ACC: 9 conference games: One vote away

[Toga]

So the ACC voted to maintain the status quo with an 8 game conference schedule, the same divisions, the same rotations, etc.

I am hoping that the conference is aware of the 3-5-5 plan, and is on board with it, but did not put it to a public vote because it is currently not an option (based on existing NCAA rules the ACC is trying to get changed).

It is fair to assume that once the NCAA okays the changes being requested, and let's conferences do what they want to determine the participants in a conference championship game, that the ACC will switch to the 3-5-5 model?

Surely they wouldn't stay with the rotation they have now if they don't have to, right?

One would sure as heck hope the ACC is aware of 3-5-5. Just makes so much sense.

 

[Chip]

So the ACC voted to maintain the status quo with an 8 game conference schedule, the same divisions, the same rotations, etc.

I am hoping that the conference is aware of the 3-5-5 plan, and is on board with it, but did not put it to a public vote because it is currently not an option (based on existing NCAA rules the ACC is trying to get changed).

It is fair to assume that once the NCAA okays the changes being requested, and let's conferences do what they want to determine the participants in a conference championship game, that the ACC will switch to the 3-5-5 model?

Surely they wouldn't stay with the rotation they have now if they don't have to, right?

I don't know if 3-5-5 is specifically on their radar, but I feel pretty confident that if the NCAA scraps their useless division mandate, that the ACC would immediately make changes to their current schedule rotation.

 

[rrlbees]

Didn't they do something like that a couple of years ago?

They may have. No idea. But I'm sure it was a one off and not a consistent long term agreement like he is suggesting for SU and me for UNC.

 

[Hoo's That]

So the ACC voted to maintain the status quo with an 8 game conference schedule, the same divisions, the same rotations, etc.

I am hoping that the conference is aware of the 3-5-5 plan, and is on board with it, but did not put it to a public vote because it is currently not an option (based on existing NCAA rules the ACC is trying to get changed).

It is fair to assume that once the NCAA okays the changes being requested, and let's conferences do what they want to determine the participants in a conference championship game, that the ACC will switch to the 3-5-5 model?

Surely they wouldn't stay with the rotation they have now if they don't have to, right?

One would sure as heck hope the ACC is aware of 3-5-5. Just makes so much sense.

I don't know if 3-5-5 is specifically on their radar, but I feel pretty confident that if the NCAA scraps their useless division mandate, that the ACC would immediately make changes to their current schedule rotation.

It's my understanding that the ACC is the one proposing the rule change which will allow the conferences to choose their championship game participants however they wish, with or without a division structure. We're still waiting for the NCAA approval. While it hasn't been formally announced by Greensboro, the 3-5-5 plan seems to be how they want to accomplish the selection without divisions. The 8 games + P5 schedule requirement will be implemented regardless of what the NCAA decides about the no-divisions rule. It works in either set-up. We're playing 8 conference games now and that would continue under 3-5-5. One of the (I will very reluctantly acknowledge not the only) arguments in favor of going to a 9-game schedule was getting through the cross-division rotation faster. That falls by the wayside with 3-5-5 because you'll play everyone H&H in a 4-year span. 3-5-5 also reduces the demand to play ACC teams in an OOC game because you're playing everyone more frequently. I disagree with the "more content for the ACC Network" argument because the ACC owns all the rights to the ACC teams' home games regardless of opponent or the opponent's network. So, if the ACC Network is up and running in 2017, they can replay the UVa-Stanford game in C'ville all they want even though the Pac-12's rights are owned by Fox.

 

[Full_Rebar]

We have never called ourselves "NYC's college team".

It's New York's (state) college team and for some reason this makes all the CNYers get their panties in a bunch.

That's because 98% of the marketing of NY State's College team has been in NYC and not spread throughout NYS (Albany, Buffalo, Rochester)

 

[Chip]

It's my understanding that the ACC is the one proposing the rule change which will allow the conferences to choose their championship game participants however they wish, with or without a division structure. We're still waiting for the NCAA approval. While it hasn't been formally announced by Greensboro, the 3-5-5 plan seems to be how they want to accomplish the selection without divisions. The 8 games + P5 schedule requirement will be implemented regardless of what the NCAA decides about the no-divisions rule. It works in either set-up. We're playing 8 conference games now and that would continue under 3-5-5. One of the (I will very reluctantly acknowledge not the only) arguments in favor of going to a 9-game schedule was getting through the cross-division rotation faster. That falls by the wayside with 3-5-5 because you'll play everyone H&H in a 4-year span. 3-5-5 also reduces the demand to play ACC teams in an OOC game because you're playing everyone more frequently. I disagree with the "more content for the ACC Network" argument because the ACC owns all the rights to the ACC teams' home games regardless of opponent or the opponent's network. So, if the ACC Network is up and running in 2017, they can replay the UVa-Stanford game in C'ville all they want even though the Pac-12's rights are owned by Fox.

3-5 makes a ton of sense for the ACC (I'm leaving off the last 5, I'm not entirely sure what that even represents, just that 1 OOC game is P5?). Seems like it wouldn't be hard to work out either. Give everyone their logical rival they have now, then let them have a fantasy draft on the rest. Not everyone will be perfectly happy with who they get in their 3 rivals, but I bet every single team is much happier about their overall schedule.

I do hope all of the P5 is pushing the NCAA on this. Third time I've said it in this thread alone, and about one millionth overall, but the conference championship rules they have in place cannot have a single positive benefit that the NCAA can point to.

 

[Moontan]

Didn't they do something like that a couple of years ago?

That was the Chick-Fil-A kickoff game. They usually try to get an SEC-ACC matchup. They're going to a two-game event (different days) to tie in with the HOF ceremonies*. We'll have to see if they'll continue with the current conference matchup + a national game, or place the ACC and SEC teams in different games.

* the HOF is moving from ND to Atlanta this year. The new facility is under construction and will be downtown near the Georgia Dome, Philips Arena, Centennial Park, etc..

 

[Scooch]

Oddly enough, even as Swofford has been pushing for the NCAA to do away with the randomly idiotic 2-division/play-all requirements for conference champ games, he's said he wants to keep divisions. I hope that's just spin, because ultimately the NCAA will cave to his demand, and to think our conference wouldn't take full advantage of that to address what is now a glaring scheduling frequency problem would be disappointing, to say the least.

THREE-FIVE-FIVE OR DIE!

 

[Scooch]

3-5 makes a ton of sense for the ACC (I'm leaving off the last 5, I'm not entirely sure what that even represents, just that 1 OOC game is P5?).

I assume it's "3" permanent rivals / "5" conference opponents one year / "5" other conference opponents the next year.

 

[Chip]

I assume it's "3" permanent rivals / "5" conference opponents one year / "5" other conference opponents the next year.

Ahhh, ok, makes sense. I knew the part about playing all the other teams home and away over a 4 year period, just didn't think hard enough about how they'd specifically structure that.

Yeah, this would be great. Over a 2 year period you play every ACC team. Seems better than doing the same thing over a 6 year period.

Plus we wouldn't have to play Clemson AND FSU every single year. It's like having a supermodel stab you repeatedly with a butcher knife. I mean, it's nice to be around her, but the stabbing starts to get old.

 

[Scooch]

Ahhh, ok, makes sense. I knew the part about playing all the other teams home and away over a 4 year period, just didn't think hard enough about how they'd specifically structure that.

Yeah, this would be great. Over a 2 year period you play every ACC team. Seems better than doing the same thing over a 6 year period.

Plus we wouldn't have to play Clemson AND FSU every single year. It's like having a supermodel stab you repeatedly with a butcher knife. I mean, it's nice to be around her, but the stabbing starts to get old.

It makes soooo much sense...that I'm fairly confident the ACC won't do it.

I mean we have to protect those annual games with Wake, NC State and Louisville at the expense of basically ever playing Miami, Va Tech, UVA and UNC. So much history there we can't afford to lose.

:bat:

 

[Chip]

It makes soooo much sense...that I'm fairly confident the ACC won't do it.

I mean we have to protect those annual games with Wake, NC State and Louisville at the expense of basically ever playing Miami, Va Tech, UVA and UNC. So much history there we can't afford to lose.

:bat:

Plus they can preserve the UNC-UVA rivalry and the FSU-Miami rivalry. If they don't, the B1G and the Big 12 each grow by 2 teams. Literally, this happens the day it's announced they're not playing every year. They just re-badge.

 

[Scooch]

Plus they can preserve the UNC-UVA rivalry and the FSU-Miami rivalry. If they don't, the B1G and the Big 12 each grow by 2 teams. Literally, this happens the day it's announced they're not playing every year. They just re-badge.

So true.

I'm sure both of those conferences will be thrilled to take on programs that can't contribute a dime to their media value for over a decade.

 

[KaiserUEO]

So true.

I'm sure both of those conferences will be thrilled to take on programs that can't contribute a dime to their media value for over a decade.

here is where my whole position comes in...the bevo is not a bull or a cow or a steer or whatever the ...its the pink elephant in the room.

is it $$$ or glory?? what makes them tick??

if its $$...then dont expand.

if they start to get shut out of the playoffs because of no champ game, and a bunch of crappy teams on the sched and get no glory...then they expand.

if they disolve divisions, but allow a 1o school conf to have a champ game, and that committee keeps putting them in...then my dream is gone.

bullspit.

we need the bevo to understand the feelings of the few
ashes and diamonds, foe and friend
we were all born equal in the end....expand mothafluckas.

 

[Scooch]

here is where my whole position comes in...the bevo is not a bull or a cow or a steer or whatever the ...its the pink elephant in the room.

is it $$$ or glory?? what makes them tick??

if its $$...then dont expand.

if they start to get shut out of the playoffs because of no champ game, and a bunch of crappy teams on the sched and get no glory...then they expand.

if they disolve divisions, but allow a 1o school conf to have a champ game, and that committee keeps putting them in...then my dream is gone.

bullspit.

we need the bevo to understand the feelings of the few
ashes and diamonds, foe and friend
we were all born equal in the end...expand mothafluckas.

Texas cares about Texas (see: Longhorn Network).

There is no revenue upside to the B12 expanding. No existing program will get a dime more in media money by going to 12.

And no one is going to demand anything of Texas (who IS the B12) that they aren't already inclined to do. There won't be a day when an undefeated or 1 loss Texas team is kept out of a playoff.

In other words, I'd find a new horse to beat my friend. This one is dead.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Texas cares about Texas (see: Longhorn Network).

There is no revenue upside to the B12 expanding. No existing program will get a dime more in media money by going to 12.

And no one is going to demand anything of Texas (who IS the B12) that they aren't already inclined to do. There won't be a day when an undefeated or 1 loss Texas team is kept out of a playoff.

In other words, I'd find a new horse to beat my friend. This one is dead.

Only thing I have is, and I don't understand why it won't happen is...why will the other 4 confs allow Texas a free pass??

Why??

And why wouldn't they move in unison to stop it??

 

[Scooch]

Only thing I have is, and I don't understand why it won't happen is...why will the other 4 confs allow Texas a free pass?? Why?? And why wouldn't they move in unison to stop it??

What's the problem though? You can't have a playoff without UT and OU. The benefit they get from not having to traverse a conference champ game is offset by the possibility their SOS suffers vs a team that wins one.

They have a carve out for ND too. College royalty writes their own rules, way it's always been.

 

[KaiserUEO]

What's the problem though? You can't have a playoff without UT and OU. The benefit they get from not having to traverse a conference champ game is offset by the possibility their SOS suffers vs a team that wins one.

They have a carve out for ND too. College royalty writes their own rules, way it's always been.

There's no problem that can't be 'fixed'.

Start leaving them out because of SOS and no champ game.

Equal paths for all. No free pass.

The 'Super P4' have conspired to steal a whole conf, 11 teams in this wave.

They can certainly conspire to keep 10 out.

Texas' little $$ grab will be over. 2 or 4 more teams splitting that pot.

them.

Let the pubic outcry swing the hammer.

 

[Hoo's That]

I do hope all of the P5 is pushing the NCAA on this. Third time I've said it in this thread alone, and about one millionth overall, but the conference championship rules they have in place cannot have a single positive benefit that the NCAA can point to.

The championship game rule was put together by the NCAA for a D-3 conference in Pa so they could determine in a fair and equitable manner who got the conference's bid to the NCAA D-3 football playoffs. There were interviews with NCAA hierarchy folks in which they admitted the SEC caught them with their pants down when they expanded to 12 and announced they were having a championship game under the rule. They NEVER expected a D-1 conference to use the rule.

I think the NCAA is willing to change the rule for D-1A so that divisions are no longer required in order to have a championship game because an NCAA championship bid is not involved because they're not running the bowl system or this new playoff. It doesn't cost them anything and they probably feel it could be one point to help keep the P5 in the NCAA instead of going off on their own.

 

[Scooch]

The championship game rule was put together by the NCAA for a D-3 conference in Pa so they could determine in a fair and equitable manner who got the conference's bid to the NCAA D-3 football playoffs. There were interviews with NCAA hierarchy folks in which they admitted the SEC caught them with their pants down when they expanded to 12 and announced they were having a championship game under the rule. They NEVER expected a D-1 conference to use the rule. I think the NCAA is willing to change the rule for D-1A so that divisions are no longer required in order to have a championship game because an NCAA championship bid is not involved because they're not running the bowl system or this new playoff. It doesn't cost them anything and they probably feel it could be one point to help keep the P5 in the NCAA instead of going off on their own.

My understanding is that the SEC petitioned the NCAA to have a champ game when they were at 11 teams. The NCAA invoked the 12-team/2-division DIII rule to keep them from doing it. The SEC then added Arkansas. They've held tight to that rule both when the B1G and ACC asked them to waive it.

The NCAA will void the rule now that much of the realignment it caused is over and now that they've been neutered by the P5 conferences they had a tacit hand in creating.

It's delicious irony.

 

[Lou_C]

Oddly enough, even as Swofford has been pushing for the NCAA to do away with the randomly idiotic 2-division/play-all requirements for conference champ games, he's said he wants to keep divisions. I hope that's just spin, because ultimately the NCAA will cave to his demand, and to think our conference wouldn't take full advantage of that to address what is now a glaring scheduling frequency problem would be disappointing, to say the least.

THREE-FIVE-FIVE OR DIE!

I definitely get the appeal of divisions. Look at who has represented a division in the ACC championship over the years...Duke, Wake, BC, etc. There is no doubt some real tiers in the ACC (as in every conference) and it's got to be real difficult for tier 2-3 teams to go from catching lightning in a bottle with 6 other teams being down, versus needing 12 other teams to be down. And it gives a coach/program something else to work with.

That said...there's ways around this. First, you don't need to have static divisions. You can align the divisions every two years. That way you still have a division race. To me, this solves the issue 100%. I'm actually not that enamored with the top two teams playing in the championship game...I'm not sure that there was anything to gain by FSU rematching Clemson last year rather than Duke.

I think that's totally doable, it's not like the schools have any deeply held divisional identity, that's ONLY happened in the SEC. There's no reason why you need static divisions.

The other alternative is you keep static divisions, but schedule 3-5-5 anyway. Not everyone plays everyone. Does that get dicey if Syracuse and FSU are both 6-2 and tied for first place, and didn't play each other? Sure. But how big a problem is it really? I don't care how you set up divisions and divisional play, there's always going to be an element of illegitimacy about it. Even in the SEC, where they were beautifully, there are problems with people playing VERY unbalanced schedules.

 

[Hoo's That]

The other alternative is you keep static divisions, but schedule 3-5-5 anyway. Not everyone plays everyone. Does that get dicey if Syracuse and FSU are both 6-2 and tied for first place, and didn't play each other? Sure. But how big a problem is it really? I don't care how you set up divisions and divisional play, there's always going to be an element of illegitimacy about it. Even in the SEC, where they were beautifully, there are problems with people playing VERY unbalanced schedules.

The current rule requires round-robin play within the division in order to have the CG.

 

[Lou_C]

The current rule requires round-robin play within the division in order to have the CG.

Everyone is working on the assumption the championship game will be deregulated.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I definitely get the appeal of divisions. Look at who has represented a division in the ACC championship over the years...Duke, Wake, BC, etc. There is no doubt some real tiers in the ACC (as in every conference) and it's got to be real difficult for tier 2-3 teams to go from catching lightning in a bottle with 6 other teams being down, versus needing 12 other teams to be down. And it gives a coach/program something else to work with.

That said...there's ways around this. First, you don't need to have static divisions. You can align the divisions every two years. That way you still have a division race. To me, this solves the issue 100%. I'm actually not that enamored with the top two teams playing in the championship game...I'm not sure that there was anything to gain by FSU rematching Clemson last year rather than Duke.

I think that's totally doable, it's not like the schools have any deeply held divisional identity, that's ONLY happened in the SEC. There's no reason why you need static divisions.

The other alternative is you keep static divisions, but schedule 3-5-5 anyway. Not everyone plays everyone. Does that get dicey if Syracuse and FSU are both 6-2 and tied for first place, and didn't play each other? Sure. But how big a problem is it really? I don't care how you set up divisions and divisional play, there's always going to be an element of illegitimacy about it. Even in the SEC, where they were beautifully, there are problems with people playing VERY unbalanced schedules.

i like the divisions, for the reason you gave with dook, bc, wake etc getting to the champ game. im also a big fan of the 3-5-5. and i dont see any reason why they cant do both.

looks to me like theres 3 options:

1. the status quo
2. no divisions 3-5-5 and basically a voted on champ game
3. divisions and 3-5-5

it doesnt have to be all nice and neat with everyone in a division having played everyone. if option 2 is picked then its an unbalanced schedule anyway, so why not do it with divisions??

obviously im looking at this as a tier 2 team who would benefit, which i think is the way the ADs and Presidents would lean. i also think they would lean towards the side that it might not be good for clemson to play fla st again. which is probably the way the coaches would lean.

although im pretty sure espn would be on the other side of this. hell, i didnt watch fla st-dook, but i wouldve gone out of my way to watch fla st-clemson.

divisions protect the collective.

now we need to make the schedule more attractive.

tiebreakers done the NFL way...

Head-to-head
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in common games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss

 

[riskylogic]

i like the divisions, for the reason you gave with dook, bc, wake etc getting to the champ game. im also a big fan of the 3-5-5. and i dont see any reason why they cant do both.

looks to me like theres 3 options:

1. the status quo
2. no divisions 3-5-5 and basically a voted on champ game
3. divisions and 3-5-5

[snip]

Option 3 is only possible if the 3 permanent rivalry games are not always within the same division. That sounds OK to me. The league would also have to get creative about how it goes about assigning teams to divisions every year. A 14 year rotation or preseason seeding, perhaps?