Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43
  1. #1

    Join Date
    December 28, 1999
    Posts
    7,959

    Swofford supports no divisions (kind of)

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ualifying-redo

    He wants the NCAA to waive its requirement to have division winners play in the conference championship. He would like the two best teams to play. The conference would end up doing away with the divisions if it were to the be the best two teams, I believe. What a great thing that would be. Play two rivals every year and play the 7 of the other 11 teams each year (which is roughly 2 times every three years). There is no reason for Duke and Virginia Tech to play every year, for example, while hardly ever playing so many teams under the current format.

    My cut at rivals below. UNC-UVA and NCSU-Clemson are lost but there had to be some sacrifices. However, playing 64% of the time ain't bad.
    Miami - FSU, VT
    FSU - Miami, Clemson
    GT - Clemson, UVA
    Clemson - FSU, GT
    NCSU - UNC, Wake
    UNC - NCSU, Duke
    Duke - UNC, Wake
    Wake - Duke, NCSU
    VT - UVA, Miami
    UVA - VT, GT
    Pitt - Syracuse, Louisville
    Louisville - Pitt, BC
    BC - Syracuse, Louisville
    Syracuse - BC, Pitt

  2. #2
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Jessup View Post
    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ualifying-redo

    He wants the NCAA to waive its requirement to have division winners play in the conference championship. He would like the two best teams to play. The conference would end up doing away with the divisions if it were to the be the best two teams, I believe. What a great thing that would be. Play two rivals every year and play the 7 of the other 11 teams each year (which is roughly 2 times every three years). There is no reason for Duke and Virginia Tech to play every year, for example, while hardly ever playing so many teams under the current format.

    My cut at rivals below. UNC-UVA and NCSU-Clemson are lost but there had to be some sacrifices. However, playing 64% of the time ain't bad.
    Miami - FSU, VT
    FSU - Miami, Clemson
    GT - Clemson, UVA
    Clemson - FSU, GT
    NCSU - UNC, Wake
    UNC - NCSU, Duke
    Duke - UNC, Wake
    Wake - Duke, NCSU
    VT - UVA, Miami
    UVA - VT, GT
    Pitt - Syracuse, Louisville
    Louisville - Pitt, BC
    BC - Syracuse, Louisville
    Syracuse - BC, Pitt
    i would protect 3 rivals each instead of 2, but what i don't get is he mentions still having divisions? why bother having divisions if they don't determine your schedule OR who plays in the Conference Championship Game? Just get rid of them if they don't mean anything...

    it's a tricky thing, and there's a reason the NCAA has the rules they have. if divisions DO still determine the conf champ participants, and you eliminate round robin scheduling, you run the risk of having 2 (or 3) undefeated teams in one division.

    it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this all shakes out. either way, i'm confident the ACC will get it wrong.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  3. #3

    Join Date
    December 28, 1999
    Posts
    7,959
    I just assume he hadn't thought it all of the way through in discussing keeping the divisions. Bad assumption, I know.

    Why would you protect three instead of two? That third rival would be pretty shaky in many cases (unless you really put the recent Big East Teams on an island by doing Louisville-Syracuse and Pitt-BC) and take away from the homogenous play-everyone-often feel of playing everyone else roughly two times out of three years instead of playing most of the league roughly once every two years.

    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    i would protect 3 rivals each instead of 2, but what i don't get is he mentions still having divisions? why bother having divisions if they don't determine your schedule OR who plays in the Conference Championship Game? Just get rid of them if they don't mean anything...

    it's a tricky thing, and there's a reason the NCAA has the rules they have. if divisions DO still determine the conf champ participants, and you eliminate round robin scheduling, you run the risk of having 2 (or 3) undefeated teams in one division.

    it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this all shakes out. either way, i'm confident the ACC will get it wrong.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Jessup View Post
    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ualifying-redo

    He wants the NCAA to waive its requirement to have division winners play in the conference championship. He would like the two best teams to play. The conference would end up doing away with the divisions if it were to the be the best two teams, I believe. What a great thing that would be. Play two rivals every year and play the 7 of the other 11 teams each year (which is roughly 2 times every three years). There is no reason for Duke and Virginia Tech to play every year, for example, while hardly ever playing so many teams under the current format.

    My cut at rivals below. UNC-UVA and NCSU-Clemson are lost but there had to be some sacrifices. However, playing 64% of the time ain't bad.
    Miami - FSU, VT
    FSU - Miami, Clemson
    GT - Clemson, UVA
    Clemson - FSU, GT
    NCSU - UNC, Wake
    UNC - NCSU, Duke
    Duke - UNC, Wake
    Wake - Duke, NCSU
    VT - UVA, Miami
    UVA - VT, GT
    Pitt - Syracuse, Louisville
    Louisville - Pitt, BC
    BC - Syracuse, Louisville
    Syracuse - BC, Pitt
    Just read this article and came over here to comment. I think that's a decent stab at rivals. Kind of isolates the NC mafia but that's what they've always wanted. GT-Uva doesn't make a whole lot of sense but if VT has Miami, then I understand that the teams in the south need another "northern" rival.

    Another possibility is that this may be a covert attempt to get Notre Dame into the conference championship game. If you remove the divisional champion requirement, then who is to say that you even need a full conference schedule. Perhaps you count ND games as conference games and go by which two teams have the highest win percentage. I don't like it b/c ND would only have to win 5 (or even 4) games against possibly weak competition, but I could see the appeal from a marketing standpoint.

    Edit: Also, if you can count games against ND, it makes it easier to go to a 9 game schedule and have the ND game count as one of those 9. Basically, I suspect there is a Notre Dame angle in this proposal somehow.
    Last edited by Hokie de NC; Fri Jan 10 2014 at 05:25 PM.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    August 07, 2013
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Hokie de NC View Post
    Just read this article and came over here to comment. I think that's a decent stab at rivals. Kind of isolates the NC mafia but that's what they've always wanted. GT-Uva doesn't make a whole lot of sense but if VT has Miami, then I understand that the teams in the south need another "northern" rival.

    Another possibility is that this may be a covert attempt to get Notre Dame into the conference championship game. If you remove the divisional champion requirement, then who is to say that you even need a full conference schedule. Perhaps you count ND games as conference games and go by which two teams have the highest win percentage. I don't like it b/c ND would only have to win 5 (or even 4) games against possibly weak competition, but I could see the appeal from a marketing standpoint.

    Edit: Also, if you can count games against ND, it makes it easier to go to a 9 game schedule and have the ND game count as one of those 9. Basically, I suspect there is a Notre Dame angle in this proposal somehow.
    Yes

    I say that with zero evidence. I would not be shocked if something happened like that...
    Last edited by goldendomer; Fri Jan 10 2014 at 05:56 PM.

  6. #6
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Hokie de NC View Post
    Just read this article and came over here to comment. I think that's a decent stab at rivals. Kind of isolates the NC mafia but that's what they've always wanted. GT-Uva doesn't make a whole lot of sense but if VT has Miami, then I understand that the teams in the south need another "northern" rival.

    Another possibility is that this may be a covert attempt to get Notre Dame into the conference championship game. If you remove the divisional champion requirement, then who is to say that you even need a full conference schedule. Perhaps you count ND games as conference games and go by which two teams have the highest win percentage. I don't like it b/c ND would only have to win 5 (or even 4) games against possibly weak competition, but I could see the appeal from a marketing standpoint.

    Edit: Also, if you can count games against ND, it makes it easier to go to a 9 game schedule and have the ND game count as one of those 9. Basically, I suspect there is a Notre Dame angle in this proposal somehow.
    i don't think we would "GIVE" anything to ND, but i don't disagree with the premise. i could see "Total conference wins" as the first decider with % as the tie breaker, so in a weak year, if FSU is 9-0 and the next best team is 5-4, ND could get in if they were 5-0. this would be a carrot to get ND up to 6 or possibly even 7 ACC games. 5-0 would be a long shot, but 7-0...?

    just throwing it out there, obviously nothing to base this on.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  7. #7
    Femoyer Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 20, 2003
    Location
    Glen Allen, VA
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by goldendomer View Post
    Yes

    I say that with zero evidence. I would not be shocked if something happened like that...
    No way we allow ND to play for a conference championship without being a full member. We lose all leverage if we do. And I'm a ND fan. I WANT them all in and I think the playoff system will force them in sooner rather than later. If we lose the leverage they will NEVER be all in.

  8. #8
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Jessup View Post
    I just assume he hadn't thought it all of the way through in discussing keeping the divisions. Bad assumption, I know.

    Why would you protect three instead of two? That third rival would be pretty shaky in many cases (unless you really put the recent Big East Teams on an island by doing Louisville-Syracuse and Pitt-BC) and take away from the homogenous play-everyone-often feel of playing everyone else roughly two times out of three years instead of playing most of the league roughly once every two years.
    I do it to protect the one team who should have 3 protected games (UNC) should always play uva, dook and NCSU. the 3rd game could be used to create schedule balance (through geography or SOS), though that's not what i did below. This is my 3 team format:

    VT - uva, Miami, L'ville
    uva - VT, unc, FSU
    UNC - uva, dook, NCSU
    dook - unc, wake, 'cuse
    NCSU - unc, Clemson, wake
    wake - dook, BC, NCSU
    Clemson - NCSU, GT, Pitt
    FSU - Miami, GT, uva
    GT - Clemson, FSU, L'ville
    Miami - FSU, VT, BC
    BC - 'cuse, Wake, Miami
    'cuse - BC, Pitt, dook
    Pitt - 'cuse, L'ville, Clemson
    L'ville - Pitt, VT, GT
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  9. #9
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Femoyer Hokie View Post
    No way we allow ND to play for a conference championship without being a full member. We lose all leverage if we do. And I'm a ND fan. I WANT them all in and I think the playoff system will force them in sooner rather than later. If we lose the leverage they will NEVER be all in.
    i would sure hope so, but would 3.5 ND games on our TV contact make it worth it? not to mention 3.5 games on NBC (exposure, not money)? we could still hold back rev share for football, and they would still have to have as many wins as the 2nd best team in the league while playing 2 less games. i dunno, it's not inconceivable...
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Jessup View Post
    I just assume he hadn't thought it all of the way through in discussing keeping the divisions. Bad assumption, I know.

    Why would you protect three instead of two? That third rival would be pretty shaky in many cases (unless you really put the recent Big East Teams on an island by doing Louisville-Syracuse and Pitt-BC) and take away from the homogenous play-everyone-often feel of playing everyone else roughly two times out of three years instead of playing most of the league roughly once every two years.
    I disagree with the assumption that most ACC schools don't have at least 3 rivals.

    BC: Syracuse, Miami, Pitt/VT
    Syracuse: BC, Pitt, Miami
    Pitt: Syracuse, BC, Louisville, VT, Miami
    Louisville: Pitt, VT, UVA(?)
    Wake: Duke, UNC, NC State
    Duke: Wake, UNC, NC State
    UNC: Duke, NC State, UVA, Wake
    NC State: UNC, Clemson, Wake, Duke
    Clemson: NC State, GT, FSU
    GT: Clemson, FSU, VT
    FSU: Miami, Clemson, GT, UVA
    Miami: FSU, Miami, BC, Syracuse, Pitt

    Now I am not suggesting that all the rivalries can be protected because some are from the Big East days. However, I believe a compromise could be worked out where most (except maybe 1-2) would not able to get the 3 protected games (of their choice). Louisville is the only school that would be a wild card since they are new to the ACC and have limited Big East ties (meaning Pitt and Syracuse are the only ACC schools they played regularly in the Big East). I could see Louisville possibly wanting its third protected game to be against Miami (given Howard coached at both schools) and FL is one of the key target states for recruiting purposes.

Posting Permissions

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