about doing that? Do you reduce the permanent rivals from 2 to 1? Do you expand to 20 conference games? I'm almost certain some schools will reject the permanent rival reduction immediately. I have no idea about schools' OOC scheduling practices and how additional conference games would impact that, however.

I think I'd like to see 20 conference games (2 permanent rivals, 4 rotating rivals, 8 rotating singles). You'd rotate through the conference every 3 years instead of every 6. It'd guarantee schools like FSU, Miami, Clemson and VT yearly 2-game series with at least one top school each year, which doesn't happen at times in the current setup, while also allowing the top schools to face each other more often, too.

I think the league would be smart to change that. We have a chance for some dynamite nationally televised games, and we should maximize that, IMO. Let's have four permanent home and home rivals and ten single games every year. Keep as many existing rivalries as possible, but also maximize the games between the top programs.

My suggestions:

Syracuse - Duke, Louisville, Pitt and BC
Duke - UNC, NC State, WFU and Syracuse
UNC - Duke, Louisville, NC State, WFU
Louisville - Syracuse, UNC, Pitt, Notre Dame
Pitt - Syracuse, Louisville, BC, Notre Dame
Notre Dame- Louisville, Pitt, BC, Miami
BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Miami
Miami - BC, Notre Dame, FSU, GT
NC State - UNC, Duke, WFU, VT
WFU - UNC, Duke, State, VT
VT - UVa, WFU, NC State, Clemson
UVa - VT, Clemson, GT, FSU
Clemson - VT, UVa, FSU, GT
FSU - Miami, UVa, Clemson, GT
GT - Miami, UVa, Clemson, FSU

I'm a big fan. Looks like a good 4 rival set for each school. I know those are Syracuse's top 4.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Some schools might object that a schedule like this is unfair to them.Specifically, Pitt, NC State and Wake Forest would play the Big Four (Duke, Syracuse, UNC and Louisville) a total of 6 times a year. Each of the Big Four, plus Notre Dame and BC, would play 5 such games and every other school would play them 4 times.

But I expect if you were to ask State and Wake if they would be willing to have a tougher schedule in order to have a home and home every year with the other three NC schools they'd jump at the chance. I can't speak for Pitt, but I don't think they'd mind playing both Syracuse and Louisville at home every year.

At least the six schools that don't get a home and home with the Big Four have a little easier schedule to help them get off the NCAA bubble more often.

Speaking as a Pitt fan, I'd have no problem with that set up at all.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way but we're not remotely afraid of those programs and we certainly don't expect to be on the NCAA bubble very often. I say bring 'em all on! Hopefully, we can do better in the NCAAs one of these years and make it a "big five" or whatever other nicknames people wish to assign.

I can't speak to Duke and Carolina, as we have only started playing them this year. Only time will tell on those fronts. However, I can tell you that we pretty much always played the Big East heavyweights (UConn, Syracuse, Villanova, Georgetown, etc.) and we were the winningest Big East program since 2000. I don't know why anything would change for the worse in our new league? We fully expect to compete for regular season and postseason championships in this league, hopefully starting as early as next season. Our problem has never been in league play. Our problems always come later in the season when our well coached but lesser talented guys get exposed by equally well coached teams that do possess future NBA players.

We always play Syracuse and Louisville on even terms and with Syracuse in particular, we usually beat those guys (at least for the past 10-15 years). Dixon is something like 11-5 vs. Boeheim or something like that.

So from Pitt's perspective, if we had our druthers, we'd play all of those schools as often as possible and I'm reasonably confident we'd hold our own - even in transition years like this one.

That is not to say that we don't respect the aforementioned programs or the other ACC programs. We understand that this has been a great men's basketball league in the past and that it almost certainly will be again in the future as well. It's just that this isn't our first rodeo and moving from the Big East to the ACC was definitely not a step up in class. At a minimum it was a lateral move.

(02-22-2014 12:25 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Speaking as a Pitt fan, I'd have no problem with that set up at all.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way but we're not remotely afraid of those programs and we certainly don't expect to be on the NCAA bubble very often. I say bring 'em all on! Hopefully, we can do better in the NCAAs one of these years and make it a "big five" or whatever other nicknames people wish to assign.

I can't speak to Duke and Carolina, as we have only started playing them this year. Only time will tell on those fronts. However, I can tell you that we pretty much always played the Big East heavyweights (UConn, Syracuse, Villanova, Georgetown, etc.) and we were the winningest Big East program since 2000. I don't know why anything would change for the worse in our new league? We fully expect to compete for regular season and postseason championships in this league, hopefully starting as early as next season. Our problem has never been in league play. Our problems always come later in the season when our well coached but lesser talented guys get exposed by equally well coached teams that do possess future NBA players.

We always play Syracuse and Louisville on even terms and with Syracuse in particular, we usually beat those guys (at least for the past 10-15 years). Dixon is something like 11-5 vs. Boeheim or something like that.

I believe Dixon is 10-6 against JB and 1-4 since 2012. JB is trying to even up the record. Also, Pitt was the winningest BE program since 2000, but Syracuse was the second winningest program with Pitt edging the Cuse by 1 game.

My thoughts on scheduling like this are that pitting the top four programs home and home every year gives the ACC 10 games each year in January and February that will be featured national broadcasts. Space them out so you have one such marquee game a week.

You are also going to have a sizable number of games pitting these top teams against schools like Pitt, NC State, Florida State et al that will burnish the league's image for depth, which can only help everybody at tournament time. I don't expect that these four will always be the top seeds in the ACCT - they won't be this year. But they are the programs that have the kind of basketball pedigree that the Alabamas, Oklahomas and Southern Cals do in football. Let's exploit that.

(02-21-2014 05:59 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 10:38 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 10:46 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Cuse and UL should be permanent rivals. I assume UL is taking over UMD's basketball rivals just like they're taking over UMD's football slot?

If so, just make these changes (I think everything would be in order):

Cuse - BC, UL
Pitt - UL, UVA
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, Pitt

But I think Pitt and Cuse should play yearly instead of Cuse and BC. That would look like this:

Cuse - Pitt, UL
Pitt - UL, Cuse
UL - Cuse, Pitt
UVA - VT, BC
BC - ND, UVA

Never happen...ESPN drives this. Cuse will play lots of 2 game sets with Duke, UNC, Louisville and Pitt going forward along with BC.

This is not the BE where ESPN gets to choose the home away match ups every year. In the ACC you have 2 permanent rivals and then rotate the other games. Cuse won't have UNC/Duke any more often than any other non-permanent rival team.

Thanks for setting me straight....I wonder if ESPN will bring that up?

(02-22-2014 12:25 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Speaking as a Pitt fan, I'd have no problem with that set up at all.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way but we're not remotely afraid of those programs and we certainly don't expect to be on the NCAA bubble very often. I say bring 'em all on! Hopefully, we can do better in the NCAAs one of these years and make it a "big five" or whatever other nicknames people wish to assign.

I can't speak to Duke and Carolina, as we have only started playing them this year. Only time will tell on those fronts. However, I can tell you that we pretty much always played the Big East heavyweights (UConn, Syracuse, Villanova, Georgetown, etc.) and we were the winningest Big East program since 2000. I don't know why anything would change for the worse in our new league? We fully expect to compete for regular season and postseason championships in this league, hopefully starting as early as next season. Our problem has never been in league play. Our problems always come later in the season when our well coached but lesser talented guys get exposed by equally well coached teams that do possess future NBA players.

We always play Syracuse and Louisville on even terms and with Syracuse in particular, we usually beat those guys (at least for the past 10-15 years). Dixon is something like 11-5 vs. Boeheim or something like that.

So from Pitt's perspective, if we had our druthers, we'd play all of those schools as often as possible and I'm reasonably confident we'd hold our own - even in transition years like this one.

That is not to say that we don't respect the aforementioned programs or the other ACC programs. We understand that this has been a great men's basketball league in the past and that it almost certainly will be again in the future as well. It's just that this isn't our first rodeo and moving from the Big East to the ACC was definitely not a step up in class. At a minimum it was a lateral move.

Not saying what you said is not correct -- however to add to that -- after Louisville entered the BE they overtook that winning record. From 2005 to the end Louisville was 95-45 on the season to the 92-48 for Pitt and Cuse both (not counting the BET games). If you add the BET games, Louisville was 13-5 to Cuse at 13-7 and Pitt at 10-7 -- so totals were Louisville 108-50, Cuse 105-55 and Pitt 102-55. During that time Louisville won the BET 3 times and played for the championship a 4th time (actually 4 of the last 5 years -- winning the last 2).

But yes, we always had relatively good games with both Cuse and Pitt. We were 7-2 against Pitt in regular season and lost 3 in tourney to them (our first 3 years). We were 7-4 against Cuse in regular season and 9-4 overall (Pitino pretty much owns JB). Seemed we frequently drew one or the other for our mirror games, always playing one of the hardest schedules going against the other top teams.

(02-21-2014 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 01:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  There are only 2 permanent rivals (4 games). There are 2 rotating series (4 games). Then there are 10 games, one against each remaining school.

I do agree that, just like in football, the best teams should all face each other more often (and not inconsequentially, the non-best teams will face the best teams more frequently as well). The only problem is how do you go about doing that?

I think the league would be smart to change that. We have a chance for some dynamite nationally televised games, and we should maximize that, IMO. Let's have four permanent home and home rivals and ten single games every year. Keep as many existing rivalries as possible, but also maximize the games between the top programs.

My suggestions:

Syracuse - Duke, Louisville, Pitt and BC
Duke - UNC, NC State, WFU and Syracuse
UNC - Duke, Louisville, NC State, WFU
Louisville - Syracuse, UNC, Pitt, Notre Dame
Pitt - Syracuse, Louisville, BC, Notre Dame
Notre Dame- Louisville, Pitt, BC, Miami
BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Miami
NC State - UNC, Duke, WFU, VT
WFU - UNC, Duke, State, VT
VT - UVa, WFU, NC State, Clemson
UVa - VT, Clemson, GT, FSU
Clemson - VT, UVa, FSU, GT
FSU - Miami, UVa, Clemson, GT
GT - Miami, UVa, Clemson, FSU
Miami - BC, Notre Dame, FSU, GT

I think it needs major tweaking.

You propose doubling the amount of permanent rivals and yet FSU, GT, Clemson, UVA, VT and UM have ZERO marquee rivals (Pitt, Cuse, UL, UNC, Duke). Did you consider how many conference games you would have to play? If you keep the number of games at 18, those schools with zero marquee rivals would NEVER face a marquee opponent twice in the same year. If you increase it to 20, they would average a 2-game series once every two years versus marquee teams.

BC also seems to be getting undeserved preferential treatment in your suggestion, although it's likely unintentional (Cuse, Pitt and good ND?).

I think the most logical approach is to take the current rival setup (first 2 rivals listed below for each school) and simply expand it. There won't be as many permanent rivals as some might like/expect between the best teams because: 1) the NC schools will demand facing each other, eliminating some of those openings for UNC and Duke, 2) every school in the conference should have at least one marquee rival. Realistically it would look like:

BC - Cuse, ND, UVA, Wake
Clemson - FSU, GT, UNC, VT
Duke - UNC, Wake, VT, Cuse
FSU - Clemson, Miami, UL, GT
GT - Clemson, ND, Pitt, FSU
UL - Pitt, Cuse, FSU, UNC
Miami - FSU, VT, Cuse, NC State
UNC - Duke, NC State, Clemson, UL
NC State - UNC, Wake, ND, Miami
ND - GT, BC, Pitt, NC State
Pitt - Cuse, UL, GT, ND
Cuse - Pitt, BC, Miami, Duke
UVA - VT, UL, BC, Wake
VT - UVA, Miami, Duke, Clemson
Wake - Duke, NC State, BC, UVA

It works fairly well with 20 games but would not realistically work with less. As Kaplony mentioned earlier, it works "best" with 23.

(02-23-2014 02:49 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(02-21-2014 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 01:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  There are only 2 permanent rivals (4 games). There are 2 rotating series (4 games). Then there are 10 games, one against each remaining school.

I do agree that, just like in football, the best teams should all face each other more often (and not inconsequentially, the non-best teams will face the best teams more frequently as well). The only problem is how do you go about doing that?

I think the league would be smart to change that. We have a chance for some dynamite nationally televised games, and we should maximize that, IMO. Let's have four permanent home and home rivals and ten single games every year. Keep as many existing rivalries as possible, but also maximize the games between the top programs.

My suggestions:

Syracuse - Duke, Louisville, Pitt and BC
Duke - UNC, NC State, WFU and Syracuse
UNC - Duke, Louisville, NC State, WFU
Louisville - Syracuse, UNC, Pitt, Notre Dame
Pitt - Syracuse, Louisville, BC, Notre Dame
Notre Dame- Louisville, Pitt, BC, Miami
BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Miami
NC State - UNC, Duke, WFU, VT
WFU - UNC, Duke, State, VT
VT - UVa, WFU, NC State, Clemson
UVa - VT, Clemson, GT, FSU
Clemson - VT, UVa, FSU, GT
FSU - Miami, UVa, Clemson, GT
GT - Miami, UVa, Clemson, FSU
Miami - BC, Notre Dame, FSU, GT

I think it needs major tweaking.

You propose doubling the amount of permanent rivals and yet FSU, GT, Clemson, UVA, VT and UM have ZERO marquee rivals (Pitt, Cuse, UL, UNC, Duke). Did you consider how many conference games you would have to play? If you keep the number of games at 18, those schools with zero marquee rivals would NEVER face a marquee opponent twice in the same year. If you increase it to 20, they would average a 2-game series once every two years versus marquee teams.

BC also seems to be getting undeserved preferential treatment in your suggestion, although it's likely unintentional (Cuse, Pitt and good ND?).

I think the most logical approach is to take the current rival setup (first 2 rivals listed below for each school) and simply expand it. There won't be as many permanent rivals as some might like/expect between the best teams because: 1) the NC schools will demand facing each other, eliminating some of those openings for UNC and Duke, 2) every school in the conference should have at least one marquee rival. Realistically it would look like:

BC - Cuse, ND, UVA, Wake
Clemson - FSU, GT, UNC, VT
Duke - UNC, Wake, VT, Cuse
FSU - Clemson, Miami, UL, GT
GT - Clemson, ND, Pitt, FSU
UL - Pitt, Cuse, FSU, UNC
Miami - FSU, VT, Cuse, NC State
UNC - Duke, NC State, Clemson, UL
NC State - UNC, Wake, ND, Miami
ND - GT, BC, Pitt, NC State
Pitt - Cuse, UL, GT, ND
Cuse - Pitt, BC, Miami, Duke
UVA - VT, UL, BC, Wake
VT - UVA, Miami, Duke, Clemson
Wake - Duke, NC State, BC, UVA

It works fairly well with 20 games but would not realistically work with less. As Kaplony mentioned earlier, it works "best" with 23.

I started with two presumptions: 1) the league and most of its members would prefer an 18 game schedule, and 2) regardless of whether I think every school should have a marquee rival, the fact is that many don't. Miami didn't have any marquee rivals in either the old ACC or the old Big East. They did appear to have a special relationship with BC, for reasons I never quite understood. But I don't think I'd call that a rivalry.

My goal was decidedly not to achieve perfect competitive balance among schedules. It was to maximize the league's stature among conferences by creating more matchups that non-ACC fans around the country will find compelling enough to watch.

If you only have 2 rivals, it's impossible to give every non-top school a top rival while also maximizing how often the top schools face each other. THAT'S why they don't currently exist. But if you are DOUBLING it to 4 rivals, then every school would have to have one. That's pretty much a given. If you'd like, we can switch up football divisions so half the conference doesn't play a Florida school yearly. I'm sure the conference would love that, right?

And there's no need for you to talk about competitive balance as that's not what I proposed. The top schools have significantly harder schedules.

And AGAIN, you CANNOT remain at 18 games while expanding to 4 rivals. It does not work. There would be ZERO rotating rivals. I made this clear.

That's why we should go to 23 ACC basketball games a year. Everybody wins. The top teams face each other far more often, and the lesser teams get to see the top tams more often. ESPN gets more games they feel are worth broadcasting as well.

23 is too many.

(02-23-2014 06:57 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  If you only have 2 rivals, it's impossible to give every non-top school a top rival while also maximizing how often the top schools face each other. THAT'S why they don't currently exist. But if you are DOUBLING it to 4 rivals, then every school would have to have one. That's pretty much a given. If you'd like, we can switch up football divisions so half the conference doesn't play a Florida school yearly. I'm sure the conference would love that, right?

And there's no need for you to talk about competitive balance as that's not what I proposed. The top schools have significantly harder schedules.

And AGAIN, you CANNOT remain at 18 games while expanding to 4 rivals. It does not work. There would be ZERO rotating rivals. I made this clear.

I know you made it clear. I just don't happen to agree with you.

The whole purpose is to have schools play each other MORE often, not less. Your proposal fails horribly to do that.

(02-23-2014 08:12 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The whole purpose is to have schools play each other MORE often, not less. Your proposal fails horribly to do that.

Who said that the whole purpose is to have schools play each other more often? I would argue that the purpose is to make league membership more valuable for every member.

The hypocrisy is too funny.