The concept behind divisionless is two fold (1) cycle through the conference faster (2) insures the best 2 teams are in the ACCCG.

I obviously don’t speak for every FSU fan or the university, but I’m a little indifferent about it and I would be against it if the divisions were set up better to begin with.

Not every team in the ACC gets FSU fans excited. Sure, maybe in a different sport, but in football I’d rather skip over about 4 schools completely if given the choice.

The divisionless ACCCG should be more competitive, but also an 8/13 chance to be a regular season rematch. I know Clemson and FSU seem like the likely participants now, but could just as easily be UNC vs Wake in a few years or any other combo of ratings and rematch duds.

I really liked the old divisions. It sucked not getting to play FSU, Clemson, NCSU, Wake, Louisville or Cuse more often but for the most part I learned to get excited about Coastal division match ups even if they were UNC or Duke. I'm going to miss, those Coastal teams games not meaning as much and not being in the hunt for the ACCCG until late November.

On the other hand, it's not much of a conference when you only play 6 teams from the other division home and away every 12 years. We have many OOC opponents including ND that we see more often than that.

Given my choice I'd like to have divisionless and be relevant for the championship game until late November but we'll see how it goes.

(03-11-2023 11:16 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The concept behind divisionless is two fold (1) cycle through the conference faster (2) insures the best 2 teams are in the ACCCG.

I obviously don’t speak for every FSU fan or the university, but I’m a little indifferent about it and I would be against it if the divisions were set up better to begin with.

Not every team in the ACC gets FSU fans excited. Sure, maybe in a different sport, but in football I’d rather skip over about 4 schools completely if given the choice.

The divisionless ACCCG should be more competitive, but also an 8/13 chance to be a regular season rematch. I know Clemson and FSU seem like the likely participants now, but could just as easily be UNC vs Wake in a few years or any other combo of ratings and rematch duds.

I really like the flexibility that divisionless schedules provides, but I feel like the ACC wasted it by giving us non-rival "rivalries". FSU vs. Syracuse - really? I'm 99.99% sure it was all about ADs and coaches not wanted to play a schedule that would be too hard, but... really?

As strange as it may sound, the FSU AD went out of his way to praise this permanent game with SU. It would not have been my choice or most FSU fans choice for a permanent rivalry, but I generally like the SU game and the fans I have interacted with on this board. Both schools mutually benefit from the game it seems.

An ideal division set up (my perspective):

Atlantic - Coastal
FSU. - UM
Clem. - Wake
SU. - BC
GT. - Duke
VT. - UVA
NCSU. - UNC
UL. - Pitt

I don’t think the slightly off balanced looking divisions matters as much as the regular season games being exciting.

(03-11-2023 11:16 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The concept behind divisionless is two fold (1) cycle through the conference faster (2) insures the best 2 teams are in the ACCCG.

I obviously don’t speak for every FSU fan or the university, but I’m a little indifferent about it and I would be against it if the divisions were set up better to begin with.

Not every team in the ACC gets FSU fans excited. Sure, maybe in a different sport, but in football I’d rather skip over about 4 schools completely if given the choice.

The divisionless ACCCG should be more competitive, but also an 8/13 chance to be a regular season rematch. I know Clemson and FSU seem like the likely participants now, but could just as easily be UNC vs Wake in a few years or any other combo of ratings and rematch duds.

AAC has gone divisionless for the same reasons. It just makes too much sense to have the most compelling matchup in your conference championship game.

And the future scheduling has been set up to put the schools closest in proximity playing each other more often than the others. Not sure if the ACC is similar in that regard. I like divisionless better though.

I feel like divisions would work better if you had more than just a championship game. For example a four team playoff with wildcard teams in the two division format would get rid of some of the previous problems with the divisions. But you can’t do that since there is a college football playoff.

(03-12-2023 07:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-11-2023 11:16 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The concept behind divisionless is two fold (1) cycle through the conference faster (2) insures the best 2 teams are in the ACCCG.

I obviously don’t speak for every FSU fan or the university, but I’m a little indifferent about it and I would be against it if the divisions were set up better to begin with.

Not every team in the ACC gets FSU fans excited. Sure, maybe in a different sport, but in football I’d rather skip over about 4 schools completely if given the choice.

The divisionless ACCCG should be more competitive, but also an 8/13 chance to be a regular season rematch. I know Clemson and FSU seem like the likely participants now, but could just as easily be UNC vs Wake in a few years or any other combo of ratings and rematch duds.

I really like the flexibility that divisionless schedules provides, but I feel like the ACC wasted it by giving us non-rival "rivalries". FSU vs. Syracuse - really? I'm 99.99% sure it was all about ADs and coaches not wanted to play a schedule that would be too hard, but... really?

The ACC is a collective of schools, not Jim's Iron Fist. Syracuse and FSU mutually wanted to keep that game. It is beyond me why, but that's what happened.

Love divisionless. It's at least twelve years overdue.

It’s better than it was, but the set up is not as good as it could be.

(03-12-2023 10:43 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Love divisionless. It's at least twelve years overdue.

This.

Divisions is soooooo Big Ten. Staid. Old. Out-of-fashion. Silly. Inferior. Not-up-to-par. Lame.

Divisionless means seeing every school 2 times every 4 years. It's so far ahead of a division model it's not even funny. It's Secretariat in the Belmont. It's Lamar Jackson crushing #2 ranked Florida State by 50. It's Georgia destroying TCU. It's obvious.

(03-12-2023 11:49 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It’s better than it was, but the set up is not as good as it could be.

Right. My point wasn't any issue with FSU playing Syracuse, but with who the Noles should be playing annually, but won't be (i.e. either GT or VT).

I think they left the door open to change the ‘rivalry’ games going forward?

(03-13-2023 05:04 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I think they left the door open to change the ‘rivalry’ games going forward?

Yes. The next four years are set. The schools will assess how it's working and tweak things as desired before the following four seasons are announced.

(03-13-2023 06:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 05:04 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I think they left the door open to change the ‘rivalry’ games going forward?

Yes. The next four years are set. The schools will assess how it's working and tweak things as desired before the following four seasons are announced.

Which coincides with the next "look-in". Hmmm...

With the current four team playoff structure, there were rare times where it may benifit a conference by not having the second best team risk an additional loss in the conference championship game. For example, lets say Team A is undefeated and Team B only has one loss and it was to Team A. They are both in the same division, so Team A plays in the championship game against the top team in the other division, while Team B doesn't get a chance to have another win, but also doesn't risk another loss.

Now, with the expansion of the playoffs to twelve teams, I don't think the risk mentioned above is a very big concern. If you have two really good teams, I don't think an additional loss in the championship game is as devistating. So, I think the benifits of playing everyone more often and presenting a better matchup in the championship game is worth going divisionless.

(03-13-2023 04:15 PM)Schema Wrote:  With the current four team playoff structure, there were rare times where it may benifit a conference by not having the second best team risk an additional loss in the conference championship game. For example, lets say Team A is undefeated and Team B only has one loss and it was to Team A. They are both in the same division, so Team A plays in the championship game against the top team in the other division, while Team B doesn't get a chance to have another win, but also doesn't risk another loss.

Now, with the expansion of the playoffs to twelve teams, I don't think the risk mentioned above is a very big concern. If you have two really good teams, I don't think an additional loss in the championship game is as devistating. So, I think the benifits of playing everyone more often and presenting a better matchup in the championship game is worth going divisionless.

That might be true with the SEC and B1G where that card will be played to get as many teams into the playoff as possible. The ACC, Big12 and Pac12 will need to kick the door down to get a second team in. It is possible that an undefeated or 1 loss Clemson or FSU could lose in the ACCCG to a 2 or 3 loss team that would normally not have a chance under normal circumstances and then FSU or Clemson could still get an at large invite. But there has only been 1 upset in the ACCCG in 18 years, so I would say not likely to happen in that way.

I would be in favor of ridding the ACCCG, possibly even dropping down to 7 conference games with most teams using that extra game against a G5 school just to increase odds of getting 2 ACC teams into the playoffs.

(03-11-2023 11:16 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The divisionless ACCCG should be more competitive, but also an 8/13 chance to be a regular season rematch.

It is has been well documented on this board that the ACC could have used the 3-5-5 format WITH divisions... if they shuffled the divisions every year. The real reason for divisionless therefore must be to get the #2 team in the ACCCG.

For the last decade usually only 1 ACCCG participant had playoff hopes and having them play the #3 or #4 team may have boosted the conference's overall playoff chances. With the expanded playoff (and realignment of top AAC schools), BOTH the ACC's top 2 teams are likely to get a bye with a win, so it helps not to throw that #3 or #4 team into the game where they may only secure a play-in road game.

IMO the open question on the efficacy of one/single/no division play will be fans' acceptance of tie-breakers. I think we found that a third of years will need a tie-breaker between teams who have not played. I guess we saw this year the Washington Huskies (who beat Oregon who beat Utah who didn't play Washington, the team with 1 loss fewer than the other two) miss the Pac-12 CG with little fan uproar.

(03-12-2023 01:43 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-12-2023 10:43 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Love divisionless. It's at least twelve years overdue.

This.

Divisions is soooooo Big Ten. Staid. Old. Out-of-fashion. Silly. Inferior. Not-up-to-par. Lame.

Divisionless means seeing every school 2 times every 4 years. It's so far ahead of a division model it's not even funny. It's Secretariat in the Belmont. It's Lamar Jackson crushing #2 ranked Florida State by 50. It's Georgia destroying TCU. It's obvious.

I was with you there for a while.

(03-13-2023 10:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 06:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 05:04 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I think they left the door open to change the ‘rivalry’ games going forward?

Yes. The next four years are set. The schools will assess how it's working and tweak things as desired before the following four seasons are announced.

Which coincides with the next "look-in". Hmmm...

Does it? Good catch.

I can live with the division-less setup. SU needs to recruit Florida so SU needs to play a Florida school annually. Having FSU is a good deal as Miami wanted someone else. Besides, FSU has been good to FSU, from my understanding. I have not yet been able to attend a game in Tallahassee, though I hope to.

I think FSU wants to recruit northern kids, like Duke and Miami. They use Syracuse, Duke and Miami as fall back schools if they don't get into the Ivies. FSU has been working to improve their academic standing and recruits (actual students) from my understanding. If this is true, it makes sense to want exposure in the region where there are many, thus BC, Pitt or SU. Pitt was Coastal, leaving BC or SU, they made a choice or flipped a quarter, SU won.