ACC members Wake Forest and UNC schedule a nonconference home and home series in 2019/21. Not a misprint. This is a first.— Paul Myerberg (@PaulMyerberg) January 26, 2015
This is unconventional, but brilliant (at least in my opinion). Wake Forest and North Carolina are two charter members of the ACC, but because of expansion—the league's 14 teams and eight-game conference schedule—they would only have played twice between 2015 and 2024. Two Power 5 schools, 80 miles apart, with a bunch of history wanted to play more often and found a solution.
In the new playoff era of college football, strength of schedule is a factor the selection committee will evaluate when selecting the field of four. Neither of these teams might sniff a playoff berth over the next 10 seasons, but they want butts in Kenan and BB&T Field. Given the proximity and history between the two fan bases and programs, this series is a draw that'll sell tickets.
Any success might open the eyes of other programs in the ACC or nationally. It was never played, but Michigan and Minnesota discussed a non-league game for 2010 when the Big Ten schedule back-burnered their rivalry for a couple of seasons.
Virginia Tech will play East Carolina and Old Dominion nine times and six times, respectively, between 2015-2024. The Hokies will face Florida State, Clemson and Louisville a combined 5 times over the same span. Tech's non-conference schedule is set, but not in stone, over those years. Even if it is, this could be a solution for playing more ACC teams in the (distant) future.
Comments
"Virginia Tech will play East Carolina... nine times"
Serious question - will we ever get to stop playing East Carolina? What exactly is our agreement with them, and when did we make it?
They are on our schedule every year until 2025, except for 2021. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong), Weaver agreed to the current plan before he stepped down. I forget when it expires, but it was something in the neighborhood of 10 years after the agreement at the time expired, so maybe(?) 2025 is the last year of the current plan.
My 4 year old daughter will be learning to drive before this series ends.
As an unmarried and childless 24 year-old, I wouldn't be surprised if I had a kid graduate college before we stop playing ECU.
More years left in this series than fans at LOLUVA's spring game.
so...at least one?
Message to Whit: get on the horn with Clemson and FSU.
Louisville too.
I disagree. If we're going to play another regional team, I'd rather it be OOC such as Tennessee, WVU, MD, Penn St, etc (ok, maybe not MD, but you get the picture). I'd rather the ACC just fix it. Get rid of the cross divisional rival. Or add 2 more teams and go with pods.
Agree. The biggest problem is that we play BC every year for no reason other than we happened to line up with them when we moved over
Miami should be stuck with BC since they wanted Northeast schools to join them.
The ACC needs to go to a 9-game conference slate and/or drop the regional rival game. It is crazy that we play some teams within our own conference only once every 6 years. I mean that means the players can spend four or five years with their team and not have played every team in the conference.
We probably have one of the least compelling permanent rival games in the conference, but there's no way the league will allow UNC-NCSt, Miami-FSU, and Clemson-GT to not happen every year.
Nine conference games is the absolute best option. I don't know why they agreed to it first but then changed their minds...
They changed their minds because of ND. Teams with SEC rivalries would be playing 11 teams at the P5 level with only one slot available for ooc matchups in a 9 game schedule during their years to play ND.
They agreed to it, then they reversed course after they came to the Notre Dame will play 5 ACC teams a year deal. The school's did not want to play 9 ACC contests, their in-state non-conference rival, and ND all in the same season...leaving them with only 1 game to schedule on their own. I think they should stop with the excuses. By expanding to a 14-team league, you should expect to have to expand to 9 conference games.
EDIT: Darn I was beat to this post. The wifey delayed me with a phone call...lol.
So, in response to you and rogue_nine9, this is what I gather:
It's Notre Dame's fault.
Notre Dame has ruined life as we know it.
they are literally Hitler
Yeah, just a less intimidating version....
No, I don't blame ND. I blame the ACC Athletic Directors for changing their mind simply because they will have to play ND once every three years. Personally, I am for a 9-game conference schedule.
Its stupid that the conference is screwing one of its few true football schools the way they are by having us playing BC annually. They need to be creating as many big showcase games as they can, and forcing BC upon us causes there to be multi year gaps between us having a legitimately good cross divisional game. BC needs to be paired with someone like UVa, two who gives a damn programs, where an upset does nothing to harm the prestige of the conference. The way it is now, if BC ever pulls the upset, the conference is looked upon as weak, because Boston College has zero national respect, and likely will never get it.
With how horrible we have been the last few years and our record against BC we are coming dangerously close to one of those who gives a damn programs. Besides you know BC is da bestest!
I am surprised (and maybe it has happened) that ESPN hasn't pressured the league to make more compelling matchups. I would think they would want us, Clemson, Miami and FSU playing each other often. There aren't many draws in the ACC so match us together.
FSU plays Clemson and Miami every year, as do we play Miami every year. So the only other thing that needs to happen is for us to get Clemson as our cross-division rival. The Georgia Tech-Clemson rivalry isn't an ACC institution like FSU/Miami, so it's not like we'd be going against history in trying to make the switch.
Agree in principal but I think Clemson-GT is actually very important to Clemson and GT alums. Bet you'd get some real pushback if you tried to interrupt the annual status of that game..
Clemson would fight losing GT. They recruit GA and want that presence down there. What needs to happen is either 1, Clemson needs to move to the Coastal or 2, Louisville needs to move to the coastal. Balance out the divisions.
If the NCAA allows the top 2 teams from the conference to play in the championship game rather than divisional winners, could potentially do away with divisions, have 1 or 2 rival games you play every year and rotate through the conference every year and set up a tie breaker for inevitable tie at the top that creates.
They just play the historic rivalry trump card to any challengers
Through 2013, the teams have played 78 times, with Tech leads Clemson in the series 50 - 27 - 2. The teams first met in 1898,
I gotta say, I find it surprising GT has such a big lead in that series.
I think Louisville is a more realistic option since they don't have a strong connection to You!VA. It would make the travel time shorter for 3 of the 4 schools involved and its only a marginally longer trip from Charlottesville to BC than it is for them to go to Louisville. (About 60 miles/1 hour, 15 minutes differenceby car according to Google Maps and I'm assuming that either trip would be by plane making the difference even less significant)
Remember that we were a bit of an afterthought when we joined the ACC, as the original driving force of ACC expansion was making FSU/Miami am ACC affair and adding the NY market through Syracuse. When Mark Warner (may his name be forever glorified by Hokies everywhere) went to bat for us, it changed the math a little and the ACC's answer was to just lump the two new guys together. We were going to be in the same division as UVA so we didn't have a natural Atlantic rival to pair against. Also, the ACC had no idea what they were getting with us. Had they known, I think we would have gotten a more premier cross-division rival.
I completely get that, and in a way doing what they did in 2003 made sense, and for a little while when BC had Matty Ice, it worked out, but ever since then, the annual VT-BC matchup has been one of the worst for the conference, which is compounded when VT has emerged as one of the premier football institutions in the conference. They've had 11 years and a 2nd round of expansion to get it right, and instead they keep making the situation worse. VT should have an annual crossover rivalry that brings hype and a viewing audience to the conference, as should FSU, Clemson, and Miami. Those 4 schools are what people think of when they think ACC football, and the conference should schedule it that way. To have VT annually playing one of the worst programs in the conference as a forced annual matchup at this point, when they've had a chance to correct it, is absurd. In 2 years, when we're rolling, the annual BC matchup will be one of those things that pundits very well could use against us when talking about how worthy we are should we get ourselves in the playoff discussion, and its just stupid that the ACC is forcing it upon us.
"One of the worst programs in the conference" ...that has defeated us two years running.
I get your point, but the Hokies need to get their own house in order before we can worry about reshuffling the scheduling deck. You are right that people think of Virginia tech when they think of ACC football. Unfortunately, right now, thats an association that leads people to the opinion that ACC football isn't very good.
BC was an ascendant program under Jagodzinski as coach and Matt Ryan under center. Matt went on to the NFL of course, but BC really shot itself in the foot with their mishandling of Jags talking to the Jets and the decision to promote Spaziani to head coach. However, now with a good head coach in Adazio, they might improve. It was not that long ago that they played in back to back ACCCGs. I'd welcome a return to prominence for them.
Obligatory "Matt Ryan can choke on a buffet of dicks" any time I hear that nickname trotted out. Like many I braved the elements and rode the tide of emotions in that game that ended with my heart wracked against the rocks of cruel fate, but for at least five lucky bounces in BC's favor we would have won that gasp-fest of a game. Instead I had to watch our upset bid slip away, soaked to my bones, as Jagadoffski and Ryan consummated their victory upon our sidelines.
Yes. The entire buffet.
Agreed. I enjoy the falcons mediocrity and root against them simply because matt Ryan is their quarterback.
I'm not a Boston College apologist by any means, but it's interesting you consider BC "one of the worst programs in the conference" and yet also think so highly of Miami. I'm sure you know BC finished 4th in the ACC Atlantic this season (i.e. the exact midpoint) and had 1 more win than Miami. Miami has name recognition, but that will continue to fade over time if they don't extinguish the dumpster fire their program has become since joining the ACC. In Miami's 11 seasons of ACC membership: 0 ACC Championships, 0 ACC Coastal Championships, 0 BCS games, 0 seasons with 10+ wins, 7 seasons with 7 or less wins, 2-6 overall record in bowl games, 1 on-field brawl, and 1 high profile NCAA investigation.
The whining about how the ACC should treat VT better sounds a lot like the entitled whining from FSU fans from 2006-11 when they couldn't beat Wake Forest regularly but still expected the conference to cowtow to their whims. VT should try being better than okay before acting entitled.
Slight difference between the two, as Wake is just a member of FSU's division, much like UVa is in our division, whereas BC is our forced crossover game, preventing us from having a showcase cross divisional opponent most years, while teams like FSU and Clemson get Miami and GT. If BC was in our division, I wouldn't have complaints. To see one of our 2 Atlantic games every year a forced matchup with Boston College while we go through a 6 year rotation with the other Atlantic members is really a bit of a screwjob. I complained about this when we were beating BC, I complained about this when BC was good, and I am complaining about this when we are bad. Its a matchup that should be in our rotation, not an annual event.
Yep. BC and VT is about as odd of a forced rivalry as you can get. Boston and Blacksburg are pretty much contradictory. The schools also have little in common. I really don't even know why it came to be viewed as a rivalry that needed to be preserved. Make Clemson our permanent crossover, swap GT and Louisville, and I think that solves a lot. Yeah, losing GT vs. VT would suck, but I would take an annual game with Clemson over that in a heartbeat. I'm sure GT would choose a game with FSU over us, too.
There are two sides to this argument.
1. The ACC is best served by ensuring matchups of its premiere programs
2. VT deserves special consideration in scheduling
The latter is am entitled mindset, but you can argue 1 without supporting 2. In fact, you could argue that VT is in serious danger of losing its status as a premier ACC program.
Because of 3 years of simply average football in which we still made bowls? And this being immediately following us being the first program to get an At-Large bid for the ACC? After getting the first BCS win for the conference since 2000?
No, we should not be in danger of losing preferred status. If 3 years of average football is enough to cross a team of preferred status, then everyone in the conference should have been crossed off that list at some point during the 10 years after expansion.
Nobody would have argued that Miami or FSU should have been a non-preferred football member in 2008, and nobody should be arguing that about us now. If they are, then we need to GTFO of this conference.
"But what have you done for me lately?"
FSU got smoked by Oregon... By the "what have you done for me lately" mindset, the ACC would kick em while they're down.
Thankfully, the guys in charge at least attempt to think of the big picture. Big Picture, the BC-VT annual matchup is bad for the ACC, and it needs to be amended.
FSU is still drawing national audiences and makes the conference millions in revenue. That's really what it's all about. Which programs can the ACC bank on to draw an audience and generate revenue through ticket sales and merchandizing. We are still one of those programs after three years of just above .500 football. Bit after another three? I don't see a nationwide audience caring much about us. So yeah, I think we're at a crossroads in our program's history. Right the ship and make it back to an ACCCG and the last three seasons were just a rebuilding period, just like what FSU went through when Bowden was forced out and Jimbo rebuilt the program. Continue to post 7 and 8 win seasons and hope for a second tier bowl, and we become just another ACC also ran. We haven't built the legacy to endure a protracted down period in the program. It's essential for us to return to form, as soon as we possibly can.
I think you're 100% wrong on this one. We are absolutely not in any danger of falling out of favor with the ACC and we are and will continue to be viewed as and treated like one of the big boy programs of this conference. I don't care what the viewership numbers say, and I don't care what our record is, the ACC isn't going to start giving us the finger because we haven't been able to win 10 games in the past 3 years.
I don't believe the ACC would be giving the finger, but at the same time, we are in no position to make demands. FSU has 3 National Championships to our 0. Guess who gets the red carpet and who gets the speech about waiting in line like everyone else? Also, it would really help our case if we actually beat BC on a consistent basis like LOLUva. I do not believe the approach you are advocating would work. I think appealing to their business sense, ala ratings and game attendance numbers would be a better approach.
But I quite assure you, the ACC does.
The ACC doesn't care about a short term dip. They care about long term trends.
Thankfully, the guys in charge aren't as reactionary as you make them out to be.
That's what I'm saying here, though. Right now it's a short term dip we're in. Like I said above, right the ship, this was a rebuilding effort. Play three more years of ".500+bowl game" football, we're trending downward. With that comes a downgrading of credit rating, as it were.
We are at a very critical stage in our program's history, one that will probably determine a lot of our future.
How ironic
VT's still big, it's the bowl games that got small.
we need to start a petition for the Bitter Plan
. The NCAA rules are dumb, and if multiple conferences agree to dissolve the divisions they could force the NCAA to get rid of that 2-conferences for a championship game rule.
The only problem I have with the Bitter Plan is the rivals he picked. They should be geographical and historical. Historical being relative to how long a team has been in the ACC
VT: UVA, GT, Miami
UVA: UNC, VT, ?
UNC: UVA, Duke, NCState
GT: VT, Clemson, ?
Miami: VT, FSU, ?
Everyone else?
I would like to see all conferences go to 10 teams but that's not going to happen. The Bitter Plan is realistic if the conference commissioners and AD's are smart and proactive.
The issue with the 9 game conference schedule is that we will have more road games than home games every other year. Not OK IMO.
That's where your home-only games with William & Mary, Furman, etc come in to play.
Those home games don't directly help win the coastal. Think of all the years we won the coastal by one game or less ('04, '05, ;07, '08). Each of those seasons could have gone differently.
I guess it could work if:
Even then, the ACC may have to revisit its tiebreakers (I say 'may' because I can't keep track of them all).
The amount that I hate this can not be measured. It's comparable to having a team with two players wearing #4 jerseys. I can't take it, it's stupid and unnecessary.
There is a simple solution to this: play 10 ACC games. Then play two good OOC games against P5 schools. Stop playing 1-AA teams. Stop playing non-P5 teams. Play 12 interesting games. We buy tickets for interesting matchups.....every week. If you need a scrimmage to warm up, allow schools to play preseason games. We would be more than willing to play Appy St or ECU or JMU in Lane Stadium the last week of August and charge $20 a ticket, general admission, and give the visiting school half the gate, we keep the concessions and parking.
Does this mean we're allowed to schedule UVA for a non-conference game? Also, can we schedule them for multiple non-conference games a year?
We would be back to winning 10+ games a season for sure!
9 game conference schedules please. They are our only hope.
The problem with 9 conference games is the unbalanced schedule. So, go to 10. What are you missing?
As I proposed above, it should come with a preseason scrimmage against a 1-AA team if you choose. For VT, that's great. For Wake, they may not be able to sell enough GA tickets to pay for opening up the stadium.
But if you play 10 conference games last year, VT would have replaced W&M with NCSU and WMU with Clemson, still played ECU and OSU. Who wouldn't prefer that schedule? Louisville would have replaced Murray State with UNC and FIU with Pitt and still played Kentucky and Notre Dame. That's a lot more interesting of a schedule. It goes on and on. Every team is playing at least two really uninteresting games.
To answer the "What are you missing?" question..
Bowl eligibility for one thing. And that's huge for the conferences (obviously) .Had we played Clemson and NCSU instead of W&M and WMU last year, we likely do not finish with regular season 6 wins.
Why? We beat OSU.
We very well could have ended the season with wins over OSU, UVA, Duke, UNC, NCSU and Clemson. That's a much more interesting 6-6.
Because we lost to Miami, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Pitt and Boston College. That doesn't give me confidence in beating 2 other pretty good ACC teams.
Let go of fear. Not a great way to go through life, or at least not a great way to schedule football games.
I'd rather lose to Clemson than beat W&M.
I agree with you but the conference would disagree.
Simply solution to the ND year fears. In years where a team plays ND its counted as a conference game.
Better if they would actually JOIN the conference and stop mooching off our bowl structure...
Two possible solutions, have Wake Forest drop FBS football and replace them with ND. Go to 9 game ACC schedule.
Add ND as a full time member, and heaven help us add ECU or another group of 5 (Cincinnati?) to the ACC to take us to a 16 team conference. Move to a 9 game schedule. This still leaves the problems of not moving through every other team in a players 5 year schedule.
have Wake Forest drop FBS football
Name the only school in North Carolina to win an ACC Championship since 1990...
If ND is team #15 into the ACC, then I think that #16 is probably Navy. Out of all the potential schools that we could bring in they best match the academic profile that the ACC usually wants in their members and their inclusion might be the price ND demands for them to come fully on board since it would allow them to keep one of their rivalries as a conference game. An added bonus is that if Navy goes into the Atlantic, it would lead to all of their teams having a yearly matchup against a chop-block attack similar to what Coastal teams already have to deal with.
Can you imagine the Chopblockalypse that would be a GT-Navy ACC Championship Game?
Leg for coining the term "Chopblockalypse"
I didn't coin that term. It has been used here before and originated on the original ACCylum (ESPN ACC Blog). I just love using it because it just rolls off the tongue and Metalocalypse is one of my favorite shows.
Forgive my horrible MS Paint cropping and resizing.
It just, it needs zazz!
Hear, hear. Kick Wake out of the ACC. 100% for it.
Not that I have ever given much thought to this, but if I had to pick my least hated ACC school, it'd probably be Wake. They're never making headlines for NCAA allegations, they rarely do anything in conference, and generally the people I know who go there seem pretty nice. If anything, they're like the friendly neighbor (except for the worst game ever this year) who seems to be needing a friend to hold on to. Or in this case, a rival who actually gives a flip about beating them.
I understand the argument against 9 conference games, I do. And for a long, long time (up until this article, as a matter of fact) I've argued against them as well. Seriously, I like having 4 OOC games, although I do want there to be a requirement that no FCS schools can actually be scheduled. You want a cupcake? There's plenty of Sunbelt schools to go around. I don't care if the FCS team won the natty title the previous year or not, they're still FCS.
Ideally, I'd really like the league to convince Notre Dame to join the league whole hog rather than dicking around like they are. Additionally, I'd like us to add one more team so that we can do the whole 4-division/pod/whatever you want to call it system. I think it could work really well and I mean it can't really be worse than what we have now, right?
EDIT: Or the Bitter plan....that works, too
I've been wanting the ACC to reorganize the divisions since then latest round of expansion, and this conference (non-conference) game crap only makes me want it to happen sooner. There's no reason UNC and Wake shouldn't be playing each other every year.
This was my best attempt to maintain some of the traditional/geographical acc rivalries w/in the divisions so the permanent cross-over games could be eliminated and the ACC teams could go back to 2 different crossover games each year. The only two significant ACC games that would be eliminated every year would be Florida St-Clemson (They didn't start playing each other every year until 1992 and the "rivalry" has be pretty lopsided in Florida State's favor) and Virginia Tech-Miami (What once seamed like a premier annual game has really lost its luster in the last 5-10 years)
Div A
Fl State, Miami, Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake, Louisville (keeps the florida schools together, keeps the nc schools together, louisville has no real rival in the acc)
Div B
VT, UVA, GT, Clemson, BC, Syracuse, Pitt (Keeps the VA schools together, keeps GT/Clemson rivalry, keeps the former NE big east schools together
I know this will never happen, but one can still dream right?
But then the Northern schools lose the yearly game in Florida... Can't help recruiting.
Yah - It's almost impossible to keep everyone happy. The response I would give to that is, with 2 different crossovers every year, the odds of having at least one Florida school on the schedule are almost 50%. If that's not enough maybe give UCF, South Florida, FIU, UF a call and see if they want to do a home and home.
I came up with a plan a few years back that preserved a lot of the rivalries within the divisions, kept the divisions relatively well balanced and avoided the dreaded Old ACC/Old Big East set up. The divisions were:
Atlantic: Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Pittsburgh, & Louisville.
Coastal: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Boston College, & Syracuse
Rather than repost the whole thing, the full description and break down can be found in this thread:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2014/january/13/top-two-teams-acc-cham...
I just think you have to keep the GT/Clemson rivalry
Same with UVA/UNC, one of the reasons why my plan will probably never happen
The problem with this is the lack of exposure for the Atlantic teams in Florida for recruiting as well as the small footprint of the Atlantic vs covering the entire coast, BC to Miami, in the Coastal, making travel more expensive for Coastal members.
When I originally thought this up, I came up with an alternate plan that takes geography more into consideration, at the expense of balance between the divisions:
Atlantic: Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Boston College, & Syracuse
Coastal: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Pittsburgh, & Louisville
In this plan I colloquially refer to the divisions as the "North & Carolinas" division and the "You!VA never wins a divisional game" division. The main Downside to this plan compared to the other divisions I had proposed is that the best teams are almost all in the Coastal while Clemson would have a relatively easy path to the ACCCG most years. The other downsides are that it still doesn't preserve the GT/Clemson and You!VA/UNC rivalries and it still leaves the Atlantic teams without a regular game in Florida. I had partially off set the last two problems by combining the plans with a cross division schedule that rotates through playing every team at least once every 4 years and an away game in every cross division stadium at least once every 7 years in a 14 team/8 game ACC schedule. (Play one cross division opponent at home and one away each year, don't play the same opponent again until you've played the other school. When they rotate back onto the schedule, they'll have swapped from being the home opponent to the away opponent and vice versa since there is an odd number of schools).
The main advantage is that the divisions make a little bit more sense geographically and travel wise without resembling the Old Big East and Old ACC, since the northern and southern most schools are paired with the schools further away from them that aren't northern/southern most.
One problem - the UVA/UNC rivarly needs to stick around. Clemson/FSU is another great ACC Rivalry.
Honestly, the best way to do it is to put all rivals as the permanent crossover games.
Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, Virginia, NC State, Syracuse, Wake, Boston College
Coastal: Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Pitt, Duke, Louisville
Crossover Rivalries:
FSU vs Miami
Clemson vs GT
Virginia vs VT
NCSU vs UNC
Cuse vs Pitt
Wake vs Duke
UofL vs BC
This still wouldn't solve the UNC-Wake game and VT home games against FSU and Clemson would still only happen once a decade.
There is literally nothing you can do to satisfy everyone. Even the Bitter Plan has its significant faults.
Ideally, you want VT, Miami, Clemson, and FSU playing each other as much as possible. Fine, so make VT and Clemson x-d pairs. Then you lose the Clemson-GT game, which has historical significance to them. Fine, so move GT to the other division, then you lose the GT-VT game, which has become a good rivalry in its own. Ok, so maybe flip Clemson and VT, then you lose the VT-Miami and FSU-Clemson annual matchups. No matter what you do, someone is going to come away pissed.
At least the bitter plan lets you accommodate three rivalries and then you get the other games at least every other year. I say at least, because if you REALLY wanted, you could schedule the game as a non-conference game because you'd still have 4 of those to play with in your schedule.
By the way, there's something that has always bothered me about how they set things up back in 2003. If the thinking was that Miami and FSU would constantly meet each other in the ACCCG, then why are they permanent cross-over rivals? Or if they wanted to preserve the rivarly, why not just put them in the same division? That way you've guaranteed that they play once and only once per year. Heck, the only other Miami rivalry I can think of is against us, so why didn't they make us cross divisional rivals? I think it's all poorly planned and executed.
Yeah, but the Bitter Plan eliminates divisions, and that is a wall that will never be broken down.
Actually, one idea I have tossed around is to have constantly evolving divisions. You essentially 'shuffle the deck' every 2 years, to allow each home and home to happen. This way, every class of 4 year students plays home and away at least 3/4 of the conference. Maybe pair the big rivalries up (so VT-UVA would be a pair) to ensure those games are annual, and then just figure out a way to make everything else rotate to ensure as many teams play each other as possible over a 4 year stretch.
This is what I was thinking too. Plus, I would put pressure on ND to join full time and add one more school. Also, go to 9 conference games
I like this alignment. The bottom line for the ACC is that can't satisfy rivalry games if some teams have theirs in division and a some are out of division. It needs to change the divisions. The split looks fairly even in terms of getting football power equal on both sides, depending on where Miami ends up.
I hate the stupid Atlantic and Coastal names. Hopefully, when Beamer retires, the ACC can rename the divisions after the 2 coaches who essentially got it to where it is today. Rename the Atlantic the Bowden Division and the Coastal the Beamer Division.
Nothing would make me happier than for the Hoos to have to compete in football in the Beamer Division.
Hoos compete in football? What's that you say?
can't wait for non-ACC followers to try and understand how UNC won the coastal at 8-0 when everyone remembers them losing to Wake in September...
not counting games in the standings is just plain stupid. not ideal, but i would prefer they count the ND games if that is what it takes to get us to a 9 game schedule. hell, everyone will play ND more often than they will play non-rival crossovers in the league, so why NOT count them?
get to 9 games, ensure all division teams have the same number (5 or 4) home games in the same season, ND counts towards the 9.
or the bitter plan.
but no league games that don't count, please!
Frank thinks we might have something to say about that
i fully expected this as i typed. it was just easier than introducing a bunch of tie breakers to complicate what was intended to be a simple point.
This discussion has gotten me thinking about which rivalries are the most important to preserve if the ACC realigns divisions or otherwise changes up the way schedules are created. I started with the list of ACC Football Rivalries on Wikipedia and came up with this chart as a starting point:
Blue games are rivalries that I would expect the ACC to put the highest priority on protecting.
Dark Green are games that I would think are at the next level down and would imagine the ACC trying to preserve. These are also games that I am more familiar with (VT rivalries)
Light Green are games that I don't know a lot about compared to the other games but either have a name other than school 1-school 2 rivalry and/or a trophy associated with the game.
Yellow are games that I don't know enough about to place in a category.
Orange are games that I don't view as important rivalries to continue and which most fans wouldn't be too upset to see discontinued.
Red games are rivalries that aren't currently being played annually but might possibly be resumed as part of realigned divisions.
I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on where the rivalries in light green/yellow should be placed and if anyone disagrees on the other categories.
NC St vs UNC needs to replace UNC vs UVa in the first section. This is THE rivalry down here in NC that everyone agrees is the top game in the state annually. Honestly, nobody from UNC really cares about the UVa game outside of the bullet point that it is the longest running matchup in the south. And the Duke-UNC thing doesn't really carry over to football at all.
Clemson vs NC St... ehh. Can't say I've ever really heard either side bring up the Textile Bowl (or the trophy). Most don't even realize there's an annual trophy being played.
Rivalries that I would think the ACC would put #1, based on my experience in NC having grown up here...
FSU - Miami
Clemson - GT
UNC - NCSU
VT - UVa
Games to try and find a way to create the matchup
UNC - UVa
Miami - VT
Clemson - FSU
All matchups between Duke, Wake, UNC, and NCSU
Named rivalries where its not the end of the world if we lose them
FSU - UVa
GT - VT
NCSU - Clemson
BC - Clemson
The rest don't even hit the radar as official rivalries
What if there were NO divisions? You schedule all the rivalry games you want, cycle through the remainder league teams, the best two teams play for the championship game. Tie-breakers are head to head matchups then poll rankings
Then there is no championship game. We lose the added revenue from having the game and our conference winner is penalized by the playoff committee for not winning the extra game.
Dissolving divisions is a non-starter. NCAA bylaws mandate you need 2 divisions to have a title game. And this is something that will remain in place even if the Power 5 break away.
Wasn't the ACC talking earlier last year about possibly trying to get the ball rolling on changing that bylaw? I know the talk fizzled out, but I remember some chatter about it. Considering how the NCAA's credibility is looking worse by the day and full cost of attendance has passed so overwhelmingly, do you think it would be completely impossible to have this changed? I mean, the whole conference championship game idea came about completely by exploiting a previously unused provision in the rules anyway. Do you think it would be impossible to create an exception or eliminate it altogether? I'm sure the Big 12 would be VERY interested in that.
There's a reason the talks fizzled. The more people thought about it, the more they realized that if you do it this way, you're only hurting yourselves in the long run. Ok, sure you have the 2 best teams playing for the title every year. How would that have worked out for the ACC this year? Clemson vs FSU in Charlotte. Very good chance that Clemson wins that rematch, and FSU gets left out of the playoff because they couldn't have beat Clemson that second time.
And yes, I do think it will be impossible to get that exception. I highly doubt the SEC has any interest in going this way, nor does the Big Ten. The last thing those conferences want is to be sitting on the verge of getting 2 in the playoff, only to see that one is guaranteed to lose the weekend before the committee makes their decision. And it wouldn't shock me if the Pac 12 was sitting in this camp as well. Your best bet to get 2 teams in is to have them both playing in the same division, and the division winner takes care of business in the title game.
Actually, GT beat Clemson and I think both were 6-2 in conference play, so with the tiebreaker it still would have been FSU vs GT. But I do see your point. It really boils down to a question of what is better for your conference in the long run - weighing a better regular season schedule and likely better championship game vs diminished chances of a team in the playoff and the likelihood of ACCCG rematches.
I don't think it is so much that the talks fizzled last year, but more importantly I would think with the TCU-Baylor thing that they are just getting started. I also think that the idea was for conference option/exemption, not FBS-wide implementation.
The "two best teams" scenario that I would not like to see is if they keep the divisional alignments. I hope they think long and hard about restrictions. The last thing I want is the coastal "champion" getting left out year after year for an FSU-Louisville-Clemson rematch. And if they were cra$y enough to do it, I can only imagine what a farce an ACC Championship Selection Committee would be.
No, there will still be a championship game, but you're right, some rules would have to change. The topic has come up before:
The ACC is just the hardest conference to try and organize in any logical fashion and create the most compelling football match-ups annually. It's almost like Clemson, FSU, and Louisville are in another conference with us playing them so infrequently. And I've never thought the divisions made any sense other than just protecting a possible FSU-Miami ACCCG (which we've yet to see), NC State-UNC, and a few other lukewarm rivalries. You can't organize the ACC geographically; you would likely receive the ire of all schools north of Carolina (seriously, can you imagine how awful the North division would be?)
Although it's absolutely sad that it has come down to this, I can't fault UNC and Wake for trying somehow to play each other more often. A 9 game schedule would really help matters, but the ND agreement really threw a wrench into that one. As much as I would like to see VT explore this route as a possibility for seeing more Clemson/FSU/UL games, it really loses something when the conference standings are not at stake. Eliminating divisions (The Bitter Plan) makes so much sense for this conference given its unique circumstances, but I don't ever see anyone in the ACC leadership having enough foresight or ambition to even touch that.
The Bitter Plan would put us in the same boat the Big 12 was in this year. Its a complete non-starter. Dissolving divisions and going 1 vs 2 is not the answer, especially when you consider just how unbalanced the conference schedules would be.
In fact, I'm actually willing to double down a bit on the situation we have now, and say only games against teams in your division should count towards your divisional standing. Eliminate the absurdity that exists with our annual matchup with BC meaning the same to us as Miami's annual affair with FSU.
It's just a shame that conference realignment has mostly had a watering-down effect on the quality of the ACC football schedule. And simply replacing Maryland with Louisville like it was an even trade really unbalanced the divisions. As recent as 2012 we played both Clemson and FSU under the old format. Add the ND agreement largely preventing a 9-game schedule, and we're pretty well stuck in our current dilemma.
Its only unbalanced because Miami completely collapsed right after expansion. The original idea was sound. You were putting what should have been 2 dominant programs (Miami & VT) in one division, both of whom had played for a BCS title within the previous 4 years, and then put FSU and Clemson, two of the historically best programs in what was the ACC in the other. Then, you split NCSU, Maryland, UVa, and GT between the two divisions, all 4 of whom had recent success and had every intention of continuing the rebuild. You continued by splitting UNC and BC, two teams that had spurts of success, but historically never cared about the game, and finished it off by splitting Wake and Duke, the clear bottom feeders.
In practice, this was the perfect way to do it. It should have created a monster conference, and should have had very competitive football being played from Day 1. Unfortunately, Miami, Florida State, and Clemson all shit themselves at the exact same time, completely gutting the conference of any competition, allowing a Virginia Tech program, who couldn't beat a top team to save their lives, to rise to the top. To make things worse, you saw Boston College and Wake routinely in the title game, creating ridiculously low attendance numbers for the games in Florida.
All in all, I don't fault the ACC leaders for what they did in 2003 with alignment. It made complete sense at the time. However, I do fault them for not attempting to fix the glaring issues when it became obvious their grand plan blew up in their face.
Agree 100%. Adding new teams to a dysfunctional divisional setup without addressing it at all has really hurt the scheduling. That grand scheme to have a Miami-FSU title game in Florida every year completely backfired. When 'Cuse, Pitt, and UL joined, we really needed divisional shuffling to some degree.
I think I see the problem here. And it lines up nicely with another problem, suggesting a solution.
From early January through late August there are no college football games. This should end immediately.
The season should be expanded to 36 games, +/-, with an off-season no longer than winter. We could play each ACC team twice, with 10 extra weekends for OOC games. Problem solved.
You're welcome.
UNC is obviously more worried about filling seats than anything. Still, this is a logical idea and hopefully others follow suit. I would prefer that this game be one of the first two games of the year and all ACC teams play non-conference games during this part of the season (basically, no conference games until week 3). This would make it less confusing for those following.
It is unfortunate that the 3 ACC teams we would like to play more frequently (FSU, Clemson, and UL) already have an annual SEC rival.
Maybe we could convince UVa that they should trade their annual cross-over opponent with ours. What reasons could we give them? Here are a few.....
1) Greater likelihood of them beating BC and therefore making a bowl game
2) Can blame the empty seats on the opponent
3) Can avoid UL getting revenge on them next year and in all subsequent years
4) BC was founded by The Society of Jesus, while UVa was founded by a guy their alumni thinks is Jesus
Leg just for point #4. You made it hard to suppress the laughter in the office...
What the hell. Here's my cure for the ACC scheduling blues.
Three Team Pods:
Commonwealth Pod
1. VT
2. UVA
3. Louisville
North Atlantic Pod
1. BC
2. Syracuse
3. Pitt
Four Team Pods:
Triangle Pod
1. Wake Forest
2. Duke
3. UNC
4. NC State
Sunshine Pod
1. Florida State
2. Miami
3. Clemson
4. GT
A school is "married" to the teams in its pod. It will play those teams every season. Divisions are made by pairing a 3-team pod with a 4-team pod. Pairings last for two seasons, rotating a home and home with all division teams. The pairings of 3-team and 4-team pods then rotate for another two years.
The North Atlantic and Commonwealth pods are never combined to form a division, but are paired together for the two cross-divisional opponents each year on a rotating basis. Same holds for Sunshine and Triangle pods.
If my math is right, every team plays every other team a minimum of twice every four years.
That said, wouldn't this mean that every other year, a set of 3 teams would not play any of the teams from the 4 team pod. So we wouldn't play miami, fsu, clemson, or GT every other year? Say goodbye to strength of schedule. Not sure this is actually any worse SOS-wise than we had it this year, come to think of it.
Yes, we would exchange the Sunshine for the Triangle every two years. However, the yearly matchup with Louisville would offset the SOS dip IMO, and we'd most likely get a Sunshine team in the ACCCG.
Thinking outside of the box is ALWAYS Leonard approved. Very spiff, fellas.