Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789
Results 81 to 86 of 86
  1. #81
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Overall, either idea could work, but I do wonder if there would be any negative from a marketing standpoint. When conferences go with geographical basis for their divisions, they generally prefer clean divisions (east-west or north-south) or as clean as possible (in the Big Ten's case). I suspect the SEC's divisional alignment is only temporary until it decides who #15 and #16 members are so Missouri could shift to West Division with Alabama and Auburn possibly shifting to the East Division, so people are willing to live with the SEC's temporary funkiness. If the ACC were to adopt either suggestion, then is there a possibility that from a national standpoint it could be received as "warmly" as the Big Ten's Leaders and Legends divisional alignment? If so, then can the ACC afford to take another negative hit on its image?
    honestly, i'm fine with a N/S split as long as we also go to 9 games and have no permanent crossovers (at least not for all teams, i'm willing to make 1-2 exceptions ala Indiana-Purdue).

    NORTH SOUTH
    BC Miami
    'Cuse NCSU
    Pitt GT
    uva UNC
    VT Clemson
    L'ville FSU
    Wake Dook

    I have highlighted the 2 rivalries i'm willing to maintain as annual crossovers. everyone else plays 3 rotating crossover games each year.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    honestly, i'm fine with a N/S split as long as we also go to 9 games and have no permanent crossovers (at least not for all teams, i'm willing to make 1-2 exceptions ala Indiana-Purdue).

    NORTH SOUTH
    BC Miami
    'Cuse NCSU
    Pitt GT
    uva UNC
    VT Clemson
    L'ville FSU
    Wake Dook

    I have highlighted the 2 rivalries i'm willing to maintain as annual crossovers. everyone else plays 3 rotating crossover games each year.
    I would have no problem with a north-south split either. I suspect if Wake had to go to the North Division, then it would want at least 2 protected cross-division games (i.e. Duke and NC State). Maybe even 3 if you include UNC too. This is the reason I have been saying that the 4 NC schools would either all need to be in the same division or split evenly because the 1 NC school (i.e. Wake in this case) would be too much on an island from the other in-state schools. It would be like VT having to decide whether it protects its cross-divisional game with UVA, Miami, or potentially even Louisville (assuming all 3 schools are in the opposite division from VT).

    The problem the Big Ten will run into with having only 1 protected cross-divisional game is it will create a quirk with the future cross-divisional rotation schedule. Depending on the number of protected games will mean 1 team will have its rotation "bumped" out at least 1 year because of the "protected" team. For example, if it was VT's turn in the rotation to play UNC, then the game could be delayed 1 year because UVA has to play UNC every year. 1 year isn't so much a big deal until you see the ripple effect that it creates with the future schedule. The following year when VT and UVA plays UNC, then 2 teams will get "bumped" from their normal rotation. The ripple will get to the point where some schools are playing schools in the rotation pool multiple times before having an opportunity to play a "protected" school. Also, it could lead to scheduling issues (i.e. a team is tentatively scheduled to play the same team twice in a season) which will only lead to more "bumps" with the teams from the rotation pool. I suspect the only reason the Big Ten agreed to this format is because it knew this would be only temporary until it found 2 more schools so Indiana and Purdue could end up in the same division (most likely West Division given the rivalries between the Illinois and Indiana schools).

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by GusDaMan View Post
    This sounds eerily similar to one of the many ways the ACC screwed VT in the most recent scheduling "adjustments". To wit, by making us host dook for a 2nd year in a row, we now have both of our annual RDU games either home or away each year, instead of split up so that we have one game there and one game here every year. That decision, and the fact that our administration didn't raise holy hell about it, really bugs me.
    Yes, I agree it does not make a whole lot of sense for a school to play 2 schools from the same state both home or away in a given season especially if the games are scheduled at different times of the season. It may not be so back if the games were schedule in back-to-back weeks because the team could just remain in the area during the week between games. Then again under the old format, I believe VT was scheduled to play both FSU and Miami both home and away in back-to-back years. I think under this new format, there will be a few schools who end up playing both FL schools and/or both VA schools either home or away in the same season.

  4. #84
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I would have no problem with a north-south split either. I suspect if Wake had to go to the North Division, then it would want at least 2 protected cross-division games (i.e. Duke and NC State). Maybe even 3 if you include UNC too. This is the reason I have been saying that the 4 NC schools would either all need to be in the same division or split evenly because the 1 NC school (i.e. Wake in this case) would be too much on an island from the other in-state schools. It would be like VT having to decide whether it protects its cross-divisional game with UVA, Miami, or potentially even Louisville (assuming all 3 schools are in the opposite division from VT).

    The problem the Big Ten will run into with having only 1 protected cross-divisional game is it will create a quirk with the future cross-divisional rotation schedule. Depending on the number of protected games will mean 1 team will have its rotation "bumped" out at least 1 year because of the "protected" team. For example, if it was VT's turn in the rotation to play UNC, then the game could be delayed 1 year because UVA has to play UNC every year. 1 year isn't so much a big deal until you see the ripple effect that it creates with the future schedule. The following year when VT and UVA plays UNC, then 2 teams will get "bumped" from their normal rotation. The ripple will get to the point where some schools are playing schools in the rotation pool multiple times before having an opportunity to play a "protected" school. Also, it could lead to scheduling issues (i.e. a team is tentatively scheduled to play the same team twice in a season) which will only lead to more "bumps" with the teams from the rotation pool. I suspect the only reason the Big Ten agreed to this format is because it knew this would be only temporary until it found 2 more schools so Indiana and Purdue could end up in the same division (most likely West Division given the rivalries between the Illinois and Indiana schools).
    honestly, i don't think any sort of "fixed" rotation is needed (in response to your quirk/ripple). as long as no one is left off of your schedule for more than 3 years straight, just mix and match. use the flexibility to renew rivalries, create made for TV games (ie, Pitt and FSU are both projected preseason top 10 teams, squeeze them into each other's schedule).

    the rigid rotation is part of the problem to begin with IMO.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    honestly, i don't think any sort of "fixed" rotation is needed (in response to your quirk/ripple). as long as no one is left off of your schedule for more than 3 years straight, just mix and match. use the flexibility to renew rivalries, create made for TV games (ie, Pitt and FSU are both projected preseason top 10 teams, squeeze them into each other's schedule).

    the rigid rotation is part of the problem to begin with IMO.
    But see that is just it, with the "rigidness" of having only a select "fixed" cross-divisional games, you run a greater risk of going more than 3 years before a team could play UVA, UNC, Wake, and Duke (based on your example).

    I respectfully disagree that having a rigid rotation schedule is a problem. Assuming the ACC started off with a north-south alignment when BC joined the conference, then divisions would have looked like this:

    North: BC, Maryland, UVA, VT, Wake, Duke
    South: UNC, NC State, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

    If the ACC had adopted a 3-team pod system to rotate the cross-divisional games, then the pods could have looked something like this:

    North
    Pod 1: BC, UVA, Duke
    Pod 2: Maryland, VT, Wake

    South
    Pod 1: UNC, Clemson, FSU
    Pod 2: NC Stat, GT, Miami

    North Pod 1 would have played South Pod 1 in Year 1 and 2 of the rotation and South Pod 2 in Year 3 and 4 of the rotation. North Pod 2 would have played South Pod 2 in Year 1 and 2 of the rotation and South Pod 1 in Year 3 and 4. Within 4 years a team would have played everyone in the opposite division home and away within 4 years. You can't get anymore rigid than my example.

    If the ACC wanted to go to a 9 game when expanded to 14 teams with 1 protected cross-division game, then the rotation could be as follows:

    Year 1 and 2: Team A and Team B
    Year 3 and 4: Team C and Team D
    Year 5 and 6: Team E and Team F
    *Assume Team G is the permanent cross-division opponent

    The only difference would be who fills the Team A-G slots which can easily be worked out.

  6. #86
    I really dislike the permanent crossover opponent. Since the ACC doesn't care about geographically based divisions anyway, just put any "required" rivalry schools in the same division. Then play a 9 game schedule.

    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    honestly, i don't think any sort of "fixed" rotation is needed (in response to your quirk/ripple). as long as no one is left off of your schedule for more than 3 years straight, just mix and match. use the flexibility to renew rivalries, create made for TV games (ie, Pitt and FSU are both projected preseason top 10 teams, squeeze them into each other's schedule).

    the rigid rotation is part of the problem to begin with IMO.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •