Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
From the article:
Craig Littlepage and Whit Babcock took opposite sides in the ACC's recent football-scheduling debate but agree that the conference's Coastal and Atlantic divisions likely will remain intact, at least for the early years of college football's playoff era.
In separate interviews of 30-plus minutes Wednesday, the athletic directors from Virginia and Virginia Tech addressed the decisions and discussions central to the ACC's annual spring meetings last week in Florida. The issues included proposed NCAA reforms such as enhancing scholarships, easing time demands on athletes and granting governance autonomy to the ACC and its four power-conference brethren.
But the most important and concrete news from the meetings was the ACC's 8-6 vote to continue with an eight-game league football schedule rather than expand to nine. Littlepage and Virginia advocated nine, Babcock and Virginia Tech eight.
"I wouldn't say I was disappointed, and I wasn't all that surprised," Littlepage said. "It wasn't one of those things I felt was a deal-breaker in terms of where I see ACC football being able to go in the future. It's debatable whether eight is better than nine. The folks that favored eight apparently had more persuasive arguments than those of us that (favored) nine."
Littlepage prefers nine because it's one fewer non-conference date to schedule and, most important, a ninth league game would "further enhance the rivalries and brand of the ACC."
Babcock acknowledged the downside of eight, which is playing Atlantic Division programs such as Florida State, Clemson and Louisville — Tech and Virginia compete in the Coastal — only once every six years. But he did not like the prospect of five road league games every other season, and he wants the added non-conference scheduling flexibility.
Neither Babcock nor Littlepage anticipates such radical overhaul short-term.
"I've been a proponent of the divisions, and I don't see that position changing," Littlepage said. "I just like the idea of more teams being able to play significant games deeper into the year, which results from the divisions."
Babcock and Littlepage agree that divisions create more balanced schedules and a more equitable method of determining who advances to the league title game.
"It seemed like there was strong consensus to remain in divisions," Babcock said, "but I guess as this evolving playoff model gets going, anything and everything is up to be looked at again.
http://touch.dailypress.com/#section/-1/...-80273014/
|
|
05-22-2014 09:25 AM |
|
lumberpack4
Banned
Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 09:25 AM)Maize Wrote: From the article:
Craig Littlepage and Whit Babcock took opposite sides in the ACC's recent football-scheduling debate but agree that the conference's Coastal and Atlantic divisions likely will remain intact, at least for the early years of college football's playoff era.
In separate interviews of 30-plus minutes Wednesday, the athletic directors from Virginia and Virginia Tech addressed the decisions and discussions central to the ACC's annual spring meetings last week in Florida. The issues included proposed NCAA reforms such as enhancing scholarships, easing time demands on athletes and granting governance autonomy to the ACC and its four power-conference brethren.
But the most important and concrete news from the meetings was the ACC's 8-6 vote to continue with an eight-game league football schedule rather than expand to nine. Littlepage and Virginia advocated nine, Babcock and Virginia Tech eight.
"I wouldn't say I was disappointed, and I wasn't all that surprised," Littlepage said. "It wasn't one of those things I felt was a deal-breaker in terms of where I see ACC football being able to go in the future. It's debatable whether eight is better than nine. The folks that favored eight apparently had more persuasive arguments than those of us that (favored) nine."
Littlepage prefers nine because it's one fewer non-conference date to schedule and, most important, a ninth league game would "further enhance the rivalries and brand of the ACC."
Babcock acknowledged the downside of eight, which is playing Atlantic Division programs such as Florida State, Clemson and Louisville — Tech and Virginia compete in the Coastal — only once every six years. But he did not like the prospect of five road league games every other season, and he wants the added non-conference scheduling flexibility.
Neither Babcock nor Littlepage anticipates such radical overhaul short-term.
"I've been a proponent of the divisions, and I don't see that position changing," Littlepage said. "I just like the idea of more teams being able to play significant games deeper into the year, which results from the divisions."
Babcock and Littlepage agree that divisions create more balanced schedules and a more equitable method of determining who advances to the league title game.
"It seemed like there was strong consensus to remain in divisions," Babcock said, "but I guess as this evolving playoff model gets going, anything and everything is up to be looked at again.
http://touch.dailypress.com/#section/-1/...-80273014/
No one who is in the Coastal, wants to give up the easiest path to the ACCCG. With the top two programs in the ACC in the Atlantic, and perhaps now the third, why ask to meet them more than you have to.
|
|
05-22-2014 09:42 AM |
|
Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
Currently 3 of the Top 4 teams are in the Atlantic Division...nobody in the Coastal has to beat out Florida State, Clemson and Louisville...the team to beat right now in that Division is UNC...easier task....
|
|
05-22-2014 10:13 AM |
|
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer
Heisman
Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
I can't speak for anyone else but I support divisions, not because I fear playing Florida State and Clemson every year, but rather because I have seen all of the mock ups of who our annual "rivals" would be and they're not appealing at all. Our "fear" stems more from losing the few teams left on our schedule that we care about playing against.
If the ACC could guarantee us that our annual rivals would be Virginia Tech, Miami and Syracuse, then I'd be all for the division-less set up. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be a part of their plan so our vote remains to retain the current set up.
Even within the divisional set up, if it would stop some of the whining from the Clemson and especially FSU fans, I would even advocate trading Georgia Tech for Louisville. However, I have been around long enough to understand that as soon as that trade was consummated, they would just start wailing about some other issue. Therefore I advocate sticking with things as is and letting them deal with it. You can't negotiate with terrorists.
|
|
05-22-2014 10:22 AM |
|
Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 10:22 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: I can't speak for anyone else but I support divisions, not because I fear playing Florida State and Clemson every year, but rather because I have seen all of the mock ups of who our annual "rivals" would be and they're not appealing at all. Our "fear" stems more from losing the few teams left on our schedule that we care about playing against.
If the ACC could guarantee us that our annual rivals would be Virginia Tech, Miami and Syracuse, then I'd be all for the division-less set up. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be a part of their plan so our vote remains to retain the current set up.
Even within the divisional set up, if it would stop some of the whining from the Clemson and especially FSU fans, I would even advocate trading Georgia Tech for Louisville. However, I have been around long enough to understand that as soon as that trade was consummated, they would just start wailing about some other issue. Therefore I advocate sticking with things as is and letting them deal with it. You can't negotiate with terrorists.
That would clean up a lot of it...FSU & Clemson would love to see IMO Georgia Tech on the schedule every year...for a selfish point of view would like to play Miami and Virginia Tech every year...
|
|
05-22-2014 10:36 AM |
|
Ragu
All American
Posts: 4,836
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 605
I Root For: FAU/FSU
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 10:22 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: I can't speak for anyone else but I support divisions, not because I fear playing Florida State and Clemson every year, but rather because I have seen all of the mock ups of who our annual "rivals" would be and they're not appealing at all. Our "fear" stems more from losing the few teams left on our schedule that we care about playing against.
If the ACC could guarantee us that our annual rivals would be Virginia Tech, Miami and Syracuse, then I'd be all for the division-less set up. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be a part of their plan so our vote remains to retain the current set up.
Even within the divisional set up, if it would stop some of the whining from the Clemson and especially FSU fans, I would even advocate trading Georgia Tech for Louisville. However, I have been around long enough to understand that as soon as that trade was consummated, they would just start wailing about some other issue. Therefore I advocate sticking with things as is and letting them deal with it. You can't negotiate with terrorists.
In other words, Pitt prefers the current system so they arent complaining yet FSU/Clemson fans are whiners because the current system doesnt suit them.
Yet you dont want to change it because it would go against Pitt . Thus you are in fact whining about the proposals to change it because it would go against your rooting interest
It's quite funny.
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2014 11:00 AM by Ragu.)
|
|
05-22-2014 10:59 AM |
|
ken d
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17,337
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
We all have a tendency to place greater weight on the current status quo than on history - even relatively recent history. We assume that whatever the current situation is will continue into the future.
So, many will argue against the current division structure because "3 of the top 4" programs are in the Atlantic Division. Fact of the matter is that since the league added Miami, VT and BC, each division has won five ACC championships. Right now, Clemson is strong. But their entire history shows alternating periods of strength and mediocrity. Who is to say they will be a contender five years from now (and that Miami and Va Tech won't)?
I can see the arguments for doing away with divisions, but I can also see the arguments for keeping them.
|
|
05-22-2014 10:59 AM |
|
Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 10:59 AM)ken d Wrote: We all have a tendency to place greater weight on the current status quo than on history - even relatively recent history. We assume that whatever the current situation is will continue into the future.
So, many will argue against the current division structure because "3 of the top 4" programs are in the Atlantic Division. Fact of the matter is that since the league added Miami, VT and BC, each division has won five ACC championships. Right now, Clemson is strong. But their entire history shows alternating periods of strength and mediocrity. Who is to say they will be a contender five years from now (and that Miami and Va Tech won't)?
I can see the arguments for doing away with divisions, but I can also see the arguments for keeping them.
FTR, I think I can speak for Louisville Alums/Fans...we are just happy we are in the ACC instead of the AAC-(Nothing against the AAC but it is no longer a Power League).
The other news in the article was the 8-6 Vote to keep the 8 Game schedule.
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2014 11:28 AM by Maize.)
|
|
05-22-2014 11:13 AM |
|
CardinalJim
Welcome to The New Age
Posts: 16,479
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
I concur Maize.
Louisville fans are glad not to be stuck with this schedule this season:
At Tulsa Golden Hurricane
Huskies Connecticut Huskies
At UCF Knights
Cincinnati Bearcats
At Houston Cougars
Memphis Tigers (HC)
At East Carolina Pirates
Temple Owls
It doesn't matter what division. Just tell us when and where and we'll be there.
CJ
|
|
05-22-2014 12:01 PM |
|
Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 12:01 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: I concur Maize.
Louisville fans are glad not to be stuck with this schedule this season:
At Tulsa Golden Hurricane
Huskies Connecticut Huskies
At UCF Knights
Cincinnati Bearcats
At Houston Cougars
Memphis Tigers (HC)
At East Carolina Pirates
Temple Owls
It doesn't matter what division. Just tell us when and where and we'll be there.
CJ
Wow...we dodge a bullet...the only school that peeks my interest is Cincinnati...feel bad for them because that is their schedule without UCF...
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2014 12:13 PM by Maize.)
|
|
05-22-2014 12:12 PM |
|
CardinalJim
Welcome to The New Age
Posts: 16,479
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 12:12 PM)Maize Wrote: (05-22-2014 12:01 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: I concur Maize.
Louisville fans are glad not to be stuck with this schedule this season:
At Tulsa Golden Hurricane
Huskies Connecticut Huskies
At UCF Knights
Cincinnati Bearcats
At Houston Cougars
Memphis Tigers (HC)
At East Carolina Pirates
Temple Owls
It doesn't matter what division. Just tell us when and where and we'll be there.
CJ
Wow...we dodge a bullet...the only school that peeks my interest is Cincinnati...feel bad for them because that is their schedule without UCF...
That is actually Tulane's conference schedule. Never heard exactly who took our spot in the schedule rotation. You are right though, huge bullet dodged.
CJ
|
|
05-22-2014 12:29 PM |
|
Marge Schott
Banned
Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
Coastal is full of p****ies.
|
|
05-22-2014 01:19 PM |
|
MKPitt
Special Teams
Posts: 843
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 51
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 01:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: Coastal is full of p****ies.
I think that's definitely true for the AD's and coaches.
As a fan, keeping divisions is about playing VT, Miami, and Syracuse every year, not about being scared. I would welcome FSU and Clemson to the Coastal division as well, in place of for example UVA and Duke, as long as Pitt didn't lose its annual games against those other teams.
|
|
05-22-2014 01:29 PM |
|
Hokie Mark
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,728
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 01:29 PM)MKPitt Wrote: As a fan, keeping divisions is about playing VT, Miami, and Syracuse every year, not about being scared. I would welcome FSU and Clemson to the Coastal division as well, in place of for example UVA and Duke, as long as Pitt didn't lose its annual games against those other teams.
+1. Bring on FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and whoever else ya got!
|
|
05-22-2014 01:37 PM |
|
Marge Schott
Banned
Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 01:29 PM)MKPitt Wrote: (05-22-2014 01:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: Coastal is full of p****ies.
I think that's definitely true for the AD's and coaches.
As a fan, keeping divisions is about playing VT, Miami, and Syracuse every year, not about being scared. I would welcome FSU and Clemson to the Coastal division as well, in place of for example UVA and Duke, as long as Pitt didn't lose its annual games against those other teams.
And keeping 2 of those 3 while playing FSU and Clemson at a much higher frequency is unacceptable?
|
|
05-22-2014 02:12 PM |
|
Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 02:12 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: (05-22-2014 01:29 PM)MKPitt Wrote: (05-22-2014 01:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: Coastal is full of p****ies.
I think that's definitely true for the AD's and coaches.
As a fan, keeping divisions is about playing VT, Miami, and Syracuse every year, not about being scared. I would welcome FSU and Clemson to the Coastal division as well, in place of for example UVA and Duke, as long as Pitt didn't lose its annual games against those other teams.
And keeping 2 of those 3 while playing FSU and Clemson at a much higher frequency is unacceptable?
Gotta point...a Pitt pod of Miami, Syracuse and Wake Forest for example while playing both a FSU & Clemson at least twice each in a 4 year period IS a very good trade off.
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2014 02:43 PM by Maize.)
|
|
05-22-2014 02:16 PM |
|
Marge Schott
Banned
Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic?
Just for comparison's sake, so we know what we're talking about:
* Current - Cuse, VT and Miami 4 times each in 4 years, 12 times each in 12 years (12/36 total); FSU and Clemson .67 times each in 4 years, 2 times each in 12 years (1.33/4 total); 13.33 total in 4 years, 40 total in 12 years
* Random Proposal You Made - Cuse and Miami 4 times each in 4 years, 12 times each in 12 years (8/24 total); FSU, Clemson and VT 2 times each in 4 years, 6 times each over 12 years (6/18 total); 14 total in 4 years, 42 total in 12 years
This is assuming the 3/5 setup. A 4/4 setup could theoretically and more realistically keep all 3 of the games Pitt wants while still allowing them to face FSU and Clemson more often.
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2014 02:53 PM by Marge Schott.)
|
|
05-22-2014 02:38 PM |
|
Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 02:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic?
Autocorrect...recheck what was written...
|
|
05-22-2014 02:43 PM |
|
Maize
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
(05-22-2014 02:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic?
Just for comparison's sake, so we know what we're talking about:
* Current - Cuse, VT and Miami 4 times each in 4 years, 12 times each in 12 years (12/36 total); FSU and Clemson .67 times each in 4 years, 2 times each in 12 years (1.33/4 total); 13.33 total in 4 years, 40 total in 12 years
* Random Proposal You Made - Cuse and Miami 4 times each in 4 years, 12 times each in 12 years (8/24 total); FSU, Clemson and VT 2 times each in 4 years, 6 times each over 12 years (6/18 total); 14 total in 4 years, 42 total in 12 years
This is assuming the 3/5 setup. A 4/4 setup could theoretically and more realistically keep all 3 of the games Pitt wants while still allowing them to face FSU and Clemson more often.
I agree with you on this...would much rather have the best two teams actually playing for the title AND get to play the entire league in a quicker fashion...the autocorrect screwed up what I was typing...
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2014 03:00 PM by Maize.)
|
|
05-22-2014 02:59 PM |
|
rc79
Water Engineer
Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
|
RE: Daily Press: VT's Babcock, U.Va.'s Littlepage talk ACC football scheduling
I don't get this Louisville 'coronation' at all. Right now, two teams top the league, then it's a tight grouping after that.
As an aside, the bottom three in the Atlantic ...yikes. If you check the final Sagarin Conference rankings for 2013, the divisions are balanced in terms of overall difficulty.
|
|
05-22-2014 03:05 PM |
|