On other threads, the idea was thrown out that some P5 conferences might want to allow more than two divisions and have a four team conference championship tournament instead of the single CCG.

Let's assume for the moment that the NCAA would allow a conference with 15 or more members to do this, provided that all the divisions were the same size, and that every division champion was included in the tournament.

In that scenario, a conference with 15 could have three divisions of 5 teams each, with one wild card. One with 18 could have 6-team divisions with a wild card, and one with 16 could have four divisions of 4 teams with no wild card.

My question to you is, if this rule change were passed (and I realize that's a long shot at best), which option would you choose for the ACC? 15? 16? 18? or stay at 14?

Let's further assume that, regardless of which option the ACC chooses, Notre Dame would elect to remain independent. In that case, who should the ACC invite?

Nobody. The pie is too small to split with more dead weight. And almost everyone short of Texas and ND is dead weight.

Let's say we condense to a P4 Football setup and no independents are allowed. This is how I see it. Baylor gets left out! ACC does not add any G5 teams.

ACC
Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Louisville
Notre Dame
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

Big 10
Rutgers
Penn State
Maryland
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Iowa
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma

PAC
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
California
University California Los Angeles
Southern California
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
Texas Christian

SEC
Kentucky
Missouri
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Auburn
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Louisiana
Texas A&M
Texas
Oklahoma State

If we had to expand and using the parameters set by your post the invites should be Texas & WVU.

My list in order would be like this:

1. Texas
2. WVU
3. Cincy
4. Houston
5. TCU

Unless a big name is available, I would stay at 14. I haven't seen a 3 division model that I like. The 4x4 model favors a 7 or 9 game schedule. Both of which have issues.

The next option is 4x5 which is a whole other set of issues. That might work if the division was comprised of former B12 members.

As long as ND remains indy, you need a FB only to balance the numbers. That implies Navy - more issues.

(06-01-2017 01:01 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Unless a big name is available, I would stay at 14. I haven't seen a 3 division model that I like. The 4x4 model favors a 7 or 9 game schedule. Both of which have issues.

The next option is 4x5 which is a whole other set of issues. That might work if the division was comprised of former B12 members.

As long as ND remains indy, you need a FB only to balance the numbers. That implies Navy - more issues.

Why do you need a FB only? One all sports add brings you to 16 for basketball and 15 for football.

(06-01-2017 12:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If we had to expand and using the parameters set by your post the invites should be Texas & WVU.

My list in order would be like this:

1. Texas
2. WVU
3. Cincy
4. Houston
5. TCU

If Texas wouldn't accept and WVU would, I could see the following divisions:

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU and Louisville
UVa, Va Tech, UNC, Duke and NC State
Wake, Clemson, Ga Tech, FSU and Miami

Is that something you could live with? Would it be better than what you have now? I would think that, in most years, the highest ranked non-division champ (and thus, the wild card in a 4 team conference tournament) would come from your division. If it doesn't, that would probably mean a major improvement in the conference as a whole.

Given your hypothetical -- which I agree is a long shot, but still fun to discuss -- I am with Kaplony ... although for personal reasons I'd flip Cincy and WVU, but I realize that most likely, WVU would be put ahead of Cincy. But I think Cincy is a better add all around than WVU. But I could live with WVU.

My five would be:

1. Texas
2. Cincy
3. WVU
4. Houston
5. TCU


Having said that (and maybe this needs it's own thread) another hypothetical that would be fun to discuss would be "what if" the conference proposal the ACC pushed had passed, where divisions were abolished, and the conference could choose it's two for the conference championship ... then a scheduling arrangement could be set up where each school gets 3 permanent rivals, and 5 from the other 10. Each school could play home and away with every other school, every 4 years.

What would be the 3 permanent rivals for each school in the conference?

I bring this up, because Auburn is making serious noise about switching places with Missouri in the SEC East ... but this creates other scheduling issues within the SEC ... The SEC may be open to reversing their decision on this vote, which would put it in play ... I would love the chance to play every school in the ACC, home and away, every four years. As a fan, this has great appeal to me.

Anyway ... don't mean to hijack the thread, but I guess this is the start of the slow season, where these kinds of discussions can take place. And maybe there isn't an easy way to figure out the permanent 3 for each school, without putting at risk solid rival games. Which makes my hypothetical moot.

(06-01-2017 12:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If we had to expand and using the parameters set by your post the invites should be Texas & WVU.

My list in order would be like this:

1. Texas
2. WVU
3. Cincy
4. Houston
5. TCU

Agreed. Notre Dame all-in is the clear #1 though.

(06-01-2017 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  If Texas wouldn't accept and WVU would, I could see the following divisions:

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU and Louisville
UVa, Va Tech, UNC, Duke and NC State
Wake, Clemson, Ga Tech, FSU and Miami

Is that something you could live with? Would it be better than what you have now? I would think that, in most years, the highest ranked non-division champ (and thus, the wild card in a 4 team conference tournament) would come from your division. If it doesn't, that would probably mean a major improvement in the conference as a whole.

The ACC couldn't get CCG deregulation passed with 2 divisions, what makes you think they could get it with 3?

I'd re-write the rules to allow Notre Dame in as the 15th member, but only require the Irish to play 5 ACC games (division schedule plus 1). Separate into three divisions. Divisions would be somewhat based on the ND rotation so that everyone could still play Notre Dame once every 3 years or fewer. The division winners would be based solely on intra-division win-loss records. Notre Dame could make the ACC tournament as a division winner, but not as a Wild Card. Everyone else plays the 4-game divisional schedule and then rotates 4 cross-division games.

Let's start with the 2019 season, to kickoff with the ACC Network (based on current ND schedule games):

2019
Division 1: Notre Dame, Louisville, Virginia, Duke, Boston College
Division 2: Clemson, Florida St., NC State, Wake Forest, Syracuse
Division 3: Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Miami, Pitt, Georgia Tech
(Notre Dame also plays NC State)

2020
Division 1: Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Duke
Division 2: Florida St., NC State, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville
Division 3: North Carolina, Miami, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Pitt
(Notre Dame also plays Pitt)

2021
Division 1: Notre Dame, Florida St., Virginia Tech, Syracuse, North Carolina
Division 2: Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, Boston College
Division 3: Miami, Pitt, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech
(Notre Dame also plays Miami)

(06-01-2017 02:12 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  What would be the 3 permanent rivals for each school in the conference?

For Clemson the only two "must haves" are GT and FSU. If I had to be pressed to pick a third I would want either Wake or VT.

(06-01-2017 02:26 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 12:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If we had to expand and using the parameters set by your post the invites should be Texas & WVU.

My list in order would be like this:

1. Texas
2. WVU
3. Cincy
4. Houston
5. TCU

Agreed. Notre Dame all-in is the clear #1 though.

(06-01-2017 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  If Texas wouldn't accept and WVU would, I could see the following divisions:

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU and Louisville
UVa, Va Tech, UNC, Duke and NC State
Wake, Clemson, Ga Tech, FSU and Miami

Is that something you could live with? Would it be better than what you have now? I would think that, in most years, the highest ranked non-division champ (and thus, the wild card in a 4 team conference tournament) would come from your division. If it doesn't, that would probably mean a major improvement in the conference as a whole.

The ACC couldn't get CCG deregulation passed with 2 divisions, what makes you think they could get it with 3?

If the SEC could snag 4 Texhoma schools taking them to 18, they might want 3 divisions. And if most of the power conferences could get two conference semifinal games to sell, that could swing the balance on this issue.

I would add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, ND, WV & Cincinnati for 20. This would keep them out of the SEC & B1G to prevent them from pulling to far ahead & instead put the ACC on par with them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, WV, Cincinnati

ND, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT, VT

FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, WF

Permanent rivals:
Texas- ND & Clemson
Oklahoma- FSU & VT
Kansas- BC & Syracuse
WV- Pittsburgh & VT
Cincinnati- ND & Louisville
ND- Texas & Cincinnati
Louisville- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- WV & Miami
Syracuse- Virginia & Kansas
BC- Virginia & Kansas
NC- NC State & WF
Duke- WF & NC State
Virginia- Syracuse & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU
VT- WV & Oklahoma
FSU- Oklahoma & GT
Clemson- Texas & GT
Miami- Pittsburgh & Louisville
NC St- NC & Duke
WF- Duke & NC

Play your division (4) plus 2 permanent rivals & 1 from the 3 remaining divisions for 9 games. No current members are stuck in a western division.

(06-01-2017 04:21 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I would add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, ND, WV & Cincinnati for 20. This would keep them out of the SEC & B1G to prevent them from pulling to far ahead & instead put the ACC on par with them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, WV, Cincinnati

ND, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT, VT

FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, WF

Permanent rivals:
Texas- ND & Clemson
Oklahoma- FSU & VT
Kansas- BC & Syracuse
WV- Pittsburgh & VT
Cincinnati- ND & Louisville
ND- Texas & Cincinnati
Louisville- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- WV & Miami
Syracuse- Virginia & Kansas
BC- Virginia & Kansas
NC- NC State & WF
Duke- WF & NC State
Virginia- Syracuse & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU
VT- WV & Oklahoma
FSU- Oklahoma & GT
Clemson- Texas & GT
Miami- Pittsburgh & Louisville
NC St- NC & Duke
WF- Duke & NC

Play your division (4) plus 2 permanent rivals & 1 from the 3 remaining divisions for 9 games. No current members are stuck in a western division.

I'm not sure you could attract Texas with that group. It's still going to be important for them to play a significant number of games against Texas schools.

And, in order to have four divisions, you have to have other P5 conferences' support, especially the SEC and B1G. If you take all the teams they might want to add, you aren't getting that support, IMO.

And even if you could get approval for four divisions, that would mean there is no provision for a second strong team from one division to qualify for a CCT. That's why, IMO, it would be better to have three divisions, not four.

(06-01-2017 04:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 04:21 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I would add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, ND, WV & Cincinnati for 20. This would keep them out of the SEC & B1G to prevent them from pulling to far ahead & instead put the ACC on par with them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, WV, Cincinnati

ND, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT, VT

FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, WF

Permanent rivals:
Texas- ND & Clemson
Oklahoma- FSU & VT
Kansas- BC & Syracuse
WV- Pittsburgh & VT
Cincinnati- ND & Louisville
ND- Texas & Cincinnati
Louisville- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- WV & Miami
Syracuse- Virginia & Kansas
BC- Virginia & Kansas
NC- NC State & WF
Duke- WF & NC State
Virginia- Syracuse & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU
VT- WV & Oklahoma
FSU- Oklahoma & GT
Clemson- Texas & GT
Miami- Pittsburgh & Louisville
NC St- NC & Duke
WF- Duke & NC

Play your division (4) plus 2 permanent rivals & 1 from the 3 remaining divisions for 9 games. No current members are stuck in a western division.

I'm not sure you could attract Texas with that group. It's still going to be important for them to play a significant number of games against Texas schools.

And, in order to have four divisions, you have to have other P5 conferences' support, especially the SEC and B1G. If you take all the teams they might want to add, you aren't getting that support, IMO.

And even if you could get approval for four divisions, that would mean there is no provision for a second strong team from one division to qualify for a CCT. That's why, IMO, it would be better to have three divisions, not four.

I agree with everything you said & I don't see this as being even remotely realistic but what I think would be the optimum outcome. My problem though with three divisions is that Louisville would likely be stuck in the western division & I wasn't that excited to play B12 schools when that looked like our fate.

(06-01-2017 07:35 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 04:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 04:21 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I would add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, ND, WV & Cincinnati for 20. This would keep them out of the SEC & B1G to prevent them from pulling to far ahead & instead put the ACC on par with them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, WV, Cincinnati

ND, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT, VT

FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, WF

Permanent rivals:
Texas- ND & Clemson
Oklahoma- FSU & VT
Kansas- BC & Syracuse
WV- Pittsburgh & VT
Cincinnati- ND & Louisville
ND- Texas & Cincinnati
Louisville- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- WV & Miami
Syracuse- Virginia & Kansas
BC- Virginia & Kansas
NC- NC State & WF
Duke- WF & NC State
Virginia- Syracuse & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU
VT- WV & Oklahoma
FSU- Oklahoma & GT
Clemson- Texas & GT
Miami- Pittsburgh & Louisville
NC St- NC & Duke
WF- Duke & NC

Play your division (4) plus 2 permanent rivals & 1 from the 3 remaining divisions for 9 games. No current members are stuck in a western division.

I'm not sure you could attract Texas with that group. It's still going to be important for them to play a significant number of games against Texas schools.

And, in order to have four divisions, you have to have other P5 conferences' support, especially the SEC and B1G. If you take all the teams they might want to add, you aren't getting that support, IMO.

And even if you could get approval for four divisions, that would mean there is no provision for a second strong team from one division to qualify for a CCT. That's why, IMO, it would be better to have three divisions, not four.

I agree with everything you said & I don't see this as being even remotely realistic but what I think would be the optimum outcome. My problem though with three divisions is that Louisville would likely be stuck in the western division & I wasn't that excited to play B12 schools when that looked like our fate.

That's why I settle on 15 teams, with a North, Central (Carolinas and Virginia) and South division. I had you guys with Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and BC in the north. One of the things I was shooting for was to create the possibility that if Clemson and FSU are both strong, they could both make the CCT without having to be in different divisions. I was also trying to create a probability that the North and Central champs would be respectable enough to boost the league's chances to be in the CFP every year.

By putting FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech and Miami in the same division, there is little need for permanent crossovers.

(06-01-2017 09:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 07:35 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 04:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 04:21 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I would add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, ND, WV & Cincinnati for 20. This would keep them out of the SEC & B1G to prevent them from pulling to far ahead & instead put the ACC on par with them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, WV, Cincinnati

ND, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT, VT

FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, WF

Permanent rivals:
Texas- ND & Clemson
Oklahoma- FSU & VT
Kansas- BC & Syracuse
WV- Pittsburgh & VT
Cincinnati- ND & Louisville
ND- Texas & Cincinnati
Louisville- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- WV & Miami
Syracuse- Virginia & Kansas
BC- Virginia & Kansas
NC- NC State & WF
Duke- WF & NC State
Virginia- Syracuse & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU
VT- WV & Oklahoma
FSU- Oklahoma & GT
Clemson- Texas & GT
Miami- Pittsburgh & Louisville
NC St- NC & Duke
WF- Duke & NC

Play your division (4) plus 2 permanent rivals & 1 from the 3 remaining divisions for 9 games. No current members are stuck in a western division.

I'm not sure you could attract Texas with that group. It's still going to be important for them to play a significant number of games against Texas schools.

And, in order to have four divisions, you have to have other P5 conferences' support, especially the SEC and B1G. If you take all the teams they might want to add, you aren't getting that support, IMO.

And even if you could get approval for four divisions, that would mean there is no provision for a second strong team from one division to qualify for a CCT. That's why, IMO, it would be better to have three divisions, not four.

I agree with everything you said & I don't see this as being even remotely realistic but what I think would be the optimum outcome. My problem though with three divisions is that Louisville would likely be stuck in the western division & I wasn't that excited to play B12 schools when that looked like our fate.

That's why I settle on 15 teams, with a North, Central (Carolinas and Virginia) and South division. I had you guys with Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and BC in the north. One of the things I was shooting for was to create the possibility that if Clemson and FSU are both strong, they could both make the CCT without having to be in different divisions. I was also trying to create a probability that the North and Central champs would be respectable enough to boost the league's chances to be in the CFP every year.

By putting FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech and Miami in the same division, there is little need for permanent crossovers.

I like your divisions & stopping at 15 but I don't know if the economics are there to stabilize the ACC in the future.

1. Texas isn't worth the headache.

2. WVU isn't worth putting up with their fans for them.

3. Notre Dame isn't joining a conference until CFP rules require it and The Big Ten won't let that happen.

4. UConn would be my first choice because of location and competitive athletics.

5. Cincinnati would be my second choice to help bridge gap between Pittsburgh and Notre Dame.

The only two I see as realistic choices


Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-01-2017 09:10 AM)ken d Wrote:  On other threads, the idea was thrown out that some P5 conferences might want to allow more than two divisions and have a four team conference championship tournament instead of the single CCG.

Let's assume for the moment that the NCAA would allow a conference with 15 or more members to do this, provided that all the divisions were the same size, and that every division champion was included in the tournament.

In that scenario, a conference with 15 could have three divisions of 5 teams each, with one wild card. One with 18 could have 6-team divisions with a wild card, and one with 16 could have four divisions of 4 teams with no wild card.

My question to you is, if this rule change were passed (and I realize that's a long shot at best), which option would you choose for the ACC? 15? 16? 18? or stay at 14?

Let's further assume that, regardless of which option the ACC chooses, Notre Dame would elect to remain independent. In that case, who should the ACC invite?

I have always thought 15 is great if the NCAA allows it. Not allowing it is entirely political.

15 teams means a perfectly balanced 9-game ACC schedule. (Quite Bad for 2 or 3 ACC members).

I think the time to get something like this through is when the NCAA allows a 13-game schedule.

If the ACC cannot add Notre Dame, then it should try to convince any other existing P5 school in the "East" to come over. As much as WVU is reviled, it would be my first choice. After that, I would drop into the G5/G4 to select either Cincinnati or Connecticut.

Football Strength is needed. And Rabid Fan Following.

Go to 15. Three Divisions. 13-game schedule. 9-game ACC schedule.
Breaking your rule, Notre Dame is #1, followed by WVU at #2.

Last October, after CCG deregulation was rejected, I looked at what's possible under the current rules for a 15-team conference. This is what I came up with, but this I've replaced Notre Dame with WVU:

Which teams would be in each division? If you're going uneven, the most important thing is to put like-minded teams together. Why? Because mathematically one division is going to play 9 conference games per year while the other plays 8 (it's inevitable with uneven divisions - trust me).

So, which teams want 8 games and which want 9? Let's take a stab at it...

8-game division (7 teams): Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest
The first four are pretty obvious - they all play an annual SEC non-conference rival, so they'll want to keep at least 3 games free to schedule 2 home games plus one home-and-away (alternating with the rivalry game). WVU and Pitt could probably go either way, but I'm putting them here (with Louisville) to form what is essentially an "ACC West" division

Why Wake Forest, though? Because Wake wants to be able to schedule 4 winnable non-conference games every year for bowl-eligibility reasons. True, this is a very tough division, but they'd only be playing 6 division games (7 teams minus themselves). Depending on their draw from the other division, they could easily win 6 games per year. Besides, Wake is the glue that holds the ACC together, so if anyone would agree to be the 7th team in this division, it's them.

Who does that leave for the 9-game division (8 teams; call it the new ACC East division)? Boston College, Duke, Miami, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech.
BC, Miami, Syracuse and Virginia would all be delighted to play 9 conference games every season - that's what they want now!
UNC would be happy to keep Duke, NC State and Virginia on it's annual schedule (while also playing Wake Forest more often as you'll see in a moment).
Virginia Tech will be happy to keep Miami; whatever rivalry is lost in Pittsburgh could be replaced by Syracuse, IMO.

How would divisional schedules work? Each division would play a round-robin. For the smaller Atlantic, that means 6 games, while the large one would need 7 to complete the round-robin portion. Now, we'd still have 2 cross-divisional games, so that gives us 8 games in the smaller division and 9 games in the larger one... there's just one problem: 2 cross-division games X 7 teams = 14 games, while the 8-team division needs 16 games... what gives? (we'll come back to that).

How would cross-over games be handled? First, every team in the new Atlantic division would play 2 teams from the larger division. That leaves 2 teams in the new Coastal division needing a 9th game, however. What to do? Answer: let them play each other a 2nd time. In other words, each of the teams in the new ACC East division would rotate playing one divisional opponent home-and-home every 4 years. So every 4th year each team would play another division foe twice, while playing all the others just once. (NOTE: If preferred you could have a setup where Miami and Va Tech are not included in this rotation, thus making it a 3-year rotation with BC-Cuse, Duke-UNC-NC State-UVA in some sort of rotation).

15 teams. 2 divisions. Clemson, FSU, GT and Louisville all stay at 8 conference games. The pro-9-game teams all go to 9 games. Enough for everyone to approve it, I think...