(11-10-2016 05:49 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 01:10 AM)texasorange Wrote:  

(11-08-2016 11:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 09:51 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 06:17 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  No. I would support getting rid of as many crossover rivals as possible.

I would be ok with swapping BC/Louisviile every two years with UVA.

I like the idea of permanently dumping "crossover rivals" in favor of try to cycle through all the conference teams at a faster pace. I don't know if it could be done or if it would garner any support.

The only way that could be done is if all the true rivals (as opposed to arbitrariliy assigned permanent partners) were placed in the same division so they didn't have to cross over. UNC-NC State, Syracuse-Pitt, Clemson-GT, FSU-Miami, UNC-Duke, and UVa-Va Tech are examples. Right now, only the last two are in the same division. I can't really speak to the wishes of Syracuse-Pitt, or whether they even consider that a must-have game every year.

While Clemson would probably be happy to have NC State and Georgia Tech switch divisions, I doubt Tech would go along with that. And Duke, Virginia and UNC probably wouldn't like it either.

Even if you were to take it further, and swap GT, Miami and Pitt for State, Louisville and Wake, you would still face teams from the other division twice every seven years instead of once every six. Is that a big enough improvement for the upheaval it would cause? Would it stop the criticism of the divisional alignment, or add to it? Would more members be happy with the alignment than currently are? Or unhappy?

As for how realignment would help or hurt the leagues post-season chances, we now have five schools ranked in the Top 25. That's just what you would expect from a 14 team P5 conference. I doubt realignment would improve that in the long run.

If enough schools want to realign, it will happen. I'm not holding my breath.

If it could be done, fine. If certain universities object, fine. I could not care, just thought it would be an interesting discussion.

Its the only discussion left with divisionless, 9 games, 8+2 off the table.

Does the NCAA require that a team plays every other team in its own division every season?

(11-09-2016 06:25 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I prefer the status quo to any suggestion given here.

Same. I have no idea why non-SU/Pitt fans are bent on ending SU-Pitt.

(11-10-2016 09:21 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Does the NCAA require that a team plays every other team in its own division every season?

Yes. I had hoped the ACC would try to have that requirement changed at the same time the B12 got their playoff without divisions, but they did not. One approach would be to have 2 permanent in division rivals, 1 permanent cross division rival, rotate 3 in division games against the 4 remaining schools, and rotate 2 cross division games against the 6 remaining schools.

(11-10-2016 09:21 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Does the NCAA require that a team plays every other team in its own division every season?

If you want to hold a conference championship game, then YES. That is the problem with scheduling - you MUST play EVERY team in your own division. IMO that is why the ACC was proposing deregulation.

(11-10-2016 09:57 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 09:21 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Does the NCAA require that a team plays every other team in its own division every season?

Yes. I had hoped the ACC would try to have that requirement changed at the same time the B12 got their playoff without divisions, but they did not. On approach would be to have 2 permanent in division rivals, 1 permanent cross division rival, rotate 3 in division games against the 4 remaining schools, and rotate 2 cross division games against the 6 remaining schools.

Actually, the ACC did. That was why they and the Big-12-2 tried to change the NCAA rules governing how conferences are allowed to select teams to play in their conference championship game. In the last minute, B1G saw what could happen within the ACC and ND and decided to intervene. We lost the vote. It happems.

The Waterboy's Mama says "that Jim Delaney is the devil..."

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

(11-10-2016 12:23 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 09:57 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 09:21 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  Does the NCAA require that a team plays every other team in its own division every season?

Yes. I had hoped the ACC would try to have that requirement changed at the same time the B12 got their playoff without divisions, but they did not. On approach would be to have 2 permanent in division rivals, 1 permanent cross division rival, rotate 3 in division games against the 4 remaining schools, and rotate 2 cross division games against the 6 remaining schools.

Actually, the ACC did. That was why they and the Big-12-2 tried to change the NCAA rules governing how conferences are allowed to select teams to play in their conference championship game. In the last minute, B1G saw what could happen within the ACC and ND and decided to intervene. We lost the vote. It happems.

Thanks, Everyone. I thought that might be the case. As is obvious, this ACC FB Schedule thing could be improved pretty easily if a team could rotate a little more quickly thru its own division, thus making room to play the cross division teams much more frequently. Each team could simply play a rotating 5 out of 6 teams in its own division yearly, and then have room to play 3 out of the 7 cross division teams yearly (allowing a MUCH faster rotation).

(11-07-2016 03:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 03:30 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  [quote='CollegeCard' pid='13759636' dateline='1478549690']
I'd estimate 98% of Louisville fans would support this move, as would the administration. From reading thoughts of the other three fan bases, it sounds as if BC fans may be the only ones that would balk at the move. Is it accurate to state that BC fans values their matchup with the Hokies as more of a rivalry game than Virginia Tech does?

I was about to reply to the fact BC wouldn't go for it.

Besides, UL vs. UVA has some juice to it.

Valid observation. The carry over from football to basketball to baseball makes Virginia as my choice (although I really think they should do away with permanent rivals).

For me, once you bundle the three sports, UVA would be my choice.
[/quote

Would changing crossover from UVA to VT in football affect scheduling in basketball and baseball?

Just an opinion of a BC fan (one of the few on this board). I don't sense a great need to cling to the VT-BC cross-over rivalry game. Not sure you would have a lot of push back on losing that game. When we were decent (and, I know that's becoming ancient history at this point), the VT game was working against us. We were at a distinct disadvantage in having to play VT every year since, for several years, they were the only consistently good program in the Coastal.

(11-11-2016 12:52 PM)TDredbird Wrote:  Would changing crossover from UVA to VT in football affect scheduling in basketball and baseball?

No. You can have a different rival in every sport.

i want to get rid of permanent crossovers. it guarantees certain teams play a tougher schedule than other teams in their division most years, depending on who the cross over is. for example, Lville gets UVA, while Clemson has G Tech, who over time has been the 2nd best program in that division.

(11-11-2016 02:56 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  i want to get rid of permanent crossovers. it guarantees certain teams play a tougher schedule than other teams in their division most years, depending on who the cross over is. for example, Lville gets UVA, while Clemson has G Tech, who over time has been the 2nd best program in that division.

I don't. Some of those games should be played every year:

FSU - Miami
Clemson - GT
Duke - WF
NCSU - UNC
Syracuse - Pittsburgh

All of those games are real games.

UL - UVA
VT - BC

Are random games w/o extra meaning. The conference should let those schools rotate if they want. I'd let UVA pick their choice of BC and UL one year. Then I'd let BC pick between playing VT and UVA. Then I'd let VT pick between BC and UL. Then I'd let UL pick between VT and UVA. After that, I'd repeat the cycle.

I'd also do it 1-2 years in advance so each school could make travel arrangements well ahead of time.

You could let the picking school always be home and the other school from that division be away.

(11-11-2016 07:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:56 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  i want to get rid of permanent crossovers. it guarantees certain teams play a tougher schedule than other teams in their division most years, depending on who the cross over is. for example, Lville gets UVA, while Clemson has G Tech, who over time has been the 2nd best program in that division.

I don't. Some of those games should be played every year:

FSU - Miami
Clemson - GT
Duke - WF
NCSU - UNC
Syracuse - Pittsburgh

All of those games are real games.

UL - UVA
VT - BC

Are random games w/o extra meaning. The conference should let those schools rotate if they want. I'd let UVA pick their choice of BC and UL one year. Then I'd let BC pick between playing VT and UVA. Then I'd let VT pick between BC and UL. Then I'd let UL pick between VT and UVA. After that, I'd repeat the cycle.

I'd also do it 1-2 years in advance so each school could make travel arrangements well ahead of time.

You could let the picking school always be home and the other school from that division be away.

Surprised you included Cuse/Pitt as a "real" game, when the alternative is to rotate Pitt/VT/UVa. Understandable if you're simply afraid of playing VT more often - the Orange can't hope to catch VT that flat-footed EVERY year.

(11-11-2016 10:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 07:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:56 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  i want to get rid of permanent crossovers. it guarantees certain teams play a tougher schedule than other teams in their division most years, depending on who the cross over is. for example, Lville gets UVA, while Clemson has G Tech, who over time has been the 2nd best program in that division.

I don't. Some of those games should be played every year:

FSU - Miami
Clemson - GT
Duke - WF
NCSU - UNC
Syracuse - Pittsburgh

All of those games are real games.

UL - UVA
VT - BC

Are random games w/o extra meaning. The conference should let those schools rotate if they want. I'd let UVA pick their choice of BC and UL one year. Then I'd let BC pick between playing VT and UVA. Then I'd let VT pick between BC and UL. Then I'd let UL pick between VT and UVA. After that, I'd repeat the cycle.

I'd also do it 1-2 years in advance so each school could make travel arrangements well ahead of time.

You could let the picking school always be home and the other school from that division be away.

Surprised you included Cuse/Pitt as a "real" game, when the alternative is to rotate Pitt/VT/UVa. Understandable if you're simply afraid of playing VT more often - the Orange can't hope to catch VT that flat-footed EVERY year.

We can only seem to do it ~56% of the time. And who needs +70 games of history?

Is anyone on this board familiar with a newspaper writer named Luke Decock? He posted an interesting article about BC. Worth a read.

Luke Decock Article

P.S. While I find the subject interesting, I do not support the idea/notion that conferences start kicking members out of the conference. Anyhow, enjoy.

(11-12-2016 12:42 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  Is anyone on this board familiar with a newspaper writer named Luke Decock? He posted an interesting article about BC. Worth a read.

Luke Decock Article

P.S. While I find the subject interesting, I do not support the idea/notion that conferences start kicking members out of the conference. Anyhow, enjoy.

think the writer was a little harsh on BC. Up until several years ago, BC was a good program for the ACC, sports wise. Now the writer wants to talk about expelling the school because of a rough patch? Totally short sighted. Its not like BC is not trying to get better. That was the reason that Temple was expelled. They were not reinvesting their fb money into fb. They weren't even trying to try. Terrible comparison. BC is at least trying. Im glad to be share a conference with BC once again.

(11-12-2016 01:03 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 12:42 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  Is anyone on this board familiar with a newspaper writer named Luke Decock? He posted an interesting article about BC. Worth a read.

Luke Decock Article

P.S. While I find the subject interesting, I do not support the idea/notion that conferences start kicking members out of the conference. Anyhow, enjoy.

think the writer was a little harsh on BC. Up until several years ago, BC was a good program for the ACC, sports wise. Now the writer wants to talk about expelling the school because of a rough patch? Totally short sighted. Its not like BC is not trying to get better. That was the reason that Temple was expelled. They were not reinvesting their fb money into fb. They weren't even trying to try. Terrible comparison. BC is at least trying. Im glad to be share a conference with BC once again.

I do believe that BC is trying with the resources it's athletic department has on hand, but lurking on some BC sites has made me believe that the problem with BC lies in its University president, Father William P. Leahy. It's just a theory mind you, but some BC fans seem to think that Father Leahy cares more about the Academic mission of the university and cares not a lick for the success, or lack there of, of the athletic programs. Lack of more assistance for the athletic programs from the university to having Brad Bates as the athletic director seems to be the general thrust of their discontent. If there are any BC fans who can shed light on this topic, please feel free.

(11-12-2016 01:42 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 01:03 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 12:42 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  Is anyone on this board familiar with a newspaper writer named Luke Decock? He posted an interesting article about BC. Worth a read.

Luke Decock Article

P.S. While I find the subject interesting, I do not support the idea/notion that conferences start kicking members out of the conference. Anyhow, enjoy.

think the writer was a little harsh on BC. Up until several years ago, BC was a good program for the ACC, sports wise. Now the writer wants to talk about expelling the school because of a rough patch? Totally short sighted. Its not like BC is not trying to get better. That was the reason that Temple was expelled. They were not reinvesting their fb money into fb. They weren't even trying to try. Terrible comparison. BC is at least trying. Im glad to be share a conference with BC once again.

I do believe that BC is trying with the resources it's athletic department has on hand, but lurking on some BC sites has made me believe that the problem with BC lies in its University president, Father William P. Leahy. It's just a theory mind you, but some BC fans seem to think that Father Leahy cares more about the Academic mission of the university and cares not a lick for the success, or lack there of, of the athletic programs. Lack of more assistance for the athletic programs from the university to having Brad Bates as the athletic director seems to be the general thrust of their discontent. If there are any BC fans who can shed light on this topic, please feel free.

I heard the same thing from BC fans when I attended the BC-SU game a few weeks ago, I'm quite confident that every university president cares more about academics than athletics. To me that's a lame excuse for not trying to be as competitive as reasonably possible in athletics. BC has the same resources as Wake Forest, for instance, and has been competitive within the ACC in the past. The person responsible is the AD. If the AD is not effective, however, it is the president's responsibility to replace him. It is a sad state of affairs if the president refuses to do so. Now it's up to the alumni to demand action.