(07-04-2016 02:04 PM)ULdave Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 01:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  The downside of this is that there are some schools you never play in conference. To compensate for that, the league could coordinate schedules to facilitate OOC matchups between members who want to play each other every third year, if both are agreeable. The upside is that the league's best teams get six Top 30 opponents pretty much every year (in addition to a CCG, if they qualify). The weaker teams face the top teams less often (if at all), improving their chances of bowl eligibility.

That is pretty big downside and IMHO a deal breaker.

I believe the pod system is the way to go, and I would do the following
Fsu-Miami, GT, Clemson
Miami-FSU, GT, Clemson
Clemson-FSU, GT, Miami
GT-FSU, Clemson, Miami
UNC- Duke, NC STATE, Virginia
Duke-NC STATE, Wake, UNC
NC State-UNC, Duke, Wake
Wake- Duke, NC State, BC
Virginia-VT, UNC, Louisville
VT-Virginia, Louisville, Pitt
Louisville-VT, Virginia, Syracuse
Pitt-VT, Syracuse, BC
Syracuse-Pitt, Louisville, BC
BC-Pitt, Syracuse, Wake

The problem with that is that the pod system is not permitted. My suggestion is based on the premise that the current rules will apply.

I understand the gut reaction that not playing some teams is a deal breaker. Keep in mind that until those teams signed on to an oversized league, they never played some of those schools anyway. I would feel differently if we were discontinuing some long-standing rivalries by doing this. Just how much difference is there really between never playing them and playing them every sixth year (at home every 12 years)?

(07-04-2016 01:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 01:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Old ACC vs new ACC is probably better:

Old: Clemson, Duke, GT, UNC, NC State, UVa, Wake Forest.

New: BC, FSU, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, VT.

With this configuration, I would recommend two radical changes. First, I would assign every school two permanent crossovers instead of one. Second, I would prevail on UNC and Miami, who seem to be favorites of ESPN, to take one for the team and agree to play every school that is not on their permanent schedule once every three years....

Ken, you had me until this...

Quote:The downside of this is that there are some schools you never play in conference. To compensate for that, the league could coordinate schedules to facilitate OOC matchups between members who want to play each other every third year, if both are agreeable. The upside is that the league's best teams get six Top 30 opponents pretty much every year (in addition to a CCG, if they qualify). The weaker teams face the top teams less often (if at all), improving their chances of bowl eligibility.

But, like every other plan, there is little chance this one would get enough votes to pass.

I just can't deal with that one huge "downside".

How about this, then? The only permanent crossovers are Clemson-FSU and Virginia-Va Tech.

Every third year, ND is committed to play one game against somebody they already played in that cycle. That is, they are committed for 15 games, and there are only 14 opponents. In years 3 and 9, make that 15th game @Clemson, and in 6 and 12 make it @Florida State.

In the 6 years out of 12 when they don't play ND, Clemson can play Georgia (or Auburn) in addition to its rivalry game with South Carolina. In the 4 years that FSU doesn't play either ND (OOC) or Ga Tech in conference, they can play GT OOC, giving them 6 games against ND and 6 against GT every 12 years, plus Florida every year.

In addition to its 12 games against Georgia, Tech would play ND 4 times and FSU 6 times during that 12 year cycle.

I would still ask UNC and Miami to take one for the team, and commit to play 2 OOC games a year against ACC opponents outside their division (at the option of their potential opponent), increasing the frequency everyone gets those two teams on their schedule. Other intra-conference OOC games are encouraged in the interest of everyone playing more P5 opponents.

This way, everybody plays everybody else at least once every three years except for Florida State and Clemson, who only rotate once every six years (and have no available dates for an OOC game). And the NCAA doesn't have to give its permission.

(07-05-2016 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 01:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 01:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Old ACC vs new ACC is probably better:

Old: Clemson, Duke, GT, UNC, NC State, UVa, Wake Forest.

New: BC, FSU, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, VT.

With this configuration, I would recommend two radical changes. First, I would assign every school two permanent crossovers instead of one. Second, I would prevail on UNC and Miami, who seem to be favorites of ESPN, to take one for the team and agree to play every school that is not on their permanent schedule once every three years....

Ken, you had me until this...

Quote:The downside of this is that there are some schools you never play in conference. To compensate for that, the league could coordinate schedules to facilitate OOC matchups between members who want to play each other every third year, if both are agreeable. The upside is that the league's best teams get six Top 30 opponents pretty much every year (in addition to a CCG, if they qualify). The weaker teams face the top teams less often (if at all), improving their chances of bowl eligibility.

But, like every other plan, there is little chance this one would get enough votes to pass.

I just can't deal with that one huge "downside".

How about this, then? The only permanent crossovers are Clemson-FSU and Virginia-Va Tech.

Every third year, ND is committed to play one game against somebody they already played in that cycle. That is, they are committed for 15 games, and there are only 14 opponents. In years 3 and 9, make that 15th game @Clemson, and in 6 and 12 make it @Florida State.

In the 6 years out of 12 when they don't play ND, Clemson can play Georgia (or Auburn) in addition to its rivalry game with South Carolina. In the 4 years that FSU doesn't play either ND (OOC) or Ga Tech in conference, they can play GT OOC, giving them 6 games against ND and 6 against GT every 12 years, plus Florida every year.

In addition to its 12 games against Georgia, Tech would play ND 4 times and FSU 6 times during that 12 year cycle.

I would still ask UNC and Miami to take one for the team, and commit to play 2 OOC games a year against ACC opponents outside their division (at the option of their potential opponent), increasing the frequency everyone gets those two teams on their schedule. Other intra-conference OOC games are encouraged in the interest of everyone playing more P5 opponents.

This way, everybody plays everybody else at least once every three years except for Florida State and Clemson, who only rotate once every six years (and have no available dates for an OOC game). And the NCAA doesn't have to give its permission.

Wouldn't rotating 3 or 4 teams in each division easier & less complicated? That way everyone gets to play everyone twice in 6 years. It's also allowed under the current rules.

Atlantic - Coastal
FSU - Miami
Clemson- GT
UL - Pitt
Rotate
NC St. - NC
BC - VT
WF - Duke
Syracuse- Virginia

For example, FSU would get Miami, Clemson & Louisville every year & rotate between GT & Pittsburgh. NC would get NC State, Duke, Virginia & VT every year & rotate between WF, BC & Syracuse. So in the length of time that it takes them to play WF now (twice in 12 years) they would double it (4 times in 12 years). FSU would then play GT twice in 4 years, or 6 in 12 years.

(07-04-2016 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:06 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  From my standpoint, the best divisional change model I have ever seen was this one:

TOBACCO ROAD
Clemson
Duke
North Carolina
NC State
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

METROPOLITAN
Boston College
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Miami
Pitt
Syracuse

I would be perfectly fine with that realignment. It makes the best long term sense for the most, IMHO.

Not horrible, but separates Clemson from both FSU and GT, which is a problem.

Old ACC vs new ACC is probably better:

Old: Clemson, Duke, GT, UNC, NC State, UVa, Wake Forest.

New: BC, FSU, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, VT.

I would be fine with that too. In fact, I might like that one even better.

I am absolutely not remotely afraid of playing Clemson or Florida State or Miami or whomever every single year. I want our schedule to be as challenging as possible. From a fan's standpoint, that ensures better value.

When people say that those arguing for the retention of the status quo are doing so because they don't want to have to go through Florida State and Clemson, I'm sorry but that's completely absurd.

Don't get me wrong, in some cases that may well be true. Who knows? However, in my case that's absolutely ridiculous. I want to play those two teams and every other big-name in the conference as often as possible.

We need to play opponents that the local pro-centric sports fans know and respect. They are always going to look at college football in general as second or even third fiddle (as most of you know, high school football is a really big deal in this part of the country). We need to give them a reason to come out to watch it. Part of that is on us. We need to be competitive. However, the other major part of that relates to our schedule. We need to play teams casual fans know and respect. Some of these divisional alignments, which all seem to put the "northern teams" in the junk drawer just isn't going to cut it for us.

As such, I would rather retain the status quo than take yet another step backwards with our schedule and make it less appealing than the final version of the Big East schedule, which is why we defected to the ACC in the first place.

(07-04-2016 11:45 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 10:47 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 08:09 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  It's the same thing over and over and over again and nothing anyone ever says improves anything.

Just stick with the status quo and be done with it.

How doesn't that improve the schedule for Pitt? You would be playing Everyone else twice in 4 years. That's heck of a lot more of FSU & Clemson!

Yeah, and it's also a lot more Wake Forest and North Carolina State at the expense of teams our fans actually care about.

We don't need big names, we need rivals. By joining this league we no longer have any rivals. We're trying to sell minor-league football in a major-league town. We need to give people someone to hate. We're not in some little town or some small city that doesn't have pro sports.

I understand that a lot of you guys cannot fathom our situation because it's unusual. The fans of Georgia Tech, Boston College and Miami understand our situation. None of the other fans can possibly understand it. We have an uphill battle to wage against our pro sports teams and to make it work we need to create match ups that people care about. That means rivalry games.

Playing Clemson or Florida State slightly more frequently than we currently do, does not help us in that regard. Conversely, playing annual games against teams like Miami, Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech, now that could actually help us – if we become good enough to make those games matter.

I will offer one caveat: give us an annual game versus Notre Dame, and I'll go with just about any garbage set up people want to foist on us. At least that would give us one of our three traditional rivals back.

Playing FSU & Clemson twice in 4 years is only "slightly more frequently" then once every 6 years?

As for rivals, you would have 3 set rivals in the division less model. I suspect that Syracuse would be one & possibly Miami as well. You would have the teams you mentioned frequently regardless, are your attention span that short? The ACC didn't take ND, Penn St or WV away from Pitt.

Pittsburgh current situation is of their own doing. If Pitt HAS to have rivals then why leave a conference where your rivals are for one that you say that you don't have any? Pitt helped blow up the BE so save us the dramatics Dr.

I would be fine with Syracuse and Miami as our annual opponents. I would love to have Virginia Tech in there as well – as we have a pretty good thing going with the Hokies. We don't really care about Boston College or Louisville. We don't have anything against those schools either, they just don't mean anything more to us than NC State or Duke or Virginia or whomever.

For us, establishing in conference rivalries is the key to our success in the ACC. As I said earlier, I would be thrilled to play Clemson and Florida State more often than we do now. I'm just not willing to trade more games against teams our fans do actually care about for games against two teams, while outstanding, with whom we don't have any real history. Believe me, I fully understand that the Florida State and Clemson fans don't give two shitts about us either. We have not earned anyone's respect for a long time now and I fully embrace that reality.

As for the rivals thing, that's actually pretty complicated. Our three primary rivals were always Penn State, West Virginia and Notre Dame.

The first two were a traditional rivalries. We have played Penn State 100 or so times, and they lead that series by eight games. We have played West Virginia a comparable number of times and we lead that series by 20 or so games.

Penn State will not play us annually anymore. They claim that they can't do it because of financial necessities but it's obviously garbage. If Kentucky can go with Louisville, and Georgia can do it with Georgia Tech, and Florida can do it with Florida State, Penn State can afford to play Pitt annually as well. However, it takes two to tango and if they don't want to play us there's not much we can do.

The West Virginia series is a different deal. As everyone who follows college football knows, games at Morgantown can be challenging and sometimes dangerous. Well now add to the fact that they hate Pitt with the fire of hell.

So you can imagine that if they are nasty and rude to the fans of teams they don't even care about, imagine how insane act whenever someone strolls into town with a Pitt sticker on their car or Lord forbid a Pitt sweatshirt on. As I'm sure you have predicted by now, they tend to go insane and it has too often resulted in some really nasty confrontations (read: assaults) that much more closely resemble soccer hooliganism than they do American intercollegiate athletics.

Personally, I would absolutely love to resume the Backyard Brawl on an annual basis. Those games are fun games and they bring out a passion in our fans that no ACC school can summon. It's not quite Penn State level hatred but it's absolutely at the very least flat out contempt.

However, I am only for the resumption of that series if West Virginia can demonstrate that it can rain in its insane hillbilly fans. I live one hour north of the West Virginia campus and I have two little boys. I would not dream of taking them to a game there under the current conditions. That would be irresponsible of me as a father. However, if they can reign in those goofs, that would be a great road trip. I would go down for every football and basketball game we played against them because it is so close. However, culturally speaking, it is a world away.

The Notre Dame game isn't so much a rivalry as much as it is a tradition. Also, Western Pennsylvania is heavily Catholic and that makes that game even more intriguing each year. There's a bar in the Strip District section of Pittsburgh (it's not what do you think – it's an old warehouse area) called the Harp and Fiddle which claims to be the largest Notre Dame bar in the US. Every Saturday in the fall is like St. Patrick's Day at the Harp and Fiddle.

I know myself, I was raised in a very proud Irish Catholic family which sent two young men to Notre Dame. The saddest I ever saw my grandfather before he passed was when I was a little boy and he caught me rooting for pit against his beloved fighting Irish. That was very real hurt in his eyes and I will never forget it. I explained to him then – and I still feel the exact same way – that well I was very proud of my Irish heritage, I was/am a Pittsburgher before all else and therefore had no choice but to root for its namesake university. Also, because I'm not a front running arsehole, I don't root for multiple teams. That shitt is for idiots and posers. I root for one team.

The game was a lot of fun for my family over the years and I was very sad to see it come to an end.

We had no choice but to join the ACC because the Big East was falling apart and had been for several years before that. However, my reaction to the move was not jubilation as much as it was a resolution that we did what we had to do.

It was kind of like breaking up with a nice but boring girl. You hated to do it but you knew it had to be done if you wanted to realize your long-term ambitions. That's fine, what is done is done. However, some of these divisional alignment proposals would put us in with homlier even more boring girls than the one we just left. I'm sorry but that's simply not going to get it done.

You have it backwards, Yinzer. Pitt is the girl who USED to be pretty. Now she sits alone in a dimly lit bar nursing a Mickey's malt liquor, hoping some guy comes around who's even drunker than she is... but I digress.

Yes, I too hope the VT/Pitt series turns into a real rivalry. You guys are fun to pick at.

(07-05-2016 11:10 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:45 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 10:47 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 08:09 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  It's the same thing over and over and over again and nothing anyone ever says improves anything.

Just stick with the status quo and be done with it.

How doesn't that improve the schedule for Pitt? You would be playing Everyone else twice in 4 years. That's heck of a lot more of FSU & Clemson!

Yeah, and it's also a lot more Wake Forest and North Carolina State at the expense of teams our fans actually care about.

We don't need big names, we need rivals. By joining this league we no longer have any rivals. We're trying to sell minor-league football in a major-league town. We need to give people someone to hate. We're not in some little town or some small city that doesn't have pro sports.

I understand that a lot of you guys cannot fathom our situation because it's unusual. The fans of Georgia Tech, Boston College and Miami understand our situation. None of the other fans can possibly understand it. We have an uphill battle to wage against our pro sports teams and to make it work we need to create match ups that people care about. That means rivalry games.

Playing Clemson or Florida State slightly more frequently than we currently do, does not help us in that regard. Conversely, playing annual games against teams like Miami, Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech, now that could actually help us – if we become good enough to make those games matter.

I will offer one caveat: give us an annual game versus Notre Dame, and I'll go with just about any garbage set up people want to foist on us. At least that would give us one of our three traditional rivals back.

Playing FSU & Clemson twice in 4 years is only "slightly more frequently" then once every 6 years?

As for rivals, you would have 3 set rivals in the division less model. I suspect that Syracuse would be one & possibly Miami as well. You would have the teams you mentioned frequently regardless, are your attention span that short? The ACC didn't take ND, Penn St or WV away from Pitt.

Pittsburgh current situation is of their own doing. If Pitt HAS to have rivals then why leave a conference where your rivals are for one that you say that you don't have any? Pitt helped blow up the BE so save us the dramatics Dr.

I would be fine with Syracuse and Miami as our annual opponents. I would love to have Virginia Tech in there as well – as we have a pretty good thing going with the Hokies. We don't really care about Boston College or Louisville. We don't have anything against those schools either, they just don't mean anything more to us than NC State or Duke or Virginia or whomever.

For us, establishing in conference rivalries is the key to our success in the ACC. As I said earlier, I would be thrilled to play Clemson and Florida State more often than we do now. I'm just not willing to trade more games against teams our fans do actually care about for games against two teams, while outstanding, with whom we don't have any real history. Believe me, I fully understand that the Florida State and Clemson fans don't give two shitts about us either. We have not earned anyone's respect for a long time now and I fully embrace that reality.

As for the rivals thing, that's actually pretty complicated. Our three primary rivals were always Penn State, West Virginia and Notre Dame.

The first two were a traditional rivalries. We have played Penn State 100 or so times, and they lead that series by eight games. We have played West Virginia a comparable number of times and we lead that series by 20 or so games.

Penn State will not play us annually anymore. They claim that they can't do it because of financial necessities but it's obviously garbage. If Kentucky can go with Louisville, and Georgia can do it with Georgia Tech, and Florida can do it with Florida State, Penn State can afford to play Pitt annually as well. However, it takes two to tango and if they don't want to play us there's not much we can do.

The West Virginia series is a different deal. As everyone who follows college football knows, games at Morgantown can be challenging and sometimes dangerous. Well now add to the fact that they hate Pitt with the fire of hell.

So you can imagine that if they are nasty and rude to the fans of teams they don't even care about, imagine how insane act whenever someone strolls into town with a Pitt sticker on their car or Lord forbid a Pitt sweatshirt on. As I'm sure you have predicted by now, they tend to go insane and it has too often resulted in some really nasty confrontations (read: assaults) that much more closely resemble soccer hooliganism than they do American intercollegiate athletics.

Personally, I would absolutely love to resume the Backyard Brawl on an annual basis. Those games are fun games and they bring out a passion in our fans that no ACC school can summon. It's not quite Penn State level hatred but it's absolutely at the very least flat out contempt.

However, I am only for the resumption of that series if West Virginia can demonstrate that it can rain in its insane hillbilly fans. I live one hour north of the West Virginia campus and I have two little boys. I would not dream of taking them to a game there under the current conditions. That would be irresponsible of me as a father. However, if they can reign in those goofs, that would be a great road trip. I would go down for every football and basketball game we played against them because it is so close. However, culturally speaking, it is a world away.

The Notre Dame game isn't so much a rivalry as much as it is a tradition. Also, Western Pennsylvania is heavily Catholic and that makes that game even more intriguing each year. There's a bar in the Strip District section of Pittsburgh (it's not what do you think – it's an old warehouse area) called the Harp and Fiddle which claims to be the largest Notre Dame bar in the US. Every Saturday in the fall is like St. Patrick's Day at the Harp and Fiddle.

I know myself, I was raised in a very proud Irish Catholic family which sent two young men to Notre Dame. The saddest I ever saw my grandfather before he passed was when I was a little boy and he caught me rooting for pit against his beloved fighting Irish. That was very real hurt in his eyes and I will never forget it. I explained to him then – and I still feel the exact same way – that well I was very proud of my Irish heritage, I was/am a Pittsburgher before all else and therefore had no choice but to root for its namesake university. Also, because I'm not a front running arsehole, I don't root for multiple teams. That shitt is for idiots and posers. I root for one team.

The game was a lot of fun for my family over the years and I was very sad to see it come to an end.

We had no choice but to join the ACC because the Big East was falling apart and had been for several years before that. However, my reaction to the move was not jubilation as much as it was a resolution that we did what we had to do.

It was kind of like breaking up with a nice but boring girl. You hated to do it but you knew it had to be done if you wanted to realize your long-term ambitions. That's fine, what is done is done. However, some of these divisional alignment proposals would put us in with homlier even more boring girls than the one we just left. I'm sorry but that's simply not going to get it done.

I have family from/in Erie so I in a sense adopted Pitt, the Panthers & Pirates, as a team to root for. I love PA. My dad grew up in Erie but loved the Yankees. My mom calls the Pirates "The sissy hats" still today. I'm St Louis Cardinals first but I tolerate the Pirates. I obviously enjoy the Louisville & Pitt games more than most fans. I want to see Pitt succeed & thrive in the ACC & I expect them to be top 3 in the Coastal every year, while losing to Louisville of course. These are just some tidbits of my connection.

Back to a division less ACC model, if you look at the different schedule scenarios you would notice that they wouldn't be that different than what Pitt has now. You don't have to play someone every year to develop a rivalry & playing more teams more frequently would increase Pitt chances of developing one. You say that it's more WF & NC St but it's also less of the Coastal teams that you don't care about. I think it's pretty much a wash. I think Pitt should definitely get either Miami or VT as a set rival in this model. Selecting the rivals is essential in this model.

Pitt current schedule:
Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, GT, Syracuse, Atlantic

Division less scenario:
Years 1&2: Miami, Syracuse, BC, FSU, VT, Duke, NC State, Louisville

Years 3&4: Miami, Syracuse, BC, Clemson, GT, NC, Virginia, WF

Other than not playing the same 7 teams every year, there isn't much of a difference. I don't see it hurting Pitt. You have a better chance to create a rivalry with a competitive team over a yearly matchup.

This is just an alternative, which isn't even legal under the current rules. Another way to go about it & which is permitted under the current rules would be to rotate 4 teams in the current divisions every other year. (Post 63)

As for ND, Pitt should be playing them more often. Pitt should have their spot & the open #15 spot in the rotation. I find it ridiculous that Penn St won't play Pitt. If Kentucky had a choice, I don't think that they would be playing Louisville. There is currently enough instate pressure on them to keep the series going. If either conference goes to 9 games, I think the series would be in jeopardy.

(07-02-2016 08:09 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  It's the same thing over and over and over again and nothing anyone ever says improves anything.

Just stick with the status quo and be done with it.

How doesn't that improve the schedule for Pitt? You would be playing Everyone else twice in 4 years. That's heck of a lot more of FSU & Clemson!

I wouldn't say Pitt fans are tired of football, I'd say we're tired of the same pointless debates. No matter what we come up w/ likely isn't going to happen. I'm OK w status quo.

Pitt fans don't want change because we play the three opponents (Syracuse, Miami, and VT) that the administration/most fans want to play every year in the ACC so we have nothing to complain about on that front.

As for the OOC, while it doesn't make up for not playing Penn State, I think having the Backyard Brawl on an annual basis is doable and WVU certainly is 100% on board with doing that. It's about convincing the administration and fans that it's in Pitt's best interest to continue the annual rivalry game with WVU and I think it clearly is.

The absolute best situation is no divisions, four permanent rivals, and an 8 game schedule. We can't do that due to other conferences holding us down, so status quo is acceptable. Although, I am not against trading VT for Syracuse to create a true zipper for Clemson and FSU.

(07-06-2016 10:57 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Pitt fans don't want change because we play the three opponents (Syracuse, Miami, and VT) that the administration/most fans want to play every year in the ACC so we have nothing to complain about on that front.

As for the OOC, while it doesn't make up for not playing Penn State, I think having the Backyard Brawl on an annual basis is doable and WVU certainly is 100% on board with doing that. It's about convincing the administration and fans that it's in Pitt's best interest to continue the annual rivalry game with WVU and I think it clearly is.

I was thinking the same thing. I would kill to have Pitts schedule. SU has a lot more history with VT and Miami a than with FSU and Clemson. It would be a perfect schedule for me if SU played Pitt, Miami, VT, BC and Louisville every season.

(07-06-2016 11:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  The absolute best situation is no divisions, four 3 permanent rivals, and an 8 game schedule. We can't do that due to other conferences holding us down, so status quo is acceptable. Although, I am not against trading VT for Syracuse to create a true zipper for Clemson and FSU.

Nobody needs more than 3 rivals except UNC (and maybe Duke). Some don't even need 3! More important to have 5 rotating games, IMO.

(07-06-2016 11:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  The absolute best situation is no divisions, four permanent rivals, and an 8 game schedule. We can't do that due to other conferences holding us down, so status quo is acceptable. Although, I am not against trading VT for Syracuse to create a true zipper for Clemson and FSU.

Of course you are not against removing the best overall Coastal football program and putting it in the Atlantic.

This is Bubba's ideal division for UNC football:

BC
Syracuse
UVa
Duke
WF
UNC
GT

As long as GT requires calculus to graduate UNC will play for the ACC title every other year at least.

(07-06-2016 12:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 11:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  The absolute best situation is no divisions, four permanent rivals, and an 8 game schedule. We can't do that due to other conferences holding us down, so status quo is acceptable. Although, I am not against trading VT for Syracuse to create a true zipper for Clemson and FSU.

Of course you are not against removing the best overall Coastal football program and putting it in the Atlantic.

This is Bubba's ideal division for UNC football:

BC
Syracuse
UVa
Duke
WF
UNC
GT

As long as GT requires calculus to graduate UNC will play for the ACC title every other year at least.

UNC has not been that dominant consistently that you can make that statement.

(07-06-2016 01:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 12:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 11:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  The absolute best situation is no divisions, four permanent rivals, and an 8 game schedule. We can't do that due to other conferences holding us down, so status quo is acceptable. Although, I am not against trading VT for Syracuse to create a true zipper for Clemson and FSU.

Of course you are not against removing the best overall Coastal football program and putting it in the Atlantic.

This is Bubba's ideal division for UNC football:

BC
Syracuse
UVa
Duke
WF
UNC
GT

As long as GT requires calculus to graduate UNC will play for the ACC title every other year at least.

UNC has not been that dominant consistently that you can make that statement.

Really?

(07-06-2016 09:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  You have it backwards, Yinzer. Pitt is the girl who USED to be pretty. Now she sits alone in a dimly lit bar nursing a Mickey's malt liquor, hoping some guy comes around who's even drunker than she is... but I digress.

Yes, I too hope the VT/Pitt series turns into a real rivalry. You guys are fun to pick at.

Yeah, that may be too. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I'm just giving you our perspective and I think you've probably figured out by now that we are not going to be told to go sit in the corner and shut up and count our lucky stars that we're here in the first place. That's not how we see things...at all.

Adding Syracuse and Pitt allowed the ACC to renegotiate its contract and realize a substantial increase in rights fees. It also led to Notre Dame joining the conference, the formation of the ACC Network and it set the stage for every team in the conference signing a long term GOR.

Adding us has also given the conference some much-needed credibility in football by way of claiming legendary alums like Jim Brown, Tony Dorsett, Floyd Little, Dan Marino, Donovan McNabb, Mike Ditka, Larry Csonka, Larry Fitzgerald, etc. The list literally goes on and on.

In other words, we have each already more than paid for ourselves in this jointure and we need not take a backseat to anyone.

(07-06-2016 10:57 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Pitt fans don't want change because we play the three opponents (Syracuse, Miami, and VT) that the administration/most fans want to play every year in the ACC so we have nothing to complain about on that front.

As for the OOC, while it doesn't make up for not playing Penn State, I think having the Backyard Brawl on an annual basis is doable and WVU certainly is 100% on board with doing that. It's about convincing the administration and fans that it's in Pitt's best interest to continue the annual rivalry game with WVU and I think it clearly is.

Well said.

I haven't heard anybody yet say they would be worse off if the divisions were set up on old ACC vs New ACC lines with Clemson-FSU and Virginia-Va Tech the only permanent crossovers. Surely somebody must feel they would be getting screwed.

Mind you, I'm not saying that this would be every school's best possible solution. Just that I'm not sure I see where anybody is significantly worse off than they are today, and I do see where some schools would be tickled pink with that change.

(07-06-2016 02:07 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 09:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  You have it backwards, Yinzer. Pitt is the girl who USED to be pretty. Now she sits alone in a dimly lit bar nursing a Mickey's malt liquor, hoping some guy comes around who's even drunker than she is... but I digress.

Yes, I too hope the VT/Pitt series turns into a real rivalry. You guys are fun to pick at.

Yeah, that may be too. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I'm just giving you our perspective and I think you've probably figured out by now that we are not going to be told to go sit in the corner and shut up and count our lucky stars that we're here in the first place. That's not how we see things...at all.

Adding Syracuse and Pitt allowed the ACC to renegotiate its contract and realize a substantial increase in rights fees. It also led to Notre Dame joining the conference, the formation of the ACC Network and it set the stage for every team in the conference signing a long term GOR.

Adding us has also given the conference some much-needed credibility in football by way of claiming legendary alums like Jim Brown, Tony Dorsett, Floyd Little, Dan Marino, Donovan McNabb, Mike Ditka, Larry Csonka, Larry Fitzgerald, etc. The list literally goes on and on.

In other words, we have each already more than paid for ourselves in this jointure and we need not take a backseat to anyone.

Make no mistake - even if I rag on what Pitt has become, that's not what I want or expect. Nothing would please me more than VT and Pitt playing for a spot in the ACC CG, with playoffs on the line.

So in anticipation of that... Pitt stinks! ;-)

I believe Iowa St AD has suggested that the Big 12 seeds each division every two years based on conference play. How about that for the ACC?
One Division would have the #1,3,5,7,9,11,13 teams and the other division would have the #2,4,6,8,10,12,14 teams after 2 years of play. Cross over games to be arranged on 2 year basis.
Would that work for the ACC? Seems like it would provide competitive balance.