Assuming the NCAA allows conferences de-regulate divisions for CCG

[Toga]

Fixed. Now we're good to go! As you and SmilinBob say - it's really important to get into Florida.

I like Woad's suggested pairings for Thanksgiving Day weekend. BC doesn't bring much juice for SU fans but they are the closest school to us and over time, this should develop into the big game for supremacy in the Northeast.

I like Woad's suggested partners, but really like the change Toga has suggested.

SU desperately wants regular access to Florida, which has a high concentration of alums and is really important for recruiting. Miami is also a lot easier for SU fans from upstate to get to than Louisville is. Miami fans won't travel no matter what, so no worries there.

And Pitt and UL get another very drivable game in their regular rotations. That pairing has the potential to grow into a nice rivalry over time.

So cast this one in stone:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Miami
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Louisville
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA, Pitt
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

Make it so Swofford!

Trivia tidbit of the day: the song "Good Morning Starshine", which rose to #3 on the charts in 1969, was recorded by Jim Swofford's brother Bill.

You Could Look It Up

 

[WoadBlue]

Boston College and Pittsburgh may not move the needle, but its obvious they would be the closest thing to football rivals we have. Thus, playing them annually should happen I would like Virginia over Louisville, but either of them would be fine. The benefit of this model is every team host one another over 4 years and that is great.

For the ACC to maximize going against the BT for football fans in northeastern states, we need Cuse, Pitt, and BC to play each other every year.

That means that each of the 3 still plays 6 ACC games per year against teams in the South, and plays 4 ACC games per 4 years against a team from FL.

 

[WoadBlue]

ACC schools who end their season with SEC schools must be able to schedule a bye or play a cupcake prior to playing that SEC team. The majority of SEC schools schedule that way and the ACC have to mirror that in order to better our conference chances of winning those games.

That is something we need to try to make happen, because the best way our reputation rises is to beat the SEC more often.

Perhaps a way to have 4 key teams not playing the Saturday before Thanksgiving without making ESPN angry is to set that weekend as the annual date for rivalries that will draw at least regional TV interest every year: say, UNC-UVA and Miami-VT.

 

[SmilinBob]

I love playing the SEC in games but one thing that bothers me is that college football has such a small sample size regarding OOC games that is if the ACC is vs the SEC, how do we compare to the rest? As a college football fan, that to me is a lose situation. If there is a true playoff with conference winners then it wouldn't matter as much but this beauty pageant thing going on now with the 3 patsies OOC and 1 P5 just makes this less interesting and more murky. Then again, teams that want to make bowls will avoid a tough OOC like the plague.

 

[WoadBlue]

I like Woad's suggested pairings for Thanksgiving Day weekend. BC doesn't bring much juice for SU fans but they are the closest school to us and over time, this should develop into the big game for supremacy in the Northeast.

I like Woad's suggested partners, but really like the change Toga has suggested.

SU desperately wants regular access to Florida, which has a high concentration of alums and is really important for recruiting. Miami is also a lot easier for SU fans from upstate to get to than Louisville is. Miami fans won't travel no matter what, so no worries there.

And Pitt and UL get another very drivable game in their regular rotations. That pairing has the potential to grow into a nice rivalry over time.

So cast this one in stone:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Miami
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Louisville
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

Make it so Swofford!

Trivia tidbit of the day: the song "Good Morning Starshine", which rose to #3 on the charts in 1969, was recorded by Jim Swofford's brother Bill.

You Could Look It Up

You can't have Miami playing Pitt if you don't have Pitt playing Miami. I assume to meant that and didn't get it fully noted.

That would mean that in keeping annual season ending rivalries, it would be Syracuse-Miami, because Miami can end with neither VT nor FSU. That would leave BC ending with Pitt.

 

[Alsacs]

If the ACC is going to maximize having 3 teams north of the Mason-Dixon, we need all 3 to play annually. Their regional ties need to be maintained and used to bring in ever more northeasterners as ans of ACC football.

Here is my latest attempt to deal with this. I posted it on the Louisville Scout board. I was wrong about the 8 game schedule definitely being kept, but going to 9 poses major issues that could lead to backlash, so anybody demanding 9 just to play politics to try to get a favorable deal in some way better be careful -


It now seems a given that the ACC proposal to de-regulate the way conferences larger than 11 may schedule and decide who plays in a Championship Game is going to pass. The Big 12 is co-sponsor, and the change would allow it to hold a Championship with just 10 teams, or 11 if they add 1.

For us, and I think for the Pac and Big Ten, the main issue is freedom to schedule other than based on 2 divisions that each play an annual round robin. It would mean we schedule with no divisions, cutting back the number of annual rivals so that everyone is played often.

In case you haven't thought about the problem, as the system now operates, we all will play Notre Dame more often than we play full members of ACC football who are not annual rivals. UNC, for example, will play ND more often than we play FSU and Clemson.

Going 8-10 years between meetings in conference games is not a good thing. And this change in NCAA regulations will allow us to make things better. It will keep the entire league refreshed, with new teams rotating on the ACC schedule at least every 2 years.

All signs indicate that we are keeping an 8 game conference schedule. If we each have 3 annual rivals, we will play the other 10 teams in the conference 2 times every 4 years. We will see every team at least twice every 4 years.

That seems to me to be close to ideal. None of us have more than 3 teams we must play each year. Each of us now plays annual games against 2 or 3 schools that our fans would not mind seeing less often, and each of us have fans who would greatly prefer to play a team or two or three more often than the old NCAA rules allow.

Below is my list of 3 annual rivals for each full member of ACC football. It starts with the MUST PLAY games, based on history (like The South's Oldest Rivalry and GT-Dook) and the need to maximize TV interests and deal with SEC rivalries (which is the reason I have FSU playing GT annually), and then taking account of Thanksgiving weekend season ending games.

All teams should play every Thanksgiving weekend so no one ever plays in the Championship after a bye week. We have 4 teams that will end the season versus SEC in-state rivals (FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville). UVA and VT must end the season. So must the 4 NC schools, though it might be interesting to have that rotate, so that in some years UNC closes with Dook while MooU closes with Wake, and in other years UNC closes with MooU while Dook closes with Wake.

That leaves 4 teams who need an annual season ending game: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. BC and Cuse, as border state schools, probably should close the season, which would leave Miami closing with Pitt.

With all that in mind, here is my list:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Miami
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

So basically we agree for the most part you switched BC and Pitt for Miami and gave Louisville an annual game with UVA instead of Pitt or Syracuse.
The point of only playing 3 annual opponents each season is that you play everyone in conference play home/home over 4 seasons and get the best teams in the conference title game regardless of divisions.

 

[sutomcat]

You can't have Miami playing Pitt if you don't have Pitt playing Miami. I assume to meant that and didn't get it fully noted.

That would mean that in keeping annual season ending rivalries, it would be Syracuse-Miami, because Miami can end with neither VT nor FSU. That would leave BC ending with Pitt.

Works for me...

 

[WoadBlue]

I love playing the SEC in games but one thing that bothers me is that college football has such a small sample size regarding OOC games that is if the ACC is vs the SEC, how do we compare to the rest? As a college football fan, that to me is a lose situation. If there is a true playoff with conference winners then it wouldn't matter as much but this beauty pageant thing going on now with the 3 patsies OOC and 1 P5 just makes this less interesting and more murky. Then again, teams that want to make bowls will avoid a tough OOC like the plague.

The small sample size of OOC games is another reason to oppose 9 league games. We - all 5 Major conferences - need more OOC games against other P5 teams.

 

[Alsacs]

If the ACC was smart they would do the schedules the way I suggested above for Syracuse.
Teams from the Northeast would play each other and then
play 2 of 4 NC teams one home/ one away. 1 one of Georgia Tech/Clemson, 1 one of Miami/Florida State. That would mean we would still be playing a game in Florida every other season and it would be easy for everyone to know future schedules and get fans to travel.
Teams from the South would
play 1 one of Boston College/Syracuse, 1 of Pittsburgh/Louisville, 2 of 4 NC teams and their 3 annual opponents.

 

[SmilinBob]

The small sample size of OOC games is another reason to oppose 9 league games. We - all 5 Major conferences - need more OOC games against other P5 teams.

In theory yes, I agree very much with that woadblue but that's not what will happen with all. 2013 Duke is a good example of that.

If there is a true playoff...9 is imperative.

 

[Hoo's That]

If the ACC was smart they would do the schedules the way I suggested above for Syracuse.
Teams from the Northeast would play each other and then
play 2 of 4 NC teams one home/ one away. 1 one of Georgia Tech/Clemson, 1 one of Miami/Florida State. That would mean we would still be playing a game in Florida every other season and it would be easy for everyone to know future schedules and get fans to travel.
Teams from the South would
play 1 one of Boston College/Syracuse, 1 of Pittsburgh/Louisville, 2 of 4 NC teams and their 3 annual opponents.

I think that's what they'll do. Teams will be paired - Free Shellfish University w/Miami; SU w/BC; Pitt w/Louavul; UNC w/Duke; UVa w/VPI; NC State w/Wake; and G Tech w/Clemson - when they put together each school's other 5 opponents for the year. They'll take one from each pair who's not one of your permanent three for your schedule in years 1 and 2 and you'll play the other in the pair in years 3 and 4. Pairing people up this way minimizes outrageous travel demands.

One example had us matched w/UNC, VPI, and Louavul. A sample schedule rotating lineup would be FSU, SU, Pitt (Louavul's partner), NCSU, G Tech for the first 2 years and Miami, BC, Duke (UNC's partner), Wake, and Clemson for the second 2.

 

[Alsacs]

I think that's what they'll do. Teams will be paired - Free Shellfish University w/Miami; SU w/BC; Pitt w/Louavul; UNC w/Duke; UVa w/VPI; NC State w/Wake; and G Tech w/Clemson - when they put together each school's other 5 opponents for the year. They'll take one from each pair who's not one of your permanent three for your schedule in years 1 and 2 and you'll play the other in the pair in years 3 and 4. Pairing people up this way minimizes outrageous travel demands.

One example had us matched w/UNC, VPI, and Louavul. A sample schedule rotating lineup would be FSU, SU, Pitt (Louavul's partner), NCSU, G Tech for the first 2 years and Miami, BC, Duke (UNC's partner), Wake, and Clemson for the second 2.

Yeah, I forgot the VA schools in what I wrote before, but following this type of model would allow the ACC fans to know opponents years in the advance a la the NFL. Like when the AFC East knows it will be playing the NFC South, and AFC West 1 year, and then it rotates each year after. This type of scheduling would make ACC schedule predictable and transparent.

 

[Hoo's That]

Yeah, I forgot the VA schools in what I wrote before, ...

Yes, we're so easy to forget. {sigh}

 

[cpatrocks]

Here is how a Syracuse conference schedule could look over 4 years.
Year 1- BC, @Pitt, Louisville, @UVA, NC State, Miami, @ Clemson, @Wake Forest
Year 2- @BC, Pitt, @Louisville, UVA, @NC State, @Miami, Clemson, Wake Forest
Year 3- BC, @Pitt, Louisville, @VPI, UNC, Florida State, @Georgia Tech, @Duke
Year 4- @BC, Pitt, @Louisville, VPI, @UNC, @FSU, Georgia Tech, Duke


That way you play everyone home/home over 4 years.

I think you should flip Year 2 and Year 3. I think the home/home schedule would be every other year.

 

[Alsacs]

I think you should flip Year 2 and Year 3. I think the home/home schedule would be every other year.

I like it better the way I put it so every team would get a road in FL every 2 years for recruiting purposes. Instead, of having road games in FL 2 years in a row and then 0 road games in FL for 2 years.

 

[cpatrocks]

I like it better the way I put it so every team would get a road in FL every 2 years for recruiting purposes. Instead, of having road games in FL 2 years in a row and then 0 road games in FL for 2 years.

Um - you can still get that, just swap #2 and #4 ---

 

[Alsacs]

Um - you can still get that, just swap #2 and #4 ---

That is fine. Its all semantics at that point. I just think the schedules where you play everybody over 4 years, play your 3 rivalry games you need, and keep everyone in FL every 2 years is the goal.

 

[WoadBlue]

That is fine. Its all semantics at that point. I just think the schedules where you play everybody over 4 years, play your 3 rivalry games you need, and keep everyone in FL every 2 years is the goal.

It should be, perhaps even better be.

For those who may not get it, start by trying to think of it the way FSU fans see things. They are surrounded by SEC fans who can count on facing at least 5 league foes every year that it is exciting for them to play. Most years they have 6 or even 7 of 8 that they as fans can't wait to get too, based on history and the other teams' fan bases.

FSU fans see Wake and BC every year and are bored or worse. Syracuse will fall into that category for FSU fans because it is a private school with a small football fan base. The more that FSU fans see the same small fan base school, year after year, the more bored they get.

This plan, which we can call 3+5+5, relieves that boredom. Wake is not annual, nor are BC and Syracuse. They all rotate on and off FSU's schedule. FSU fans no longer have to wait a decade to face GT (the closest ACC school to Tallahassee) and VT and UNC. Each FSU recruiting class would face all those schools twice in their 4 years.

That plan will help each of our coaching staffs recruit the entire ACC area the best possible. Under the current system, Cuse will go to Atlanta once per decade. As GA is the state that produces the 4th most talent in the country, Cuse is best served playing GT fairly often to maximize ability to recruit GA.

 

[Alsacs]

It should be, perhaps even better be.

For those who may not get it, start by trying to think of it the way FSU fans see things. They are surrounded by SEC fans who can count on facing at least 5 league foes every year that it is exciting for them to play. Most years they have 6 or even 7 of 8 that they as fans can't wait to get too, based on history and the other teams' fan bases.

FSU fans see Wake and BC every year and are bored or worse. Syracuse will fall into that category for FSU fans because it is a private school with a small football fan base. The more that FSU fans see the same small fan base school, year after year, the more bored they get.

This plan, which we can call 3+5+5, relieves that boredom. Wake is not annual, nor are BC and Syracuse. They all rotate on and off FSU's schedule. FSU fans no longer have to wait a decade to face GT (the closest ACC school to Tallahassee) and VT and UNC. Each FSU recruiting class would face all those schools twice in their 4 years.

That plan will help each of our coaching staffs recruit the entire ACC area the best possible. Under the current system, Cuse will go to Atlanta once per decade. As GA is the state that produces the 4th most talent in the country, Cuse is best served playing GT fairly often to maximize ability to recruit GA.

I post on the GT scout site with you so trust me I agree with your point I see the big picture. This 3+5+5 method is a benefit to everyone especially Florida State who needs the ACC to throw them some bones since they carry the Football banner. I think this solution benefits everyone and gets the 2 best teams in the ACC title game and will give another quality opponent for an ACC team trying to make the CFB playoffs.

 

[TheCusian]

I post on the GT scout site with you so trust me I agree with your point I see the big picture. This 3+5+5 method is a benefit to everyone especially Florida State who needs the ACC to throw them some bones since they carry the Football banner. I think this solution benefits everyone and gets the 2 best teams in the ACC title game and will give another quality opponent for an ACC team trying to make the CFB playoffs.

To me that's the bonus benefit - a fairer chance at a league title. Evens out the disparity a bit (no Clemson, FSU, Ville every year)...

 

[SmilinBob]

Anyone look at Wisconsin's Big 10 schedule for 2014? Another reason why you have to get rid of divisions.

 

[UNC Blue]

Interesting idea. Did you devise this or has it been reported somewhere? Would much prefer to trade Pitt off for Va Tech.

We ( the ACC ) have been discussing this for a few years now. The NCAA allowing us to do away with divisions is the hold up on it actually happening.