Mr. ACC David Teel again advocating a divisional shuffle

[WoadBlue]

Florida State wouldn't complain if this switch was made. They want more games with Georgia Tech. This switch wouldn't hurt anyone really as Georgia Tech-Louisville would give the ACC a new good rivalry, Virginia Tech-Clemson would be played annually and give ESPN a good TV game, UVA-BC would be played annually, and I mean UNC, Duke would get Louisville annually instead of Georgia Tech wouldn't be that huge a hit.

I get our UNC friends saying its unlikely, but its something to throw FSU a bone if possible it wouldn't kill divisional balance as Louisville is suppose to be a good football team replacing a good football team in Georgia Tech.

It's not that simple. Each change made will necessarily send out reverberations affecting the entire conference. Other than VT and UVA trading annual cross-divisional rivals, so that UVA plays BC and VT plays the UofL, all changes will irritate several other members of the conference, perhaps enough to lead to major trouble.

UNC, for example, has a fairly large alumni base in and near Atlanta. When Bobby Dodd has 55,000 to see UNC play GT, you can bet that at least 6000 are UNC fans. UNC does not have a large alumni base in Louisville. Add to that the fact that GA turns out the 4th most football talent in the country while KY turns out less than TN, which turns out less than SC, which turns out less than NC or VA, and it is a given that UNC would never vote for such a trade.

We are stuck with the divisions we have until we can scrap divisions.

 

[WoadBlue]

Could be worse...

Why is Navy in the West? Is that to try to be similar to the SEC, which has Missouri in the East?

 

[BlazeOrange]

Divisions just leave way to much of a window for the best two teams not being able to play the ACC Championship game.

That's desirable in a way though, as you don't want a rematch of teams in the championship because they could end up splitting their games and reduce both teams bowl desirability. Especially when you have a title contender and a 2nd highly-ranked team. Say undefeated FSU has to play 11-1 Clemson, who they already beat. FSU has nothing to gain by winning as they are already likely a top 4 team, but Clemson goes from a possible top 5 team into the category with several 2-loss teams and may not get one of the elite non-playoff bowls or even a 2nd playoff berth for the conference (not likely until the playoffs are expanded). Clemson wins and good for them, they're probably in the playoffs. But one P5 conference will be left out each season - what if the other four champs are all undefeated or even 12-1 also? There is benefit to the conference championship being more of a coronation than a competitive game.

 

[orange79]

That's a leftover from the old ACC. UNC vs. SoCar was the big deal between border state flagship schools, and Clemson vs. MooU pitted the border state Ag schools.

Is it just me, or does anyone else lol whenever they read 'MooU'?

 

[Chip]

Both would like it, if they lose nothing else they want in order to get it.

GT has only 1 truly old rivalry in the ACC: Dook. GT is not going to want to lose Dook as an annual game. GT also is not going to favor swapping UNC for MooU, nor will GT favor swapping UVA for BC and VT for Syracuse.

There is virtually 0 chance that GT would agree to trade divisions with Louisville.

Because of numbers of recruits living within 200 miles of each campus, there is virtually 0 chance that other teams in the Coastal would agree to swap GT for the UofL.

Which means we're right back where we started. Which is that there is literally no good solution to this, and until the NCAA changes its divisional rule, there's not much use in thinking about it anymore.

 

[Alsacs]

Is it just me, or does anyone else lol whenever they read 'MooU'?

Let's just say when you live in NC you know the people who went to UNC, NC State, Western, App State etc. and NC State people are the easiest to identify.

 

[Rocco]

Fla St and Clemson should not be in the same division.

 

[Btstimpy]

It's not that simple. Each change made will necessarily send out reverberations affecting the entire conference. Other than VT and UVA trading annual cross-divisional rivals, so that UVA plays BC and VT plays the UofL, all changes will irritate several other members of the conference, perhaps enough to lead to major trouble.

UNC, for example, has a fairly large alumni base in and near Atlanta. When Bobby Dodd has 55,000 to see UNC play GT, you can bet that at least 6000 are UNC fans. UNC does not have a large alumni base in Louisville. Add to that the fact that GA turns out the 4th most football talent in the country while KY turns out less than TN, which turns out less than SC, which turns out less than NC or VA, and it is a given that UNC would never vote for such a trade.

We are stuck with the divisions we have until we can scrap divisions.

David Teel is a VT homer through and through. He's been that way since the days of Michael Vick. He's worked himself though to be a good overall beat reporter for the entire ACC recently. He's suggesting this because the VT fans don't get all that excited about Boston College as their designated rival. The two schools have almost nothing in common. He knows that the VT fans get more excited about Clemson. But I personally think Louisville can accomplish the same thing. UVA fans have zero history with Louisville, and we would get more out of a rivalry with Boston College than VT does. So this swap would work and not upset anyone. I don't think it would bother Boston College, and Louisville would be just as happy with VT as with UVA.

 

[TexanMark]

VT should be grateful UVA was forced to bring them in.

 

[TheCusian]

Love all the fans of other teams posting here. You guys are classy and like to read all the varying views on scheduling...

But does anyone else get mildly annoyed by protecting all of these historic "rivalries" (textile bowl?) at the expense of fairness to Syracuse, Pitt, Ville, BC, etc.? We lost long standing rivalries (WVU), old rivalries (Miami and VaTech) are not factored in - except for the non-rivalry with Pitt and the game with BC.

Sure, our conference broke up - but I think everyone is going to have to sacrifice a long standing rivalry or make other concessions.

We lost our most hated rivalry with Georgetown and we have to bow to the textile bowl?!??

 

[riskylogic]

Swapping VT for Louisville makes the most sense to me. UVa and VT could then be properly zippered. Louisville would then be oddly zippered with BC. Also swapping Syracuse and Pitt could fix that by allowing Lvl-Pitt and Syr-BC to be cross-divisional geographic rivals.

 

[Scooch]

Could be worse...

Aside from Navy being in the West, those divisions make infinitely more sense than the ACC's.

They should've swapped Navy and Cincy though.

 

[WoadBlue]

Love all the fans of other teams posting here. You guys are classy and like to read all the varying views on scheduling...

But does anyone else get mildly annoyed by protecting all of these historic "rivalries" (textile bowl?) at the expense of fairness to Syracuse, Pitt, Ville, BC, etc.? We lost long standing rivalries (WVU), old rivalries (Miami and VaTech) are not factored in - except for the non-rivalry with Pitt and the game with BC.

Sure, our conference broke up - but I think everyone is going to have to sacrifice a long standing rivalry or make other concessions.

We lost our most hated rivalry with Georgetown and we have to bow to the textile bowl?!??

But that rivalry was in basketball, only.

The simple fact is that when a conference expands, if it does so in such a way that charter members, and that goes at least double for the most important charter members, are upset, not irritated but truly upset, then you have the recipe for implosion.

For many fans of charter and more recent ACC schools, the answer to what you propose would be to have a division of former BE schools. And that would be rejected by 100% of the former BE schools. Some of you fans might think you want that, but none of your ADs would.

And for a conference that lacks, in comparison to the SEC and Big Ten especially, rivalries that are ancient played between schools with large fan bases, it is incumbent on the league to protect as many old games as possible.

I don't think that any divisions we could devise would please any fan base or any AD for long. That is just the nature of the league, of the type schools we have in the locations they are with the football histories they have. Until the recent move to 14, the SEC divisions seemed absolutely perfect, the best working in the country. Even so, LSU was complaining about scheduling based on those divisions a half decade before the move to 14.

The only thing that can work well for all of us is to junk divisions and play 3+5 (5).

 

[Hoo's That]

Why is Navy in the West? Is that to try to be similar to the SEC, which has Missouri in the East?

Well, Annapolis is west of Ocean City. Other than that, I've got nothing.

 

[Alsacs]

Swapping VT for Louisville makes the most sense to me. UVa and VT could then be properly zippered. Louisville would then be oddly zippered with BC. Also swapping Syracuse and Pitt could fix that by allowing Lvl-Pitt and Syr-BC to be cross-divisional geographic rivals.

Good suggestion flipping VPI/Pitt for UL/ one of BC/SU would solve the problem as well.

Atlantic......Coastal
FSU...Miami
Clemson....Georgia Tech
Wake......Duke
NC State...UNC
BC/SU......BC/SU
VPI...UVA
Pitt...UL

 

[WoadBlue]

Good suggestion flipping VPI/Pitt for UL/ one of BC/SU would solve the problem as well.

Atlantic...Coastal
FSU...Miami
Clemson...Georgia Tech
Wake...Duke
NC State...UNC
BC/SU...BC/SU
VPI...UVA
Pitt...UL

There is a huge reason that would never be adopted: it would place the 3 schools with the largest football fan bases (FSU, Clemson, and VT) in the same division. That would be a huge imbalance that long term would cause major issues.

The second reason it would not be adopted is that it would place in the same division the school with the most success since the ACC went to 12 (VT) and the 2 schools that far and away are best now and set to continue being at the top of the league for the foreseeable future (FSU and Clemson). Again, it would create major divisional imbalance.

 

[Alsacs]

I have been on the record this how I think divisions should look
Atlantic
Duke
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Louisville
North Carolina
Syracuse
Virginia

Coastal
Boston College
Clemson
Miami
NC State
Pittsburgh
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

cross-over games
Duke-Wake
Florida State-Miami
Georgia Tech-Clemson
Louisville-Pittsburgh
North Carolina-NC State
Syracuse-Boston College
Virginia-Virginia Tech

This would balance the conference and protect pretty much every rivalry and would open up a potential Clemson-Florida State ACC title game which could rival the SEC title game in some years.

 

[TheCusian]

But that rivalry was in basketball, only. The simple fact is that when a conference expands, if it does so in such a way that charter members, and that goes at least double for the most important charter members, are upset, not irritated but truly upset, then you have the recipe for implosion. For many fans of charter and more recent ACC schools, the answer to what you propose would be to have a division of former BE schools. And that would be rejected by 100% of the former BE schools. Some of you fans might think you want that, but none of your ADs would. And for a conference that lacks, in comparison to the SEC and Big Ten especially, rivalries that are ancient played between schools with large fan bases, it is incumbent on the league to protect as many old games as possible. I don't think that any divisions we could devise would please any fan base or any AD for long. That is just the nature of the league, of the type schools we have in the locations they are with the football histories they have. Until the recent move to 14, the SEC divisions seemed absolutely perfect, the best working in the country. Even so, LSU was complaining about scheduling based on those divisions a half decade before the move to 14. The only thing that can work well for all of us is to junk divisions and play 3+5 (5).

Right. I get all that.

I think the point I was making was that the charter members can't protect every rivalry under the sun at the expense of the new members - and/or what's best for the league.

Pick one or two. After that you have to sacrifice something.

Everyone loves the 3+5 (5). It should be how it's done as soon as the NCAA lifts that rule.