This is an idea which has the top 4 teams play each other in the final week of the season to get to go to ACC championship game. Have no divisions and each team rotates home and home series. Each team will have a rivalry ACC game to be played the final week of the season. The top 4 teams come the second to last week of the season will play in the final week of the season, with the winners going to the ACC Championship game. The remaining rivalry opponents will play each other the final week of the season.
Rivalry games which will be scheduled for the final week each season
VT-UVA
Miami-FSU
Cuse-BC
Wake-Duke
NC-NCST
LOU-Pitt
Clem-GT
The conference standings come the 2nd to last week of the season
1. VT 7-0
2. FSU 6-1
3. Clem 6-1
4. Lou 5-2
The final week of the season will have VT-Lou and FSU-Clem with the winners going to the ACC Championship game. The final week will also have UVA-Pitt and Miami-Duke.
How's it look? And turkey legs if anyone posted something like this already.
Comments
What about the traditional state rivalries that some schools have? I can't see GT or Clemson giving up the last weekend of the season and not play UGA and USCe during that week.
Agree with vtman09 on the rivalry aspect, that's not going to happen. Maybe if the SEC wanted to do something similar, but there's no chance FSU, Clemson, and GT would agree to this without that. I also don't have an aversion to our current format, and even though Clemson was most likely the second best team in the conference most years it's a very good system. Another issue I would see is scheduling. Figuring out the logistics of team travel, classes, and film within a week potentially two weeks in a row would be a bear for everyone involved.
It's interesting but not sure why you need a playoff to get to a Championship game to get to yet another playoff.
That would theoretically would mean 16 team playoffs.
i don't necessarily agree with the approach of the OP, but to answer your question, there are 120 teams playing a 12 game schedule...without one big playoff, lots of little playoffs may be the only way to sort through the mess (without relying on polls; human, computer, or otherwise...).
there was a very long Forum post about a possible larger playoff. A lot for and against increasing to 8 or 16. I am very against this though. I don't believe everyone deserves a shot and I think a larger playoff makes the regular season less valuable.
If as a football team you want your shot, schedule good opponents and win. That's it. This isn't peewee league where everyone gets a participation trophy.
I like the idea of 4 team playoffs. But If you end up doing 4 team playoff for conference games, then you need to have 4 divisions of 4 teams. And winner of each division gets a playoff spot in the conference. And 4 major conference would play in yet another playoff to come out a national champion.
You can also add 2 at large teams, that would get bid into the playoffs. If you add 2 at large teams, then 2 teams with best records in major conference would get a bye on first week of college football playoff.
But would the ACC even make it into the Top Four conference conversation based on TV ratings? Most "rankings" always have us on the bubble of fourth or fifth best conference. If they set this up, we might be left on the outside looking in.
Even the talks of breaking up Division I are discussing the five major conferences breaking away to form an "elite" Division I ($EC, BIG 10, BIG 12, PAC 12, ACC). If they are going to do a playoff, they probably should just run it the way they run the FCS and Division III playoffs. That said, then a majority of the "bowl games" would be left out and their "non-profit" might have to close up shop. River of tears for that....
Not just tears, but potential lawsuits as well as state and fed legislature involvement.
Would ACC be considered one of the top 4 conference? That is debatable. But if there is a requirement that your conference has to have 4 team playoff and you need at least 16 teams to even consider a playoff, then ACC and SEC are in the driver seat as they are closest to a 16 team conference.
I also don't like the idea like most people have said, but I just want to add your rivalry match ups make no sence. You have to keep GT-Clem. BC-Cuse is just logical. And the current NC rivalries are UNC-NCSt, Wake-Duke.
You're right, I will change those.
As I've said before, I'm strongly in favor of anything that helps the Hokies, and strongly oppose anything that even has the appearance of hurting them.
I don't like this idea at all, especially if it looks like we could lose the UVA game from the schedule at the last minute.
Just using your scenario, here are some problems I see....what if UVA and Pitt have already played each other that season? What if both of them were scheduled home games for that final week, but the matchup switch forces one of them on the road? What if VT and Louisville had already played in Lane Stadium, and this is from a season that VT/UVA was supposed to be in C-ville? That would give VT an extra home game, at the expense of another school. What if Louisville and Pitt were tied after 11 weeks?
Besides, the way the ACC likes to beat up on itself, it is very unlikely that they would have many seasons with a clear top 4.
Here's a list of advantages:
-The ACC champion will have a greater strength of schedule. The 2 teams in the ACCCG will have just defeated a quality opponent the week before.
-Potential for the rivalry games to still be played if the 2 teams are in the playoff.
-Play 3-4 ACC opponents that weren't on the schedule the year before.
-No heavy divisions. In 2012 and 2013, it could have meant FSU-Clemson in the ACCCG.
As for the FSU-Florida, GT-Georgia, and Clemson-SC games, they can all be played another week.
And if UVA fans cry because they don't get to play us one year, tell them they aren't worthy of playing us.
This will never happen. Period.
But what about the potential conflict of home games? Also, what if one or more of your proposed "rival" games never happens because of how the records play out? In the effort to play more ACC teams sooner, you could end up not playing one for a really long time.
The reason that conference championship games aren't a big deal is because they are relatively simple. It's a set place on a set date, and there is no contingency plan needed. It's also an extra game, and doesn't impede on the normal season schedule.
The neutral site games throughout the season are planned far in advance, so that each team knows how to plan the rest of their schedule.
let's blow the whole thing up, conference affiliation included (just for football), throw all 66 "BCS" football programs into a pot (including Notre Dame and BYU). Take applications for 6 more programs (academies, Boise St, etc). break them into 8 9 team divisions/districts based on geography, rivalries, and history, play 8 district games leaving 4 games to play against ANY Division 1 opponent (to protect annual rivalry games). Never more than 6 home games can be scheduled.
after 12 games, the 8 division champs host the 8 division runners up (never against a division opponent, seeding done by committee which is why the 4 non-district games are still relevant).
so after 13 games you would be left with an 8 team playoff (i would recommend playing at home sites for quarterfinals at a minimum). 2 teams playing 1 more game than they are today.
for money, they would agree for rev sharing to give all 72 teams an equal cut of the reg season TV money and could then tier the sharing for the playoffs similar to how the NCAA pays out the bball money. in the end, i would think the 14 SEC schools would take in as much as they do today, if not more, and since they are still in the SEC for all other sports, they could share the money equally or however they wanted to do it.
highly unlikely, as it would require A LOT of collaboration and trust, but it would be pretty cool IMO....