(12-29-2015 07:08 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will be better off when it expands and moves to four divisions. Nothing new is going to happen during the 2 division era because the 2 division era is extremely limited in the number of days that it has left in it's lifetime.

Wonder how 3 divisions would work scheduling-wise?

Northeast

BC
SU
Pitt
WVU (since I don't see ND joining full-time)
UL

Mid-Atlantic

UNC
UVa
VT
Duke
NC State

South

FSU
Miami
Clemson
GT
Wake

Seems like the above solves most of the issues raised in this thread and others (outside of scheduling issues a 3 divisional set-up would create).

Cheers,
Neil

This is still the best format that I have seen proposed for future ACC scheduling.

It's also easiest to dissolve too!
Take that Northeast division combined with several B1G schools (Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland) add in Temple and UConn and you have yourself quite a conference.

(12-30-2015 09:10 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 08:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  <Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Just like every other kend post when he gets butt-hurt when people point out the utter worthlessness of the NC schools he so adores.>

Football rules the roost, and the sooner you, the rest of the ACC fanboys, and the ACC itself get the point the better the conference will be.

http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/Q...lips-10621

Quote:For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80% of it is generated by football. As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that football has to be very, very relevant.

Until something else comes along that generates 80% of the conference's revenue then football is the only thing that matters.

Another worthless post by an inveterate Clemson homer. You can keep repeating the same BS over and over, and you can shout it louder. But it's still BS. Football is the only thing that matters to you. Everybody gets that.

What you don't seem to get or acknowledge is how much effort the ACC has put into strengthening itself, and how much that effort has paid off. Now that Clemson is finally relevant again in football, you want the league to bend over backwards to cater to you at everybody else's expense. Ain't gonna happen. The league's members aren't that stupid.

But please, keep on whining. We don't want Florida State fans to corner the market on that, too.

(12-30-2015 09:10 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/Q...lips-10621

Quote:For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80% of it is generated by football. As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that football has to be very, very relevant.

Until something else comes along that generates 80% of the conference's revenue then football is the only thing that matters.

Thi quote was never true. It was an offhand quote made by Swofford when ACC football was under attack, that at the time would never be verified. Meanwhile it was well known when the ACC signed their new deal in 2008, before the sports rights explosion, that one of the prime reasons for their increase was getting the BB rights formerly owned by Raycom in ACC markets.

Let's put it this way, for this quote to be true, ND's share of the ACC TV contract would have to be $3.5 million, since they only get 1/15 of the BB money. . There's is more than double that from TV alone.

I don't know what the ACC's rationale was for splitting up the teams the way it did. I suppose it reflected an attempt to achieve some sort of rough "balance of power". But I would definitely have done it either by strict geography, or else -- and this is my true preference -- have the "pre-1991" division and the "post-1991" division, like so:

Clemson .................. Florida State
Duke ....................... Syracuse
Georgia Tech ............. Miami/FL
UNC ......................... Pittsburgh
NC State ................... Louisville
Virginia .................... Virginia Tech
Wake Forest ............. Boston College

I would not have permanent rivals from the other division, but if you insist on that, then I'd match them up with the team on the same row in the opposite column.

(12-28-2015 10:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is a good idea... if you want to send UVA racing to the Big Ten!

Yeah, for this reason you can't have just one "old ACC" team grouped with all of the ex-Big East teams. Now, what could work is this:

North:
BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke

South:
Louisville, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

in your dreams.

(12-31-2015 12:48 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 09:10 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/Q...lips-10621

Quote:For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80% of it is generated by football. As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that football has to be very, very relevant.

Until something else comes along that generates 80% of the conference's revenue then football is the only thing that matters.

Thi quote was never true. It was an offhand quote made by Swofford when ACC football was under attack, that at the time would never be verified. Meanwhile it was well known when the ACC signed their new deal in 2008, before the sports rights explosion, that one of the prime reasons for their increase was getting the BB rights formerly owned by Raycom in ACC markets.

Let's put it this way, for this quote to be true, ND's share of the ACC TV contract would have to be $3.5 million, since they only get 1/15 of the BB money. . There's is more than double that from TV alone.

When Notre Dame originally joined the ACC they agreed to a 20% share, which would be consistent with the idea that football was 80% of the TV deal. Also, there were others at ESPN who stated the 80/20 split before Swofford ever said it.

(12-31-2015 03:12 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't know what the ACC's rationale was for splitting up the teams the way it did. I suppose it reflected an attempt to achieve some sort of rough "balance of power". But I would definitely have done it either by strict geography, or else -- and this is my true preference -- have the "pre-1991" division and the "post-1991" division, like so:

Clemson .................. Florida State
Duke ....................... Syracuse
Georgia Tech ............. Miami/FL
UNC ......................... Pittsburgh
NC State ................... Louisville
Virginia .................... Virginia Tech
Wake Forest ............. Boston College

I would not have permanent rivals from the other division, but if you insist on that, then I'd match them up with the team on the same row in the opposite column.

Hubris. They think they can just throw things out there and it will work. Even serious fans have trouble remembering who is in which division. That's not a good recipe for success. Even Jim Delany was able to figure out his legends and leaders was a stupid idea. Swofford seems incapable.

If they really want to do anything in the northeast, they need to have Pitt, SU and BC together in a northern division. FSU, GT and Clemson need to be together in a southern division. Then you either put all the Carolina schools in the south with Miami in the north; or put Miami and 3 of UNC, Duke, NCSU and UVA in the south with FSU, GT and Clemson.

(01-01-2016 12:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  Hubris. They think they can just throw things out there and it will work. Even serious fans have trouble remembering who is in which division. That's not a good recipe for success. Even Jim Delany was able to figure out his legends and leaders was a stupid idea. Swofford seems incapable.

All true, especially the bolded sentence.

Quote:If they really want to do anything in the northeast, they need to have Pitt, SU and BC together in a northern division.

True, and my suggestion does that, along with Miami and VT from the old BE days.

(12-31-2015 03:12 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't know what the ACC's rationale was for splitting up the teams the way it did. I suppose it reflected an attempt to achieve some sort of rough "balance of power". But I would definitely have done it either by strict geography, or else -- and this is my true preference -- have the "pre-1991" division and the "post-1991" division, like so:

Clemson .................. Florida State
Duke ....................... Syracuse
Georgia Tech ............. Miami/FL
UNC ......................... Pittsburgh
NC State ................... Louisville
Virginia .................... Virginia Tech
Wake Forest ............. Boston College

I would not have permanent rivals from the other division, but if you insist on that, then I'd match them up with the team on the same row in the opposite column.

Yes, mine is pretty similar. Just that I would have flipped FSU and Virginia is one option. The other option would put FSU and Miami in the south and Wake Forest and either UVA or NCSU in the north.