Acc one division

[IHeartSUFball]

Lousville should get pitt and one of the Virginia schools for sure

question is when do we think this will come into effect

 

[BlazeOrange]

I didn't know that - the 2 Universities should, in honor of Tom C, have started this already. You could get a lot of Marketing out of it every year - oops, we all know how great SU is at Marketing.

Honestly having trophy games like this also place more significance on the game itself, especially when they become important and perhaps determine who ends up in the conference championships. The talking heads at ESPN would advertise it as the "Coughlin Cup" game between SU and BC and not just a game at the end of the season played between 2 ACC opponents. Associating Tom C with SU (and BC) only helps SUs status as a football school.

Honestly Alsacs, someone should really get both universities together to talk about it. CTO & TomCat - a little help here please (I'm asking nicely CTO)?

Discussions should be starting now between the schools and TC and trophy designs should be drawn up - with a goal of having the first trophy game the season after TC retires, so he can be on hand to present it. Sooner if he gets an extension with the Giants or signs with another team, as long as they can work out him being there.

 

[Chris02M]

question is when do we think this will come into effect

should here something within 6 months so maybe 2016 schedule?

 

[Scooch]

The only thing I think might happen that will disrupt 3-5-5 is that all P5 conferences are probably going to standardize that which can be easily standardized. i.e. it's not easy to just tell everyone to be at 14 teams. But it is easy to require a 9 game schedule. It just seems like as the playoff committee practices evolve, playing fields will be leveled. Started with the requirement to play 1 other P5 OOC. Then it will be same # of conference games, as well as conf championship game. You can still have the 3 portion of 3-5-5. Or move it to 4. But the other two numbers will mean a bit more complexity for the conference schedules. Plus the ND thing is still there. Get ND to join full time as soon as they realize this playoff system will spurn them as easily as anyone else, then you can create three 5 team pods. You have your 4 annual teams, you play one of the two remaining pods one year, the other one the next year. Nice little math equation. Just say No to a 16th if ND ever joins full time. Unless it's someone like WVU. No UConn, no other program building.

I don't think a schedule format will be standardized. Rather it'll be that the conferences are going to get the ability to determine conference champ game participants however they see fit, including dumping divisions if they want.

Some leagues may keep divisions because it works for them. The ACC would dump them, I suspect.

Question will be if they'll let the Big 12 hold a champ game with 10 members, or if the other conferences will tell them to get bent, we had to get to that arbitrary 12 level and so will you.

 

[CousCuse]

Dook. Already heated in BBall and Lax.

 

[omniorange]

I don't think a schedule format will be standardized. Rather it'll be that the conferences are going to get the ability to determine conference champ game participants however they see fit, including dumping divisions if they want.

Some leagues may keep divisions because it works for them. The ACC would dump them, I suspect.

Question will be if they'll let the Big 12 hold a champ game with 10 members, or if the other conferences will tell them to get bent, we had to get to that arbitrary 12 level and so will you.

Exactly. I think at 12, the Pac would stick with their divisions. And with the BiG's northeastern strategy, they would likely keep theirs, especially if they go to the 9 game conference schedule that is due to start in 2016?. Of the ones who currently have divisions, I think the SEC is the only one who would actually join with the ACC on the 3+5+5 model.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

Dook. Already heated in BBall and Lax.

I actually like this suggestion as long as we have no shot at Miami being the third. Not sure if the conference would though. Seems like either all three NC schools or two of them and a Virginia school would be more likely for them.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Chip]

I don't think a schedule format will be standardized. Rather it'll be that the conferences are going to get the ability to determine conference champ game participants however they see fit, including dumping divisions if they want.

Some leagues may keep divisions because it works for them. The ACC would dump them, I suspect.

Question will be if they'll let the Big 12 hold a champ game with 10 members, or if the other conferences will tell them to get bent, we had to get to that arbitrary 12 level and so will you.

I don't think the format will be standardized. But I wouldn't be surprised if 9 conference games (no matter how you want to do it) is standardized.

 

[jerrycuse]

I think one division would be great.

I would like if they did the repeat partners regionally.

Have the four southern schools (FSU, Miami, GaTech and Clemson) play each other every year. Same for the four NC schools.

Lastly you would have to split the six northern. Something like:
SU - BC, Pitt, VPI
BC - SU, Pitt, UVA
Pitt - SU, BC, Louisville
Louisville - Pitt, VPI, UVA
UVA - VPI, BC, Louisville
VPI - UVA, Louisville, SU

Rotate the every other year games accordingly. For SU, you get one Southern school home, and one away each year. You get one NC school home and one away each year. You rotate UVA and Louisville home and away each year with BC, Pitt and VPI.

The downside is obviously that it wouldn't be fair or balanced but the upside is everyone gets to play the school they want. They have regional ties and people will care about the games. The Southern schools get their regional rivals and mini-SEC. You could argue they may want a harder SOS. The NC schools all get to play each other. The Northern schools also get their rivals. Plus, FSU and Clemson, for example, could easily still play in the ACCCG. Even though one will lose the head to head, if they both win out otherwise they are likely good.

 

[BlazeOrange]

Although some schools in this conference have too many teams that they absolutely HAVE to play each year, they should be able to sort the "3-s" out relatively easy - we've already gotten pretty close in this thread. The headache part will be the "5-5" portion. Those will have to be tailored for each school, since the numbers don't support even pods. Someone will end up with an alternating murderer's row/cupcake scenario.

 

[SmilinBob]

What I don't understand is why the NCAA is taking so long to decide...seriously it's ridiculous. I can't see why a conference has to ask the NCAA to see how they determine their own champion in the first place as that foolish 12 team thing was established because of why? The logic eludes me.

 

[raf4488]

Getting rid of divisions also solves the "Who else does the ACC take if ND joins for football?" question. 15 teams would be just fine and you wouldn't need anyone else to join.

 

[supp]

Getting rid of divisions also solves the "Who else does the ACC take if ND joins for football?" question. 15 teams would be just fine and you wouldn't need anyone else to join.

If we went to 16 and brought on WVU, you could do a BE/old ACC divisional setup. That weirdly appeals to me.

 

[RF2044]

What I don't understand is why the NCAA is taking so long to decide...seriously it's ridiculous. I can't see why a conference has to ask the NCAA to see how they determine their own champion in the first place as that foolish 12 team thing was established because of why? The logic eludes me.

Because the NCAA has a pointless rule in place that precludes the Big 12 from having a CC game without expanding the conference.

Like many [most?] rules the NCAA has enacted, it seems arbitrary and pointless.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I don't think the format will be standardized. But I wouldn't be surprised if 9 conference games (no matter how you want to do it) is standardized.

then you do an NFL 3-5 (1) to get to 9.

of the 5 teams you didnt play from the other group...you play the one with similar record.

my lord does it all make so much sense that it will never happen.

 

[Hoo's That]

What I don't understand is why the NCAA is taking so long to decide...seriously it's ridiculous. I can't see why a conference has to ask the NCAA to see how they determine their own champion in the first place as that foolish 12 team thing was established because of why? The logic eludes me.

Because the NCAA has a pointless rule in place that precludes the Big 12 from having a CC game without expanding the conference.

Like many [most?] rules the NCAA has enacted, it seems arbitrary and pointless.

The NCAA hierachy in India-noplace has nothing to do with this; it will be decided soley by the FBS schools. It's supposed to be voted on at the next NCAA convention, IIRC, which should be before the present school year ends. If the resolution is approved then, there's a more-than-good chance it will be used for the 2016 schedules.

Folks, please remember the rule was designed primarily for one of the D-3 conferences to select their champion for the NCAA football playoffs because it had grown to 12 teams, making a round-robin schedule impossible. It was never anticipated by India-noplace that any D-1 conference, let alone the SEC, would take advantage of this rule. The NCAA president at the time readily said so in interviews.

 

[orange79]

I don't think a schedule format will be standardized. Rather it'll be that the conferences are going to get the ability to determine conference champ game participants however they see fit, including dumping divisions if they want.

Some leagues may keep divisions because it works for them. The ACC would dump them, I suspect.

Question will be if they'll let the Big 12 hold a champ game with 10 members, or if the other conferences will tell them to get bent, we had to get to that arbitrary 12 level and so will you.

I haven't heard or thought about that phrase in decades. Welcome back, old friend.

 

[RF2044]

The NCAA hierachy in India-noplace has nothing to do with this; it will be decided soley by the FBS schools. It's supposed to be voted on at the next NCAA convention, IIRC, which should be before the present school year ends. If the resolution is approved then, there's a more-than-good chance it will be used for the 2016 schedules.

Folks, please remember the rule was designed primarily for one of the D-3 conferences to select their champion for the NCAA football playoffs because it had grown to 12 teams, making a round-robin schedule impossible. It was never anticipated by India-noplace that any D-1 conference, let alone the SEC, would take advantage of this rule. The NCAA president at the time readily said so in interviews.

"Nothing to do with this?" The NCAA rules that are in place today have everything to do with this. That said rules might change in the near future doesn't alter that the rule is arbitrarily restrictive and generally pointless.

 

[Chip]

"Nothing to do with this?" NCAA rules has everything to do with this. That said rules might change in the near future doesn't alter that the rule is arbitrarily restrictivend generally pointless.

It's not only a stupid rule, it's a lazy one. Some lower level of football had this rule, so they just adopted it. "We have to have some process in place!".

What I'd love to know is what rationale was the ACC given when it was denied the waiver for an 11 team championship game back in the day. Would make for some good reading, if they did actually give some reasoning.

 

[Scooch]

It's not only a stupid rule, it's a lazy one. Some lower level of football had this rule, so they just adopted it. "We have to have some process in place!".

What I'd love to know is what rationale was the ACC given when it was denied the waiver for an 11 team championship game back in the day. Would make for some good reading, if they did actually give some reasoning.

I believe the NCAA went with the popular, parental "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" rationale.

 

[Scooch]

I don't think the format will be standardized. But I wouldn't be surprised if 9 conference games (no matter how you want to do it) is standardized.

It might be... when the NCAA allows a 13th regular season game.

I'm convinced that's coming.

 

[Hoo's That]

"Nothing to do with this?" The NCAA rules that are in place today have everything to do with this. That said rules might change in the near future doesn't alter that the rule is arbitrarily restrictive and generally pointless.

It's not only a stupid rule, it's a lazy one. Some lower level of football had this rule, so they just adopted it. "We have to have some process in place!".

What I'd love to know is what rationale was the ACC given when it was denied the waiver for an 11 team championship game back in the day. Would make for some good reading, if they did actually give some reasoning.

I said India-noplace has nothing to do with this. They don't set any of the rules on any topic you want to choose regarding college sports, they just enforce them. The whole NCAA convention voted in the 12-team rule, just like they voted in the rule allowing the expansion of the schedule to 12 games in 2005. Did the NCAA staff write the championship game rule? Possibly, but it did not go into effect until the whole convention voted to approve it. And because the whole NCAA voted on it, rather than just D-3, the SEC was able to take advantage of it because that meant it applied to all divisions.

They turned down the ACC because the rule says 12 teams with no exceptions. Again, simply enforcing the rule approved by the convention as it is written.

 

[RF2044]

I said India-noplace has nothing to do with this. They don't set any of the rules on any topic you want to choose regarding college sports, they just enforce them. The whole NCAA convention voted in the 12-team rule, just like they voted in the rule allowing the expansion of the schedule to 12 games in 2005. Did the NCAA staff write the championship game rule? Possibly, but it did not go into effect until the whole convention voted to approve it. And because the whole NCAA voted on it, rather than just D-3, the SEC was able to take advantage of it because that meant it applied to all divisions.

They turned down the ACC because the rule says 12 teams with no exceptions. Again, simply enforcing the rule approved by the convention as it is written.

I understand the distinction, but that is hair-splitting at its finest.

It doesn't matter which group legislatively is responsible for writing / enacting / approving new statues--if the rules are on the books, then they're NCAA rules. If the NCAA enforces them, then they're NCAA rules. Which is why the NCAA--like ususal--is an impediment rather than ahead of the curve in serving the needs of member institutions that provide an important segment of the constituency.

 

[RF2044]

I said India-noplace has nothing to do with this. They don't set any of the rules on any topic you want to choose regarding college sports, they just enforce them. The whole NCAA convention voted in the 12-team rule, just like they voted in the rule allowing the expansion of the schedule to 12 games in 2005. Did the NCAA staff write the championship game rule? Possibly, but it did not go into effect until the whole convention voted to approve it. And because the whole NCAA voted on it, rather than just D-3, the SEC was able to take advantage of it because that meant it applied to all divisions.

They turned down the ACC because the rule says 12 teams with no exceptions. Again, simply enforcing the rule approved by the convention as it is written.

Hey Hoos -- on a completely unrelated note, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent full capitulation from Rolling Stone. In light of that girl's story being largely debunked, what is the mood on campus / around the school? Any insight?

 

[BlazeOrange]

Getting rid of divisions also solves the "Who else does the ACC take if ND joins for football?" question. 15 teams would be just fine and you wouldn't need anyone else to join.

We know the answer: Whoever ND would be willing to come along with.