This divisional realignment is a mixture of division-less scenario and four pods scenario. I had originally put something similar in Techsideline and modified it now (sorry if somebody had already posted something similar).

4 geographic pods


North: BC, Cuse, Pitt, UL
South: FSU, Cane, CLEM, GT
Research Triangle (RT): UNC, DUKE, NCSU
Virginia and Winston Salem (VW): VT, UVA, WFU

Teams in three-team pods will have cross rivals: UNC-UVA, Duke-WFU, NCSU-VT

Year 1: Atlantic Div. consists of North & RT pods; Coastal Div. is South & VW pods.
Year 2: Atlantic Div. consists of North &VW pods; Coastal Div. is South & RT pods. (this is similar to North-South divisional setup people discussed)
Year 3: same as Year 1 (with opposite locations from last meeting)
Year 4: same as Year 2 (with opposite locations from last meeting)

North pod will never be in the same division with South pod but they will play two teams in the south pod each year. RT pod will never be in the same division with VW pod but they will play two teams in VW pod (one with a cross rival, and another team in a VW). In this way, every team plays every team at least twice every four years.

Examples
For example, Syracuse’s schedule will be like this.

Odd year: PITT, UL, BC, UNC, DUKE, NCSU, Cane, CLEM
Even year: PITT, UL, BC, VT, UVA, WFU, FSU, GT

And VT’s schedule

Odd year: UVA, WFU, NCSU, FSU, Cane, CLEM, GT, Duke
Even year: UVA, WFU, NCSU, BC, Cuse, Pitt, UL, UNC

Effectively, each team has three permanent rivals although we keep two divisions.

3 permanent rivals
UNC: DUKE, NCSU, UVA
Duke: NCSU, UNC, WFU
NCSU: Duke, UNC, VT
UVA: VT, WFU, UNC
VT: UVA, WFU, NCSU
WFU: VT, UVA, DUKE
BC: PITT, CUES, BC
Cuse: PITT, UL, BC
Pitt: UL, CUES, BC
UL: PITT, CUES, BC
FSU: GT, CANE, CLEM
CANE: FSU, GT, CLEM
CLEM: FSU, CANE, GT
GT: FSU, CANE, CLEM

Pros:
1. Three permanent rivals
2. Clear cut championship game as we have two divisions
3. No NCAA approval is needed
4. Geographically aligned pods
5. Everyone plays every one at least once two years
6. Still only 8 conference games

Con:
1. Not very balanced as North pod is MUCH weaker than South pod. (But BIG has a similar issue).

If the divisional balance is too big a problem, an alternative grouping is
North: BC, Cuse, Pitt, UL
NC: UNC, DUKE, NCSU, WFU
Lower South: FSU, CLEM, GT
Upper South: Cane, UVA, VT (with FSU-CANE, Clem-UVA, and GT-VT cross rival)
This has a better balance (hopefully VT and Miami recover) but UVA and UNC don’t play each other every year unless they schedule the matchup as an out-of-conference game in off years.

I think it can work & is a good alternative to not having divisions. I suggested this in another thread but with maybe different groupings. I think it's a good compromise for all.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Nice work but my vote is to keep things as they currently stand.

I can not stress this link enough:

http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

having a set of 5 games & a set of 3 games rotating on different cycles makes for some very challenging schedule making

(08-23-2014 12:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I can not stress this link enough:

http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

having a set of 5 games & a set of 3 games rotating on different cycles makes for some very challenging schedule making

I dont agree. If its home/away that causes problems then play the schedule back to back then rotate. Or play your set games back to back. It can be done.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Why have pods? Let everybody have 3 permanent rivals and then play 5 other teams. The following year play the other 5 teams. No divisions. Top 2 teams play for the title. Or...have 4 permanent rivals and play 5 other teams in a 9 game schedule.

Not opposed to pods but I do not like the unbalanced pods. I think it is more important to balance the pods on strength in the big 3 sports (football, baseball, basketball) than on geography. The southern division proposed is way too top heavy.

I don't dislike a divionless structure. It gives a lot more flexibility in terms of choosing three permanent rivals. But it has its own downside. The NCAA may not approve it. But more than that, I bet there will be a lot of controversy in picking the top two teams. Let's say, FSU is 12-0 and Clemson and VT are 11-1 with VT and Clemson didn't play each other. Who will be the second best team after FSU? I remember back in 2004 when the ACC had only 11 teams (and no division), some people complained of VT's outright ACC title becasue VT didn't play FSU.

I guess I've come to the point where all I want to see is a shift from 6 in-division and 2 cross division games to 5 in-division with 3 cross division games. If the ACC would do that, I'd be happy.

(08-23-2014 08:34 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I don't dislike a divionless structure. It gives a lot more flexibility in terms of choosing three permanent rivals. But it has its own downside. The NCAA may not approve it. But more than that, I bet there will be a lot of controversy in picking the top two teams. Let's say, FSU is 12-0 and Clemson and VT are 11-1 with VT and Clemson didn't play each other. Who will be the second best team after FSU? I remember back in 2004 when the ACC had only 11 teams (and no division), some people complained of VT's outright ACC title becasue VT didn't play FSU.

That's why (IMO) you need to take the best team from the Northern half vs. the best from the Southern half - regardless of balance.

Con: Southern half is (presumed) stronger
Pro: Gives every team a "division" to shoot for, guarantees Charlotte will always be a geographic middle-ground (important for ACC CG attendance), and promotes the natural development of 2 distinct styles within the league.

Yeah there could be a scenario where it is difficult to determine the second place team. Tie breakers to determine this can be very complex, check out the NFL tiebreakers -- how many lawyers did it take to construct that? So, have 2 divisions and you can still have teams with equal win/loss records and a need for tiebreakers. Why do the divisions have to be geographic? Why do they have to be the same every year?

(08-23-2014 12:59 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(08-23-2014 12:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I can not stress this link enough:

http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

having a set of 5 games & a set of 3 games rotating on different cycles makes for some very challenging schedule making

I dont agree. If its home/away that causes problems then play the schedule back to back then rotate. Or play your set games back to back. It can be done.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

that's "the fix" but it still means that teams would have to play literally the same schedule in a two year period which sucks and it still makes conference dodging possible. when you have teams skipping each other for two straight years it's still a competitive advantage

(08-23-2014 09:51 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Nice work but my vote is to keep things as they currently stand.

I agree.

(08-24-2014 05:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-23-2014 09:51 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Nice work but my vote is to keep things as they currently stand.

I agree.

Of course two mediocre schools from the crap-tier division want to keep the status quo.

Big shocker there.

(08-24-2014 10:41 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Of course two mediocre schools from the crap-tier division want to keep the status quo.

Big shocker there.

Once again, outstanding and enlightening insight on the subject at hand.

Why, thank you.