ACC Meetings ... | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

ACC Meetings ...

Hoo's That said:
No one really has 3 absolutely, positively must-have games. It's easy to pick 3rd teams for a bunch, but I think they'd have no problems dropping one.

UNC will get Duke, NC State, and UVa (I can already hear the howls of the Wolfpack when they get dropped under 2-6-6)
Duke will get UNC, Georgia Tech, and Wake (Duke will have to really think this one over. The reasons for Wake are obvious, but Duke has played Georgia Tech every year since 1937.)
Expand...
If we have 15 ACC football members, and we use 2+6 (6) scheduling, UNC's pair will be UVA and Dook. The Wuffies can howl all they want.
 
WoadBlue said:
In a 14 member league, each team has 13 opponents. A 2+6 (6) schedule plan would mean that each team has 14 league opponents, which means 15 total members.
Expand...

I hate Thamel but the world won't end if there isn't smooth scheduling math. He likely means a 2+ model which results in you playing those 11 other teams 6x over an 11 year period.

For example...

UNC- UVA, Duke

Year 1- NC State, BC, Pitt, Miami, Clemson, VA Tech
Year 2- Wake, SU, Louisville, FSU, GA Tech, NC State
Year 3- BC, Pitt, Miami, Clemson, VA Tech, Wake
Year 4- SU, Louisville, FSU, GA Tech, NC State, BC
and so on

Also he is reporting it is being discussed, he didn't create it. I am surprised it is even on the table. A 2+ model means Clemson doesn't play Wake (their most played ACC team), Duke doesn't play Wake-NC State-UVA, UNC doesn't play Wake-NC State, NC State doesn't play UNC-Duke, UVA doesn't play Duke, Wake doesn't play UNC-Duke-Clemson. If you are not going with the easy math (3+5/5) then you should pick the 4+ model over the 2+ model. That way you only lose one of those games (mostly likely Duke-Wake). Under the 4+ you play everyone 4x over 9 years. Not as good as the 2+ with 6x over 11 years, but you get to play 2 additional rivals yearly.

Edit

for the 2+ I would want SU to have Pitt, BC

Year 1- Miami, UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Louisville
Year 2- FSU, VA Tech, NC State, Wake, GA Tech, Miami
Year 3- UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, Louisville, FSU
Year 4- VA Tech, NC State, Wake, GA Tech, Miami, UVA
and so on
 
Last edited:
I'd argue Syracuse will be very in demand as a partner since we have been one of the 3 worst teams in the ACC teams since our arrival. Hopefully clearer heads prevail and our partners are BC/Pitt/Miami and/or Tech. That would make most Big East sense. Of course it probably won't happen.

Why can't they just create two divisions with one big east variation and the other ACC? And then have a crossover game or two every year. Is this too obvious?
 
If the ACC protected every game played 75 or more times, then fill in games played 50-75 times, and finally games played 30-50 times you would get a 4+ model of...

SU- Pitt (77), BC (54)
BC- SU (54), Pitt (32), Clemson (31), Miami (30), VA Tech (30)
Clemson- Wake (87), NC State (86), GA Tech (85), UNC (56), Duke (54), UVA (49), FSU (34), VA Tech (34), BC (31)
Duke- UNC (101), Wake (97), GA Tech (89), NC State (83), UVA (69), Clemson (54)
FSU- Miami (64), NC State (40), Wake (39), VA Tech (37), Clemson (34)
GA Tech- Duke (89), Clemson (85), UNC (56), UVA (43), NC State (31), Wake (31)
Louisville- None
Miami- FSU (64), Pitt (41), VA Tech (39), BC (30)
UNC- UVA (116), Wake (104), Duke (101), NC State (101), Clemson (56), GA Tech (56), VA Tech (39)
NC State- Wake (114), UNC (101), Clemson (86), Duke (83), UVA (56), VA Tech (47), FSU (40), GA Tech (31)
Pitt- SU (77), Miami (41), BC (32)
UVA- UNC (116), VA Tech (98), Duke (69), NC State (56), Wake (50), Clemson (49), GA Tech (43)
VA Tech- UVA (98), NC State (47), Miami (39) , UNC (39), Wake (39), FSU (37), Clemson (34), BC (30)
Wake- NC State (114), UNC (104), Duke (97), Clemson (87), UVA (50), FSU (39), VA Tech (39), GA Tech (31)

That leaves Louisville needing 4 games, SU needing 2 games, and FSU, GA Tech, Pitt, UVA needing 1 game. So it would make the most sense for Louisville to get FSU, Pitt, GA Tech, SU. Which leaves UVA and SU for each other.
 
I don't think people should get fixated on 2-6-6 or 3-5-5 or whatever. The primary issue is about dissolving the divisions. The scheduling parameters flow from that. The conference can get creative about protecting certain rivalries if that occurs, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a consistent model for everyone. Teams can play OOC games against ACC teams, if need be.
 
You can also do 1-6-6 and it still works out nicely

In this scenario, teams would not play 3 other teams every year, but would play 1 team every year and every other team every other year

Whatever the outcome is would be far better than what we have now. At least everyone would be playing the full conference far more often, and that's what's important
 
Scooch said:
I'm sure they're dying to have their conference revenue cut in half.
Expand...
Nashville is a great sports town and TV market. But there are far more Vols fans there than Vandy fans. And Vandy has no meaningful history with any ACC school.
 
A Clockwork Orange said:
Expand...

I wish I could get more excited about the inner fart smells of the ACC. The last few months of college sports has really sapped me of the interest in this stuff forever.

There was a moment in time where i loved loved loved conference realignment. At this point I don't really care anymore. The only thing that will move me will be the inevitable move to less important big time athletics at Syracuse (which is inevitable)
 
A Clockwork Orange said:
Expand...

That is what is needed.

If I were Syracuse AD, I already would have made a somewhat radical pitch to Miami. Miami needs an annual rival located in the northeast, and NYC is better for that than Boston. I would agree to play Syracuse home games vs. Miami in Yankee Stadium if Miami-Cuse is annual.

Miami would love the location. It would help Syracuse become NY's Team (I think you need to play 1 game per year there). Thus it would help[ ACC football.
 
Orijinal said:
You can also do 1-6-6 and it still works out nicely

In this scenario, teams would not play 3 other teams every year, but would play 1 team every year and every other team every other year

Whatever the outcome is would be far better than what we have now. At least everyone would be playing the full conference far more often, and that's what's important
Expand...

SU - BC
Pitt - Lville
Miami - FSU
GT - Clemson
UNC - Virginia
Duke - WF
VT - NC State
 
WoadBlue said:
That is what is needed.

If I were Syracuse AD, I already would have made a somewhat radical pitch to Miami. Miami needs an annual rival located in the northeast, and NYC is better for that than Boston. I would agree to play Syracuse home games vs. Miami in Yankee Stadium if Miami-Cuse is annual.

Miami would love the location. It would help Syracuse become NY's Team (I think you need to play 1 game per year there). Thus it would help[ ACC football.
Expand...
Provocateur
 
Sounds like they are going for the 3+5/5 model. I really hope we get UVA as our 3rd team. That gives us a nice balance of opposites each year.

Year 1- FSU, GA Tech, UNC, Duke, VA Tech
Year 2- Miami, Clemson, NC State, Wake, Louisville

So over 4 years that would give us 4 games (1 every year) in NC, 3 games in VA, 2 games each in FL, MA, and PA (every other year), a game in GA (hopefully in non FL year), a game in SC (hopefully in non FL year), and a game in KY.



It would make the most sense for everyone to pair off by opposites.

BC - SU
Louisville - Pitt
UVA - VA Tech
UNC - NC State
Duke - Wake
Clemson - GA Tech
FSU - Miami

So for UNC they get Duke, NC State, UVA yearly then...

Year 1- BC, Pitt, Clemson, Miami, VA Tech
Year 2- SU, Louisville, GA Tech, FSU, Wake

For the 3 rivals I would go...

SU- 1. Pitt (77), 2. BC (54), 11. UVA (5)
BC- 1. SU (54), 2. Pitt (32), 4. Miami (30)
Clemson- 1. Wake (87), 2. NC State (86), 3. GA Tech (85)
Duke- 1. UNC (101), 2. Wake (97), 3. GA Tech (89)
FSU- 1. Miami (64), 6. GA Tech (25), 9. Louisville (19)
GA Tech- 1. Duke (89), 2. Clemson (85), 8. FSU (25)
Louisville- 2. FSU (19), 3. Pitt (18), 9. VA Tech (8)
Miami- 1. FSU (64), 3. VA Tech (39), 4. BC (30)
UNC- 1. UVA (116), 3. Duke (101), 4. NC State (101)
NC State- 1. Wake (114), 2. Clemson (86), 3. Duke (83)
Pitt- 1. SU (77), 3. BC (32), 6. Louisville (18)
UVA- 1. UNC (116), 2. VA Tech (98), 13. SU (5)
VA Tech- 1. UVA (98), 3. Miami (39), 13. Louisville (8)
Wake- 1. NC State (114), 3. Duke (97), 4. Clemson (87)

So everyone except Louisville gets their most played ACC opponent. And 7 of the 14 teams get 3 out of their Top 4. Also 7 of 14 get their Top 2. FSU would be the only school without 2 of their Top 4. The outlier games are SU vs UVA, FSU vs GA Tech, FSU vs Louisville, Louisville vs VA Tech. You can reduce the outliers by having SU and UVA play Louisville, and FSU play VA Tech. That would just leave FSU vs GA Tech and UVA vs Louisville as games not played very often. But IMO SU and UVA have nothing in common with Louisville and neither should play them yearly.
 
HRE Otto IV said:
Sounds like they are going for the 3+5/5 model. I really hope we get UVA as our 3rd team. That gives us a nice balance of opposites each year.

Year 1- FSU, GA Tech, UNC, Duke, VA Tech
Year 2- Miami, Clemson, NC State, Wake, Louisville

So over 4 years that would give us 4 games (1 every year) in NC, 3 games in VA, 2 games each in FL, MA, and PA (every other year), a game in GA (hopefully in non FL year), a game in SC (hopefully in non FL year), and a game in KY.



It would make the most sense for everyone to pair off by opposites.

BC - SU
Louisville - Pitt
UVA - VA Tech
UNC - NC State
Duke - Wake
Clemson - GA Tech
FSU - Miami

So for UNC they get Duke, NC State, UVA yearly then...

Year 1- BC, Pitt, Clemson, Miami, VA Tech
Year 2- SU, Louisville, GA Tech, FSU, Wake

For the 3 rivals I would go...

SU- 1. Pitt (77), 2. BC (54), 11. UVA (5)
BC- 1. SU (54), 2. Pitt (32), 4. Miami (30)
Clemson- 1. Wake (87), 2. NC State (86), 3. GA Tech (85)
Duke- 1. UNC (101), 2. Wake (97), 3. GA Tech (89)
FSU- 1. Miami (64), 6. GA Tech (25), 9. Louisville (19)
GA Tech- 1. Duke (89), 2. Clemson (85), 8. FSU (25)
Louisville- 2. FSU (19), 3. Pitt (18), 9. VA Tech (8)
Miami- 1. FSU (64), 3. VA Tech (39), 4. BC (30)
UNC- 1. UVA (116), 3. Duke (101), 4. NC State (101)
NC State- 1. Wake (114), 2. Clemson (86), 3. Duke (83)
Pitt- 1. SU (77), 3. BC (32), 6. Louisville (18)
UVA- 1. UNC (116), 2. VA Tech (98), 13. SU (5)
VA Tech- 1. UVA (98), 3. Miami (39), 13. Louisville (8)
Wake- 1. NC State (114), 3. Duke (97), 4. Clemson (87)

So everyone except Louisville gets their most played ACC opponent. And 7 of the 14 teams get 3 out of their Top 4. Also 7 of 14 get their Top 2. FSU would be the only school without 2 of their Top 4. The outlier games are SU vs UVA, FSU vs GA Tech, FSU vs Louisville, Louisville vs VA Tech. You can reduce the outliers by having SU and UVA play Louisville, and FSU play VA Tech. That would just leave FSU vs GA Tech and UVA vs Louisville as games not played very often. But IMO SU and UVA have nothing in common with Louisville and neither should play them yearly.
Expand...
It is FAR more important for ACC football for Clemson to play FSU annually than for Clemson to play Wake annually.
 
WoadBlue said:
It is FAR more important for ACC football for Clemson to play FSU annually than for Clemson to play Wake annually.
Expand...

Until FSU gets their Sheet together, the game is meaningless. What is best for the ACC is to have an ACC Championship game with a Top 10 FSU vs a Top 10 Clemson. That won't happen often if they play each other yearly. Every other year is plenty enough. If ESPN pushes for the game then go to the 4+ model.


Edit

For example if they didn't play each other in 2013 then...

ACC CG #1 FSU vs #7 Clemson (instead of #13)
 
Last edited:
elimunelson said:
I wish I could get more excited about the inner fart smells of the ACC. The last few months of college sports has really sapped me of the interest in this stuff forever.

There was a moment in time where i loved loved loved conference realignment. At this point I don't really care anymore. The only thing that will move me will be the inevitable move to less important big time athletics at Syracuse (which is inevitable)
Expand...

A 150 million dollar fundraising campaign doesn't scream downsizing.
 
WoadBlue said:
That is what is needed.

If I were Syracuse AD, I already would have made a somewhat radical pitch to Miami. Miami needs an annual rival located in the northeast, and NYC is better for that than Boston. I would agree to play Syracuse home games vs. Miami in Yankee Stadium if Miami-Cuse is annual.

Miami would love the location. It would help Syracuse become NY's Team (I think you need to play 1 game per year there). Thus it would help[ ACC football.
Expand...
Yeah, we've been through that.

We're done giving up home games for NYC - especially biannually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
All ACC
Replies
3
Views
567
sutomcat
sutomcat
OrangeXtreme
    • Like
OG named Week 11 ACC POTW
Replies
1
Views
442
OrangeXtreme
OrangeXtreme
OrangeXtreme
    • Like
    • Love
Savion Washington named Week 12 ACC POTW
Replies
3
Views
1K
ECE '76
ECE '76
H
    • Like
    • Wow
    • Dislike
ACC/BIG EAST Basketball Merger
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
UnknownOrange
UnknownOrange

Forum statistics

Threads
171,697
Messages
4,972,366
Members
6,021
Latest member
OldeOstrom

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
229
Guests online
3,205
Total visitors
3,434
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom