(04-28-2015 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I believe the issue with trying "4" rivals may be that all fourteen teams cannot have 4 rivals assigned (or agreed to) in a mathematically consistent manner. If a 14 x 14 spreadsheet ("matrix") is used, I am not sure that all 14 teams can end up with 4 rivals. I believe some (perhaps several) of the 14 teams will end up with less than or greater than 4 rivals. You can test this for yourself with pencil and paper or with an excel spreadsheet.

No, that part is theoretically possible since we are allowing overlap. For example, you could just arrange the teams in alphabetical order and let each team take the two before it and the two after it as "rivals", wrapping around when you get to the end of the list. That would be consistent, though it wouldn't be better.

My concern was can you do the 4 rotating AND 4 annual games with NO REPEATS? In other words, you don't want UNC playing NC State twice in one season.

(04-28-2015 07:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I believe the issue with trying "4" rivals may be that all fourteen teams cannot have 4 rivals assigned (or agreed to) in a mathematically consistent manner. If a 14 x 14 spreadsheet ("matrix") is used, I am not sure that all 14 teams can end up with 4 rivals. I believe some (perhaps several) of the 14 teams will end up with less than or greater than 4 rivals. You can test this for yourself with pencil and paper or with an excel spreadsheet.

No, that part is theoretically possible since we are allowing overlap. For example, you could just arrange the teams in alphabetical order and let each team take the two before it and the two after it as "rivals", wrapping around when you get to the end of the list. That would be consistent, though it wouldn't be better.

My concern was can you do the 4 rotating AND 4 annual games with NO REPEATS? In other words, you don't want UNC playing NC State twice in one season.

Mark- I have done up a spreadsheet using your approach -- and having 4 rivals that do not conflict in some way (causing either fewer or more rivals per team), is impossible. At least on my spreadsheet. Unless my mathematical brain has gone nuts. If I just just recall fully my 'combinations and permutations' course!!

(04-28-2015 08:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I believe the issue with trying "4" rivals may be that all fourteen teams cannot have 4 rivals assigned (or agreed to) in a mathematically consistent manner. If a 14 x 14 spreadsheet ("matrix") is used, I am not sure that all 14 teams can end up with 4 rivals. I believe some (perhaps several) of the 14 teams will end up with less than or greater than 4 rivals. You can test this for yourself with pencil and paper or with an excel spreadsheet.

No, that part is theoretically possible since we are allowing overlap. For example, you could just arrange the teams in alphabetical order and let each team take the two before it and the two after it as "rivals", wrapping around when you get to the end of the list. That would be consistent, though it wouldn't be better.

My concern was can you do the 4 rotating AND 4 annual games with NO REPEATS? In other words, you don't want UNC playing NC State twice in one season.

Mark- I have done up a spreadsheet using your approach -- and having 4 rivals that do not conflict in some way (causing either fewer or more rivals per team), is impossible. At least on my spreadsheet. Unless my mathematical brain has gone nuts. If I just just recall fully my 'combinations and permutations' course!!

You should find that 3 X 5 works, however.

(04-28-2015 08:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I believe the issue with trying "4" rivals may be that all fourteen teams cannot have 4 rivals assigned (or agreed to) in a mathematically consistent manner. If a 14 x 14 spreadsheet ("matrix") is used, I am not sure that all 14 teams can end up with 4 rivals. I believe some (perhaps several) of the 14 teams will end up with less than or greater than 4 rivals. You can test this for yourself with pencil and paper or with an excel spreadsheet.

No, that part is theoretically possible since we are allowing overlap. For example, you could just arrange the teams in alphabetical order and let each team take the two before it and the two after it as "rivals", wrapping around when you get to the end of the list. That would be consistent, though it wouldn't be better.

My concern was can you do the 4 rotating AND 4 annual games with NO REPEATS? In other words, you don't want UNC playing NC State twice in one season.

Mark- I have done up a spreadsheet using your approach -- and having 4 rivals that do not conflict in some way (causing either fewer or more rivals per team), is impossible. At least on my spreadsheet. Unless my mathematical brain has gone nuts. If I just just recall fully my 'combinations and permutations' course!!

I've tried to make it work too, without success. I can come close - two teams in one division have to play either three permanent or one permanent within their division. But so far, I can't get everybody balance at 2+2.

(04-28-2015 10:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 08:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I believe the issue with trying "4" rivals may be that all fourteen teams cannot have 4 rivals assigned (or agreed to) in a mathematically consistent manner. If a 14 x 14 spreadsheet ("matrix") is used, I am not sure that all 14 teams can end up with 4 rivals. I believe some (perhaps several) of the 14 teams will end up with less than or greater than 4 rivals. You can test this for yourself with pencil and paper or with an excel spreadsheet.

No, that part is theoretically possible since we are allowing overlap. For example, you could just arrange the teams in alphabetical order and let each team take the two before it and the two after it as "rivals", wrapping around when you get to the end of the list. That would be consistent, though it wouldn't be better.

My concern was can you do the 4 rotating AND 4 annual games with NO REPEATS? In other words, you don't want UNC playing NC State twice in one season.

Mark- I have done up a spreadsheet using your approach -- and having 4 rivals that do not conflict in some way (causing either fewer or more rivals per team), is impossible. At least on my spreadsheet. Unless my mathematical brain has gone nuts. If I just just recall fully my 'combinations and permutations' course!!

I've tried to make it work too, without success. I can come close - two teams in one division have to play either three permanent or one permanent within their division. But so far, I can't get everybody balance at 2+2.

Yes, Ken. That's where I am too.

(04-28-2015 09:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 08:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I believe the issue with trying "4" rivals may be that all fourteen teams cannot have 4 rivals assigned (or agreed to) in a mathematically consistent manner. If a 14 x 14 spreadsheet ("matrix") is used, I am not sure that all 14 teams can end up with 4 rivals. I believe some (perhaps several) of the 14 teams will end up with less than or greater than 4 rivals. You can test this for yourself with pencil and paper or with an excel spreadsheet.

No, that part is theoretically possible since we are allowing overlap. For example, you could just arrange the teams in alphabetical order and let each team take the two before it and the two after it as "rivals", wrapping around when you get to the end of the list. That would be consistent, though it wouldn't be better.

My concern was can you do the 4 rotating AND 4 annual games with NO REPEATS? In other words, you don't want UNC playing NC State twice in one season.

Mark- I have done up a spreadsheet using your approach -- and having 4 rivals that do not conflict in some way (causing either fewer or more rivals per team), is impossible. At least on my spreadsheet. Unless my mathematical brain has gone nuts. If I just just recall fully my 'combinations and permutations' course!!

You should find that 3 X 5 works, however.

I know that 3-5-5 divisionless works. I have been able to play that out in detail over 8 years and haven't run into any roadblocks.

I also know that it is possible for everybody to have two permanent division rivals and one permanent cross division rival without any duplications. What I'm not so sure about is whether all of the rotations work for everybody, with all rotating rivals getting an equal number of home and away games against everybody else and everybody getting a balanced 4 home/4 away schedule every year. The sheer number of permutations and combinations makes that an incredibly tedious and complicated worksheet to develop. You would probably need to have specialized scheduling software to test it out.

If anybody has actually managed to map it out already, my hat is off to you.

(04-28-2015 11:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 09:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 08:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  I believe the issue with trying "4" rivals may be that all fourteen teams cannot have 4 rivals assigned (or agreed to) in a mathematically consistent manner. If a 14 x 14 spreadsheet ("matrix") is used, I am not sure that all 14 teams can end up with 4 rivals. I believe some (perhaps several) of the 14 teams will end up with less than or greater than 4 rivals. You can test this for yourself with pencil and paper or with an excel spreadsheet.

No, that part is theoretically possible since we are allowing overlap. For example, you could just arrange the teams in alphabetical order and let each team take the two before it and the two after it as "rivals", wrapping around when you get to the end of the list. That would be consistent, though it wouldn't be better.

My concern was can you do the 4 rotating AND 4 annual games with NO REPEATS? In other words, you don't want UNC playing NC State twice in one season.

Mark- I have done up a spreadsheet using your approach -- and having 4 rivals that do not conflict in some way (causing either fewer or more rivals per team), is impossible. At least on my spreadsheet. Unless my mathematical brain has gone nuts. If I just just recall fully my 'combinations and permutations' course!!

You should find that 3 X 5 works, however.

I know that 3-5-5 divisionless works. I have been able to play that out in detail over 8 years and haven't run into any roadblocks.

I also know that it is possible for everybody to have two permanent division rivals and one permanent cross division rival without any duplications. What I'm not so sure about is whether all of the rotations work for everybody, with all rotating rivals getting an equal number of home and away games against everybody else and everybody getting a balanced 4 home/4 away schedule every year. The sheer number of permutations and combinations makes that an incredibly tedious and complicated worksheet to develop. You would probably need to have specialized scheduling software to test it out.

If anybody has actually managed to map it out already, my hat is off to you.

3-5-5 divisionless works. Have it on a spreadsheet.

With the mwc coming out in favor of status quo and the big 10 commish not appearing to keen on full deregulderegulation, would the acc consider a radical divisonal realignment?

UNC.....................NC State
UVA.....................Va Tech
DUKE...................Wake
GA TECH.............Pitt
FSU......................Miami
CLEMSON...........BC
LOUISVILLE.................Syracuse

by switching fsu, clemson, and louisville with miami, va tech, and pitt you are able to preserve a lot of rivalries while restoring new ones. The biggest loss from a historical rival perspective is clemson nc state. Losing ga tech va tech would be a bummer too but the gain of fsu ga tech would make up for it. This format would also allow the acc to preserve their final week schedule that they had this year

Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

(05-07-2015 07:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

I don't know about that, but I wonder why basketball is allowed to adjust the schedule for the best matchups and football isn't.












OK so I lied and I do know why basketball can do that and football can't.

(05-07-2015 07:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

(05-07-2015 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

I don't know about that, but I wonder why basketball is allowed to adjust the schedule for the best matchups and football isn't.












OK so I lied and I do know why basketball can do that and football can't.

Of course the basketball schools get that benefit while the acc screws the schools that carry the conference in the most important sport

(05-08-2015 04:45 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

I don't know about that, but I wonder why basketball is allowed to adjust the schedule for the best matchups and football isn't.


OK so I lied and I do know why basketball can do that and football can't.

Of course the basketball schools get that benefit while the acc screws the schools that carry the conference in the most important sport

You do realize that basketball in the ACC is not played in divisions, right? It would be nice to go to a division-less set-up for football, then no school would have to wait 6 years to play another school not in it's division.

One of the difficulties that most FSU fans have a hard time realizing is that your school is not in the top 3 rivalry picks for Georgia Tech.

(05-08-2015 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 04:45 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

I don't know about that, but I wonder why basketball is allowed to adjust the schedule for the best matchups and football isn't.


OK so I lied and I do know why basketball can do that and football can't.

Of course the basketball schools get that benefit while the acc screws the schools that carry the conference in the most important sport

You do realize that basketball in the ACC is not played in divisions, right? It would be nice to go to a division-less set-up for football, then no school would have to wait 6 years to play another school not in it's division.

One of the difficulties that most FSU fans have a hard time realizing is that your school is not in the top 3 rivalry picks for Georgia Tech.

I'd say they are 4th or 5th. None of us have a hard time understanding that. Any model out there can have us playing them every other year at worst. And in many 3 rivalry models, UNC, UVA etc have 3 rivals or more before GT too....

If we played GT every other year and stopped playing BC, Wake and Cuse every year, I'd be fine with it.

(05-08-2015 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 04:45 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

I don't know about that, but I wonder why basketball is allowed to adjust the schedule for the best matchups and football isn't.


OK so I lied and I do know why basketball can do that and football can't.

Of course the basketball schools get that benefit while the acc screws the schools that carry the conference in the most important sport

You do realize that basketball in the ACC is not played in divisions, right? It would be nice to go to a division-less set-up for football, then no school would have to wait 6 years to play another school not in it's division.

One of the difficulties that most FSU fans have a hard time realizing is that your school is not in the top 3 rivalry picks for Georgia Tech.

When it comes to matters of the ACC in 2015, it seems that you - possibly more so than anyone else - have the most difficulty understanding things.

(05-08-2015 08:18 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 04:45 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shouldn't FSU get to make the rivals/divisions? Serious question.

I don't know about that, but I wonder why basketball is allowed to adjust the schedule for the best matchups and football isn't.


OK so I lied and I do know why basketball can do that and football can't.

Of course the basketball schools get that benefit while the acc screws the schools that carry the conference in the most important sport

You do realize that basketball in the ACC is not played in divisions, right? It would be nice to go to a division-less set-up for football, then no school would have to wait 6 years to play another school not in it's division.

One of the difficulties that most FSU fans have a hard time realizing is that your school is not in the top 3 rivalry picks for Georgia Tech.

I'd say they are 4th or 5th. None of us have a hard time understanding that. Any model out there can have us playing them every other year at worst. And in many 3 rivalry models, UNC, UVA etc have 3 rivals or more before GT too....

If we played GT every other year and stopped playing BC, Wake and Cuse every year, I'd be fine with it.

You might be, but ESPN wouldn't.
As Omni pointed out a week or so ago, that the FSU/Boston College game is extremely popular, especially in the Northeast. If you recall, he pointed out that the game had been broadcast every year except one on ABC as their primary game since BC came into the league. I would imagine that Boston College will be on Florida State's schedule for a long time to come.
And just how would you rate your top 3 rival choices for football or how would you think the divisions should be set up. Keep in mind that Boston College will be in your division.

I think ESPN would be willing to cut FSU-BC games in half if it meant triple the number of FSU-GT and FSU-VT games.

(05-08-2015 08:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:18 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 04:45 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I don't know about that, but I wonder why basketball is allowed to adjust the schedule for the best matchups and football isn't.


OK so I lied and I do know why basketball can do that and football can't.

Of course the basketball schools get that benefit while the acc screws the schools that carry the conference in the most important sport

You do realize that basketball in the ACC is not played in divisions, right? It would be nice to go to a division-less set-up for football, then no school would have to wait 6 years to play another school not in it's division.

One of the difficulties that most FSU fans have a hard time realizing is that your school is not in the top 3 rivalry picks for Georgia Tech.

I'd say they are 4th or 5th. None of us have a hard time understanding that. Any model out there can have us playing them every other year at worst. And in many 3 rivalry models, UNC, UVA etc have 3 rivals or more before GT too....

If we played GT every other year and stopped playing BC, Wake and Cuse every year, I'd be fine with it.

You might be, but ESPN wouldn't.
As Omni pointed out a week or so ago, that the FSU/Boston College game is extremely popular, especially in the Northeast. If you recall, he pointed out that the game had been broadcast every year except one on ABC as their primary game since BC came into the league. I would imagine that Boston College will be on Florida State's schedule for a long time to come.
And just how would you rate your top 3 rival choices for football or how would you think the divisions should be set up. Keep in mind that Boston College will be in your division.

Omni's point was that FSU/BC was on some national network (ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 ) the vast majority of the time. When I asked him what ACC game with FSU involved isnt on those stations the vast majority of the time, I got no answer.

FSU brings the highest ratings by far of any ACC team. It's not an FSU/BC thing. That isnt a rivalry game. Miami/BC makes more sense than FSU/BC and that game is ignored.

FSU vs GT or VT would be a way better matchup than vs BC or Cuse. FSU/UNC would do better than FSU/BC too.

(05-08-2015 09:00 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I think ESPN would be willing to cut FSU-BC games in half if it meant triple the number of FSU-GT and FSU-VT games.

^^^ THIS ^^^

And that's nothing against BC, either.

(05-08-2015 09:41 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:18 AM)Ragu Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 04:45 AM)Ragu Wrote:  Of course the basketball schools get that benefit while the acc screws the schools that carry the conference in the most important sport

You do realize that basketball in the ACC is not played in divisions, right? It would be nice to go to a division-less set-up for football, then no school would have to wait 6 years to play another school not in it's division.

One of the difficulties that most FSU fans have a hard time realizing is that your school is not in the top 3 rivalry picks for Georgia Tech.

I'd say they are 4th or 5th. None of us have a hard time understanding that. Any model out there can have us playing them every other year at worst. And in many 3 rivalry models, UNC, UVA etc have 3 rivals or more before GT too....

If we played GT every other year and stopped playing BC, Wake and Cuse every year, I'd be fine with it.

You might be, but ESPN wouldn't.
As Omni pointed out a week or so ago, that the FSU/Boston College game is extremely popular, especially in the Northeast. If you recall, he pointed out that the game had been broadcast every year except one on ABC as their primary game since BC came into the league. I would imagine that Boston College will be on Florida State's schedule for a long time to come.
And just how would you rate your top 3 rival choices for football or how would you think the divisions should be set up. Keep in mind that Boston College will be in your division.

Omni's point was that FSU/BC was on some national network (ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 ) the vast majority of the time. When I asked him what ACC game with FSU involved isnt on those stations the vast majority of the time, I got no answer.

FSU brings the highest ratings by far of any ACC team. It's not an FSU/BC thing. That isnt a rivalry game. Miami/BC makes more sense than FSU/BC and that game is ignored.

FSU vs GT or VT would be a way better matchup than vs BC or Cuse. FSU/UNC would do better than FSU/BC too.

Go back and re-read my post again, you obviously missed the nuances of the post.

It wasn't just that FSU/BC was on a major network each and every time, it was about the number of times it was on either ABC (more times than any other FSU/ACC match-up other than Miami and tied with Clemson) and the fact it was only pushed to ESPN2 once in the past 10 years. Of the regular opponents in the Atlantic Division (or cross-over rivalry game) only Miami and Clemson have never had an FSU match-up pushed to ESPN2 or a lesser network in that timeframe.

NC State has had 2 ESPNU and 1 Raycom; Wake has had 1 ESPNU, 1 ACCN, and 1 Raycom.

Still, my main point was about the fact that IF divisions remained but only slightly altered, FSU would not be looking for BC to move out to make room for GT. Syracuse or Louisville perhaps, but not BC - no way, no how.

If the ACC were to go to the 3-5-5 set-up then FSU-BC would no longer be an annual game. But I highly doubt GT becomes one either in this set-up.

Cheers,
Neil