(08-28-2019 01:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(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:  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?

Although it was against Clemson and Bama didn't fare any better, I believe ND may have spent too much football capital for them to get the nod over a two lose conference champ. Last year's showing wasn't that great of a highlight for ND in the playoffs and there may be second thoughts. Obviously, they travel well and you will get eyes on the TV. But, it wasn't the greatest look for them.

(08-28-2019 12:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  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.

Some schools can fill their stadium by scheduling a dead mule. (Clemson)
There you go, fixed it. No doubt you guys attend games but let's not jump that far. You guys do a great job but.

(08-28-2019 01:04 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(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.

3+5 would seem to work pretty well.

As I understand the issue even with 3+5, it is that there isn't an equal number of 4-team affinity sets.

I'm sure this has been and will be discussed ad nauseum, but it just seems to me that "Divisionless 3+5" gets as close to what people want as may be possible, while any Division structure always seems to hold considerable controversy.

Even Divisionless 3+5 is not without SOME controversy, but the biggest problem it has is that the math still isn't exactly perfect. But at least everyone plays every other team at least once every two years. And that's a big improvement over how the ACC does it now.

(08-29-2019 07:51 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  As I understand the issue even with 3+5, it is that there isn't an equal number of 4-team affinity sets.

Just to be sure, I listed it out yesterday. It does seem to work out for everyone to have three permanent rivals and there are no gaps.

My shot at 3 permanent opponents for each school.

BC: SU, VT, Louisville
Clemson: GT, NC St., FSU
Duke: UNC, Wake, GT
FSU: Miami, Clemson, GT
Ga Tech: Clemson, Duke, FSU
Louisville: Pitt, Syracuse, BC
Miami: FSU, VT, Pitt
UNC: UVA, Duke, NC St.
NC St.: UNC, Wake, Clemson
Pitt: Syracuse, Miami, Louisville
Syracuse: Pitt, BC, Louisville
UVA: VT, UNC, Wake
Va Tech: UVA, Miami, BC
Wake: Duke, NC St., UVA

(08-29-2019 09:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My shot at 3 permanent opponents for each school.

BC: SU, VT, Louisville
Clemson: GT, NC St., FSU
Duke: UNC, Wake, GT
FSU: Miami, Clemson, GT
Ga Tech: Clemson, Duke, FSU
Louisville: Pitt, Syracuse, BC
Miami: FSU, VT, Pitt
UNC: UVA, Duke, NC St.
NC St.: UNC, Wake, Clemson
Pitt: Syracuse, Miami, Louisville
Syracuse: Pitt, BC, Louisville
UVA: VT, UNC, Wake
Va Tech: UVA, Miami, BC
Wake: Duke, NC St., UVA

I'm going to quickly add these up to see how many times each team is part of a rival/affinity set:

BC: 3
Clemson: 3
Duke: 3
FSU: 3
Ga Tech: 3
Louisville: 3
Miami: 3
UNC: 3
NC St.: 3
Pitt: 3
Syracuse: 3
UVA: 3
Va Tech: 3
Wake: 3

Wow, it seems to work perfectly.

I expect that if the ACC were to go to a 3+5 model we would see just as much complaining about who gets which three permanent rivals as we now have with who is in what division.

(08-29-2019 09:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My shot at 3 permanent opponents for each school.

BC: SU, VT, Louisville
Clemson: GT, NC St., FSU
Duke: UNC, Wake, GT
FSU: Miami, Clemson, GT
Ga Tech: Clemson, Duke, FSU
Louisville: Pitt, Syracuse, BC
Miami: FSU, VT, Pitt
UNC: UVA, Duke, NC St.
NC St.: UNC, Wake, Clemson
Pitt: Syracuse, Miami, Louisville
Syracuse: Pitt, BC, Louisville
UVA: VT, UNC, Wake
Va Tech: UVA, Miami, BC
Wake: Duke, NC St., UVA

At first glance, I thought you and I were a perfect 14 for 14. Then I discovered that we agreed on Florida State. We disagreed on the other 13.

4+4 model will create some bogus permanent rivalries, but it also won't leave any out. I'd prefer 4+4.

(08-29-2019 06:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  4+4 model will create some bogus permanent rivalries, but it also won't leave any out. I'd prefer 4+4.

I'll take 4+4 or...





Permanent rivals for some, miniature ACC flags for others!!!

Some teams have a bogus permanent rival with just one, Example A: Louisville.

(08-29-2019 09:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My shot at 3 permanent opponents for each school.

BC: SU, VT, Louisville
Clemson: GT, NC St., FSU
Duke: UNC, Wake, GT
FSU: Miami, Clemson, GT
Ga Tech: Clemson, Duke, FSU
Louisville: Pitt, Syracuse, BC
Miami: FSU, VT, Pitt
UNC: UVA, Duke, NC St.
NC St.: UNC, Wake, Clemson
Pitt: Syracuse, Miami, Louisville
Syracuse: Pitt, BC, Louisville
UVA: VT, UNC, Wake
Va Tech: UVA, Miami, BC
Wake: Duke, NC St., UVA

Here would be my 4th game protection from the list above
UNC-Wake
Duke-NC State
UVA-Ga Tech
Clemson-Miami
Va Tech-Lousiville
BC-Pitt
FSU-Syracuse

I think the vote would pass 12 to 2 or 10 to 4

(08-29-2019 09:20 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My shot at 3 permanent opponents for each school.

BC: SU, VT, Louisville
Clemson: GT, NC St., FSU
Duke: UNC, Wake, GT
FSU: Miami, Clemson, GT
Ga Tech: Clemson, Duke, FSU
Louisville: Pitt, Syracuse, BC
Miami: FSU, VT, Pitt
UNC: UVA, Duke, NC St.
NC St.: UNC, Wake, Clemson
Pitt: Syracuse, Miami, Louisville
Syracuse: Pitt, BC, Louisville
UVA: VT, UNC, Wake
Va Tech: UVA, Miami, BC
Wake: Duke, NC St., UVA

At least you didn't leave you VT vs. Miami.

You do realize the AAC is doing this because the conference will go to 11 teams next year. Because UConn blew a head gasket and decided to run scared to the Big East.

(08-30-2019 12:26 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  Because UConn blew up their finances and decided to throw football overboard and join the Big East to fix their finances.

FTFY

(08-30-2019 12:43 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 12:26 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  Because UConn blew up their finances and decided to throw football overboard and join the Big East to fix their finances.

FTFY

I don't think they are hurting as bad as they make it seem. They are going to regret this decision.

(08-30-2019 12:26 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  You do realize the AAC is doing this because the conference will go to 11 teams next year. Because UConn blew a head gasket and decided to run scared to the Big East.

And they could replace them or let UConn stay as a football-only if the situation were actually dire. No sympathy here, little man.

(08-29-2019 06:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  4+4 model will create some bogus permanent rivalries, but it also won't leave any out. I'd prefer 4+4.

I'm not sure how (or even whether) 4+4 works with 14 teams. But with 3+5, which means an 8 game league sked, any school that wants to play a fourth rival every year (instead of every other year) is free to do so OOC. There probably wouldn't be many of those. Even with just three permanent opponents, some of those aren't rivalries - they are just matchups mandated by accommodating schools that do have three opponents they want to play every year. I'm guessing only the VA and NC schools would play OOC.

If each of us were to independently prepare a list of three "rivals" for each school, we might not see any that were identical to someone else's. My personal choices are not what I would prefer, but what I think the schools would prefer if they could only have three.

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

Question: If the ACC were to adopt a 3+5 scheduling model, how would/should it decide who plays in the CCG?

(08-30-2019 08:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  Question: If the ACC were to adopt a 3+5 scheduling model, how would/should it decide who plays in the CCG?

2 obvious options are:

1) take the two teams with the best records

2) divide the teams into 2 groups (probably North/South, since it doesn't affect who you play) and take the best team from each group (pseudo-divisions)