(08-28-2019 04:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:04 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see the ACC trying to torpedo this if they dont get the same beneift. If your going to allow championship game with non round robin then 11 is no different than 14

Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

Divisionless would also permit Notre Dame to be eligible for the conference championship game with, let’s say, six conference games rather than eight. It would be controversial on both sides but it seems to me there would be benefits for all.

If Notre Dame wants to be eligible to play in the football championship game they will have to join the conference for football.

ND doesn't want that. Not one little bit.

This idea only exists in the minds of some fans of other schools on message boards.

(08-27-2019 11:39 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:04 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see the ACC trying to torpedo this if they dont get the same beneift. If your going to allow championship game with non round robin then 11 is no different than 14

Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

Divisionless would also permit Notre Dame to be eligible for the conference championship game with, let’s say, six conference games rather than eight. It would be controversial on both sides but it seems to me there would be benefits for all.

I dont see how that benefits anyone and why any ACC president would vote for that

Notre Dame's president would also vote no to that idea.

(08-28-2019 07:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 04:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:04 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see the ACC trying to torpedo this if they dont get the same beneift. If your going to allow championship game with non round robin then 11 is no different than 14

Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

Divisionless would also permit Notre Dame to be eligible for the conference championship game with, let’s say, six conference games rather than eight. It would be controversial on both sides but it seems to me there would be benefits for all.

If Notre Dame wants to be eligible to play in the football championship game they will have to join the conference for football.

ND doesn't want that. Not one little bit.

This idea only exists in the minds of some fans of other schools on message boards.

Good!

(08-28-2019 05:50 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:04 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see the ACC trying to torpedo this if they dont get the same beneift. If your going to allow championship game with non round robin then 11 is no different than 14

Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

Divisionless would also permit Notre Dame to be eligible for the conference championship game with, let’s say, six conference games rather than eight. It would be controversial on both sides but it seems to me there would be benefits for all.

The ACC would never, ever allow any team to be eligible for the conference championship without a full schedule. It's the dumbest idea on the internet, but it just won't die.

It's been done before when teams joined the conference but had trouble clearing enough non-conference games off their schedule to allow a full conference schedule.

As to Notre Dame's objections, let's see how they feel when they go 11-1 regular season and miss out on the playoffs because they couldn't go to a conference championship game.

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see the ACC trying to torpedo this if they dont get the same beneift. If your going to allow championship game with non round robin then 11 is no different than 14

Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

^^^ This.

And who cares whether some other conference also benefits from this? The ACC should only worry about whether it suits them. But don't be surprised if this were allowed and the ACC decided not to do it anyway.

(08-27-2019 07:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 07:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It was the SEC and B1G and Big 12 that put a stop to it last time ... despite the comical nature of Missouri being in the SEC East.

It would be pretty hard to justify letting the AAC do it but not the ACC

At the time the other leagues viewed it as a competitive advantage for the ACC and voted against it. The BIG may have altered their views on it now. I also doubt the other leagues view the AAC as big of a threat today and so may not view it as a competitive advantage for the AAC.

Do not forget that B1G commissioner was worried that going division-less would make it easier for the ACC to convince ND to finally join the league in football.

Don't worry Terry, we all know it won't happen; I'm just pointing out what was on the minds of other people.

Going divisionless in the ACC would probably result in one of two scheduling models: 2 permanent opponents + 6 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 2 years); 4 permanent opponents + 4 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 3 years).

The pressure for the 4+4 model would be from schools with more than two obvious rivals. UNC, for instance, would probably like to keep Duke, UVA and NC State as annuals.

I am big time in favor of the ACC going division-less. However, I'm only in favor of it if we remain at eight annual conference games. As has been discussed over and over on this board, moving to nine conference games is a no-go for certain schools that 1) have a permanent non-conference opponent each year, 2) wish to play at least a second P5 non-conference opponent each year, and 3) covets having seven home games each year.

Also, for any discussion involving ND being a part of the conference championship game while not being a football playing member of the conference is absolutely ridiculous. The ACC schools don't want that, ND doesn't want it, and I can't believe there are any fans of ACC schools that would want it. I think the current arrangement is perfectly fine. If ND ever decides they want more, the ACC will welcome them with open arms, they'll play an eight game conference schedule, and then they'll be eligible for the championship game.

(08-28-2019 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Going divisionless in the ACC would probably result in one of two scheduling models: 2 permanent opponents + 6 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 2 years); 4 permanent opponents + 4 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 3 years).

The pressure for the 4+4 model would be from schools with more than two obvious rivals. UNC, for instance, would probably like to keep Duke, UVA and NC State as annuals.

3 and 5 can work in the divisionless model and gives UNC a relative scheduling strength break up front, but that lack of strength is mitigated by 5 and 5 rotation.

For instance -

UNC - Duke, UVa, NC State
NC State - UNC, WF, Clemson
CU - FSU, GT, NC State
GT - Duke, Clemson, VT
VT - GT, Pitt, UVa
UVa - UNC, VT, Louisville
FSU - Miami, CU, Louisville
Miami - FSU, Syr, BC
Syr - Miami, Pitt, BC
BC - Miami, Louisville, Syracuse
Pitt - Syracuse, VT, WF
Duke - GT, WF, UNC
WF - NCSU, Pitt, Duke
Louis - FSU, UVa, BC

So while Carolina might appear to have the weakest permanent schedule, they can't avoid two of Clemson, FSU, Miami, and VT.

Year A Year B

NCSU NCSU
Duke Duke
UVa UVa
Clemson FSU
Miami VT
BC Syracuse
WF Pitt
Louisville GT

Clemson meanwhile would have:

Year A Year B

NCSU NCSU
FSU FSU
GT GT
UVA VT
UNC Duke
BC Syracuse
Pitt Louisville
Miami WF

Put another way, the weakest 10 to split 5 and 5. There are no historic annual games that are abandoned and other than Carolina missing GT every year, I don't see a lot of room for complaint.

(08-28-2019 09:27 AM)Schema Wrote:  I am big time in favor of the ACC going division-less. However, I'm only in favor of it if we remain at eight annual conference games. As has been discussed over and over on this board, moving to nine conference games is a no-go for certain schools that 1) have a permanent non-conference opponent each year, 2) wish to play at least a second P5 non-conference opponent each year, and 3) covets having seven home games each year.

Also, for any discussion involving ND being a part of the conference championship game while not being a football playing member of the conference is absolutely ridiculous. The ACC schools don't want that, ND doesn't want it, and I can't believe there are any fans of ACC schools that would want it. I think the current arrangement is perfectly fine. If ND ever decides they want more, the ACC will welcome them with open arms, they'll play an eight game conference schedule, and then they'll be eligible for the championship game.

Seems to me that Divisionless would work OK for the ACC if every team had 4 permanent assigned rivals (agreeing to and assigning these rivals would be difficult for some) plus their 4 additional yearly games from the remaining 9 conference teams, on a full rotating basis. So, every team would rotate continuously through their 9 other teams, 4 at a time. Then back to the top again in the rotation.

In any 9-year period, every team would play its same four assigned rivals 9 times, and it would play all of its 9 "non-rivals" 4 times.

Pretty Balanced!

(08-28-2019 10:15 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:27 AM)Schema Wrote:  I am big time in favor of the ACC going division-less. However, I'm only in favor of it if we remain at eight annual conference games. As has been discussed over and over on this board, moving to nine conference games is a no-go for certain schools that 1) have a permanent non-conference opponent each year, 2) wish to play at least a second P5 non-conference opponent each year, and 3) covets having seven home games each year.

Also, for any discussion involving ND being a part of the conference championship game while not being a football playing member of the conference is absolutely ridiculous. The ACC schools don't want that, ND doesn't want it, and I can't believe there are any fans of ACC schools that would want it. I think the current arrangement is perfectly fine. If ND ever decides they want more, the ACC will welcome them with open arms, they'll play an eight game conference schedule, and then they'll be eligible for the championship game.

Seems to me that Divisionless would work OK for the ACC if every team had 4 permanent assigned rivals (agreeing to and assigning these rivals would be difficult for some) plus their 4 additional yearly games from the remaining 9 conference teams, on a full rotating basis. So, every team would rotate continuously through their 9 other teams, 4 at a time. Then back to the top again in the rotation.

In any 9-year period, every team would play its same four assigned rivals 9 times, and it would play all of its 9 "non-rivals" 4 times.

Pretty Balanced!

I think you will find the math behind 4 and 4 daunting. You are going to miss one school two of every three years. Who you get to miss will be as big an argument as who you see every other year.

(08-28-2019 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Going divisionless in the ACC would probably result in one of two scheduling models: 2 permanent opponents + 6 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 2 years); 4 permanent opponents + 4 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 3 years).

The pressure for the 4+4 model would be from schools with more than two obvious rivals. UNC, for instance, would probably like to keep Duke, UVA and NC State as annuals.

Even numbers don't work well - need 3 perm, 5 rotating

(08-28-2019 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Going divisionless in the ACC would probably result in one of two scheduling models: 2 permanent opponents + 6 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 2 years); 4 permanent opponents + 4 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 3 years).

The pressure for the 4+4 model would be from schools with more than two obvious rivals. UNC, for instance, would probably like to keep Duke, UVA and NC State as annuals.

Even numbers don't work well - need 3 perm, 5 rotating

Schools would miss one opponent in a two year cycle. That school could be guaranteed a slot in years 3 and 5. It would take a 22 year cycle to bring all rotating matchups to an equal number.

Another approach, which ESPN might like, would be to do a 3+4+1. This would involve placing all rotating opponents on a 3 year cycle, then having one game set aside to allow schedule makers to set up made for TV matchups, provide extra matchups with secondary rivals, and balance out schedules based on anticipated strength of schedule.

This feels like déjà vu.

(08-28-2019 11:09 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Going divisionless in the ACC would probably result in one of two scheduling models: 2 permanent opponents + 6 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 2 years); 4 permanent opponents + 4 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 3 years).

The pressure for the 4+4 model would be from schools with more than two obvious rivals. UNC, for instance, would probably like to keep Duke, UVA and NC State as annuals.

Even numbers don't work well - need 3 perm, 5 rotating

Schools would miss one opponent in a two year cycle. That school could be guaranteed a slot in years 3 and 5. It would take a 22 year cycle to bring all rotating matchups to an equal number.

Another approach, which ESPN might like, would be to do a 3+4+1. This would involve placing all rotating opponents on a 3 year cycle, then having one game set aside to allow schedule makers to set up made for TV matchups, provide extra matchups with secondary rivals, and balance out schedules based on anticipated strength of schedule.

No they wouldn't. You don't play your own team! 13 teams - 3 permanent = 10. 10 divided by 5 = 2 years.

(08-28-2019 07:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 07:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 04:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:04 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

Divisionless would also permit Notre Dame to be eligible for the conference championship game with, let’s say, six conference games rather than eight. It would be controversial on both sides but it seems to me there would be benefits for all.

If Notre Dame wants to be eligible to play in the football championship game they will have to join the conference for football.

ND doesn't want that. Not one little bit.

This idea only exists in the minds of some fans of other schools on message boards.

Good!

Name anyone from ND that ever proposed or argued for this dumb idea.

(08-28-2019 07:55 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 05:50 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:04 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:38 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I could see the ACC trying to torpedo this if they dont get the same beneift. If your going to allow championship game with non round robin then 11 is no different than 14

Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

Divisionless would also permit Notre Dame to be eligible for the conference championship game with, let’s say, six conference games rather than eight. It would be controversial on both sides but it seems to me there would be benefits for all.

The ACC would never, ever allow any team to be eligible for the conference championship without a full schedule. It's the dumbest idea on the internet, but it just won't die.

It's been done before when teams joined the conference but had trouble clearing enough non-conference games off their schedule to allow a full conference schedule.

As to Notre Dame's objections, let's see how they feel when they go 11-1 regular season and miss out on the playoffs because they couldn't go to a conference championship game.

They will say that is the cost of football independence...so it goes.

Try again next year...try to go undefeated then.

Why the various schools play football also matters in any scenario.

Some schools can fill their stadium by scheduling a dead mule. (NC State, Clemson)
Some schools need a large, nearby traveling fan base to fill their stadium. (Duke, WF, BC, Pitt)
Some schools have all the money they need (UVa, Duke)
Some schools need money from football to pay for other sports. (NC State, GT, Clemson, VT, FSU, Miami)
Some schools play football only to remain fully "in the club" (Duke, perhaps BC)
Some schools play football in an effort to win championships (Clemson, FSU, VT)
Some schools have an over built stadium and need one or two marquee ooc games to fill the last 15% of the stadium (FSU, UNC)


That's a lot of conflicting agendas. I dare say in the SEC, 10 of 14 are in it to win and all are in it to pay for their other sports. (UK, SC, and Mizzou, just happy to be there in football and compete) (Vandy speaks for itself)


In the B10 I think PSU, OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa are in to win. All but NW and perhaps Michigan need football to pay their bills. MD, Rutgers, Indiana, and Minnesotta are just happy to be there.


The ACC is the conference with the most purpose diversity regarding football, followed by the P12. That's part of the reason divisions are so controversial in the ACC.

(08-28-2019 12:49 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 07:55 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 05:50 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 10:04 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  Exactly, especially considering the ACC tried that with 11 and was rejected. Bombs away!

Or better yet, abolish these asinine rules! A conference should be able to determine their champion in the best way the conference sees fit!!

Divisionless would also permit Notre Dame to be eligible for the conference championship game with, let’s say, six conference games rather than eight. It would be controversial on both sides but it seems to me there would be benefits for all.

The ACC would never, ever allow any team to be eligible for the conference championship without a full schedule. It's the dumbest idea on the internet, but it just won't die.

It's been done before when teams joined the conference but had trouble clearing enough non-conference games off their schedule to allow a full conference schedule.

As to Notre Dame's objections, let's see how they feel when they go 11-1 regular season and miss out on the playoffs because they couldn't go to a conference championship game.

They will say that is the cost of football independence...so it goes.

Try again next year...try to go undefeated then.

I can't see an 11-2 conference champ getting in ahead of a ND 11-1 squad. Unless my math is wrong, the only scenario that really fits for this is an 11-1 division champ winning their conference title and becoming 12-1. How often is that really likely to happen?

(08-28-2019 11:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 11:09 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 10:43 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-28-2019 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Going divisionless in the ACC would probably result in one of two scheduling models: 2 permanent opponents + 6 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 2 years); 4 permanent opponents + 4 rotating opponents (play rotating opponents once every 3 years).

The pressure for the 4+4 model would be from schools with more than two obvious rivals. UNC, for instance, would probably like to keep Duke, UVA and NC State as annuals.

Even numbers don't work well - need 3 perm, 5 rotating

Schools would miss one opponent in a two year cycle. That school could be guaranteed a slot in years 3 and 5. It would take a 22 year cycle to bring all rotating matchups to an equal number.

Another approach, which ESPN might like, would be to do a 3+4+1. This would involve placing all rotating opponents on a 3 year cycle, then having one game set aside to allow schedule makers to set up made for TV matchups, provide extra matchups with secondary rivals, and balance out schedules based on anticipated strength of schedule.

No they wouldn't. You don't play your own team! 13 teams - 3 permanent = 10. 10 divided by 5 = 2 years.

Doh! Scheduling math on the fly, don't try it at home. 3+5 works perfectly then.