Florida State article on the current ACC football divisions

[Alsacs]

https://floridastate.rvals.com/content.asp?CID=1767028
For some reason rivals won't link so just insert the "i" after r in the rivals
Interesting excerpt
One option with an eight-game schedule, Swofford said, would be to shuffle schools so that traditional rivals would be placed in the same divisions. That would mean moving Florida State, N.C. State and Clemson to the Coastal Division, or sending Miami, North Carolina and Georgia Tech to the Atlantic.

I wonder how this shakes out. It would just be easiest to flip one of UL/BC/SU to the Coastal and put GT in the Atlantic.

 

[Chris02M]

Easier to keep divisions as is and skip 1 or 2 division opponents yearly and play more other teams

 

[Alsacs]

Easier to keep divisions as is and skip 1 or 2 division opponents yearly and play more other teams

Some cross-divisional matchups have to be yearly.
Florida State-Miami
North Carolina-NC State
Clemson-Georgia Tech
Wake Forest-Duke

The other 3 Virginia-Louisville, Boston College-Virginia Tech, Syracuse-Pitt don't have to be annual. Georgia Tech and Miami should be divided up some Atlantic teams can get more games in those cities.

Florida State which has a lot of football capital wants to play Georgia Tech more often.

 

[Scooch]

This really isn't that difficult. The ACC can either (a) move to 9 conference games or (b) scrap divisions entirely and enact a 3-5-5 scheduling format. Absent implementing one of those two options then the league is always going to face scheduling frequency and rivalry maintenance challenges.

I really don't understand why the ACC is insistent on having two, 7-team divisions. Once the NCAA abolishes that arbitrary rule in the next year then it seems that ditching divisions and figuring out a schedule that preserves each school's most valued annual games makes the most sense. I find the notion that divisions build rivalries and make things easier to follow for fans as ludicrous.

 

[Lou_C]

I think the real reasons that no divisions seems to be a non-starter comes down to the ADs and Coaches not wanting to give up a that ability to add a division title to their resume or contract negotiations.

Do Duke and David Cutcliff play for an ACC title in 2013 with no divisions? The bottom line is that there aren't a lot of football powers in this conference, and the ability to ride an up year, and a down year for your divisional opponents, to a CCG is hard to give up.

I don't like or agree with that, but I understand why it might be intractable, meaning they may need to be looking at non-static divisions, or non round-robin within divisions.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I think the real reasons that no divisions seems to be a non-starter comes down to the ADs and Coaches not wanting to give up a that ability to add a division title to their resume or contract negotiations.

Do Duke and David Cutcliff play for an ACC title in 2013 with no divisions? The bottom line is that there aren't a lot of football powers in this conference, and the ability to ride an up year, and a down year for your divisional opponents, to a CCG is hard to give up.

I don't like or agree with that, but I understand why it might be intractable, meaning they may need to be looking at non-static divisions, or non round-robin within divisions.

its why coaches should really never have a say.

if its not personal agendas, its because they are too wet under the ears or because they wont be there in a year anyway.

even a bowden shouldnt be allowed to have a voice until after retired.

 

[JimBoston]

This really isn't that difficult. The ACC can either (a) move to 9 conference games or (b) scrap divisions entirely and enact a 3-5-5 scheduling format. Absent implementing one of those two options then the league is always going to face scheduling frequency and rivalry maintenance challenges.

I really don't understand why the ACC is insistent on having two, 7-team divisions. Once the NCAA abolishes that arbitrary rule in the next year then it seems that ditching divisions and figuring out a schedule that preserves each school's most valued annual games makes the most sense. I find the notion that divisions build rivalries and make things easier to follow for fans as ludicrous.

Can't do a 9 game conference schedule. Why? Two reasons: Notre Dame rotating games and too many ACC football power schools have annual SEC rivalry games: Florida St/Florida, GT/Georgia, Clemson/SC, Louisville/Kentucky.

Look at the schedules of the 4 football powers if the ACC went to 9 games. In the seasons that they play Notre Dame, they would have 11 games that season already scheduled: 9 ACC games, 1 SEC game and ND. They would never go for that as the schedules would be very tough, it would limit their flexibility to schedule other teams in the future due to lack of slots, and there is a possibility of not having 7 home games in a given year. In general, the football powers always play 7 home games every season. This is not true for many in the ACC like BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Duke,... that will have seasons with only 6 home games.

 

[Scooch]

Can't do a 9 game conference schedule. Why? Two reasons: Notre Dame rotating games and too many ACC football power schools have annual SEC rivalry games: Florida St/Florida, GT/Georgia, Clemson/SC, Louisville/Kentucky.

Look at the schedules of the 4 football powers if the ACC went to 9 games. In the seasons that they play Notre Dame, they would have 11 games that season already scheduled: 9 ACC games, 1 SEC game and ND. They would never go for that as the schedules would be very tough, it would limit their flexibility to schedule other teams in the future due to lack of slots, and there is a possibility of not having 7 home games in a given year. In general, the football powers always play 7 home games every season. This is not true for many in the ACC like BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Duke,... that will have seasons with only 6 home games.

I totally get that. The ACC is not going to a 9 game schedule until the NCAA allows a 13 game regular season. That'll happen eventually, but not in the short term.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I totally get that. The ACC is not going to a 9 game schedule until the NCAA allows a 13 game regular season. That'll happen eventually, but not in the short term.

they should move to 13 right now and say that Goodell mandated it based on brady and deflategate.

lets pork that Fr up...

 

[Alsacs]

If the ACC is going to stay at 8 games and won't adopt the 3+5+5 model then some change has to happen.

Easy foundation for divisions IMO.
Division 1
Duke
North Carolina
Virginia


Division 2
NC State
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest


Then divide Boston College/Syracuse, Pitt/Louisville. Florida State/Miami, Clemson/Georgia Tech in the best manner for all the schools.

The problem right now is the Coastal has both VA schools and Atlantic has both Northeast schools.

 

[Hoo's That]

The problem right now is the Coastal has both VA schools and Atlantic has both Northeast schools.

Hmmm. I wonder how that could have been allowed to happen. Oh Lord

 

[Chris02M]

Some cross-divisional matchups have to be yearly.
Florida State-Miami
North Carolina-NC State
Clemson-Georgia Tech
Wake Forest-Duke

The other 3 Virginia-Louisville, Boston College-Virginia Tech, Syracuse-Pitt don't have to be annual. Georgia Tech and Miami should be divided up some Atlantic teams can get more games in those cities.

Florida State which has a lot of football capital wants to play Georgia Tech more often.

in my scenario I was keeping yearly permanent crossovers then rotate the other 2 games thru over 3 years

 

[Chris02M]

Division 1
North Carolina
Virginia
Duke
Florida State
Clemson
Louisville
Syracuse




Division 2
NC State
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
Miami
Georgia Tech
Pittsburgh
BC


permanent rivals:
unc-nc State
Virginia-Virginia Tech
Duke-Wake Forest
Florida State-Miami
Clemson-Georgia Tech
Louisville-Pittsburgh
Syracuse-Boston College

im ok with this

 

[Chip]

I think the real reasons that no divisions seems to be a non-starter comes down to the ADs and Coaches not wanting to give up a that ability to add a division title to their resume or contract negotiations.

Do Duke and David Cutcliff play for an ACC title in 2013 with no divisions? The bottom line is that there aren't a lot of football powers in this conference, and the ability to ride an up year, and a down year for your divisional opponents, to a CCG is hard to give up.

I don't like or agree with that, but I understand why it might be intractable, meaning they may need to be looking at non-static divisions, or non round-robin within divisions.

I'd like the name and numbers of every school President or Board member who opens a door for leverage of "ACC Coastal Division Champs" in contract negotiations.

Once I have that list, I'll be submitting my application for employment.

It's as good a retirement plan as any.

 

[Scooch]

We already went through this in our prior conference.

Remember the BIG EAST 6 and BIG EAST 7, everyone?! Because dopey college hoops coaches didn't want to finish 11th in a conference, so they pushed for divisions so they could finish 5th in a division. Like that fooled anyone.

A true "ninja" conference commissioner would tell these ADs to stop with the nonsensical football divisions.

 

[Scooch]

I think the real reasons that no divisions seems to be a non-starter comes down to the ADs and Coaches not wanting to give up a that ability to add a division title to their resume or contract negotiations.

Do Duke and David Cutcliff play for an ACC title in 2013 with no divisions? The bottom line is that there aren't a lot of football powers in this conference, and the ability to ride an up year, and a down year for your divisional opponents, to a CCG is hard to give up.

I don't like or agree with that, but I understand why it might be intractable, meaning they may need to be looking at non-static divisions, or non round-robin within divisions.

The basketball coaches went along with no divisions.

And this is a basketball conference, after all.

 

[JimBoston]

End of the day, ACC will only go for a 9 game conference schedule if ND joins full time. Probably not happening in the near future, but at 16 teams, a 9 game schedule is ideal with 4 pods, especially since the conference championship game can be any two teams the ACC wants. You can put natural rivals in a pod so they play each other every year like UNC, Duke, NC St, and WF in a pod. 3 against your pod, 2 against each of the 3 other pods. Thus, you play every team at least once home and home over 4 years.

 

[Whitey23]

Crazy how much ink is spilled on these realignment theories.

 

[JimBoston]

Crazy how much ink is spilled on these realignment theories.

I wasn't trying to speak to realignment. I was just saying that you could have a 9 game conference schedule that maintains traditional rivals (what FSU wants) with ND a full time member and 4 pods. With two divisions of 7 teams and ND as a floating game, you can't get to a 9 game conference schedule and some teams don't play traditional rivals often enough.

 

[Hoo's That]

End of the day, ACC will only go for a 9 game conference schedule if ND joins full time. Probably not happening in the near future, but at 16 teams, a 9 game schedule is ideal with 4 pods, especially since the conference championship game can be any two teams the ACC wants. You can put natural rivals in a pod so they play each other every year like UNC, Duke, NC St, and WF in a pod. 3 against your pod, 2 against each of the 3 other pods. Thus, you play every team at least once home and home over 4 years.

If ( and notice that's a big "if") ND comes in, it would be after divisions are ended and we could play a 4-5-5 schedule system (moving on from 3-5-5) and not need pods, divisions, or a 16th team.

 

[Hoo's That]

Crazy how much ink is spilled on these realignment theories.

Yeah, but electrons are plentiful and pretty inexpensive.

 

[Whitey23]

I wasn't trying to speak to realignment. I was just saying that you could have a 9 game conference schedule that maintains traditional rivals (what FSU wants) with ND a full time member and 4 pods. With two divisions of 7 teams and ND as a floating game, you can't get to a 9 game conference schedule and some teams don't play traditional rivals often enough.

Wasn't directing that towards you. Meant all the articles throughout the Internets.

 

[JimBoston]

If ( and notice that's a big "if") ND comes in, it would be after divisions are ended and we could play a 4-5-5 schedule system (moving on from 3-5-5) and not need pods, divisions, or a 16th team.

Unfortunately, scheduling football with an odd number of conference teams can be difficult especially with 9 conference games as one or two teams every week would not be able to play a conference game. It was difficult for the Big 10 to schedule 8 games for 11 schools before they brought in Nebraska for 12.

 

[omniorange]

This really isn't that difficult. The ACC can either (a) move to 9 conference games or (b) scrap divisions entirely and enact a 3-5-5 scheduling format. Absent implementing one of those two options then the league is always going to face scheduling frequency and rivalry maintenance challenges.

I really don't understand why the ACC is insistent on having two, 7-team divisions. Once the NCAA abolishes that arbitrary rule in the next year then it seems that ditching divisions and figuring out a schedule that preserves each school's most valued annual games makes the most sense. I find the notion that divisions build rivalries and make things easier to follow for fans as ludicrous.

The rumor is that they don't have the votes to go to 3-5-5, even if they get the legislation changed that may allow the doing away of divisions.

All 7 Coastal teams are supposedly happy with who they play on a regular basis now, and apparently at least 1 Atlantic team is as well since it has been publicly stated that the majority of coaches like the divisions as they are currently. It's seems that FSU and SU are making the most noise (if it can even truly be called "noise") about shaking things up, but I think that FSU wants a simple swap of GT for SU whereas SU, at least when Gross was AD, appeared to be for anything that cycles teams through faster than the current 6-1-2 model.

Personally, I prefer the north/south alignment with Miami in the north. But since I doubt UVa or VT want that, 3-5-5 seems to be the only fair solution. But when has college athletics ever been fair to either fans or athletes?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Alsacs]

North/South will never happen because UVA's rivals besides VPI would all be in the South. That switch would piss them off.

As I have been saying if they want to make a minor change divide BC/SU from the Atlantic and VPI/UVA from the Coastal and we get better balance.