Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    October 14, 2003
    Posts
    10,282
    I agree. I don't think of Pitt-UL as being in need of protecting. But I was simply putting them in separate divisions to balance the travel and access for all programs to all regions. Also, Louisville needs to play someone, so why not Pitt? In my plan in the original post, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC would play each other every year (two in one pod and two in the other).

    I think one of the issues that is going to come up is that none of the old guard is going to want to give up their rivalries to play these new teams (particularly Louisville). And I think that's what the Syracuse AD is concerned about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    I appreciate all the thought going into your post. I don't think the ACC is smart or ambitious enough to come up with a scheduling plan like yours.

    As noted earlier by another poster, NCSU and Clemson also have a long running rivalry. I don't think Louisville and Pitt is a rivalry and both wouldn't be disappointed if it was included on your list. I understand the Ohio River Valley thing but that is more about Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Pitt has a long standing rivalry with Syracuse. If the ACC added Cincinnati, then Louisville would have a natural rivalry. The same can be said of with UConn and BC if UConn ever got an ACC invitation.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    September 03, 2002
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    If VT is shifting its recruiting focus to the north, then it would be in VT's best interest to play more games in those regions/states. I firmly believe that playing games in states or region you want to recruit from is the best recruiting tool. It allows a recruit to go watch the game live without using an official visit.
    I believe VT is going north for certain positions. It is still recruiting the south for the most of playmaker/speed positions (as it should). So I'd guess we'd shift problem areas if we concentrated only on the north.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by hokiefan86 View Post
    I believe VT is going north for certain positions. It is still recruiting the south for the most of playmaker/speed positions (as it should). So I'd guess we'd shift problem areas if we concentrated only on the north.
    As of right now, it appears that VT only has 2 commitments (Javon Harrison & Kendrick Holland) from southern states. I would consider both to qualify as playmakers/speed positions. The rest appear to be from either VA or MD, which would qualify as "north" (assuming the boundary is the VA-NC border). Right now it appears VT has 1 commitment (Michael Barnett) from a southern state for 2015. I am not suggesting that VT should abandon recruiting from the southern states. All I was suggest is that it appears to be a shift in focus. Personally I would love to see VT establish a recruiting "pipeline" for the entire eastern seaboard (ME-FL). If I am not playing a conference game in that state or neighboring state (in the case of the New England Region), then I would make sure I either had a home-home series or a 2-for-1 series (MAC/Sun Belt school) in the works. Once that pipeline has been established then it should make things easier for VT to expand into other regions (i.e. Ohio Valley, Gulf Coast, etc).

  4. #14
    Lurker
    Join Date
    December 23, 2013
    Posts
    8

    Complicated...but better than what we have

    Actually it is not that complicated. We have 14 teams and until ND and the 16th team join the acc, this type of pod system is the way to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroon Baboon View Post
    Took some of the great ideas from this board over the past week and combined them with my own in hopes of balancing ACC priorities. Posted it on the Sabre too. Here is what I came up with...

    Principles of the plan
    -Primary rivals placed in opposite divisions
    -Each team travels to every campus in a 4-year cycle
    -All primary and secondary annual rivalries are preserved
    -Each school plays in Florida no less than every other year
    -9 games (see last slide for 8-game plan)
    -All teams play a team from every state/region with multiple teams (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Deep South) every year
    -The ACC’s top two programs (re: fan base, attendance, national cache), Clemson and FSU, are in separate divisions.

    Annual rivalries preserved:
    -UVa v. UNC; UNC v. NCSt; UNC v. Duke ; BC v. Miami; Miami v. FSU; Clemson v. FSU; GT v. Clemson; Syracuse v. BC; Pitt vs. Syracuse; VT v. UVa; Wake v. Duke; GT vs. Clemson ...and more

    Tri-Pods (pods of 3 teams)
    A Pod--NC State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
    B Pod--North Carolina, Virginia, Duke

    Quad-Pods (pods of 4 teams)
    C Pod--Boston College, Louisville, Clemson, Miami
    D Pod--Syracuse, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Florida State

    Here’s how it works...
    Year 1: Atlantic Div.consists of Pods A&C; Coastal Div. is Pods B&D.
    Year 2: Atlantic Div. consists of Pods A&D; Coastal Div. is Pods B&C.
    Year 3: same as Year 1 (with opposite locations from last meeting)
    Year 4: same as Year 2 (with opposite locations from last meeting)

    ODD YEARS
    Atlantic Division
    NC State
    Virginia Tech
    Wake Forest
    Boston College
    Louisville
    Clemson
    Miami

    Coastal Division
    North Carolina
    Virginia
    Duke
    Syracuse
    Pitt
    Georgia Tech
    Florida State

    EVEN YEARS
    Atlantic Division
    NC State
    Virginia Tech
    Wake Forest
    Syracuse
    Pitt
    Georgia Tech
    Florida State

    Coastal Division
    North Carolina
    Virginia
    Duke
    Boston College
    Louisville
    Clemson
    Miami

    Tri-Pod Crossovers
    -All Tri-Pod teams cross over to play all Tri-pod teams in opposite division.

    Quad-Pod Crossovers
    -All Quad-Pod teams cross over to play 3 of 4 of the Quad-Pod teams in the opposite division.
    -Of the 3 cross over games, 2 will be permanent crossovers.
    -Permanent Quad-Pod crossovers will be based on previous rivalries and historical conference ties (i.e., recent Big East teams team will play one another; historic ACC teams do the same).

    Bottom line (1)
    NCSt, VT, Wake, UNC, UVa, and Duke will play the same 4-year rotation.
    -They will play each other every year
    -They will play the other 8 teams every other year

    Bottom line (2)
    FSU and GT will play the same 4-year rotation.
    -They will play FSU/GT, Syracuse, Pitt, Clemson, and Miami every year
    -They will play the other 8 teams every other year

    Bottom line (3)
    Pitt and Syracuse will play the same 4-year rotation.
    -They will play Pitt/Syracuse, GT, FSU, Louisville, and BC every year
    -They will play the other 8 teams every other year

    Bottom line (4)
    BC and Louisville will play the same 4-year rotation.
    -They will play BC/L'ville, Clemson, Miami, Syracuse, and Pitt every year
    -They will play the other 8 teams every other year

    Bottom line (5)
    Miami and Clemson will play the same 4-year rotation.
    -They will play Miami/Clemson, BC, Louisville, FSU, and GT every year
    -They will play the other 8 teams every other year

    Sample Tri-pod team 4-year schedule (Virginia Tech)
    Year 1
    @UVa
    UNC
    @Duke
    NCState
    @Wake
    Clemson
    @Miami
    Louisville
    @BC

    Year 2
    UVa
    @UNC
    Duke
    @NCState
    Wake
    @GT
    FSU
    @Pitt
    Syracuse

    Year 3
    @UVa
    UNC
    @Duke
    NCState
    @Wake
    @Clemson
    Miami
    @Louisville
    BC

    Year 4
    UVa
    @UNC
    Duke
    @NCState
    Wake
    GT
    @FSU
    Pitt
    @Syracuse

    Quad-pod team 4-yr schedule (long-time ACC team--Clemson)
    Year 1
    @VT
    NCState
    @Wake
    @Miami
    Louisville
    @BC
    FSU
    @GT
    Syracuse

    Year 2
    UVa
    @UNC
    Duke
    Miami
    @Louisville
    BC
    @FSU
    GT
    @Pitt

    Year 3
    VT
    @NCState
    Wake
    @Miami
    Louisville
    @BC
    FSU
    @GT
    @Syracuse

    Year 4
    @UVa
    UNC
    @Duke
    Miami
    @Louisville
    BC
    @FSU
    GT
    Pitt

    Quad-pod team 4-yr schedule (recent Big East team--Syracuse)
    Year 1
    @UVa
    @UNC
    Duke
    @Pitt
    FSU
    @GT
    @Louisville
    BC
    Clemson

    Year 2
    @VT
    NCState
    Wake
    Pitt
    @FSU
    GT
    Louisville
    @BC
    @Miami

    Year 3
    UVa
    UNC
    @Duke
    @Pitt
    FSU
    @GT
    @Louisville
    BC
    @Clemson

    Year 4
    VT
    @NCState
    @Wake
    Pitt
    @FSU
    GT
    Louisville
    @BC
    Miami

    Notre Dame
    Since the ACC will now be playing 9 games (5 home and 4 away or vice versa), a school should be scheduled to host ND when said school has 4 ACC home games, and travel to South Bend when it has 4 ACC road games.

    If the ACC stays at 8 games
    -All Tri-Pod teams will still get to play all conference members every two years.
    -All Quad-Pod teams will have three non-rival teams in opposite pod that they will play only every third year. Only two years will be needed however to play the other 10.

    ICYMI: justification for placing rivals in separate divisions
    From my past writings...
    Here are games that need to be protected in permanent crossover rivalry games:
    VT-UVa (Commonwealth Cup) Miami-FSU (Florida rivalry)
    BC-Syracuse (old Eastern powers rivalry)
    NCSt-UNC (NC public school rivalry)
    Wake-Duke (NC private school rivalry)
    Clemson-GT (Deep South rivalry)
    Louisville-Pitt (Ohio River Valley/former Big East rivalry).

    This plan is based on...
    a) preserving ALL primary and significant secondary rivalries
    b) regional balance: embracing the NEW ACC by scheduling to assure all teams regularly travel to, and gain exposure in, all sub- regions
    c) competitive balance in hopes of getting the best possible ACCCG matchup
    d) balancing private-public schools
    e) balancing of programs with large fan bases
    f) balancing of urban schools in NFL cities

    ICYMI 2:
    This plan also allows for each division to have a member from every sub-region in the conference:
    Northeast/New England(BC-pod c, Syracuse-pod d)
    Commonwealth of Virginia (VT-pod a, UVa-pod b)
    State of North Carolina (Wake and NCSt- pod a, Duke and UNC-pod b) Ohio River Valley (Louisville-pod c, Pitt-pod d)
    Deep South SC-GA (Clemson-pod c, GT-pod d)
    State of Florida (Miami-pod c, FSU-pod d).
    This sub-regional consideration is good for recruiting, exposure and maintaining continuity and cooperation in an expanded footprint.
    This plan specifically puts Pitt and Miami in separate divisions since I consider it a bit of an irregularity for opponents to have to play two teams regularly that play off campus in NFL stadia (although Louisville will need to be the exception as they will play both Miami and Pitt each year).

  5. #15
    Lurker
    Join Date
    December 23, 2013
    Posts
    8
    I am a foregner but when did Virginia become North? Richmond and below is quite southern to me.

    QUOTE=VTHokie2000;892409]As of right now, it appears that VT only has 2 commitments (Javon Harrison & Kendrick Holland) from southern states. I would consider both to qualify as playmakers/speed positions. The rest appear to be from either VA or MD, which would qualify as "north" (assuming the boundary is the VA-NC border). Right now it appears VT has 1 commitment (Michael Barnett) from a southern state for 2015. I am not suggesting that VT should abandon recruiting from the southern states. All I was suggest is that it appears to be a shift in focus. Personally I would love to see VT establish a recruiting "pipeline" for the entire eastern seaboard (ME-FL). If I am not playing a conference game in that state or neighboring state (in the case of the New England Region), then I would make sure I either had a home-home series or a 2-for-1 series (MAC/Sun Belt school) in the works. Once that pipeline has been established then it should make things easier for VT to expand into other regions (i.e. Ohio Valley, Gulf Coast, etc).[/QUOTE]

  6. #16
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    36°59′36″N 78°13′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by acis111 View Post
    I am a foregner but when did Virginia become North? Richmond and below is quite southern to me.
    Geographically, UVa and Tech are "North" in a "North" and "South" divisional set-up (2 seven team divisions divided north-south). One of the North Carolina schools would have to be "North" too, most likely Wake Forest. It is true that Virginia is very southern except for 6 or so counties near DC. About 75% or so of the out-of-state undergraduates at Tech are from the Northeast (MD, PA, NJ, NY, DE, and New England), so being paired with northern ACC schools probably wouldn't upset those in admissions. I'm sure it would upset the fans.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by acis111 View Post
    I am a foregner but when did Virginia become North? Richmond and below is quite southern to me.
    If the ACC went with a north/south alignment, then the divisions would look like this:

    North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVA, VT, and (probably) Wake since it is the most northern NC school
    South: Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson, GT, FSU, and Miami

    Since I don't think Wake would be fond of being the only NC school on an island (aka in the North Division), then I don't believe the north/south model is good for a 14 member conference. Instead I believe a zipper model with a rival as the protected cross-divisional game is probably the way to go.

    If the ACC expands to 16 members and wants to use a north/south alignment, then the divisions would probably look like this:

    North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisiville, UVA, VT, and choice between Cincy/UConn,WVU
    South: Wake, Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

    For rivalry reasons the ACC would want to keep the 4 NC school in the same division. Plus, it would allow Clemson to maintain its rivalry with NC State, GT, and FSU. There will be a few rivalries that would suffer from this alignment, but once a conference gets a certain size then it becomes impossible to preserve all the rivalries.

    If the ACC wants to go north/south and keep things clean, then it should expand 16 members (even if it means adding Army and Navy as football-only members). The ACC does not want to look south for expansion schools because most likely it would mean sending 2 NC schools (i.e. Wake and Duke) to the North Division. They won't want to go unless they have protected cross-divisional games with NC State and UNC respectively which will only messy up the future cross-divisional rotation. Elimination of the protected cross-divisional game is the only clean way to establish a future cross-divisional schedule rotation.
    Last edited by VTHokie2000; Mon Dec 30 2013 at 10:29 AM.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    October 14, 2003
    Posts
    10,282
    Notre Dame is not joining the ACC. But even if they did, I doubt they'd want a N-S alignment. And even though they like the Northeast, I think they'd like to play in other regions (such as the South). I might be wrong though.

    I also wouldn't give a damn what division Wake or Duke want to be in. They are damn lucky the conference is still in tact. UVa, VT, Clemson, FSU, UNC and others that have actual option, could have blown this conference up over the past few years. If that would have happened, Wake would probably be in C-USA. And I'm not sure where Duke would be.
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    If the ACC went with a north/south alignment, then the divisions would look like this:

    North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, UVA, VT, and (probably) Wake since it is the most northern NC school
    South: Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson, GT, FSU, and Miami

    Since I don't think Wake would be fond of being the only NC school on an island (aka in the North Division), then I don't believe the north/south model is good for a 14 member conference. Instead I believe a zipper model with a rival as the protected cross-divisional game is probably the way to go.

    If the ACC expands to 16 members and wants to use a north/south alignment, then the divisions would probably look like this:

    North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisiville, UVA, VT, and choice between Cincy/UConn,WVU
    South: Wake, Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

    For rivalry reasons the ACC would want to keep the 4 NC school in the same division. Plus, it would allow Clemson to maintain its rivalry with NC State, GT, and FSU. There will be a few rivalries that would suffer from this alignment, but once a conference gets a certain size then it becomes impossible to preserve all the rivalries.

    If the ACC wants to go north/south and keep things clean, then it should expand 16 members (even if it means adding Army and Navy as football-only members). The ACC does not want to look south for expansion schools because most likely it would mean sending 2 NC schools (i.e. Wake and Duke) to the North Division. They won't want to go unless they have protected cross-divisional games with NC State and UNC respectively which will only messy up the future cross-divisional rotation. Elimination of the protected cross-divisional game is the only clean way to establish a future cross-divisional schedule rotation.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Maroon Baboon View Post
    Notre Dame is not joining the ACC. But even if they did, I doubt they'd want a N-S alignment. And even though they like the Northeast, I think they'd like to play in other regions (such as the South). I might be wrong though.

    I also wouldn't give a damn what division Wake or Duke want to be in. They are damn lucky the conference is still in tact. UVa, VT, Clemson, FSU, UNC and others that have actual option, could have blown this conference up over the past few years. If that would have happened, Wake would probably be in C-USA. And I'm not sure where Duke would be.
    Notre Dame may not want a N-S alignment, but that does not necessarily mean they would be on the side of the majority. They could very well end up in the minority which would not necessarily be a bad thing for them since they would get to play BC, Syracuse, and Pitt every year. Also, the North Division cross-divisional games could be structured so that they always play 1 team from NC and 1 team from either SC, GA, or FL every year.

    If the ACC were to blow up, then I am not sure I would assume that Wake and Duke got left out in the cold. Do not be surprised if the SEC were to offer both a spot in the conference. The SEC would like to move Missouri to the West Division, so they would either have to find 2 more western schools (so Alabama and Auburn can move to the East Division) or 2 eastern schools. Vandy and Wake appear to have started a rivalry in football (game to be played Thanksgiving weekend). Not to mention Kentucky's rivalry with Duke (in basketball), which I believe the SEC would love to profit from even more. From a football perspective the SEC does not really need to add anymore heavyweights because it has already established it is the best football conference. So I could see the SEC take the opportunity to try to improve the perception of its basketball conference (since Kentucky is pretty much the face of the conference).

    If the SEC's really wanted to improve its football conference that much more, then it would find a way for the Big Ten to take Missouri off its hands. Once Missouri is gone, then it could add Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St which would mean Alabama and Auburn would move to the East Division. Also, the SEC could do away with the protected cross-divisional games because Alabama-Tenn and Auburn-Georgia would now become divisional games.

Posting Permissions

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