|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 
Recent Comments
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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.
What a joke! Seriously...you're laying all the blame on a for we professor and retired department head (who apparently found the problem). If, in fact, you really didn't know...This is something you should've known! Welcome to "lack of institutional control".
Of course, the NCAA will botch the investigation, investigate itself, and let them off with just a strongly worded letter in their file.
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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.
PIE!
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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.
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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.
For what it's worth, in part he was a favorite for Tech because it was anticipated Alabama wouldn't extend a committable offer to him. Or at least that's how I understood it.
I hate how they say he's in the mix at Alabama, even though Tech was a clear favorite.
From ESPN story: "He still plans on visiting Tennessee and Virginia Tech in the next two weeks before making a decision."
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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
From ESPN article, he was reinstated and "He still plans on visiting Tennessee and Virginia Tech in the next two weeks before making a decision."
I know last week 247 did not have Tech listed as "warmer", and I'm pretty sure nothing has happened since then.
274sports has Park on the frontpage with a note about him going to the SEC:
Talk about SEC worship...
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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?
PIE!
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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.
If Park is as good as we think he is, other big time schools are going to come after him, too. I want Park to get offers from power programs and him to still pick VT over them.
Also, something to keep in mind, recruits say nice things about every school they are considering. They aren't going to bash the schools that just rolled out the red carpet for them.
This tweet doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside but it isn't the end of the world. Park had something nice to say about UGA. He's said plenty nice things about VT too.
I wouldn't call Georgia just another SEC school. They always seem to have a good QB at Georgia. They put their QBs in the NFL too. Look at the Lions. I can see why he would be interested. Lets hope that he still really wants to be coached by Leoffler.
The media at Rudolph's announcement were certain he'd pick LSU.
So how much of this is SEC worship? The media hear that a kid is offered by an SEC school, so they automatically think that the kid moves them to the top of his list. It's a corollary of the same theorem that recruits get more stars after an SEC school offers them. Hopefully Park (and a lot of the other top recruits we're after) sees the inherent advantages of being a Hokie.
Keep in mind that these kids are just that....kids. I have two in this general age range. Their minds change more times in a 24 hour span than most people change socks in a week. This is why you have all the commitment/decommitment/commit-to-somebody-else dramas. You have to wait (and the coaching staff has to keep working) for the signature on the line in February.
|
13 years 1 month
# | Bitter blog - An admittedly impractical suggestion for solving the ACC’s football scheduling problem 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.
Send it to Park, STAT, to counter the slimy move by those so-and-so's at GA
if uva had a horrible year this year, would some of their commits like moss waver at all?
This also proves that he's been training for playing against VT, since that's the only way that he'll be able to stop our D-linemen...especially if we get Hand.
It was like a week or so ago that Brown put out a top 5 that did not include UVA...247 needs to update that.
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...