Swofford Says 3 Divisions not in the plan

[Zcuse]

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/...t-planning-3-divisions-if-deregulation-passes
Says voting for de-regulation was based on principal, and not a desire to change in the near future. Looks like our Florida State/ Clemson annual games won't end any time soon (I personally like one, but both, along with L'ville turns into a pretty hefty conference schedule)...And it looks like one of the two more powerful programs in the conference (Seminoles or Clemp-son) will annually be left out of the conference championship...

It seems like they can find a more creative way to balance out schedules and put top two teams in the conference championship (without going to 3 divisions).

Arb what are they whispering?

 

[orange79]

Good. Totally unnecessary to change the scheduling philosophy. And doesn't cause uncertainty in terms of choosing a championship game pairing.

 

[longtimefan]

Good. Totally unnecessary to change the scheduling philosophy. And doesn't cause uncertainty in terms of choosing a championship game pairing.

No set-up should cause any uncertainty in choosing a championship pairing. Just come up with a set of rules that deal with breaking ties, explain them to everyone, and stick with them.

If leagues can come up with rules to break 2-, 3-, and even 4-way ties in basketball standings, the ACC can handle this.

And, Swofford's protestations to the contrary, I would bet they have come up with alternatives to the current static divisions. Our recently departed AD was not the only one who didn't like being shut out of Miami and Atlanta.

 

[Chris02M]

im guessing they don't want to say publically what they will do until it passes

 

[SU94]

3 divisions = idiotic.
3 + 5 (+ 5) = the way to go.
SU's 3 rivals likely to be BC, Pitt and Louisville if I had to guess.

I would think this will happen in the next 1-2 years.

It is actually a pretty obvious decision They just need to set up some criteria/tiebreakers for picking the 2 teams in the ACC Champ Game. What they need to avoid is allowing pre-season polls, rating systems (all of which have biases IMHO) and TV ratings, etc. to have undue influence on the selections. I mean, if SU, Wake or BC is 7-1, they should have equal credibility as 7-1 Clemson or 7-1 Miami, etc. entering the tiebreakers phase.

For me, I think that beyond the obvious tiebreakers (head-to-head), the OOC slate, its degree of difficulty, and who they beat in the non-coference should carry some serious weight in the equation. Teams that schedule like NC State (at present, I hope they change their tune) really annoy me and should be held accountable for their choices.

I'd also like to acknowledge that the ACC Champ Game being played in Charlotte has been a winning decision for the ACC to date.

JD

 

[SU2NASA]

I'd rather see 1+8 as the format with 3 non-conference games

FSU-Miami
VT-UVa
SU-BC
UL-Pitt
UNC-Duke
WF-NCSU
GT-CU

 

[Chris02M]

I'd rather see 1+8 as the format with 3 non-conference games

FSU-Miami
VT-UVa
SU-BC
UL-Pitt
UNC-Duke
WF-NCSU
GT-CU

non starter with Clemson or fsu

 

[longtimefan]

non starter with Clemson or fsu

That's what has been reported, and it makes sense. I would guess GTech falls into the same group, also.

 

[SU2NASA]

non starter with Clemson or fsu

So let them have their game. Forcing an extra two "rivals" for most of the conference is stupid.

 

[longtimefan]

So let them have their game. Forcing an extra two "rivals" for most of the conference is stupid.

It's FSU vs Florida, Clemson vs USC and GTech vs. Georgia. Which in effect means that these 3 already have 9 game schedules, which is why they don't want to go to 9 games in the ACC.

And, a number of the southern schools in the league (which are still the majority) have more than one traditional, historic league rival. So, they would be perfectly happy to have a 3 + 5 + 5 set up as opposed to 1 + 8.

 

[Chris02M]

So let them have their game. Forcing an extra two "rivals" for most of the conference is stupid.

its about getting 7 home games every year

 

[Stern]

Good. Totally unnecessary to change the scheduling philosophy. And doesn't cause uncertainty in terms of choosing a championship game pairing.

Totally agree

 

[SU2NASA]

It's FSU vs Florida, Clemson vs USC and GTech vs. Georgia. Which in effect means that these 3 already have 9 game schedules, which is why they don't want to go to 9 games in the ACC.

And, a number of the southern schools in the league (which are still the majority) have more than one traditional, historic league rival. So, they would be perfectly happy to have a 3 + 5 + 5 set up as opposed to 1 + 8.

The Big Ten handled some teams having more than one rival for decades. Michigan had OSU and MSU, Minnesota had Iowa and Wisconsin, and some teams only had one rival such as Northwestern and Illinois, Purdue and Indiana. The only reason they went to divisions was because of the conference championship rule.

I hate the idea of SU being forced into two arbitrary "rivalry" games on top of BC just because some other teams have more rivals than we do.

Keep it at 8, go to 9, whatever. I'd like to see more games rotated with other conference opponents than seeing Pitt every year.

 

[Lou_C]

The more I think of it, I feel like the future is divisions that are not static. So you still have division races to determine the CCG participants, and you can hang a banner if you want, but they shift every two years. If you keep certain blocks of teams together, I think it can work and have much the same effect of 3-5-5.

Unlike the SEC, the ACC (like every other conference) doesn't have a strong identity to their divisions. I don't know that "Coastal" and "Atlantic" really matters to anyone. Box them up every two years, and have your divisional race.

 

[orange79]

The more I think of it, I feel like the future is divisions that are not static. So you still have division races to determine the CCG participants, and you can hang a banner if you want, but they shift every two years. If you keep certain blocks of teams together, I think it can work and have much the same effect of 3-5-5.

Unlike the SEC, the ACC (like every other conference) doesn't have a strong identity to their divisions. I don't know that "Coastal" and "Atlantic" really matters to anyone. Box them up every two years, and have your divisional race.

I could live with this as long as we get to see each team twice every four years. That, to me, is a must. That's why I like the 3-5-5 one-division solution. The only problematic thing is many people's desire to have the two highest ranked teams in the CCG. If they could do 3-5-5 with 2 divisions, I'm in.

 

[Moontan]

I would guess GTech falls into the same group, also.

Louisville, sort of, does as well.