My approach would be to wait and see what becomes of the ACC's proposed deregulation of conference championships legislation. If it passes, then this is what I'd do.

- No divisions
- 2 permanent rivals + 6 rotating opponents
- Top two teams (best conference record) play in conference championship. Would need to come up with tiebreaker in case ties occur.

Permanent rivals

UConn: Temple, Navy
Temple: UConn, Navy
Navy: UConn, Temple
ECU: UCF, UC
USF: UCF, Tulane
UCF: USF, ECU
UC: Memphis, ECU
Memphis: UC, Tulsa
Tulsa: SMU, Memphis
SMU: Houston, Tulsa
Houston: SMU, Tulane
Tulane: Houston, USF

Pros
+ Rotate through conference opponents quickly (everyone plays each other regularly)
+ Most teams have 2 geographic partners (could promote rivalries)
+ Enhances status of the conference championship game (quality and SOS)

Cons
- Could cause schedules to be unbalanced (some teams have easier schedule than others)
- Without divisions, weaker schools might have no shot of making conference championship game
- Could decrease excitement late in the season (no divisional races)

(05-13-2014 11:47 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Navy.....YOU BETTER NOT BAIL ON US!!!!

Just a though could BYU be Navy's replacement?

(05-14-2014 11:22 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:47 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Navy.....YOU BETTER NOT BAIL ON US!!!!

Just a though could BYU be Navy's replacement?

I know its a joke, but I'd certainly take the trade.

Not certain of what the best arrangement is, but I am openly cheering for one that allows UCF to play USF and ECU on an annual basis. Those would be the two biggest "rivals" in my mind.

This is what I hope happens.

USF and UCF can fight it out over who goes East and who goes West, but it's best for the conference if each division has a toe-hold in Florida.

East
UCF
Temple
Uconn
Cinci
Navy
ECU

West
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Memphis
Tulsa
USF



UCF and USF can be permanent crossovers if they so desire.

(05-14-2014 11:19 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  My approach would be to wait and see what becomes of the ACC's proposed deregulation of conference championships legislation. If it passes, then this is what I'd do.

- No divisions
- 2 permanent rivals + 6 rotating opponents
- Top two teams (best conference record) play in conference championship. Would need to come up with tiebreaker in case ties occur.

Permanent rivals

UConn: Temple, Navy
Temple: UConn, Navy
Navy: UConn, Temple
ECU: UCF, UC
USF: UCF, Tulane
UCF: USF, ECU
UC: Memphis, ECU
Memphis: UC, Tulsa
Tulsa: SMU, Memphis
SMU: Houston, Tulsa
Houston: SMU, Tulane
Tulane: Houston, USF

Pros
+ Rotate through conference opponents quickly (everyone plays each other regularly)
+ Most teams have 2 geographic partners (could promote rivalries)
+ Enhances status of the conference championship game (quality and SOS)

Cons
- Could cause schedules to be unbalanced (some teams have easier schedule than others)
- Without divisions, weaker schools might have no shot of making conference championship game
- Could decrease excitement late in the season (no divisional races)

Provided the deregulation passes, I'd love this idea.

Otherwise I like what Donny said. I also wouldn't mind swapping Cinci with USF, but I'm sure Cinci does not want to be in the West.

(05-15-2014 07:48 AM)DonnyMost Wrote:  This is what I hope happens.

USF and UCF can fight it out over who goes East and who goes West, but it's best for the conference if each division has a toe-hold in Florida.

East
UCF
Temple
Uconn
Cinci
Navy
ECU

West
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Memphis
Tulsa
USF



UCF and USF can be permanent crossovers if they so desire.

I agree. I think splitting the Florida teams is the best move. Then you keep it fairly geograghical so teams and fans have the ability to travel to these road games and potentially develop rivalries.

(05-15-2014 07:58 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:48 AM)DonnyMost Wrote:  This is what I hope happens.

USF and UCF can fight it out over who goes East and who goes West, but it's best for the conference if each division has a toe-hold in Florida.

East
UCF
Temple
Uconn
Cinci
Navy
ECU

West
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Memphis
Tulsa
USF



UCF and USF can be permanent crossovers if they so desire.

I agree. I think splitting the Florida teams is the best move. Then you keep it fairly geograghical so teams and fans have the ability to travel to these road games and potentially develop rivalries.

Permanent crossovers:

UCF-USF
Houston-Temple
SMU-UConn
Tulane-Navy
Tulsa-ECU
Memphis-Cinci

?

(05-15-2014 07:48 AM)DonnyMost Wrote:  This is what I hope happens.

USF and UCF can fight it out over who goes East and who goes West, but it's best for the conference if each division has a toe-hold in Florida.

East
UCF
Temple
Uconn
Cinci
Navy
ECU

West
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Memphis
Tulsa
USF



UCF and USF can be permanent crossovers if they so desire.

again the west would already have texas the need to split florida is pointless,

and cincy fans are trying realy hard to come up with configurations to keep them with the east teams (north/south, non-geographical sense dividing east and west, zipper) etc.
in all likely hood it will be east/west the standard way, and cincy will be stuck in the west

(05-14-2014 11:19 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  My approach would be to wait and see what becomes of the ACC's proposed deregulation of conference championships legislation. If it passes, then this is what I'd do.

- No divisions
- 2 permanent rivals + 6 rotating opponents
- Top two teams (best conference record) play in conference championship. Would need to come up with tiebreaker in case ties occur.

Permanent rivals

UConn: Temple, Navy
Temple: UConn, Navy
Navy: UConn, Temple
ECU: UCF, UC
USF: UCF, Tulane
UCF: USF, ECU
UC: Memphis, ECU
Memphis: UC, Tulsa
Tulsa: SMU, Memphis
SMU: Houston, Tulsa
Houston: SMU, Tulane
Tulane: Houston, USF

Pros
+ Rotate through conference opponents quickly (everyone plays each other regularly)
+ Most teams have 2 geographic partners (could promote rivalries)
+ Enhances status of the conference championship game (quality and SOS)

Cons
- Could cause schedules to be unbalanced (some teams have easier schedule than others)
- Without divisions, weaker schools might have no shot of making conference championship game
- Could decrease excitement late in the season (no divisional races)

I think you could do this even without deregulation of CCG, you just need to think about it a little differently. What you have setup is four 3-team pods. Every year, you play the teams in your pod, plus you rotate yearly to put another pod in your division and you play all of those teams. So year 1 the divisions are POD A+B and C+D, next year A+C and B+D, then A+D and B+C, and repeat. That accounts for 5 games, the other 3 or 4 would be cross divisional.

(05-14-2014 11:19 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Permanent rivals


Tulsa: SMU, Memphis

Tulsa has never had a rivalry with SMU or Memphis. They have played a lot of games but that doesn't necessarily result in them being rivals. If you look at the current membership there are three schools where past games have taken on a rivalry aspect, Houston, UCF, and possibly ECU.

(05-15-2014 08:29 AM)Nevadanatural Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:19 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Permanent rivals


Tulsa: SMU, Memphis

Tulsa has never had a rivalry with SMU or Memphis. They have played a lot of games but that doesn't necessarily result in them being rivals. If you look at the current membership there are three schools where past games have taken on a rivalry aspect, Houston, UCF, and possibly ECU.

I agree. I think you have these 2 sets of rivalries as a given:
UCF-USF-ECU
SMU-Houston-Tulsa

This is the best I can do with the other 6:
UC-Memphis-Tulane
UConn-Temple-Navy

(05-15-2014 08:29 AM)Nevadanatural Wrote:  Tulsa has never had a rivalry with SMU or Memphis. They have played a lot of games but that doesn't necessarily result in them being rivals. If you look at the current membership there are three schools where past games have taken on a rivalry aspect, Houston, UCF, and possibly ECU.

Rivalry was probably the wrong word to use. Instead of annual or permanent "rivals", look at it as annual games against two geographically close opponents. Basically, I tried to pair every team with two close opponents (not always possible) to help with travel costs and hopefully create fan interest. The other advantage of going divisionless is that teams rotate very quickly through conference opponents. Over a 10 year period, Tulsa would play SMU and Memphis 10 times and everyone else 6 or 7 times. You'd still have plenty of games against Houston, UCF, and ECU even if you don't play them every single year.

The UCF-USF-ECU rivalry trio is going to be interesting in the coming years. Lots of blood and spit between those 3 in the past.

(05-13-2014 03:18 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 03:15 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Please no Legends/Leaders BS. Just stick with geography so we actually know who is in what division.

The "Misfits" and "Malcontents" divisions?

I admit that made me laugh.

(05-13-2014 03:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm guessing the ACC petition to the NCAA will be approved, eventually, and the angst over divisions will become moot.

This.

But just on the off-chance that the ACC's petition gets lost in the mail for a few years, I like the idea of putting UCF and USF in separate divisions, but letting them play an annual inter-divisional game. The SEC has done this for years (Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia, LSU/Florida, etc).

(05-15-2014 07:48 AM)DonnyMost Wrote:  This is what I hope happens.

USF and UCF can fight it out over who goes East and who goes West, but it's best for the conference if each division has a toe-hold in Florida.

East
UCF
Temple
Uconn
Cinci
Navy
ECU

West
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Memphis
Tulsa
USF



UCF and USF can be permanent crossovers if they so desire.

This alignment screws USF. First, USF is further east than UC. Secondly, and most importantly, USF has history with UC and UConn in the Big East and should be left in the same division as them.

I can live with a North/South arrangement as that allows USF/UCF in the same division.

Zipper is also ok with me. The best scenario is for USF to be in the East (seeing USF is just a couple hours from the Atlantic Ocean).

(05-15-2014 12:37 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  This alignment screws USF. First, USF is further east than UC. Secondly, and most importantly, USF has history with UC and UConn in the Big East and should be left in the same division as them.

1. That "history" dates all the way back to 2005. Not a big deal.
2. UCF and USF could alternate back-and-forth between the western and eastern divisions.
3. Divisions probably won't be necessary after 2015, or maybe even after this year.

true east west, is what is best (except for uc fans, who don't want the west) and the likely outcome

I may be in the minority but I hope that the AAC does stay with divisions even when they are no longer necessary for a conference championship game. Having a core group of schools Temple can start to build a history against and rivalry with I believe will help to start to build the attendance numbers.

Knowing going into the season Temple has UConn, Navy, ECU and the 2 Florida schools (or 1 Florida school and UC) every year will help to hopefully start to build a little animosity between the programs, build a little juice. It’s just my opinion but I believe that will help put more people in the seats in the long run.

(05-15-2014 08:29 AM)Nevadanatural Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:19 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Permanent rivals


Tulsa: SMU, Memphis

Tulsa has never had a rivalry with SMU or Memphis. They have played a lot of games but that doesn't necessarily result in them being rivals. If you look at the current membership there are three schools where past games have taken on a rivalry aspect, Houston, UCF, and possibly ECU.

We play Memphis if football every year, but I don't consider it a rivalry. That would be like saying a hammer and a nail have a rivalry. The reverse is also true for basketball.