http://www.wralsportsfan.com/solving-sch.../16821914/

What a horrible article, no originality at all. To sum it up he suggest like every other piece ever written, a 16 team conference with 4 pods of 4.

How I would do a 9 game schedule w/ a 16 team conference w/ ND and Texas + the existing ACC schools:

PODS
A) UNC, WF, Duke, and NCSU
B) Miami, FSU, GT, and Clemson
C) UVA, Texas, VT, UL
D) BC, SU, Pitt, ND

PERM RIVALS
UNC: FSU - UVA - ND
WF: Miami - UL - BC
Duke: GT - Texas - SU
NCSU: Clemson - VT - Pitt
Miami: WF - UL - Pitt
FSU: UNC - Texas - ND
GT: Duke - VT - SU
Clemson: NCSU - UVA - BC
UVA: UNC - Clemson - SU
Texas: Duke - FSU - ND
VT: NCSU - GT - BC
UL: WF - Miami - Pitt
BC: WF - Clemson - VT
SU: Duke - GT - UVA
Pitt: NCSU - Miami - UL
ND: UNC - FSU - Texas

YR 1: Pods A + B & C + D
YR 2: Pods A + C & B + D
YR 3: Pods A + D & B + C

ACC CHAMPIONSHIP SITE
Charlotte, NC

**Still, I think that Texas would be far more likely to join as a partial, and I think that WVU is far more likely to join than Texas**

(07-16-2017 01:21 PM)spenser Wrote:  What a horrible article, no originality at all. To sum it up he suggest like every other piece ever written, a 16 team conference with 4 pods of 4.

Concur, anyone on this board could have written a more substantial analysis. The author fails to really address why dividing the ACC is so challenging nor discusses why going divisionless is probably the best plan of action

Dave Glenn is an idiot.

The man is so stupid as not to understand that NCAA rules require everyone in a football division to play a round robin. The article is written to grab the attention of NC State fans who are tired of not playing Duke - 8 miles away, and tired of being in a division where we do not get regular trips to Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Virginia. Having FSU and Clemson in the division is only one part of the issue. Trips to Massachusetts, New York, and Kentucky do not help our recruiting. Prior to the divisional split, we heavily recruited Va and Pa. Our last two NFL QB's came from Va.

I would move the article to the out house instead of the penthouse.

Why not just get rid of official divisions and establish protected pods of matchups for scheduling purposes each year? The ACC could then fill out the remainder with either Notre Dame, rotating conference opponents, or matchups based on prior year's finish. This way, you could just take the top two finishing teams and match them up in the ACC CCG.

Tobacco Pod: UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh
Atlantic: Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

He has been "saying ND would become a full ACC member for a decade", lol.

Keep saying it forever, dude. Just keep saying it.

He was wrong for a decade, but boldly predicts it (again), this time "within nine years".

(07-16-2017 03:26 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Dave Glenn is an idiot.

I agree. However, Adam Gold wrote the article.

(07-16-2017 06:58 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 03:26 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Dave Glenn is an idiot.

I agree. However, Adam Gold wroth the article.

Oh God....you corrected Lumber. You'll soon get a 2000+ word dissertation about how wrong you are.

(07-16-2017 10:14 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  http://www.wralsportsfan.com/solving-sch.../16821914/

Without reading it I want to make a guess: the high schooler who wrote it has ND in as a full member of the ACC? Am I correct?

(07-17-2017 08:52 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 10:14 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  http://www.wralsportsfan.com/solving-sch.../16821914/

Without reading it I want to make a guess: the high schooler who wrote it has ND in as a full member of the ACC? Am I correct?

Correct, and that is just the most obvious flaw. IIRC he also separated UVA from the rest of the original members...

Yes, I would like better ACC football schedules, but that won't work.

I'll say it again, so that the set in stone truth can be repeated for posterity:

the Big Ten and the SEC will blackball any kind of change to NCAA rules that would enable ACC to adjust its divisional alignment such that it would become attractive for Notre Dame to become a full member. They will sell out to stop that, whether that's allowing divisionless (already killed that, last time) or whether that would be allowing more than two divisions .... whatever they perceive as moving the ACC in a helpful direction towards such an end.


When Swofford retires, he will do so without having achieved his dream of getting ND into the conf full-time in football. I think he accepts that.

(07-17-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll say it again, so that the set in stone truth can be repeated for posterity:

the Big Ten and the SEC will blackball any kind of change to NCAA rules that would enable ACC to adjust its divisional alignment such that it would become attractive for Notre Dame to become a full member. They will sell out to stop that, whether that's allowing divisionless (already killed that, last time) or whether that would be allowing more than two divisions .... whatever they perceive as moving the ACC in a helpful direction towards such an end.


When Swofford retires, he will do so without having achieved his dream of getting ND into the conf full-time in football. I think he accepts that.

Why would the SEC care? Simply to leave the ACC in a weaker position to pick apart 15-20 years from now?

(07-17-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll say it again, so that the set in stone truth can be repeated for posterity:

the Big Ten and the SEC will blackball any kind of change to NCAA rules that would enable ACC to adjust its divisional alignment such that it would become attractive for Notre Dame to become a full member. They will sell out to stop that, whether that's allowing divisionless (already killed that, last time) or whether that would be allowing more than two divisions .... whatever they perceive as moving the ACC in a helpful direction towards such an end.


When Swofford retires, he will do so without having achieved his dream of getting ND into the conf full-time in football. I think he accepts that.

I tend to agree, w/ the possible caveat that I think that the SEC's support can be bought if there's something that they really want and need the ACC's vote.

I don't think that the B1G can be bought.

(07-17-2017 11:20 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I tend to agree, w/ the possible caveat that I think that the SEC's support can be bought if there's something that they really want and need the ACC's vote.

I don't think that the B1G can be bought.

I suppose if somehow a deal could be brokered that got Texas to the SEC as a full, equal revenue sharing member and got Notre Dame to the ACC as a full, equal revenue sharing member ... then perhaps.

But don't see how/why that would come about.

(07-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 11:20 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I tend to agree, w/ the possible caveat that I think that the SEC's support can be bought if there's something that they really want and need the ACC's vote.

I don't think that the B1G can be bought.

I suppose if somehow a deal could be brokered that got Texas to the SEC as a full, equal revenue sharing member and got Notre Dame to the ACC as a full, equal revenue sharing member ... then perhaps.

But don't see how/why that would come about.

I don't think that it would even take that much. ND isn't as big in the southeast as they are in other areas. And, their add wouldn't increase the ACC's revenue enough to close the gap in any material way. Lastly, the ACC isn't going away w/o them, so blocking the Irish doesn't eliminate a rival conference.

It's not like the B1G. ND as a full member would be a big blow to the B1G, which is why they'll always oppose it.

Why not go to non-permanent divisions. Everybody gets 3 permanent opponents you play every year and 10 teams you play twice in 4 years. But the divisions themselves will be different every year.

Ok, in reality you probably would have to set up a rotating division system that rotates between 4 different divisions every 4 years and makes sure you play every team at least twice every 4 years.

This could create the same feel of just getting rid of divisions but allows the ACC to keep the CCG within existing NCAA rules.

(07-17-2017 11:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't think that it would even take that much. ND isn't as big in the southeast as they are in other areas. And, their add wouldn't increase the ACC's revenue enough to close the gap in any material way. Lastly, the ACC isn't going away w/o them, so blocking the Irish doesn't eliminate a rival conference.

It's not like the B1G. ND as a full member would be a big blow to the B1G, which is why they'll always oppose it.

These are good points.

I'll only slightly counter with these two:

- ACC does compete head to head with SEC in GA, SC, KY, and the "deep south part" of FL (leaving Miami as sort've its own thing, culturally). And I would say that the ACC football teams are mostly in a better position, perhaps except in GA. Any additional revenue that the ACC is able to build up, just helps those teams further fight against their head-to-head SEC competition in those states.

- from what I've read on this board, there seems to be agreement that south of Richmond is a different animal than north of there. So that also puts VT and the NC schools, at least to some extent, in the "cultural SEC", taking attention away from the actual SEC teams. Additional ACC revenue only further helps these teams build up their football programs in that part of the country.

And so, adding Notre Dame as a full, equal revenue sharing partner would undoubtedly be a big boost to the ACC and the ACCN.

(07-17-2017 11:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 11:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't think that it would even take that much. ND isn't as big in the southeast as they are in other areas. And, their add wouldn't increase the ACC's revenue enough to close the gap in any material way. Lastly, the ACC isn't going away w/o them, so blocking the Irish doesn't eliminate a rival conference.

It's not like the B1G. ND as a full member would be a big blow to the B1G, which is why they'll always oppose it.

These are good points.

I'll only slightly counter with these two:

- ACC does compete head to head with SEC in GA, SC, KY, and the "deep south part" of FL (leaving Miami as sort've its own thing, culturally). And I would say that the ACC football teams are mostly in a better position, perhaps except in GA. Any additional revenue that the ACC is able to build up, just helps those teams further fight against their head-to-head SEC competition in those states.

- from what I've read on this board, there seems to be agreement that south of Richmond is a different animal than north of there. So that also puts VT and the NC schools, at least to some extent, in the "cultural SEC", taking attention away from the actual SEC teams. Additional ACC revenue only further helps these teams build up their football programs in that part of the country.

And so, adding Notre Dame as a full, equal revenue sharing partner would undoubtedly be a big boost to the ACC and the ACCN.

I'm pretty sure the ACCN will be bundled w/ the SECN, as both are owned by ESPN.

Adding ND to the bundle could increase the overall value. And, depending on how the deal is structured, could also benefit the SEC.

I don't think that the SEC wants ND in the ACC. But I think they'd play ball if A) there was something reasonably important to them on the line (i.e. the ability to host camps out of state) and B) the ACC could credibly position itself as a tie-breaking vote.

(07-17-2017 11:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 11:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't think that it would even take that much. ND isn't as big in the southeast as they are in other areas. And, their add wouldn't increase the ACC's revenue enough to close the gap in any material way. Lastly, the ACC isn't going away w/o them, so blocking the Irish doesn't eliminate a rival conference.

It's not like the B1G. ND as a full member would be a big blow to the B1G, which is why they'll always oppose it.

These are good points.

I'll only slightly counter with these two:

- ACC does compete head to head with SEC in GA, SC, KY, and the "deep south part" of FL (leaving Miami as sort've its own thing, culturally). And I would say that the ACC football teams are mostly in a better position, perhaps except in GA. Any additional revenue that the ACC is able to build up, just helps those teams further fight against their head-to-head SEC competition in those states.

- from what I've read on this board, there seems to be agreement that south of Richmond is a different animal than north of there. So that also puts VT and the NC schools, at least to some extent, in the "cultural SEC", taking attention away from the actual SEC teams. Additional ACC revenue only further helps these teams build up their football programs in that part of the country.

And so, adding Notre Dame as a full, equal revenue sharing partner would undoubtedly be a big boost to the ACC and the ACCN.

All of this talk is moot. ND has no intention of joining the ACC in football, ever.

So, the Big Ten can rest easy.....