(08-05-2014 02:26 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  THIS. just to take partial credit, i had the same idea.

(08-05-2014 01:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IMO, the only compromise which (a) allows every team to play home & home in 4 years, (b) allows for division champs, and © has a chance of actually passing a vote is this:

* 8 games, 4 from each division (i.e. NOT required to play all 6 teams in your own division - this is key!)
* 3 permanent rivals: 2 from your own division, 1 from the other
* take the team with the best record from each division for the ACC CG
* tie-breakers: 1) best ACC record, 2) best record in your own division, 3) best overall record, 4) highest ranking

If you also want to go to North/South "divisions" at the same time, it might also pass.

That's because it it the RIGHT answer!

No it isnt the right answer. It still doesnt get the right matchups played every year.

(08-05-2014 02:51 PM)Ragu Wrote:  No it isnt the right answer. It still doesnt get the right matchups played every year.

Yes, it does.

FSU would play Clemson, Miami, and one other Atlantic -OR- Southern team every year, and every other ACC team twice in four years.

If FSU and GT agree that they should play each other annually, I have no problem with that - and it fits nicely in this 3 + 5 format (w/ North & South divisions).

Typical schedule for FSU might be:
years 1/2: Miami, Clemson, UVa, GT, WFU, UNC, Pitt, Syracuse
years 3/4: Miami, Clemson, UVa, NC St, Duke, VT, Louisville, BC

BTW, before anyone complains that maybe the 2 best teams are in the South - SO WHAT? You really want to get 2 teams into the playoffs, so having them play each other TWICE is NOT the answer!

In case Duke, UNC and/or UVA start whining about not having a shot at winning their division... if the ACC goes "North / South" (or better yet, "East / South"), the pseudo-divisions could be:

East: BC, SU, Pitt, UVa, VT, Duke, UNC
South: NCSU, WFU, UL, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

skip 2 teams/year in your own division; skip 3 teams in the other division. Take the team with the best record in each division. VOILA!

UVA - no, you won't be "stuck" playing Northern teams all the time! A typical schedule might be:
permanent: VT, UNC, GT
rotating #1: BC, Pitt, WFU, FSU, Louisville
rotating #2: SU, Duke, NC St, Clemson, Miami
(Southern teams in bold, Northern teams in red)

(08-05-2014 12:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 11:54 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  Yes there is to be a vote in August on the 7th I believe, most people inside the ACC believe it will pass pretty easily…..You really don't want to piss off two power conferences right now by denying them something that is pretty important to them.

Everyone there is still another hill to climb: Portions of the athletic departments of VT, Duke, UVA,and somewhat UNC, Miami & GT are opposed to changing or getting rid of divisions. If you guys are fans of basically any coastal school and wish for no divisions you have to get to working those phones and emails. Duke has already discussed scheduling NC State OOC….Which is just crazy. There has to be a way to where the four NC play each other at least every other year or so. State not playing Duke and Wake not playing Carolina but every 6 years is ridiculous, same goes for FSU/Clemson playing GT/VT.

Portions?

You mean football don't you?

I don't think it's an issue in other sports. The wild cards are Notre Dame and Miami.

I don't know if Notre Dame's vote counts in a matter that relates to football. They are a full member of the conference, but I don't remember what happens or is the tradition when there is a matter where all the schools do not participate.

For instance, does Syracuse vote on a baseball matter? Does NC State vote on a lacrosse matter? Would Notre Dame abstain? Would this decision be considered part of the TV policies or regular league policies?

Miami is the one school in the Coastal that does not lose anything with a change in football division since they are already playing FSU every year.

It may be that you have enough votes for a change, but not enough votes to select a specific change.

What I mean by portions is voices in the athletic depts have opposing views, like at Duke Coach Cutcliffe seriously opposes division changes, while the AD is open to discussion he is seen as being the most opposed to dropping divisions. Golden, Beamer and Fedora also like the setup the ACC has now, but for the most part the AD's at those schools have an open mind to it, but don't get it twisted the coaches have a lot of pull here. As of right now your two biggest dissenters are UVA and Duke followed by the rest of the Coastal schools.

The main breaking point is this….Would Duke have had a shot at the ACC title game last year….NO….GT the year before that….NO… The coastal teams see divisions as the best way to reach the title game

Convince them that they still have an EQUAL chance to make the championship game and you got a deal

(08-05-2014 03:22 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  The main breaking point is this….Would Duke have had a shot at the ACC title game last year….NO….GT the year before that….NO… The coastal teams see divisions as the best way to reach the title game

Convince them that they still have an EQUAL chance to make the championship game and you got a deal

Under my proposed N/S 3+5, Duke would've played:
UNC, WFU, UVa, VT, SU, Pitt, BC, Miami

who they actually played:
UNC, WFU, UVa, VT, Pitt, Miami, GT, NC St

so, unless anyone thinks SU & BC are much tougher than GT and NC St, I don't see why Duke should have any problems with it!

(08-05-2014 03:07 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:51 PM)Ragu Wrote:  No it isnt the right answer. It still doesnt get the right matchups played every year.

Yes, it does.

FSU would play Clemson, Miami, and one other Atlantic -OR- Southern team every year, and every other ACC team twice in four years.

If FSU and GT agree that they should play each other annually, I have no problem with that - and it fits nicely in this 3 + 5 format (w/ North & South divisions).

Typical schedule for FSU might be:
years 1/2: Miami, Clemson, UVa, GT, WFU, UNC, Pitt, Syracuse
years 3/4: Miami, Clemson, UVa, NC St, Duke, VT, Louisville, BC

BTW, before anyone complains that maybe the 2 best teams are in the South - SO WHAT? You really want to get 2 teams into the playoffs, so having them play each other TWICE is NOT the answer!

I've got no problem with something along these lines.

(08-05-2014 03:22 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  The main breaking point is this….Would Duke have had a shot at the ACC title game last year….NO….GT the year before that….NO… The coastal teams see divisions as the best way to reach the title game

Convince them that they still have an EQUAL chance to make the championship game and you got a deal

This right here is the problem with the ACC wrapped up in 19 words.

Maybe instead of worrying about an artificial boost the Coastal teams should worry more about improving their programs to the point they wouldn;t have to compete in the handicapped division.

I think the problem is the coaches and AD's are looking for the best shot for their team to win a Championship, and you have to admit the easier division to get to the Championship game is through the coastal.However, I think AD's have to realize fans want to see fun games against teams that are geographically close throughout the season, there is no reason why state bordering teams Clemson/UNC don't play every year. N/S makes sense for some but it isolates others, that is why no divisions makes the most sense. Kaplony the problem isn't only an ACC problem, but I agree it is a major problem for our conference that needs addressed

(08-05-2014 04:44 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  Kaplony the problem isn't only an ACC problem, but I agree it is a major problem for our conference that needs addressed

The problem is that there are too many teams in the conference.

Even if you keep the divisions the same, the 3-5-5 schedule proposed for a no divisions set up would still be possible. The only downside I see is the tie breaking scenario potentially screwing a good team. (But isn't that pretty much the way college football works)

(08-05-2014 04:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:22 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  The main breaking point is this….Would Duke have had a shot at the ACC title game last year….NO….GT the year before that….NO… The coastal teams see divisions as the best way to reach the title game

Convince them that they still have an EQUAL chance to make the championship game and you got a deal

This right here is the problem with the ACC wrapped up in 19 words.

Maybe instead of worrying about an artificial boost the Coastal teams should worry more about improving their programs to the point they wouldn;t have to compete in the handicapped division.

After reading this I would have to agree. The goal should be to have 2 great teams in the CCGso that maybe people would give a crap about it & watch. Where would the B1G be if they had to give Indiana a shot at the CCG or the SEC with Kentucky? No divisions or do pods. We want to play ALL of the ACC.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(08-05-2014 06:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:22 PM)westmc9th Wrote:  The main breaking point is this….Would Duke have had a shot at the ACC title game last year….NO….GT the year before that….NO… The coastal teams see divisions as the best way to reach the title game

Convince them that they still have an EQUAL chance to make the championship game and you got a deal

This right here is the problem with the ACC wrapped up in 19 words.

Maybe instead of worrying about an artificial boost the Coastal teams should worry more about improving their programs to the point they wouldn;t have to compete in the handicapped division.

After reading this I would have to agree. The goal should be to have 2 great teams in the CCGso that maybe people would give a crap about it & watch. Where would the B1G be if they had to give Indiana a shot at the CCG or the SEC with Kentucky? No divisions or do pods. We want to play ALL of the ACC.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. Improve your team to compete rather than trying to take shortcuts. The teams who give a damn about football and the premier matchups should be the focus. I am tired of the basketball schools running the football product into the ground.

A lot of the discussion on this subject seems to center around the perception that the two best teams in the conference are FSU and Clemson and since they are in the same division they can't meet for a championship. While the average strength of the two divisions is nearly identical in most years, it's because the Atlantic consists of chicken and feathers - containing both the strongest and the weakest teams, while the Coastal has no dominant team and most teams are almost equal in strength.

At the time the league expanded with the addition of Miami, VT and BC, I believe the expectation was that to prevent this very problem, FSU and Miami should be put in different divisions. This also had the advantage of giving every school one regular visit to Florida, which was viewed as important for recruiting.

That didn't exactly work out, since Miami never lived up to the promise of its early Big East domination days.

There were also some rivalry considerations that put UNC, Duke, Virginia, Va Tech and Georgia Tech in the same division. Those considerations are still there.

So why not just switch Florida State and Miami? Everybody still gets a Florida division partner every year, all those Coastal rivalries stay intact, and FSU and Clemson are now in different divisions with the potential to meet in a CCG without it being a rematch. You haven't changed anybody's permanent crossover opponent, since FSU and Miami were each other's.

Of course, the problem with this approach is that there is no guarantee that the top teams today will be the top teams tomorrow. But that's always going to be a risk, even if you do nothing.

^ The other problem is you take away FSU/Clemson being an every year game which would be ridiculous. Those are the best 2 fanbases in the ACC for football.

I think North/South divisions with UVA in the North is a recipe for sending UVA to the Big Ten. Might even cause UNC and Duke to return the SEC's calls. It's the only scenario I can imagine where those kinds of kooky internet realignment things West Virginia and UConn fans love to talk about might happen.

How about 3 permanent rivals, 5 rotating games, and the championship game is between the two teams with the best conference records after tiebreakers who did not play each other in the regular season? Last year with the same regular season matchups it still would have been Duke and FSU.

I think an equal shot at the championship for everyone is critical, in the sense that it should be based on objective and fair criteria (not in the sense that things should be set up so that everyone actually has an equal shot at making it to the game and winning the championship). Using last year, FSU earned the right to play for the championship by having the best record in the ACC (8-0). Look to the school with the next best record, 7-1 Clemson. They lost it on the field to FSU. Next best record? 6-2 Duke hasn't had the "opportunity" to face what was probably one of the best college teams of all time yet? Send 'em up. (We saw what happened). Seems fair to me.

(08-05-2014 07:07 PM)Ragu Wrote:  ^ The other problem is you take away FSU/Clemson being an every year game which would be ridiculous. Those are the best 2 fanbases in the ACC for football.

But isn't there, shouldn't there be, a tradeoff for having these two play each other every year? It's fine to let that stand as a rivalry game, but the tradeoff is that each of these schools should only get one bite at the apple every year. It's the same reason a conference like the Big 12 should not have both a full round robin and a championship game. It creates a situation where a team that lost head to head during the regular season gets a do-over in the CCG. If they win the rematch, and finish the year with a 1-1 record against the other top team, why are they the champ just because they won the second game?

Let's say Clemson beats FSU in the regular season and finishes 8-0 in conference. FSU finishes 7-1. If FSU wins the rematch they are both 8-1 having split against each other. So why should FSU be the champ and not Clemson? And if Clemson wins both games, who is to say that that a 6-2 team wasn't as deserving of a shot at the title as FSU if they didn't play head to head?

There's just no good answer.

I'm sure Fedora is for divisions & having something to play for etc but he also understands having FSU & Clemson on the schedule could boost recruiting even more

Quit crying and just win!