The Hokies still control their own destiny in the ACC Coastal, but a slip up against Miami would seriously deter Virginia Tech repeating as division winner.
Miami clinches #ACC Coastal with victory over #Hokies and Georgia Tech win over #UVa.— David Teel (@DavidTeelatDP) October 29, 2017
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
To quote the Spartan reply to Philip II of Macedon
If
So they need both the U to be bak, and LOLUVA to be back?
LOLUVA will need to be there before they can be bak.
They need to go back to losing. Which they are already doing.
too soon.
Just to illustrate how this would play out . . .
If Miami wins, their worst record would be 6-2 in conference. Assuming VT would win out following that, they would be 6-2 at best. Obviously, Miami wins on head to head.
Again, assuming the Miami loses out after beating us to end up 6-2 . . .
If GT wins out and also ends up at 6-2, Miami has head-to-head.
If UVA wins out, they would have head-to-head over Miami.
There cannot be a multi-way tie at 6-2, because most of the teams involved still have to play each other, and would have to drop to 5-3 or worse.
Personally, I think this shows why the ACC should switch to a system where only in-division record should be used to determine the division winner, with the in-conference record being the first or second tie-breaker. We usually have one of the easier cross division schedules, so it could be perceived as petty to complain about it now that we're not the beneficiary. But I genuinely believe that the current rules are a little unfair.
Do any other leagues do it this way?
Other conferences, that have divisions do it the same way. Best idea would be to eliminate permanent cross over, but that would eliminate the FSU-Miami game, unless you put them in the same division. But if you put them in the same division, the ACC will lose huge TV $ that the almost annual FSU-Miami ACCCG game brings in (Clemson and VT have gotten in once or twice, to mess up this dream match up, so it's only "almost annual").
At the very least only have the cross division rivals for the teams that agree to it. You can have some protected rivals while letting the teams that don't have a natural crossover rival float.
Everyone except us and UVA has an attachment to their cross divisional rival.
So put UVA in the Atlantic and have them be our cross division rival
So who do you move to Coastal?
Notre Dame
Cha ching$$$
Most logical would be BC or Louisville, who would then become cross-rivals. But then there's still the UNC/UVA rivalry which some folks want to protect.
I've come up with a few different division ideas in my day.
They can play each other in BB and baseball, regardless. Does it really matter if they play in football? (well I guess that it guarantees that one of them will have a W each year, but who the hell wants that?)
Well just that lets us play Louisville more often so that is already worth it. Also I bet Syracuse/Pitt could live without playing eachother every year and maybe even GT/Clemson although Ill admit the last one is a stretch.
This can't be completely true. Boston College? Clemson?
Did I really need to use the "/s"?
da U hasn't been sufficiently bak to make it to the ACCCG. FSU made it 5 times in 13 years (Clemson should tie them this year). The game has NEVER lived up to the "FSU-Miami" frequency that both teams insisted would happen, when divisions were being decided. Even FSU hasn't made it to the ACCCG as frequently as both of them were supposed to make it. For this reason, I assumed that everyone would clearly see my comment as a sarcastic jab at both.
Miami has never even played in an ACC championship game?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Come on, man... Did it really need a "/s"?
I guess my comment did. woops.
LOL, I guess the 3,000 "?"s should have told me that you were aware of my sarcasm.
Nah man. Win the games. If you expect to be in the CG take care of business. Every. Week. True champions don't rely on help from other teams.
I mean okay sure, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I don't think it's too much to ask for a balanced system for determining a division champion.
If the cross div games don't count, then why play them? Just have 6 div game and 6 they can schedule as they want and let the AP poll choose, because we know the AP always gets it right.
By the same token if you can lose your division's tie breaker with a cross division loss why have divisions? Just setup some horridly bizarre rotation whereby there are no divisions but each team only plays 8 of the other teams on a yearly basis with one rivalry game per team.
Professional teams teams do this all the time. Same for other college sports like basketball (VT doesn't play every ACC team twice). Are you proposing the same for them?
I'm a proponent of getting rid of the fixed cross div opponent. If Da U and FSU want to maintain their rivalry then they need to be in the same div. Division play started in 2005. The one time that there was a chance at an FSU-Miami ACCCG match up, Miami was on a self imposed post season ban (boats & hoes scandal), so in 13 years that "dream matchup" hasn't happened (includes this year which clearly won't happen), so why continue the sham? Otherwise if they want to play in years where they aren't scheduled, then they can schedule the game as an OOC game. The other option is to go to a 9 game season, so you don't have as many occasions where a possible div champ has play none of the top teams from the other div.
In a two-team tie, the cross-division tiebreaker only comes into play under the following:
1. the two teams don't play one another because of a cancellation
2. both teams have the same winning percentage within their division (5-0 goes before 5-1, 4-2 and 2-1 are the same percentage)
3. both teams have the same head-to-head winning percentage against every other team in their division
The fourth tiebreaker is winning percentage against common opponents from the other division followed by winning percentage against all opponents in the other division.
This is also true for ties involving three or more teams. That means you have to get to the FIFTH tie-breaker before cross-divisional record matters.
Your suggestion creates other problems, mainly:
a. horribly unbalanced schedules where one team may end up being decent but their record is killed because they have to play a murderer's row schedule
b. issues with actual tiebreakers because teams will have few, if any, opponents in common. At least not enough to break ties
c. the increased likelihood of a situation where two teams who may have gotten soft conference schedules end up playing for the title.. but aren't very good
In a league with 14.5 teams and only 8 conference games you're going to have a hard time finding any balance. That said, I despise the stupid system that's in place presently but there aren't many ways to achieve what your asking for
Didn't I just offer a viable solution? Only in-division wins count towards division standings, unless both teams have the same record, then you consider the cross-division into the record. Pretty simple fix.
Good idea, now we get two more preseason games every year!
This isn't a viable solution, any more than it would be a viable solution for NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA Basketball or any other sport/league that uses a division set up.
No, it's not viable and your other suggestion is even worse.
Here's how the ACC title game would have looked each year with both of your suggestions (best overall conference record, no divisions and only division record counts for standings).
BEFORE I GET INTO THIS, HOWEVER....
SOMEONE is clearly having fun at our expense on Wikipedia
Division record suggestion
2005 Miami vs BC - actual VT vs FSU
2006 GT vs WF
2007 VT vs CLE - actual VT vs BC
2008 VT vs BC
2009 CLE vs GT
2010 VT vs FSU
2011 VT vs CLE - CLE wins tiebreaker over WF for having beaten WF h2h
2012 FSU vs GT - FSU wins tiebreaker over CLE and NCSU because NCSU 4-4. FSU beat CLE h2h
2013 FSU vs VT - actual FSU vs Duke
2014 FSU vs UNC - UNC wins tiebreaker over GT because UNC beat GT h2h. Actual FSU vs GT
2015 CLE vs UNC
2016 CLE vs VT
Best overall conference, no divisions suggestion
2005 VT vs Miami - actual VT vs FSU
2006 GT vs VT - actual GT vs WF
2007 VT vs BC - BC wins tiebreaker over UVA for having beaten VT
2008 BC vs GT - four-way tie between VT, FSU, BC and GT. BC 2-1, GT 2-1. Actual VT vs BC
2009 GT vs VT - VT wins tiebreaker over CLE for having beaten (1-7) MD. All other teams prior are ties OR or one team didn't play that opponent. Actual GT vs CLE
2010 VT vs FSU
2011 VT vs CLE
2012 FSU vs CLE - actual FSU vs GT
2013 FSU vs CLE - actual FSU vs Duke
2014 FSU vs GT - GT wins tiebreaker over CLE for having beaten CLE h2h
2015 CLE vs UNC
2016 CLE vs LOU - actual CLE vs VT
I never suggested not having divisions, that was someone else. So I'm not sure what you mean there.
In any case is there a reason why the "division record only" is a bad idea from you've put here? It's interesting to me that in all the examples where the division champion would have been different, that division winner lost the conference game.
Yes, it means that a team that goes 6-2 in conference could go to the ACCCG, over a team that's 7-1. Since you appear to believe that would be acceptable for the ACC, if that happened in the NFL or any other sport would you find that result acceptable?
H2H win favors the 6-2 team in that hypothetical. I'm with him, its best situation for divisional representative determination.
Then I'm back to my original comment as to why this is a bad idea: why play the other games?
Would you be ok if the NFL only played games within division? If they implemented a "other games don't count unless there's a tie" rule, the out of division games would be essentially worthless (barely more than the preseason), so the season would essentially be division games.
I much prefer adding 2 more teams, booting ND from conference, and setting up 4 pods. each pod plays all other members (3 games) and rotates playing 2 teams from each other pod. Then you have pod winners, based on conference record, play for division seats in CG, and those are set 1-4, 2-3.
But we wont do that, so we should just play the 6 divisional games, play them plus 3 rotating cross-divisional games, or re-seat divisions annually based on last year's finish.
#GoACC we wont do any of that, so it doesn't matter.
This isn't radically different than what's done today, except in a 16 team conference, 12 of the teams would lose out on revenue for a 12th regular season game, since NCAA and ACC will never allow 14 games before potentially playing in the 2 game play offs.
Divisions have the benefit of providing a mini-conference experience (do you enjoy beating WF more than any team in the Coastal?).
Why play the other games?
I still think it makes sense to count the cross division games as a tie breaker. If you assume that they include that as a rule then they would still impact the conference race. More directly to your point though, in CFB even the non-conference games matter for pride, bowl eligibility, for playoff consideration, etc regardless of how they impact the conference. So the games still clearly would matter, just not as much as the in-division games.
Also, the way the whole NFL scheduling and post season system works is so drastically different from CFB, I'm not sure how far I would go trying to compare the two directly.
Because, among other things, it creates more problems with tie breakers. And why even bother having a 12 or 14-team conference at that point? Just split into two conferences, add two more teams (because I believe the NCAA requires 8 teams for a conference at the FBS level), play 7 conference games (one of the reasons we left the Big East - unbalanced schedules) and 5 non-conference games every year. Oh, and then struggle to get bowl tie-ins because two new conferences were created, clearly neither of which is of full quality to be "Power 7".
Of the eight I-A conferences with divisions (basically everyone but the Big XII and the Sun Belt), a full ZERO use division record before overall record. It's:
Overall conference record
H2H if tied
Division record if still tied
After division, it varies from conference to conference but the long and short of it is that they all use overall conference record first because it's generally the best indicator of 'strength of the team'.
As for the suggestion of 9 conference games - I know that wasn't you, just covering both in one post - no.
A number of schools are against it, of which I recall VT being one of them at one point, for the reason of unbalanced schedules. With the current setup, you're always playing 4 home conference games and 4 road conference games. With the additional game, you're now playing 5 home games some years and 5 road games other years, which is reminiscent of the old Big East's 4-3 / 3-4 alternating cycle.
Reseating the divisions creates almost no consistency within the conference and isn't much different than completely removing the divisions. The only real difference is that at least you get decent tiebreakers with reseating every year whereas dissolving the divisions can create a hot mess with tiebreakers -- see my post above where I had to go to the last place team in the conference to break a tie to determine ACCCG participants.
If anyone's interested, I did a bit of a deeper dive into the divisional record idea last year.
(Although I think you might need a new abbreviation for Clemson. CLE makes me think of the Browns.)
The fact some teams have gotten to play Cleveland is an unfair advantage. ACC needs to fix this!
How is it unfair?
Miami had to play FSU and Syracuse this year. Virginia Tech had to play Clemson and Boston College. Most years we would consider these similar in terms of difficulty, wouldn't we?
There's inequity in scheduling, but that's true for all BCS teams.
I remember bitching in the first two years of the ACCCG about how it should just be the best two teams. I was wrong.
For every year that you think you get screwed by the rules, you have one that you benefit.
That wasn't the case when the divisions were established. BC was consistently one of, if not the best team in the Atlantic, in the 1st 5 or so years of division play. No one complained about BC as our fixed cross div opponent at that time. Clemson was decent but not great, so GT didn't mind having them as their cross div rival at that time, since BC was better than CU. Now that CU is very good, GT fans want to complain that they have to play CU every year.
I did. F*ck Matt Ryan!
A lot on the line here.
What happens if we beat Miami, lose to GT, Miami loses another to Pitt or UVA, and us and GT win the rest of our games? I'm pretty sure that makes a 3-way tie at 6-2 between VT, Miami, and GT, with no head to head advantage among the three.
Oh ok so just pin your hopes on Pitt and LOLUVa beating Miami. No problem 😂
Ummm, my hopes are solidly pinned on us winning out and not having to worry about a tie-breaker. I was just curious what the 3-way tie-breaker would come down to. (insert emoji)
via GIPHY
Miami would have 2 losses in Division. GT and us each have divisional loss, ours to them.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/5/8/8561899/tiebreaker-st...
I think I've figured out most of the scenarios that involve VT in a tie.
Current conference records include 5-0 Miami, 3-1 VT, 3-2 GT, 2-2 UVA, and 2-3 Pitt.
7-1
VT/Miami - Only possible scenario here is VT beats Miami, thus VT clinches.
6-2
VT/Miami - doesn't matter how each team gets to 6-2, whoever wins on Saturday takes the division.
VT/GT - Only way this happens if if GT wins out and beats VT. GT wins on head-to-head.
VT/UVA or VT/Miami/UVA - You don't really want to know how we get here or what happens, but it's bad.
VT/Miami/GT - If this can happen with Miami beating VT, then Miami wins. If this happens with VT beating Miami and then losing to GT, then all three teams would be 1-1 against each other. Miami would be 4-2 in division, less than VT and GT's 5-1. GT would win on head-to-head.
5-3
Any grouping of teams in a tie would have to include Miami, and VT would have a head-to-head against them. However, there's too many other configurations to worry about at this point.
Short version -- multi-team ties are not benefiting VT.
We have to be hopeful that Fuente can keep the team sharp. I am more concerned about beating Miami and then Pitt happens. Fuente seems to do a better job of hammering down on teams than last few years of Beamer. Team stays sharp, Fuente keeps the heat on, and I think we'll do fine.
Also, Miami is wearing black uniforms for the game.
Dressed for their own funeral.
Miami is completely overrated. They barely squeaked by a horrible UNC team. I am glad they are ranked so high so our win will look better.
yup
The good guys opening as 2.5 point favorites. I dig it.
I'm thinking that line will get bigger fast.
I think the public will be on Miami. I'd expect us to be dogs by mid-week.
I really don't know how good we are but this week will tell us a lot.
Public betting heavy on the Hokies.
Well that just makes me more uncomfortable haha. Fade the public and all that. But I've got enough emotion invested in this one that I won't be fading it.
We started as 1.5 'dogs and betting went nuts. Line moved from +1.5 to -3 in 2 hours.
I prefer us as 'dogs, frankly (as a Hokie, not as a bettor) - another chance to prove our mettle. Besides, this gives Miami a little bulletin board material
If it was Beamer, yes, us as dogs. But this Fuentes (/s) guy seems to have this game focus thing figured out so not as concerned with being the fav.
At a certain point, you have to take on the mindset of wanting to be the hunted and appreciating the challenge of being the one everyone wants to beat. I want us to roll into Miami as a road favorite against a team ranked that much higher than us. I want them feeling disrespected. And then I want to punch them in their stupid faces and sit their asses back down so the big boys can continue to play.
And I want that to be the message we send to recruits. We're not afraid to be the team in the Coastal. We want everyone's best effort, cause we're confident it still won't be good enough.
I want close-ups of wanna-be Miami fans attending their one game a year with long faces and shots of a lonely, unworn turnover chain sitting on a table.
They seem overly fixated on their "chain" for now.
Probably gold plated, or some alloy.
The people who bet real money pay attention to the games, not the hype or the rankings. They see Da U being very close to losing every week, and they see VT controlling games and being a few plays from a blow-out. They saw this line come out and jumped on it hard, knowing it would slide to a slight VT favor, where they can hedge the bets the other way. Bet both teams with points, and you cannot lose, but you can win big in a close game.
I agree with this. I think Miami is way overrated and frankly kinda sucks. I mean who have they beat?
Bethune Cookman by 28. lolkay.
Toledo by 22. lolkay
Duke by 25, just like we did.
Florida State (at home) by 4, just like everybody else has.
Georgia Tech by 1. on a miracle.
Syracuse by 8 (in Miami, not the house of horrors, brought to by, but not with, Carrier A/C systems). SYR had the ball at midfield late.
UNC by 5.
Toledo (TOLEDO) is the only team they've played receiving votes this week. And they're not killing anybody. I think them staying at 9 in the AP is strongly indicative of the utter lack of respect they're getting (and deserving) for the schedule they've played so far.
That being said, I love that they're ranked so high and think they could make a great springboard to us getting our hearts broken with a #5 ranking on Dec. 3.
They were losing to Toledo at halftime too.
FSU was the first of their miracle wins and UNC had FOUR second half turnovers and still nearly won.
Same with Syracuse. Dungey had 4 turnovers in that game and it still came down to the last two minutes.
just beat them...1-0 every game
Can.
Won't.
Never wear black to your own funeral.
https://twitter.com/canesfootball/status/924715868864512001
(With that said, I think these are 🔥🔥🔥. So, more of an invited cremation than a funeral.)
Bunch of superstitious folks over there thinking the jersey they wear has an outcome on the .... nevermind.
Hahahaaaa - yeah, we're lucky none of that happens here
We best be rocking the stormtroopers.
Don't get distracted by the hype, the nonsense, or anything else.
1-0 is what we're after this week. Just like any other week.
Screw that. The players can focus on 1-0.
I'm a fan.
I'm after 63-0 this week.
I'll even take 43-10.
I hear that Miami wants to talk about it.