The ACC without walls ...

[SU94]

I have been a proponent of divisions within the ACC.

However, I am beginning to recalibrate my thinking. Here is an excellent blog post about what the ACC could look like with no divisions and just 3 designated rivals (BTW, this is a fun website worth visiting every work day).

I would not spend too much time parsing who SU’s rivals would be (or Miami’s, UNC's, VT’s, etc.), but rather focus on the entire formula, which allows for every team to play in each ACC Stadium at least once in a four-year span. And each ACC matchup is renewed at least every 2 seasons.

This also mitigates the "need" to climb from 14 to 16 teams (well, unless Notre Dame comes calling).

Here is the link:
http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/#!/2013/11/acc-wo-divisions.html

 

[Alsacs]

I have been a proponent of divisions within the ACC.

However, I am beginning to recalibrate my thinking. Here is an excellent blog post about what the ACC could look like with no divisions and just 3 designated rivals (BTW, this is a fun website worth visiting every work day).

I would not spend too much time parsing who SU’s rivals would be (or Miami’s, UNC's, VT’s, etc.), but rather focus on the entire formula, which allows for every team to play in each ACC Stadium at least once in a four-year span. And each ACC matchup is renewed at least every 2 seasons.

This also mitigates the "need" to climb from 14 to 16 teams (well, unless Notre Dame comes calling).

Here is the link:
http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/#!/2013/11/acc-wo-divisions.html

The NCAA requires by law that for any conference to have a conference championship game it must have divisions. While the NCAA doesn't care which teams are in each division or if the conference teams switch divisions each year. The conference must keep the divisions or they can't have a conference championship game.

I think if the ACC expanded to 16 you would see 4 team pods which could rotate each year, but the conference isn't going to get rid of divisions because of the money generated from TV, conference sponsors, and game attendance that the conference title game generates.

 

[sutomcat]

The NCAA requires by law that for any conference to have a conference championship game it must have divisions. While the NCAA doesn't care which teams are in each division or if the conference teams switch divisions each year. The conference must keep the divisions or they can't have a conference championship game.

I think if the ACC expanded to 16 you would see 4 team pods which could rotate each year, but the conference isn't going to get rid of divisions because of the money generated from TV, conference sponsors, and game attendance that the conference title game generates.

Couldn't you retain the divisions as they are today, but ignore them regarding how the schedule is determined? The scheme suggested works for me. It is much better than what we are working with today and it should produce a balanced schedule that is fair for all the teams involved.

 

[Alsacs]

Couldn't you retain the divisions as they are today, but ignore them regarding how the schedule is determined? The scheme suggested works for me. It is much better than what we are working with today and it should produce a balanced schedule that is fair for all the teams involved.

Any conference could rotate the divisions each year if they wanted too, but they won't change them completely each year because it would make it harder for the media to cover a conference. I would like to see divisions switch up occasionally just so every team plays each of its conference rivals more frequently than 1 once every 6 years like now. It would make sense for every team to have 2 teams it must play each year and then construct rotated divisions to get more diversity in conference matchups, but its not going to happen.

 

[Lou_C]

I support this type of concept 100%. Whatever the details are, we need to get this conference down to just 3-4 mandated games. There simply aren't more than that needed.

As far as I'm concerned, what the NCAA says about championship games is almost irrelevant. That's exactly the type of unnecessary authority that NCAA overhaul will try to resolve. Conferences should be able to set the rules for their CCGs, and I fully expect that those restrictions will be lifted. The ACC would already have an ally in the Big 12 who wants to have the right to a CCG with 10 teams.

Decide what you want to do, and if it doesn't match current NCAA regs, work to change them. The time has never been more ripe for change.

To me, a change of this nature would greatly enhance the ACC where our divisions have no geographic or traditional basis.

 

[sutomcat]

Any conference could rotate the divisions each year if they wanted too, but they won't change them completely each year because it would make it harder for the media to cover a conference. I would like to see divisions switch up occasionally just so every team plays each of its conference rivals more frequently than 1 once every 6 years like now. It would make sense for every team to have 2 teams it must play each year and then construct rotated divisions to get more diversity in conference matchups, but its not going to happen.

You didn't answer my question but by your answer, I am guessing you agree that there is nothing that requires a league with 2 divisions to set up their schedule based at least in part on its divisions.

Personally, I think the whole concept of scheduling for football based on divisions becomes unworkable once you have more than 12 team in your conference. I think it is inevitable that at some point, the super sized conferences will ignore this in order to avoid situations like the ACC currently finds itself in, where teams in opposite divisions play each other once every 6 years and it takes 12 years to cycle through and play every team at home.

A 9 game schedule helps address this a little but not enough.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Couldn't you retain the divisions as they are today, but ignore them regarding how the schedule is determined? The scheme suggested works for me. It is much better than what we are working with today and it should produce a balanced schedule that is fair for all the teams involved.

You have to play every team in your division in order to determine a true division champ.

If you keep the same teams in each division, you're forced into the same schedule every season.

 

[sutomcat]

You have to play every team in your division in order to determine a true division champ.

If you keep the same teams in each division, you're forced into the same schedule every season.

Do you have to or do you think you have to? Seriously, do you have to?

 

[Alsacs]

If each team had 3 guaranteed opponents each year this is how I think it would look.

Boston College-Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest
Clemson- Georgia Tech, NC State, Virginia Tech
Duke- North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech-Florida State, Clemson, Duke
Florida State- Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville
Louisville- Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Florida State
Miami(Fl)- Virginia Tech, Florida State,Wake Forest
North Carolina- Duke, NC State, Virginia
North Carolina State- North Carolina, Clemson, Wake Forest
Pittsburgh- Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville
Syracuse- Boston College, Pitt, Louisville
Virginia- North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech- Virginia, Miami, Clemson
Wake Forest-Miami, North Carolina State, Boston College

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Do you have to or do you think you have to? Seriously, do you have to?

NCAA rule 17.9.5.2:

(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS]
A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of 6 or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin regular season competition among members of that division.

 

[TexanMark]

I support this type of concept 100%. Whatever the details are, we need to get this conference down to just 3-4 mandated games. There simply aren't more than that needed.

As far as I'm concerned, what the NCAA says about championship games is almost irrelevant. That's exactly the type of unnecessary authority that NCAA overhaul will try to resolve. Conferences should be able to set the rules for their CCGs, and I fully expect that those restrictions will be lifted. The ACC would already have an ally in the Big 12 who wants to have the right to a CCG with 10 teams.

Decide what you want to do, and if it doesn't match current NCAA regs, work to change them. The time has never been more ripe for change.

To me, a change of this nature would greatly enhance the ACC where our divisions have no geographic or traditional basis.

SU AD Dr. Gross stated he is in favor of eliminating divisions...but the NCAA needs to drop the division rule for holding a conference championship.

 

[Alsacs]

In relation to my last post, Wake Forest would want to play Duke if they could, but UVA-Duke-UNC need to each other every year, and Wake Forest recruits a lot in Florida and I think would like to play in Miami every 2 years for recruiting purposes. However, for the most part these templates are how I would construct the baseline for an ACC schedule if the NCAA didn't mandate divisions and just the top 2 teams.

 

[sutomcat]

NCAA rule 17.9.5.2:

(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS]
A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of 6 or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin regular season competition among members of that division.

Thanks OX. Wow, like Lou says, yet another area where what the football schools are doing and what the NCAA allows are not in alignment.

Divisions just don't work for big (over 12 schools) conferences. They have to go. And without question, they will. The only question in my mind is if it happens under the watch of the NCAA.

 

[SmilinBob]

Then the heck with conference championships and let's just have a true playoff with the conference winners. Make the regular season worth playing and don't give a slightly above average VT or Miami a second chance to play an undefeated FSU. Conference championships devalue the regular season anyways so win your one true division conference and move on. Play 9 games at the very least as well...that is something the NCAA should make them do if there are 10 or more teams in a conference. I'll never understand why these people make this harder than it should be.

 

[SU94]

OK, I will break my own rule from the OP.
I did my set rivals matchups independently, but they are remarkably similar to Alsacs.
Might be 2 different among the 21 matchups. Weird ...
One rivalry that Alsacs did not have that I think has to continue is FSU-Clemson.

Anyhow, here it is ...

BOSTON COLLEGE
3 RIVALS: SU, Wake, Pitt
WORKS: 2 BE Rivals, WFU = remarkably similar profile (small, private)
GRIPE: No steady exposure south of Carolinas

CLEMSON
3 RIVALS: FSU, Georgia Tech, NC State
WORKS: FSU & GT are must haves, while NCSU is proximate/agricultural based
GRIPE: No UNC
DUKE
UNC, Uva, Wake
WORKS: UNC a must, matchup with UVa=ACC's 2 most academically oriented schools
GRIPE: None really

FLORIDA STATE
Miami, Clemson, Louisville
WORKS: Miami & Clemson musts, UL is old Metro Conf rival, might allow for L & playoff bid
GRIPE: Very tough (SEC-esk, but that is what they aspire for)

GEORGIA TECH
Miami, VT, Clemson
WORKS: Clemson a must (proximate), solid rivals with Miami & VT
GRIPE: No UNC, No Duke

LOUISVILLE
SU, Pitt, FSU
WORKS: 2 BE rivals, FSU is old Metro Conf rival
GRIPE: Should be none, channel energy to academic improvements

MIAMI (FL)
FSU, VT, Georgia Tech
WORKS: SEC-esk schedule that might allow for one loss & playoff bid
GRIPE: No steady exposure in Northeast (lots of alums)

NC STATE
Wake, UNC,. Clemson
WORKS: Should be tickled pink
GRIPE: None really, no annual game in Florida

PITT
SU, Louisville, BC
WORKS: 2 most proximate rivals and UL is steady Top 20 team
GRIPE: No steady exposure in Virgnia (proximate), No heavy hitters (Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT)

SYRACUSE
BC, Pitt, Louisville
WORKS: 2 most proximate rivals and UL is steady Top 20 team
GRIPE: No heavy hitters (Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT), no annual game in Florida

UNC
UVa, NC State, Duke
WORKS: UVa game a must, as are 2 in-state games
GRIPE: Lack of steady exposure in Georgia/Florida, no heavy hitters

VIRGINIA
UNC. Duke, VT
WORKS: They get everything they could hope for (sorry B10)
GRIPE: Lack of annual exposure in Georgia/Florida

VT
UVa, Georgia Tech, Miami
WORKS: In-state rival (check), Tech rival (check), BE rival (check)
GRIPE: Schedule now fits nicely with enhanced OOC slate

WAKE FOREST
NC State, BC, Duke
WORKS: 2/3 are in-state rivals that will draw, BC = similar profile
GRIPE: No heavy hitters (Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT), No annual Florida exposure

 

[dinosaurbbq]

NCAA rule 17.9.5.2:

(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS]
A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of 6 or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin regular season competition among members of that division.

That also means pods of 4 are out in the event of a 16 team conference.

 

[upperdeck]

just because the divisions have 6 teams doesnt mean they have to play the same schedule.. or have one of 6 and one of 8.. or just create a schedule and let it be random..

 

[Hoo's That]

That also means pods of 4 are out in the event of a 16 team conference.

Not really. I saw this on some other board and really warmed up to it. We'll call them pods A-D for convenience. For the first 2 years pods A & B constitute one division and C & D the other. Each team has a designated rival in the other three pods that they will play every year regardless of how the pods are paired to form the divisions. Each team plays everyone in their own pod and everyone in the "division" pod, for 7 games, plus the 2 designated rivals from the pods in the other division for a total of 9 conference games. This stays in place for 2 years so there's a home-and-home with everyone in the other pod in your division. For the years 3 and 4, A & C become one division and B & D become the other. For years 5 and 6, it's A & D and B & C. This would give everyone at least one home-and-home with everyone else in the conference over the 6 years and meet the NCAA rule about divisions being set in advance and playing round-robin within the division. There's nothing in the rule that requires the divisions to stay in place for a set number of years.

 

[HtownOrange]

Guys, don't overvalue Louisville. They are a recent winner and a bad coach away from disaster. They were Kragthorped and got lucky-real lucky with landing Strong.

Not sure why you would not want one of FSU, Miami or Clemson annually for recruiting, but. to simply give that up is crazy. To give it to Louisville is outright insane.

 

[SU2NASA]

BC, Pitt, Miami

Make it happen

 

[wfschrec]

You have to play every team in your division in order to determine a true division champ.

If you keep the same teams in each division, you're forced into the same schedule every season.

Maybe so but if you use the other concept I think you have a better chance of avoiding something like GT vs FSU for a title game dumpster fire ... GT had no business playing in the ACC title game with a 6-6 record.

 

[All4SU]

BC, Pitt, Miami

Make it happen

Works for me.

 

[Alsacs]

Not really. I saw this on some other board and really warmed up to it. We'll call them pods A-D for convenience. For the first 2 years pods A & B constitute one division and C & D the other. Each team has a designated rival in the other three pods that they will play every year regardless of how the pods are paired to form the divisions. Each team plays everyone in their own pod and everyone in the "division" pod, for 7 games, plus the 2 designated rivals from the pods in the other division for a total of 9 conference games. This stays in place for 2 years so there's a home-and-home with everyone in the other pod in your division. For the years 3 and 4, A & C become one division and B & D become the other. For years 5 and 6, it's A & D and B & C. This would give everyone at least one home-and-home with everyone else in the conference over the 6 years and meet the NCAA rule about divisions being set in advance and playing round-robin within the division. There's nothing in the rule that requires the divisions to stay in place for a set number of years.

I agree with this I made this post in the past.
ACC
Pod 1
Syracuse
Boston College
Louisville
Cincinnati/West Virginia

Pod 2
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Pittsburgh
Notre Dame

Pod 3
North Carolina
Duke
North Carolina State
Wake Forest

Pod 4
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami
Clemson

You would play your pod, and another pod completely, and then teams that finished in the same spot as you did the previous year a la the NFL.

 

[Alsacs]

OK, I will break my own rule from the OP.
I did my set rivals matchups independently, but they are remarkably similar to Alsacs.
Might be 2 different among the 21 matchups. Weird ...
One rivalry that Alsacs did not have that I think has to continue is FSU-Clemson.

Anyhow, here it is ...

BOSTON COLLEGE
3 RIVALS: SU, Wake, Pitt
WORKS: 2 BE Rivals, WFU = remarkably similar profile (small, private)
GRIPE: No steady exposure south of Carolinas

CLEMSON
3 RIVALS: FSU, Georgia Tech, NC State
WORKS: FSU & GT are must haves, while NCSU is proximate/agricultural based
GRIPE: No UNC
DUKE
UNC, Uva, Wake
WORKS: UNC a must, matchup with UVa=ACC's 2 most academically oriented schools
GRIPE: None really

FLORIDA STATE
Miami, Clemson, Louisville
WORKS: Miami & Clemson musts, UL is old Metro Conf rival, might allow for L & playoff bid
GRIPE: Very tough (SEC-esk, but that is what they aspire for)

GEORGIA TECH
Miami, VT, Clemson
WORKS: Clemson a must (proximate), solid rivals with Miami & VT
GRIPE: No UNC, No Duke

LOUISVILLE
SU, Pitt, FSU
WORKS: 2 BE rivals, FSU is old Metro Conf rival
GRIPE: Should be none, channel energy to academic improvements

MIAMI (FL)
FSU, VT, Georgia Tech
WORKS: SEC-esk schedule that might allow for one loss & playoff bid
GRIPE: No steady exposure in Northeast (lots of alums)

NC STATE
Wake, UNC,. Clemson
WORKS: Should be tickled pink
GRIPE: None really, no annual game in Florida

PITT
SU, Louisville, BC
WORKS: 2 most proximate rivals and UL is steady Top 20 team
GRIPE: No steady exposure in Virgnia (proximate), No heavy hitters (Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT)

SYRACUSE
BC, Pitt, Louisville
WORKS: 2 most proximate rivals and UL is steady Top 20 team
GRIPE: No heavy hitters (Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT), no annual game in Florida

UNC
UVa, NC State, Duke
WORKS: UVa game a must, as are 2 in-state games
GRIPE: Lack of steady exposure in Georgia/Florida, no heavy hitters

VIRGINIA
UNC. Duke, VT
WORKS: They get everything they could hope for (sorry B10)
GRIPE: Lack of annual exposure in Georgia/Florida

VT
UVa, Georgia Tech, Miami
WORKS: In-state rival (check), Tech rival (check), BE rival (check)
GRIPE: Schedule now fits nicely with enhanced OOC slate

WAKE FOREST
NC State, BC, Duke
WORKS: 2/3 are in-state rivals that will draw, BC = similar profile
GRIPE: No heavy hitters (Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT), No annual Florida exposure

Good job with your list I would just say Duke-Georgia Tech is an important rivalry game that I have found out from the Ga. Tech and Duke boards that surprisingly matters to each other. Plus, I would bet Florida State would rather have an annual game with Georgia Tech over Clemson even though the Clemson-FSU game has hosted Gameday 2 years in a row. However, I agree with most of your list. Good job by you keeping the battle of the Techs game between VPI-Ga. Tech I just think Clemson-VPI would be a good rivalry and would allow Ga. Tech to play its the 3 most important games IMO FSU, Clemson, Duke.

The toughest omission for me was Duke-Wake Forest, but Duke-Georgia Tech matters more to each other that I gave Duke UNC, UVA, Ga. Tech and had to stick Miami with Wake Forest which is really the only clucker I have.

 

[riskylogic]

Current divisions were designed to preserve rivalries, so the best option might be to divide up the current divisions geographically:

Atlantic South: Clemson, FSU, NC State, Wake
Coastal South: Duke, GT, Miami, UNC
Atlantic North: BC, Louisville, Syracuse, +1
Coastal North: Pitt, UVa, VT, +1

Maybe swap Miami and UVa.

There could be one or two permanent or preferred opponents as well.