I haven't seen any proposals lately for how the ACC might restructure its divisions to correct some existing problems (perceived or real). This proposal is something of a takeoff from the 3+5+5 models some have proposed.

My suggestion is to divide the league into six groups, or pods, based on geography. In the north, there would be two pods - Syracuse/Louisville and BC/Pitt. In the south there would also be two pods - FSU/Ga Tech and Clemson/Miami. In the center, the pods have three teams each - Virginia/UNC/Duke and Va Tech/NC State/Wake Forest.

Each year, two seven team divisions are formed by including one pod from each of the three regions. These pods would rotate every year so that in every four year cycle, each team in the league would play every other team twice - once home, once away.

That gives each team six games a year within its rotating division. Out of division, the two northern pods would play each other every year, as would the two southern divisions. In the central pod, each team would have one permanent partner (UVa/Va Tech, UNC/NC State and Duke/Wake) and would alternate between the other two central teams each year.

This arrangement gives every northern and central school one game against a Florida school each year. It puts FSU and Clemson in different divisions every year, but still has them play each other every year. So, both of them could be in the CCG in the same year. By having the four southern schools play each other every year, they are more likely to have an SOS that will help them with the selection committee. The 8 game balanced league schedule leaves plenty of room for OOC rivalry games and other attractive power conference opponents.

Sample schedule for Clemson would look like this:

Year 1

Syracuse
@Louisville
Ga Tech
@FSU
Miami
@Va Tech
NC State
@Wake Forest
Georgia/Auburn/Notre Dame
@South Carolina
G5
FCS

Year 2

@Syracuse
Louisville
@Ga Tech
FSU
Virginia
@Duke
UNC
@Miami
South Carolina
@Georgia/Auburn
G5
FCS

For another example, UNC plays Duke, Virginia and NC State every year, and alternates Va Tech and Wake Forest every other year. Each Virginia team has one home and one away game every year against a North Carolina school.

By projecting the league schedules into the future, the southern schools could balance their home/away schedules by having a second SEC power every year in addition to their annual SEC rivalry game, while still having seven home games.

My guess is that this arrangement would make it more difficult for an ACC team to go undefeated. But it would also help any ACC team with two losses to not be automatically left out of the NY6 bowl picture due to a weak schedule.

There is no way to accommodate every school's perfect schedule every year. But I think this answers a lot of the concerns I've seen expressed here about other models.

Does it answer yours?

I like but the Big 4 might not like it as much...but a solid proposal.

(02-27-2015 02:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I like but the Big 4 might not like it as much...but a solid proposal.

I'm assuming by the Big 4 you are referring to the four southern schools (as opposed to the 4 NC schools, who have long been accused of having disproportionate influence).

No doubt their schedules would likely be harder on average. My sense has been, however, based on fan comments on this site, that they would prefer the tougher schedule if it means they have a more attractive home schedule, which I think this gives them. They would only have to travel north once a year, and host one northern opponent each year.

Maybe some of their fans might weigh in on this. I could be reading their wishes wrong.

ken I meant the NC Mafia...

The math involved with these proposals makes my head hurt, but I've always been interested in a concept that maintained two divisions for championship game purposes, but the divisions were not static.

Can someone who can more easily crunch the numbers tell me what the longest two members could go without playing each other in this scenario?

And how well does this protect traditional games? First glance looks like FSU would either get Miami or Clemson each year, but not both. Am I reading that right?

I wish Louisville played these teams every year:

Play every year
1) Syracuse
2) Pitt
3) Virginia Tech
4) North Carolina
5) Clemson
6) Georgia Tech
7) FSU
8) Miami
9) Rotating game: Boston College, Virginia, Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina State
10) Kentucky Annual game.
11 and 12) Rotating Non-Conference Games Pool:
Alabama
Auburn
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Missouri
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
West Virginia

It would be hard, but win out and you would be in the National Championship hunt most years. And the kids would want to play that schedule.

I'm interested in it.

Divisionless with locked rivals (probably 3, possibly 4/5) is the way to go. Next best alternative is pods of 4 based on geography, and that can't happen unless Notre Dame and somebody else attractive (preferably Tennessee or Pedo State) comes in.

This forced maximum intermingling against each school's desired wishes (except Louisville, which is still all like "guys we're not in the Big East!"), is detrimental to long term security. THERE IS NO NEED for Georgia Tech to play Syracuse more than it plays North Carolina. THERE IS NO NEED for Boston College to play Florida State more than it plays Pittsburgh. Etc. Diversified scheduling for the sake of diversified scheduling should be eliminated. You guys are going to mess around and turn this into another SoCon mess.

(02-27-2015 03:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Divisionless with locked rivals (probably 3, possibly 4/5) is the way to go. Next best alternative is pods of 4 based on geography, and that can't happen unless Notre Dame and somebody else attractive (preferably Tennessee or Pedo State) comes in.

This forced maximum intermingling against each school's desired wishes (except Louisville, which is still all like "guys we're not in the Big East!"), is detrimental to long term security. THERE IS NO NEED for Georgia Tech to play Syracuse more than it plans North Carolina. THERE IS NO NEED for Boston College to play Florida State more than it plays Pittsburgh. Etc. Diversified scheduling for the sake of diversified scheduling should be eliminated. You guys are going to mess around and turn this into another SoCon mess.

Totally fine with keeping the original ACC schools happy, show me how that works for them. Please.

We need to keep our strength of conference very high and strong rated. I am supportive of whatever format gets this done.

(02-27-2015 03:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The math involved with these proposals makes my head hurt, but I've always been interested in a concept that maintained two divisions for championship game purposes, but the divisions were not static.

Can someone who can more easily crunch the numbers tell me what the longest two members could go without playing each other in this scenario?

And how well does this protect traditional games? First glance looks like FSU would either get Miami or Clemson each year, but not both. Am I reading that right?

Actually, no. FSU would play Clemson, Miami and Ga Tech every year.

(02-27-2015 03:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The math involved with these proposals makes my head hurt, but I've always been interested in a concept that maintained two divisions for championship game purposes, but the divisions were not static.

Can someone who can more easily crunch the numbers tell me what the longest two members could go without playing each other in this scenario?

And how well does this protect traditional games? First glance looks like FSU would either get Miami or Clemson each year, but not both. Am I reading that right?

I believe it is two years.

EDIT: In every four year cycle, FSU would play the three other southern teams twice at home and twice away. They would play every other team in the league once at home and once on the road. Every team in the league would play every other team at least once at home and once away every four years.

(02-27-2015 02:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I like but the Big 4 might not like it as much...but a solid proposal.

Why did you think the NC schools would have a problem with this? In any case, if they were the only ones not happy, I think that might increase the chances of it being adopted.

Duke might prefer to play Ga Tech every year, but I think UNC keeps every game they would consider a must have. Wake and State already don't get all three NC rivals every year, so they don't lose anything with this.

(02-27-2015 04:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 02:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I like but the Big 4 might not like it as much...but a solid proposal.

Why did you think the NC schools would have a problem with this? In any case, if they were the only ones not happy, I think that might increase the chances of it being adopted.

Duke might prefer to play Ga Tech every year, but I think UNC keeps every game they would consider a must have. Wake and State already don't get all three NC rivals every year, so they don't lose anything with this.

All I know is most NC-centric fans want to play all NC schools every year. I do like your proposal though...

(02-27-2015 03:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The math involved with these proposals makes my head hurt, but I've always been interested in a concept that maintained two divisions for championship game purposes, but the divisions were not static.

Can someone who can more easily crunch the numbers tell me what the longest two members could go without playing each other in this scenario?

And how well does this protect traditional games? First glance looks like FSU would either get Miami or Clemson each year, but not both. Am I reading that right?

Divisions which rotate could allow every team to play every other team home and away in a 4-year cycle, assuming you do it right. The cycle time is the same as the 3+5+5 method.

The advantage of the 3+5+5 is that EVERY team gets 3 permanent rivals, whereas with the other play there would have to be fixed pods - 2 X 3 teams and 2 X 4 teams - so some teams would have 2 "rivals" and others would have 3.

Oh, and it's virtually impossible to give everyone their preferred rivals in the rotating division plan; at least in the 3+5+5 plan, as long as both teams agree they are each other's rivals they get to play every year (up to 3 teams).

(02-27-2015 06:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ould allow every team to play every other team home and away in a 4-year cycle, assuming you do it right.

A goal which I consider to be without merit.

(02-27-2015 06:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 03:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  The math involved with these proposals makes my head hurt, but I've always been interested in a concept that maintained two divisions for championship game purposes, but the divisions were not static.

Can someone who can more easily crunch the numbers tell me what the longest two members could go without playing each other in this scenario?

And how well does this protect traditional games? First glance looks like FSU would either get Miami or Clemson each year, but not both. Am I reading that right?

Divisions which rotate could allow every team to play every other team home and away in a 4-year cycle, assuming you do it right. The cycle time is the same as the 3+5+5 method.

The advantage of the 3+5+5 is that EVERY team gets 3 permanent rivals, whereas with the other play there would have to be fixed pods - 2 X 3 teams and 2 X 4 teams - so some teams would have 2 "rivals" and others would have 3.

Oh, and it's virtually impossible to give everyone their preferred rivals in the rotating division plan; at least in the 3+5+5 plan, as long as both teams agree they are each other's rivals they get to play every year (up to 3 teams).

This proposal also gives every team 3 permanent rivals. In VT's case those would be Virginia, NC State and Wake Forest, which might not be your first three choices. You would also play either Duke or UNC every year. So, of the five schools in NC and VA, you would play four of them every year.

(02-27-2015 06:43 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-27-2015 06:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ould allow every team to play every other team home and away in a 4-year cycle, assuming you do it right.

A goal which I consider to be without merit.

So you want a conference where each school gets to choose a few leper schools and play them once a decade?