Let's get weird, ACC.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25139160/big...
"I think there's some belief that ACC would play three divisions, have two highest ranked play in postseason," said Bob Bowlsby, chairman of the new NCAA Football Oversight Committee. "Really, nobody cares how you determine your champion. It should be a conference-level decision.
"But because the ACC has persisted in saying, 'We're not sure what we'll do,' there's probably a little bit of a shadow over it. In the end, I don't think it'll be able to hold it up. We'll probably have it in place for '16."
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I absolutely loathe the way the ACC is thinking about going with this. There is nothing wrong with the way that we have it set up now, except for the fact that the likes of Duke, GT, BC, and Wake have made it to the title game, with relatively small followings and low ratings. If we go down this path, we're kissing any hope of ever putting 2 teams in the playoff goodbye. The top 2 teams will just perennially cannibalize each other while we watch the annual push to get 2 SEC teams in the playoff happen.
We're better off keeping it the way it is. We're trying to fix a system that really isn't broken.
Going forward I don't think any conference will be putting multiples into the playoffs. Not even the mighty SEC (barring a multiple-conference meltdown). I think playoff expansion is a pipe dream.
I don't support the "top-two" model, but I think once some settling occurs pods will be the new divisions.
I also think this signals the importance of being a conference champion that plays in and wins a CCG. My thinking is that, CCGs will be the defacto first round of the playoffs.
... hello Notre Dame, been keeping a seat warm for you...
I think this is the best way to view an expansion of the playoffs. One more round plus...
The power 5 conferences all have their title game and find another 6 conferences to play their champions against one another on the same weekend. You will have a round of 16 with the power 5 all having 2 entrants.
This will allow many teams to keep playing for something until the end of the season.
I think the P5 separate (if not consolidate), payoff the rest of D1 (as they're doing now), and the playoffs stand pat at 4-teams with the worst conference champ being left out.
But as we saw last year, it is impossible to determine who should be left out. At least with the conference champs being guaranteed a spot, losing is the only way to keep a team out of the championship game.
Sure didn't seem impossible to me.
I guess I wanted to point out that the opinion of the selection committee was in error in judging the teams in the playoffs. Neither the 1 or 2 seed made the finals. Are you sure that they were not erroneous in their rankings of the teams which they excluded from the playoffs?
I had absolutely no issue with the four teams chosen. They played in and won their CCGs. Easy choice imo.
"They played in and won the CCGs." When there are 4 spot for 5 power conferences will certainly lead to leaving a team out of the playoffs which won their CCG.
When the ACC Champ, VT, is left out of the playoffs,will be content to say, "Oh well, the committee didn't think we deserved it."?
I think having personal opinions removed from the process as much as possible would be a good thing.
Politics (for better or worse) are inherently part of CFB. Probably the main reason so many people get so in to it. It's also one of the reasons I prefer college ball to the NFL.
No doubt every conference will experience a controversial exclusion from the playoffs at some point. There's no such thing as a perfect system and controversy gives folks something to talk about.
Alternatively, the conferences could realign to 8 16 team super conferences which makes for a natural Conf Championship -> 8 -> 4-> Championship Game playoff system. Get rid of 1 bye week, move Conf Champ game up one week followed by round of 8 played at higher ranked home team's stadium and you don't have to extend the season either.
8 or 16 team playoff would be awesome.
This is true.
But coming home from my aunt's house on Thanksgiving/Friday and not having rivalry weekend to look forward to would hurt.
Yeah, if this gets us to 4x4's (and 16 teams) then I am in full support.
My biggest concern is schduling. It shouldn't take a decade to play FSU or Clemson. So, fix that*. Secondly, come up with a system that gets ND in full time.
Lastly, on my worry list, is how many ACC teams get in the playoff. Doesn't seem like a VT issue anytime soon.
*I prefer a 10 game ACC schedule, but 4x4 pods would work fine as well.
Since when is our goal to put 2 teams in the playoff?
Do you really think that there is nothing wrong with the way we have it set up now? I see two glaring problems. Too often, the two best teams in the league are in the same division and don't get the chance to play each other for the title. (or you wind up with a situation where a 6-6 team, sitting at third place in the division, gets to pla in the championship game because the top two teams were knuckleheads who got into trouble and were prohibited from postseason play) Also, the expansion to 14 teams means that we rarely get a chance to compete with the teams in the other division, with the exception of our permanent crossover. This has resulted in craziness like UNC and Wake (or was it NC State and Wake?) scheduling non-conference games against conference opponents.
I think a much better solution would be to scrap the divisions altogether. With a 14-team league, each team could get 3 permanent rivals who they play every year, and the remaining 5 conference games will rotate throughout the rest of the conference. This way, every 4 years, you have a home and away game with every team in the league, while still protecting historic rivalries. If (when?) the ACC expands to 16 teams, you can achieve the same result by simply adding a 9th conference game. At the end of the season, the top two teams get to slug it out for the title. Seems like a much better arrangement than what we currently have to me.
For the record, I think the 3-division setup suggested in the linked article is ridiculous, and I sincerely hope that nobody in power is seriously considering that. If your objection was to that specific proposal, then I wholeheartedly agree.
And? Win your division, or better luck next year. There aren't enough games to play against everyone in the conference, so the best way to whittle down who should meet up in the title game is to essentially have a season long group stage where your final standing is based purely on your divisional record (eliminating the weight the cross conference games hold, and the imbalance it creates). Top finishers play in Charlotte.
Stop cheating and this won't be an issue.
This still puts a massive weight on the scheduling imbalance where you'll get some teams screwed by playing the likes of FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, UofL in the same season, while others are feasting on the likes of Wake, UVa, BC, Syracuse, etc. The divisional format I am proposing eliminates that imbalance, which I think provides a much better way of whittling down the top teams in each division over the course of the season. And it also allows for a playoff expansion by creating Divisional Title Games before the Conference Championship Game.
What is this divisional format you're proposing? I'm assuming it's in another comment or another thread, because all I see in your original comment here is "We're trying to fix a system that really isn't broken." I think it's pretty evident that a large number of fans find the current system to be at least damaged, if not broken.
If we're going to stick with the divisional format, though, I do agree with your suggestion to base the division champ on division record, so we can compare apples to apples. I still can't believe this hasn't been done already.
"Don't get to play each other for the title"
Uh, if they're in the same division they have already played each other that season.
By that logic, should the ACC have cancelled the Championship games in 2007 and 2008, since BC beat us in the regular season both years?
No. All that logic is saying is that Clemson should stop being butt hurt, because they had a chance to get to the title game several times, but kept losing to FSU.
Exactly.
You guys are cruel. Don't you know this is somebody's grandmother? :-)
Or grandfather.
"I never married...I'm not a grandpaw"
-Shepherd Derrial Book
All Firefly references get legged.
Firefly on TKP, today is a good day
I have this hat. My sister decided that it was as good a goal as any for her to learn to knit. It's my fallback halloween costume...
Is it time for a return of #VT4SEC ?
this idea just may be one of the dumbest ones I have ever heard in relation to college football...
Only slightly less dumb than "Carrothers, I've had a brilliant idea. Let's form a football club!" -LOLUVa
Why even have three divisions if you're just going to have the two highest ranked teams play?
Because ACC is three letters. That way, you can have the Atlantic Division, the Coastal Division, and the Come the F**K On, Why On Earth Would You Go To Three Divisions Division.
I once concocted a three division ACC.
First....vomit...stupid Giraffe..why would you ruin my day with her!!?? second.......this is hilarious and took lots of work...I can definitely appreciate that..lol.
Andrea Adelson is so much better on covering our beloved ACC Football, it's ridiculous
#goacc
ACC you're crazy. I like you, but you're crazy
I do feel like, at times, the ACC makes decisions like they took a horse tranq dart to the neck.
Three darts is too much!
The ideal in my mind is 4 team pods with 2 different pods linking up each year to make divisions. Play everyone in the conference once. Each team has a rival they play every year as well.
My idea to entice Notre Dame is to bring in Navy into the ACC as Notre Dame plays them every year. Notre Dame can be in a pod with Navy, Boston College, and Syracuse plus add in FSU as their cross division. Notre Dame gets to play in major media markets as well as in the south every year. 8 division games allows ND to play it's other national rivalry games as well.
Don't think bringing Navy will be necessary. ND will have to choose between independence and post-season irrelevance.
Notre Dame may choose the latter.
This was an eye opening article to me. Maybe a revolution isn't far away.
They might. But they may also be posturing. Independence is much more important to the old guard who haven't adjusted to the NWO of cfb.
Hahaha Virginia is in the crappy one
Great news, All college football needs is for congress and the fed's to get involved & Screw everything up ! After all they are doing an excellent job running everything else.
Don't you have to be somewhat decent at basketball to even be considered in the ACC? It might be the pot calling the kettle black here, but Navy basketball hasn't been relevant since The Admiral was there.
I think you might have answered your own question considering VT qualified to play in the Big East Conference Tournament all of one time prior to jumping to the ACC.
That being said, I agree in that I can't possibly see Navy joining the ACC.
Although, it might be time for the ACC to consider the looming threats of North Korea and Iran's relaxed nuclear capability. We might need a fleet of destroyers in the ACC to defend the literal Atlantic Coast.
North Korea is the PAC-12's problem.
nailed it
I say add UConn and split into 4 pods of 4. A Tobacco Road Pod, a Southern Pod, a Mid-Atlantic Pod, and a New England Pod. Go to 11 games with 8 conference games. Have semifinals at NFL arenas and give each pod an NFL stadium. For example if BC won the New England Pod and Virginia Tech won the Mid Atlantic Pod and BC had a better record in conference then the game would be played at MetLife Stadium. If Tech had the better record than the game would be played at Landover. It is complicated and feels weird but I think it might work.
Championship locations need to be set in advance. Also having the pods regional like that would have a HUGE talent imbalance
This is starting to sound a little bit like the Old Pod system that the Confederacy tried....
If the ACC really wanted UConn, they'd be in the ACC now instead of Louisville. Or with Louisville. Just say no to UConn.
Did we really have to play BC in your example?
Can we just call this the Clemson rule?
If sucks being in FSU's shadow, don't it Dabo? You might try actually beating the Spear once in awhile to get to the title game
Guys,
I just want to point out that the whole "3 divisions" thing is conjecture. Bowlsby isn't even a decision maker directly affecting the ACC. He was the one who said that "I think there's some belief that ACC would play three divisions"
He goes on later to say "But because the ACC has persisted in saying, 'We're not sure what we'll do,'"
So I think it's a little unfair to launch into a frenzy against the ACC when the article doesn't actually quote anyone directly from the ACC as saying a "3 division format" is on the table...
I would hate 3 divisions as much as the next guy, but we're not even sure if anything Bowlsby said has much merit. He thinks there is some belief that the ACC would play three divisions. That is about as far from definitive as you can get....
I wasn't even basing my complaint on that. Last year we heard the ACC was seriously considering scrapping the idea that winning your division got you to the Championship Game. There would still be 2 divisions, but the ACC title game would pit the 2 highest ranked teams in the conference, which is a policy I find to be incredibly stupid.
I agree with you. My comment wasn't directed at you. I just saw this blow up on twitter and here on TKP but when I went and read the article there was nothing I saw that immediately made me think 3 divisions was imminent for the conference, yet that's what everyone was yelling about.
Just thought of scenario where Clemson only loses to FSU, and VT only loses to tOSU, but somehow Clemson is ranked higher. The problem is VT & Tigers never played each other, and the rankings are arbitrary/human biased. "Keep the same format but take highest ranked team" now fails.
Suddenly preseason polls could legitimately screw you out of a chance to win the ACC before a game is even played.
Oh, you went undefeated in ACC play after struggling a bit in the OOC slate after the media didn't think you were going to be that good, and even though you finish Top 10 and a win over then undefeated and #1 FSU, that win came too late in the year, and it wasn't enough to vault you over #8 Clemson, who will now be playing #3 FSU in Charlotte. Better luck next year...
This may have been covered elsewhere, but why not just use conference record then a series of tie-breakers? Maybe have ranking somewhere in the list of tie-breakers after you get past head-to-head and other approaches. Keep divisions for scheduling purposes but still have the teams with the best conference record play. I don't have a huge problem with an undefeated and 1 loss conference team playing each other, regardless of what they did in non-conference play.
I'd like to see them scrap the divisions. You play 3 teams every year as fixed rivalries. You play home/homes against 5 opponents, then home/homes against the remaining 5 opponents. Under that plan you play everyone at least twice in a 4 year span. The top two teams play in the ACCCG.
#thebitterplan
I couldn't remember if that was his plan or not. I read a lot of crazy stuff on the internet and it all bleeds together.
his is a good plan
Very strong Federalism/10th Amendment approach. That's a lot of deference. Jefferson and Madison would be proud.
I hope the ACC determines their champion in a completely irrational way. Maybe, whoever raises the most money. Or, has the longest tenured coach. Or, maybe the most uniform changes in a season. Or, best cheerleaders as determined by former Miss Universe Judge, Desean Jackson.
"Let's get weird, ACC."
How about "greatest percentage of Hokies in the crowd?" Oh crap, that would give it to UVA...check that...
They say that, but the big 12 obviously found a wrong way to determine a champion
Their problem was the "we're not sure what we're doing" in the middle of the current season.
The whole thing was bizarre and fascinating. I think their plan clearly would have been to make Baylor the conference champion based on the head-to-head match up, but they freaked out once TCU was "in" the playoff going into the final standings. They weren't able to come up with a legitimate way to declare TCU conference champions to solidify their position and resulted in the ill-fated "co-champions" declaration.
Step 1: Actually have 12 teams in the Big 12
If it gets us out of playing BC every year we could go to 12 divisions
We would have to let in ECU to make that happen.
ECU will be a part of the ACC before the ACC goes to 3 divisions. I can all but guarantee that.
I wouldn't. The tobacco road runs the ACC. They have no use for a 5th NC team
Damn..
They aren't in the ACC? My VT football schedules disagree.
Three equal divisions. Notre Dame is told to put up or shut up. Each team plays the other 4 teams in their division and rotates 2 teams from division B & C per year. Still only 8 conference games but you play each team in the other divisions no less than 1 per 3 years.
Once per three years? Too often. Give me the current setup where we play FSU and Clemson twice every thirteen years....
Yes, I am joking.
If this opens the door for rotating divisions (akak pod system) I'm all for it. A great way to play all the teams in a 14+ team conference on something approaching a regular basis. It would eliminate this BS where we play non-conference Notre Dame more frequently (once every 3 years) than Atlantic Division teams not named Boston College. (once every 6 years)
pod A = 1, 2, 3, 4
pod B = 5, 6, 7, 8
pod C = 9, 10, 11, 12
pod D = 13, 14, 15, 16
8-game schedule:
(3 games) - Each team plays the other three members of their Pod
(4 games) - Each team plays the other four teams in the Partner Pod for that season.
(1 games) - Each team plays a permanent rivalry partner, or in cases where that rival is in the Partner Pod an alternate rival is played.
It will take 3 years to rotate through the other Pods, making it only 6 years to complete a home & home. (same as current Notre Dame schedule)
Over 6 seasons [48 games] Team #1 (rivals with team 8, secondary rivals with team 12) would play:
Teams #2, 3, 4 (podmates), 8 (rival) six times [24 games]
Team #12 (secondary rival) four times [4 games]
Teams #5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 twice [20 games]
a 9-game schedule would allow each team to play two 'permanent rival' games, which allows having a designated rival in each of the other pods that would all be played each season.
(3 games) - Each team plays the other three members of their Pod
(4 games) - Each team plays the other four teams in the Partner Pod for that season (including Rival from that Pod)
(2 games) - Each team plays two permanent rivalry games, one from each Pod that isn't the current Partner Pod
Over 6 seasons [54 games] Team #1 (rivals with team 8, team 12, team 16) would play:
Teams #2, 3, 4 (podmates), 8, 12, 16 (rivals) six times each [36 games]
Teams #5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 twice each [18 games]
Of course for this to work in a balanced way we need to add 2 more teams. Notre Dame is the obvious choice, and probably someone like Navy or UConn is the other.
By having two "divisions" each year there are two obvious choices for the ACC Championship Game.
""Really, nobody cares how you determine your champion. It should be a conference-level decision."
This from the guy whose conference decided not to name a champion and got burnt by it.
Big 12 plan is to play a championship game only in years when UT is not the top ranked conference team. Game will be broadcast on LHN.
I can't find the link to the Bitter plan. Andy, of you see this, post that. I can't remember if this is his or if this is his and mine:
No pods. Everyone has three permanent conference rivalry games, a few opponents they play, say, 3 times in 4 years, have some you play 2 times in 4 years, and some you play one time in four years. Either eight or nine conference games on any given year, two best teams play championship game. 16 team conference that lacks Wake Forest but may contain Navy. Also, two non-football schools in Villanova and Georgetown
bitter plan
The ACC has a hard enough time getting two teams for the championship game. Usually one division is playing hot potato. A third division would just make the Wheel of Destiny spin harder.
Does anyone actually have a problem with #thebitterplan?
I may have missed a debate or 3 about this, but as I recall, the only concerns were the permanent crossover pairings. In my mind, those are nullfied by the fact that you play everyone at least once every two years and if you really want to make it a yearly contest, schedule it as a non-conference game on the off years. I mean, we played UVa consistently even when we weren't in the same conference Surely ADs can figure a way to schedule a team they want to play yearly even if the league doesn't dictate it (coughECUcough).
Or just deal with it, it's a whole lot better than entire recruiting classes never playing certain teams (really ACC? who thought that was a good idea).
I do... Unbalanced schedules are a problem... a big one.
Creating 2 7 or 8 team divisions and ONLY counting divisional records and tiebreakers towards standings and then going divisional winners vs each other in the title game is the only way that works best to me. Anything else introduces too much inequality that would artificially help or hurt given teams.
home and away always creates a bit of imbalance, but i think your suggestion resolves the fairness of schedule issue. however i wouldn't want to be in a conference if there are big name teams you almost never play.
in a 16 team conference, an option would be to have four 4-team pods, change the pairing every year to where pods a and b are a "division" one year and then a and c are a division the next. that way you get a "Bitter" style rotation but only count the "division" games for internal standings purposes.
I have proposed this before and I agree that is the absolute best idea. But whatever happens, it needs to be 2 divisions where you only count divisional records for standing.
Ideally, I'd like there to be a Final Four in the ACC. Play the Divisional Title game at the home stadium of the top seed in each division. Winners meet in Charlotte the next week. Winner of that have goes to the College Football Playoff. In fact, I want every conference to adopt this format creating a huge legitimate playoff adding only an extra game to the season slate.
i'm all for it. if it is a numbers game, i'd even go back to an 11 game regular season schedule to get it!
I don't like that Wake is one of our annual crossover rivals instead of Miami or GT, but other than that I would be OK with it schedule wise.
My problem with it is that I actually like having a clear cut path to the Championship game by winning your division. Under a best two teams make it system, you could have a 1 loss VT get left out in favor of higher ranked 1 loss Clemson and Florida State Teams that they didn't get to play that year (Lets say Clemson beats Florida State but loses to a two loss Louisville team). With divisions its clear cut that if you win your division you are in the championship game, you can't be left out in favor of two teams you didn't have the opportunity to play, it also helps to make sure that two teams playing a weaker schedule don't get into the championship game over a team that is able to run the gantlet in of a more competitive schedule but looses a one or two more games along the way.
The main change that I would make to the current system (assuming that eliminating permanent crossover opponents, realigning divisions, and/or changing schedules so that you play every other cross divisional opponent before completing a home and home with another cross divisional opponent aren't options) is to make division record and head to head tie breakers more important than conference record .
I agree that ignoring out of division games would make more sense for declaring a division winner, especially when we will never see two of Clemson/FSU/Louisville in the same season and GT, UVa, and Miami will every couple years. However, I am more likely to put weight on getting to play teams rather than having a clear cut path to the championship. As someone said above, if Clemson is tired of missing out on the ACCCG because of FSU, maybe they should try to beat them. If you're worried about how to get to the championship game, just win all your conference games. If you're worried about tiebreaker scenarios, we already have that problem within divisions as it stands (see: "ACC wheel of destiny, the")
I think the pod system is a step in the right direction, in that you get to play teams more often. But, even under the pod system, a player would only see certain teams once in his career and then it would be a crap shoot as to whether it was home or away. I think that we should be trying our best to make sure that we actually play teams in our conference as much as possible. Completing a home and away every four years accomplishes this. Every six years does not, in my opinion.
On top of this, the more rarely you play teams, the more you rely on luck to determine your strength of schedule. I mean, for the first however many seasons we were in the ACC, we were the hardest team on anyone's conference schedule (in my slightly biased opinion). If someone were to try to tweak their schedule to make it a little easier, they'd try to miss us. Then the last few seasons hit and all of a sudden any attempt to get the schedule strength you want got turned on its head. If you play a team every year or every two years, you get them when they're hot and when they're not. All this to say that any realignment attempts to even out a particular team's strength of schedule will only be so effective. Remember, not so long ago, NC State and BC were the Atlantic powerhouses and Clemson and FSU were punchlines. The way I see it, the best way to normalize things is to have everyone play everyone else as much as possible.
If they're gonna allow this, I say let's embrace the hell out of it. Drop the divisions, dump us all into one fourteen team league and just go through the entire conference
seveneight other members at a time. [EDIT: math is FUNdamental] Rotate home and homes throughout the conference, dropping one opponent off and picking a new one up each season. Two highest overall conference records face off in the title game. In a three way tie, look at head to head results as the first step of a tiebreaker.FURTHER EDIT: Fleshing this out a little more since my first response was off the cuff...
Four home games, four away games in conference per season. Next season, the four home opponents from this season become the away opponents, the four away opponents from last season drop off, and we gain four new home opponents. I think we play everyone in the conference within three years doing it this way, if my math is right. There might be some wonkiness to the schedule working through thirteen other conference members eight at a time, but there has to be a rotation that would work. Honesty, the only reason we're in divisions now is because it was a requirement for having a championship game.
This. Non-geographic divisions are just pointless, and I don't think anyone is advocating for an ACC North and South. The way the rotations and divisions are right now, it's essentially like two separate conferences with how infrequently we play some teams. Scrapping divisions altogether and having the two teams with the best conference records in the championship makes the most sense, and you could play everyone in the conference at least once every two years.
I'd advocate for geographic pods. Sux to be Clemson and GT tho...
Not quite, since it's 13 teams in 12 slots over two years. (There are 4 slots that are the same team in a two year span.)
Not arguing either side of this idea, just creating an illustration. Let's look at what the VT schedule would look like with this (and since I have the 2014 standings up right now, that's what order I'm using.)
2015
away: FSU, Clemson, Louisville, BC
home: NC State, Syracuse, WF, GT
2016
away: NC State, Syracuse, WF, GT
home: Duke, UNC, Pitt, Miami
2017
away: Duke, UNC, Pitt, Miami
home: UVA, FSU, Clemson, Louisville
2018
away: UVA, FSU, Clemson, Louisville
home: BC, NC State, Syracuse, WF
2019
away: BC, NC State, Syracuse, WF
home: GT, Duke, UNC, Pitt
2020
away: GT, Duke, UNC, Pitt
home: Miami, UVA, FSU, Clemson
Two full rotations, with two teams left over.
I think just for practical purposes in terms of applying this across the board to 14 teams and setting up viable tiebreakers, this idea would have to get tweaked so much that it wouldn't even be this idea anymore.
Thanks for the legwork. I would love to see this setup.
I made up a few examples of Bowlsby's silly three division idea. It uses the records from the last couple of years, which isn't perfect, but there's really no other way to make examples with existing data.
http://cfarena.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-if-3-division-acc.html
I guess the real question for the ACC is what motivates their desire for change? Are they just not getting the matchups that they want in the ACCCG (FSU vs. Miami), or do they not like the matchups they get because it's often a mismatch? If it's the latter, I see it as the Atlantic having two really good teams (FSU and Clemson), and the rest being mediocre at best. Meanwhile, the Coastal usually has more parity (VT/GT/Miami and usually one other surprise team), but you're never quite sure if it's because everyone is good or bad.