In the thread thats now closed discussing a B1G/ACC feud it mentioned how the ACC was pushing for deregulation because members were upset with the divisional set up and cited UNC and Wake playing in a OOC game as a sign of that.

Why doesn't the ACC just do a traditional ACC division and a traditional Big East division? That way the teams who have historically and at least in the last 20 years have a history playing each other keep playing? A few permanent cross overs helps quell some concerns over long standing rivalries.

South (Traditional ACC):

FSU (Permanent game vs Miami)
GT
Clemson
UNC (Permanent game vs UVA)
Wake
NC St
Duke

North (Traditional Big East):

Miami (Permanent game vs FSU
BC
Cuse
Pitt
UofL
VT
UVA (Permanent game vs UNC)

Miami, VT and UofL should be stronger moving forward and can be a good balance to the southern strength in FSU and Clemson. UVA made a good hire in Bronco Mendenhall (Best FB name ever!) who could add even more strength top that division. Plus the northern division still has ties to florida for recruiting purposes.

For starters, UVA would hate that and they have a credible threat of leaving.

(01-25-2016 01:40 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  For starters, UVA would hate that and they have a credible threat of leaving.

Well the current divisional model everyone hates and could cause teams to leave sooooo...

UNC and Wake had to schedule a OOC game because they don't play enough.

(01-25-2016 01:54 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 01:40 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  For starters, UVA would hate that and they have a credible threat of leaving.

Well the current divisional model everyone hates and could cause teams to leave sooooo...

UNC and Wake had to schedule a OOC game because they don't play enough.

Your initial premise is wrong, especially as it relates to teams that might actually leave.

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  (Traditional Big East)

Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

IF the main complaint is that the ACC teams don't play each other enough, there are plenty of solutions within the current rules.

FOR example, the ACC could go to non-permanent rotating divisions. Different divisions set up on a 4 year rotating schedule. Nobody knows outside the ACC what teams are in what divisions, so no big deal if the divisions are different each year.

Another option is go to pods. You don't need 16 teams for pods, you could have a combo of 3-team and 4-team pods.

Another option is to make the divisions based not previous year's ranking or pre-season rankings. I do not like that idea myself.

BUT don't tell me the ACC does not have options.

(01-25-2016 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  (Traditional Big East)

Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

VT played FB in the conference for 12-13 years. Also many of those schools plyed each other as independents. Miami played Pitt, BC, Cuse and the other NE independents regularly. And i meant traditional Big East in the fact that 6 of those 7 teams were all once BE members and that 5 of them were in the conference together at one time. Only WVU, Temple and Rutgers are missing from that configuration.

VT not playing basketball against BC and Cuse have nothing to do with the fact that they played football together for over a decade.

I'm not hearing any legit excuses for NOT doing this common sense divisional alignment.

I don't think you can do a straight North/South divide with the ACC (any more than you do pure East/West in the SEC or Big Ten). What you can do is split North Carolina down the middle, then shift teams around to come up with North-ish/South-ish.

The geographic divisions I think have the best chance of passing are:

ACC-N: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, UNC, Duke
ACC-S: NC State, Wake, Louisville, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

You'd almost have no choice but to go 9 conference games in order to give every ACC-N team a game against either FSU, Miami or GT (i.e. the recruiting ground states). It could work, IMO...

9 game schedule will never work.

(01-25-2016 02:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  (Traditional Big East)

Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

VT played FB in the conference for 12-13 years. Also many of those schools plyed each other as independents. Miami played Pitt, BC, Cuse and the other NE independents regularly. And i meant traditional Big East in the fact that 6 of those 7 teams were all once BE members and that 5 of them were in the conference together at one time. Only WVU, Temple and Rutgers are missing from that configuration.

VT not playing basketball against BC and Cuse have nothing to do with the fact that they played football together for over a decade.

I'm Ignoring legit excuses for NOT doing this divisional alignment.

FIFY

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  In the thread thats now closed discussing a B1G/ACC feud it mentioned how the ACC was pushing for deregulation because members were upset with the divisional set up and cited UNC and Wake playing in a OOC game as a sign of that.

Why doesn't the ACC just do a traditional ACC division and a traditional Big East division? That way the teams who have historically and at least in the last 20 years have a history playing each other keep playing? A few permanent cross overs helps quell some concerns over long standing rivalries.

South (Traditional ACC):

FSU (Permanent game vs Miami)
GT
Clemson
UNC (Permanent game vs UVA)
Wake
NC St
Duke

North (Traditional Big East):

Miami (Permanent game vs FSU
BC
Cuse
Pitt
UofL
VT
UVA (Permanent game vs UNC)

Miami, VT and UofL should be stronger moving forward and can be a good balance to the southern strength in FSU and Clemson. UVA made a good hire in Bronco Mendenhall (Best FB name ever!) who could add even more strength top that division. Plus the northern division still has ties to florida for recruiting purposes.

This or:
Miami
FSU
Clemson
GT
UNC
Duke
NCSU**

Wake
UVA**
VT
Pitt
SU
BC
Lou

Possibly switch these two

The reason, as far as I can tell, is that nobody wants them.

(01-25-2016 03:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The reason, as far as I can tell, is that nobody wants them.

They prefer divisions that even devoted fans have trouble remembering.

(01-25-2016 03:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 03:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The reason, as far as I can tell, is that nobody wants them.

They prefer divisions that even devoted fans have trouble remembering.

Apparently so. I am no devoted ACC fan but I cannot tell you right now which division ND is in for any particular sport.

I would have to look it up.

While the SEC was able to severe some historical rivalries (Tennessee and Alabama, Auburn and Georgia), the ACC struggles.

Virginia and North Carolina wish to be the same division. North Carolina and Duke wish to be in the same division. Having four schools in North Carolina makes for a great bus league but has its challenges.

The solution has been to put Duke and North Carolina in one division and State and Wake in the other division.

In addition- Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson wish to be in the same division.

Understanding this- North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia make a core of a division.

Let's say that we set up our division like this-

North
North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College

South
NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Louisville

We still have the same issue as the current conference divisions.

(01-25-2016 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  (Traditional Big East)

Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

VT played FB in the conference for 12-13 years. Also many of those schools plyed each other as independents. Miami played Pitt, BC, Cuse and the other NE independents regularly. And i meant traditional Big East in the fact that 6 of those 7 teams were all once BE members and that 5 of them were in the conference together at one time. Only WVU, Temple and Rutgers are missing from that configuration.

VT not playing basketball against BC and Cuse have nothing to do with the fact that they played football together for over a decade.

I'm Ignoring legit excuses for NOT doing this divisional alignment.

FIFY

Name one common sense reason not to do this? "X team wont like it so the other 13 schools have to say okay and scrap that idea." But go ahead and watch more ACC teams play each other in OOC and act like you guys have your act together.

(01-25-2016 03:52 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  (Traditional Big East)

Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

VT played FB in the conference for 12-13 years. Also many of those schools plyed each other as independents. Miami played Pitt, BC, Cuse and the other NE independents regularly. And i meant traditional Big East in the fact that 6 of those 7 teams were all once BE members and that 5 of them were in the conference together at one time. Only WVU, Temple and Rutgers are missing from that configuration.

VT not playing basketball against BC and Cuse have nothing to do with the fact that they played football together for over a decade.

I'm Ignoring legit excuses for NOT doing this divisional alignment.

FIFY

Name one common sense reason not to do this? "X team wont like it so the other 13 schools have to say okay and scrap that idea." But go ahead and watch more ACC teams play each other in OOC and act like you guys have your act together.

Virginia is not in the North and if they are regulated to playing northern schools with no traditional rivals, then they may as well join the Big 10.

What is the problem with UNC and Wake playing OOC? Give me one common sense reason why that matters at all.

(01-25-2016 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  (Traditional Big East)

Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

Thank you! Virginia Tech had little to no history with any school in Big East football besides West Virginia and Miami. They were a Southern Independent and were added for football because they had a decent enough program and weren't too far out of the footprint.

(01-25-2016 06:28 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 03:52 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

VT played FB in the conference for 12-13 years. Also many of those schools plyed each other as independents. Miami played Pitt, BC, Cuse and the other NE independents regularly. And i meant traditional Big East in the fact that 6 of those 7 teams were all once BE members and that 5 of them were in the conference together at one time. Only WVU, Temple and Rutgers are missing from that configuration.

VT not playing basketball against BC and Cuse have nothing to do with the fact that they played football together for over a decade.

I'm Ignoring legit excuses for NOT doing this divisional alignment.

FIFY

Name one common sense reason not to do this? "X team wont like it so the other 13 schools have to say okay and scrap that idea." But go ahead and watch more ACC teams play each other in OOC and act like you guys have your act together.

Virginia is not in the North and if they are regulated to playing northern schools with no traditional rivals, then they may as well join the Big 10.

What is the problem with UNC and Wake playing OOC? Give me one common sense reason why that matters at all.

The fact that you don't see an issue with two schools in the same conference in the same state not playing enough so they had to schedule a game themselves tells me all I need to know about the ACC.

Indiana isn't in the east, Mizzou isn't in the east, Colorado isn't in the south...any of these conferences who make more money and are more stable worse off for having that set up?

If UVA has such an issue playing members in it's own conference then they should have thought about that before they invited said members into the conference. You guys are the most dysfunctional and poorly run conference in the FBS. Between the division set up and the Raycom deal it's hard for anyone to argue otherwise.

(01-25-2016 06:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 02:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  (Traditional Big East)

Just a pet peeve here: There's no such thing as a "traditional" Big East football conference. It was something spackled together by Tranghese because he thought it would help keep Big East basketball relevant and keep the three FBS Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) from leaving the "basketball schools". Miami and Virginia Tech played BE football for only 13 years. The Big East didn't make VT a full member of the conference until the fall of 2000, and VT announced it was leaving for the ACC three years later in the summer of 2003. No tradition there.

Nebraska has already been a full member of the Big Ten for longer than Virginia Tech was a full member of the Big East, and no one would call Nebraska a traditional Big Ten member.

Thank you! Virginia Tech had little to no history with any school in Big East football besides West Virginia and Miami. They were a Southern Independent and were added for football because they had a decent enough program and weren't too far out of the footprint.

So what? You're divisions make no sense and ended up being lopsided even though the sole purpose of them was so they wouldn't be lopsided.