What about this:

Miami
UNC
Duke
NC State
Wake
UVA
Va Tech

FSU
Ga Tech
Clemson
Louisvile
Pitt
Syracuse
BC

Same as you have now except you switch NC State and Wake for Ga Tech and Pitt. Only Miami FSU is guaranteed. 8 game schedule

FSU gets Ga Tech back
UNC gets Wake back
NC State gets Duke back
BC gets Pitt back

with no guaranteed games other than FSU Miami, you can still guarantee Ga Tech at least one game a year between UNC/Duke/UVA in a rotational format

the only real negative i see is no more Clemson NC State.

(04-23-2013 08:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 07:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Game I was talking about was a basketball game. They re not always get home and home basketball games so they had to play non-conference. Who in the hell would voluntarily watch big ten football?

A lot of people. You would be amazed by how many Americans suffer from insomnia

(04-23-2013 06:37 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 02:47 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Rx: ULTIMATE PODS



In this arrangement there are 2 pods of 3 (green) and 2 pods of 4 (yellow).
Play everyone in your own pod every year.
Play the team directly across from you every year
Play one of the other teams in the pod across from you every year, rotating
Play one of the other 2 pods every year.

So FSU's schedule would look like this:
Clemson, Louisville, Miami - every year
Ga Tech, Pitt - 2 out of every 4 years
all other teams - 2 out of every 4 years

Meanwhile, Va Tech (in a yellow pod) would have this schedule:
NC State, BC, Wake Forest and Virginia - every year
UNC, Syracuse, Duke - 2 out of every 6 years
every other team - 2 out of every 4 years

NOTE: I had to put UVA with UNC & Duke, and since VT wants to play NC teams as much as possible, I aligned us with the other 2 NC teams.

Wouldn't this solve everybody's problems?
SPECIAL NOTE: For teams who don't have annual games with either Miami or FSU - this guarantees you'll play one or the other EVERY year (but never both unless you are in one of the 2 green pods).

Of course, it is highly tweakable too, but you get the idea...

So who would appear in the CCG, and would the competition leading up to it meet the 2-division requirement?

If you follow the rules I've outlined, what you end up with is one green + one yellow group = a 7-team division (and the others form the other division). Perfectly within the NCAA rules for a conference championship game. Every teams plays every other team at home at least once in 6 years (and if you're in a green group it only takes 4 years)

having Florida state, Clemson and Georgia tech in 1 division would probably not make Miami too happy.


ATLANTIC:-------------------------------------------------------COASTAL:
Virginia-----------------------------------------------------------Boston College
Virginia Tech------------------------------------------------------Louisville
North Carolina----------------------------------------------------NC State
Duke--------------------------------------------------------------Wake Forest
Miami--------------------------------------------------------------Florida State
Clemson-----------------------------------------------------------Georgia Tech
Pittsburgh---------------------------------------------------------Syracuse

GT wanted geographic divisions ... just like FSU. Breakdowns on ticket sales below should make that plain why. Also, we like to schedule SEC OOC whenever possible. For comparisons sake, I've included them below (some of which are guess work (?) since we haven't played them in a long long time:

Stone cold lock for a sellout: U(sic)GA, Clemson, FSU, ND, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, USC-east
Better than average: VT, TN, Florida (?), Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU (?)
Average: UNC, Miami, Vandy
Below Average: Duke, UVA, WF, NCST, Arkansas (?), Texas A&M (?)
Zzz: BC, UMD, Missouri (?), Kentucky (?)

TBD: Syracuse (Zzz), Pittsburgh (Average), Louisville (Zzz)

Pretty much the entire SEC East is far more of interest for us than everybody in the ACC except Clemson and FSU. Once you cross the NC-VA border the interest falls off precipitously. It is routine for somebody like BC to lead to 15,000 to 20,000 empty seats. 20K * $50 = $1,000,000. That's before you factor in concessions, parking, swag, etc. Geographic divisions would be like GT getting handed an extra $3,000,000+ a year in fan interest.

Given current divisions, it makes no sense to jump to the Atlantic. We already get Clemson every year. While we would pick up FSU, we would trade out mid-range interest games (VT, Miami, UNC) for snoozers (BC, Cuse, Louisville).

It sucks major *** that UVA is blocking geographic divisions which serve everyone's interests better so they can maintain the illusion that they're a Southern school and recruit FL. UVA is not Southern anymore. Their students at a game look like a JCrew catalog came to life. The modern Mason-Dixon line is Richmond. You're not fooling anybody in Charlottesville. UVA's one legit need would be to maintain UVA-UNC ... that could be easily done.

GTS's Perfect* Divisions, Current Teams:

Coastal ---------------- Atlantic:
Florida State ----------- Miami
Georgia Tech ----------- Pittsburgh
Clemson --------------- Virginia Tech
North Carolina ---------- Virginia
Duke ------------------- Syracuse
Wake Forest ------------ Boston College
NC State --------------- Louisville



GTS's Perfect* Divisions, Ideal Teams:

[Note: Pitt shifts depending on who the magic 16th is]

ACC Coastal South:
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami
Clemson

ACC Coastal North:
North Carolina
NC State
Wake Forest
Duke

ACC Atlantic South:
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Cincinnati OR Pittsburgh
Louisville

ACC Atlantic North:
Syracuse
Notre Dame
Boston College
Penn State OR Pittsburgh




* - Does not apply if you are delusional enough to think Charlottesville or Miami is "Southern". Charlottesville is a few more government agencies from being a DC exurb and Miami is an extra Borough at this point.

Completely agree on Miami not being a Southern city. You can split Florida in half horizonatally and it is 2 different states. It splits at Tampa. Miami is New York in the South.

I don't know where people got that FSU wants to avoid UVA/Duke/UNC as much as possible. I am sure FSU would love to play UNC every year.

They want to avoid BC/Cuse as much as possible though. I'd like to see an example of another team in a conference whose 2 furthest trips are annual divisional games and whose closest trip is in the other division with a 10 year gap in playing them.....

I like your setup, but I do not think PSU will leave the Big. So the only problem, I see is getting Notre Dame on board.

Get the rules changed to go divisionless and give everyone three protected rivals.

BC - Miami, Syracuse, Louisville
Cuse - BC, Pitt, 'Ville
Louisville - Pitt, Cuse, BC
Pitt- 'Ville, Cuse, VT
VT- Miami, UVA, Pitt
UVA - VT, UNC, Wake
UNC - NCSU, Duke, UVA
Duke - Wake, UNC, GT
Wake - Duke, NCSU, UVA
NCSU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Clemson - GT, FSU, NCSU
GT - FSU, Clemson, Duke
FSU - GT, Clemson, Miami
Miami - VT, FSU, BC

The teams could be changed some if need be but the point is you would only have three permanent games and then you would rotate the other 5 between the other 10 teams. Ideally you would take the top four teams and have a semi final and championship game. Picking a winner is where it gets difficult. Use the same methodology they use to pick the football playoff to keep it consistent.

Going based on geography is dumb because 1) it ruins any chance of the southern schools A) meeting in a championship game and B) playing multiple times in a season, which means that FSU and Clemson will have less opportunities to play GT and Miami with geographic divisions, 2) it riuns the chance of any given southern school making a championship game because as of right now, 2/4 can make it, but if they were all in one division, only 1/4 could make it, and 3) FSU, Clemson, Miami, and GT all have an opportunity to play all 3 of the other southern schools AT LEAST once a year in UNDER a 9 game "conference" schedule (8.8333... game yearly schedule), AND all 4 schools have an opportunity to make one of their harderst "conference" games not count towards the conference standings 83% of the time.

As of right now, GT, Clemson, FSU, and Miami could have ALL of their major conference rivals on their schedule AND .1666...7 more yearly OOC games than ANY other school in ANY other major conference. They also have relatively easy walk to a championship game and an opportunity to play 2/3 of their rivals a 2nd time in that game, which will either be held in NC (which touches GA and SC), or FL (which touches GA and is where UF and Miami are). But beyond that, a school like GT could have one conference loss (to someone other than UNC), lose to FSU "OOC", and still beat out a one-loss UNC for a spot in the division championship game, even though they would have 2 losses to ACC teams and UNC would only have 1 loss.

The fact that it doesn't work out that way is a matter for the AD's of those four schools, not the conference. Going to a 9 game schedule (even one with 2 protected rivalries) or geographic divisions would actually screw FSU, GT, Miami, and CU. At the very least, they would either lose games against each other, or they would lose OOC games, and their conference records would take a hit.

It is ridiculous that you keep saying that schools close together should schedule each other OOC and take away schedule flexibiilty and extra home games which lead to more revenue. It doesn't happen anywhere for a reason. And it is stupid to think the burden is on these schools to make sacrifices to make up for the league being inept.

Look across all conferences. They all have divisions that make sense. And like I said, give me another conference where a team has its closest conference team in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams in division. It doesn't happen. THe ACC is the only conference where the divisions make no sense whatsoever.

Nobody can give me an example of a school having its closest conference team (GT) in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams (cuse/bc) as annual divisional games. That is all that needs to be said. THat is a league issue. It isn't up to FSU to give up revenue and scheduling flexibility to fix it.

(04-24-2013 10:30 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is ridiculous that you keep saying that schools close together should schedule each other OOC and take away schedule flexibiilty and extra home games which lead to more revenue. It doesn't happen anywhere for a reason. And it is stupid to think the burden is on these schools to make sacrifices to make up for the league being inept.

Look across all conferences. They all have divisions that make sense. And like I said, give me another conference where a team has its closest conference team in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams in division. It doesn't happen. THe ACC is the only conference where the divisions make no sense whatsoever.

Nobody can give me an example of a school having its closest conference team (GT) in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams (cuse/bc) as annual divisional games. That is all that needs to be said. THat is a league issue. It isn't up to FSU to give up revenue and scheduling flexibility to fix it.

Ragu is correct. Scheduling other ACC teams OOC is generally a bad idea. Besides, we want FSU beating up on other conferences, not our own!

It's obvious that a straight 7-team division with all 4 Southern-most teams in it simply will never work. The ACC has had to break from tradition this year to accomplish much... it's high time this league became the first to use recombinant divisions! Be cutting edge! At least give FSU vs. Ga Tech 2 out of 4 years...

Good to see a GOR signed.

Not only is scheduling a conference mate OOC a bad idea, I don't even think it should be allowed. Under those circumstances, the average fan out there would have no idea what was a conference game and what wasn't.

One major problem with straight north/south divisions is you could end up with the north division being the Big XII North by reputation, even if not by results. That would eb a bad thing.

(04-24-2013 10:30 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is ridiculous that you keep saying that schools close together should schedule each other OOC and take away schedule flexibiilty and extra home games which lead to more revenue. It doesn't happen anywhere for a reason. And it is stupid to think the burden is on these schools to make sacrifices to make up for the league being inept.

Look across all conferences. They all have divisions that make sense. And like I said, give me another conference where a team has its closest conference team in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams in division. It doesn't happen. THe ACC is the only conference where the divisions make no sense whatsoever.

Nobody can give me an example of a school having its closest conference team (GT) in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams (cuse/bc) as annual divisional games. That is all that needs to be said. THat is a league issue. It isn't up to FSU to give up revenue and scheduling flexibility to fix it.

"It is ridiculous that you keep saying that schools close together should schedule each other OOC and take away schedule flexibiilty and extra home games which lead to more revenue. It doesn't happen anywhere for a reason."

You're absolutely right. That reason is that EVERY other major conference has a 9 game schedule and the ACC has an 8 game schedule.

What you want won't happen without a 9 game schedule and that would mean GT and FSU would play less and FSU and Miami would play less. It would also mean that the ACCCG would make less, so FSU would get a smaller distribution, and FSU wouldn't play in it as often. It would also mean that FSU would lose OOC games.

As mentioned earlier, no other conference is like the ACC because no other conference has an 8 game schedule. You aren't going to get your special short schedule that is designed specifically for FSU and a special division lineup. It's one or the other and you would have to be very, very stupid to turn down the 8 game schedule. The current setup benefits you in every way.

EDIT:
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a 9 game schedule with 2 rivalry games and a floating game. It would screw over FSU, Clemson, Miami, and GT, but that's not my problem. It would actually benefit Syracuse.

(04-24-2013 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Going based on geography is dumb because 1) it ruins any chance of the southern schools A) meeting in a championship game and B) playing multiple times in a season, which means that FSU and Clemson will have less opportunities to play GT and Miami with geographic divisions, 2) it riuns the chance of any given southern school making a championship game because as of right now, 2/4 can make it, but if they were all in one division, only 1/4 could make it, and 3) FSU, Clemson, Miami, and GT all have an opportunity to play all 3 of the other southern schools AT LEAST once a year in UNDER a 9 game "conference" schedule (8.8333... game yearly schedule), AND all 4 schools have an opportunity to make one of their harderst "conference" games not count towards the conference standings 83% of the time.

As of right now, GT, Clemson, FSU, and Miami could have ALL of their major conference rivals on their schedule AND .1666...7 more yearly OOC games than ANY other school in ANY other major conference. They also have relatively easy walk to a championship game and an opportunity to play 2/3 of their rivals a 2nd time in that game, which will either be held in NC (which touches GA and SC), or FL (which touches GA and is where UF and Miami are). But beyond that, a school like GT could have one conference loss (to someone other than UNC), lose to FSU "OOC", and still beat out a one-loss UNC for a spot in the division championship game, even though they would have 2 losses to ACC teams and UNC would only have 1 loss.

The fact that it doesn't work out that way is a matter for the AD's of those four schools, not the conference. Going to a 9 game schedule (even one with 2 protected rivalries) or geographic divisions would actually screw FSU, GT, Miami, and CU. At the very least, they would either lose games against each other, or they would lose OOC games, and their conference records would take a hit.

Championship game rematches are ratings and attendance and fan interest losers.

Geographic divisions never hurt the Big 12 (which is just as south heavy in football as the ACC) or the SEC (which has flip flopped from very east heavy to very west heavy).

(04-24-2013 09:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Going based on geography is dumb because 1) it ruins any chance of the southern schools A) meeting in a championship game and B) playing multiple times in a season, which means that FSU and Clemson will have less opportunities to play GT and Miami with geographic divisions, 2) it riuns the chance of any given southern school making a championship game because as of right now, 2/4 can make it, but if they were all in one division, only 1/4 could make it, and 3) FSU, Clemson, Miami, and GT all have an opportunity to play all 3 of the other southern schools AT LEAST once a year in UNDER a 9 game "conference" schedule (8.8333... game yearly schedule), AND all 4 schools have an opportunity to make one of their harderst "conference" games not count towards the conference standings 83% of the time.

As of right now, GT, Clemson, FSU, and Miami could have ALL of their major conference rivals on their schedule AND .1666...7 more yearly OOC games than ANY other school in ANY other major conference. They also have relatively easy walk to a championship game and an opportunity to play 2/3 of their rivals a 2nd time in that game, which will either be held in NC (which touches GA and SC), or FL (which touches GA and is where UF and Miami are). But beyond that, a school like GT could have one conference loss (to someone other than UNC), lose to FSU "OOC", and still beat out a one-loss UNC for a spot in the division championship game, even though they would have 2 losses to ACC teams and UNC would only have 1 loss.

The fact that it doesn't work out that way is a matter for the AD's of those four schools, not the conference. Going to a 9 game schedule (even one with 2 protected rivalries) or geographic divisions would actually screw FSU, GT, Miami, and CU. At the very least, they would either lose games against each other, or they would lose OOC games, and their conference records would take a hit.

Championship game rematches are ratings and attendance and fan interest losers.

Geographic divisions never hurt the Big 12 (which is just as south heavy in football as the ACC) or the SEC (which has flip flopped from very east heavy to very west heavy).

The Big XII had Nebraska in the north. Unless you see either ND or PSU joining, there is no Nebraska in the ACC north. I love Syracuse, we aren't the Nebraska of the 90's, and neither is Pitt, BC, VPI, UL, UVA, or anyone else in the northeast. Nebraska, has the longest sellout streak in the nation and fielded the best teams ever (i.e. "the children of the corn") when they were in the Big XII.

The SEC is extremely balanced and always has been, both in terms of quality of play and recruiting. Putting FSU, Miami, GT, and Clemson isn't even close to being balanced. The best two teams in the ACC are FSU and Clemson, and Miami has more potential than almost any other school in the nation, if not literally every school in the nation. How would you even begin to balance that out? Or how do you even begin to balance out the fact that Florida, especially south Florida, is only rivaled by Texas and California in terms of producing quality football players.

It may be true that rematches are bad for ratings and attendance, but one-sided games are worse (see OB, last year's ACCCCG, and just about every body bag game ever played).

Anyway, being able to say that the only thing between your team and a CCG is one high level team, two medium-level teams, and 3 lower level teams is a great recruiting tool.

Honestly, it would be one thing is the ACC played a 9 game schedule and FSU, Miami, GT, and Clemson didn't play each other every year, but that isn't the case. You can play every single one of your in-conference rivals every year and still have a schedule that is shorter than the schedule of any team in any other power conference.

I am personally all for a 9-2 schedule, but it would cost FSU, Clemson, GT, and Miami OOC games. Thats' great for the rest of the conference, but I have absolutely no idea why those schools would want it.

It's like being in the same division. I really, really don't think that you actually want that. Correct me if I'm wrong and you really do want to finish 3rd place* in your division the vast majority of years, but I think that you just want yearly games against Clemson, Miami, and FSU, so why go after a fly with a bazooka? Why lose the ability to tell GA recruits that if they come to GT, they can play in a conf. championship game, whereas if they go to UGA, they will have to beat out Tennessee (who is admittedly down right now, but will be back soon), Florida, and USCarolina?

*This isn't a shot at GT, I'm just assuming that FSU wins the division virtually every year and GT, Miami, and Clemson take turns being #2, so that in an average year, each is #3.

EDIT:
As it stands right now, GT could have Clemson, FSU, Miami, UGA, Pitt, Virginia Tech, UNC and ND on its schedule every 3rd year. Assuming that you play a FCS team or a Sun Belt team for a cheap home game and an easy win, you are left with Duke, UVA, and one random ACC team in the other division. That isn't a bad schedule at all. Even Florida has to play Vandy and Kentucky, and Alabama has to play 'Ole Miss and MSU.

FSU could have Clemson, Miami, GT, UL, UF, ND, NCSU, and a OOC team every 3rd year. That leaves 1 ACC coastal team (50% chance of VT, UNC, or Pitt, and a 17% chance of an extra OOC game of their choosing - 67% chance of something good happening), Wake Forest (who isn't any good, but still managed to go to an ACC championship game a couple of years ago), Syracuse (who I really don't think is bad - we were very good in the 50's and 60's, very bad in the 70's, very good in the 80's and 90's, and very bad in the 00's, but we seem to be getting a lot better now - btw, see a pattern?), and Boston College (who is terrible right now, but was good enough to go to an ACC championship game a couple of years ago). That's 3.33 "bad" games out of a 12 game schedule, and that's counting SU and BC as bad games. Like I said earlier, even Florida has Vandy and Kentucky every year (2/12 bad games).

(04-24-2013 06:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:30 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is ridiculous that you keep saying that schools close together should schedule each other OOC and take away schedule flexibiilty and extra home games which lead to more revenue. It doesn't happen anywhere for a reason. And it is stupid to think the burden is on these schools to make sacrifices to make up for the league being inept.

Look across all conferences. They all have divisions that make sense. And like I said, give me another conference where a team has its closest conference team in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams in division. It doesn't happen. THe ACC is the only conference where the divisions make no sense whatsoever.

Nobody can give me an example of a school having its closest conference team (GT) in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams (cuse/bc) as annual divisional games. That is all that needs to be said. THat is a league issue. It isn't up to FSU to give up revenue and scheduling flexibility to fix it.

"It is ridiculous that you keep saying that schools close together should schedule each other OOC and take away schedule flexibiilty and extra home games which lead to more revenue. It doesn't happen anywhere for a reason."

You're absolutely right. That reason is that EVERY other major conference has a 9 game schedule and the ACC has an 8 game schedule.

What you want won't happen without a 9 game schedule and that would mean GT and FSU would play less and FSU and Miami would play less. It would also mean that the ACCCG would make less, so FSU would get a smaller distribution, and FSU wouldn't play in it as often. It would also mean that FSU would lose OOC games.

As mentioned earlier, no other conference is like the ACC because no other conference has an 8 game schedule. You aren't going to get your special short schedule that is designed specifically for FSU and a special division lineup. It's one or the other and you would have to be very, very stupid to turn down the 8 game schedule. The current setup benefits you in every way.

EDIT:
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a 9 game schedule with 2 rivalry games and a floating game. It would screw over FSU, Clemson, Miami, and GT, but that's not my problem. It would actually benefit Syracuse.

Um the SEC has 8 conference games and the Big 10 just had 8 conference games until the switch that is happening going to 14.

But even with 8 or 9, find me team who doesn't play their closest conference team in proximity to them (let alone having the 2 furthest teams from them in their division). Find me another team that has this problem. Stop dodging this.

People have already highlighted how only idiots think it makes perfect sense for 2 teams close together in a conference to schedule each other OOC 10 out of 12 years. The ACC is the one at fault for this and FSU/GT shouldn't have to give up an extra OOC game that is either another source of revenue (home game) or a premier matchup/scheduling flexbility.

FSU already has Florida every year. Now they have ND every 3 years locked in. If you add GT in most years as a given, they have very little room to maneauver. And they shouldn't be penalized because the league is inept.

You can't see this because you are coming from a crap conference and love getting the FSU/Clemson trips every year. To Syracuse fans, those long trips are great to the premier football schools in the conference. It isn't desirable at all for FSU/Clemson though.

(04-24-2013 10:30 AM)Ragu Wrote:  It is ridiculous that you keep saying that schools close together should schedule each other OOC and take away schedule flexibiilty and extra home games which lead to more revenue. It doesn't happen anywhere for a reason. And it is stupid to think the burden is on these schools to make sacrifices to make up for the league being inept.

Look across all conferences. They all have divisions that make sense. And like I said, give me another conference where a team has its closest conference team in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams in division. It doesn't happen. THe ACC is the only conference where the divisions make no sense whatsoever.

Nobody can give me an example of a school having its closest conference team (GT) in the other division while having the 2 furthest teams (cuse/bc) as annual divisional games. That is all that needs to be said. THat is a league issue. It isn't up to FSU to give up revenue and scheduling flexibility to fix it.

I guess Missouri in the SEC east would be the closest example.