Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21

    Join Date
    September 05, 2005
    Location
    Christiansburg, VA
    Posts
    13,784
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Either that or he is playing a clever game of chicken with the NCAA. If the NCAA decides not to allow the ACC to get its way, then the NCAA will be forced to make the MAC comply which would mean that the MAC would either have to add a school (most likely a football-only member) or drop a school to get the membership back down to 12. Ultimately, I believe he banking on the NCAA caving into his demands or else risk the Power 5 walking. If conferences have more flexibility on who should participate in the CCG, then it could bring future conference musical chairs to a grinding halt. Also, it would mean that division requirements would be eliminated because the bylaw would contradict itself. If schools are no longer going to play a round robin division schedule, then there is no point for a conference to have 2 divisions. Instead it can simply take the 2 highest ranked schools and have them face off against each other.

    Another possibility is if the NCAA holds on to the notion that divisions must play a round robin schedule, then that could open up the door for the ACC to push to have the bylaws re-written so that a conference could have more than 2 divisions (essentially add an extra round to the CCG). If that happens, then you could see the ACC push to expand to 16 schools, so it could divide up into 4 divisions.
    I want to know what is standing in the way of the ACC splitting to 4 divisions of 4 teams. (C'mon Notre Dame, get with the times). From the 4 divisions, you have 9 (yes, nine) conference games, 1 against everyone in your division, and 1 against everyone in a 2nd division (rotating every year). The last 2 games will be against half of a 3rd division. The next year, you play the 2nd half of the 3rd division and the whole 4th division. Take the top 2 teams that win their division to the championship game.

    I believe the rotating schedule laid out above would have a 6 year rotating basis where you play every division member 6 times (3H, 3A) and non-division members 3 times (2 and 1). The H/A evens out over 12 years, so you would see each team 3 times in your stadium over 12 years.

    Lining up the divisions (I added ND and UCF for fun)
    Division 1: FSU, Miami, UCF, GT
    Division 2: Duke, UNC, Wake, NCSt
    Division 3: Clemson, VT, UVA, Louisville
    Division 4: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Notre Dame

    From this, you have a VT schedule for the following 6 years:
    Year 1: @Clem, UVA, @Louisville, FSU, @Miami, UCF, @GT, Duke, @UNC
    Year 2: Clem, @UVA, Louisville, @Wake, NCSt, @Pitt, Syracuse, @BC, ND
    Year 3: @Clem, UVA, @Louisville, Pitt, @Syracuse, @FSU, Miami, @UCF, GT
    Year 4: Clem, @UVA, Louisville, BC, @ND, UNC, @Duke, Wake, @NCSt.
    Year 5: @Clem, UVA, @Louisville, FSU, @Miami, @Pitt, Syracuse, BC, @ND
    Year 6: Clem, @UVA, Louisville, UCF, @GT, @UNC, Duke, @Wake, NCSt.

    Years 7-12: Flip the Home and away for each team.

    Now you can argue who you want in what division, I don't care, but that's how it would all lay out for those that would want to see it. More rotating opponents will be beneficial for the conference in terms of good teams meeting up more often. Seems to me it's a pretty even way for fans, even way for teams, and when 2 divisions are tougher than the rest, it will show in the standings as you play around a bit.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    7,479
    Quote Originally Posted by NCHokie83 View Post
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...acc-title-game

    Kind of hard to get my mind wrapped around this one, but I'll try.

    • Divisions will remain in place
    • No requirement to play all division opponents in a given year
    • 2 teams with best records in ACC play get invited to Charlotte
    • Winning Division would essentially be a meaningless accomplishment


    Had this been in place since Expansion, the ACC Championship Game would have been amended as follows:

    2005 - Virginia Tech vs Miami -- Florida State excluded
    2006 - Wake Forest vs Georgia Tech
    2007 - Virginia Tech vs Boston College -- BC gets tiebreaker over UVa based on overall record
    2008 - Virginia Tech vs GT/FSU/BC -- Unsure how 3 way tiebreaker would have worked.
    2009 - Virginia Tech vs Georgia Tech -- VT gets tiebreaker over Clemson based on overall record
    2010 - Virginia Tech vs Florida State
    2011 - Virginia Tech vs Clemson
    2012 - Florida State vs Clemson -- Georgia Tech excluded
    2013 - Florida State vs Clemson -- Duke excluded
    Will the ACC develop a BCS like rating system including strength of schedule. Two teams with best records might not be the best teams. This could turn into a political football with favoritism ruling the day rather than team strength. VT might never make it to ACC Championship game if Wofford has the final say.

  3. #23
    Femoyer Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 20, 2003
    Location
    Glen Allen, VA
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by BAMAHOKIE View Post
    Will the ACC develop a BCS like rating system including strength of schedule. Two teams with best records might not be the best teams. This could turn into a political football with favoritism ruling the day rather than team strength. VT might never make it to ACC Championship game if Wofford has the final say.
    I believe it would be the 2 highest ranked teams. Take your pick of rating sources. That takes the politics outside the conference.

  4. #24
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    If you are going to realign the divisions, then it would probably have to be done every 2 years in order to ensures every team gets to play an opponent home and away before making any changes. Otherwise you end up running the risk of playing an opponent home or away multiple times over a period of time (depending on how the changes shake out). I am not sure many Hokie fans would enjoy seeing VT play at Miami 4 times in a row (within a 6 year period) because that is how the conference schedule shook out.
    so let's say ou take the previous 2 years' records and serpentine the teams into 2 divisions from that. L'ville will get umd's records and we'll use winning % to account for 'cuse and Pitt. you would also protect rivalries using the crossover game and to break ties. you could have the following divisions in 2014:

    Coastal / Atlantic (protected rivalries listed side by side):
    FSU / GT
    Miami / VT
    dook / Wake
    UNC / uva
    Pitt / 'Cuse
    l'ville / BC (not protected, just only one left)
    NCSU / Clemson

    play that out for 2 years, then for 2016 use 2014-15 records to regroup. you might not guarantee a set rotation this way, but you could manipulate ties and rivalry crossovers to maximize new matchups or to prioritize matching up teams who haven't played at all over the previous 2 years. you could also use the other 1 or 2 conference games outside the 7 pre-determined games to fill gaps.

    appendix:
    FSU: 15-1
    Clemson: 14-2
    Miami: 10-6
    GT: 10-6
    VT: 9-7
    Dook: 9-7
    UNC: 9-7
    'Cuse: 4-4
    Pitt: 3-5
    BC: 5-11
    umd (l'ville): 5-11
    Wake: 5-11
    NCSU: 4-12
    uva: 2-14
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by jaitken View Post
    I can't speak for any Hokie fan other than myself but I'd damned sure give up UVA if it got us F$U -- assuming an even split home/away, that is.
    That is the problem though because the division will change every year you will not be able to guarrantee an even split of home/away because the ACC will want an even split of home-away conference games for that season. So in theory VT could end up with a 1-3 or 0-4 (home-away) split against FSU and a 3-1 or 4-0 split against Wake. Either that or VT could end up with an uneven ration of home-away conference games that season. So would most Hokie fans be willing to only play 2 or 3 home conference games (out of 8 or 9) to ensure VT maintains a balance ratio of home-away games against the other members? Would the athletic department be willing to go along with it?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    so let's say ou take the previous 2 years' records and serpentine the teams into 2 divisions from that. L'ville will get umd's records and we'll use winning % to account for 'cuse and Pitt. you would also protect rivalries using the crossover game and to break ties. you could have the following divisions in 2014:

    Coastal / Atlantic (protected rivalries listed side by side):
    FSU / GT
    Miami / VT
    dook / Wake
    UNC / uva
    Pitt / 'Cuse
    l'ville / BC (not protected, just only one left)
    NCSU / Clemson

    play that out for 2 years, then for 2016 use 2014-15 records to regroup. you might not guarantee a set rotation this way, but you could manipulate ties and rivalry crossovers to maximize new matchups or to prioritize matching up teams who haven't played at all over the previous 2 years. you could also use the other 1 or 2 conference games outside the 7 pre-determined games to fill gaps.

    appendix:
    FSU: 15-1
    Clemson: 14-2
    Miami: 10-6
    GT: 10-6
    VT: 9-7
    Dook: 9-7
    UNC: 9-7
    'Cuse: 4-4
    Pitt: 3-5
    BC: 5-11
    umd (l'ville): 5-11
    Wake: 5-11
    NCSU: 4-12
    uva: 2-14
    Yes, the conference could do some manipulation, which I believe is already a given. If the conference completely left it up to how the previous 2 seasons play out, then there is a strong possibility that VT could go years (maybe even decades) before it faces a team for the first time. I am think of a team that typically ends up last in the division and for various reasons is always placed in the opposite division. Now most people would say who cares about playing a weak ACC school (i.e. Wake would probably be the classic example used), but what if that "weak" team ended up being Clemson? That would mean VT could go years before playing in the state of SC or against a school from SC, which could end up hurting VT's recruiting plan for the state.

    Another possible scenario is VT found itself in the opposite division from UVA, Miami, and FSU. UVA would be designated as the protected cross-divisional opponent, which would mean the FL schools would end up in the rotation pool. If both schools are having "down" years, but not bad enough to finish last in the conference, then there is the possibility that all 3 schools could end up in the opposite division for the next 2-year rotation. If that happens 3 or 4 times, then VT could be faced with the reality that has not played in the state of FL or against a FL school in the last 6 or 8 years. Just imagine the impact it could have on recruiting from that state. It is equally possible that VT could be going through a "down" year that results in being placed in the opposite division has those 3 schools.

    Now I am not suggesting that either scenario has a good chance of happening. However, once the conference decides to go down this path, then everyone will need to be prepared to accept all the consequences.

  7. #27
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Yes, the conference could do some manipulation, which I believe is already a given. If the conference completely left it up to how the previous 2 seasons play out, then there is a strong possibility that VT could go years (maybe even decades) before it faces a team for the first time. I am think of a team that typically ends up last in the division and for various reasons is always placed in the opposite division. Now most people would say who cares about playing a weak ACC school (i.e. Wake would probably be the classic example used), but what if that "weak" team ended up being Clemson? That would mean VT could go years before playing in the state of SC or against a school from SC, which could end up hurting VT's recruiting plan for the state.

    Another possible scenario is VT found itself in the opposite division from UVA, Miami, and FSU. UVA would be designated as the protected cross-divisional opponent, which would mean the FL schools would end up in the rotation pool. If both schools are having "down" years, but not bad enough to finish last in the conference, then there is the possibility that all 3 schools could end up in the opposite division for the next 2-year rotation. If that happens 3 or 4 times, then VT could be faced with the reality that has not played in the state of FL or against a FL school in the last 6 or 8 years. Just imagine the impact it could have on recruiting from that state. It is equally possible that VT could be going through a "down" year that results in being placed in the opposite division has those 3 schools.

    Now I am not suggesting that either scenario has a good chance of happening. However, once the conference decides to go down this path, then everyone will need to be prepared to accept all the consequences.
    i think protecting rivalries would be key. it took me 5 minutes to shake out what i shared above and i moved some things around to ensure rivalries were protected. it wasn't hard. i get that you're just saying it's possible, and we all know the ACC is fully capable of screwing even the easiest thing up, but i really don't think it would be as bad as what we have now (non-BC teams in Atlantic coming to Blacksburg once every 12 years).
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    i think protecting rivalries would be key. it took me 5 minutes to shake out what i shared above and i moved some things around to ensure rivalries were protected. it wasn't hard. i get that you're just saying it's possible, and we all know the ACC is fully capable of screwing even the easiest thing up, but i really don't think it would be as bad as what we have now (non-BC teams in Atlantic coming to Blacksburg once every 12 years).
    I agree that protecting rivalries would be the key. However, given that not every school has the same number of rivalries, then there is the potential that some rivalries could be impacted by this new format. For example the "Battle of the Techs" could suffer because a decision was made to renew a Metro rivalry (L'ville vs. VT) to ensure everyone has the same number of "protected rivalries." Heck the ACC could decide to renew the FSU-L'ville rivalry (another Metro rivalry) which could impact FSU's rivalry with Clemson, GT, Miami, or UVA. Given that there are too many competing intersts, the ACC will not be able to please everyone. At some point a decision will have to be made, which means there is a good possibility that someone will not be completely happy with it.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    Blacksburg
    Posts
    4,404
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I agree that protecting rivalries would be the key. However, given that not every school has the same number of rivalries, then there is the potential that some rivalries could be impacted by this new format. For example the "Battle of the Techs" could suffer because a decision was made to renew a Metro rivalry (L'ville vs. VT) to ensure everyone has the same number of "protected rivalries." Heck the ACC could decide to renew the FSU-L'ville rivalry (another Metro rivalry) which could impact FSU's rivalry with Clemson, GT, Miami, or UVA. Given that there are too many competing intersts, the ACC will not be able to please everyone. At some point a decision will have to be made, which means there is a good possibility that someone will not be completely happy with it.
    A Metro rivalry? What in the world is a Metro rivalry? We know what it is but to say a Metro rivalry is going to be renewed is to really stretch the concept and definition of the world "rivalry". To say that is a rivalry is saying the word has no meaning at all.

  10. #30
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I agree that protecting rivalries would be the key. However, given that not every school has the same number of rivalries, then there is the potential that some rivalries could be impacted by this new format. For example the "Battle of the Techs" could suffer because a decision was made to renew a Metro rivalry (L'ville vs. VT) to ensure everyone has the same number of "protected rivalries." Heck the ACC could decide to renew the FSU-L'ville rivalry (another Metro rivalry) which could impact FSU's rivalry with Clemson, GT, Miami, or UVA. Given that there are too many competing intersts, the ACC will not be able to please everyone. At some point a decision will have to be made, which means there is a good possibility that someone will not be completely happy with it.
    well, to be fair, the ACC already stripped FSU of GT (and uva...LOL) rivalry(s). i never understood the trophy game between FSU and uva, anyone care to explain it? does FSU know it exists?

    IMO (and i think the popular consensus) of rivalries to be protected:

    UNC: uva, NCSU, dook
    NCSU: UNC, Clemson
    Dook: UNC, Wake
    Clemson: GT, NCSU
    Wake: dook
    GT: Clemson, FSU
    FSU: Miami, GT
    Miami: FSU
    uva: VT, UNC
    VT: uva
    Pitt: 'cuse
    'cuse: BC, Pitt
    BC: 'cuse
    L'ville: No one

    that's 11 games every year out of 56 that need to be protected. surely that can be done.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

Posting Permissions

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