(07-02-2016 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The 3+5+5 scheduling model was NOT voted down... Total conference deregulation was. Big difference.

Perhaps the ACC should propose that specific rule change for 14- team leagues?

I think it was voted down since the question of naming the 2 CCG participants wasn't addressed. Stating a clear rule there would help. Plus no one wants to help the ACC with the ND membership.

(07-03-2016 08:46 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The 3+5+5 scheduling model was NOT voted down... Total conference deregulation was. Big difference.

Perhaps the ACC should propose that specific rule change for 14- team leagues?

I think it was voted down since the question of naming the 2 CCG participants wasn't addressed. Stating a clear rule there would help. Plus no one wants to help the ACC with the ND membership.

I wouldn't want anything that allows any team to play in the ACC CG without playing a full schedule anyway.

(07-02-2016 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The 3+5+5 scheduling model was NOT voted down... Total conference deregulation was. Big difference.

Perhaps the ACC should propose that specific rule change for 14- team leagues?

I would be very surprised if the 3+5+5 model wasn't floated to the other P5 conferences (3 of which currently have 14 members). But the other two didn't want it - the SEC because they are comfortable with the current rules, and the B1G because they intended to play a nine game schedule anyway.

And if they had approved it, what would then happen if a conference went to 16 members? Would they then have to get permission for their own preferred option? Or would they have to revert to the rule for 12 members?

The only practical way to accommodate all possible conference numbers, it had to be either the rule as it had previously existed or the new one they adopted. 3+5+5 really wasn't an option.

I'm not sure there are enough votes for 3-5-5. If you read Yow's entire interview she has some choice words regarding schools in the Coastal that do not want to change anything. From the bylaws in 2013:

Article II. CONFERENCE COMPETITION
The Conference will be split into two divisions titled Atlantic (Maryland, Clemson, North Carolina State, Wake Forest,
Boston College, Florida State) and Coastal (Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech and Miami) in the
sports of football and baseball.
In order to provide a regular and orderly means of competition between the teams of student-athletes of member
institutions, the following articles outline the principles and agreements among the athletics directors affecting the conduct
of games, meets, matches, tournaments and championships of the Conference.
As a basic principle for intra-conference competition, all member institutions shall compete with other members in all
sports fielded whenever practicable.

It takes 3/4 to change the bylaws and 2/3 to approve the TV contract. 12 schools have to be willing to vote to change divisions. 10 are needed to approve the television contract. Since the divisional makeup is part of the bylaws, that's locked until there are 12 votes to change it.

While Miami and VT are probably not against any division changes, all it takes is UVa, UNC, Duke, and GT or Pitt to block any change and they don't want their path to the ACC title game to have to go through Clemson and FSU.

When it comes to the television contract and where anything about a GOR would be embedded, it only takes 10 votes to approve that contract.

As far as I read things, it's easier to add a 9th game and that can be done with as little as 8 votes.

I hope this has since been removed from the by laws, but I'm not holding my breath...

(07-03-2016 08:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I'm not sure there are enough votes for 3-5-5. If you read Yow's entire interview she has some choice words regarding schools in the Coastal that do not want to change anything. From the bylaws in 2013:

Article II. CONFERENCE COMPETITION
The Conference will be split into two divisions titled Atlantic (Maryland, Clemson, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Boston College, Florida State) and Coastal (Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech and Miami) in the sports of football and baseball.

It takes 3/4 to change the bylaws and 2/3 to approve the TV contract. 12 schools have to be willing to vote to change divisions. 10 are needed to approve the television contract. Since the divisional makeup is part of the bylaws, that's locked until there are 12 votes to change it.

DUMBEST THING THE ACC EVER DID... EVER... WHO SPELLS OUT DIVISIONS IN THE STINKING BY-LAWS? THAT IS JUST SOOO INAPPROPRIATE! Should be something like "The member institutions will determine which teams will play in each division" - and leave it at that! This way it's possible for 4 teams to make the other 11 miserable...

(07-03-2016 08:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I'm not sure there are enough votes for 3-5-5. If you read Yow's entire interview she has some choice words regarding schools in the Coastal that do not want to change anything. From the bylaws in 2013:

Article II. CONFERENCE COMPETITION
The Conference will be split into two divisions titled Atlantic (Maryland, Clemson, North Carolina State, Wake Forest,
Boston College, Florida State) and Coastal (Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech and Miami) in the
sports of football and baseball.
In order to provide a regular and orderly means of competition between the teams of student-athletes of member
institutions, the following articles outline the principles and agreements among the athletics directors affecting the conduct
of games, meets, matches, tournaments and championships of the Conference.
As a basic principle for intra-conference competition, all member institutions shall compete with other members in all
sports fielded whenever practicable.

It takes 3/4 to change the bylaws and 2/3 to approve the TV contract. 12 schools have to be willing to vote to change divisions. 10 are needed to approve the television contract. Since the divisional makeup is part of the bylaws, that's locked until there are 12 votes to change it.

While Miami and VT are probably not against any division changes, all it takes is UVa, UNC, Duke, and GT or Pitt to block any change and they don't want their path to the ACC title game to have to go through Clemson and FSU.

When it comes to the television contract and where anything about a GOR would be embedded, it only takes 10 votes to approve that contract.

As far as I read things, it's easier to add a 9th game and that can be done with as little as 8 votes.

Thanks for the info LP4.

(07-03-2016 08:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I'm not sure there are enough votes for 3-5-5. If you read Yow's entire interview she has some choice words regarding schools in the Coastal that do not want to change anything. From the bylaws in 2013:

Article II. CONFERENCE COMPETITION
The Conference will be split into two divisions titled Atlantic (Maryland, Clemson, North Carolina State, Wake Forest,
Boston College, Florida State) and Coastal (Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech and Miami) in the
sports of football and baseball.
In order to provide a regular and orderly means of competition between the teams of student-athletes of member
institutions, the following articles outline the principles and agreements among the athletics directors affecting the conduct
of games, meets, matches, tournaments and championships of the Conference.
As a basic principle for intra-conference competition, all member institutions shall compete with other members in all
sports fielded whenever practicable.

It takes 3/4 to change the bylaws and 2/3 to approve the TV contract. 12 schools have to be willing to vote to change divisions. 10 are needed to approve the television contract. Since the divisional makeup is part of the bylaws, that's locked until there are 12 votes to change it.

While Miami and VT are probably not against any division changes, all it takes is UVa, UNC, Duke, and GT or Pitt to block any change and they don't want their path to the ACC title game to have to go through Clemson and FSU.

When it comes to the television contract and where anything about a GOR would be embedded, it only takes 10 votes to approve that contract.

As far as I read things, it's easier to add a 9th game and that can be done with as little as 8 votes.

There are a few issues about this By Law Article. First, it doesn't address the Addition of Pitt and Syracuse. It doesn't address Louisville or Maryland. And, FWIW, now that there are 14 football members, it takes 11 votes to change this, not 12. In any case, getting 11 schools to agree on any specific change is going to be very hard. And it wouldn't just be Coastal schools doing the blocking.

Are you sure this Article remains as you quote it, or has it been changed already? And if this Article were to be deleted from the ByLaws, how many votes would then be needed to change divisions? Unless that were spelled out otherwise, it would seem like a simple majority (8 votes) would suffice.

I'm guessing that some members of the Coastal Division insisted that this be included in the ByLaws at the time, and as a condition of, the league decided to add Miami, BC and VaTech, in order to protect some long standing rivalries.

(07-02-2016 08:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Pitt fans seem to be a bit sour on college football. Steady improvement under Narduzzi, along with the return of Penn State to the schedule should change that.

I think we are more sour on the endless stream of bull**** that surrounds college football. I am not doing cartwheels over the current divisional alignment. However, I have not read anything that improves it - at least not from our perspective.

(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.

(07-04-2016 10:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 08:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I'm not sure there are enough votes for 3-5-5. If you read Yow's entire interview she has some choice words regarding schools in the Coastal that do not want to change anything. From the bylaws in 2013:

Article II. CONFERENCE COMPETITION
The Conference will be split into two divisions titled Atlantic (Maryland, Clemson, North Carolina State, Wake Forest,
Boston College, Florida State) and Coastal (Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech and Miami) in the
sports of football and baseball.
In order to provide a regular and orderly means of competition between the teams of student-athletes of member
institutions, the following articles outline the principles and agreements among the athletics directors affecting the conduct
of games, meets, matches, tournaments and championships of the Conference.
As a basic principle for intra-conference competition, all member institutions shall compete with other members in all
sports fielded whenever practicable.

It takes 3/4 to change the bylaws and 2/3 to approve the TV contract. 12 schools have to be willing to vote to change divisions. 10 are needed to approve the television contract. Since the divisional makeup is part of the bylaws, that's locked until there are 12 votes to change it.

While Miami and VT are probably not against any division changes, all it takes is UVa, UNC, Duke, and GT or Pitt to block any change and they don't want their path to the ACC title game to have to go through Clemson and FSU.

When it comes to the television contract and where anything about a GOR would be embedded, it only takes 10 votes to approve that contract.

As far as I read things, it's easier to add a 9th game and that can be done with as little as 8 votes.

There are a few issues about this By Law Article. First, it doesn't address the Addition of Pitt and Syracuse. It doesn't address Louisville or Maryland. And, FWIW, now that there are 14 football members, it takes 11 votes to change this, not 12. In any case, getting 11 schools to agree on any specific change is going to be very hard. And it wouldn't just be Coastal schools doing the blocking.

Are you sure this Article remains as you quote it, or has it been changed already? And if this Article were to be deleted from the ByLaws, how many votes would then be needed to change divisions? Unless that were spelled out otherwise, it would seem like a simple majority (8 votes) would suffice.

I'm guessing that some members of the Coastal Division insisted that this be included in the ByLaws at the time, and as a condition of, the league decided to add Miami, BC and VaTech, in order to protect some long standing rivalries.

This article certainly could have been changed, but doing so would have required the same 3/4ths super majority...

Lumberpack4 Wrote

Quote:It takes 3/4 to change the bylaws and 2/3 to approve the TV contract. 12 schools have to be willing to vote to change divisions. 10 are needed to approve the television contract. Since the divisional makeup is part of the bylaws, that's locked until there are 12 votes to change it.

While Miami and VT are probably not against any division changes, all it takes is UVa, UNC, Duke, and GT or Pitt to block any change and they don't want their path to the ACC title game to have to go through Clemson and FSU.

I can't speak for anyone else but not having to go through Clemson and/or Florida State has absolutely NOTHING to do with my opposition to divisional changes. If people wanted to swap out say, Duke and North Carolina for Florida State and Clemson, I would say sign me up!

I would absolutely LOVE to have them on my team's annual schedule! My worry is filling up that stadium in a pro sports city. Annual games against Florida State and Clemson would help that cause. Less frequent games against the likes of Miami and Virginia Tech clearly hurts that cause. It is not remotely complicated.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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 like it!!

(07-03-2016 10:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I hope this has since been removed from the by laws, but I'm not holding my breath...

(07-03-2016 08:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I'm not sure there are enough votes for 3-5-5. If you read Yow's entire interview she has some choice words regarding schools in the Coastal that do not want to change anything. From the bylaws in 2013:

Article II. CONFERENCE COMPETITION
The Conference will be split into two divisions titled Atlantic (Maryland, Clemson, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Boston College, Florida State) and Coastal (Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech and Miami) in the sports of football and baseball.

It takes 3/4 to change the bylaws and 2/3 to approve the TV contract. 12 schools have to be willing to vote to change divisions. 10 are needed to approve the television contract. Since the divisional makeup is part of the bylaws, that's locked until there are 12 votes to change it.

DUMBEST THING THE ACC EVER DID... EVER... WHO SPELLS OUT DIVISIONS IN THE STINKING BY-LAWS? THAT IS JUST SOOO INAPPROPRIATE! Should be something like "The member institutions will determine which teams will play in each division" - and leave it at that! This way it's possible for 4 teams to make the other 11 miserable...

It's in the bylaws because certain schools are not stupid and had various reasons to protect their perceived positions as they saw them at the time. The reason Duke and UNC were okay with VT is that VT would fill their football stadiums. Those two also have long standing reasons to demand GT, etc., etc.

What happened since that original divisional split was that Miami football self-destructed, Clemson football reached a new all-time level (yes better than under Ford in the 80's or Frank Howard in the 50's) and Maryland stab us in the back and left a DC/NOVA hole in the Atlantic.

When the divisions were first created, Miami and FSU were thought to be programs on an equal footing and therefore interchangeable. VT and Clemson were thought to be rough equals. Maryland and UVa played in the same greater DC market extending out from DC to Wilmington Delaware, down to the Tidewater, and west into the WVa panhandle.

Now, Atlantic schools appear in the DelMarVa just once every six years, and just once every 12 year in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Conversely the Coastal is has that same one in 12 only in South Carolina. To my mind this is a greater hurdle than having both Clemson and FSU in the same division.

Below is a compilation of where the blue chip recruits in football hail from and you can see that the States in the main ACC footprint produce:

Florida - 45 on average per year
Georgia - 28 on average per year
Virginia - 11 on average per year
NC - 10 on average per year
PA - 8 on average per year
SC - 7 on average per year
MD - 7 on average per year
DC - 2 on average per year
KY - 2 on average per year
NY - 1 on average per year

Atlantic schools average 65
Coastal schools average 111

State '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Total Percentage of total
Florida 45 47 50 42 46 230 14.0%
Texas 43 52 47 37 46 225 13.7%
California 36 45 44 34 41 200 12.2%
Georgia 33 26 34 23 25 141 8.6%
Ohio 15 12 17 15 19 78 4.8%
Louisiana 12 21 13 16 12 74 4.5%
Alabama 14 8 12 11 13 58 3.5%
Virginia 14 6 13 10 13 56 3.4%
North Carolina 7 15 9 13 7 51 3.1%
Tennessee 9 8 11 7 9 44 2.7%
Pennsylvania 8 9 9 7 10 43 2.6%
New Jersey 4 8 7 10 11 40 2.4%
Illinois 5 6 5 12 9 37 2.3%
Mississippi 5 11 7 8 5 36 2.2%
Michigan 10 9 4 4 8 35 2.1%
Maryland 8 11 6 4 6 35 2.1%
South Carolina 4 5 5 9 5 28 1.7%
Arizona 6 5 2 7 6 26 1.6%
Indiana 3 4 3 6 7 23 1.4%
Oklahoma 4 1 5 7 2 19 1.2%
Washington 4 3 6 2 2 17 1.0%
Arkansas 2 3 5 2 3 15 0.9%
Utah 4 2 3 3 1 13 0.8%
D.C. 1 4 3 2 3 13 0.8%
Nevada 5 0 3 4 0 12 0.7%
Missouri 3 1 3 3 2 12 0.7%
Oregon 2 2 1 2 3 10 0.6%
Colorado 2 1 3 3 1 10 0.6%
Hawaii 2 2 4 0 2 10 0.6%
Kentucky 1 3 2 2 1 9 0.5%
New York 1 0 1 3 1 6 0.4%
Minnesota 0 1 1 3 1 6 0.4%
Kansas 0 3 0 3 0 6 0.4%
Iowa 0 2 0 2 1 5 0.3%
Wisconsin 0 2 0 2 1 5 0.3%
Connecticut 2 0 2 0 0 4 0.2%
Delaware 1 0 0 1 0 2 0.1%
New Mexico 1 0 1 0 0 2 0.1%
Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.1%
Nebraska 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.1%
Idaho 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.1%
South Dakota 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.1%
Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Maine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Montana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
National 316 339 342 319 326 1642 100.0%

(07-04-2016 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(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 like it!!

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.

Permanent partners would be:

Clemson.........Florida St & Miami
Ga Tech..........Florida St & Miami
NC State........Va Tech & Louisville
Virginia..........Va Tech & Louisville
UNC...............Pitt & Syracuse
Duke..............BC & Pitt
Wake Forest....BC & Syracuse

Florida St.......Clemson & Ga Tech
Miami............Clemson & Ga Tech
Louisville........NC State & Virginia
Va Tech..........NC State & Virginia
Pitt................UNC & Duke
Syracuse........UNC & Wake Forest
BC.................Duke & Wake Forest

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.

(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".

(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".

When I worked through the schedule to see if this was feasible, the only schools that Va Tech wouldn't likely play would be Duke and Wake Forest, and both of those could be accommodated every third year OOC.

Not everybody could do that, and VT might not want to do that. There isn't any perfect solution for everybody in the confines of a 12 game season when some schools want 7 home games a year.

(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