(04-24-2014 03:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:23 PM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 09:12 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 08:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  Something tells me that the "we" of "we would prefer to play" does not consist of all UNC fans, or even most UNC fans. I really doubt it would be the choice of UNC coaches.

I could understand Wake Forest. You beat them a lot. But why Georgia Tech? Because you think if you play them often enough, eventually you will figure out how to beat them? Someone here said it's because UNC recruits heavily in Georgia. Does it help that recruiting that Carolina hasn't won in Atlanta since Mack Brown left? And has only won twice in Chapel Hill in that time?

And wouldn't it hurt recruiting in North Carolina if it appears that you are ducking NC State?

Wake is because the 1st game was in 1888 and we have played them more than we have played MooU.

GT is because the Atlanta TV market has a very large number of UNC alums.

A desire to drop Moo is because increasingly we have been forced to see that the average Wuffie is as nuts and vicious as the average WVU fan. At some point, you just want to get away from such people.

At first I thought you were saying that just to prove that Kaplony was wrong in describing you as a rare reasonable Carolina fan. Then it occurred to me that he probably shares your opinion of NC State.

If he knows many Wuffies and he has decent sense, his view of Moo fans is basically the same as mine.

I think you will find that going forward, many UNC fans will move to a position similar to mine: so revolted that we would prefer to never have to deal with NCSU again. I have despised the SEC longer than the internet has existed, and I have a long history of promoting the ACC as what conferences should be, because it is not all huge state schools. But now I would support UNC going to the SEC, as long as UVA and Dook came along, especially for our non-revenue sports.

Why not just ship off NC State? We could trade them for Vanderbilt... or my personal choice: Auburn!

Calling JR, calling JR........didn't you say you wanted NCSU in the SEC?

(04-24-2014 04:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:23 PM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 09:12 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  Wake is because the 1st game was in 1888 and we have played them more than we have played MooU.

GT is because the Atlanta TV market has a very large number of UNC alums.

A desire to drop Moo is because increasingly we have been forced to see that the average Wuffie is as nuts and vicious as the average WVU fan. At some point, you just want to get away from such people.

At first I thought you were saying that just to prove that Kaplony was wrong in describing you as a rare reasonable Carolina fan. Then it occurred to me that he probably shares your opinion of NC State.

If he knows many Wuffies and he has decent sense, his view of Moo fans is basically the same as mine.

I think you will find that going forward, many UNC fans will move to a position similar to mine: so revolted that we would prefer to never have to deal with NCSU again. I have despised the SEC longer than the internet has existed, and I have a long history of promoting the ACC as what conferences should be, because it is not all huge state schools. But now I would support UNC going to the SEC, as long as UVA and Dook came along, especially for our non-revenue sports.

Why not just ship off NC State? We could trade them for Vanderbilt... or my personal choice: Auburn!

Calling JR, calling JR........didn't you say you wanted NCSU in the SEC?

The SEC does not want definite #2 schools in a state. The only way the SEC could persuade itself to take A&M was to play with the language that marks A&M as a type of co-flagship with UT. That and the size and wealth of TX (in football especially) made it a Go.

Also, Slive has ended all the SEC drama of fan bases ratting on other schools to the NCAA and using the press to attack their rivals. That stuff harms the league as a whole. Note that after Slive laid down the law and it dried up, the SEC began winning everything in football.

The Wuffies are like the worst of whiney, crazy, vindictive Vols fans crossed with LSU fans crossed with Bama and Auburn fans crossed with Gators. They easily could poison the new SEC that runs smoothly.

There is more chance the Big Stupid Ten takes MooU than that the SEC would risk adding such an out of control bunch of nobodies.

(04-25-2014 07:45 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 04:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:23 PM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  At first I thought you were saying that just to prove that Kaplony was wrong in describing you as a rare reasonable Carolina fan. Then it occurred to me that he probably shares your opinion of NC State.

If he knows many Wuffies and he has decent sense, his view of Moo fans is basically the same as mine.

I think you will find that going forward, many UNC fans will move to a position similar to mine: so revolted that we would prefer to never have to deal with NCSU again. I have despised the SEC longer than the internet has existed, and I have a long history of promoting the ACC as what conferences should be, because it is not all huge state schools. But now I would support UNC going to the SEC, as long as UVA and Dook came along, especially for our non-revenue sports.

Why not just ship off NC State? We could trade them for Vanderbilt... or my personal choice: Auburn!

Calling JR, calling JR........didn't you say you wanted NCSU in the SEC?

The SEC does not want definite #2 schools in a state. The only way the SEC could persuade itself to take A&M was to play with the language that marks A&M as a type of co-flagship with UT. That and the size and wealth of TX (in football especially) made it a Go.

Also, Slive has ended all the SEC drama of fan bases ratting on other schools to the NCAA and using the press to attack their rivals. That stuff harms the league as a whole. Note that after Slive laid down the law and it dried up, the SEC began winning everything in football.

The Wuffies are like the worst of whiney, crazy, vindictive Vols fans crossed with LSU fans crossed with Bama and Auburn fans crossed with Gators. They easily could poison the new SEC that runs smoothly.

There is more chance the Big Stupid Ten takes MooU than that the SEC would risk adding such an out of control bunch of nobodies.

Don't hold back Woad. Tell us how you really feel about State fans.

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  It now seems a given that the ACC proposal to de-regulate the way conferences larger than 11 may schedule and decide who plays in a Championship Game is going to pass. The Big 12 is co-sponsor, and the change would allow it to hold a Championship with just 10 teams, or 11 if they add 1.

For us, and I think for the Pac and Big Ten, the main issue is freedom to schedule other than based on 2 divisions that each play an annual round robin. It would mean we schedule with no divisions, cutting back the number of annual rivals so that everyone is played often.

In case you haven't thought about the problem, as the system now operates, we all will play Notre Dame more often than we play full members of ACC football who are not annual rivals. UNC, for example, will play ND more often than we play FSU and Clemson.

Going 8-10 years between meetings in conference games is not a good thing. And this change in NCAA regulations will allow us to make things better. It will keep the entire league refreshed, with new teams rotating on the ACC schedule at least every 2 years.

All signs indicate that we are keeping an 8 game conference schedule. If we each have 3 annual rivals, we will play the other 10 teams in the conference 2 times every 4 years. We will see every team at least twice every 4 years.

That seems to me to be close to ideal. None of us have more than 3 teams we must play each year. Each of us now plays annual games against 2 or 3 schools that our fans would not mind seeing less often, and each of us have fans who would greatly prefer to play a team or two or three more often than the old NCAA rules allow.

Below is my list of 3 annual rivals for each full member of ACC football. It starts with the MUST PLAY games, based on history(like The South's Oldest Rivalry and GT-Dook) and the need to maximize TV interests and deal with SEC rivalries (which is the reason I have FSU playing GT annually), and then taking account of Thanksgiving weekend season ending games.

All teams should play every Thanksgiving weekend so no one ever plays in the Championship after a bye week. We have 4 teams that will end the season versus SEC in-state rivals (FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville). UVA and VT must end the season. So must the 4 NC schools, though it might be interesting to have that rotate, so that in some years UNC closes with Dook while MooU closes with Wake, and in other years UNC closes with MooU while Dook closes with Wake.

I think that the 3 schools north of the Mason-Dixon line should play each other annually as part of maximizing northern interest in ACC football.

That leaves 4 teams who need an annual season ending game: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. BC and Cuse, as border state schools, probably should close the season, which would leave Miami closing with Pitt.

With all that in mind, here is my list:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Miami
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

I think those match-ups are about the best the ACC could manage (even though as an SU fan I'd much rather have Miami annually than any of the three likely to be our annual partners).

It will be interesting to see what the ACC develops.

Cheers,
Neil

To balance the scheduling needs and preferences of all ACC schools, which covers a fairly wide range of competitiveness, my approach (if I were King of the ACC) would resemble a Chinese menu.

Ideally, I'd have an 8 game league schedule along the lines discussed here - 3 permanent partners, alternate the other 10 schools.

For the four OOC games, I'd divide the world into four groups: P5, G2+ (the AAC and MWC + independents), G3 (the remaining FBS conferences) and the FCS.

I'd want every ACC school to play a P5 opponent OOC every year, home and home. Likewise, for the second game, play a G2+ home and home. For the other two games, you get one G3 and one FCS, both home. That gives you seven home games a year. If you are OK with fewer than 7, have at it - improves your flexibility. But if you're good enough that you don't need to, that's OK too.

Keep in mind that every three years, Notre Dame will be one of those home and home games. You can make it your P5 or you can count it as G2+ depending on how tough you want your schedule to be. Anybody who would prefer to schedule up from this model can always do so, with my blessing (I am King, after all). Also, any ACC school who wants to use one of its P5/G2+ games to schedule another ACC school OOC can do that (if the other school agrees, of course). If you don't like your permanent partner choices, this might be a solution for you.

The idea behind this model is that if you are a top 5 team in the conference, you can schedule with playoffs in mind, and if you aren't, you can schedule with bowl eligibility as your target. If you're a small school like Wake, traditionally among the bottom third of the league, you would probably want to aim for similar schools in each of the four menu columns. Your P5 doesn't have to be Ohio State or Alabama.

For all the NC schools, this model lets you schedule ECU as one of your top tier (home and home) games, since they are now in the G2+. That may mean more to ECU than it does to you, but it usually guarantees you one more sellout when you get them at home.

There. I think my work is done here. Bring on the serving wenches.

(04-26-2014 08:17 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  It now seems a given that the ACC proposal to de-regulate the way conferences larger than 11 may schedule and decide who plays in a Championship Game is going to pass. The Big 12 is co-sponsor, and the change would allow it to hold a Championship with just 10 teams, or 11 if they add 1.

For us, and I think for the Pac and Big Ten, the main issue is freedom to schedule other than based on 2 divisions that each play an annual round robin. It would mean we schedule with no divisions, cutting back the number of annual rivals so that everyone is played often.

In case you haven't thought about the problem, as the system now operates, we all will play Notre Dame more often than we play full members of ACC football who are not annual rivals. UNC, for example, will play ND more often than we play FSU and Clemson.

Going 8-10 years between meetings in conference games is not a good thing. And this change in NCAA regulations will allow us to make things better. It will keep the entire league refreshed, with new teams rotating on the ACC schedule at least every 2 years.

All signs indicate that we are keeping an 8 game conference schedule. If we each have 3 annual rivals, we will play the other 10 teams in the conference 2 times every 4 years. We will see every team at least twice every 4 years.

That seems to me to be close to ideal. None of us have more than 3 teams we must play each year. Each of us now plays annual games against 2 or 3 schools that our fans would not mind seeing less often, and each of us have fans who would greatly prefer to play a team or two or three more often than the old NCAA rules allow.

Below is my list of 3 annual rivals for each full member of ACC football. It starts with the MUST PLAY games, based on history(like The South's Oldest Rivalry and GT-Dook) and the need to maximize TV interests and deal with SEC rivalries (which is the reason I have FSU playing GT annually), and then taking account of Thanksgiving weekend season ending games.

All teams should play every Thanksgiving weekend so no one ever plays in the Championship after a bye week. We have 4 teams that will end the season versus SEC in-state rivals (FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville). UVA and VT must end the season. So must the 4 NC schools, though it might be interesting to have that rotate, so that in some years UNC closes with Dook while MooU closes with Wake, and in other years UNC closes with MooU while Dook closes with Wake.

I think that the 3 schools north of the Mason-Dixon line should play each other annually as part of maximizing northern interest in ACC football.

That leaves 4 teams who need an annual season ending game: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. BC and Cuse, as border state schools, probably should close the season, which would leave Miami closing with Pitt.

With all that in mind, here is my list:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Miami
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

I think those match-ups are about the best the ACC could manage (even though as an SU fan I'd much rather have Miami annually than any of the three likely to be our annual partners).

It will be interesting to see what the ACC develops.

Cheers,
Neil

And because when Miami is good it does huge TV ratings in NYC, it would be good for Miami to play Syracuse often. The problem is fitting it in.

I think it would require VT agreeing to drop Miami as annual and FSU agreeing that Miami swapping VT for Cuse would not hurt FSU because its permanent 3 would be tougher almost every year.

There are probably only 3 schools VT would agree to take if it loses Miami: Clemson, GT, and UNC. And none of them are possible for VT.

(04-26-2014 10:24 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-26-2014 08:17 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  It now seems a given that the ACC proposal to de-regulate the way conferences larger than 11 may schedule and decide who plays in a Championship Game is going to pass. The Big 12 is co-sponsor, and the change would allow it to hold a Championship with just 10 teams, or 11 if they add 1.

For us, and I think for the Pac and Big Ten, the main issue is freedom to schedule other than based on 2 divisions that each play an annual round robin. It would mean we schedule with no divisions, cutting back the number of annual rivals so that everyone is played often.

In case you haven't thought about the problem, as the system now operates, we all will play Notre Dame more often than we play full members of ACC football who are not annual rivals. UNC, for example, will play ND more often than we play FSU and Clemson.

Going 8-10 years between meetings in conference games is not a good thing. And this change in NCAA regulations will allow us to make things better. It will keep the entire league refreshed, with new teams rotating on the ACC schedule at least every 2 years.

All signs indicate that we are keeping an 8 game conference schedule. If we each have 3 annual rivals, we will play the other 10 teams in the conference 2 times every 4 years. We will see every team at least twice every 4 years.

That seems to me to be close to ideal. None of us have more than 3 teams we must play each year. Each of us now plays annual games against 2 or 3 schools that our fans would not mind seeing less often, and each of us have fans who would greatly prefer to play a team or two or three more often than the old NCAA rules allow.

Below is my list of 3 annual rivals for each full member of ACC football. It starts with the MUST PLAY games, based on history(like The South's Oldest Rivalry and GT-Dook) and the need to maximize TV interests and deal with SEC rivalries (which is the reason I have FSU playing GT annually), and then taking account of Thanksgiving weekend season ending games.

All teams should play every Thanksgiving weekend so no one ever plays in the Championship after a bye week. We have 4 teams that will end the season versus SEC in-state rivals (FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville). UVA and VT must end the season. So must the 4 NC schools, though it might be interesting to have that rotate, so that in some years UNC closes with Dook while MooU closes with Wake, and in other years UNC closes with MooU while Dook closes with Wake.

I think that the 3 schools north of the Mason-Dixon line should play each other annually as part of maximizing northern interest in ACC football.

That leaves 4 teams who need an annual season ending game: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. BC and Cuse, as border state schools, probably should close the season, which would leave Miami closing with Pitt.

With all that in mind, here is my list:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Miami
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

I think those match-ups are about the best the ACC could manage (even though as an SU fan I'd much rather have Miami annually than any of the three likely to be our annual partners).

It will be interesting to see what the ACC develops.

Cheers,
Neil

And because when Miami is good it does huge TV ratings in NYC, it would be good for Miami to play Syracuse often. The problem is fitting it in.

I think it would require VT agreeing to drop Miami as annual and FSU agreeing that Miami swapping VT for Cuse would not hurt FSU because its permanent 3 would be tougher almost every year.

There are probably only 3 schools VT would agree to take if it loses Miami: Clemson, GT, and UNC. And none of them are possible for VT.

Not asking for any special consideration for SU. Just recognizing that what is best for the conference overall may not be best for SU. That's life in a conference. And as the ACC will learn, SU's history has shown it to be a great conference partner when it comes to these type of things.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-26-2014 10:24 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(04-26-2014 08:17 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:01 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  It now seems a given that the ACC proposal to de-regulate the way conferences larger than 11 may schedule and decide who plays in a Championship Game is going to pass. The Big 12 is co-sponsor, and the change would allow it to hold a Championship with just 10 teams, or 11 if they add 1.

For us, and I think for the Pac and Big Ten, the main issue is freedom to schedule other than based on 2 divisions that each play an annual round robin. It would mean we schedule with no divisions, cutting back the number of annual rivals so that everyone is played often.

In case you haven't thought about the problem, as the system now operates, we all will play Notre Dame more often than we play full members of ACC football who are not annual rivals. UNC, for example, will play ND more often than we play FSU and Clemson.

Going 8-10 years between meetings in conference games is not a good thing. And this change in NCAA regulations will allow us to make things better. It will keep the entire league refreshed, with new teams rotating on the ACC schedule at least every 2 years.

All signs indicate that we are keeping an 8 game conference schedule. If we each have 3 annual rivals, we will play the other 10 teams in the conference 2 times every 4 years. We will see every team at least twice every 4 years.

That seems to me to be close to ideal. None of us have more than 3 teams we must play each year. Each of us now plays annual games against 2 or 3 schools that our fans would not mind seeing less often, and each of us have fans who would greatly prefer to play a team or two or three more often than the old NCAA rules allow.

Below is my list of 3 annual rivals for each full member of ACC football. It starts with the MUST PLAY games, based on history(like The South's Oldest Rivalry and GT-Dook) and the need to maximize TV interests and deal with SEC rivalries (which is the reason I have FSU playing GT annually), and then taking account of Thanksgiving weekend season ending games.

All teams should play every Thanksgiving weekend so no one ever plays in the Championship after a bye week. We have 4 teams that will end the season versus SEC in-state rivals (FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville). UVA and VT must end the season. So must the 4 NC schools, though it might be interesting to have that rotate, so that in some years UNC closes with Dook while MooU closes with Wake, and in other years UNC closes with MooU while Dook closes with Wake.

I think that the 3 schools north of the Mason-Dixon line should play each other annually as part of maximizing northern interest in ACC football.

That leaves 4 teams who need an annual season ending game: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. BC and Cuse, as border state schools, probably should close the season, which would leave Miami closing with Pitt.

With all that in mind, here is my list:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Miami
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

I think those match-ups are about the best the ACC could manage (even though as an SU fan I'd much rather have Miami annually than any of the three likely to be our annual partners).

It will be interesting to see what the ACC develops.

Cheers,
Neil

And because when Miami is good it does huge TV ratings in NYC, it would be good for Miami to play Syracuse often. The problem is fitting it in.

I think it would require VT agreeing to drop Miami as annual and FSU agreeing that Miami swapping VT for Cuse would not hurt FSU because its permanent 3 would be tougher almost every year.

There are probably only 3 schools VT would agree to take if it loses Miami: Clemson, GT, and UNC. And none of them are possible for VT.

Woad's list is, IMO, about as good as any I've seen. I could see Pitt and Syracuse swapping their third permanent partners, Louisville and Miami. But I could just as easily live with it the way it is.

I could see the NC schools rotating their end of season games by always playing the school that isn't a permanent partner in the years when they are on your rotating schedule, and then playing one of your permanent rivals the other year.

The Virginia Tech fans claim to need a game in NC every year for recruiting even though they haven't signed many NC players, so Clemson will be more than happy to give up NC State for them. Just give us Wake. They send more fans down here than Duke and about as many as UNC and NC State and the Wake fans that do come down here aren't a-holes like the majority of the NC public school fans. Think of it as us taking one for the team.

It would be a very stupid decision to drop the VT/Miami game. It's one of the few good matchups the ACC has. It needs more, not less.

What do you all think of this NC newspaper guy's no division/3-rival setup? (I'll comment later.)
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/25/3...would.html

I can tell you now SU and Pitt wouldn't like that since it gives BC both Miami and VT and SU neither of them or Louisville.

Woad's set-up makes far more sense.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-27-2014 07:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It would be a very stupid decision to drop the VT/Miami game. It's one of the few good matchups the ACC has. It needs more, not less.

What do you all think of this NC newspaper guy's no division/3-rival setup? (I'll comment later.)
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/25/3...would.html

1) I agree - VT/Miami is one of the best games every year.
2) This guy drops the VT/Miami game, so he's an idiot. (JK)

(04-27-2014 09:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 07:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It would be a very stupid decision to drop the VT/Miami game. It's one of the few good matchups the ACC has. It needs more, not less.

What do you all think of this NC newspaper guy's no division/3-rival setup? (I'll comment later.)
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/25/3...would.html

1) I agree - VT/Miami is one of the best games every year.
2) This guy drops the VT/Miami game, so he's an idiot. (JK)

The NC newspaper guy does not keep UNC and UVa as annual games. It is the oldest rivalry in the South (since 1892!) and the ACC is not going to end such an old tradition. UVa must have UNC and VT as annual games for sure. The third partner does not matter as much.

If Clemson is going to get stuck with an old time ACC team as our 3rd team make it Wake. Not NCSU, UNC, Duke, or UVA.

1. Wake is going to be the one school out of the four NC schools who gets screwed in rival assignments.

2. None of the original ACC schools travel to Clemson so it isn't going to change anything for us.

3. If any of the original ACC schools deserve the benefit of our traveling fanbase I would prefer it be Wake since they always seem to get the short end of the stick.

Looking at the 8 game set-up I think SU would likely up with something like this:

BC, Pitt, Louisville (three permanent partners)

Group A - Miami, Clemson, NC State, Duke, Uva

Group B - FSU, VT, UNC, Wake, GT

Cheers,
Neil

For simplicity, they might do something like this:

3 permanent partners:
- keep the crossover you currently have
- keep 1 team from your current division
- pick 1 more team from the other division

That way, each year you simply play the rest of the teams in our old division one year and the remaining teams in the other division the next year, alternating home/away every 2 years.

For Va Tech, this might look like:

permanent: BC, UVA, Louisville
Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, NC St, Wake, Syracuse
Coastal: Miami, Ga Tech, UNC, Duke, Pitt

Not optimal, but simple to do.

(04-28-2014 06:04 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  For simplicity, they might do something like this:

3 permanent partners:
- keep the crossover you currently have
- keep 1 team from your current division
- pick 1 more team from the other division

That way, each year you simply play the rest of the teams in our old division one year and the remaining teams in the other division the next year, alternating home/away every 2 years.

For Va Tech, this might look like:

permanent: BC, UVA, Louisville
Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, NC St, Wake, Syracuse
Coastal: Miami, Ga Tech, UNC, Duke, Pitt

Not optimal, but simple to do.

I thought about that, too. Either way, I think that FSU and Miami should be split up. In an ideal world, everyone would play Clemson and Miami on year and FSU and GT the next.

From Pitt's standpoint, we were the only league school that played Notre Dame every year and we surrendered that annual series for the good of the league.

That is a rivalry that dates back to the 1920s and has traditionally been a sellout for a program that really relishes them.

I'm not saying that means that Pitt should get to call all the shots here but I also think it would be pretty low of the ACC to reward Pitt's loyalty by turning around sticking it with whomever it damn well pleases (as was the case in that Giglio fellow's piece).

I'm not sure if this works within the greater construct but our preferences would be (in order):

1.) Virginia Tech
2.) Miami
3.) Syracuse

I think the ACC granting Pitt those three schools as a pay back for the Notre Dame series would amount to a fair trade for both sides.

The ACC taking Pitt overall is more than enough payback already for them just giving up Notre Dame in football every year. Would be in the Big 12 with massive travel costs or in the American if the ACC didnt rescue you guys.

(04-28-2014 01:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  From Pitt's standpoint, we were the only league school that played Notre Dame every year and we surrendered that annual series for the good of the league.

That is a rivalry that dates back to the 1920s and has traditionally been a sellout for a program that really relishes them.

I'm not saying that means that Pitt should get to call all the shots here but I also think it would be pretty low of the ACC to reward Pitt's loyalty by turning around sticking it with whomever it damn well pleases (as was the case in that Giglio fellow's piece).

I'm not sure if this works within the greater construct but our preferences would be (in order):

1.) Virginia Tech
2.) Miami
3.) Syracuse

I think the ACC granting Pitt those three schools as a pay back for the Notre Dame series would amount to a fair trade for both sides.

VT v Pitt needs to happen, and SU v Pitt needs to happen. I can see Pitt getting UL as a #3, though. However, Pitt v Miami has a ton of history, so I can see that happening, too.