(08-01-2015 10:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  UNC-Duke, NCSU, Wake, UVA
Duke-UNC, NCSU, Wake, GT
NCSU-UNC, Duke, Wake, Clem
Wake-UNC, NCSU, Duke, VT

UVA-UNC, VT, SU, BC
VT-UVA, Wake, Miami, Clem
Clem-NCSU, GT, FSU, VT

GT-Duke, Clem, FSU, Miami
FSU-Clem, GT, Miami, Louis
Miami-FSU, Pitt, VT, GT

BC-SU, Pitt, Louis, UVA
SU-BC, Pitt, Louis, UVA
Pitt-BC, SU, Miami, Louis
Louis-Pitt, FSU, SU, BC

You're welcome. Issue this to the desk of Mr. Swofford.

I'd be happy to, if I knew what it meant. I'm sure Mr. Swofford would ask.

If the NCAA allows conferences to hold title games without divisions. I just broke them up because it was giving me a headache. Four permanent rivals, then play four other conference games, and four OOC.

(08-01-2015 10:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 09:49 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 09:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 07:04 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  All I ever hear is the pod system. What if every team had three constant rivals? You get a 9 game conference slate and play 6 of the remaining 12 every year. In this model you play every team in the conference home and home every four years.

Would this format still allow for a CCG? What do you guys think?

I've tried to make that work on paper, and have never been able to do it. With different teams all having different ideas about who their three permanent rivals should be, schedules always wind up a bit wonky. The pods are more balanced, and accomplish the same general goal.

Honestly, four pods and four divisions pretty much work in identical fashion except that one provides an easy set up for expansion of the conference post season while the other is just working within the current status quo system.

With four team pods, you would have to switch up the pod combination every year in order to achieve a full conference scheduling in a three year period. With four divisions of four teams in each, you can actually do that in two years with a 9 game conference schedule. Now that gets pushed to three years if you have any permanent cross division rivals but even with that, it's still equivalent to the best that you can do with pods.

I believe that what I am calling "pods" you are calling "divisions". They are identical. In either case, the current NCAA rules regarding divisions would have to be relaxed, which I am assuming will happen within the next 12 months.

Alright, for clarification, pods to me are unofficial groupings that can be combined to create an official grouping. Otherwise, for me, there is no point in using a different name.

As you say, due to the rules, we cannot have four divisions. We can however have four pods that can be interchangeable in order to create a two division system that keeps a balanced rotation in regards to overall scheduling within the conference.

There has been plans on the table for awhile now to change the division rules but it is continuously pushed back so Something is being held out for. If we don't have a solution by April, then the division meetings will be pushed back again no doubt.

The battle for survival is between the ACC and big 12, which is why both of them have been the ones trying to push divisional rules forward now rather than later. The fact that both conferences have been unsuccessful in that shows us that the three other majors are waiting out the inevitable. Divisional rules will come when either The ACC or the big 12 is gone. The ACC has ESPN at their back in this one and Fox isn't defending the big 12 in the same way because the big 12 hasn't delivered Fox ratings that can compete with ESPN's ratings.

1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

2. Stop it with the 3 divisions - dumbest thing I've ever heard. Big XII is probably still laughing at ACC fans for running with that crazy comment by their commissioner...

3.Stop it with the ideas about adding Mercer, Navy, UConn, ECU, USF or UCF. Chill on Cincinnati and WVU (those are "last resort" moves). Anyone who suggests a Big Ten or SEC team is moving to the ACC should get an immediate drug test!

4. If ESPN brokers a deal of Notre Dame and Texas to the ACC full-time and they don't take it, just go ahead and break up the conference, because that is the ONLY kind of move which will preserve it long-term in the new environment. UNC, Duke and UVa just aren't big enough.

(08-01-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  ...The battle for survival is between the ACC and big 12, which is why both of them have been the ones trying to push divisional rules forward now rather than later. The fact that both conferences have been unsuccessful in that shows us that the three other majors are waiting out the inevitable. Divisional rules will come when either The ACC or the big 12 is gone...

What?!? Unsuccessful? According to ESPN:
A formal proposal for the deregulation of conference championship games... was advanced to the NCAA Council... and is expected to be approved in January [2016].

Don't confuse hold long it takes for the NCAA to get things done with failure. That's nothing but foolish talk and trolling.

(08-01-2015 01:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  ...The battle for survival is between the ACC and big 12, which is why both of them have been the ones trying to push divisional rules forward now rather than later. The fact that both conferences have been unsuccessful in that shows us that the three other majors are waiting out the inevitable. Divisional rules will come when either The ACC or the big 12 is gone...

What?!? Unsuccessful? According to ESPN:
A formal proposal for the deregulation of conference championship games... was advanced to the NCAA Council... and is expected to be approved in January [2016].

Don't confuse hold long it takes for the NCAA to get things done with failure. That's nothing but foolish talk and trolling.

It is successful when it actually happens. Until then it's just talk. Are you really that easy? That isn't me trolling you for an emotional response, that is just you being overemotional.

(08-01-2015 12:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

2. Stop it with the 3 divisions - dumbest thing I've ever heard. Big XII is probably still laughing at ACC fans for running with that crazy comment by their commissioner...

3.Stop it with the ideas about adding Mercer, Navy, UConn, ECU, USF or UCF. Chill on Cincinnati and WVU (those are "last resort" moves). Anyone who suggests a Big Ten or SEC team is moving to the ACC should get an immediate drug test!

4. If ESPN brokers a deal of Notre Dame and Texas to the ACC full-time and they don't take it, just go ahead and break up the conference, because that is the ONLY kind of move which will preserve it long-term in the new environment. UNC, Duke and UVa just aren't big enough.

Why? Why is it really that important to play everybody twice every two years?

What should have the most importance is getting more of the games that draw the most viewers. People don't want to see Clemson and Duke or UVA, they want to see Clemson and Miami or Virginia Tech.

(08-01-2015 12:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

2. Stop it with the 3 divisions - dumbest thing I've ever heard. Big XII is probably still laughing at ACC fans for running with that crazy comment by their commissioner...

3.Stop it with the ideas about adding Mercer, Navy, UConn, ECU, USF or UCF. Chill on Cincinnati and WVU (those are "last resort" moves). Anyone who suggests a Big Ten or SEC team is moving to the ACC should get an immediate drug test!

4. If ESPN brokers a deal of Notre Dame and Texas to the ACC full-time and they don't take it, just go ahead and break up the conference, because that is the ONLY kind of move which will preserve it long-term in the new environment. UNC, Duke and UVa just aren't big enough.

Mark, I have to disagree with almost everything you just wrote. The one thing that you got right was your comment #1.
#2-three divisions would be just fine if the ACC stopped at 15 teams
#3-there are several scenarios that could have a SEC team moving to the ACC to make room for a required third team for the SEC in a westward expansion.
#3 The best chance for the ACC's continued success is to stick to our own knitting. We need to remain an east coast league all within the eastern time zone. We have enough population to make a good competitive living without adding travel issues with our own network.
#4 IF ESPN brokers a deal with Texas and the ACC hesitates or passes it will be because it's not a good deal for the teams in the ACC and it won't be the end of the world. We have a great conference with great teams that everybody else desires. If the teams that we have live up to their own standards we have as good a football conference as anyone in the country. Our basketball is superior to any other conference and baseball and Olympic sports do not take a backseat to anybody.
#4--Carolina is big enough, but we have already told the B1G and the SEC to keep their 30 pieces of silver, we have obligations and have made commitments to old and to new friends and we intend to keep them.

(08-01-2015 10:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  UNC-Duke, NCSU, Wake, UVA
Duke-UNC, NCSU, Wake, GT
NCSU-UNC, Duke, Wake, Clem
Wake-UNC, NCSU, Duke, VT

UVA-UNC, VT, SU, BC
VT-UVA, Wake, Miami, Clem
Clem-NCSU, GT, FSU, VT

GT-Duke, Clem, FSU, Miami
FSU-Clem, GT, Miami, Louis
Miami-FSU, Pitt, VT, GT

BC-SU, Pitt, Louis, UVA
SU-BC, Pitt, Louis, UVA
Pitt-BC, SU, Miami, Louis
Louis-Pitt, FSU, SU, BC

You're welcome. Issue this to the desk of Mr. Swofford.

I hadn't thought of using 4 permanent partners since 3 allows us to play every one every other year but I like your pairings.

With 4 permanent partners, that leaves 4 conference games to rotate around the remaining 9 teams. That's pretty close to everyone every other year. Has anyone tried to schedule out 4 permanent partners with 8 conference games to see if it works out with 4 home 4 away every year for everyone and allow for a balanced schedule?

Supposedly it doesn't work.

(08-01-2015 06:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Supposedly it doesn't work.

IIRC, you end up with 2 teams forced to play each other twice (or something like that).

(08-01-2015 08:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 06:47 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Supposedly it doesn't work.

IIRC, you end up with 2 teams forced to play each other twice (or something like that).

How?

Still want to know why it's so important to play every conference member twice in every four years.

If FSU can play Clemson and Miami every year and UL, GT and VT every other year, I'd be ecstatic. Obviously that'd be us giving up UL every year to only half of that, but we'd be facing GT and VT three times as often, which much more than makes up for the UL loss. I wouldn't even care if you gave us BC and UVA (only because the Jefferson-Eppes Trophy "rivalry" game) [or any 2 of Pitt, Cuse and Duke] every year to complete our permanent rivals if we faced those other 5 with that frequency.

MAKE IT F'ING HAPPEN, ACC.

Does FSU need to face all six NC/VA schools every two years - at minimum? No. Not at all. There's too much redundancy there considering most of them are indistinguishable from each other.

(08-01-2015 12:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Stop it with the 4 permanent rivals. Playing every other team at least twice every 4 years is more important than playing a 4th team annually.

These aren't the conferences of yesteryear. Conferences have become leagues due to the bloated size. Fans don't care about some of these match-ups that their team is regulated to, all the while their team is missing a game the fans care about that could earn capital and much more for the fans too!

College football shouldn't be regulated to weird divisions, all the while missing the opportunity to capitalize on great games!

What if, instead of having permanent rivals agreed to by both schools you also had permanent non-rivals? That is, two schools agreeing that they don't care if they ever play each other in conference? I wonder if that would make more fans happy with their schedules?

I wouldn't even object to a school buying the agreement of the other with cash. At the end of the day, the league's goals should include identifying the best team as its champion, providing fans with the best and most important games available for each school and optimizing its revenue streams. If that means an unbalanced scheduling model, why should that be dismissed for some arbitrary rotation?

I think it is broke in some ways. Look how long it is before UofL plays VT. We will have played ND 3 times as part of the ACC contract before seeing VT who is an actual conference opponent.

How about having 4 set rivals & 4 simi rivals that you play 2 every other year. So that's 6 games then rotate the rest of the conference in the other 2 games.

If you have an odd number of rivals you can split the remainder of the conference in two and rotate every other year. With a 14 team league you get 3 rivals and rotate five of the other teams each year. Get every team in the conference home and away every season with an 8 game schedule. But to do that you have to blow up divisions.