I like this a lot. I believe the two best teams from the conference should play in the conference championship and divisions are nit making that possible
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Another advantage, if this scheduling were to be implemented in other conferences, would be no more same conference circle jerk title games. The two teams that could make it to the ncg would have to play each other in their conference first.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I don't think it would have changed 2011 much. If LSU had lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, they still probably would have gone to the MNCG to face Bama. If you replace Georgia with Bama in that sentence, that would have been an even better opponent, helping with SoS and perception, and they'd have played for a third time in the MNCG.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The conference championship games aren't exactly "elimination games" as far as the BCS goes. All the talking heads were saying that LSU was a lock heading into the SECCG, since they were so far out ahead of everyone else, so that even if they lost to UGA then they would have been in the BCS title game. I was going off of this and saying that if it was Bama instead of Georgia, that the same would have held true, especially since Bama would have been a much more quality opponent for SoS and all than Georgia was.
If there was a rule saying that you had to win your conference to get into the MNCG, Bama wouldn't have played in it since they didn't even win their division. And in 2003, Oklahoma lost the Big 12 title game to Kansas State and still played in the MNCG. In 2001, Nebraska lost their division to Colorado, and played Miami in the MNCG.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think this is an excellent idea. Which is exactly why the NCAA wouldn't do it, since the group-think in their kingdom is the anti-matter to the matter of logic.
While I wouldn't like the lack of an annual game with Miami, and wouldn't be thrilled with an annual WF matchup, I'm not currently happy with only seeing FSU & Clempsum once every 12 years or so (excluding the ACCCG). There are trade-offs with everything. This looks like a winning trade-off.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The problem I encountered with trying to do the matchups was that everybody would want to play FSU, Clemson or Miami on a yearly basis. And it really only makes sense for a handful of teams. So yeah, there are tradeoffs. Wake, at the very least, is convenient for Hokies fans to attend, which I think should be taken into consideration with annual rivalries.
Like I said in the post, it's not so much the matchups that are the key here. Those can be haggled over and changed to better fit each school's preference. It's the overall setup that I think works.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Indeed, the set-ups work. And I see advantages in playing WF over BC annually, financially for VT and travel-wise for the fans. Figure out a way to convince the boys at the NCAA, and there might be a chance for something good like this.
I had a fleeting thought that perhaps there could be a three-tier system (just to complicate things). An annual partner (VT/UVA, in our case) and two other infrequent rotations (start with the two that you have, Louisville and Wake) that rotate out after a longer time frame...say six or eight years. Then two of the other ten teams rotate into the long-range rotation. For instance then Pitt and Georgia Tech might rotate into those slots. Or Duke and NCSU. The teams are debatable. You still would play everyone more frequently than the current arrangement.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
When conferences go to 16 teams, what do you think will happen with regards to division alignments and conference championship games? Everyone keeps mentioning having 4 4-team divisions, but that would only really work with a 4-team "conference tournament", of sorts, which I feel the NCAA would be less likely to allow than a non-divisional single game setup. Or would the rules just say that the top 2 division champions by conference record made the game?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Overall, very good, and entirely too logical to ever actually happen. Most important is that we need the best two teams in the conference championship game, and this works towards that end.
I agree that the matchups aren’t the focus, but we have to have Miami, which I consider a rivalry for us that is 2nd only to UVa, and Duke can have Louisville, with the latter being a match-up with its own sub-plots (better vs. worse academics as well as carryover of a good basketball matchup into football).
Essentially, absent some logical change like Bitter recommends, we’re now in a conference where 3 of the top 4 teams (Clemson, FSU, and Louisville) are in the other division, and we will rarely get to play those non-division teams. Miami, UNC, and Georgia Tech have the potential to be “of note” one day, but that really doesn’t mean much until it happens. This is good only in the sense that it puts us in the ACC-CG frequently.
It is imperative that we schedule at least one big-time game per year under this format. Fortunately, our schedule looks pretty good for that over the next 5 years.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
One thing that we need to keep in mind is that there is a cyclical nature to football, to an extent. Teams that are very good now may not be in the not-so-distant future. The Miami of the 80's & the early 90's weren't comparable to the mid-2000 Randy Shannon versions. FSU's teams of the late 2000's were a shadow of the late 90's versions. Schedules are set years in advance, and you might think your schedule is tough, and the strength of schedule bottoms out because of coaching changes, injuries, poor recruiting. You may think you're scheduling an easy game and a team or two has a couple of good recruiting years and they're suddenly a football powerhouse. We experienced this in 1999 with Vick.
No matter how brilliant the scheduling set-up, there will be somebody that has a weaker schedule and visa versa.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
G*******T! I was JUST explaining this exact concept to my coworker last week! Turkey leg for you, Andy, for beating me to it.
In short, I'd agree, Andy, but I'd say let WF play Duke (competitive and cost-of-travel fits) while VT should take Miami. I'd rather see UVA, Miami, and Techmo Bowl every year. I don't like playing GT every year, but the Techs would fit as well as anyone else. I don't want to play Pitt every year, let them have Syracuse, Louisville, and BC. Miami match up with VT, FSU, and...BC? They're Miami, what's the harm in playing most of the top teams in the league every year?
The only issue I ran into while trying to figure out a way for each recruiting class to play home and away against each opponent was how to organize the championship game. The possibilities are endless on how the season could play out, and without fixed divisions, we could see a real 'cluster-jumble' near the top of the standings for the two to play in the championship game.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
My thought about massive tiebreakers to determine the teams that play in the title game was this:
1) If there's a simple head-to-head tiebreaker (either involving two teams or three that have all played each other) and that resolves the issue, use it.
2) If that doesn't do the trick, use whatever the post-BCS rankings will be at the end of the year and take the higher-ranked team.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
1) Right on. If it can work out conveniently, by all means use head-to-head. I'd be less enthralled by using records vs common opponents or any other standard tiebreaker. The only mess I could think of getting into would be where, say, #1 already beat #2a and #2b, who tied for second. I'd love it if conference championship games couldn't be rematches. But hacking through the logistics of this wouldn't be worth considering.
2) This is what got Texas - Texas Tech - Oklahoma all hot and bothered in the big 12 a few years back. I wasn't really happy with it, either, but I couldn't really care less about who wins a division in the big 12.
While I was considering the 3 permanent opponent model, I also considered, along the same lines, 4 4-team divisions, with each division winner being in a conference semifinal. I was thinking the conference semis would have to be the last league game of the year, naturally, but this would make scheduling very difficult in addition to figuring where the game would be played, which would need to be decided the week before. There were many problems with this line of thought, but that was the spot where I quit.
I suppose there is one way that I haven't heard anyone discuss before related to selecting a second team when the first team is locked in (think LSU in the LSU/Bama BCS rematch a few years back). Why not take the 'locked in' team and remove their games from everyones' records? Rerank and see where they stack up. If there are any other undefeated teams after that, remove their games and rerank. Else, take the team(s) with the fewest remaining losses instead. Continue until all teams are ranked.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Just go straight up Hunger Games for the tiebreaker. Each coach picks his 11 "tributes" who must go against every other team's 11. The first team to cross either endzone with the ball is the winner. If you recover the ball from the other team, you must go to the endzone on the opposite side of the 50 from where you recovered it. Problem solved and a great chance for excellent TV ratings.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I give the new schedule a couple of years at most anyway. As Andy mentioned, it's hard to schedule a 14 team conference, when in reality, we all know what is going to happen. With the playoff model, ND will become #15, and then the search for 16 will be one (hopefully Cinncy for Louisville and strength sake). Then we will revisit all this mess again...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Notre Dame has a pretty lucrative TV contract with NBC through 2025. Unless the ACC comes up with a deal where ND keeps the TV rights to their home games, which the rest of the conference almost certainly wouldn't allow, I don't see them jumping into the ACC for football.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I have a somewhat simple solution that will make us feel like a conference once again. It starts with DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT. We truly need to re-org the divisions so the biggest traditional rivalries can be played as division games. Then, we can get rid of cross-division permanent rivals.
The basic premise is this: - let each team play 4 permanent division games, 1 rotating in-division game, and 3 cross-division games. The big loss is that you play 2 divisional teams only once every other year, which dilutes the meaning of “division” (and is contrary to the NCAA definition per Bitter's column). But, I feel that conference affiliation is more important than division affiliation, as the meaning of a conference is that THESE ARE THE TEAMS WE ACTUALLY PLAY.
Set it up like this and each team plays every cross-division opponent once every 3 years at a minimum (9 games vs. 7 opponents over the 3-year span), rather than once every 6 years in the current format. Also, the traditional rivalry game will mean more for the previously cross-divisional opponents like FSU-Miami and Clemson-GT, because the rivals will be battling to win the same division.
Divisions, teams, and their 4 permanent and 2 “every other year” divisional opponents are as follows:
FSU and Miami were split in the first place so every team would play a game in Florida every other year. Maybe that's no longer a consideration, I don't know, but if it's still relevant then you have a problem. You're also giving Wake the finger (I know, it's Wake, but they still have feelings and get a vote) by isolating them from the other NC schools that would help them sell tickets. You're also going to make FSU and Miami howl (again, I don't care about their feelings, but they still have them) by sticking the three northernmost teams in their division.
It gets back to Andy's point in the blog- at 14 teams there's really no great answer at this point. Go North/South and you make UVA and VT unhappy. Go to 9 games and you make FSU/Clemson/GT unhappy. Drop the divisions and you have to bribe the NCAA to make it work.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As it relates to the original idea of putting Miami and FSU in different divisions, I thought this was geared towards the possibility of an all-Florida ACC-CG (hence the location of some prior championship games). That didn’t work out so well, though.
It is a valid point regarding the problems that Miami, FSU, and especially Wake would have with the alignment. The only counterpoint is that each team would play three cross-divisional games, resulting in the travel woes being somewhat lessened. Still, you are right, it’s hard to fathom Wake signing up for this.
Here’s a much more simple solution that is within the confines of NCAA division rules:
Switch divisions for GT and NCSU, thereby making two of the bigger cross-division rivalry games become division games (GT-Clemson and NCSU-UNC). Then, play 6 division games and two rotating cross-division opponents, with one exception. Let FSU-Miami be the only permanent cross-over rival. Special rules seem OK for the ACC game that currently has the biggest national draw and likely always will. Yes, each team in the league only gets the cross-division Florida team once every 6 years, but they will at least get the other 6 cross-division teams more frequently. Yes, the Atlantic division looks stronger on paper, but as others have said, these things are cyclical. I could see some of the current middling Coastal teams as very strong competitors in a few years (basically, those not named UVa or Duke).
I know I’m reaching, but the idea of playing 6 of our 14 conference teams only once every 6 years is a terrible mess that needs to be fixed, even if it means giving two teams (Miami and FSU) slightly different treatment than the rest.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I brought this up on another board when the NCAA was going to the 4 team playoff system. My thought was that not just the ACC, but the NCAA needs to take out divisions within conferences. The top 2 in the conference goes to their conference title game. This gives you the best team within each conference and eliminates the possible 7-5 or what ever team from pulling off some upset and winning the conference. The best of each conference are then entered into the selection of the 4 team playoff or what ever it will get to in the future. Its almost a mini playoff of the best 2 teams in each conference before the NCAAs playoff. This will eliminate the need to go to some high playoff number of 16 or whatever in the future.
You have your top 2 teams of the conference settle it on the field and the winner is then only eligible instead of allowing an at large.
Sorry to get a little off topic here, but i see some advantages to dropping the divisions even outside of just the ACC
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
A few days ago I posted this in another thread here and on David Teel's blog:
I would swap Duke and North Carolina with Florida State and Syracuse and drop crossover rivalries in favor of two rotating crossovers in an 8 game schedule. .
That gives these divisions:
Atlantic: Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Boston College, & Louisville.
Coastal: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Pittsburgh, & Syracuse.
Advantages: Maintains most of the meaningful rivalry games, North Carolina schools play each other every year, Virginia tech plays rivalries with Miami, Georgia Tech, and Virginia every year. Florida State and Miami, continue to play every year. 4-3 balance of what I would consider top 7 ACC teams (Fl St, Miami, VT, GT vs. NC, Clem, Louisville
Disadvantages: Coastal deeper than Atlantic, with a stronger lower half. Atlantic teams loose annual games against a Florida team, hurts recruiting for those teams.
After a little further consideration, I would think that it would be preferable to also swap Pitt and Cuse. This would put BC and Cuse in the same division, giving them a geographically close matchup anually. I also think this change to my earlier attempt is slightly more balanced.
That would leave give us these divisions, no regular crossover oponents, and seeing every cross division team home and away every seven years.
Atlantic: Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Pittsburgh, & Louisville.
Coastal: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Boston College, & Syracuse.
If set up correctly you would see every school at least once every 4 years (Play a team at home, then go through a complete rotation before playing them away with one home and away crossover each year):
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Andy, this is fantastic. Maybe if we just bombard Swofford's office with phone calls and emails about this idea, he'll break eventually and at least bring it up in a meeting somewhere? Who's with me?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
I like this a lot. I believe the two best teams from the conference should play in the conference championship and divisions are nit making that possible
lets schedule an OOC home and home with clemson and FSU.
Another advantage, if this scheduling were to be implemented in other conferences, would be no more same conference circle jerk title games. The two teams that could make it to the ncg would have to play each other in their conference first.
I don't think it would have changed 2011 much. If LSU had lost to Georgia in the SEC title game, they still probably would have gone to the MNCG to face Bama. If you replace Georgia with Bama in that sentence, that would have been an even better opponent, helping with SoS and perception, and they'd have played for a third time in the MNCG.
If LSU had played Bama in the SEC title game, how would the loser still have made it to the ncg?
The conference championship games aren't exactly "elimination games" as far as the BCS goes. All the talking heads were saying that LSU was a lock heading into the SECCG, since they were so far out ahead of everyone else, so that even if they lost to UGA then they would have been in the BCS title game. I was going off of this and saying that if it was Bama instead of Georgia, that the same would have held true, especially since Bama would have been a much more quality opponent for SoS and all than Georgia was.
If there was a rule saying that you had to win your conference to get into the MNCG, Bama wouldn't have played in it since they didn't even win their division. And in 2003, Oklahoma lost the Big 12 title game to Kansas State and still played in the MNCG. In 2001, Nebraska lost their division to Colorado, and played Miami in the MNCG.
I think this is an excellent idea. Which is exactly why the NCAA wouldn't do it, since the group-think in their kingdom is the anti-matter to the matter of logic.
While I wouldn't like the lack of an annual game with Miami, and wouldn't be thrilled with an annual WF matchup, I'm not currently happy with only seeing FSU & Clempsum once every 12 years or so (excluding the ACCCG). There are trade-offs with everything. This looks like a winning trade-off.
The problem I encountered with trying to do the matchups was that everybody would want to play FSU, Clemson or Miami on a yearly basis. And it really only makes sense for a handful of teams. So yeah, there are tradeoffs. Wake, at the very least, is convenient for Hokies fans to attend, which I think should be taken into consideration with annual rivalries.
Like I said in the post, it's not so much the matchups that are the key here. Those can be haggled over and changed to better fit each school's preference. It's the overall setup that I think works.
Indeed, the set-ups work. And I see advantages in playing WF over BC annually, financially for VT and travel-wise for the fans. Figure out a way to convince the boys at the NCAA, and there might be a chance for something good like this.
I had a fleeting thought that perhaps there could be a three-tier system (just to complicate things). An annual partner (VT/UVA, in our case) and two other infrequent rotations (start with the two that you have, Louisville and Wake) that rotate out after a longer time frame...say six or eight years. Then two of the other ten teams rotate into the long-range rotation. For instance then Pitt and Georgia Tech might rotate into those slots. Or Duke and NCSU. The teams are debatable. You still would play everyone more frequently than the current arrangement.
When conferences go to 16 teams, what do you think will happen with regards to division alignments and conference championship games? Everyone keeps mentioning having 4 4-team divisions, but that would only really work with a 4-team "conference tournament", of sorts, which I feel the NCAA would be less likely to allow than a non-divisional single game setup. Or would the rules just say that the top 2 division champions by conference record made the game?
I always figured that you'd have to do a 4-team playoff to make the 16-team 4-team pods thing work. Otherwise teams stuck in a tougher pod get screwed
Overall, very good, and entirely too logical to ever actually happen. Most important is that we need the best two teams in the conference championship game, and this works towards that end.
I agree that the matchups aren’t the focus, but we have to have Miami, which I consider a rivalry for us that is 2nd only to UVa, and Duke can have Louisville, with the latter being a match-up with its own sub-plots (better vs. worse academics as well as carryover of a good basketball matchup into football).
Essentially, absent some logical change like Bitter recommends, we’re now in a conference where 3 of the top 4 teams (Clemson, FSU, and Louisville) are in the other division, and we will rarely get to play those non-division teams. Miami, UNC, and Georgia Tech have the potential to be “of note” one day, but that really doesn’t mean much until it happens. This is good only in the sense that it puts us in the ACC-CG frequently.
It is imperative that we schedule at least one big-time game per year under this format. Fortunately, our schedule looks pretty good for that over the next 5 years.
One thing that we need to keep in mind is that there is a cyclical nature to football, to an extent. Teams that are very good now may not be in the not-so-distant future. The Miami of the 80's & the early 90's weren't comparable to the mid-2000 Randy Shannon versions. FSU's teams of the late 2000's were a shadow of the late 90's versions. Schedules are set years in advance, and you might think your schedule is tough, and the strength of schedule bottoms out because of coaching changes, injuries, poor recruiting. You may think you're scheduling an easy game and a team or two has a couple of good recruiting years and they're suddenly a football powerhouse. We experienced this in 1999 with Vick.
No matter how brilliant the scheduling set-up, there will be somebody that has a weaker schedule and visa versa.
Let's not forget Vick had the defense led by Corey Moore...
G*******T! I was JUST explaining this exact concept to my coworker last week! Turkey leg for you, Andy, for beating me to it.
In short, I'd agree, Andy, but I'd say let WF play Duke (competitive and cost-of-travel fits) while VT should take Miami. I'd rather see UVA, Miami, and Techmo Bowl every year. I don't like playing GT every year, but the Techs would fit as well as anyone else. I don't want to play Pitt every year, let them have Syracuse, Louisville, and BC. Miami match up with VT, FSU, and...BC? They're Miami, what's the harm in playing most of the top teams in the league every year?
The only issue I ran into while trying to figure out a way for each recruiting class to play home and away against each opponent was how to organize the championship game. The possibilities are endless on how the season could play out, and without fixed divisions, we could see a real 'cluster-jumble' near the top of the standings for the two to play in the championship game.
My thought about massive tiebreakers to determine the teams that play in the title game was this:
1) If there's a simple head-to-head tiebreaker (either involving two teams or three that have all played each other) and that resolves the issue, use it.
2) If that doesn't do the trick, use whatever the post-BCS rankings will be at the end of the year and take the higher-ranked team.
1) Right on. If it can work out conveniently, by all means use head-to-head. I'd be less enthralled by using records vs common opponents or any other standard tiebreaker. The only mess I could think of getting into would be where, say, #1 already beat #2a and #2b, who tied for second. I'd love it if conference championship games couldn't be rematches. But hacking through the logistics of this wouldn't be worth considering.
2) This is what got Texas - Texas Tech - Oklahoma all hot and bothered in the big 12 a few years back. I wasn't really happy with it, either, but I couldn't really care less about who wins a division in the big 12.
While I was considering the 3 permanent opponent model, I also considered, along the same lines, 4 4-team divisions, with each division winner being in a conference semifinal. I was thinking the conference semis would have to be the last league game of the year, naturally, but this would make scheduling very difficult in addition to figuring where the game would be played, which would need to be decided the week before. There were many problems with this line of thought, but that was the spot where I quit.
I suppose there is one way that I haven't heard anyone discuss before related to selecting a second team when the first team is locked in (think LSU in the LSU/Bama BCS rematch a few years back). Why not take the 'locked in' team and remove their games from everyones' records? Rerank and see where they stack up. If there are any other undefeated teams after that, remove their games and rerank. Else, take the team(s) with the fewest remaining losses instead. Continue until all teams are ranked.
Just go straight up Hunger Games for the tiebreaker. Each coach picks his 11 "tributes" who must go against every other team's 11. The first team to cross either endzone with the ball is the winner. If you recover the ball from the other team, you must go to the endzone on the opposite side of the 50 from where you recovered it. Problem solved and a great chance for excellent TV ratings.
I give the new schedule a couple of years at most anyway. As Andy mentioned, it's hard to schedule a 14 team conference, when in reality, we all know what is going to happen. With the playoff model, ND will become #15, and then the search for 16 will be one (hopefully Cinncy for Louisville and strength sake). Then we will revisit all this mess again...
Notre Dame has a pretty lucrative TV contract with NBC through 2025. Unless the ACC comes up with a deal where ND keeps the TV rights to their home games, which the rest of the conference almost certainly wouldn't allow, I don't see them jumping into the ACC for football.
Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on Notre Dame. And without the Irish, no way the ACC looks for additional teams that just waters down the product.
I have a somewhat simple solution that will make us feel like a conference once again. It starts with DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT. We truly need to re-org the divisions so the biggest traditional rivalries can be played as division games. Then, we can get rid of cross-division permanent rivals.
The basic premise is this: - let each team play 4 permanent division games, 1 rotating in-division game, and 3 cross-division games. The big loss is that you play 2 divisional teams only once every other year, which dilutes the meaning of “division” (and is contrary to the NCAA definition per Bitter's column). But, I feel that conference affiliation is more important than division affiliation, as the meaning of a conference is that THESE ARE THE TEAMS WE ACTUALLY PLAY.
Set it up like this and each team plays every cross-division opponent once every 3 years at a minimum (9 games vs. 7 opponents over the 3-year span), rather than once every 6 years in the current format. Also, the traditional rivalry game will mean more for the previously cross-divisional opponents like FSU-Miami and Clemson-GT, because the rivals will be battling to win the same division.
Divisions, teams, and their 4 permanent and 2 “every other year” divisional opponents are as follows:
Coastal Teams:
VT, UVA, UNC, NC State, Duke, Clemson, GT
Atlantic Teams:
FSU, Miami, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Wake
Coastal Match-ups:
VT - UVA, GT, Duke, Clemson ANNUAL (NC State, UNC BI-ANNUAL)
UVA - VT, UNC, Duke, GT (Clemson, NC State)
UNC - NC State, Duke, UVA, Clemson (VT, GT)
NC State – UNC, Duke, Clemson, GT (VT, UVA)
Duke – UNC, NC State, VT, UVA (Clemson, GT)
Clemson – GT, VT, NC State, UNC (UVA, Duke)
GT – Clemson, VT, UVA, NC State (Duke, UNC)
Atlantic Match-ups:
FSU – Miami, Louisville, Wake, BC (Syracuse, Pitt)
Miami – FSU, Pitt, Wake, Syracuse (BC, Louisville)
Louisville – FSU, Syracuse, Wake, Pitt (Miami, BC)
Syracuse – Pitt, BC, Louisville, Miami (FSU, Wake)
Pitt – Syracuse, Miami, BC, Louisville (FSU, Wake)
BC – Pitt, Syracuse, FSU, Wake (Miami, Louisville)
Wake – FSU, Miami, Louisville, BC (Syracuse, Pitt)
Most rivalries are preserved (with VT-Miami the obvious exception) and compelling match-ups are drastically increased.
FSU and Miami were split in the first place so every team would play a game in Florida every other year. Maybe that's no longer a consideration, I don't know, but if it's still relevant then you have a problem. You're also giving Wake the finger (I know, it's Wake, but they still have feelings and get a vote) by isolating them from the other NC schools that would help them sell tickets. You're also going to make FSU and Miami howl (again, I don't care about their feelings, but they still have them) by sticking the three northernmost teams in their division.
It gets back to Andy's point in the blog- at 14 teams there's really no great answer at this point. Go North/South and you make UVA and VT unhappy. Go to 9 games and you make FSU/Clemson/GT unhappy. Drop the divisions and you have to bribe the NCAA to make it work.
As it relates to the original idea of putting Miami and FSU in different divisions, I thought this was geared towards the possibility of an all-Florida ACC-CG (hence the location of some prior championship games). That didn’t work out so well, though.
It is a valid point regarding the problems that Miami, FSU, and especially Wake would have with the alignment. The only counterpoint is that each team would play three cross-divisional games, resulting in the travel woes being somewhat lessened. Still, you are right, it’s hard to fathom Wake signing up for this.
Here’s a much more simple solution that is within the confines of NCAA division rules:
Switch divisions for GT and NCSU, thereby making two of the bigger cross-division rivalry games become division games (GT-Clemson and NCSU-UNC). Then, play 6 division games and two rotating cross-division opponents, with one exception. Let FSU-Miami be the only permanent cross-over rival. Special rules seem OK for the ACC game that currently has the biggest national draw and likely always will. Yes, each team in the league only gets the cross-division Florida team once every 6 years, but they will at least get the other 6 cross-division teams more frequently. Yes, the Atlantic division looks stronger on paper, but as others have said, these things are cyclical. I could see some of the current middling Coastal teams as very strong competitors in a few years (basically, those not named UVa or Duke).
I know I’m reaching, but the idea of playing 6 of our 14 conference teams only once every 6 years is a terrible mess that needs to be fixed, even if it means giving two teams (Miami and FSU) slightly different treatment than the rest.
I brought this up on another board when the NCAA was going to the 4 team playoff system. My thought was that not just the ACC, but the NCAA needs to take out divisions within conferences. The top 2 in the conference goes to their conference title game. This gives you the best team within each conference and eliminates the possible 7-5 or what ever team from pulling off some upset and winning the conference. The best of each conference are then entered into the selection of the 4 team playoff or what ever it will get to in the future. Its almost a mini playoff of the best 2 teams in each conference before the NCAAs playoff. This will eliminate the need to go to some high playoff number of 16 or whatever in the future.
You have your top 2 teams of the conference settle it on the field and the winner is then only eligible instead of allowing an at large.
Sorry to get a little off topic here, but i see some advantages to dropping the divisions even outside of just the ACC
A few days ago I posted this in another thread here and on David Teel's blog:
I would swap Duke and North Carolina with Florida State and Syracuse and drop crossover rivalries in favor of two rotating crossovers in an 8 game schedule. .
That gives these divisions:
Atlantic: Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Boston College, & Louisville.
Coastal: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Pittsburgh, & Syracuse.
Advantages: Maintains most of the meaningful rivalry games, North Carolina schools play each other every year, Virginia tech plays rivalries with Miami, Georgia Tech, and Virginia every year. Florida State and Miami, continue to play every year. 4-3 balance of what I would consider top 7 ACC teams (Fl St, Miami, VT, GT vs. NC, Clem, Louisville
Disadvantages: Coastal deeper than Atlantic, with a stronger lower half. Atlantic teams loose annual games against a Florida team, hurts recruiting for those teams.
After a little further consideration, I would think that it would be preferable to also swap Pitt and Cuse. This would put BC and Cuse in the same division, giving them a geographically close matchup anually. I also think this change to my earlier attempt is slightly more balanced.
That would leave give us these divisions, no regular crossover oponents, and seeing every cross division team home and away every seven years.
Atlantic: Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Pittsburgh, & Louisville.
Coastal: Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Boston College, & Syracuse.
If set up correctly you would see every school at least once every 4 years (Play a team at home, then go through a complete rotation before playing them away with one home and away crossover each year):
Andy, this is fantastic. Maybe if we just bombard Swofford's office with phone calls and emails about this idea, he'll break eventually and at least bring it up in a meeting somewhere? Who's with me?